Posted by: John Elliott | July 6, 2009

India’s Budget from a finance minister with no apparent reform agenda

When Sonia Gandhi, India’s Congress Party president and leader of the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, praised the country’s 1969 bank nationalisation at a conference in Delhi last November, there were gasps of surprise and horror from businessmen in her audience.

D-1890Today, the same remark has been made by Pranab Mukherjee, the finance minister (right), in his Budget speech but, by the time I am writing this post (four hours after the speech ended) I have not heard any murmurs of horror from commentators on television programmes.

Maybe that is because this is what one should expect from the 73-year old minister who, I remember, gave me a distinctly frosty and uninspiring interview when I first arrived in India as the FT correspondent in 1983 and he was serving his first term as finance minister.

Mukherjee has no track record as an economic reformer, and today’s speech does nothing to show that he is one, beyond nudging forward distant plans for a general sales tax. But he is the government’s most able political tactician, so one would expect him to at least balance the politics, the books and the personalities, even if he couldn’t rise to the occasion with a reform agenda for India’s new government in the way that his predecessor, Palaniappan Chidambaram, would have done.

Mukherjee has done the politics by looking after farmers with loan concessions, plus more help for the rural poor and other social and infrastructure spending, and he has also handled the personalities (Sonia Gandhi, daughter-in-law of Indira Gandhi who nationalised the banks, was sitting next to him in parliament, and he also quoted the revered Mahatma Gandhi).

But he hasn’t balanced the books, which is probably why the stock markets have fallen sharply, and why no-one has so far found it very easy to say whether it was a really good or really bad budget. The government’s total expenditure has been increased by 36% (including defence by about the same proportion and highway building by 23%). And the central government’s forecast fiscal deficit (excluding the states’ individual deficits) is up substantially at a record 6.8% of gdp, compared with 3.2% in 2007-08, because of measures taken to fend off the international economic crisis.

Both the 36% increase and 6.8% deficit are seen by many experts as too high, especially when there is no guide as to how Mukherjee expects to bring down  the deficit, apart from aiming to get the country back to 9% economic growth from its current 6%-7%. There has also been dismay that he is relying on government expenditure to boost the economy, rather than providing more of a stimulus for the private sector.

Mukherjee also said virtually nothing on divesting minority stakes in public sector companies, and only put a target of Rs1100 crore ($240m) on what might be raised by 2010. Here he was being sensible because I don’t think any Indian finance minister has ever reached his dis-investment target, and Mukherjee knows that it is a highly controversial programme and he might only be able to sell off 10% stakes in two or three corporations by the end of next year.

But it’s worth quoting what he said because it shows the basic strongly mixed-economy approach – not only his, but also that of Manmohan Singh, the prime minister who has never been a keen public sector reformer, and Sonia Gandhi, with her soft leftward-leaning liberalism. He said:

  • “The Public Sector Undertakings are the wealth of the nation, and part of this wealth should rest in the hands of the people. While retaining at least 51% Government equity in our enterprises, I propose to encourage people’s participation in our disinvestment programme. Here, I must state clearly that public sector enterprises such as banks and insurance companies will remain in the public sector and will be given all support, including capital infusion, to grow and remain competitive.”

And on Indira Gandhi’s bank nationalisation he said (ignoring the fact that Gandhi did it more for short-term political than long-term socio-economic reasons):

  • “Never before has Indira Gandhi’s bold decision to nationalise our banking system exactly 40 years ago – on 14th of July, 1969 – appeared as wise and visionary as it has over the past few months. Her approach continues to be our inspiration even as we introduce competition and new technology in this sector.“

The fault here of course is that he seemed to be closing the door on urgently need financial sector reform, and said nothing about the need to make public sector businesses more efficient, shedding surplus labour and management. Nor was there any discussion of the benefits (albeit very limited) of selling off public sector minority strakes – but that is par for the course because there is, as I have argued before, little real discussion of the pros and cons of policy in India.

One final omission – he said nothing on foreign direct investment (I have checked with a word search in the speech for those words and FDI), which might seem surprising. But it isn’t because the government’s FDI policy is in a mess, thanks to Mukherjee endorsing confusing and controversial changes introduced before the election by Kamal Nath, then industry minister, but opposed by Chidambaram. More on that soon………


  1. have we considered spending more money on primary education and health services. India’s welfare state sucks….People need education and health benefits. Will our budget ever take these seriously????

  2. Nationalization of banks is not such a bad thing.Nationalised banks are more approachable and customer friendly.One can at least get a loan at a reasonable rate from nationalised banks. That is the reason why industrialists in India approach them for loans.Foreign banks,including british ones have apalling customer services besides the fake accents and want to rip off customers. This whole business of outrageous minimum balance in foreign banks is disgusting. Why does HSBC demand a min balance of £30 in India when the same is not required in Britain.Nationalised banks have lower minimum balance and aren’t sharks like foreign ones.Look at the losses of RBS, HBOS etc. and then think about the benefits of nationalisation.

  3. I wonder why do commentatros get surprised at anti-reform behaviour by Congress. After all, this is the party that imposed all those econ regressive toxic policy measures which still bedvil India’s econ system. And, the so-called reformer, Manmohan Singh was a top policy advisor to the indira regime which did the maximum damage to our econ!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: