How to disengage Indian economy smartly from China

To reach self-sufficiency India needs to reduce Chinese imports. But it must do this in a way that does not violate WTO norms

The India-China relationship is now at a nadir following border clashes in the Ladakh region. The ‘Boycott China’ war cry reverberates across India. Though it emanates mostly from common people or consumers the government has also indicated in one or two cases that Chinese investments are not welcome.

Indian industries on the other hand have provided a measured response saying that disengagement with China is not possible in a short span as the supply chain of production has been geared towards imports of Chinese intermediate goods. The search for alternative suppliers may begin if the government wishes so but it would take some time to reorient production with alternative suppliers.

In hindsight if the Atmanirbhar Bharat initiative is to succeed there is no alternative but to bring down the imports of cheap Chinese products a large part of which result from the Chinese exchange rate policy and the dumping of goods with underwritten government subsidy to their exporters. Furthermore India needs to adopt a balanced approach so that the policy action adheres to the WTO norms and the country does not have a loss of face.

Here are some measures India can consider:

Restrict FDI flows from China: The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade recently revised its policies on foreign direct investment (FDI) restricting funds coming from five countries that share a border with India.

Since investment is neither covered under the GATT TRIMS or GATS which India has committed to the move is not a violation of any WTO commitment. This is indeed a good tactical move by the government.

Impose uniform rules across private and PSUs: In the aftermath of the attack by China’s People’s Liberation Army the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) has asked Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (BSNL) to rework its tender for the upcoming 4G business by excluding Chinese equipment.

BSNL had shortlisted Chinese suppliers because of the low cost. However when it comes to commerce introducing such a fiat for PSUs and not imposing the same set of rules for private players ( but only imploring them to reduce their dependence on Chinese equipment) does not set a good precedent. This practice will kill PSUs in the telecom sector and in other sectors too if replicated.

Set the right perspective for public procurement: Annually the Central government spends nearly 13 per cent of the GDP to acquire supplies services and capital assets. The large size of procurement outlay empowers the government to leverage the same to implement select national policies.

Government entities can for example require that contractors adopt fair employment practices encourage purchases from MSMEs and promote innovation. Countries across the world do use public procurement as a tool to set their own agenda. This needs to be a decisive tool if Atmanirbhar Bharat is to succeed.

However we need to refine our public procurement system. By and large the government has adopted the two-bid system where vendors are requested to submit both technical and financial bids in sealed envelopes while tendering for any project/service.

First the technical bids of the various vendors are evaluated as per the standard laid out and subsequently the financial bids of the qualified vendors are opened to find the entity with the lowest bid. The contract is given to the lowest bid among the technically qualified vendors.

In this two-bid system the procurement agency has very little role in ensuring quality/standard. Of course one can argue that the technical bid evaluation criteria may be made stringent to ensure quality. However one invariably finds that the selection criteria of a technical bid are more of a checklist than guidelines to identify standard/quality of the bid or to fulfil the desired objective. Adopting L1 may not the way to promote Atmanirbhar Bharat.

Use of anti-dumping duty judiciously: Given that India and China are both members of the WTO and have extended the MFN (most favoured nation) status to each other India is not in a position to impose additional import duty selectively on Chinese imports. However we can impose anti-dumping duties on Chinese goods keeping within the WTO rule-book.

It is a known fact that China follows an aggressive pricing policy to export goods and many a time with tacit financial support from the government. Among WTO member-countries India is an active player in respect of imposition of anti-dumping duty. However most levies are usually negated by the WTO dispute settlement body after examination of evidences submitted by the Indian government. India needs to build its technical capacity in this respect.

A close interaction between government industry bodies and economists are a must for filing evidences to the WTO panel which can rightly put forward India’s stance.

Discourage imports of finished Chinese goods though Nepal: If India becomes vigilant on the imports of Chinese goods one can expects that Chinese consumer goods will be routed through Nepal through the informal channel. These products directly compete with Indian products in the heartland of northern India especially in Tier-II and -III cities. Strong action is required on this front.

Make use of trade facilitation measures: Since the rules of the same are not well laid out in the WTO India has much leverage to use this channel to discourage Chinese imports. For instance imposing a tighter standard may simply discourage Chinese imports.

Frequent scrutiny of Chinese imports for complying with various trading procedures and sending more samples of agricultural product imports to check whether they meet the necessary sanitary and phytosanitary standards would give the message to the traders/industrialist that Chinese imports are not wanted. Once they get the signal they will surely establish alternative supply lines for their required imports.

The writer Sanjib Pohit is Professor NCAER. Views are personal.

India Development Update

The pandemic has afflicted India at a time when its economy had already been decelerating. Defying a long-term accelerating path, real GDP growth moderated from 7.0 percent in 2017-18 to 6.1 percent in 2018-19 and 4.2 percent in 2019-20. The pre-COVID-19 growth deceleration was perceived to be due to long-standing structural rigidities in key input markets; continuing balance sheet stress in the banking and corporate sector, which were compounded more recently by stress in the non-banking segment of the financial sector; increased risk aversion among banks and corporates; a decline in rural demand; and a subdued global economy.

Virus fear and logistical challenges curtailing economic activity in Delhi-NCR, new survey shows

Daily wage labourers in Delhi-NCR were the most disadvantaged during the lockdown and are still finding it hard to find work. But even among the salaried class work participation rates remain far below pre-lockdown levels

As India’s economy limps back to life combating pandemic fears and fixing transport and logistical challenges may be key to a sustained recovery data from a fresh survey conducted by the National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER) in the Delhi-NCR (National Capital Region) suggests.

The fear of covid-19 was the single-biggest factor hindering resumption of normal work routines for farmers salaried workers and small businesses. For daily wage labourers lack of work was a bigger concern the survey conducted by the NCAER National Data Innovation Centre (NDIC) shows.

The latest round of the Delhi NCR Coronavirus Telephone Survey (DCVTS) was conducted between 15-23 June and involved telephonic interviews with 3466 households spread across 12 districts of the Delhi-NCR region. This was the third such survey to be undertaken by NCAER NDIC in recent months and covered respondents from the states of Delhi Haryana Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan belonging to the NCR region. Half of the respondents were from villages and the rest from urban areas.

The survey shows that economic conditions are tepid for many workers and small businesses. Businesses are unable to find enough customers and workers are finding it hard to get work. Further the fear of contracting coronavirus stops many employers from calling back their employees even as it creates doubt and fear among employees. The absence of public transport has been another big challenge in getting back to work.

The DCVTS survey shows that the pandemic-induced lockdown hit economic activities hard but the impact was unequal. Daily labourers were hit the hardest by the lockdown and their work participation rates dropped sharply in the April-May period before recovering partly in June although it still remains far below pre-lockdown levels. Small businesses and salaried workers also took a hit and have seen only a partial return to economic activities.

The silver lining in this grim picture is that despite some disruption most farmers continued to harvest the rabi crops and prepare for kharif. Hence agricultural labourers were less affected compared to other daily wage workers.

During the lockdown phase (April-May) 44% of regular salaried employees were able to continue in their jobs. Among regular employees public sector workers were the most privileged with 92% of them continuing to receive their salaries. In contrast only 54% of the private sector workers received any salary during the lockdown.

For households owning small businesses the lockdown posed an existential challenge. More than half suspended their activities in the April-May period and 12% shut shop permanently. The businesses that stayed open faced substantial challenges in obtaining inputs as well as in finding consumers.

Despite considerable relaxation in lockdown restrictions since early June 76% of the household businesses that were open in March were functioning by mid-June.

Daily wage labourers were the most disadvantaged during the lockdown and have found it hardest to find work now. Two thirds were unable to work at all during the lockdown and the rest found work for some days and not others. Less than 3% of the wage labourers found work on most days during the April-May period.

The loss of work was particularly high for casual labourers in construction or other manual work and somewhat lower for agricultural labourers. By June only 62% of casual labourers were able to return to work and half of this group noted that although they found work it was with great difficulty.

These diverse experiences are reflected in concrete markers of distress captured in the DCVTS-III survey. The share of the hungry and indebted were relatively higher among daily wage labourers and small business owners the data shows. Farmers and salaried workers reported relatively lower distress in the Delhi-NCR region.

The government’s response to such distress has largely centred around in-kind and cash transfers. For instance allocation of cereals and pulses through the food distribution system were raised and cash transfers were made to the bank accounts of Jan Dhan Yojana (JDY) beneficiaries. Daily wage labourers hit the hardest by the lockdown were able to get some of these benefits soon after they were announced in the region surveyed although these benefits remain modest in size.

As the economy unlocks further it is important to ease the logistical challenges faced by farmers small businesses and workers in moving goods finding jobs and in reaching their workplaces. Social distancing norms have restricted access to informal recruitment spots on major junctions. Hence alternative mechanisms for matching workers and jobs perhaps using e-portals may be needed to facilitate work for daily wage labourers. More importantly social distancing measures in bazaars buses and trains will need to be strictly enforced to ensure that workers can travel to work and businesses can operate without fear of contracting the virus. Finally the most effective way to deal with the fear factor will be to get a better handle on the pandemic which is yet to peak in the country.

Sonalde Desai is professor at the University of Maryland and director NCAER NDIC. Santanu Pramanik is senior fellow & deputy director NCAER NDIC. The analysis and interpretations offered here are those of the authors alone.

PDS can be extended to all till a vaccine is found for Covid

Ensuring food security is critical at the juncture. Providing universal PDS is financially feasible as FCI has more stock than we need

 
The NCAER Quarterly Review of the Economy June 2020 has estimated that despite the ₹20 trillion Atmanirbhar Bharat package the economy in all likelihood will suffer from negative growth and elevated inflation in 2020-21 due to the combined negative shock and consequent dynamics of aggregate demand and aggregate supply.

Given this background the decision of the Central government to extend free ration to 80 crore beneficiaries till November 2020 is commendable. It addresses food security concerns for a large section of the population that is already identified as poor and covered under the National Food Security Act (NFSA). However there is still a significant proportion of population that is not covered under NFSA despite being poor. Moreover the economic impact of the pandemic will push additional people in poverty.
 
Uncertain trajectory
While there is resumption in economic activity after the unlocking of India in June 2020 localised lockdowns continue as the coronavirus ebbs and flows its spread in specific regions. Given the uncertain trajectory of the disease macro-economy and livelihoods it is imperative that all Indian citizens are given access to basic PDS for the amount of time that the vaccine is not found for coronavirus. The NCAER Delhi Coronavirus Telephone Survey Phase II conducted in second half of April 2020 found that targeting may not provide social welfare benefits to those who need it the most.
 
Currently as per the NFSA the PDS should cover 75 per cent of the population in rural and 50 per cent in urban areas. This translates to 67 per cent of total population or 80 crore beneficiaries as per 2011 census. Revising NFSA targets to current population would translate to 92 crore beneficiaries assuming a population of 138 crore. This revision would happen anyway after the Census 2021. But 2021 is far away and the need for food security is now and that too for all the population.
 
A key philosophical issue is that universal PDS (U-PDS) will be accompanied by increased leakages as we know that no system is perfect. In the current economic scenario should we focus on the risks of increased leakages or benefits of increased food security? This is a normative choice and using humanitarian and economic reasons we argue for the latter. Citizens may choose to sign up for PDS rations on a voluntary basis. Further the moral suasion powers of the Government as evident in the PAHAL scheme in giving up LPG subsidy voluntarily could be used. Tamil Nadu is a case in point which has U-PDS but covers only 81 per cent of the population.
 
Three issues
There are three issues with the U-PDS. Do we have enough food in our stocks to do that? Is it technically feasible to distribute rations in a way to minimise leakages? Is it financially feasible to have U-PDS given the Atmanirbhar package?
 
Food stock: As per the Food Corporation of India (FCI) website the total foodgrains stock in the Central Pool as on June 2020 was 832.7 lakh tonnes. The buffer norms are 214 lakh tonnes. The FCI storage capacity is 755.9 lakh tonnes.
 
Technical feasibility: The Annual Report of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs Food and Public Distribution 2019-20 shows the advanced stage of achievements in the end-to-end computerisation of targeted PDS operations. A carrot and stick policy could be used to address challenges of leakages.
 
Although imperfect the Delhi e-coupon model or a similar self-enrolment model is one way of reaching out to all beneficiaries. Aadhaar may be used for identification. Paper based application forms should also be made available. As Thapliyal and Jain (2020) point out in their MicroSave blog that the ‘One Nation One Ration Card’ is some distance away and will require various preparatory steps to achieve that goal. It may solve the problems of temporary migrants but does not address the issue of people who are left out of databases or have recently fallen into poverty (NCAER DCVTS II).
 
Ration can be home delivered or allowed to be picked up from ration shops with minimal contact. States can decide to suspend biometric authentication for beneficiaries in specific areas depending on the threat levels. In such cases States need to devise other mechanisms such as digital authentication by a government employee or PDS dealer and monitoring mechanisms to prevent leakages. At no point should rations be denied to people because of lack of connectivity or other technical issues.
 
Public finance: There are two sub-questions: What is going to be the cost and can we afford it? If we use the Tamil Nadu numbers and extrapolate this to India factoring in the need to include a greater number of beneficiaries in some States than others then the universal PDS should cover about 85 per cent of the population of India which translates to 117 crore beneficiaries of 138 crore. That is an increase of 37 crore from the current coverage. Out of that 12 crore are already due to increase in population from Census 2011 and the remaining 25 crore is due to U-PDS.
 
In 2019-20 the economic cost (EC) of running the PDS was ₹1.75 trillion. Factoring in cost recovery from States by selling foodgrains at central issue price of ₹2 per kg for wheat and ₹3 per kg of rice the subsidy cost comes to around ₹1.62 trillion. Implementing U-PDS the subsidy burden will increase by ₹0.75 trillion to ₹2.4 trillion.
 
This consists of two parts — ₹0.25 trillion to cover the percentage of current population as per NFSA norms and ₹0.5 trillion the additional cost of U-PDS. The total Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan package will cost the Central Government an additional ₹1.5 trillion.

We are proposing universalising basic PDS temporarily to all till a vaccine is found say about a year. It is financially feasible as the FCI already has more stock than we need. This stands true even after the scheme is extended. The NCAER QRE June 2020 has suggested myriad ways to manage public finances. Ultimately we need to save lives now to help them earn livelihood in future.
 
Bhandari is a Senior Fellow at NCAER and Thapliyal is a Partner at MicroSave. Views are personal 

Livelihood and Health challenges of riverine communities of the River Ganga

This project jointly conducted by NCAER and the Tata Centre for Development at UChicago, studies the health and livelihood implications of a particular riverine community, that is, fisher folk, along selected polluted stretches of the Ganga river. The study conducted in two phases entails conduction of water experiments using censors, along with in-person interviews and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) of fishermen in the two states of West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh. The TCD team gathered high resolution spatially and temporally varying water data through submersible automated sensors. These sensors which were attached to a boat would sail on a pre-defined route of the river and collected real time information on pollution parameters. The NCAER research team undertook a survey of 1600 fishermen to understand if the levels of pollution have adversely affected their health, income, and fish catch over the years. The study also delve deeper into understanding the socio-economic challenges that the fishermen are facing and their perception with respect to the causes and implications of pollution. NCAER also conducted a contingent valuation exercise to analyze fisherman’s willingness to pay for good quality of water versus their willingness to accept compensation on account of their livelihood loss.

    Get updates from NCAER