The United States Congress approved an emergency bailout package of $700 billion during that fateful week in September 2008. This was just days after the spectacular crash of Lehman Brothers.
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]
That bailout package was part of what became the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, which was used to buy off mortgage-backed securities from banks, hedge funds and pension funds to avert further Lehman-type bankruptcies. These mortgages had turned into toxic assets that nobody wanted to buy, and government funds were used for purchases of last resort.
As a result, fresh money was injected into the banking system for it to resume normal credit operations and clean up balance sheets. Some people believe that the then Treasury secretary Henry Paulson practically spooked the Congress into approving a gigantic package at short notice, without adequate debate. Such was the state of panic and fear of domino failures in the financial system that the package was de facto viewed as fiscal support, even though it was a monetary tool.
Subsequent actions of the US government and Federal Reserve blurred the distinction between fiscal and monetary policy. A fancy term was coined to describe unorthodox measures like a central bank buying off mortgages and loans, and thus taking credit risk onto its balance sheet. It was called ‘quantitative easing’ and was merrily pursued by all the major central banks of the developed world, from New York and Washington to London, Frankfurt and Tokyo.
Central banks embarked upon an aggressive money-printing spree. Assets on their books ballooned. The chairman of the European Central Bank (ECB) famously said that he would do whatever it took to revive the economy. This meant buying even junk bonds to push the envelope. Nothing seemed untouchable to a central bank. While the US economy did stabilize and its unemployment rate halved, the monetary effort seemed excessive for the limited success it was achieving.
On the other side of the Atlantic, European growth did not pick up significantly, hampered as it was by sovereign debt crises in addition to the mortgage crisis. But a recession was averted and some tepid growth was achieved.
During the pandemic year more than a decade later, the West’s monetary spigots have been opened even more. A liquidity glut has ensued. The size of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet has grown by seven times since its pre-Lehman days, which amounts to a compound annual growth rate of about 21% over a 12-year period. While the rate of monetary expansion over this period has been torrid, neither employment nor economic output grew by even a fraction of that rate.
Still, the US economy stayed afloat and stock markets rallied, while wealth inequality worsened. How does a central bank exit this chakravyuh, or maze? Any hint of reducing the rate of money expansion threatens to cause panic and burst the bubble it blew. Just a mention of the word ‘taper’, which means reducing the pace of money expansion, caused a big shock to the world economy in 2013. The shock was such that the T-word has got seared into the collective memory of global financial markets.
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) too finds itself in a similar predicament, where the way out of its liquidity glut is hazy. By last August, RBI’s balance sheet had ballooned by more than 30% over the previous year, thanks to purchases of foreign exchange externally and of government bonds domestically. That pace has been sustained. RBI has injected liquidity through long-term repo operations, which essentially provide long-term money at low overnight rates.
The Indian central bank has also provided implicit liquidity support to mutual funds, which is like an Indian version of unorthodox monetary policy. It has not quite ventured into taking credit risk onto its books, nor has it signalled a readiness to buy toxic assets, but that day may not be far off when it is asked to defrost frozen credit markets. To enhance market liquidity through money infusion or through open market operations is nothing but money creation.
As a result of India’s liquidity glut, money is flowing in and out of the central bank to the tune of ₹7 trillion on a daily basis. This has resulted in an anomaly: market lending rates have gone below RBI’s reverse repo rate, which is supposed to be the de facto floor. Cheap money is an invitation to do foolish and risky things, which, if done widely and voluminously enough, can spell disaster for financial stability. So RBI has tentatively tried to nudge market rates higher by announcing a reverse repo auction. This is our own mild version of policy normalization (sans the dreaded T-word).
But the market reaction was one of panic all the same, and there was a spike in interest rates, causing the central bank to rethink its strategy. To calm nervous bond traders, the governor has categorically said that liquidity support will continue as long as necessary, but surely we need to plan an exit from the current glut?
Why not simply loan ₹5 trillion to the central government against shares of public sector undertakings, on a bilateral basis at a low rate of 3% for a period of five years to fund its huge deficit? That will bypass markets and not cause any disruption to interest rates. Whatever the way out of this whirlpool of liquidity, it’s not going to be easy.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
- In the Large States category (overall), Chhattisgarh ranks 1st, followed by Odisha and Telangana, whereas, towards the bottom are Maharashtra at 16th, Assam at 17th and Gujarat at 18th. Gujarat is one State that has seen startling performance ranking 5th in the PAI 2021 Index outperforming traditionally good performing States like Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, but ranks last in terms of Delta
- In the Small States category (overall), Nagaland tops, followed by Mizoram and Tripura. Towards the tail end of the overall Delta ranking is Uttarakhand (9th), Arunachal Pradesh (10th) and Meghalaya (11th). Nagaland despite being a poor performer in the PAI 2021 Index has come out to be the top performer in Delta, similarly, Mizoram’s performance in Delta is also reflected in it’s ranking in the PAI 2021 Index
- In terms of Equity, in the Large States category, Chhattisgarh has the best Delta rate on Equity indicators, this is also reflected in the performance of Chhattisgarh in the Equity Pillar where it ranks 4th. Following Chhattisgarh is Odisha ranking 2nd in Delta-Equity ranking, but ranks 17th in the Equity Pillar of PAI 2021. Telangana ranks 3rd in Delta-Equity ranking even though it is not a top performer in this Pillar in the overall PAI 2021 Index. Jharkhand (16th), Uttar Pradesh (17th) and Assam (18th) rank at the bottom with Uttar Pradesh’s performance in line with the PAI 2021 Index
- Odisha and Nagaland have shown the best year-on-year improvement under 12 Key Development indicators.
- In the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Goa and Tamil Nadu and, the bottom three performers are Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Bihar.
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers were Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Mizoram; and, the bottom three performers are Manipur, Assam and Meghalaya.
- Among the 60:40 division States, Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh are the top three performers and Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Delhi appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland; and, the bottom three performers are Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh
- Among the 60:40 division States, Goa, West Bengal and Delhi appear as the top three performers and Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Bihar appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Himachal Pradesh and Tripura were the top three performers and Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh were the bottom three performers
- West Bengal, Bihar and Tamil Nadu were the top three States amongst the 60:40 division States; while Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan appeared as the bottom three performers
- In the case of 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Assam and Tripura were the top three performers and Nagaland, Jammu & Kashmir and Uttarakhand featured as the bottom three
- Among the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa and the bottom three performers are Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Goa
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Mizoram, Sikkim and Nagaland and the bottom three performers are Manipur and Assam
In a diverse country like India, where each State is socially, culturally, economically, and politically distinct, measuring Governance becomes increasingly tricky. The Public Affairs Index (PAI 2021) is a scientifically rigorous, data-based framework that measures the quality of governance at the Sub-national level and ranks the States and Union Territories (UTs) of India on a Composite Index (CI).
States are classified into two categories – Large and Small – using population as the criteria.
In PAI 2021, PAC defined three significant pillars that embody Governance – Growth, Equity, and Sustainability. Each of the three Pillars is circumscribed by five governance praxis Themes.
The themes include – Voice and Accountability, Government Effectiveness, Rule of Law, Regulatory Quality and Control of Corruption.
At the bottom of the pyramid, 43 component indicators are mapped to 14 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that are relevant to the States and UTs.
This forms the foundation of the conceptual framework of PAI 2021. The choice of the 43 indicators that go into the calculation of the CI were dictated by the objective of uncovering the complexity and multidimensional character of development governance
The Equity Principle
The Equity Pillar of the PAI 2021 Index analyses the inclusiveness impact at the Sub-national level in the country; inclusiveness in terms of the welfare of a society that depends primarily on establishing that all people feel that they have a say in the governance and are not excluded from the mainstream policy framework.
This requires all individuals and communities, but particularly the most vulnerable, to have an opportunity to improve or maintain their wellbeing. This chapter of PAI 2021 reflects the performance of States and UTs during the pandemic and questions the governance infrastructure in the country, analysing the effectiveness of schemes and the general livelihood of the people in terms of Equity.
Growth and its Discontents
Growth in its multidimensional form encompasses the essence of access to and the availability and optimal utilisation of resources. By resources, PAI 2021 refer to human resources, infrastructure and the budgetary allocations. Capacity building of an economy cannot take place if all the key players of growth do not drive development. The multiplier effects of better health care, improved educational outcomes, increased capital accumulation and lower unemployment levels contribute magnificently in the growth and development of the States.
The Pursuit Of Sustainability
The Sustainability Pillar analyses the access to and usage of resources that has an impact on environment, economy and humankind. The Pillar subsumes two themes and uses seven indicators to measure the effectiveness of government efforts with regards to Sustainability.
The Curious Case Of The Delta
The Delta Analysis presents the results on the State performance on year-on-year improvement. The rankings are measured as the Delta value over the last five to 10 years of data available for 12 Key Development Indicators (KDI). In PAI 2021, 12 indicators across the three Pillars of Equity (five indicators), Growth (five indicators) and Sustainability (two indicators). These KDIs are the outcome indicators crucial to assess Human Development. The Performance in the Delta Analysis is then compared to the Overall PAI 2021 Index.
Key Findings:-
In the Scheme of Things
The Scheme Analysis adds an additional dimension to ranking of the States on their governance. It attempts to complement the Governance Model by trying to understand the developmental activities undertaken by State Governments in the form of schemes. It also tries to understand whether better performance of States in schemes reflect in better governance.
The Centrally Sponsored schemes that were analysed are National Health Mission (NHM), Umbrella Integrated Child Development Services scheme (ICDS), Mahatma Gandh National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SmSA) and MidDay Meal Scheme (MDMS).
National Health Mission (NHM)
INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (ICDS)
MID- DAY MEAL SCHEME (MDMS)
SAMAGRA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN (SMSA)
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (MGNREGS)