Sometime back,
we have had a nationwide debate on whether or not to use the surging foreign
exchange reserves that are lying idle for infrastructure development in the
country. One section of the economists led by the Planning Commission,
believing that the current level of foreign exchange reserves is pretty good to
meet the import requirements and all other external payment obligations of the
country for more than normally accepted periods, and as maintenance of reserves
of such magnitude is costing the country dearly, opined that usage of foreign
exchange reserves to augment infrastructure development in the country is a
viable alternative.
As usual, there
is another school of economists who argued that using Forex reserves for
infrastructure development is not a prudent act, for usage of short-term funds
for long-term purposes that too, for investments which do not ordinarily
generate foreign exchange earnings, can create liquidity crisis should FIIs
withdraw their investments from the capital market. In support of their
argument, they even cited the 1997 East Asian crisis.
They have
another argument, which is very fundamental in nature and thus merits
everyone’s attention: the current level of poor private investment in
infrastructure project is not due to lack of funds but more because of lack of
clarity in our policy initiatives. How else, they questioned, can we explain
the high inflows of private capital into sectors like telecom while little or
nothing has flown into roads, power transmission, etc. And they did have a
point to make.
Probably,
infrastructure sectors such as roads, power generation and transmission, etc.,
are not making business sense to private investors, either due to frequent
shifts in our policy stances or the embedded social obligations of those
projects, where non-enforceability of toll collection on all, free supply of
power to certain sections, etc., is in vogue. In other words, what is being
argued is that it is not lack of funds, but the conducive “atmospherics” that
is holding back private investments to flow into infrastructure.
They have
another question: What is the big difference between committing fresh
investment for infrastructure development through deficit financing and using
forex reserves, for both are known to result in increased money circulation in
the system and any increase in money supply will eventually result in increased
prices. Hence, they strongly refuted the idea of using Forex reserves for infrastructure
development, and thus the idea was shelved.
Now, suddenly,
the Finance Ministry has again raised the idea of using Forex reserves that
today stand at $160 bn for infrastructure development. This sounds pretty
encouraging, for the 8% growth rate that we have achieved during the last three
years is making heavy demand for augmenting infrastructure in the country.
We must, for
once, come out of the text-book mould and give a trail to what David Hume once
said: “In every kingdom into which money begins to flow in greater abundance
than formerly, every thing takes a new face: Labor and industry gain life; the
merchant becomes more enterprising; the manufacturer more diligent and
skillful, and even the farmer follows his plough with greater alacrity and
attention. This is not easily to be accounted for.” He is of the firm
conviction that money supply stimulates industrial as well as labor activity as
money integrates less monetized and less developed areas with more developed
regions of the economy. He therefore advocated a policy of “keeping alive a
spirit of industry and increasing stock of labor in which consists all real
power and riches”. Hence, he concludes: “Although the absolute quantity of
money is a matter of great indifference, there are only two circumstances of
any importance: Namely, the gradual increase (of money supply), and its
thorough concoction and circulation through the state.”
Today, we are
endowed with more reserves, better skilled labor, and a more robust economy,
and an all pervading “can-do” confidence in the country to consciously practice
expansionary fiscal policies for sustaining the growth rate that we have
achieved in the recent past, if not to give it a further boost. And today, all
the economists are in agreement that infrastructure in the country must be
augmented.
So long as the
deficit is not for hiking government employees’ salaries, it cannot become that
bad—even if such investing in infrastructure leads to temporary price rise it
should be endured for “tomorrows” will be brighter. Such a bold initiative is
bound to result in economic transformation of the society. Even otherwise,
there is a substantial difference in augmenting infrastructure through direct
government borrowings and borrowings against foreign exchange reserves through
a special purpose vehicle: The former by virtue of becoming a part of budget
results in monetization while the latter becomes a contingent liability.
All things
considered particularly, the encouraging phenomenon of falling fiscal deficit
at the center and the 8% economic growth rate that we have been witnessing for
the last couple of years that, too, due to structural factors rather than
cyclical elements, it is time we take out-of-box decisions. We can no way sit
quiet and watch for things to fall in place.
So, let us act, and act quickly, for the idea is already a year-old.
(February, 2007)
0 comments:
Post a Comment