logo
GDP's dirty little secret: Why we should be tracking GVA instead

GDP's dirty little secret: Why we should be tracking GVA instead

Mint13 hours ago

Gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate is the headline number everyone tracks to figure out how the economy is doing. It's time we shifted focus to gross value added, or GVA, which is a more direct measure of the incomes generated in the economy. That's because GDP numbers are affected by random decisions by the GST Council to raise tax rates or by the government to slash subsidies.
Cut subsidies, boost growth. Such a prescription might seem like snake oil for the consumption of the simpleminded. But cutting subsidies has, indeed, been the simple route to boost GDP growth in India. India's GDP growth in the final quarter of 2024-25 was a dramatic 7.4%. The growth in GVA, which is what counts for creating jobs and putting income in the hands of people, was a more modest 6.8%.
The divergence between the growth rates of GDP (6.5%) and GVA (6.4%) has been modest for 2024-25 as a whole. It was starker in 2023-24, when the GDP growth rate was 9.2%, while GVA grew by only 8.6%. The more subsidies are cut, the greater the boost GDP growth gets over GVA growth.
Also read | Growth in charts: GDP-GVA divide, export silver lining, capex push
India is not accustomed to the chainsaw breed of fiscal conservatism that Elon Musk vocally championed before his high-profile breakup with US President Donald Trump. In the US, the notion that cutting welfare expenditure and other subsidies will make for a healthier fisc and a more robust economy is part of the mainstream narrative, at least on one side of the political divide.
The conventional wisdom in Republican circles is that ridding government expenditure of waste and excess would make room for lower government borrowing and lower taxes, and these two would, combined with a dose of deregulation, boost growth.
In India, too, many economists have used this approach – not to genuinely foster growth, but rather to dismiss the government's significant role in the economy by labelling it 'socialism' that curtails capitalist dynamism.
The NDA government came to power as a slayer of big government and socialism. It once portrayed the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme as a monument of national failure. But, in the face of revealed distress in the economy, it has also assiduously funded the scheme, regardless of how this made the 'monument of failure' shine brighter.
There is a big difference between the role the state and subsidies play in an economy like the US and in India, whose per-capita GDP is 3% of the US's $89,000. The way India's GDP is computed allows for a lower subsidy bill to boost GDP, whatever the role of subsidies in supporting subsistence and sustaining growth.
GVA is what really matters
While GDP is the headline number on everyone's radar, what matters for creating jobs and incomes is GVA. GVA and GDP are highly correlated but not quite the same. The total value that is generated in an economy breaks down into gross profits and the sum total of wages and salaries. GDP is the value of all final goods and services produced and sold in the economy, whether for consumption, investment or export, net of the imports that go into the production of those goods and services. By taking into account only the final goods, we avoid double counting. Steel goes into machinery, construction, washing machines and safety pins. We look at only the value of these final goods, and not the value of the steel produced.
Also read | Kaushik Basu: Redefine prosperity; GDP tunnel-vision could prove costly
National income can be estimated either from the income side or the expenditure side. Data on income is hard to capture directly on a comprehensive basis, and it is easier to estimate the expenditure on things. When you buy pills, an X-Ray machine, or lab test, what you pay for includes the tax on the good or service. Some of the goods you buy are subsidised by the government, so the price is lower than the actual value – grain from the fair price shop, or electricity in many states for certain classes of consumers are just two examples of this.
So, to arrive at the GVA of the economy, you must add up the total expenditure on final goods and services, which will give you GDP, subtract the taxes borne by these goods and services, and add back the subsidies that artificially lowered your expenditure. In other words, GVA = GDP - tax + subsidy. In other words, GDP = GVA + tax - subsidy. Taxes net of subsidies are called net taxes. So GDP = GVA + net taxes.
For the same level of value added in the economy, you can have a higher or lower level of GDP by raising or lowering net taxes. You can raise net taxes by raising taxes, lowering the subsidy outgo, or both. You can lower net taxes by lowering tax collections or increasing the subsidy bill.
As you can see from the table, when the GVA growth rate increased from 6.7% in 2022-23 to 8.6% the following year, that is, by 1.9 percentage points, the GDP growth rate rose 2.2 percentage points, from 7% to 9.2%. This was effected by reducing the outlays on major subsidies from 2% of GDP to 1.37% of GDP – a decline of 31.5%. Another 15.5% drop in the subsidy/GDP ratio helped boost the GDP number in 2024-25.
To get a grip on economic activity and the incomes it generates, it is more useful to look at GVA, rather than GDP, since GDP is affected by changes to subsidy allocations.
Also read: Mint Quick Edit | India's GDP: A key test lies ahead

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

MAGA splits over Trump's backing of Israel
MAGA splits over Trump's backing of Israel

Time of India

time40 minutes ago

  • Time of India

MAGA splits over Trump's backing of Israel

US President Donald Trump suggested that Israel's strikes could help his administration make a nuclear deal with Iran. TOI correspondent from Washington: MAGA isolationists are up in arms against US involvement in the Middle-East even as President Donald Trump has ostensibly bowed to pressure from the powerful pro-Israel lobby to throw Washington's support behind the Jewish state. Several Trump-supporting MAGA surrogates, including conservative commentator Tucker Carlson, former Trump aide Steve Bannon, and Republican lawmaker Marjorie Taylor-Greene, have broken ranks to oppose American involvement, saying it is betrayal of Trump's pledge to keep US out of foreign wars. Carlson has been vocal in his criticism, accusing Trump of being 'complicit' in Israel's attack on Iran and arguing that US funding and weapons supplied to Israel, which Trump boasted about on Truth Social, has placed Washington at the center of the conflict. "The real divide isn't between people who support Israel and people who support Iran or the Palestinians. The real divide is between warmongers and peacemakers," Carlson said on Friday, bluntly naming former Fox News colleague Sean Hannity, commentator Mark Levin, media baron Rupert Murdoch, and Jewish billionaires Ike Perlmutter and Miriam Adelson, among the provocateurs. Steve Bannon, a former Trump White House aide, also urged Trump to keep US out of the war, while Congresswoman Green questioned if Iran and its proxies are a danger to US national interests, saying "I don't think we should be fighting wars on behalf of israel...I have never seen a Houthi, or however you pronounce it, in my life..." However, many MAGA Trump acolytes, including Hannity, Senator Lindsey GRaham, conservative radio host Mark Levin, and social media gadabout Laura Loomed, backed the President's support for Israel because of its pursuit of nuclear weapons, although Trump's intelligence czar Tulsi Gabbard, another anti-war figure, testified in March that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon. 'The IC [Intelligence Community] continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003,' Gabbard said, while noting, however, that Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels, unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons. While hardcore white Christian nationalists in MAGA are typically anti-Jew ("Jews will not replace us," is one of the chants heard in their rallies), the broader MAGA base is distinctly anti-war, blaming US involvement in foreign wars under both Republican and Democratic administrations among reasons the country has racked up a massive $ 36 trillion debt. Polling by some MAGA principals shows isolationist sentiment is still strong in the MAGA base, and President Trump's support for Israel is not shared among the rank and file.

Club World Cup: ICE agents presence adds unease to USA's litmus test ahead of 2026 WC, 2028 Olympics
Club World Cup: ICE agents presence adds unease to USA's litmus test ahead of 2026 WC, 2028 Olympics

Indian Express

timean hour ago

  • Indian Express

Club World Cup: ICE agents presence adds unease to USA's litmus test ahead of 2026 WC, 2028 Olympics

On Thursday, the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authority consented to removing a social media post from their handles across platforms. The purported reason? It seemed to be spooking football fans who are expected to flock to stadiums to watch the inaugural edition of the revamped Club World Cup, which kicks off in Miami early on Sunday. The CBP's post noted that they will be 'suited and booted ready to provide security for the first round of games'. It was also confirmed that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents will also be at the games; the stated presence of these agencies being mostly for reasons of security. But some noted a coded messaging behind that vague reasoning, given the Donald Trump-led American administration's massive recent anti-immigrant push. As Thomas Kennedy, member of the Florida Immigrant Coalition, told NBC News: 'It's sort of alluding that people should have their paperwork in order to attend the games. It creates an environment where people are less likely to come watch the games because of sheer intimidation.' Why this assumes greater significance is that the upcoming Club World Cup will act as a litmus test for the two biggest sporting events in the world that will be hosted in the US during the ongoing term of the incumbent administration: the 2026 FIFA World Cup and the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics. Global sport is increasingly veering towards the commercial viability of American eyeballs – the third edition of the Major League Cricket franchise T20 tournament kicked off there on Thursday, after part of the T20 World Cup was also held in the US last year. In no market in the world does live sport make more money than in the US. And football is no different in attempting to cash in on that. Despite the guarantees that both FIFA and the IOC have publicly stated they have been provided in this matter, though, there will be some unease regarding US decisions that have made them less open to people from all over the world. A travel ban in the form of a new policy, issued by President Trump himself, came into effect there on Sunday. It places total restrictions on entry into American borders for residents of 12 countries, and partial restrictions on those of seven other countries. Included are countries like Afghanistan, Iran and Venezuela. The order contains an exemption for both the World Cup and the Olympics, but the US will get to decide which members of a team and support staff are deemed 'necessary' to be given entry into their country. The order also makes no mention of fans who wish to travel to watch those events. The exemption may ease fears held on paper but it does little for the uncertainty that will be felt on global events of such a massive scale, and in Kennedy's words, the environment of 'sheer intimidation,' may not make for the most welcoming tournaments. In the short term, regarding the Club World Cup, FIFA president Gianni Infantino, who was seen meeting President Trump at the White House in March, has dismissed these concerns, even as he stakes his reputation on the smooth functioning of the tournament that he has personally pushed through. According to Infantino, the tournament, essentially his brainchild, will do wonders for the global game by addressing its current Eurocentrism and giving global teams broader visibility. 32 teams will play – 12 from Europe, six from South America, four each from Asia and Africa, one from Oceania, and five from North America. According to his critics, it will serve none of those purposes, instead being a vanity project to portray Infantino in a good light, making lots of money for FIFA's 211 member nations and strengthening his grip on the global game. But buzz for the event has been low, a far cry from the international football tournaments that traditionally take place in the summer. Players have complained about the bloated calendar putting stress on their bodies. As a result, clubs are likely to rotate squads and not play their best team, reducing the quality of the football to a glorified pre-season tournament. Sponsors haven't expressed a lot of interest. Ticket sales were a concern: according to The Athletic, local Miami college students have been offered as many as five tickets for the price of one at $21. So were broadcast rights. When a lucrative deal was not struck, the rights were sold to streaming platform DAZN for $1 billion. The Saudi Arabian sovereign wealth fund PIF then bought 10% of the company for $1 billion. Saudi Arabia will host the 2034 FIFA World Cup. When Lionel Messi's Inter Miami kick the tournament off at home on Sunday against Egyptian side Al Ahly, football will take the centre stage. Realpolitik will have to go behind the curtains, where it belongs. But the result of the tournament will be instructive of a few things: how successful football is in tapping the American market, and a glimpse of how the US manage hosting major global sporting events in today's uncertain, frayed times.

Google, Scale AI's largest customer, plans split after Meta deal
Google, Scale AI's largest customer, plans split after Meta deal

Time of India

timean hour ago

  • Time of India

Google, Scale AI's largest customer, plans split after Meta deal

HighlightsAlphabet's Google plans to sever ties with Scale AI after rival Meta Platforms Inc. acquires a 49% stake in the AI data-labeling startup, potentially impacting Scale's revenue significantly. The acquisition of Scale AI by Meta Platforms Inc. raises concerns among competing AI companies, as they fear that sharing proprietary data with Scale could expose their research strategies and technical blueprints. Following the news of Meta's investment, competitors of Scale AI, such as Turing and Labelbox, anticipate a surge in business as companies seek alternative data-labeling services. Alphabet's Google , the largest customer of Scale AI , plans to cut ties with Scale after news broke that rival Meta is taking a 49% stake in the AI data-labeling startup, five sources familiar with the matter told Reuters. Google had planned to pay Scale AI about $200 million this year for the human-labeled training data that is crucial for developing technology, including the sophisticated AI models that power Gemini, its ChatGPT competitor, one of the sources said. The search giant already held conversations with several of Scale AI's rivals this week as it seeks to shift away much of that workload, sources added. Scale's loss of significant business comes as Meta takes a big stake in the company, valuing it at $29 billion. Scale was worth $14 billion before the deal. Scale AI intends to keep its business running while its CEO, Alexandr Wang, along with a few employees, move over to Meta. Since its core business is concentrated around a few customers, it could suffer greatly if it loses key customers like Google. In a statement, a Scale AI spokesperson said its business, which spans work with major companies and governments, remains strong, as it is committed to protecting customer data. The company declined to comment on specifics with Google. Scale AI raked in $870 million in revenue in 2024, and Google spent some $150 million on Scale AI's services last year, sources said. Other major tech companies that are customers of Scale's, including Microsoft, are also backing away. Elon Musk's xAI is also looking to exit, one of the sources said. OpenAI decided to pull back from Scale several months ago, according to sources familiar with the matter, though it spends far less money than Google. OpenAI's CFO that the company will continue to work with Scale AI, as one of its many data vendors. Companies that compete with Meta in developing cutting-edge AI models are concerned that doing business with Scale could expose their research priorities and road map to a rival, five sources said. By contracting with Scale AI, customers often share proprietary data as well as prototype products for which Scale's workers are providing data-labeling services. With Meta now taking a 49% stake, AI companies are concerned that one of their chief rivals could gain knowledge about their business strategy and technical blueprints. Google, Microsoft and OpenAI declined to comment. xAI did not respond to a request for comment. RIVALS SEE OPENINGS The bulk of Scale AI's revenue comes from charging generative AI model makers for providing access to a network of human trainers with specialized knowledge - from historians to scientists, some with doctorate degrees. The humans annotate complex datasets that are used to "post-train" AI models, and as AI models have become smarter, the demand for the sophisticated human-provided examples has surged, and one annotation could cost as much as $100. Scale also does data-labeling for enterprises like self-driving car companies and the U.S. government, which are likely to stay, according to the sources. But its biggest money-maker is in partnering with generative AI model makers, the sources said. Google had already sought to diversify its data service providers for more than a year, three of the sources said. But Meta's moves this week have led Google to seek to move off Scale AI on all its key contracts, the sources added. Because of the way data-labeling contracts are structured, that process could happen quickly, two sources said. This will provide an opening for Scale AI's rivals to jump in. "The Meta-Scale deal marks a turning point," said Jonathan Siddharth, CEO of Turing, a Scale AI competitor. "Leading AI labs are realizing neutrality is no longer optional, it's essential." Labelbox, another competitor, will "probably generate hundreds of millions of new revenue" by the end of the year from customers fleeing Scale, its CEO, Manu Sharma, told Reuters. Handshake, a competitor focusing on building a network of PhDs and experts, saw a surge of workload from top AI labs that compete with Meta. "Our demand has tripled overnight after the news," said Garrett Lord, CEO at Handshake. Many AI labs now want to hire in-house data-labelers, which allows their data to remain secure, said Brendan Foody, CEO of Mercor, a startup that in addition to competing directly with Scale AI also builds technology around being able to recruit and vet candidates in an automated way, enabling AI labs to scale up their data labeling operations quickly. Founded in 2016, Scale AI provides vast amounts of labeled data or curated training data, which is crucial for developing sophisticated tools such as OpenAI's ChatGPT. The Meta deal will be a boon for Scale AI's investors including Accel and Index Ventures, as well as its current and former employees. As part of the deal, Scale AI's CEO, Wang, will take a top position leading Meta's AI efforts. Meta is fighting the perception that it may have fallen behind in the AI race after its initial set of Llama 4 large language models released in April fell short of performance expectations.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store