评论《印度经济:表现、政策、政治、前景和挑战》

IF 4.5 3区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Gaurav Datt
{"title":"评论《印度经济:表现、政策、政治、前景和挑战》","authors":"Gaurav Datt","doi":"10.1111/aepr.12494","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Panagariya (<span>2025</span>) paper on India's economy is structured around four key areas: performance, policies, politics, and future prospects. These comments follow the same structure.</p><p>The discussion on India's economic performance in Panagariya (<span>2024</span>) largely revolves around economic growth. However, an alternative periodization of India's economic growth phases since 1951 can offer a different perspective (Datt and Swamy, <span>2024</span>). Particularly notable is the economy's slowdown prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, with growth in Gross Value Added (GVA) declining over seven successive quarters from 7.1% in Q1 2018-19 to 3.4% in Q3 2019-20. Alongside this, private consumption growth and investment also fell, indicating a broader economic slowdown.</p><p>There are also concerns about the accuracy of recent official growth statistics, especially for the post-pandemic period, where the gross domestic product (GDP) deflator's inflation rate seems out of sync with the consumer price index (CPI). The discrepancy suggests that actual economic growth may be slower than reported, a hypothesis supported by sluggish private consumption growth.</p><p>Furthermore, GDP/GVA growth alone is an insufficient metric to assess economic performance. Rising inequality since the 1990s implies that the growth rate for the bottom 50% of the population is well below that of GDP. Real rural wages and earnings for regular and self-employed workers have stagnated or declined, contrasting with the supposed “V-shaped” recovery in GDP/GVA.</p><p>Most of the discussion on economic reforms and political economy in Panagariya (<span>2025</span>) spans the tenures of six prime ministers since the early 1990s, four prominent ones being: P.V. Narasimha Rao, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Manmohan Singh, and Narendra Modi. In a nutshell, Panagariya gives high credit to Narasimha Rao, a high distinction to Vajpayee, an unsatisfactory grade to Manmohan Singh, and a distinction to Modi though with a slap on the wrist for recent backsliding on trade openness. He also laments the enduring influence of Nehru's socialist policies on current economic policymaking, though judgements may differ on how socialist and enduring this influence has been.</p><p>While there are points of agreement with this analysis, some differences are notable. For instance, Panagariya's unsatisfactory assessment of Manmohan Singh's tenure (2004–14) seems somewhat unfair. While there were missteps, such as the 2012 retroactive amendment to the Income Tax Act, significant progress was made on economic reforms, particularly in the first 7 years. The Right to Education Act (2009) and the Land Acquisition Act (2013) as examples of “backsliding” of reforms seems incorrect.</p><p>Additionally, several reforms enacted in later regimes had their foundations laid earlier. The Goods and Services Tax (GST) and Aadhaar are prime examples. Although initially opposed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), both reforms were eventually implemented and became central to India's economic policy.</p><p>The discussion on future prospects and challenges in Panagariya (<span>2025</span>) is less comprehensive than expected. It posits that India, having grown at an annual average rate of about 10% in current dollar terms from 2003–4 to 2022–3, “can sustain this level of growth for several decades.” The optimistic scenario is tempered by the fact that 45% of the workforce is still in the agricultural sector, and urbanization has been slow. Contrasting it with the experience of South Korea and China, Panagariya locates the cause for this in India's growth process being dominated by capital- and skill-intensive sectors. The solution proposed is to make growth more inclusive by better integrating labor and capital, leading to “more effective use of the abundant factor, labor.”</p><p>Three observations can be made in relation to this discussion. First, on growth measurement, it is unclear why growth in current dollar terms is emphasized over growth in real rupees, which is more relevant for the standard of living. Given India's growth slowdown since 2017–18, the prospect of sustaining near double-digit real growth remains uncertain. Second, on lessons from other countries, drawing comparisons with China or South Korea on low-skill labor-intensive export-oriented industrialization may be misguided, as global supply chains have changed dramatically, with margins in the pure manufacturing segment decimated by the early movers. India may have missed the manufacturing bus, and, as recently argued by Rajan and Lamba (<span>2023</span>), future growth may need to pivot from “brawn to brain” by focusing on high-value direct service exports and new manufacturing-embedded-service products for both domestic and foreign markets that leverage emerging technologies. Third, Panagariya's discussion omits several critical challenges that are instrumentally or intrinsically important, such as environmental degradation, climate change adaptation, energy transition, rising inequality, governance issues, quality of human capital formation (education and health care), and transparency of reliable data. Each of these opens up a large reform agenda, without addressing which it is difficult to see how the optimistic visions for India's economic future could be realized.</p>","PeriodicalId":45430,"journal":{"name":"Asian Economic Policy Review","volume":"20 1","pages":"100-102"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aepr.12494","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comment on “Indian Economy: Performance, Policies, Politics, Prospects and Challenges”\",\"authors\":\"Gaurav Datt\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/aepr.12494\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The Panagariya (<span>2025</span>) paper on India's economy is structured around four key areas: performance, policies, politics, and future prospects. These comments follow the same structure.</p><p>The discussion on India's economic performance in Panagariya (<span>2024</span>) largely revolves around economic growth. However, an alternative periodization of India's economic growth phases since 1951 can offer a different perspective (Datt and Swamy, <span>2024</span>). Particularly notable is the economy's slowdown prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, with growth in Gross Value Added (GVA) declining over seven successive quarters from 7.1% in Q1 2018-19 to 3.4% in Q3 2019-20. Alongside this, private consumption growth and investment also fell, indicating a broader economic slowdown.</p><p>There are also concerns about the accuracy of recent official growth statistics, especially for the post-pandemic period, where the gross domestic product (GDP) deflator's inflation rate seems out of sync with the consumer price index (CPI). The discrepancy suggests that actual economic growth may be slower than reported, a hypothesis supported by sluggish private consumption growth.</p><p>Furthermore, GDP/GVA growth alone is an insufficient metric to assess economic performance. Rising inequality since the 1990s implies that the growth rate for the bottom 50% of the population is well below that of GDP. Real rural wages and earnings for regular and self-employed workers have stagnated or declined, contrasting with the supposed “V-shaped” recovery in GDP/GVA.</p><p>Most of the discussion on economic reforms and political economy in Panagariya (<span>2025</span>) spans the tenures of six prime ministers since the early 1990s, four prominent ones being: P.V. Narasimha Rao, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Manmohan Singh, and Narendra Modi. In a nutshell, Panagariya gives high credit to Narasimha Rao, a high distinction to Vajpayee, an unsatisfactory grade to Manmohan Singh, and a distinction to Modi though with a slap on the wrist for recent backsliding on trade openness. He also laments the enduring influence of Nehru's socialist policies on current economic policymaking, though judgements may differ on how socialist and enduring this influence has been.</p><p>While there are points of agreement with this analysis, some differences are notable. For instance, Panagariya's unsatisfactory assessment of Manmohan Singh's tenure (2004–14) seems somewhat unfair. While there were missteps, such as the 2012 retroactive amendment to the Income Tax Act, significant progress was made on economic reforms, particularly in the first 7 years. The Right to Education Act (2009) and the Land Acquisition Act (2013) as examples of “backsliding” of reforms seems incorrect.</p><p>Additionally, several reforms enacted in later regimes had their foundations laid earlier. The Goods and Services Tax (GST) and Aadhaar are prime examples. Although initially opposed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), both reforms were eventually implemented and became central to India's economic policy.</p><p>The discussion on future prospects and challenges in Panagariya (<span>2025</span>) is less comprehensive than expected. It posits that India, having grown at an annual average rate of about 10% in current dollar terms from 2003–4 to 2022–3, “can sustain this level of growth for several decades.” The optimistic scenario is tempered by the fact that 45% of the workforce is still in the agricultural sector, and urbanization has been slow. Contrasting it with the experience of South Korea and China, Panagariya locates the cause for this in India's growth process being dominated by capital- and skill-intensive sectors. The solution proposed is to make growth more inclusive by better integrating labor and capital, leading to “more effective use of the abundant factor, labor.”</p><p>Three observations can be made in relation to this discussion. First, on growth measurement, it is unclear why growth in current dollar terms is emphasized over growth in real rupees, which is more relevant for the standard of living. Given India's growth slowdown since 2017–18, the prospect of sustaining near double-digit real growth remains uncertain. Second, on lessons from other countries, drawing comparisons with China or South Korea on low-skill labor-intensive export-oriented industrialization may be misguided, as global supply chains have changed dramatically, with margins in the pure manufacturing segment decimated by the early movers. India may have missed the manufacturing bus, and, as recently argued by Rajan and Lamba (<span>2023</span>), future growth may need to pivot from “brawn to brain” by focusing on high-value direct service exports and new manufacturing-embedded-service products for both domestic and foreign markets that leverage emerging technologies. Third, Panagariya's discussion omits several critical challenges that are instrumentally or intrinsically important, such as environmental degradation, climate change adaptation, energy transition, rising inequality, governance issues, quality of human capital formation (education and health care), and transparency of reliable data. Each of these opens up a large reform agenda, without addressing which it is difficult to see how the optimistic visions for India's economic future could be realized.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45430,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Economic Policy Review\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"100-102\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aepr.12494\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Economic Policy Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aepr.12494\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Economic Policy Review","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aepr.12494","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Panagariya(2025)关于印度经济的论文围绕四个关键领域:绩效、政策、政治和未来前景。这些注释遵循相同的结构。在Panagariya(2024)中对印度经济表现的讨论主要围绕经济增长展开。然而,对1951年以来印度经济增长阶段的另一种分期可以提供不同的视角(Datt和Swamy, 2024)。特别值得注意的是,在2019冠状病毒病大流行之前,经济放缓,总增加值(GVA)增长连续七个季度下降,从2018-19年第一季度的7.1%降至2019-20年第三季度的3.4%。与此同时,私人消费增长和投资也出现下滑,表明整体经济放缓。最近官方增长统计数据的准确性也令人担忧,特别是在疫情后时期,国内生产总值(GDP)平减指数的通货膨胀率似乎与消费者价格指数(CPI)不同步。这种差异表明,实际经济增长可能比报告的要慢,这一假设得到了私人消费增长低迷的支持。此外,GDP/GVA增长本身不足以作为评估经济表现的指标。自20世纪90年代以来,不平等的加剧意味着底层50%人口的增长率远低于GDP的增长率。与假定的GDP/GVA的“v型”复苏形成鲜明对比的是,农村地区的实际工资和正规工人和个体经营者的收入已经停滞或下降。《Panagariya》(2025)中关于经济改革和政治经济的大部分讨论跨越了自20世纪90年代初以来的六位总理的任期,其中四位是:P.V. Narasimha Rao, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Manmohan Singh和Narendra Modi。简而言之,Panagariya对Narasimha Rao给予了很高的评价,对瓦杰帕伊给予了很高的评价,对曼莫汉·辛格给予了不满意的评价,对莫迪给予了很高的评价,尽管对最近在贸易开放方面的倒退给予了轻微的惩罚。他还哀叹尼赫鲁的社会主义政策对当前经济决策的持久影响,尽管对这种影响的社会主义程度和持久程度的判断可能会有所不同。虽然这一分析有一些一致之处,但也有一些明显的差异。例如,Panagariya对曼莫汉•辛格(Manmohan Singh)任期(2004-14)的不满意评估似乎有些不公平。尽管出现了一些失误,比如2012年《所得税法》(Income Tax Act)溯及既往的修正案,但在经济改革方面取得了重大进展,尤其是在前7年。《教育权法》(2009年)和《土地征用法》(2013年)作为改革“倒退”的例子似乎是不正确的。此外,后来的政权实施的几项改革早有基础。商品和服务税(GST)和Aadhaar就是最好的例子。尽管最初遭到印度人民党(BJP)的反对,但这两项改革最终都得到了实施,并成为印度经济政策的核心。关于Panagariya(2025)未来前景和挑战的讨论不如预期的全面。报告认为,从2003-4年到2022-3年,印度以当前美元汇率计算的年平均增长率约为10%,“可以维持这种增长水平几十年”。由于45%的劳动力仍在农业部门,城市化进程缓慢,这种乐观的前景受到了影响。与韩国和中国的经验相比,Panagariya认为印度的增长过程由资本和技能密集型部门主导,这是造成这种情况的原因。他们提出的解决方案是,通过更好地整合劳动力和资本,使增长更具包容性,从而“更有效地利用劳动力这一丰富要素”。关于这一讨论,可以提出三点意见。首先,在增长衡量方面,目前尚不清楚为什么以当前美元计算的增长比以实际卢比计算的增长更重要,而实际卢比与生活水平更为相关。鉴于印度自2017-18年以来的增长放缓,维持接近两位数的实际增长的前景仍然不确定。其次,从其他国家的经验来看,将中国或韩国的低技能劳动密集型出口导向型工业化与之进行比较可能是错误的,因为全球供应链已经发生了巨大变化,纯制造业的利润率被先行者大幅削减。印度可能已经错过了制造业的公交车,正如拉詹和兰巴最近(2023年)所指出的那样,未来的增长可能需要从“体力到脑力”转向,专注于高价值的直接服务出口,以及利用新兴技术为国内外市场提供新的制造业嵌入式服务产品。 第三,Panagariya的讨论忽略了几个具有工具或本质重要性的关键挑战,例如环境退化、适应气候变化、能源转型、不平等加剧、治理问题、人力资本形成的质量(教育和保健)以及可靠数据的透明度。这些问题都开启了一个庞大的改革议程,如果不解决这些问题,就很难看到对印度经济未来的乐观愿景如何实现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comment on “Indian Economy: Performance, Policies, Politics, Prospects and Challenges”

The Panagariya (2025) paper on India's economy is structured around four key areas: performance, policies, politics, and future prospects. These comments follow the same structure.

The discussion on India's economic performance in Panagariya (2024) largely revolves around economic growth. However, an alternative periodization of India's economic growth phases since 1951 can offer a different perspective (Datt and Swamy, 2024). Particularly notable is the economy's slowdown prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, with growth in Gross Value Added (GVA) declining over seven successive quarters from 7.1% in Q1 2018-19 to 3.4% in Q3 2019-20. Alongside this, private consumption growth and investment also fell, indicating a broader economic slowdown.

There are also concerns about the accuracy of recent official growth statistics, especially for the post-pandemic period, where the gross domestic product (GDP) deflator's inflation rate seems out of sync with the consumer price index (CPI). The discrepancy suggests that actual economic growth may be slower than reported, a hypothesis supported by sluggish private consumption growth.

Furthermore, GDP/GVA growth alone is an insufficient metric to assess economic performance. Rising inequality since the 1990s implies that the growth rate for the bottom 50% of the population is well below that of GDP. Real rural wages and earnings for regular and self-employed workers have stagnated or declined, contrasting with the supposed “V-shaped” recovery in GDP/GVA.

Most of the discussion on economic reforms and political economy in Panagariya (2025) spans the tenures of six prime ministers since the early 1990s, four prominent ones being: P.V. Narasimha Rao, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Manmohan Singh, and Narendra Modi. In a nutshell, Panagariya gives high credit to Narasimha Rao, a high distinction to Vajpayee, an unsatisfactory grade to Manmohan Singh, and a distinction to Modi though with a slap on the wrist for recent backsliding on trade openness. He also laments the enduring influence of Nehru's socialist policies on current economic policymaking, though judgements may differ on how socialist and enduring this influence has been.

While there are points of agreement with this analysis, some differences are notable. For instance, Panagariya's unsatisfactory assessment of Manmohan Singh's tenure (2004–14) seems somewhat unfair. While there were missteps, such as the 2012 retroactive amendment to the Income Tax Act, significant progress was made on economic reforms, particularly in the first 7 years. The Right to Education Act (2009) and the Land Acquisition Act (2013) as examples of “backsliding” of reforms seems incorrect.

Additionally, several reforms enacted in later regimes had their foundations laid earlier. The Goods and Services Tax (GST) and Aadhaar are prime examples. Although initially opposed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), both reforms were eventually implemented and became central to India's economic policy.

The discussion on future prospects and challenges in Panagariya (2025) is less comprehensive than expected. It posits that India, having grown at an annual average rate of about 10% in current dollar terms from 2003–4 to 2022–3, “can sustain this level of growth for several decades.” The optimistic scenario is tempered by the fact that 45% of the workforce is still in the agricultural sector, and urbanization has been slow. Contrasting it with the experience of South Korea and China, Panagariya locates the cause for this in India's growth process being dominated by capital- and skill-intensive sectors. The solution proposed is to make growth more inclusive by better integrating labor and capital, leading to “more effective use of the abundant factor, labor.”

Three observations can be made in relation to this discussion. First, on growth measurement, it is unclear why growth in current dollar terms is emphasized over growth in real rupees, which is more relevant for the standard of living. Given India's growth slowdown since 2017–18, the prospect of sustaining near double-digit real growth remains uncertain. Second, on lessons from other countries, drawing comparisons with China or South Korea on low-skill labor-intensive export-oriented industrialization may be misguided, as global supply chains have changed dramatically, with margins in the pure manufacturing segment decimated by the early movers. India may have missed the manufacturing bus, and, as recently argued by Rajan and Lamba (2023), future growth may need to pivot from “brawn to brain” by focusing on high-value direct service exports and new manufacturing-embedded-service products for both domestic and foreign markets that leverage emerging technologies. Third, Panagariya's discussion omits several critical challenges that are instrumentally or intrinsically important, such as environmental degradation, climate change adaptation, energy transition, rising inequality, governance issues, quality of human capital formation (education and health care), and transparency of reliable data. Each of these opens up a large reform agenda, without addressing which it is difficult to see how the optimistic visions for India's economic future could be realized.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.90
自引率
2.60%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: The goal of the Asian Economic Policy Review is to become an intellectual voice on the current issues of international economics and economic policy, based on comprehensive and in-depth analyses, with a primary focus on Asia. Emphasis is placed on identifying key issues at the time - spanning international trade, international finance, the environment, energy, the integration of regional economies and other issues - in order to furnish ideas and proposals to contribute positively to the policy debate in the region.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信