- “Each of these imbalances is important and needs to be rectified. One has to do with the differing levels of per-capita consumption of basic public goods and services. The other has to do with the differing levels of stock of infrastructure leading the differential growth accelerating potential development. These are two distinct policy goals and following Tinbergen Principle warrants two distinct policy instruments. Eliminating the Planning Commission and replacing this with NITI Aayog merely as a think tank leaves us with only one instrument; namely Finance Commission. This approach if not reviewed can lead to a serious problem of increasing regional and sub-regional inequities.
Who better than Dr. Vijay Kelkar to tell us more about Niti Aayog 2.0? You might want to look up the Tinbergen Principle if you do not know about it already. (Via Mostly Economics)
- “Last year, at the end of the summer melting season, the team drew lines on the stakes marking the height of the ice, as researchers have done here for decades. Now, looking at a stake nearly a year later, Nikolay Kasatkin, one of the institute researchers, and Dr. Shahgedanova saw that more of the wood was visible. With the end of melting still a couple of months off, parts of the Tuyuksu were already about three feet thinner.”
The NYT does excellent work tracking climate change, and this article is only the latest in a long string of articles entirely worth reading. Best viewed on a desktop.
- “ICICI directors shouldn’t get a free pass from regulators. Otherwise, they’ll just show up at other boards, perpetuating a culture of CEO worship that’s at odds with their role as stewards of public shareholders. Indian investors deserve better.”
Andy Mukherjee doesn’t mince words while talking about the lack of oversight at the board level in ICICI Bank. What might the situation be like at other banks in India?
- “It can be easy to think of a calendar as a scientific given, or a reflection of the laws of the universe. In fact, as these holidays remind us, there are as many ways to track time as there are cultures and languages. Each calendar reveals something about how the people who created it relate to the world around them while also preserving rich cultural identities and memories.”
A nice read from the NYT about the way different cultures track time – as it turns out, there are many ways to measure it – the lunar and the solar calendars happen to be just two of them.
- “India’s first education policy was framed in 1968 based on the famed Kothari Commission report, the second in 1986 and the third—a revision of the 1986 policy—in 1992.The official cited above said it’s not as if the previous policies were implemented quickly. In fact, making eight years of education compulsory was part of the 1968 policy but it was implemented only in 2009 through the Right to Education Act.”
A depressing read, particularly for me, but the state of India’s NEP today mirrors much of India’s inaction on this in the past.
- “We probably would not have planes, trains, or automobiles if we had insisted on today’s safety levels during the early days of those technologies’ development—likewise, we should have laxer safety standards for new emerging technologies.”
Worth reading this for many reasons. Don’t miss the bit about the need to change ideological commitments on the basis of rationally-arrived-at conclusions, for example. But that excerpt above is a great way to understand the concept of, and the importance of, opportunity cost.
- “I want to make it clear that although enriched environment dominated the 20th century, IQ gains are not destined to persist like the law of gravity. Factors that were immediate triggers of IQ gains included more adults per child in the home, more and better schooling, more people at university, more cognitively demanding jobs, and better health and conditions of the aged. There are signs that these are beginning to show diminishing returns.”
The Flynn effect is one of the more interesting things you can learn about – and having learnt about it, it might interest you to know that the Flynn Effect may now be reversing.
- “They’re having a fight about the wall except the wall is the English Channel: half of these people want to turn the English Channel into a wall to keep out their version of the Mexicans.”
An interview with Anand Giridharadas about the perils of philanthropy. Worth reading, not necessarily to agree with everything he has to say, but to think about was in which he may be right.
- “So, for example, if people don’t take into account the macro consequences of their borrowing, then they could borrow collectively at the same time, which might be rational from an individual perspective but that collective borrowing leads to future problems such as a foreclosure problem that has spillovers for everyone in the economy. When people borrow individually, they may not take into account those spillovers. And so, again, from a macro perspective, people might over-borrow.For all of these reasons, a possible result conceptually is that if and when credit expands, it is possible for households to over-borrow, to overstretch from a macro kind of social perspective. And that over-borrowing, that overstretching during the boom phase of the credit cycle, can then come back to hurt on the downside and lead to a deeper recession than it would otherwise have been.”
This much is straightforward for a student of macroeconomics – but the rest of the interview with Atif Mian is worth reading for how he teases out the mechanisms of thinking about the follow-up questions in the context of today’s economy. If you want to learn how to think like a macro-economist, this interview will help.
This will be an intertwined, five part series, born out of a rabbit hole I fell into, and spent an evening over.
- “As we try to understand the world of the next three decades, we will desperately need economics but also political science, sociology, psychology, and perhaps even literature and philosophy. Students of each should retain some element of humility. As Immanuel Kant said, “Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.””
Fareed Zakaria isn’t too impressed with the state of economics today, and says that a more holistic approach is needed. Holistic is a fancy-schmancy word that is far too over-used – but essentially, his point is we need to read wider (ahem), and be rather more aware of the fact that math is way overrated.
- “Managing globalization, supporting a healthy middle class in an era of artificial intelligence, and incentivizing the preservation of the planet must be among the central challenges, if not the central challenges, of our era. If not from economic analysis, it is hard to see where resolutions will come from. Everyone, whether they like economics and economists, or whether they resent and distrust current economics, has a stake in the discipline being relevant and successful going forward.”
Yes, but what about the opportunity cost of abandoning economic theory? That in effect, is what Larry Summers says in this essay, penned in response to the original. Sure, economics has its flaws, and sure, it has had to evolve over time, but surely that is a good thing?
- “The problem, however, is that there is also the unprofessional How Tax Reform Will Lift the Economy: We believe the Republican bills could boost GDP 3% to 4% long term by reducing the cost of capital. It seems that every Yellen is offset by Holtz-Eakin, every Rajan by a Taylor, every Shiller by a Barro, every Krugman by a Boskin, and so on. And how is a Fareed Zakaria or a Binyamin Appelbaum supposed to disinguish those who have knowledge from those who have only ideology, or indeed from those who can and do switch their approval and disapproval of policies on and off upon changing demands from changing political masters?”
Well, yeah, maybe, says Brad DeLong, in response to the question posed by Larry Summers above, but Fareed may have a point, still. Economists are nowhere near as consistent as they ought to be, and that ought to count against us.
- “Rather than suggesting coherent policies, Moore and Laffer seem to hope that a much more rapidly growing economy will provide the resources to address all these problems, and they seem to believe that this growth will follow ineluctably from the lower taxes and deregulation that lie at the heart of Trump’s agenda. It would be wonderful if that were possible. Maybe rah-rah partisans really believe it is. But more likely, it is just wishful thinking. ”
N. Gregory Mankiw highlights some of the problems that Brad DeLong gets so upset about in a wonderfully provocative article.
- “On the other hand, economists do turn out to know quite a lot: they do have some extremely useful models, usually pretty simple ones, that have stood up well in the face of evidence and events.”
Paul Krugman, who writes as well as anybody else, ever, in the field of economics – if not better – makes the point that simple economic models are surprisingly easy to understand and teach, and they work.
- “If there is one number that can make the edifice of budgetary arithmetic collapse and impair the growth prospects, it is the movement of crude oil prices. If for nothing else, but simply reduce the vulnerability of the fisc, this should be done. For, it is the “resource deficit” of the country which is the single biggest threat to sustained growth of 9%”
How might a new age budget look like? Haseeb Drabu takes a look at the ways – five of them. You’ll be reading this by the time the budget has come out, of course, but it still makes sense to read this in order to think about how the budget needs to be structured.
- “The 0.9 per cent year-on-year (YoY) growth in the adjusted net profit of 385 companies, which have released their results for the third quarter (Q3) of the current financial year so far, does not inspire much confidence. If financials and energy companies are removed from the sample, net profit has grown 6.4 per cent in Q3 — the worst performance in five quarters.”
I’d recommend that you read this article to either get a sense of how to judge the macroeconomic environment (partially!) on the basis of stock market performance, or even better, if you are new to finance, read this with an Investopedia tab open alongside.
- “Passenger vehicle sales in China fell for the first time last year since the early 1990s due to a cut to government tax breaks and wider economic sluggishness. Hyundai, which was once the third-largest automaker in China together with Kia, is now sorting out overcapacity as its sales in China have not picked up much since being hit by the anti-Korean consumer backlash in 2017.”
The FT provides additional information on the slowdown in China – and the link on the anti-Korean backlash is also worth reading.
- “From the start of 2012 to the end of 2016, China produced nearly three times as much cement as the US did in the entire 20th century.Much of that investment has gone to waste. A recent study by China’s Southwestern University of Finance and Economics estimates that more than one in five Chinese homes in urban areas, or about 65m apartments, are empty. And if demography is destiny, China’s prospects are bleak. Between 1980 and 2012, China added about 380m people to its working-age population. But that number has been shrinking for the past five years and is expected to fall by a third, or about 220m people, in the next three decades.”
More grist to the China recession mill, from the FT. The numbers are truly breathtaking – especially that quote about cement!
- “China’s fertility rate has officially fallen to 1.6 children per woman, but even that number is disputed. Yi Fuxian, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, has written that China’s government has obscured the actual fertility rate to disguise the disastrous ramifications of the “one child” policy. According to his calculations, the fertility rate averaged 1.18 between 2010 and 2018.”
The NYT picks up from where the FT left off, and tells us about the impending population crisis in China – that there may soon be too few people in China, not too many.
This made my day. Via MR:
We’ve been speaking about growth in our series this month, and we’ve learnt that measuring growth is both important and tricky. But remember, by definition, growth by itself is meaningless unless you ask about time. That is, it isn’t much to say that something grew. How long did it take for it to grow is an equally important question!
The fancy-pants way of saying this is is to say that growth is a flow concept. What that really means is, we measure something per unit of time. If we measure something at a point of time, we call it a stock concept. Stocks and flows – keep those concepts in mind, because they keep recurring in economics.
All right, so growth is a flow concept, and we need to think about growth in terms of time. Fair enough: how long is appropriate? A month? A year? A decade? Even longer, or even shorter?
As it turns out, there is no right answer to this question. Think about a baby being taken to her pediatrician. The parents will naturally be anxious to find out if their child is growing normally, which means they want to know more about the long term growth prospects for their baby. Will she, five, ten, fifteen years down the line, be as tall as her peers, or not? What about her weight? These, and other questions, are long term questions – we’re talking years, not decades.
But hey, the parent’s might have bought in the baby because she’s running a temperature. In this case, the parents want to find out if their child will have a temperature tomorrow or not. These kind of questions are short-term questions.
Similarly, economists think about what India’s economy will look like next month, but also worry about whether we will be developed by 2030. We can’t be developed if we don’t grow in any month between now and 2030, so the monthly prognosis is important. But the long term prognosis also allows us to make corrections whose impact will be felt only in the long run.
For example, reducing interest rates today will impact financial markets tomorrow directly. But deciding to build a network of highways across the country is a multi-year project whose impact will take time to materialize, and will then be felt for many years at a stretch.
And so when we think about growth, we’re thinking about both the long term, and the short term, India growth story. It helps, however, to be very clear about the whether the precise economic problem we’re dealing with needs long term thinking, or short term thinking, or both.
Interest rate changes by the RBI? Short run policy. The Union Budget, announced every year? Short run policy. Plans by the Niti Aayog to electrify every village by 2020? Long term policy.
Such it goes.
Our first video spoke about the contrasting growth experiences of South Korea and India over time, and wondered why the experiences were so different.
We haven’t answered that question yet, although we shall begin to, in just a little while. But in order to understand the question itself better, we’ve put together a series of articles. The horizontal axis on the wealth and health chart compares GDP per capita, adjusted for inflation and adjusted for PPP. And compares this metric for many countries over 200 years.
What’s GDP, what’s inflation and what’s PPP? Three questions, requiring three separate blog posts. There’s one on understanding what GDP is all about, one on making sense of inflation, and now this one, on PPP.
PPP stands for Purchasing Power Parity. If inflation adjustment allows you to compare data across time, then PPP adjustment allows you to compare data across space. What exactly does this mean, and why is it necessary?
How many rupees will one dollar get you today? Or, to speak in the language of financial markets, what is the rupee-dollar exchange rate? Well, rounding off for convenience, it is about 65 rupees per dollar. Give me one dollar, and I’ll happily trade you around 65 rupees for it.
But, and here’s the important question, will one dollar in America buy me the same things that 65 rupees does in India? I can walk into a roadside barber shop in India and get a shave for roughly that amount. But a shave from a barber in America will quite easily cost ten times as much, maybe more – I’m informed that it is around ten dollars for a shave in America, excluding tips.
So yes, one dollar may trade for sixty five rupees, but these two amounts don’t purchase the same things in both countries. There isn’t, in other words, parity (sameness) in the purchasing power of sixty five rupees in India and one dollar in America.
And that’s a problem, right? Because if sixty five rupees buys for you rather more than does one dollar, then that exchange rate is slightly misleading. So what is to be done?
What economists do is the following: they come up with a basket of goodsFOOTNOTE: Footnote that is more or less the same across countries, and ask: how many units of local currency will be required to buy this basket? Let’s say it is x rupees to buy this basket of goods in India, and y dollars to buy it in America.
x/y then becomes the PPP adjusted exchange rate.
That’s the simple version, and the real story is rather more complicated, but this is what PPP is – ignore the exchange rate, and adjust for the purchasing power of the two currencies. What this allows you to do is compare GDP per capita numbers across countries – which is what Gapminder is showing us in that first video.