Latest news with #ShankarAcharya
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
3 days ago
- Business
- Business Standard
Best of BS Opinion: Soggy dribbles in finance, films, and diplomacy
There's something oddly thrilling about playing football in the park when it's raining heavily. You know it's not the ideal setting as every pass splashes water, every dribble slows down as the ball skids unpredictably across the soggy grass. But somehow, the game goes on. Strategy shifts. You focus more. Every movement demands improvisation. The mess, the friction, and the lost grip, it all becomes part of the play. Today's writeups hint at something similar. Institutions, industries, and individuals navigating a slippery, waterlogged pitch — trying to dribble ahead, adjusting each move to the terrain beneath. Let's dive in. Take India's state finances. A Crisil report shows revenue bouncing back slightly, with GST and liquor excise pulling their weight, but petroleum taxes dragging like waterlogged boots. Despite the slip-and-slide, states have kept their fiscal balance mostly intact. Yet deeper puddles remain: heavy dependence on the Centre and a debt-to-GDP ratio still high, notes our first editorial. Reform now means finding better studs: tighter GST compliance, digital tax trails, and predictable federal transfers. The game is on, but the pitch is far from ideal. In cinema too, the ball's taking unexpected turns. Aamir Khan's move to YouTube's pay-per-view model isn't just disruptive, it's democratic, highlights our second editorial. It bypasses uneven theatre access and expensive OTT subscriptions, bringing big films to small screens at Rs 100 or less. But success here hinges on how well creators learn to play on mobile-first grounds, use AI dubbing, and price smartly. If they can adapt, this could be the rain-slick breakthrough the film industry didn't know it needed. Meanwhile, on the foreign policy field, R Jagannathan argues India must stop kicking the ball around passively. Modi's rapport with world leaders may look good in photo-ops, but it hasn't kept adversaries from pushing forward. As geopolitical puddles deepen (Ukraine, Gaza, China), India must build influence through strategy, not symbolism. Think of it as learning to pass not just wide, but wise. And in corporate India, the Tata Trusts have moved early to back N Chandrasekaran, like a captain handing the armband before kick-off, writes Nivedita Mookerji. This preemptive support is not just procedural, it's tactical, especially as Tata Sons faces decisions on shareholding exits and RBI-mandated listings. It's a slippery pitch, and Tata seems determined to control the midfield. Lastly, L aveesh Bhandari reviews A World in Flux: India's Economic Priorities. Essays in Honour of Shankar Acharya, a collection of essays honouring Dr Shankar Acharya, thinkers reflect on economic playbooks past and future. While celebrating Acharya's policy genius, the book, edited by Amita Batra and A K Bhattacharya, also challenges today's players to update their formations for a world where climate, inequality, and politics increasingly shape the economy.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
3 days ago
- Business
- Business Standard
India in Flux offers up new ways to think about complex challenges ahead
Few could have played the role Shankar Acharya did-navigating political, fiscal, and global pressures with clarity and conviction Laveesh Bhandari A World in Flux: India's Economic Priorities. Essays in Honour of Shankar Acharya Edited by Amita Batra & A K Bhattacharya Published by Rupa 448 pages ₹795 Shankar Acharya is undoubtedly a unique personality. Disarmingly affable yet ruthlessly incisive, both as a policy economist and as a thought leader, he has made significant contributions to India's growth. Over a period of eight years, as the chief economic advisor, he played a pivotal role in helping shape economic policies that have propelled India from being a laggard economy to the forefront of economic growth globally. This success, no doubt, cannot be ascribed to any one
Indian Express
7 days ago
- Business
- Indian Express
A tribute to economist Shankar Acharya, A World in Flux, explores what needs to be done to achieve India's goal of becoming Viksit by 2047
A confession — I have known Shankar Acharya, a friend and fellow cricket junkie, far longer than he or I are willing to admit. It is an honour to review 'A World in Flux – India's Economic Priorities', a timely and deeply researched collection of essays in honour of Shankar's thinking and contributions. The book is about what change is needed to allow India to meet its tryst with a destiny that is viksit by its 100th anniversary in 2047. The contributors are much more than eminent scholars — they are acknowledged experts in their fields. The biggest — and the most well-deserved — tribute to Shankar is that the contributors have chosen to write a learned and expert commentary. Much of what they have written and advocated as policy is spot on, so what is a reviewer supposed to do? I can summarise the issues raised by the authors, but the editors, Amita Batra and AK Bhattacharya, provide a must-read analysis — a model introduction to a very distinguished economist, policy advisor and policy-maker. There has only been one major policy question on which Shankar and I have disagreed — and continue to disagree — and that is the danger that fiscal deficits pose to growth and inflation. He, of course, initiated India's long-term fiscal policy in the early 1980s, at a time when such a roadmap was very much needed. Before going further, I want to add that we have differences — differences that arise not out of a difference in expertise or analysis but differences in our genes. Shankar, by his own admission, gravitates towards pessimism; and when I have to err, I err on the side of my DNA++ disposition. The 'what should be done about fiscal deficits' debate is a good point ofdeparture for illustrating why 'yeh dil mange more' than offered by the experts in the volume. Does India have a high fiscal deficits problem or a problem of plenty, one which allows policy makers from doing nothing (at best) or actually implementing bad policies? Sajjid Chinoy in his tour de force essay ('Getting Rich Before Getting Old') speaks about raising India's tax/GDP ratio from an already high level of around 19 per cent today. It is quite the fashion among Indian commentators (I include myself in this galaxy) to point to China as a worthy example to follow — when in doubt, do what China does and thou shalt succeed. China's tax/GDP ratio of 14.5 per cent in 2024 suggests we should radically decrease our rate of taxation. But our experts do not advocate that. Why? India's fiscal problem is one oftoo high taxation, not too little. 'Easy' revenue allows the government (state and central) to indulge in ever more wasteful expenditure (freebies) which slows growth. Our slow growth, relative to potential, is the problem, not that fiscal deficits are causing inflation to be at a historic low. The IMF orthodoxy of 'when in doubt, raise tax revenue' is now hopelessly outdated. Another example of divergence between necessary policy, and one offered by experts, pertains to the low share of manufacturing (and even the ever lower share of manufactured exports). We all agree that something needs to be done, but what? One favourite solution (like raising the tax revenue) is to join the China-led RCEP. This is dictated by the specious reasoning that since China leads in manufactured export growth, by joining RCEP we will do so too. However, 13 of 15 RCEP countries have lower growth of manufactured exports than before (joining) RCEP. As far as policy analysis goes, why not note that our two 'global champions' — Ambani and Adani-led enterprises — produce zero manufactured goods (unless an intermediate good like polyester is considered a final manufactured good, like shirts)? And why, iflack of textile growth is a problem (it is!), our reform experts (except Amitabh Kant) don't point to the fact that a very very low hanging fruit is the reduction of high import duties on manmade fibres? Why don't the experts argue that the government should choose winners like Ambani and Adani? The government should appoint these global experts to lead the march on manufactured goods. Instead of Production Linked Incentives (PIL) we should have EIL — Export Linked Incentives. If subsidies are involved (as they will be), the government should provide them. Learn from China (again) how to sidestep WTO regulations. This is how Korea, China and the US have succeeded — we will succeed too. Bhattacharya also has a much-needed, must-read chapter on the political economy of reforms. AK notes that in the near-50-year history of economic reforms in India, an important pattern emerges. 'But once the immediate economic crisis was overcome, the pace of implementing subsequent reforms slowed considerably'. Phrased differently, the story of economic reforms in India is that reforms stop because our politicians (and the Deep State behind them) are not risk-takers, but comfort-zone seekers. They like the comfort zone of 'not rocking the boat', and thereby insure that Viksit Bharat 2047 might very well be no more than a dream. Before ending, I have a quibble with even this most worthy chapter. Bhattacharya's path to reform is via consensus-building (the mantra of every failed and defeated optimist). But AK fails to note that the path to consensus is littered with sabotage by the major groups (or group) hurt by the proposed reforms. Why, if everything is as well-known and as dutifully documented by all of us, are we still asking for basic reforms in agriculture, manufacturing, and governance? Note that a Supreme Court survey conducted after the withdrawal of farm-reform legislation, found an overwhelming consensus (87 per cent) among farmers wanting the proposed farm laws reform. Bhalla is chairperson of the Technical Expert Group for the first official Household Income Survey for India. Views are personal
