Category: India

Employment: The Neglected Variable

Today, the issue of employment receives attention in public discussion mainly because of NREGA. It is economic growth or GDP growth which is given prominence in most policy documents. In economics, employment generation and related aspects form a part of macroeconomics alone. Financial economics, international trade, monetary economics, etc hardly comment on the issue of employment. Increasingly, the question of employment is getting less attention in most academic and policy oriented discussions. This post attempts to revive certain issues pertaining to employment. For this purpose, we revisit the 1943 paper of a neglected macroeconomist ‘ Michal Kalecki. His paper straddles the fields of industrial economics, financial economics, public economics and macroeconomics, and provides insights regarding employment generation.

The generation of more employment, rather full employment, according to Kalecki, is beneficial to both government and capitalists. In addition, it also benefits the class of workers. Employment can be generated by capitalists or by the government. However, the government is restricted from generating employment because apparently government investment crowds out private or capitalist investment. In Kalecki’s words:

‘The economic principles of Government intervention require that public investment should be confined to objects which do not compete with the equipment of private business, e.g. hospitals, schools, highways, etc. Otherwise the profitability of private investment might be impaired and the positive effect of public investment upon employment offset by the negative effect of the decline in private investment.”

It is for this purpose that we have Acts such as the FRBM Act to ensure sound finance. This Act regulates and limits the employment generation capacity of the government. As for the corporate sector, they never support public investment. Hence, the employment generating capacity gets solely determined by the corporate sector/capitalists.

Kalecki questions this stance of the capitalists. For, full employment, as noted above, clearly benefits the capitalists by providing them greater profits. He argues that it is the ‘political realities’ associated with the maintenance of full employment which prevents the government and big business or capitalists from doing so. Given that the Government has to adhere to sound finance, largely, the capitalists determine the volume of employment in an economy. The capitalists tend to increase employment and output if they expect a good economic and political environment to be forthcoming. This environment is a dynamic and complex function of government policies, international events, political outcomes, etc. In economics, we call it state of confidence. Today, one factor which reflects this state of confidence is the bullish trend seen the stock markets. It is for this reason that, in India, SENSEX occupies such an important place in everyday news. Hence, the state of confidence assumes such an important role only in an economy where the government is supposed to maintain sound finance. As Kalecki points out:

‘The social function of the doctrine of ‘sound finance’ is to make the level of employment dependent on the ‘state of confidence’.’

Similarly, on the politics involved in capitalists pressing for sound finance, Kalecki powerfully notes that:

‘Under a laisser-faire system the level of employment depends to a great extent on the so-called level of confidence. If this deteriorates, private investment declines, which results in a fall of output and employment (both directly and through the secondary effect of the fall in incomes upon consumption and investment). This gives to the capitalists a powerful indirect control over Government policy: everything which may shake the state of confidence must be carefully avoided because it would cause an economic crisis.’

Thus, regardless of whether we agree with Kalecki or not, he provides an interesting way to examine the issue of employment creation; especially for the Indian economy where FRBM Act is taken seriously and because of the growing significance of SENSEX. Such an analysis also calls for greater interdependence between macroeconomics, public economics, industrial economics and financial economics on one hand and between economics, political science, sociology and culture studies on the other. The latter sort of interdisciplinary inquiry will provide descriptions of actual processes by which such ‘politics’ take place. This analysis by Kalecki also revives the classical notion of ‘political economy’ which understands that economics cannot be divorced from politics. For practical purposes, it is of utmost importance that we pay more attention to the variable ‘ employment, in our economics curricula and debates, especially in a country like India.

References

Kalecki, Michal (1971), ‘Political Aspects of Full Employment’, in Selected Essays on the Dynamics of the Capitalist Economy 1933-1970, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (full text available at Monthly Review)

Further reading

Bhaduri, Amit (2006), ‘The Politics of Sound Finance’, Economic and Political Weekly, 4 November.

 

Economic Survey of India 2010-11: A Critical Look

The Union Budget is presented based on the Economic Survey conclusions and recommendations. Therefore, the Economic Survey becomes a crucial document to examine and interpret. This time as well, the hands of its architect remain quite visible. Like the previous attempt, there is an increased use of economic theory ‘ game theory, mechanism design, rational choice theories, etc ‘ which provide support to various policy recommendations. According to this economic architect, all solutions are to be found in incentives. If the right incentives are provided, then economic and political governance will be smooth like that of the most competitive market. Agreed! What commonsense and insights from various social processes tell us is that individuals have heterogeneous preferences and what is an incentive for one might be poison for another. This blog post will examine some of these suggestions in detail (from Chapters 1 and 2 of Economic Survey 2010-11). In particular, the suggestions examined below will be those which have been favoured or disregarded based on arguments drawn from (neoclassical) economic theory.

Fiscal policy

Economic Survey 2010-11 assures the reader that India has recovered from the global financial crisis because of the high growth rates. For all practical purposes, this information indicates that we can now call for fiscal consolidation or lowering of the fiscal deficit. The usefulness of the government is over; let market forces function peacefully now without any government intervention!

‘With clear evidence of economic recovery in 2009-10 as indicated by the Advance Estimates of the GDP, the Budget for 2010-11 resumed the path of fiscal consolidation with a partial exit from the stimulus measures.’

It is at the same time interesting and worrying to see this sort of rhetoric. Such rhetoric rests on the following premise: the opportunities for investment are limited (read: scarce) and the entry of the government will crowd out private investment. Surprisingly, this neoclassical idea, which is much promoted in our academic textbooks, fail to point out the fallacy of composition on which this argument is based. This argument does not recognise the interdependence in an economy. Wages generated from government jobs are not only used to purchase goods and services from the government sector. In fact, the wages and salaries generated by the government sector are spent in consuming goods and services produced by the private sector. It is certainly time policy makers understood the benefits of crowding in effects of government intervention. The expenditure, one should look for, is mainly in social services ‘ education, health and employment.

Agriculture

Agriculture has been identified to be critical for macroeconomic stability and growth; although services sector is our potential growth engine. This can be read as: agriculture needs to grow at a level which will enable (the favourite word of the economic architect) the service sector to grow. Agriculture is carried out by majority of our fellow Indians (around 60 %) and it provides us food and raw materials. Our economic architect argues:

‘The rise in prices of agricultural produce would in part help incentivize production; the moot question remains what proportion of the rise accrues to the producer and what proportion gets appropriated by middlemen. The creation of more direct farm-to-fork supply chains in food items across the country would be critical in incentivizing the farmer with higher producer prices and at the same time would lower the prices for end-consumers.’

Why are middlemen always blamed’ Are they not the ones who aid production’ Who exactly are these middlemen’ Be that as it may, what is clear is that the middlemen have often more power (economic and social) than the actual producers. Majority of the farmers are forced to sell their product immediately after harvest owing to debt obligations. In addition, the (small) farmers do not benefit from the price rise because they do not have adequate storage facilities. As a matter of fact, even the Government only stores certain food grains in its godowns. Vegetable and fruits are not procured by the government. The undue emphasis placed on incentives by our economic architect is of concern. For one, production can only be carried out if the farmers have sufficient capital to purchase inputs. In India, the phenomenon of inter-linked markets is common in agriculture. That is, the same person provides credit as well as inputs to the farmers, thereby enjoying a very strong bargaining position over the farmer. Now, when our economic architect recommends FDI in retail food because they incentivise production, he is being blind to the production conditions of Indian agriculture. This can exacerbate the plight of the Indian farmer by making him/her subject to the contracts of the foreign firms. In this scenario as well, the farmer, owing to his/her weak bargaining power will never be able to enjoy higher prices. But yes, this could mean a lowering of prices for our urban consumers!

Inflation & employment

The subject of inflation has been dealt with in great detail in Chapter 2 of the Economic Survey 2010-11. In recent times, inflation has affected both the rural and urban consumers. However, as we know, the effect of inflation on the consumers are not equal in magnitude. Consumers who have very less income will be deeply affected by inflation. For instance, the small and marginal farmers are severely impacted when prices rise. Given this plight, the following statement by our economic architect is indeed baffling:

‘It may be mentioned that food price inflation during the last financial year was mainly driven by high inflation in pulses, cereals, and sugar due to bad monsoon. The rise in the purchasing power owing to the rapid growth of the economy and inclusive programmes like the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA) partly might have contributed to the upward trend in inflation.’

First of all, the above statement indicates an inadequate understanding of inflation. Secondly, what about the rising purchasing power of the urban consumers or the employees of BPOs. What makes our economic architect point fingers at those who barely manage a living’ If the beneficiaries of NREGA were surviving by barely subsisting before NREGA, their purchasing power would not have risen so much post-NREGA to contrbute, as our economic architect suggests, to inflation. In fact, such statements indicate a gross misunderstanding of inflation, a lack of knowledge of how rural India operates and a insensitivity towards subsistence and livelihood in general.

Conclusion

It is high time that we seriously examined some of the tenets of conventional (neoclassical) economic theory. Today, a lot of students and professors of economics world over are questioning the premises and logic of neoclassical economics. However, we find neoclassical economics still domination in various forms, such as new institutional economics, mechanism design, law and economics, microeconomics etc. Given that some of the foundations of economic theory are in question, it is surprising to see how much our economic architect bases the policy recommendations on such apparent scientific and objective truths!

Economic Growth in India: Some Considerations

It has been pointed out earlier in this blog that economic growth cannot be understood by merely looking at the rate of growth of GDP; and that an adequate explanation of economic growth needs to incorporate the ‘structure of economic growth’. This post builds on the idea that ‘structure of growth’ is of paramount importance by pointing out certain important aspects of growth, which have been put forward by Pulapre Balakrishnan in his new book (OUP, 2010), Economic Growth in India: History and Prospect.

Balakrishnan’s book questions several aspects of mainstream theorising on growth. Firstly, he emphasises that fact that, there can be no ‘universal model of growth and development’ (p. 29). Though, this point is very obvious to most people, economists still try to develop ‘scientific models’ which are general enough so that the varied growth experiences of different countries can be explained. In particular, the fact that there is no universal model has been shown by the growth experiences of countries like Japan and China. Maybe, unfettered competition and self-interest work in certain countries. In others, a one party system might work. Or, democracy coupled with active state intervention might be the solution for a few. The growth trajectory of a particular economy depends on its history, its people, its land, its politics, its institutions, its culture, its government, its media and so on. For example, it would be foolish to provide disproportionate sops and subsidies to the service sector, when majority of the population depend on agriculture. Whatever be the model of growth and development, it is of utmost importance that the inhabitants or the populace of that country has enough food to eat, proper clothes, access to safe drinking water, a proper house, a job, etc. In other words, the minimum requirements (which is historically, socially and culturally determined) of the inhabitants need to be met.

The recent past has witnessed a lot of debates on the juncture at which the Indian economy structurally transformed. Several years have been identified as break-points depending on the base year adopted, the kind of statistical test chosen, the nature of data, etc. There has been no consensus. Some identify 1991 as the point of change. Others argue that the growth process had begun as early as the late 1970s. Not surprisingly, these results also depend on what the economists think the role of the government is (or the role of the markets). However, Balakrishnan argues that the time period 1900 to 2005 ‘may be seen as setting the minimum agenda for an investigation of growth in the country’ (p. xxvi). This assertion is a noteworthy one, for it can aid in understanding the role of the government as well as the role of the market (understood as the competitive mechanism) in the economic growth process for over 100 years.

An examination of the process of growth from 1900 onwards is certainly a very difficult task. However, the merits of the hard work outweigh the costs. Systematic data collection in India begins from only around 1950s. However, by making use of the scattered accounts written by various travelers, historians, fiction writers, etc and from English archives, port records, and others, one could construct a narrative of the growth process. Unfortunately, most of the growth narratives of the Indian growth stress only on ‘numbers’. An analytical growth narrative, according to Balakrishnan, offers a better mode of capturing growth. It ‘may be seen as a theoretically informed empirical analysis of growth in a country over a specified period.’ (p. 36) However, this mode of analysis can become narrow if the ‘theory’ is only taken from economics. If the theory can be expanded to take in insights from related disciplines like history, political science, sociology and anthropology, the analytical growth narrative can provide a rich and comprehensive account of growth.

Such a growth narrative would also mean a shifting of research from the growth accounting based on production function to a more holistic one, which takes into account the structure of the Indian economy ‘ the divide between rural and urban, between men and women, between agriculture and services, between organised and unorganised, between English-educated and illiterate, between those who have access to computers and those who do not, etc. For, growth accounting based on production function suffers from numerous logical and conceptual issues. This method assumes that the contributions made by labour and capital (means of production) are independent, which in reality and accounting wise, is difficult to accept. This method also gets into trouble when it tries to incorporate rapid technological advancements.

From the preceding discussion, it is clear that there can be no universal model of economic growth and development. And, until a more comprehensive understanding of economic growth is presented by economic theorists, the urgency to find out a break point is of no use. Also, economic growth is a process which takes place over time; hence, a long term perspective is necessary to understand growth and to put forth the determinants of growth. Also, it is time to give up growth accounting based on the aggregate production function. To conclude, it is time that growth narratives are also put forth by other social scientists. And, why is it that discussions on economic growth remain the prerogative of the economists alone’

Krishna Bharadwaj: The Ideal Economist

Krishna Bharadwaj is an economist who made lasting contributions to economic theory. She is especially known for her understanding of the classical theories of value and distribution. In particular, she has successfully traced out the history of classical as well as neoclassical economics. This kind of conceptual history writing is important, especially for the economist who wants to apply these theories in understanding the socio-economic reality. And because of her firm grasp of various theoretical approaches in economics, she was able to judiciously analyse problems of the Indian economy. She was, in fact, the first economist to point out the exploitative nature of inter-linked markets which are prevalent in Indian agriculture. She also placed emphasis on the power relations which dominated the production structure of agriculture in India.

Apart from struggling to show the distinct and superior nature of classical economics over neoclassical economics, Bharadwaj also relentlessly worked on Indian economic issues. In particular, Bharadwaj analysed the structural linkages between agriculture and industry in India and also examined the production conditions which characterise Indian agriculture. In her latter study, she pointed out the inadequacies of neoclassical economics in understanding Indian agriculture. She particularly criticised the application of production functions. In addition, Bharadwaj explained the origin of neoclassical economics and how it suffers from various logical as well as other methodological issues.

For Bharadwaj, theory was only a tool to understand the questions and problems which arose from the social reality. This is why, she promoted the teaching of different economic approaches in Centre for Economic Studies and Planning (CESP) at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), such as classical, Marxian, Keynesian as well as Walrasian. As Prabhat Patnaik writes in a foreword of The Krishna Bharadwaj Memorial Lecture, ‘according to her [Bharadwaj]…we had to evolve a research-cum-teaching agenda of our own. No centre in India could flourish, by international standrads, merely by mimicking what was happening abroad, merely by showing proficiency in solving problems which were posed abroad. The problems has to be rooted in the social reality of our own country, and the effort to grapple with them had to be, very consciously, located within the intellectual endeavour of our country…[However] Her emphasis on taking up problems rooted in the Indian social reality was not a plea for turning one’s back upon theory or theoretical struggles. On the contrary, her plea for investigating our real problems, was simultaneously a plea for a richer theory, a theory with a body to it, one which is all the more powerful because it has been used for investigating real problems facing economies like ours.’

From her work on economic theory and its applications to the Indian economy, what becomes clear is her philosophy that economic theory should be based on concepts which can be observed and be amenable to measurement in reality. This is one of the reasons why she criticised the demand and supply theories; for, values were determined by subjective utilities. Another quality worth mentioning is her firm belief that economic theories are not mere intellectual constructs; rather, they arise out of a particular socio-historical situation, often to promote a certain ideology. In her R C Dutt Lecture, which was later published as a book in 1986, she makes it clear that the emergence of demand and supply theories were primarily a reaction against Ricardo and Marx. For, in both Ricardo and Marx, a conflict of interest is visible between social classes. In order to promote the ‘idea’ of a just and harmonius system, the theories (especially the labour theory of value) of Ricardo and Marx were criticised as being limited, and an alternative was proposed. This new theory completely did away with social classes. Individuals were chosen as the primary unit of analysis. Social classes, actually was modified into ‘factors of production’. A very interesting and important methodological shift, with powerful political implications! All the factors of production were assigned equal importance, and it was also shown how both labour and capital recieved incomes according to their contribution to the production process. That is, a capitalist system, with free mobility of labour and capital and with clear property rights (contracts), is essentially a just and stable system.

To conclude, the following are the reasons why Krishna Bharadwaj is an ideal economist. (1) She had an in-depth understanding of the various theoretical approaches in economics, be it, Marxian, Classical, Neoclassical, Austrian or Keynesian. (2) She did not blindly apply these theories (mainly Classical and Marxian) to understand the Indian economy; instead, her inquiry was based on extensive empirical observations, which made the theory richer. (3) She considered it very necessary to understand the history of economic theory, especially because of the historical specificity of all theories. Also because, most theories are responses to certain socio-political events or interests. (4) Lastly, she applied all her experience in setting up a new centre, which paid close attention to both economic theory and its application to the Indian economy, in close connection with other disciplines.

References

Bhaduri, Amit (1992), Krishna Bharadwaj, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 27, No. 10/11 (Mar. 7-14, 1992), p. 490.

Bharadwaj, Krishna (1963), ‘Value Through Exogenous Distribution’, The Economic Weekly, August 1964.

Bharadwaj, Krishna (1986), Classical Political Economy and the Rise to Dominance of Supply and Demand Theories, Calcutta: Universities Press.

Harcourt, G C (1993-94), ‘Krishna Bharadwaj, August 21, 1935 – March 8, 1992: A Memoir’, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Winter, 1993-1994), pp. 299-311.

Patnaik, Utsa (1991), ‘Krishna Bharadwaj: 21 August 1935 – 8 March 1992,’ Social Scientist, Vol. 19, No. 12. (Dec., 1991), pp. 63-67.

Patnaik, Prabhat (1996), Foreword, in Time as a Metaphor of History: Early India, by Romila Thapar, The Krishna Bharadwaj Memorial Lecture, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Roncaglia, Alessandro (1993), ‘Krishna Bharadwaj, 1935-1992. In Memoriam’, Metroeconomica, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 187-194.