Book review: Fixing the system: Financial Express 19th October 2025

 For a person who has been tracking Indian polity and economy for about eight decades, Shashi Budhiraja brings out a rather hard-hitting book on India’s progress, titled The Governance Gap. As the title suggests he points out the gaps in our political and economic systems based on facts and data and devoid of emotion. The political superstructure needs reforms that can come only from within, as people design the systems that they ultimately operate. The economic scenario needs improvement, which can be done provided we get the political ideology right, which is hence a circular puzzle. Yet, he is very optimistic about the future of India.

The book is partly a narrative of developments in various sectors since independence, along with his commentary on them. While these facts are well known, putting them together cogently with deep analysis is what makes Budhiraja’s book stand out.

Let’s start at the beginning. Yes, India has had fair elections since we started our democratic journey, which is something that we can be happy about, given how democracies have tended to wilt at different points of time. However, he points out that over time elections are driven significantly by money power and the majority of those who get elected have high levels of wealth. Moreover, given that up to over 40% of legislators have a criminal background does not bode well for a democracy.

The same degradation gets reflected in the quality of proceedings in both Parliament and state legislatures. Backed by data he shows how the number of sessions have come down, with most of the time spent in heckling one another, thus making meaningful debates impossible. Due to paucity of time it has been pointed out that even serious policies like the Budget have been passed without any discussion. He brings up an imperative point when he says that criminality and corruption are now well permeated in the legislature. This, he points out, holds true for all parties and none have been an exception, which is worrisome.

In the same vein, he highlights the challenges of governance. As criminality and corruption dominate elections, the winning set of parties have to accommodate all winning candidates. This has led to larger jumbo-sized ministries with several ministries being split to keep all parties happy. Coalition politics makes it expedient to do so. Yet, in recent times, he observes that the PMO has become even more important, with several decisions being taken without the ministries concerned being taken into confidence. This has actually meant that while there can be ministries and ministers, the power lies right up at the PMO. He gives examples of major revolutionary policies like the response to Covid or even demonetisation, which were all decided at the highest level. Also, there have also been conflicts in federalism. While the Finance Commission ensures there is distribution of income based on a formula, the process of allocations has been questioned by states as those that do well get fewer funds.

In the same vein he also has spoken of how the judiciary had to get involved even four to five decades back with constitutionally elected governments being dismissed. The problem at the judicial level can be seen by the number of pending cases. The courts are understaffed and vacancies pending for several years, which makes it hard to deliver speedy justice.

Lastly, on the political front, he discusses the touchy subject of reservations. These numbers can go up to 60% in several states. The politics in play is the inclusion of various categories of people under reservations for political gains. This is totally against the ethos of the concept when they were introduced. When we read on this subject almost every year in the media, one can sense the author’s angst as the issue has become fully political in most states, with every party supporting groups from where votes can be garnered.

Quite clearly these cogs need to be removed as India moves towards becoming a developed nation. The author then analyses progress in the economy with a historical perspective. The issues highlighted are agriculture, education, health and workforce. Rather than talking of the achievements in sectors such as manufacturing or services, which most books do, Budhiraja directly focuses on areas that need to be addressed.

India’s progress in agriculture has been remarkable, but in the past few decades it has slipped, with greater dependence on subsidies, resulting in overuse of fertilisers affecting the quality of soil. Clearly, the progress we made at the time of Green Revolution is not sustaining of late, and politics again has focused on issues like subsidies and loan waivers. This has resulted in little incentive at the farmer level to become more productive.

The issues of health and education are also well known and have to be addressed, as this has led to inequality in the country. The author quotes several standard publications to show that there is a lot of work to be done on this front.

While demographic advantage is definitely a strength, we often harp on this without paying attention to skilling the workforce, which starts with education. Mere enrolment does not help and we need to have more teachers and better administration of the curriculum to change the structure.

The fact that the bottom 50% own just 15% of income in the country means that development has missed a large section of the population. While growth at the macro level has been impressive without taking this section along, one can imagine the high potential if there is greater inclusion.

What one can conclude from this book is that India can become better. There has to be more political determination to improve social indicators, which is the route to foster equality. The political superstructure, however, still remains in suspension, and the author says things have not exactly improved over time. Clearly, it is the people that matter and there is need for a larger change to take place.

The Governance Gap: Unlocking India’s Superpower Potential

Shashi Budhiraja 
Edited by 
Rajeev Budhiraja
Rupa Publications

Pp 296, Rs 695

The importance of innovation: Financial Express 14th October 2025

 

he future of growth models will be driven by innovation, and this is both a challenge and an opportunity, as reflected in this year’s economics Nobel winners

The story of Kodak is now well-known to all—how the leader in the business of cameras became outdated. The same story was witnessed in areas such as music, where cassettes gave way to CDs that have now been replaced by the virtual delivery of content. Businesses built on these edifices have closed or had to innovate to remain viable. A similar wave can be seen in the electric vehicle or renewable spaces where the future of a petrol-driven car can be uncertain given how the world is moving. The oil-producing nations are cognisant of these change.

At a more macro level, AI has swarmed all businesses, and everyone is trying to balance its use with the given skill sets. Job losses are being spoken of in hushed tones. This is something which was never envisaged and jobs done by AI—starting from a rudimentary search on the Internet—have changed the way in which business operates. What does all this mean?
The future of growth models will be driven by innovation, and this is both a challenge and an opportunity. This is what Joel Mokyr, Philippe Aghion, and Peter Howitt have studied for decades. Their work on the subject has been rewarded with the Nobel Prize in Economics this year.

The role of innovation in driving economic growth is not new, though its importance is greater today. Innovation was also highlighted by economists such as Robert Solow who spoke of the importance of technology in getting out of the low-productivity trap. There were limits to productivity of labour and capital, which tended to come down beyond a point. The only way forward was to bring in technology to improve productivity given the same levels of factors of production (land and labour) and eschew the economic process of diminishing returns.

The Nobel winners have worked on this subject more at the macro level with mathematical models showing how progress in terms of growth can be accelerated with the use of innovation. The underlying concept, however, is the same.

Quite significantly, they draw a lot from Joseph Schumpeter’s concept of creative destruction where a natural process for obsolescence comes in. Economic evolution begins with inventions that take countries by storm, just like the Industrial Revolution did in the mid-19th century. But, after a point of time, there is a tendency to imitate where it becomes difficult to distinguish superiority or quality of products. Thus, monopolies turn to what economists call “imperfect competition”. With innovation, there would be a natural process of creative destruction—those who innovate move ahead, while the others wither away. This engenders subsequent growth cycles, seen when innovative products in automobiles, electronics, engineering, etc. replace existing ones. Innovation has driven the East Asian story or the ascent of China. The same held for Japan in the ’60s and ’70s and the Asian tigers subsequently..

Mokyr, Aghion, and Howitt did not just stop at these principles but also emphasised the role of the state. This is critical because countries need to have systems that encourage such creative processes. For that, countries need to invest a lot in R&D which can happen if there are high savings. Mokyr specifically spoke of distinguishing between what he called propositional knowledge, which is theoretically sound but not practically feasible, and prescriptive knowledge, which is what really works in the real world. So to derive the best results there is a need for support from the financial system that provides funds at competitive interest rates even as cost of experimentation can be high and results uncertain. This is probably why some economies of the West and East have galloped at high growth rates for sustained periods while those in say Africa, or even Latin America, have seen slower progress.

The question that comes up is how India stacks up in this theory of innovation-led growth. Significant strides have been made in several sectors, manifested not just by innovative products and processes but also in start-ups that have leveraged technology to contribute to growth. India is considered a pioneer in start-up founders. Also, in a globalised setting, borrowing technologies is easier than when the world economy was not flat. The fact that Indian manufacturing has done well can be judged from the fact that almost all products that were earlier imported at the consumer end are manufactured within the local economy. Further, with a favourable business environment being created, foreign direct investment has poured in. This has been the most convenient way to bring in innovation as technology comes along with such investment.

Funding too has become universal where besides investment, it is easy to borrow from external sources that can fill the gap in financing innovation. The government has had several schemes that offer direct support to start-ups. In fact, the performance-linked incentive scheme is another incentive provided by the government to encourage innovation and production.

Therefore, the importance of innovation in the growth process is extremely high. This is probably the only way to excel growth. A globalised world makes it easier to borrow both ideas and funds to prune the time taken to grow faster. At the micro level, firms have to constantly innovate as there are always new ones with new ideas that have an advantage over legacy companies which find it hard to dislodge outdated shibboleths.

Making sense of stock market in view of a high growth rate: FPJ 13th October 2025

What's behind the new depths being tested by the rupee against a weakening dollar? Mint 8th October 2025

 https://www.livemint.com/opinion/online-views/rupee-vs-us-dollar-exchange-rate-rbi-usd-to-inr-forecast-indian-depreciation-analysis-forex-current-account-deficit-11759732447150.html

Why are pvt investment levels not robust? Financial Express 4th October 2025

 The decibel levels calling for the private sector to invest more have gone up ever since the goods and services tax (GST) rates were rationalised. The argument is that when the government has done everything within its powers to increase consumption and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has cut rates by 100 basis points, it is time for the private sector to deliver. It is expected that the private sector will respond by investing more, which, by itself, will help generate more jobs and thereby initiate a new virtuous cycle of spending. While this is a logical expectation, the real world could be different.

Investment is surely happening in the country—the gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) rate is at around 30%. But the proviso here is that it is not broad-based but concentrated in industries that are more aligned with infrastructure—steel, metals, machinery, chemicals, etc. It is also limited to a handful of companies in the consumer goods space. It does look like where there is increasing capex, the government spends at the front end, but there is also a backward linkage to the industries concerned. In the best of times, the GFCF rate was 34-35%, and at the same time growth in GDP also averaged above 8%. Why, then, is investment not forthcoming?

First, companies typically invest when they find robust demand—it is only when this level crosses 80-85% that companies do so. Here, both current as well as future consumption matter. Companies need to see a higher growth trajectory in sales for a prolonged period to go in for fresh investment. This varies across industries and companies as well as across time.
This issue gets tied up with consumption or the ability to consume, which has been hampered a lot by high inflation over the years. While inflation is down presently, household consumption has been affected by cumulative inflation in the past, with income growth not keeping pace. It can be hoped that with the fiscal concessions on both direct and indirect taxes, there would be a turnaround this season.

Second, when companies invest, they always have to evaluate the returns. Hence, the return on capital comes into play. Building capacity financed by leverage involves a cost. There has to be commensurate output and profit for any investment.
This is one reason as to why companies hold back on prospective investment until it is absolutely necessary. Governments, on the other hand, have an outlay specified in the Budget that can be spent once approved. The government doesn’t have to bother about return on capital and the money can be spent—the focus is on achieving targets in terms of project completion. This difference has to be noted as the motivations are different for the two entities.

Third, with interest rates being lowered, logically more projects become viable. This begs the question why the private sector has not yet started investing. But as stated earlier, no company borrows to invest unless there is opportunity. Interest rates are rarely the limiting factor. For instance from 2005-06 to 2012-13, the average GFCF rate was as high as 34% and the repo rate averaged 6.85%. Yet, investment flourished—there was opportunity to invest as growth was buoyant. Therefore, investment decisions are not taken because of interest rates but “need”.

Fourth, the quantum of uncertainty in the economy has increased since April when the tariff issue came up. Until there is greater clarity, several industries—textiles, leather products, engineering, auto components, electronics, pharma, etc.—would not be in a position to invest, especially if there is export orientation.

Lastly, in a sector like real estate, the build-up of inventory has hindered fresh construction. Further, a sub-section in the area of affordable housing has slowed down mainly due to fewer projects being taken up. It is often argued that the value of such houses needs to be increased, given the cumulative inflation. In the absence of such a review, these projects have become non-viable fore realty firms.

All factors taken together, it does appear that building momentum in private investment will take time. It can be expected to gradually pick up across sectors and it may take up to two years for a more definite picture to emerge. The preconditions have been met to a large extent by the government, with affirmative action on taxation. The Centre and states’ commitment to capex does offer favourable conditions for private investment. Interest rates are down, and there could be another rate cut during the course of the year, though indications are the rate cut cycle has ended.

To reach a 33-34% investment level, big investments in infrastructure are needed. This is the main challenge. During 2005-13, when investment boomed, heavy industry was the driver. This segment can provide a big boost to capital formation as the industries in the consumer segment do not require bulky investment. In short, one needs to be more patient.

RBI MPC meet: A pause is most likely: Moneycontrol 30th September 2025

 https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/rbi-mpc-meet-a-pause-is-most-likely-13588571.html

The decision to be taken by the MPC will be interesting for several reasons. There have been several developments since the last policy was announced; and the uncertainty spectre still lingers. The tariff issue is still casting a shadow on global economic prospects. Amidst this environment the government has taken some aggressive steps to support the economy both in terms of aiding growth as well as bringing down prices through GST 2.0. Under these circumstances, one can logically argue for both a rate cut as well as a pause with compelling reasons. Hence, the majority view of the 6 members will be the clinching factor.

In the June policy, it was highlighted when the repo rate and CRR were cut that there are limits to which interest rates can support growth. That is true as no one borrows except if there is a strong reason which is growing demand. Therefore, the stance was changed to neutral indicating that this could be the end of this rate cycle. The bond market reacted with upward movement in the 10-years rate rather than a downward direction which should have been the case with the rate cut.

The GST cuts announced, however, changes the view now. With these cuts expected to raise consumption, there would be a tendency for capacity utilisation to improve leading to higher investment. A rate cut can then be justified on grounds of supporting growth.

The RBI forecast of inflation is quite benign at 3.1% for the year. With the GST cuts there would definitely be a downward revision for the year. As monetary policy is always forward looking, the inflation rate next year will be critical. For Q1FY27, the forecast was 4.9%. This will get moderated by 40 to 50 bps due to the virtual 10% cut in GST across a large basket of commodities; which means that it will be less than 4.5%. At this level, a rate cut can again be justified as inflation will still be within the acceptable limits. The logic here looks fair.

However, on the other side, there are compelling arguments for a pause. First, even at 4.5% inflation next year, the real inflation rate would be just 1%. This is the lower end of the thumb rule assumed for the real repo rate of around 1.5%. (This has never been defined but internal research of RBI had indicated a similar range). Second, heavy flooding in north and south west India has resulted in crop damage. Hence there can be some shock on the food prices front which will be known over the next two months. A pause hence makes sense. Third, a major reason for low inflation numbers is pure base effects which will automatically get reversed in the next cycle in FY27. Will we then be compelled to raise rates? Last, while transmission has taken place completely on the deposits side, there is still ample scope on the lending side. Hence, there should be more time given for such transmission to take place.

On balance, it does look like that a pause in rate cuts is what could be preferred by the MPC this time. Further rate cuts could always be considered whenever required given that the policy comes up every two months. Ideally, a rate cut, if at all is on the cards, should follow a change in stance which will provide the right boost to the bond market.

Liquidity Trap poses policy challenge: Business Line 26th September 2025