No more JEE- IITs/NITs to have aptitude test

The IIT Council has decided in favour of a common aptitude test for IITs/NITs and all state government and private engineering colleges, TOI reports.

The exam will replace the current JEE. The Council favours giving due weightages to the aptitude test and standard XII marks. This is subject to the approval of the finance ministry and, in the case of state government colleges, to approval by the states. If it goes through, this will be a huge relief to thousands of engineering aspirants in the country and, of course, a massive blow to private tutorial colleges for the JEE.

The Council also decided to retain the IIT fee at Rs 50,000 per year but will require those with a family income of over Rs 4 lakh to cough up an additional amount totalling to about Rs 6 lakh for the course once they take up a job. There will be exemptions to those pursing M Tech or Ph D courses. The modalities of recovering the fee from salaries is to be worked out.

The change in the exam format and the idea of a common exam for all engineering colleges are both to be lauded. But I have to wonder: how is it that initiatives such as these emanate from the ministry and not the IITs themselves? Why do the IITs have to be prodded towards doing the sensible thing by students and the education system?

Basel III bounty for India

Basel 3 may turn out to be a blessing for India- and other BRICS countries such as China and Brazil. Basel 3 will depress returns on equity in western banks by raising capital requirements. Indian banks's return on assets of 1% and return on equity of 12-18% is better than what western banks can produce and it's likely to stay at that level, thanks to financial inclusion.

Financial inclusion will force Indian banks to reach out to high-yielding small borrowers. This will entail a significant upfront cost but will yield payoffs in terms of an increase interest rate margin. Indian banks also have the potential to increase overall returns by raising fee income and by returning to credit cards and personal loans.

Thus, Basel 3 will have the effect of accelerating the process of catching up of emerging market banks with those in the west. More in my ET column, Stormy tide favours Indian banks.

Christian Lagarde steals the show at Jackson Hole

No mistake who was the star at the central bankers' meet at Jackson Hole. It was neither Ben Bernanke, the Fed chief, nor Trichet, the president of the ECB. It was Christian Lagarde, the former French minister and now head of the IMF.

Most economists think that all policy bolts have been shot in the present crisis. They have become classical economists for now: sit back and watch while economies slowly get back to normal. Naturo-therapy for economies, if you like. But this may be just wishful thinking. Not doing anything could cause the bottom to fall from the global economy.

Lagarde alone had some concrete prescriptions to offer. Although a European, she didn't hesitate to call a spade a bloody shovel when it came to Europe's banking sector. More in my ET column, IMF's bold recipe for recovery.

Forget S &P downgrade, watch Eurozone

The S&P downgrade is a non-event. It could be turn out to be an event for S&P and for other rating agencies, given that the Senate is to initiate hearings into the downgrade. This could eventually result in a major downgrade of the ratings business itself, but that's a different matter.

The downgrade signifies nothing of importance in the US economy itself. All the bad news is already in and there is nothing to suggest that a recession is imminent although recovery will remain sluggish. The danger to the world economy is posed by the Eurozone where bank exposure to government debt has the potential to trigger another financial crisis.This too is a low probability event as of now, since it appears that sense has dawned finally on the leaders in the Eurozone.

Comparisons of the S&P downgrade with the collapse of Lehman are completely misplaced. The Lehman collapse happened when banks were battered and it wrecked money market confidence in the banking system, making things worse for banks. Banks are today better capitalised and bank exposure to Eurozone debt is well documented although exposure to credit default swaps is a grey area. The S&P downgrade changes nothing on the ground and it could, in effect, be something of a wake-up call for leaders everywhere.

The prospects are for slow growth in the world economy and this will impact on India's growth prospects. Since, lower growth is what our policy makers are praying for in their bid to contain inflation, they will not lose much sleep on account of recent developments. More in today's ET column, A continuation, not a repeat, of 2008.

Anna Hazare's googly

Am I the only one to be taken by surprise by the turn of events in L'affaire Anna Hazare? Yesterday, when I heard on TV that Hazare had been subjected to preventive detention, I cannot say I was outraged.

There is merit in the contention that the police, having availed of Sec 144, were within their rights to judge whether Hazare's proposed actions would disturb the peace or not. But I did feel that the politically astute course for the government would have been to allow Hazare and his fans in the visual media to spend themselves over a day or two.

That was not to be. The government sent Hazare to Tihar Jail only to reverse its decision and order his release by the end of the day. I am not in a position to judge how great was the groundswell of sentiment in favour of Hazare in Delhi and elsewhere. But the TV channels (one of which openly espouses his cause) certainly made one feel it was significant. They and sundry personalities kept clobbering the government through the day, perhaps giving the Congress bigwigs the sense that they were losing the PR battle.

What followed was even more astonishing. Hazare refused to accept the release order and leave the jail until assured that he could carry on his protest at a venue of his choosing. This was indeed a googly and the government was completely stumped. It could not, I suppose, have asked the cops to evict Hazare. The option of escorting Hazare out of Delhi must have been weighed and rejected. It appears now that Hazare will have his way.

It is certainly a blow to the government but that is not the point. We need to consider what the episode forebodes for the functioning of our democracy. What happens to the prerogative of parliament to make laws? Does this get suspended when parliament is seen to be not heeding the wishes of a large number of people? Who decides this in a given case and who is to be presumed to speak for the people? And if some of the clauses of the Janata Lokpal Bill are to be included in the government's draft, what purpose will be served by parliament debating them? Parliament can reject them only at the risk of facing another fast and trial by media!

This is not a referendum. It is not even mobocracy. It is mediacracy. Once the TV channels decide to root for a cause, an individual with a reasonable following may be able to foist his wishes on the elected government and parliament. Why have elections, let's settle for TV debates and online polls.

Ratan Tata succession

There is word of a professional (instead of a member of the Tata family) succeeding Ratan Tata as head of the Tata group. Many people have been rooting for such a move. I am not so sure. There was the same talk when Mr Tata himself succeeded JRD. Not many gave Mr Tata a chance of succeeding. The sceptics have been proved wrong.

The number of businesses in the group has been pruned (although not enough, some would say). Controls have been tightened. The group is more international today (with the majority of revenues coming from overseas). The group has got into areas for which many had believed it unsuited (eg cars, communications). Mr Tata has put pep into many of the older businesses (steel, power, chemicals, tea).

True, the group's image has been dented by the 2 G affair and the Radia tapes. But, in commercial terms, Mr Tata has succeeded beyond all expectations. I see the Tata experience as part of a broader phenomenon of the reinvention of Indian family businesses. Reforms have not sunk India's family managed businesses but have brought out the best in many. It is no longer obvious that family-managed businesses must turn to professionals and not entrust their destinies to family members.

More in my ET column, It's okay to keep it in the family

Are sprawling IIM campuses justified?

The IIMs have campuses that sprawl across 100 acres of more or land. They produce less than 3000 MBAs put together, says Nirmalya Kumar in an article in ET. He believes this is inefficient use of a scarce resource, land. Is this true?

There are two components to this point. One, the IIMs don't need sprawling campuses in order to meet their educational objectives. Two, given that they have so much, the IIMs can produce more postgraduates or doctorates.

To take the first point, Kumar argues that London Business School operates on less than 5 acres and graduated 1000 students this year. Why can't the IIMs do likewise? Maybe they should sell off most of the land they are sitting on?

I am not sure this is a valid argument. Both faculty and students in London (and other western cities) can easily rent apartments over a wide range of rentals. In Indian cities, it is rather more difficult, so there is a case for a campus that will obviate the need for people to look around for a place. Public transport in many places is nowhere as good as in London and there can be difficulties in commuting to work as well. Many cities may not be as safe those in Europe or North America. So, for the smooth functioning of the school, a campus may be required.

Secondly, the IITs and IIMs are governed by the Pay Commission framework and are restricted in the pay they can offer faculty. Campus accommodation is a valuable perk and we know from experience that for NRI faculty wanting to relocate to India, it's a big attraction. One would, therefore, make out a case for a campus on grounds of promoting academic excellence.

Having said that, there remains the question of whether the IIMs are producing enough graduates to justify the land on which they are sitting. One reason often trotted out is that the IIMs are unable to attract quality faculty. I do not entirely buy this argument. As Kumar points out, it should be possible to bring in visiting faculty from overseas. This does not happen, nor is recruitment of faculty vigorous enough, because it suits the IIMs to limit the intake. This enhances the scarcity value of an IIM product and hence the value of the IIM brand itself, and it limits competition to existing faculty. I have made a reference to this issue in my recent book, Brick by Red Brick: Ravi Matthai and the Making of IIM Ahmedabad.

It does appear to me that the IIMs work backward from a high average salary in determining what should be the intake of students. Whereas the need of the country is for a large number of MBAs. In recent years, the IIMs have had to increase their capacity by 54% consequent to the introduction of OBC quotas- this is the most significant scaling up in the IIM system since they were set up! So they could do it when they were driven to by law. Why can't they scale up on their own as well- and provide better justification for the land they are using?

How do we price higher education?

I continue with the theme of pricing of higher education on which I had a couple of posts earlier. We need to ask ourselves: why do fees in higher education keep rising at a rate ahead of inflation in many countries? In b-schools in India, for instance, fees have doubled or tripled since 2007.

It turns out that the explanation is a straightforward one: institutions of higher education keep raising their fees because there are enough people out there willing to pay these. There is a mismatch between supply and demand and supply is not easily created because it takes years for a new institution to establish its reputation. In these conditions, universities and colleges get away with anything - if they are free to do so- and have no incentives to reduce costs or improve efficiency.

That must also explain why the production technology has not changed one bit in higher education for several centuries now- it's still the teacher using chalk and blackboard or, at best, slides and power point presentations. Quality is seen as a function of keeping the student-teacher ratio as low as possible.

The only way in which fees will be contained is if institutions are run by the state and are duly subsidised. If we leave it to the private sector, we must expect fees to escalate. We have to choose between the US model where private institutions are entirely free to set fees and the German model where the accent is on modest fees or free tuition and universal access. I argue in my recent ET column, Soaring costs of higher education, that the latter would be preferable in Indian conditions.

Britain struggles to price education correctly

I wrote yesterday about the contrarian move in Germany to make university education free. The UK moved the other way in Tony Blair's time by opting for more market-driven fees. The new government opted to stay the course, last year allowing universities to raise the maximum fee from £ 3375 to£ 9000 with effect from September 12. To the dismay of the government, most universities have veered towards the maximum, according to the Economist.

How come? One would have thought fee would vary depending on quality. I suppose mediocre institutions get away with the same fee because of the scarcity value of higher education: there is isn't enough competition and entry and exit are not really free. We see in India as well. The moment the IIMs raised their fee, so did other b-schools including those that are not a patch on the top IIMs. They know that even at absurdly high fees, there will be enough takers in the Indian market.

Now, the British government wants to introduce differentiation in the market. It has come up with two ideas. One, higher quality institutions will be allowed to expand as much as they like (higher quality being defined by the number of applicants with a certain number of A grades). This, it is believed, will force mediocre institutions to drop their fees in order to attract clever students. Secondly, 5% of all places will be reserved for institutions that charge £ 7500 or less. This latter, of course, assumes that capacity is sufficiently elastic at the cheaper institutions.

Will these measures work? I doubt it. Leaving aside a handful of top institutions, quality for the rest is rather hard to define. Besides, students will opt for institutions that are closer to their place of residence, other things being broadly equal. In other words, the link between quality and fee will not be as strong as expected and the gap between supply and demand in higher education will remain acute given that more and more people aspire for university education.

Right now, it is the government that makes available loans to students, not banks. Higher university fees only spell higher bad debts for the government0- at the best of times, the government finds it difficult to collect repayments. In other ways, the government's subsidy burden will go up. Whether transferring more of the subsidy burden from the private sector to the government will improve quality is doubtful- quality is not a function of fees alone, it is a function of overall funding and the broad ecosystem as well.

Germany opts for free tuition

Continental Europe can often surprise us in a big way. Most countries are going the way of increasing fees for university students. The model is market-based fee financed by loans (which may or not be subsidised by the state). Not so in Germany, according to a report in the Economist.

Many German states are opting for free university education. Fees in Germany generate revenues of only € 1.2 bn compared to total expenditure of € 36 bn. Private sources account for only 15% of revenues in German universities compared to two-thirds in the US. It could well be that not getting students to pay may be affecting the quality of universities- it's difficult to finance research and other activities of top quality without better funding. But education is inclusive.

Which model is better - the American model which imposes an enormous loan burden students but can produce very high quality or the German model which results in universities of lower quality but provides the widest access? The German economy is doing fine. Even though research in Germany may not be cutting edge, German manufacturing is known for quality. I leave it to you to judge.

India's services-led growth

Two aspects of India's services-led growth are striking. One, modern services, comprising IT, financial services and communications have taken off at lower per capita levels than in the OECD economies. Two, there has been rapid growth in traditional services, most of which have been untouched by reforms.

Modern services in India should continue to grow thanks to tradability of these service: India's great good fortune that these services started developing in India precisely at a time when many of them became exportable. Traditional services, such as railways, hotels, trade too have plenty of potential. Hence, services can continue to be an engine of growth in India.

Can they absorb enough of India's labour force? Quite possibly, yes. When you say 'services', most people think IT and programming. They believe services require high levels of training. This is not entirely true. There are plenty of jobs opening up at call centres and data entry centres, jobs that don't require very high levels of training. Financial services and communications also are throwing up jobs in large numbers (on the sales side, for instance) where training required is not very high. So services-led growth can boost employment as well, although it cannot completely substitute jobs created by manufacturing.

More in my ET column, Can services-led growth continue?

IIM Indore five year programme

IIM-I's five year programme in management has drawn a response from the AICTE. The regulator believes that IIM-I can't offer a degree at the end of the third year, as promised, because it does not have the power to grant degrees. IIM I has clarified that it will grant a diploma as all the IIMs do with their post-graduate programme. (The IIMs are not covered by any Act of parliament, unlike the IITs, and hence do not have the power to grant degrees).

IIM-I's 3+2 offering (undergrad courses plus MBA), after the 12th standard, will be watched with interest. It is the first ever attempt by an IIM to move into the undergrad space. It also offers students an entry into the MBA programme without facing the huge odds of CAT. The undergrad courses will cover, not just business management, but several elements of liberal arts, history, literature etc, as also IT.

There has long been talk, endorsed by the Yash Pal committee, of the IIMs becoming full-fledged universities. The issue has been one of scale as well as scope. If IIM-I can show that it can deliver quality in a broad-based undergrad programme, it will be a feather in its cap and it could be the forerunner of similar programmes from others, including the IIMs.

Regulatory overkill in banking?

That's the title of my last ET column.

At least some bankers think so. They see the proposed capital requirements for banks as too onerous. They are against any restrictions on investment banking or on size. Alan Greenspan takes a different tack. He thinks policy-makers and regulators simply do not enough to intervene, that the international financial system is far too complex for the sort of regulation proposed under the Dodd-Frank Act.

Greenspan is in a minority today at least among policy-makers. Both in the US and in Europe (and especially in UK), the tide is firmly in favour of tighter regulation. It's difficult to resist the proposition that inadequate regulation was a factor in the sub-prime crisis, if not the most important factor. My biggest concern is that regulatory reform will be late in coming. The biggest nightmare facing us is a macroeconomic crisis triggered by the problems in the Eurozone hitting the world before banks are shored up with more capital.

Bankers and psycopaths

The characteristics that make for good traders and investment bankers are pretty much the same as those that define psychopaths, according to Michael Price, co-director of the Centre for Culture and Evolutionary Psychology at Brunel University in London. Indeed, Wall Street’s Gordon Gekko has clear psychopathic tendencies, he says.

“The banking industry is an ideal target for psychopaths,” Prof Hare (a specialist on psycopaths) told me recently. The ructions of the past few years will only have helped their rise. “These areas are tailor-made for the psychopath. Where things become chaotic and the normal rules don’t apply, enter stage right the psychopath.”

That's from an article in the FT. Even more interesting is this tidbit on high flyers in the corporate world in general:

A small-sample study by Prof Babiak, Prof Hare and a colleague found that while the average result in a common psychopathy test was the same for executive high-flyers and the wider population, 3 per cent of high-flyers scored highly enough to be classed as psychopaths.

Maybe it's time ask: how come these lunatics are making big bucks and calling the shots?

Launch of book on Ravi Matthai-IIMA

We had a launch function for my book on Ravi Matthai-IIMA (Brick by Red Brick: Ravi Matthai and the Making of IIM Ahmedabad;Rupa Publications) on June 20. Dr C Rangarajan, Chairman, Economic Advisory Council to the PM, released the book.

Dr Rangarajan was a professor at IIMA in Matthai's time. He had been recruited from the US by Matthai and became a close associate of his here. Among those present were IIMA director Samir Barua, faculty and staff of the Institute, former faculty members of IIMA, people from the corporate world and the government of Gujarat and members of the media. The event was well covered in the Ahmedabad editions.

Zhou Enlai was misquoted?

Talk about revisionism. This bit on Zhou Enlai, the former Chinese PM, is going to cause a bit of history to be rewritten. Zhou is famous for having said of the French Revolution and its impact, 'Too early to say'.

This has been famously interpreted as a sign of the far-sightedness of the Chinese, their ability to do serious long-term thinking. A news item in the FT now says that Zhou was misquoted. He was talking of the 1968 student riots in Paris, which had happened three years earlier, not of the storming of the Bastille.

At a seminar in Washington to mark the publication of Henry Kissinger’s book, On China, Chas Freeman, a retired foreign service officer, sought to correct the long-standing error.

“I distinctly remember the exchange. There was a mis­understanding that was too delicious to invite correction,” said Mr Freeman.

He said Zhou had been confused when asked about the French Revolution and the Paris Commune. “But these were exactly the kinds of terms used by the students to describe what they were up to in 1968 and that is how Zhou understood them.”

Apparently, this is not the lone instance of a Chinese leader being misquoted. Deng Xiaoping's, 'To get rich is glorious' is said to be fictional.

Are margins too high in Indian banking?

The RBI seems to think so; one RBI official was even quoted as saying that Indian banks' margins are 'usurious'. It's hard to draw conclusions from the aggregate level of NIM because a bank's NIM is a function of a number of factors; for the same reason, comparing with other countries may not be useful.

The regulator must simply ensure that there is adequate competition- and live with the margin that results. There is a case for tolerating higher NIMs given that banks' capital requirements are poised to rise due to Basel 3 and stiffer regulation in the years to come. That will put banks' return on equity under pressure and make it a little difficult for Indian banks to finance their huge requirements of capital from abroad.

More in my ET column, RBI mustn't dicate bank margins.

How much equity does a bank need?

15-20%, says Sebastian Mallaby in an article in the FT. The Basel 3 norm of 7% core equity is not enough, he says. His argument is as follows:

Three factors drive this estimate. First, recall how much equity can be destroyed in a crisis. The International Monetary Fund calculates that credit losses at US banks between 2007 and 2010 amounted to 7 per cent of assets, so banks must be in a position to lose that much again and survive. Second, consider how much residual equity banks must have left after a large hit. Here the answer is about 8 per cent of assets – that is the amount that the top four US banks felt it necessary to hold in early 2010 in order to retain market confidence. Third, remember that capital is held against risk-weighted assets, and that the calculation of risk weights is notoriously treacherous, so banks should hold a further buffer against “model error”, aka geeks who screw up. Adding these factors together, a 20 per cent equity capital ratio seems reasonable, even if some of this may take the form of “coco” bonds that convert to equity in a crisis.

Mallaby dismisses the argument that more equity will mean a higher cost of capital for banks. He says as more equity is raised, the cost will fall because banks will be perceived as becoming safer. Swiss regulators have already imposed a requirement of around 20% on UBS and Credit Suisse if one includes convertible debt. Mallaby argues that, in order to prevent regulatory arbitrage, shadow banks too must be subject to minimum capital and other requirements.

Book on Ravi Matthai - IIM Ahmedabad

My book on Ravi Matthai- IIM Ahmedabad, published by Rupa Publications, is out (Brick by Red Brick: Ravi Matthai and the Making of IIM Ahmedabad). ET carried a story on it a couple of weeks ago.

The book is timed to coincide with IIMA's golden jubilee and is meant to celebrate the remarkable effort at institution-building in the Institute's formative years. IIMA stands out in the Indian education landscape for one reason: it is that rare institution that has been at the top for most of the five decades for which it has been around. There is an Iron Law that operates in Indian education and that dictates that institutions of higher education, started with great fanfare, must go to seed in about thirty or forty years' time. IIMA is a noteworthy exception.

My book attempts to explain IIMA's success and to answer the questions: what sets IIMA apart in the IIM fraternity? why does it enjoy a premium rating? I also devote a chapter to the governance issues in the IIM system today and make suggestions on how to inject greater accountability into the system.

The answer to the above questions, which I came to grasp only after I had spent some five years at IIMA, lies in the culture and processes that Vikram Sarabhai, its founder, and Ravi Matthai, its first full-time director, put in place. That something, which is intangible but which makes all the difference to an academic institution, has been solid enough to sustain IIMA for five decades now.

When IIMA was founded, Ahmedabad was a small town. The infrastructure at the Institute was very basic, they did not have today's IT and the connectivity it provides, communications were poor. And yet IIMA quickly made an impact on the nation as a centre of excellence. Can you imagine an IIT or IIM being set up in Tirunelveli or Patiala making a similar impact today? That is a measure of the achievement of IIMA's founding fathers.

Matthai was all of 38 years old when Sarabhai and others chose him as the first full-time director. He was not an academic by training, he had been a corporate executive. He achieved what he did in just seven years' time. His appointment as director was not a contractual appointment, and yet at the age of 45, he chose to step down. He spurned numerous lucrative offers and turned his energies towards a novel experiment in rural education in Jawaja, a small block in Rajasthan. It was a story waiting to be told. I am privileged to have had the opportunity to tell it.

PS: The book is expected to reach the market in about a week's time but it can be ordered from flipkart. com or from Rupa's website.

America's moon mission and the public sector

John F Kennedy's moon mission was meant to make a point about US supremacy in science after the jolt delivered by the Soviet Union's putting a man in orbit. It cost an enormous sum- $150 bn in 2010 dollars, according to an article in the Economist, "five times as much as the Manhattan Project and 18 times the cost of digging the Panama Canal." The Economist points to an irony at the heart of the moon mission:

The Apollo programme, which was summoned into being in order to demonstrate the superiority of the free-market system, succeeded by mobilising vast public resources within a centralised bureaucracy under government direction. In other words, it mimicked aspects of the very command economy it was designed to repudiate.

However, attempts to mobilise the public sector for other large projects failed, for example, Lyndon Johnson's attempt at social engineering on a huge scale. The Economist believes that Obama's calls for a leap in technology and infrastructure will fail for the same reason.

The Economist oversimplifies, methinks. The Apollo mission succeeded, not just because it invoked national pride. It was a case where expense was no consideration because a matter of national prestige was involved. Other giant public sector projects do not come with a blank cheque, expenditures are subjected to scrutiny and are pruned at the first opportunity.

Here in India, we have seen that several projects in the public sector have delivered for the same reason- ISRO, BARC, DRDO, IITs and IIMs. It is only when people start demanding results commensurate with expenditure that we have a problem- and indeed that is what is happening today. No longer are people willing to back the pursuit of excellence with an open purse.

In short, it is not the nature of the project that matters or the fact that is in the public sector, it is a matter of the resources with which it is backed.

IITs say no to greater autonomy!

Going by a report carried by BS, the IITs don't really want greater autonomy, at least as envisaged by the Anil Kakodkar committee report on IITs.

The Kakodkar committee has favoured devolving greater powers to the IIT boards, with decisions on salaries, recruitment etc being largely left to them. Towards giving IITs greater operational freedom, it has suggested a substantial increase in fee from Rs 50,000 to Rs 2-2.5 lakh per annum. The IIT directors that BS spoke to had a different point of view from that expressed by the Kakodkar committee.

IIT Madras director MS Ananth is quoted as saying, "“In my personal opinion IITs have adequate autonomy. As an institution funded by tax-payers, I do not expect to be handed more on a platter." The IIT directors and also some faculty see any government withdrawal as coming in the way of the IITs' future growth:

“While the whole idea of the Kakodkar Panel is rooted in providing us more autonomy, I am not so sure that this will provide us with the prospects of growth that we need in the immediate future and in the long run,” said an IIT-Kharagpur professor on the condition of anonymity.

Gautam Barua, director, IIT Guwahati, expresses the view that key decisions should be taken by the IIT Council, which includes all IIT directors, rather than being left to the individual boards; leaving it to the boards would mean the absence of uniformity across IITs and the dilution of the IIM brand.

The attitude of the IIT directors is in refreshing contrast to that of some IIMs. The IITs have less autonomy on paper than the IIMs as the former are governed by an Act of Parliament whereas the latter are not. And yet the IITs believe they have all the autonomy they need while some of the IIMs keep bleating about lack of autonomy.

The older IIMs have been saying just the opposite of what the IITs are saying. They say they need to be financially independent of the government; they want more power be given to the boards; they have resisted moves to evolve a common policy across the IIMs through a pan-IIM board and other means; and they would rather have individual IIMs promoting their own brand.

So who has got it right on autonomy? The IITs, whose brand is better known worldwide than the IIMs, or the IIMs? I leave it to you to judge.

Barca reigns supreme

Barcelona's majestic win over Manchester United in the Champions League underlined its status as the best team in the game today and, arguably, the best in the history of the game. Schumpeter, writing in the Economist, believes that Barca's success contains the answers to important questions of management. What is the right balance between stars and the rest of mankind? Should you buy talent or grow your own? How can you harness the enthusiasm of consumers to promote your own brand? He sees the answers as follows:

Barça puts more emphasis than any other major team on growing its own players. Other football teams often resemble the United Nations—the Arsenal first eleven, for example, frequently includes just two native-born Britons. Barça, by contrast, is still dominated by local players, and Catalan is often spoken in the dressing room....It is a boarding school that puts as much emphasis on character-training as on footballing skills. The students are relentlessly instructed in the importance of team spirit, self-sacrifice and perseverance. ...It is owned by its members (socis in Catalan), who now number 150,000, rather than by shareholders or foreign tycoons. ...so far nobody has gone as far as Barça in giving customers a direct say in big decisions.

I have great regard for Schumpeter but, as readers of this blog would know, I am wary of drawing management lessons from anecdotal evidence. True, it's unwise to depend too much on stars and there is much to be said for home-grown talent. But would you say 'never' to stars? There are surely instances of other clubs that have done the opposite of what Barca has done and been at the top in their own time. If home-grown talent were all that mattered, the teams in the IPL would not bidding for foreign players and having them.

Moreover, what applies in football or some other sport may not be applicable to firms. As firms globalise, there is merit in hiring talent from overseas, at all levels, indeed in internationalising top management as well as the board. In sports, the nationality of the player does not matter- football is football, whether one is playing at home or abroad. Not so with firms, where knowledgeable of the local culture and the local economy and the ability to deal with policy-makers and regulators in the host country are important requirements for success.

Star CEOs do deliver dramatic improvements in performance, although there is an issue of whether these improvements are always sustainable. You can't deny that Lou Gerstner produced a lasting transformation at IBM.

Perhaps what is required is combination of home-grown values and diversity of talent. The values must be so deep-rooted that foreign talent also comes to imbibe it. But this is, perhaps, asking for the impossible. If Barca continues its reign for a longer period than anybody else, we may be able to draw conclusions. Until then, we must reserve judgement on what Barca represents- and its managerial implications.

Greece can derail the world economy

Last May, after the IMF-EU rescue of Greece, I confidently forecast that the rescue would not work. There was no way Greece could service its then level of debt. A year later, it's being generally accepted that restructuring is necessary although the EU appears to favour 'soft restructuring', which is extending the maturities of debt instead of debt forgiveness or lowering of interest rates. This, of course, merely postpones the day of reckoning.

My forecast may have come true but I am not celebrating. The Greek debt problem is a lot worse than thought earlier. It appears now that even restructuring will not return Greece to insolvency. That leaves only two options: a fiscal union for the EU (with fiscal transfers from a 'centre' to the states, as in India) or the exit of Greece from the currency union. The first is politically distasteful; the second will create turmoil all round. Greece will be quite a nut for the new head of the IMF to crack.

More in my ET column, Greek jolt to world economy.

World class or not?

One of the pleasures of writing this blog is the high quality of responses it evokes. One anonymous reader talks of lack of ethical standards and even corruption at the IIMs. I cannot, for obvious reasons, comment on that. Most comments fault me for not addressing the core issue of whether the IITs and IIMs produce world-class research or not. They are right- I did not address this issue because it's difficult to deal with in a short post. Let me take a stab at it.

Perhaps, I should begin by posing some counter-questions. Is Infosys in the same league as Microsoft? Is ISRO equivalent to NASA? Are the IB and RAW comparable to MI5 and Mossad? Are our business dailies as good as Financial Times and Wall Street Journal?

There's no end to these comparisons and they will take us nowhere. No non-commercial institution in India needs to justify itself by comparing itself with somebody else who is regarded as best in class and then coming to conclusions as to its worth or utility. If that is the yard-stick, we will see mass hara-kiri.

The key issue is the impact the institution makes on its environment. Is it adding substantial value in the environment in which it operates? When the question is posed in these terms, the dimensions on which performance is measured change. You would not judge an IIT or IIM only on one dimension, namely, publication in international journals but on several dimensions: quality of students, interface with industry, impact on important sectors of the economy, inputs for policy-making, etc. The founding fathers of IIMA never talked about becoming 'world-class'. They spoke about two things: striving for excellence and striving for relevance. I guess I am talking about the same things.

The top American university is a marvel that has evolved over some three hundred years. It is supported by enormous private funding and it has put in place culture and processes that are not easy to replicate. Not just India but the rest of the world lags behind considerably: even the top European universities cannot hope to rival Stanford, Harvard, MIT and Princeton. In higher education, as in defence, the US stands alone.

The quest for improvement and reform must be eternal and the IITs and IIMs must be held to account for higher and higher levels of performance. But to condemn them by comparison with the icons of American education, which is what "world class" is all about, can only demoralise faculty and undermine whatever good can come out of our system.

Do IITs, IIMs add value ?

When it is said that the IITs, IIMs owe their eminence entirely to students, not to faculty, it is implied that they do not add value. True or false?

Well, an IIMB director answered this effectively a few years ago when some in the corporate world had made similar statements. He made an offer: he would make public the admissions list the moment it was finalised. Corporates could come and recruit anybody on the list right away. If the IIMs did not add value, neither the students nor the corporates should have a problem doing this. There were no takers. The companies' bluff had been called.

There is another way of responding to the contention that faculty do not contribute. The IITs and the IIMs admit a small fraction of applicants. An IIM would call for interview around 1000 students. Anybody familiar with the admissions process would know that there is very little difference in terms of the CAT score between a student ranked 800 and a student ranked 2500 in CAT. The former may make it to an IIM; the latter is left out and goes to some other B-School. If the difference in student quality, that is, the input is negligible, how come there is such a huge difference in output or outcome? How is it that the IIM student is hugely sought after while the non-IIM student is not? Ditto for the IITs. QED.

Jairam Ramesh on IITs and IIMs

The astonishing part of Jairam Ramesh's criticism of IITs and IIMs is his contention that a governmental research set-up can never attract young people. Ramesh presumably said this in order to justify his decision to set up a Maritime Research Centre in collaboration with the Mukesh Ambani group. The statement flies in the face of facts.

If a private institution in higher education were inherently more attractive, how is it that there are no private engineering colleges comparable to the IITs, no private B-schools comparable to the IIMs (with the exception of ISB), no medical college of the stature of AIIMS? A private institution in education can achieve quality only if it is private and non-profit. We know that is emphatically not the case in India, that the whole point about private institutions coming up in education is to make money, whether over the table or under it.

Indeed, when you look other places- France, Germany, Russia, China- the premier educational institutions are all in the public sector. The lone exception to state domination of quality institutions of education is the US. That is because of the tradition of private philanthropy supporting higher education, a tradition that is almost unique to the US. No other culture has it or has it in the same measure. That is why it is futile to expect private institutions elsewhere to produce anything comparable.

Even in the US, it is not as if quality education is the monopoly of the private sector. There are several distinguished universities that are part of government - the magnificent institutions of California university, University of Texas (Austin), Ohio State University, to name a few. Government presence in higher education need not be inimical to the pursuit of excellence and can indeed conduce to it- provided the governance structures are right. Several countries in the world have shown that it is possible to achieve this, and here in India, the success of the IITs and IIMs illustrates the same principle.

Criminality or stupidity?

The question that is being asked for Pakistan's security agencies in the wake of the Osama bin Laden killing could also be asked of bankers and investment bankers in the sub-prime crisis. Hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam, has been convicted on charges of insider trading but no banker of stature has even faced charges for the turmoil caused by banks in the crisis.

It's plausible that poor judgement, rather than mala fide intent, underlay most of the problems at the banks, combined with such factors as poor regulation, lax monetary policy and current account imbalances. But can the bankers entirely escape blame, including the ones at the top at Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers? John Gapper, writing in the FT, feels that investigations must continue in the hope of pinning blame on at least some people:

What is clear is that, both on the way up and in the panic on the way down, many banks valued and traded such assets for their own purposes and did their best to hunt out gullible buyers. The Senate inquiry report quotes a Goldman executive exulting that “I think I found a white elephant, flying pig and unicorn all at once” on finding an investor that would buy one of its collateralised debt obligations.

It beggars belief that somewhere on Wall Street, in the last days of the mortgage bubble, crimes were not committed. They are still worth finding.

Sure they are, but it's gonna be tough. Not only are some of these crimes difficult to prove but one has to reckon with the clout of Wall Street in these matters and the old boy's network among finance honchos that extends to the highest levels of goernment.

Curbing inflation in India

The RBI signalled last week that it would tackle inflation head-on. The 50 bps hike in the repo rate was meant to send a strong signal to the market.

When inflation has been in the double digit range for two years running, the central bank has little choice. But, then, we need to be clear that high inflation in the recent past has been driven primarily by supply-side factors, fuel and food prices. Both these will stay at elevated levels in the coming months. Further, there is evidence that variations in demand in the period 2006-10 had little bearing on the inflation rate, particularly variations in non-agricultural GDP.

What role can demand management by the RBI play in such a scenario? It may not be able to influence demand but it can still influence the inflation rate by anchoring inflation expectations. That is what the RBI is seeking to do. If that is so, what expectations of inflation should the RBI target? In other words, what rate of inflation should we tolerate in the present scenario? It cannot be the previous comfort rate of 3-4%. It has to be something higher. The RBI needs to indicate what that is. Compressing demand to reduce the growth rate can otherwise end up inflicting costs on the economy that are greater than the costs imposed by high inflation.

More in my ET column, A 'new normal' for inflation?

Comment from the Dawn newspaper

One of the most forthright and hard-hitting comments on the death of Osama bin Laden I have seen comes from a column in the Dawn newspaper of Pakistan. Cyril Almeida writes:

Did the 1965 war make any sense? It was hard to find any sense to it then, even less so today.

Did Kargil make any sense? Not then, not today.

Did hawking nuclear paraphernalia on the international market make any sense? Buying did perhaps, but selling? And now we
have the world’s most-wanted terrorist recovered from the bosom of the Pakistani security establishment.

So maybe it does make sense after all. The establishment has flirted with irrationality in the past. Now it appears to have
perfected it.

Where do we go from here as a country?

As long as national security and foreign policy remain in the hands of a cabal of generals — unaccountable and untouchable, a lay unto themselves, and in thrall to their own irrational logic — what future can this country have? Surely, not much of a future.

You cannot help admiring the courage and objectivity of the writer. This is why I find it difficult to buy the idea of Pakistan as a failed state. There must be something very right about a country where a leading newspaper can produce such a column.

Disapproving noises on bin Laden....

The Archbishop of Canterbury has incurred the wrath of Americans with his reaction to the killing of Osama bin Laden. The Archbishop was quoted as saying, "I think the killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave an uncomfortable feeling because it doesn't look as if justice is seen to be done". This led to the Europeans promptly being branded by their cousins across the Atlantic as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys".

Meanwhile, UN Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay wants the facts of the operation to be made available to the UN. She is quoted as saying,"The United Nations' top human rights official called on the United States Tuesday to give the U.N. details about Osama bin Laden's killing, saying all counter-terrorism operations must respect international law. It will be interesting to see whether the US complies with the request.

NRN's retort to Mohandas Pai

It doesn't pay to annoy the founder of Infosys. N R Narayana Murthy has responded to Pai's comments on succession at Infosys in an interview to BS. He contends that the preference for seniority was part of a policy that Pai himself had put in place:

We have a programme, iRace, which is an HR module for promotions and growth. In that, we have clearly said that with other things remaining equal, the person who has had a longer tenure will be promoted. This system was championed by the director-in-charge of HR (Pai). So, I am not saying anything that is different.

About Pai's questioning his own policy, NRN has this scathing put-down:

We must be very kind to him (Pai) because at times we all lose our rational thinking and make an emotional statement. After all, we have to be very kind and forgiving.

NRN also points out that Pai had told the media he was not interested in the CEO's past and then harped on the company making a distinction between founders and non-founders.

New chairman at Infosys

Excuse me, but I am at a loss to comprehend the hoopla over the appointment of a new chairman at Infosys.

Media analysts asks whether this will make Infosys more aggressive, raise the bar at the company, etc. These questions are somewhat inappropriate once you grasp the following:

• K V Kamath is supposed to be a non-executive chairman
  
• There is also an executive co-chairman in Kris Gopalakrishnan.
• NRN does not exit the firm, he stays on as Emeritus Chairman

It is not for a non-executive chairman to make a company more aggressive or even to define its direction. That is the CEO's role. The chairman is responsible only for governance: he has to ensure that the CEO is held accountable for objectives that he proposes and that the board agrees to. For Kamath to attempt anything more would amount to overstepping his role. Kamath himself was candid on this subject in response to questions posed to him yesterday after the board meeting. He said he thought Infosys was quite aggressive at it was and he would be happy to keep pace with it. That is the right spirit.

All the excitement over the appointment of a new chairman would have been merited only if governance was an issue at Infosys; that is hardly the case. So the appointment of a new chairman should have been a non-event. Companies appoint search committees to locate a CEO. Have you heard of committees making the effort for finding a chairman? For that matter, has the appointment of a chairman at any company generated such publicity?

If the CEO is to be given any direction, the primary responsibility will be that of executive co-chairman. Note also that NRN is very much around. One of the papers (BS) reported a few days ago that even as non-executive chairman, NRN had the last word on most matters, that all cheques of over Rs 5 lakh had to be signed by him and that he made it a point to meet heads of businesses regularly as non-executive chairman. It remains to be see whether he completely distances himself from the firm as emeritus chairman. It is fair to suggest that, had he wanted to do so, NRN would have exited the firm.

Royal wedding and security

Oxymoronic as it may sound, one of the things that struck me about the Williams- Kate wedding yesterday was the unobtrusive security. I didn't spot any gun-toting guards either at the palace or at Westminster Abbey. In the church itself, security personnel were almost unnoticeable.

After the wedding, the couple drove through the streets in an open carriage, flanked only by horsemen. There were so many buildings along the route and I am sure security must have been tight but you only saw unarmed bobbies.

Contrast all this with our public functions these days that teem with gun-toting security personnel. It's a sign of efficiency when security is not apparent. One sees the same thing when the British PM steps outside 10, Downing Street to interact with press. You see the lone policeman outside the door and little else. That's a measure of self-confidence in the security team. They have it all covered, as they say. There is first-rate intelligence backed by minute surveillance. I am sure there are armed personnel around, waiting to spring in should the situation demand it, but you won't see them.

The more advanced the country and its security system, the less intrusive security is. By the same token, armed men swarming all over - and menacing the general public- are the hallmark of a banana republic.

IMF on capital controls

The IMF has, over the years, changed its line on capital controls- from opposing these outright to now admitting these may be required in some situations. This, of course, vindicates India's position on gradual movement towards capital account convertibility and also that of emerging markets that have imposed capital controls as required.

It's good to see the IMF changing its position in the face of facts or evidence but its learning may be proving costly to its member countries. How many countries have ended up paying a steep price for rushing into full convertibility? And can we now expect to hear a different tune on other things, such as privatisation, subsidies or food security?

More on how the IMF's position on capital controls has evolved in my ET column, IMF lessons and other tales.