The Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom and the presidential race in the United States have shown, among other things, that public distrust of global integration is on the rise. That distrust could derail new trade agreements currently in the works, and prevent future ones from being initiated.
The danger implied by this scenario should not be underestimated. Isolationism and protectionism, if taken too far, would break the trade-based economic engine that has delivered peace and prosperity to the world for decades.
It is difficult for countries – developed and developing alike – to craft trade policies that deliver benefits to all of their people. But just because managing the effects of globalization is difficult does not mean we should throw our hands up and quit.
In the developing world, trade has delivered high growth and technological progress. According to the World Bank, since 1990 trade has helped to halve the number of people living in extreme poverty. But these gains, while impressive, are not necessarily permanent. If high-income countries close themselves – and their consumers – off from global markets, the world’s poorest people will suffer the most.
Trade thrives in an open environment of willing participants acting in good faith and governed by clear rules. Short of this, the forces of globalization can turn cooperation into conflict. That’s why policymakers should focus on four areas.
First, countries should dismantle protectionist measures (unless immediate livelihood concerns are there) they have in place, and make a firm commitment not to implement policies that distort global markets.
Second, countries should come together to update the international rules governing trade to account for changing economic conditions, and effectively implement negotiated agreements.
Third, individual countries and institutions such as the World Trade Organization should work together to eliminate barriers that increase trade costs. In particular, they must abolish agricultural subsidies, remove restrictions on trade in services, improve connectivity, facilitate cross-border trade and investment, and increase trade finance.
Finally, and most important, wealthy countries should support developing countries’ efforts to integrate themselves further into the global economy. Given trade’s record of reducing poverty, this is a moral imperative; it is also indispensable for peace and stability.
To be sure, trade must deliver for all countries and for all people, from factory workers suffering plant closures in Europe or the United States to subsistence farmers trapped in informal economies in Africa and South Asia.
But those who suggest that trade is a zero-sum game are simply avoiding the hard questions: Who should bear the painful dislocation costs from trade and new technologies? What policies will enable dislocated people to pursue new opportunities? How can countries maintain productivity-led growth in an age of frequent and sudden disruption?
The challenges of global integration are not new, but nor can they be ignored. Policymakers should mind the lessons of economic history. Above all, they should bear in mind that even during past periods of rapid technological change, far more people benefited from free and open trade than from protectionist barriers.
No country in today’s world can seal itself off from foreign goods, services, capital, ideas, or people. Instead leaders should foster more commerce to include more people. They can do so by adopting international rules to manage openness and interdependency; establishing stronger social safety nets; investing in innovation, education and skills-training, and infrastructure; and creating a more conducive regulatory environment for businesses and entrepreneurs to foster stronger and more inclusive growth.
No country can deliver long-term prosperity to its people on its own. Closer international cooperation and economic integration is the only way forward.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
Petrol in India is cheaper than in countries like Hong Kong, Germany and the UK but costlier than in China, Brazil, Japan, the US, Russia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, a Bank of Baroda Economics Research report showed.
Rising fuel prices in India have led to considerable debate on which government, state or central, should be lowering their taxes to keep prices under control.
The rise in fuel prices is mainly due to the global price of crude oil (raw material for making petrol and diesel) going up. Further, a stronger dollar has added to the cost of crude oil.
Amongst comparable countries (per capita wise), prices in India are higher than those in Vietnam, Kenya, Ukraine, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Venezuela. Countries that are major oil producers have much lower prices.
In the report, the Philippines has a comparable petrol price but has a per capita income higher than India by over 50 per cent.
Countries which have a lower per capita income like Kenya, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, and Venezuela have much lower prices of petrol and hence are impacted less than India.
“Therefore there is still a strong case for the government to consider lowering the taxes on fuel to protect the interest of the people,” the report argued.
India is the world’s third-biggest oil consuming and importing nation. It imports 85 per cent of its oil needs and so prices retail fuel at import parity rates.
With the global surge in energy prices, the cost of producing petrol, diesel and other petroleum products also went up for oil companies in India.
They raised petrol and diesel prices by Rs 10 a litre in just over a fortnight beginning March 22 but hit a pause button soon after as the move faced criticism and the opposition parties asked the government to cut taxes instead.
India imports most of its oil from a group of countries called the ‘OPEC +’ (i.e, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Russia, etc), which produces 40% of the world’s crude oil.
As they have the power to dictate fuel supply and prices, their decision of limiting the global supply reduces supply in India, thus raising prices
The government charges about 167% tax (excise) on petrol and 129% on diesel as compared to US (20%), UK (62%), Italy and Germany (65%).
The abominable excise duty is 2/3rd of the cost, and the base price, dealer commission and freight form the rest.
Here is an approximate break-up (in Rs):
a)Base Price | 39 |
b)Freight | 0.34 |
c) Price Charged to Dealers = (a+b) | 39.34 |
d) Excise Duty | 40.17 |
e) Dealer Commission | 4.68 |
f) VAT | 25.35 |
g) Retail Selling Price | 109.54 |
Looked closely, much of the cost of petrol and diesel is due to higher tax rate by govt, specifically excise duty.
So the question is why government is not reducing the prices ?
India, being a developing country, it does require gigantic amount of funding for its infrastructure projects as well as welfare schemes.
However, we as a society is yet to be tax-compliant. Many people evade the direct tax and that’s the reason why govt’s hands are tied. Govt. needs the money to fund various programs and at the same time it is not generating enough revenue from direct taxes.
That’s the reason why, govt is bumping up its revenue through higher indirect taxes such as GST or excise duty as in the case of petrol and diesel.
Direct taxes are progressive as it taxes according to an individuals’ income however indirect tax such as excise duty or GST are regressive in the sense that the poorest of the poor and richest of the rich have to pay the same amount.
Does not matter, if you are an auto-driver or owner of a Mercedes, end of the day both pay the same price for petrol/diesel-that’s why it is regressive in nature.
But unlike direct tax where tax evasion is rampant, indirect tax can not be evaded due to their very nature and as long as huge no of Indians keep evading direct taxes, indirect tax such as excise duty will be difficult for the govt to reduce, because it may reduce the revenue and hamper may programs of the govt.