Aim Long Term For A Strong Currency

 

Strong currencies reflect strong economies.

Shyam Ponappa   |   December 3, 2020

Is a strong currency not desirable for India? There seems to be broad acceptance that a declining rupee is essential for exports. Is this true long term that it is in India’s interest to have a currency that is consistently losing value? Consider this in the context of our long-term interests.

As exports become more expensive with a stronger currency, sectors relying on wage-rate arbitrage, such as Information Technology Enabled Services and labour-intensive manufacturing, will suffer reduced margins, or may even become unviable. Such activities ideally need policy support for transition where feasible to more productive alternatives over a reasonable period. These could be for improvements of process and product design, with automation or computer aided processes, as in jewellery, or skills for a different activity. For high-value products, enhanced quality may be needed to deliver perceived value.

The Indian rupee has depreciated against the US Dollar continuously on average from 1980, except for 1992-95 when it traded between Rs 30-33 to the dollar, and 2003-2011 when it was Rs 44-48. This reflects the relative strength of the economies and market sentiments, with the US having been a more productive economy, with lower inflation.

Excluding countries dependent entirely on natural resource endowments, such as oil, or attributes such as being a tax haven, strong currencies reflect strong economies. Examples are the US dollar, euro, British pound, Japanese yen, Swiss franc, Chinese yuan, and Singapore dollar. The relative weakness of economies is likewise reflected in weak and depreciating currencies. High inflation or internal contention and turmoil undermine the strength of an economy, and the currency usually depreciates.

The advantages of a strong and stable currency are that buying power for imports is protected. For India, this is important for containing expenditure for oil and other energy imports, defence procurement, gold, electronics, withdrawals by foreign portfolio investors, external borrowing repayments, imports of raw materials and intermediates used in manufacturing for domestic markets and exports, and for travel. For a given set of items of expenditure, a strong currency gives consumers more disposable income because of reduced costs, and enterprises have higher surpluses from better profit margins.

In the short run, constraints on movement and economic activity during the Covid-19 pandemic led to increasing inflation in food, gold, transport (including higher taxes on petrol, diesel and alcohol), and com­munication.¹ Some analysts suggest an overweight food component may overestimate inflation. The problem arises if there is a stock policy response of raising interest rates now, whereas our circumstances require a facilitation of flows, and not restraints. This also applies to the level of contention through all government action, as against focus on the economy and security/defence to get us through these times. We need our government to focus on facilitation, not contention. Contention reduces productivity, as do all impediments and shortcomings in infrastructure.

Higher Productivity = Higher Growth = Stronger Currency

Longer term, after recovery, is the declining rupee a foregone conclusion? Yes, if we continue with business as usual. Instead, if we work systematically towards focussed changes for growth through productivity, while dealing with emerging market realities of agricultural shocks and wage-push inflation, this could help build a solid recovery and better long-term prospects. Radical improvement in infrastructure will probably enable breakthroughs in productivity. Equally radical changes in organising human resources, and markets (i.e. second-order infrastructure) could further accelerate growth. However, these require choosing appropriate objectives, disciplined teamwork in design and execution, and no disruptive political developments. If we are successful, we will grow faster and the rupee will strengthen.

Infrastructure And The Currency

The rupee will continue to depreciate unless we become more productive and grow faster. India is lagging so badly even among emerging markets that we have to think of doing things differently. 

Krishna Kant, 2020:

https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/india-s-10-year-growth-one-of-the-biggest-laggards-in-asia-em-peers-120113001325_1.html). 

Impro­ved infrastructure is a way to achieve better productivity and higher productivity and growth.Some of our difficulties stem from efforts to contain the pandemic, but the obstacles of poor logistics, power, communications, water and sanitation, have to be surmounted for growth. These services will also enable pursuing higher standards and skills for manufacturing, processes, and emissions control. Poor services and standards are major deterrents to transnationals looking to set up in India or to relocate here.² For pharmaceuticals, the government has announced a policy for bulk drug parks and for domestic manufacturing of import-dependent APIs. While additional steps such as anti-dumping duties and targeted manufacturing incentives may be needed, similar systemic initiatives are required for industries such as chemicals, machinery, automotive components, and electronics. All of them need smooth inward and outward logistics for good results.

Illustration: Binay Sinha

In addition, another serious deterrent for transnationals is the unpredictability of policies, and the hurdles encountered by large international investors in India, for example, Vodafone, Amazon, Walmart, Cairn, major automobile manufacturers, and so on, including in resolving contracts and disputes.

Targetted steps are required on the lines suggested in the previous citation and in the next,³ such as global anchor investors for priority industries, in the way that Suzuki was to automobile manufacturing, with nodal government coordination, not harassed and impeded, but nurtured to ensure success. Such initiatives need to be explored and evaluated, and if feasible implemented for select industries. Exports cannot be successful without imports at low tariffs, because of global value chains. There is also the issue of finance including scale, and finally, purchase orders, especially for manufactured products. Government’s enthusiasm for start-ups is not sustained at the next phase with purchase orders and funding for commercial scale, once start-ups are past venture rounds. This leaves promising manufacturing enterprises floundering, and unable to scale up.

Export capabilities need to be developed and built on scale, adapting policies in other emerging economies such as Bangladesh and Vietnam. While Vietnam has the advantage of proximity to China, its steps to build capacity need study and consideration, as also for Bangladesh. We should aim to build India’s export capabilities over time, to contribute to a strong economy and more stable currency.

---

Shyam dot Ponappa at gmail dot com

1: a) Remya Nair, 2020: https://theprint.in/economy/its-not-just-food-prices-covid-pandemic-has-also-helped-push-inflation-to-7-6-in-india/546473/

b): Dharmakirti Joshi & Adish Varma, 2020: https://www.crisil.com/content/dam/crisil/our-analysis/views-and-commentaries/quickonomics/counterintuit­ive-inflation.pdf

2: Hetal Gandhi & Isha Chaudhary, 2020: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-edit-page/factory-of-the-world-how-india-can-be-a-plus-one-destination-while-reducing-dependence-on-china/

3: Ajay Srivastava, 2020: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-edit-page/from-start-to-port-a-nine-steps-framework-for-making-india-a-great-investment-destination/

Predictability in Infrastructure

Systematic planning and execution can reduce the need for crisis management in infrastructure and manufacturing

Shyam Ponappa  |   November 7, 2013 

Problems related to projects in infrastructure and manufacturing are either predictable or unpredictable. For the type of problem that is more predictable, the "known known", we need to apply ourselves to facilitate productivity across sectors. An example of the unpredictable variety is in the developments dogging the erstwhile Dabhol project.

Until we plan and build infrastructure systematically, our current account deficit will continue to overshadow our economic prospects, including our ability to increase exports. The United States' easy-money policy is no more than a stopgap thumb-in-the-dyke. While unpredictable infrastructure problems require crisis management, no amount of clever short-term measures can substitute for timely, co-ordinated actions that are within the controllable domain. Whether it's power generation and distribution, telecommunications and broadband, the railways, or air travel, any form of infrastructure - apart from exceptions such as the Delhi Metro - suffers from our inability or unwillingness to plan and execute systematically. 

The Unpredictable: Dabhol


Consider the continuing, unforeseen problems with the Dabhol project. This power plant with a separate liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal nearby is going through yet another crisis. The owner and operator is Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited, owned by public sector units, the state and banks. This joint venture - between the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC), Gas Authority of India Ltd (GAIL), the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, and some banks - was constituted to pick up the pieces after Enron. Yet, the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (called MahaVitaran), after taking most of the plant's output, is significantly behind on payments. Second, after the drop in gas production by the supplier, Reliance Industries' KG D-6, gas supplies have been reduced and are now cut off. The plant has been running well below capacity because of limited gas supply since 2012. Imported gas prices are so high that the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd refuses to buy power at prices nearly double that of domestic gas, so the plant may have to be shut down.

There we have it: a potentially valuable asset providing a critical resource, electricity, with a substantial, untidy set of problems that have dragged on for a decade. It's ironic that desperately needed energy assets were shut down because the output was deemed too expensive at first and then restarted without the "rapacious" private sector - only to run short of fuel, with state payments in arrears, and now close to another shutdown. This kind of problem needs hard decisions like getting state entities to pay on time, and the capacity to devise creative solutions and co-ordinated execution to tide over the crisis in the long-term public interest. Unless we muster the resolve to deal with such unforeseen, unstructured problems through hard decisions, Dabhol will continue to sap national resources.

Yet, when Chandrababu Naidu as chief minister in Andhra Pradesh dared to attempt rational tariff increases in 2004, the electorate swept him aside for the populists, who gleefully reverted to unsustainable free electricity and other handouts. More recently, the Aam Aadmi Party's plank in Delhi's state elections included lower-priced electricity, triggering another unsustainable race to the bottom. But there is a public outcry against accepting hard decisions in governance - and a consequent political unwillingness to deal with them, or to display the leadership to create public awareness. Raucous public opinion is not a substitute for knowledgeable and informed inputs and judgement. Until we break out of this self-abasing, illogical spiral of seeking instant gratification or short-term gains over balanced, reasoned, deferred gratification, the race to the bottom will continue.

Predictable Infrastructure: Telecom, Power, Railways, Airlines…

There's the other kind of problem, the one that is amenable to forward-planning, but doesn't seem to get it. The kind that it is impossible to put in place without comprehensive, integrated planning and execution. The classic cases from the 1990s have been telecom and power. 

In telecom, the recent emergence of three national operators with smaller, localised successes reaffirms the oligopolistic structure of this sector. Three operators account for 67 per cent of the market in India, 82 per cent in Brazil, 90 per cent in the US, and 98 per cent in the UK; in China, two operators have 99 per cent. If policymakers accept this principle regarding market structure, the refrain that more competition is always better can be jettisoned in favour of delivery and results, with the objectives of quality services at reasonable prices. Once the focus is on these objectives, the primacy of delivering services over collecting government revenues becomes apparent, except from narrow "fiscal deficit" considerations. The point is that planning and project management have to be done upfront to be effective, and are much less powerful when retrofitted to problematic situations, as in stranded power generation or telecom services.

However, even with the best of intentions and skills, there can be mistakes requiring course correction in predictable processes. A good example is South Korea's adoption of WiMAX and the attempted creation of their own standard, WiBro. While successful initially, it turned out to be inferior to a newer technology, LTE. What South Korea has done after evaluating its alternatives is to abandon WiBro in favour of LTE. This is the approach and capacity that we must strive to cultivate. To be unafraid to commit - but equally, unafraid to retract and change tack if and when a choice proves inappropriate. 

By recommending reduced reserve prices in auctions, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India has indicated for the first time that delivery and price may be acceptable as concomitant goals alongside government revenues. Meanwhile, the department of telecommunications is reportedly considering lower levies on operators, although insisting on higher reserve prices, perhaps because of the finance ministry and/or public opinion. What is unclear is how public opinion will react to the focus on delivery and price. Contrarily, it favours auctions of inputs like coal mines and spectrum, but lower tariffs for power and telecom/broadband; auctions will have the opposite effect. Populists are more likely to go with public opinion, instead of analysing and resolving logical contradictions.

Every situation need not result in a crisis and firefighting. Systematically addressing end-to-end processes beforehand with those involved and experts can help in the resolution of a large set of predictable processes in areas like infrastructure and manufacturing.

---

shyam (no space) ponappa at gmail dot com