The economic ravages of the pandemic have had an uneven impact and taxation policies continue to be regressive
Background:-
There has been great chatter about a V-shaped recovery for quite a while, ever since the first lockdown following the novel coronavirus pandemic.
A V-shaped recovery is characterised by quick and effective recovery in measures of economic performance after an acute decline in the economy. There is undeniably some type of recovery, but one can hardly label it V-shaped.
The economic ravages of the pandemic have had an uneven impact on different socio-economic groups. The recovery we see today is more K-shaped than V-shaped, with various groups and industries recovering much more rapidly than their counterparts.
Signs from industry
Government taxation policies continue to be regressive, with increased indirect taxes and lower direct taxes placing greater tax incidence on the destitute. The effects of this K-shaped recovery can be observed through the growth and consumption in specific industries.
Two-wheelers represent the economic situation of the lower and middle-class groups and India’s small businesses.
Impact of taxation
Moreover, the taxation policy of the Government, which insists on maintaining indirect taxes on fuel and consumer products while lowering corporate taxes, paints a picture explaining these figures.
The Government had recently raised taxes on textile products from 5% to 12%. While inflation soars, the incomes of the middle and lower-middle-class have at best remained constant.
There is tremendous pressure on the financial stability of these households, which seemingly face a sustained loss in disposable income. Besides, the figures representing those who are employed only partially explain this phenomenon.
On jobs, MGNREGA
Over five million or 50 lakh people lost their jobs in October, according to a Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE) report. Many of those who lost their jobs during this period are likely economically insecure and abstain from non-essential purchases. This, paired with the astronomically high food and fuel prices, delivers a deadly blow pushing families to poverty.
Additionally, it is prudent to look at Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) figures as it acts as a proxy for the informal sector, which employs a large portion of Indians.
Stimulus and growth
Therefore, there seems to be no surprise that the consumption of two-wheelers and other such products has taken a significant hit.
The U.S. and European economies have stimulated the economy bottom-up through unemployment cheques and social welfare schemes.
The economist, John Maynard Keynes, popularised the concept of the money multiplier and the relationship between government stimulus and economic growth.
It fundamentally makes great sense to prioritise those who are more likely to spend (the middle and lower-middle-class) rather than those who have a greater propensity to save. The velocity of money which sustained a significant shock from pandemic lockdowns needs to be kickstarted. Furthermore, the inflation of asset prices over the recovery period helps determine the nature of this recovery.
The recovery in the stock market and other such financial assets over the past year has been phenomenal. However, it is essential to understand that this does not necessarily reflect the economy’s condition as observed previously.
Think welfare schemes
Therefore, as discussed before, their financial situation is worsened due to the rising prices of essential goods. Moreover, the disproportional benefit of the asset price inflation favouring the upper-middle-class further displays the inherent K-shape of the recovery.
It is crucial that the Government addresses this phenomenon and works towards aiding the middle and lower-middle class. Social welfare schemes must be given greater importance to assist households to get through this period.
A seemingly viable solution is for the Government to increase progressive (direct) taxes and reduce regressive (indirect) taxes to ease the financial pressure on lower-income households.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
Steve Ovett, the famous British middle-distance athlete, won the 800-metres gold medal at the Moscow Olympics of 1980. Just a few days later, he was about to win a 5,000-metres race at London’s Crystal Palace. Known for his burst of acceleration on the home stretch, he had supreme confidence in his ability to out-sprint rivals. With the final 100 metres remaining,
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]Ovett waved to the crowd and raised a hand in triumph. But he had celebrated a bit too early. At the finishing line, Ireland’s John Treacy edged past Ovett. For those few moments, Ovett had lost his sense of reality and ignored the possibility of a negative event.
This analogy works well for the India story and our policy failures , including during the ongoing covid pandemic. While we have never been as well prepared or had significant successes in terms of growth stability as Ovett did in his illustrious running career, we tend to celebrate too early. Indeed, we have done so many times before.
It is as if we’re convinced that India is destined for greater heights, come what may, and so we never run through the finish line. Do we and our policymakers suffer from a collective optimism bias, which, as the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman once wrote, “may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases”? The optimism bias arises from mistaken beliefs which form expectations that are better than the reality. It makes us underestimate chances of a negative outcome and ignore warnings repeatedly.
The Indian economy had a dream run for five years from 2003-04 to 2007-08, with an average annual growth rate of around 9%. Many believed that India was on its way to clocking consistent double-digit growth and comparisons with China were rife. It was conveniently overlooked that this output expansion had come mainly came from a few sectors: automobiles, telecom and business services.
Indians were made to believe that we could sprint without high-quality education, healthcare, infrastructure or banking sectors, which form the backbone of any stable economy. The plan was to build them as we went along, but then in the euphoria of short-term success, it got lost.
India’s exports of goods grew from $20 billion in 1990-91 to over $310 billion in 2019-20. Looking at these absolute figures it would seem as if India has arrived on the world stage. However, India’s share of global trade has moved up only marginally. Even now, the country accounts for less than 2% of the world’s goods exports.
More importantly, hidden behind this performance was the role played by one sector that should have never made it to India’s list of exports—refined petroleum. The share of refined petroleum exports in India’s goods exports increased from 1.4% in 1996-97 to over 18% in 2011-12.
An import-intensive sector with low labour intensity, exports of refined petroleum zoomed because of the then policy regime of a retail price ceiling on petroleum products in the domestic market. While we have done well in the export of services, our share is still less than 4% of world exports.
India seemed to emerge from the 2008 global financial crisis relatively unscathed. But, a temporary demand push had played a role in the revival—the incomes of many households, both rural and urban, had shot up. Fiscal stimulus to the rural economy and implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission scales had led to the salaries of around 20% of organized-sector employees jumping up. We celebrated, but once again, neither did we resolve the crisis brewing elsewhere in India’s banking sector, nor did we improve our capacity for healthcare or quality education.
Employment saw little economy-wide growth in our boom years. Manufacturing jobs, if anything, shrank. But we continued to celebrate. Youth flocked to low-productivity service-sector jobs, such as those in hotels and restaurants, security and other services. The dependence on such jobs on one hand and high-skilled services on the other was bound to make Indian society more unequal.
And then, there is agriculture, an elephant in the room. If and when farm-sector reforms get implemented, celebrations would once again be premature. The vast majority of India’s farmers have small plots of land, and though these farms are at least as productive as larger ones, net absolute incomes from small plots can only be meagre.
A further rise in farm productivity and consequent increase in supply, if not matched by a demand rise, especially with access to export markets, would result in downward pressure on market prices for farm produce and a further decline in the net incomes of small farmers.
We should learn from what John Treacy did right. He didn’t give up, and pushed for the finish line like it was his only chance at winning. Treacy had years of long-distance practice. The same goes for our economy. A long grind is required to build up its base before we can win and celebrate. And Ovett did not blame anyone for his loss. We play the blame game. Everyone else, right from China and the US to ‘greedy corporates’, seems to be responsible for our failures.
We have lowered absolute poverty levels and had technology-based successes like Aadhaar and digital access to public services. But there are no short cuts to good quality and adequate healthcare and education services. We must remain optimistic but stay firmly away from the optimism bias.
In the end, it is not about how we start, but how we finish. The disastrous second wave of covid and our inability to manage it is a ghastly reminder of this fact.