Well, it doesn't look as though the Indian economy has collapsed after demonetisation. The impact on GDP growth for 2016-17, as estimated by the CSO and the RBI, is less than 50 basis points. We will, of course, know for sure after the Q4 numbers are out.
Demonetisation is one of many glaring instances of pundits having got things wrong. Some of the others are: the potential impact of Raghuram Rajan now staying on as RBI governor, Brexit and Trump's victory.
More in my BS column, Lean times for pundits.
The article is behind a pay wall, so the full article is reproduced below:
Demonetisation is one of many glaring instances of pundits having got things wrong. Some of the others are: the potential impact of Raghuram Rajan now staying on as RBI governor, Brexit and Trump's victory.
More in my BS column, Lean times for pundits.
The article is behind a pay wall, so the full article is reproduced below:
Following the demonetisation move last November, the pundits -- academics,
economists, media commentators and others --
were quick to pronounce judgment: Narendra
Modi had blundered.
The
withdrawal of high-denomination currency
notes, they said, had caused enormous economic hardship.
The prime minister should have known
better. He should have consulted experts before embarking on
such a radical
measure. Mr Modi would pay the price in the state elections
that were to follow.
It’s now
clear that the pundits got it wrong. Demonetisation did not
work against the
BJP in the recent polls and may have even contributed to its
huge victory in
UP.
Some pundits
argue that it was the political narrative of demonetisation
that mattered, not
the economic content. Demonetisation did cause hardship to the
poor. But they
didn’t mind because they could see that the rich would suffer
more.
One can go
along with this view if the hardship
amounted to putting up with long lines in
banks. But not if the hardship meant
a sharp slowdown in economic growth and losses in jobs and
incomes. When people
lose their jobs in an economic slowdown, they don’t go out and
celebrate
because multi-millionaires have lost even more on the stock
exchange!
The truth is
simple enough but the pundits don’t seem to get it.
Demonetisation has not derailed
growth as much as they had predicted. Two agencies respected
for their
independence and professionalism, the Central Statistics
Office (CSO) and the Reserve
Bank of India (RBI), have estimated the impact of
demonetisation on the gross
domestic product (GDP) growth for 2016-17.
Using the
Gross Value Added (GVA) approach, the RBI estimates the impact
on the GDP
growth at 33 basis points in its monetary policy statement of
February 8. Again,
going by GVA, the CSO estimates the impact at 30 basis points
in its second
advance estimates released on February 28.
Economists
may have difficulty in accepting these numbers but bankers
seem to think they
reflect the ground reality. Bankers did not see any
significant increase in
stress in their loan book in respect of large corporates and
small and medium
enterprises. They say that some stress was evident only in
respect of
micro-enterprises. Repayments of agricultural and
micro-finance loans were
surprisingly resilient.
Many of
those who had warned that the third
quarter (Q3) numbers for 2016-17 would show up the
impact of demonetisation
have since changed their tune. Wait for the Q4 numbers, they
say. We’ll know soon. In the meantime, we have the recent
election results to go by. Voters don’t seem to have found the
short-term costs
of demonetisation very steep. And they believe the PM when he
says it will
deliver long-term gains.
This is not the
only glaring instance in recent times of the pundits having
got things badly
wrong. In June 2016, when Raghuram Rajan announced that he
would not seek a
second term as RBI governor, the
Modi government drew a barrage of negative comment. The
pundits warned that India’s image abroad would be badly
dented, foreign
investors would flee, the combination of Brexit and Rexit
could cause a
currency crisis, the RBI’s autonomy was in peril… some of us
may have been
pardoned for supposing that the end of the world was in sight.
None of these
dire outcomes has materialised.
Our pundits
are in good company. Following the British vote on Brexit,
many foreign
commentators predicted a sharp slowdown for the British
economy and enormous
uncertainty for the world economy. Among the doomsayers was
Mark Carney, the governor
of the Bank of England (BoE).
Ahead of the
vote on Brexit, the BoE issued warnings about the potential
effects of a vote
for Brexit. After the vote, it moved to cut interest rates and
boost stimulus
measures to contain the adverse impact. Mr Carney has since
revised his
forecast for 2017 upwards. The world economy is also doing
better than was
forecast in 2016. Nobody talks about the impact of Brexit any
more.
Then, we
have the Donald Trump phenomenon. The liberal media in the US
did its damndest
to stop Mr Trump in his tracks in
the run-up to elections. They forecast ruin for the US economy
and the world at
large given his hostility to some aspects of globalisation.
Paul Krugman famously wrote that the stock market
would “never” recover from a Trump victory. The Dow Jones
Index went on to
touch an all-time high after Mr Trump
won.
In all these
cases, the pundits got it wrong because many
were hopelessly prejudiced. They
did not like Mr Modi, so they were
quick to fault demonetisation and the exit of Mr Rajan.
They did not want to see the European Union unravelling,
so they viewed Brexit as a disaster for the UK. They hated Mr
Trump as an individual (and favoured Hillary Clinton),
so they predicted a setback to the US economy. By
forsaking objectivity in assessing policy outcomes, the
pundits have ended up
undermining their own credibility and standing.
4 comments:
Hi prof. Is it possible for you to publish the article on the blog as I don't subscribe to BS subscription magazine. Thnks
ok lets agree for arguement sake that there was no or minimal effect on GDP.but what are the benefits? what did we get out of it?
Sir, what is your view on increasing formalization of the economy?
Slowly, we have an increasing proportion of economic activity that is forced to come in to formal organized sector - 1) through tax reforms and 2) through reduction in currency availability. Moreover, the new method of GDP calculation also gives a higher weight to formal sector. Thus, we may see a very high growth (double digit as I've blogged); but not a proportionate change in lifestyles of people.
A higher fraction of organized sector is desirable in many ways, but my fear is that official data would be less reliable due to the missed informal sector.
Yes, the pundits got the polls wrong, but whether they were wrong on the long term impacts too - including reshaping of socio-political forces - is a question for future generations.
Post a Comment