One of the most ambitious plans to emerge from India’s recently announced Union budget was the government’s proposal to privatize state-owned companies in the coming years. This is an important step in India’s programme of reforms to achieve long-term sustainable growth.
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]
As Prime Minister put it recently, the government would be less involved in the business of business, and asset monetization and privatization will empower Indian citizens, enhance India’s infrastructure, and increase economic efficiency.
Since the 1980s, many countries have gone down the privatization path. Proponents of such an agenda believe it makes companies and sectors more efficient and competitive, to the ultimate benefit of consumers.
Critics, on the other hand, argue that privatization can lead to job losses, and, in some cases, higher costs for the public.
There is no single privatization model that fits all, but we have seen many success stories in other countries that demonstrate how privatization is beneficial to the long-term growth and sustainability of companies as well as the country, and the Indian government deserves to be commended for its plan.
In Japan, the national railway system, Japanese National Railways (JNR), had been operating with big losses each year before its privatization began in 1987. This programme eventually broke the company up into six regional passenger rail companies and one freight rail company (‘JR companies’). More than three decades later, JNR’s privatization is widely viewed as a success.
The bulk of Japan’s railway network operates without a government subsidy and the fares have remained largely unchanged. Before the covid pandemic hit, all three top regional JR operators were consistently profitable. Privatization has allowed railway operators to determine their capital investment and business development plans, with many Japanese railway firms expanding their operations into other areas, including real estate, supermarkets and hotels.
Another example of the benefits of privatization is asset recycling: the government monetizes existing infrastructure assets through their sale to the private sector, and then invests the proceeds in new projects or long-term investment funds.
This is particularly important as countries around the world look to rebuild their economies after the pandemic. India has recently announced a national asset monetization pipeline to fund much-needed infrastructure and welfare schemes.
Consider the example of Australia, which has been a leader in asset recycling. The country’s asset-recycling initiative provided material top-up incentives from the federal government for state governments to re-invest asset sale proceeds in new infrastructure, and helped kick-start several major projects involving over A $15 billion of new infrastructure spending, including the Sydney Metro train project.
Australian state governments have also used asset privatization to gain long-term balance sheet stability and offset debt. CPP Investments was part of a consortium to purchase a stake in the WestConnex toll road in Sydney when the New South Wales state government sold 51% of its holding in 2018.
The sale generated A$9.3 billion in proceeds for the government, A$7 billion of which was used to seed a new long-horizon state investment fund to reduce state debt and finance projects for community services and facilities. The New South Wales state government is now looking to sell its remaining stake in WestConnex, the proceeds of which will also go into the state’s investment fund and enable future infrastructure projects needed to speed up a post-pandemic recovery.
As noted earlier, one of the biggest concerns many have with privatization is that it could lead to job losses. Different research reports over the past 20 years have shown that business restructuring exercises after privatization did initially lead to job losses.
However, once privatization plans were fully implemented, new entrants to these markets increased the demand for labour and ultimately lowered overall unemployment. By allowing the private sector to take over the heavy lifting, attract new capital and increase business efficiency, privatization also ensures that businesses are more sustainable, creating an environment where they can grow, invest and create jobs well into the future.
Another criticism of privatization is the likelihood of higher costs borne by consumers. However, privatization is often accompanied by market deregulation, which introduces market competition that results in lower prices. A case in point is the telecom deregulation done in many countries.
In Hong Kong, for instance, the government fully liberalized its telecom market in 2003 after several years of deregulation. In the first few years of deregulation, customers saved an estimated total of over US$3 billion on international calls as a result of competition. Today, Hong Kong is one of the most competitive telecom markets globally. According to the International Telecommunications Union, it offered some of the world’s most affordable mobile service plans in 2020.
India, like many countries around the world, has been hit by covid, but has shown great resilience and is rolling out an ambitious vaccination programme. Its economic recovery will be bumpy and require investment. The privatization of state-owned companies over the years could provide the funds needed to rebuild the economy and allocate money to areas of effort where it is needed most.
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.