Latest news with #DeepanshuMohan
Mint
03-08-2025
- General
- Mint
India's urban climate crisis is the result of our own policy failures
Next Story Deepanshu Mohan The poor are hardest hit by what climate change is doing to city life in India, even as urban development seems bent on devouring its own future. To spell hope, top-down policy needs alignment with ground engagement. The effects of an urban model that builds by displacing ecology are most evident in rising urban heat. Gift this article A recent World Bank study warns that 70% of India's 2050 urban infrastructure is yet to be built. As cities expand, India's urbanization is becoming metabolically unsustainable: a system that produces climate effects as much as it endures them. A recent World Bank study warns that 70% of India's 2050 urban infrastructure is yet to be built. As cities expand, India's urbanization is becoming metabolically unsustainable: a system that produces climate effects as much as it endures them. Cities function like living organisms, consuming energy, water and materials while emitting heat, waste and pollutants. This 'urban metabolism' has breached ecological limits, creating a 'metabolic rift,' or a disconnect between relentless construction and nature's capacity to regenerate. In Bengaluru, over 1,000 storm- water drains were encroached in 2024 alone, while Kolkata has lost over 44% of its water bodies in the last two decades. These are reflections of an urban model that builds by displacing ecology. The effects are most evident in rising urban heat. Urban heat island (UHI) effects, intensified by glass, asphalt and shrinking green cover, trap dangerous levels of heat. In May 2024, the temperature in New Delhi hit 47.3°C. The city's climate severity index has risen 1.5% over 15 years to 57. These are outcomes of flawed heat-amplifying design. Also Read: India's growth and urban planning: On different planets It's similar with urban flooding. It is no longer just a 'drainage issue,' but a systemic hydrological failure. Sealed landscapes can't absorb rainfall. As a result, pluvial floods are expected to intensify from 3.6 to 7 times by 2070. As Anthropocene constructs, Indian cities now have climate risk hardwired into infrastructure, governance and growth patterns. With urban waste projected to reach 435 million tonnes by 2050, urban development is devouring its own future. Urban resilience in India is far more than a technical term. It's a social and political coinage. Our capacity to adapt to climate change is inseparable from structural inequalities embedded in our urban fabric. Climate effects magnify disparities, placing the heaviest burden on the vulnerable. Nowhere is this more evident than in the nexus of heat stress and income inequality. In Chennai, extreme heat is already estimated to drain $1.9 billion annually, 2.3% of the city's GDP. This could rise to 3.2% by 2050. But this cost is unequally shared. Low-income zones, often built with heat-retaining materials and lacking shade, consistently register higher temperatures, worsening health risks and eroding productivity. Also Read: Urban renewal: Indian cities need a governance overhaul A similar story unfolds in relation to urban flooding and informal settlements. In 2020, nearly half of India's urban population was living in informal settlements, many in flood-prone areas. India has lost over 1,500 lives annually to floods over the past decade. Add the heat-related deaths, estimated at 0.2 to 0.4 per 1,000 people annually in cities like Chennai, Surat and Lucknow, with 20% higher mortality among seniors, and the picture is clear: urban climate effects are deeply unequal. To address these risks, we need more than infrastructure. It demands adaptive governance and a build-up of local capacity. Yet, only 10 of 126 cities under the Climate Smart Cities Assessment Framework have conducted flood-risk assessments. Gaps in policy implementation are glaring. Community-led innovation offers hope, though. In Ahmedabad, the Mahila Housing Trust has enabled informal settlers to access microfinance and install cool roofs, a low-cost and effective heat mitigation strategy. Similarly, the city's heat action plan has helped prevent over 1,100 deaths annually since 2013. These are proof that a top-down policy aligned well with ground engagement can save lives. Also Read: Plot twist: Can the monsoon become urban India's hero again? This brings us to the ethics and justice of urban resilience. Establishing a 'Right to a resilient city' demands a significant financial step-up. India needs nearly $2.4 trillion by 2050 for resilient urban infrastructure. Current spending lags at $120.5 billion. This massive gap hits the poorest the hardest, denying them access to essential protections. Market-based models rarely deliver resilience as a public good and with private financing at just 5% and green bonds yet to prove transformative, we must ask: do these tools democratize resilience or merely repackage risk? India's emerging circular economy is projected to create $2 trillion in value and 10 million jobs by 2050. But resilience isn't just about engineering. A socially resilient India must prioritize community knowledge, participatory planning and equitable finance. India's urban resilience is hampered by institutional inertia. Fragmented governance, rooted in colonial legacies and outdated planning, creates a significant 'policy-implementation gap,' where ambitious goals falter locally due to limited capacity and underspending. Examples like Mumbai's pioneering climate budget and Ahmedabad's resilient investment planning offer pathways, but these isolated successes struggle to scale against systemic resistance. True urban resilience needs a basic shift to regenerative urbanism and a holistic as well as socially just development model. This future will depend not just on technology, but on re-wilding urban spaces, fostering circular economies and using participatory processes. We should ensure that India's next urban chapter is one of profound regeneration rather than an inevitable reckoning. Ankur Singh, research analyst at CNES, contributed to this article. The author is professor and dean, O.P. Jindal Global University, visiting professor, London School of Economics, and a visiting research fellow at the University of Oxford. Topics You May Be Interested In Catch all the Business News, Market News, Breaking News Events and Latest News Updates on Live Mint. Download The Mint News App to get Daily Market Updates.
Indian Express
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
World Bank claims a drastic reduction in inequality in India. There is more to the story
Written by Deepanshu Mohan A recent World Bank report has claimed a drastic reduction in inequality in India between 2011 and 2022. However, it misses a fundamental conceptual and measurable distinction between income surveys and consumption surveys. This distinction is critical, as an income-based Gini index is typically higher — reflecting greater inequality — whereas a consumption-based Gini is lower, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where such surveys are more common. Beyond these methodological issues, normative concerns around how inequality is conceptualised and measured also deserve deeper scrutiny — something the World Bank report fails to elucidate. In addition to the World Bank study, the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI) released the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) National Indicator Framework Progress Report 2025, which tracks India's performance across 17 SDGs using 284 indicators. While this report is a valuable tool for aligning India's metrics with global targets, it primarily emphasises administrative progress and aggregate outcomes — overlooking disparities at the ground level in access, affordability, and inclusion. These dimensions are critical to measuring and understanding relative poverty and inequality. This is where the Access (In)Equality Index (AEI) 2025, developed annually by the Centre for New Economic Studies (CNES), offers a vital complement to the current debate on inequality assessment. Grounded in the context and patterns of economic development in low- and middle-income countries, the AEI draws on official data sources and reorganises indicators through a disaggregated, intersectional lens using the 4A framework: Availability, Affordability, Approachability, and Appropriateness. These are then assessed across five measurable pillars: Access to Basic Amenities, Access to Healthcare, Access to Education, Access to Socio-Economic Security, and Access to Legal Recourse. Take, for example, the Basic Amenities pillar. The AEI correlates with SDG-NIF indicators drawn from SDGs 1, 6, 7, and 11—including SDG 6.1.1 (proportion of households with piped water supply), 6.2.1 (households with improved sanitation/toilet facilities), 7.1.1 (households using clean cooking fuel or electricity), and 11.1.1 (access to affordable, safe housing under schemes like PMAY-U). The SDG-NIF Progress Report 2025 presents some encouraging trends. Piped water coverage, for instance, rose from 21.33% in 2019–20 to 80.22% in 2024–25. Access to clean cooking fuel reportedly exceeded 100% coverage in some years, indicating strong programmatic reach. Similarly, over 97% of schools had separate toilets for girls by 2023–24. However, the AEI ranks states not only on the presence of infrastructure but also on its functionality, usability, and inclusivity. Goa, for instance, scores highest in the Basic Amenities pillar (0.97), while Jharkhand (0.31), Bihar (0.38), and Odisha (0.39) lag significantly behind. Although the SDG-NIF reports progress in bringing water 'within premises,' the AEI shows that only 25% of states have piped water coverage exceeding 50%. This implies that in most states, households still fetch water from outside their homes—a burden that falls disproportionately on women. In healthcare, the AEI aligns with SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being, referencing indicators like institutional delivery rates (SDG 3.1.2), immunisation coverage (SDG 3.b.1), out-of-pocket expenditure on health (SDG 3.8.2), and the doctor-to-population ratio. Yet, the AEI provides a more nuanced view by disaggregating access by geography and affordability. While Goa (93%) and Tamil Nadu (89.9%) report high levels of adequate antenatal care, Nagaland reports just 20.7%—highlighting critical gaps in maternal healthcare in the Northeast and other hilly regions. In terms of socio-economic security, both the SDG-NIF and AEI engage with indicators from SDGs 1 (No Poverty), 5 (Gender Equality), 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), and 10 (Reduced Inequalities). National-level data shows steady progress: the labour force participation rate (LFPR) among individuals aged 15–59 increased from 61.6% in 2022–23 to 64.3% in 2023–24. Banking outlets per 100,000 population rose from 59.9 in 2015–16 to a peak of 267.5 in 2021–22, before stabilising at 144.3 in 2023–24. ATM expansion has been more modest, growing from 16.5 to 18.5 in the same period. The AEI contextualises these outcomes by exposing disparities in access to employment, financial infrastructure, and income equity. Andhra Pradesh leads in the socio-economic security pillar with a score of 0.70, followed by Goa (0.60), while Bihar (0.18), Assam, and Manipur (around 0.21 each) perform the worst. Notably, all five southern states feature among the top eight performers, whereas many northeastern states consistently rank at the bottom—reflecting the role of policy focus and institutional strength. In education, both SDG-NIF and AEI monitor indicators aligned with SDG 4: Quality Education. While SDG-NIF time-series data shows improvement, the AEI reveals large disparities in actual access and quality. The proportion of secondary and higher secondary schools with internet access increased from 46.3% in 2015–16 to 78.5% in 2023–24. However, AEI data shows that in over half of Indian states, less than 50% of schools have functional computers, and only 25% of states surpass 75% coverage. In terms of digital readiness, only Kerala and Gujarat exceed 60% school-level internet coverage. The Access to Legal Recourse pillar, aligned with SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions, assesses the functionality and inclusiveness of judicial systems. The SDG-NIF paints a modest picture: courts per lakh population increased from 1.82 in 2016 to 1.93 in 2024, and judges from 1.33 to 1.55 in the same period — suggesting incremental capacity building. The AEI adds an equity lens by incorporating gender-disaggregated data on representation in legal institutions. Sikkim leads with 33.3% of judges being women — an encouraging sign. By contrast, states such as Bihar, Uttarakhand, Manipur, Meghalaya, and Tripura report 0% women judges, underscoring persistent gender exclusion. Moreover, the SDG-NIF records that 1.2% of women aged 18–29 reported experiencing sexual violence before the age of 18 (2019–21), a figure likely understated due to underreporting and cultural stigma. The writer is Professor of Economics and Dean, IDEAS, Office of Interdisciplinary Studies; Director, Centre for New Economics Studies, OP Jindal Global University; and currently Visiting Professor at the London School of Economics and Visiting Research Fellow, University of Oxford. Ankur Singh and Aditi Desai, Research Analysts at CNES, contributed to this column
Indian Express
08-07-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
Trump's tariffs have hit South Korea and Japan. India has been wise in charting a cautious path
Written by Deepanshu Mohan and Ankur Singh What began as sweeping 'Liberation Day' tariffs on April 2, encompassing a 10 per cent baseline duty and hikes up to 50 per cent, has mutated through deadline after deadline, first slated for July 9 and now postponed to August 1. Despite Trump's insistence that these deadlines are 'firm, but not 100 per cent firm,' the oscillation exposes the real motive by signalling resolve to voters at home while keeping global partners uncertain. The '90 deals in 90 days' pledge is a centrepiece of Trump's early April announcement, and has yielded only three preliminary trade renegotiated frameworks (UK, China, Vietnam), which is nowhere near the promised scale. With India, while the talks are still in progress, the US President signals its 'close to signing on a trade deal with India'. Wall Street has noticed how the Dow fell nearly 0.9 per cent (422 points) and Nasdaq by 0.9 per cent (188 points) following the announcement of fresh letters a day before. Yet investors remained oddly sanguine, treating the latest volatility as largely predictable. In response to Trump, key markets in Asia have responded, contrasting India's deliberate wait-and-watch approach with Japan and South Korea's urgent firefighting to unpack who ultimately bears the cost in what may be a boomerang-heavy round of tariffs. Imports from Japan face a 25 per cent levy, while South Korea confronts the same rate. These measures threaten to ripple across global supply chains, raise production costs and disrupt trade balances. Meanwhile, India is charting a more cautious path. Having already submitted what officials describe as a 'final and decent' offer, covering an estimated $150-200 billion in bilateral flows, it is now waiting for Trump's verdict, with no further concessions on the table, as most reports suggest. This stance is partly strategic. But it is also a gamble. India's approach carries the risk of appearing inflexible precisely when other nations are bargaining hard. India's bet assumes that the costs of tariffs will deter Washington from escalation. That assumption is not guaranteed. If the US chooses to target Indian exports, including pharmaceuticals, textiles and auto components, the impact on India's current account and sectoral employment could be significant. While Asian equities largely held their ground, the bigger question is what happens to the US itself. The Trump administration has targeted over $2.3 trillion in US imports with new tariffs. Japan and South Korea, which together account for around $135 billion in annual trade deficits, have become prime targets for pressure, leaving few sectors untouched. Furthermore textile and electronics hubs. Bangladesh, Cambodia, Thailand and Serbia now face duties up to 36 per cent almost guaranteeing that American consumers will see higher retail prices. US companies, importers and retailers will bear the initial costs which most economists expect to filter through the supply chain as a cost-push inflation. The market's reaction underscored this domestic vulnerability. On the day Trump's letters appeared, the markets fell, bond yields dropped as investors fled risk, and the US dollar strengthened, further intensifying inflationary pressures. Asia's markets for, at least, the moment have remained relatively steady. The recent BRICS summit in Brazil underscores how this environment of contested trade is prompting emerging economies to re-examine established alignments. While India joined the group's broader critique of arbitrary tariffs and overreliance on the dollar, it has stopped short of endorsing more radical proposals, such as a common BRICS currency or aggressive de-dollarisation. This combination of solidarity and caution reflects a more calibrated approach, one that neither fully aligns with China's agenda nor isolates India from broader coalitions seeking reform of the global trading system. At home, New Delhi's measured restraint has not amounted to inaction. In refusing to be drawn into a hurried round of concessions, India has preserved its negotiating space. Its approach has been less reactive and more deliberate so far. It seeks in proportionality a balanced trade deal, not one guided by coercively instated deadlines. Mohan is Professor of Economics and Dean, IDEAS, Office of InterDisciplinary Studies, Director, Centre for New Economics Studies, Jindal School of Liberal Arts and Humanities. Singh works at CNES
Indian Express
12-06-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
Fiscal and investment credibility, not headline numbers, will drive India's economic growth
Written by Deepanshu Mohan & Ankur Singh Two critical trends have occurred with little discussion or critical reflection. One is the recent data showing inward FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) capital flows reducing, as against the rise observed in outward FDI (capital moving out of the country), which indicates weakening investor confidence and/or low growth in capacity utilisation of existing (or already invested) private capital in key sectors. According to the RBI, India performs well in terms of greenfield FDI (new projects) investments announced during 2024–25, following the US, UK, and France, as the fourth destination most preferred by investors. But what's important is to distinguish 'gross flows' of investment from 'net flows'. As reported and explained, 'Gross flows account only for the FDI that flows into the country. It doesn't take into account the funds that flow out due to foreign companies repatriating funds to their head offices overseas, or foreign investors selling off investments in Indian companies, or Indian companies investing in ventures overseas. Net flows, after accounting for the outward movement of funds, collapsed to just around $400 million in 2024–25, down from over $10 billion the year before.' This is worrying and signals a structural shift in India's FDI-led investment ecosystem. Beyond this trend, Moody's cut the United States' sovereign credit rating on May 16 from AAA to Aa1. The downgrade wasn't in reaction to a crash, a pandemic, or a war. This was also not a sudden moment of fiscal slippage. It was something slower and far more dangerous: the normalisation of fiscal recklessness at the heart of the global monetary order. The timing of this also matters. Unlike the S&P downgrade in 2011, which followed the debt-ceiling standoff, or Fitch's move in 2023 amid post-COVID distortions, Moody's decision came in a year of relative economic calm, at least on the surface. Inflation is easing, unemployment is low, and global markets are more stable than they've been in years. That's what makes the downgrade quietly radical. Under Trump's presidency, the US has doubled down on a mix of tax cuts, tariff wars, and populist spending — all without credible offsets. The so-called One Big Beautiful Bill, heavy on headline-friendly promises like tax exemptions on tips and overtime pay, masks an extraordinary fiscal burden. Independent estimates peg its ten-year cost at over $5 trillion. That's on top of a debt-to-GDP ratio already exceeding 120 per cent. That shift matters for every other country trying to navigate a world built on dollar stability. It matters most for emerging markets like India, which borrow trust before they borrow money. If even the US can lose its fiscal halo, no country is immune from scrutiny. In India, elections have long served as budget announcements. Whether in the corridors of the Centre or on the campaign trail in the states, fiscal responsibility is often the first casualty of political ambition. Loan waivers, free electricity, subsidised gas cylinders, unemployment stipends, direct cash transfers — the list of election-time giveaways has grown longer with each cycle. In recent years, nearly every state election — from Haryana to Jharkhand, Delhi to Maharashtra — has witnessed a scramble among parties to outdo each other in promises of material entitlements: free rides, free water, free laptops. India's general government gross debt stands close to 80 per cent of GDP. Its combined fiscal deficit continues to hover above prudential norms. Yet our politicians treat the budget as an open-ended ledger for electoral engineering, diverting scarce public funds toward short-term voter appeasement rather than long-term nation-building. This erosion becomes all the more dangerous in the context of a shifting global climate — one in which financial markets may no longer be willing to turn a blind eye to fiscal indiscipline, however well-wrapped in democratic legitimacy it may be. Moody's downgrade of the United States marks a turning point. When the world's largest economy, issuer of the global reserve currency and anchor of financial markets, sees its sovereign creditworthiness questioned, it signals a recalibration in how markets view risk. This is not a one-off judgement. It is part of a broader repricing of fiscal credibility — one that should worry emerging economies more than most. With the US downgrade, the club of AAA-rated sovereigns has grown even more exclusive. Germany and Canada, which were long considered models of stability, too are now grappling with their own budget imbalances, prompting speculation that they, too, may soon fall off the list. For India, the implications of this are twofold and urgent. First, it is a reminder that the global financial order no longer offers blanket indulgence to profligacy. Its capital markets remain vulnerable to swings in foreign sentiment, and its monetary policy is constrained by external balances. In such a landscape, credibility must be consistently earned. Second, India's vulnerabilities are institutional. Beneath the headline numbers, what is often ignored is inconsistent tax enforcement, erratic regulatory actions, and delays in judicial and insolvency mechanisms. These are not peripheral issues; they shape how investors price long-term risk. On FDI, behind the headline numbers shared earlier — often denominated in billions of dollars — India has been affected as well. As a share of GDP, net FDI into India peaked at 2.65 per cent in 2009. According to a recent study, other preferred destinations for FDI, such as China or Vietnam, have also seen net FDI as a share of GDP fall in recent years. I have argued earlier that India needs productivism — to borrow from Dani Rodrik's reasoning — and must prioritise the dissemination of productive economic opportunities and investment capital across all sectors and segments of the workforce. This will help utilise effective capital mobility for job creation as well. All this requires a critical shift from fiscal management as a crisis-response to fiscal credibility as the default posture. Markets don't send warnings like this twice. Deepanshu Mohan is Professor of Economics and Dean, IDEAS, Office of InterDisciplinary Studies, Director, Centre for New Economics Studies, Jindal School of Liberal Arts and Humanities. Ankur Singh works at CNES
Indian Express
10-05-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
As the IMF bails out Pakistan yet again, accountability is the casualty
Written by Deepanshu Mohan On May 9, in a tense session marked by geopolitical friction, the International Monetary Fund approved Pakistan's 24th bailout: a $1 billion disbursement under the Extended Fund Facility and $1.3 billion from the Resilience and Sustainability Facility. India abstained in protest, citing Pakistan's role and responsibility in the April 22 Pahalgam terrorist attack that killed 26 people, warning that the IMF loan might be indirectly misused for state-sponsored terror. Despite India's concerns, the Fund pushed forward with the appropriation, prioritising regional stability over New Delhi's objections. The moment marks a continuation of Pakistan's long, tangled waltz with debt and the role of international financial institutions in supporting it. Since 1958, Pakistan has secured over $28 billion in IMF arrangements. One needs to perhaps picture the neighbouring economy — like many failed states surviving on foreign aid or development assistance — as a gambler at a table where each bailout is a borrowed chip to cover the last round of losses. Even now, the IMF hesitates to declare Pakistan's debt unsustainable, fearing that doing so will scare off other lenders. It's what former State Bank of Pakistan governor Murtaza Syed calls 'extend and pretend'. The cost of this strategy is borne not in Washington, but in Karachi, Lahore, and Quetta. Pakistan spends around 65 per cent of its tax revenue on interest payments, which leaves little for its own people. Education receives just 1.7 per cent, and health only 0.8 per cent. The Human Development Index of Pakistan lags at around 0.540, trailing behind Bangladesh. The literacy rate is at 60 per cent, and child mortality hovers at a staggering 67 per 1,000 births. For all its loans targeting the development of schools and hospitals, World Bank audits reveal up to 40 per cent of funds are lost to delays or corruption. Where does the money go? Craig Burnside and David Dollar, in a paper titled 'Aid, Policies and Growth', studied the relationship between aid in all its forms (the term often used for development assistance) and growth for developing nations. The impact of any development assistance, the authors find, closely depends on the state's institutions and policies. In countries where corruption and institutional failures are commonplace, most aid or development assistance is wasted. It also indicated the hegemonic influence of the US (through bilateral and multilateral assertion) in ensuring aid for strategic reasons, often in the name of providing developmental funds. In the shadow of Pakistan's $131 billion debt mountain, a stark choice looms larger with every loan that it receives: Spend the money on guns or growth. The IMF's latest bailout is meant to provide fiscal oxygen for growth. With reserves falling below $4 billion, enough for just a few weeks of imports, the infusion offers momentary relief. But growth is conditional on the robust presence and action of 'good' institutions, which the Pakistani nation-state has lacked due to a decades-old internal conflict between the army and the elected state. This makes any transparent, objective function of the state difficult. According to the Pakistan Economic Survey 2023–24, the defence allocation for FY2024–25 is Rs 2,122 billion, which constitutes 1.7 per cent of the country's GDP. This represents a decrease from 2020's defence spending of 2.6 per cent of GDP. A 2024 report by the Human Rights Watch highlighted that Pakistan paid about seven times more per person to service its external public debts than it did on healthcare in 2021. Entities like the Fauji Foundation, Army Welfare Trust, and Shaheen Foundation run everything from fertiliser plants to insurance companies, often outside the purview of civilian audits. In 2023, the military formalised its economic power with the Special Investment Facilitation Council (SIFC), chaired by Army Chief General Asim Munir. Meant to attract foreign investment, the SIFC brought in just $1.9 billion in FDI in FY24, a figure dwarfed by India's $70.9 billion haul. Critics argue that the IMF and World Bank are complicit, not through intent, but through indifference. Loan conditions typically target fuel subsidies, civil service pensions, or tax reforms that affect the public. But social sector budgets remain stagnant, and the military remains untouched. Its budget is sacrosanct, and its political power is unchallenged. The ousting of Imran Khan and the post-election manoeuvrings of 2024 have only reinforced the army's grip on civilian institutions. India's abstention on May 9, by challenging the $1.3 billion Resilience and Sustainability Facility, voiced a growing unease over the international community's continued funding of a regime where strategic priorities overshadow systemic reform. This is a test for the IMF and its peers, which are caught between stabilising a geopolitical linchpin and enabling a cycle of dysfunction. India's protest, sparked by the Pahalgam terror attack and subsequent developments, flagged a deeper issue: The IMF's cheques often bypass accountability. The Fund's 2024 reports hint at 'geopolitical considerations' trumping fiscal rigour, a nod to Pakistan's role as a buffer for other geopolitical interests. If austerity sparks unrest, then the world need only look at Kenya's 2024 riots, where IMF-backed reforms triggered violent protests and eroded public trust. The Fund's credibility hangs in the balance. It is increasingly seen as a lender propping up regimes that suppress dissent rather than deliver reform. The World Bank faces similar questions, as its governance and development projects stall in countries where entrenched elites prize control over change. For global powers, the implications are not just economic but strategic as well. India's rare protest signals a turning point: The international financial system can no longer afford to bankroll dysfunction in the name of stability. As the IMF prepares its next disbursement, the real test lies in not ignoring the cost of misgovernance. The writer is Professor of Economics and Dean, IDEAS, Office of InterDisciplinary Studies, Director, Centre for New Economics Studies, Jindal School of Liberal Arts and Humanities. Ankur Singh contributed to this article
