Hindi Chini Bye Bye?

The Chinese president came, saw but could not conquer. Much of the bonhomie that PM Modi exuded in Ahmedabad seemed to evaporate once the hard reality of the standoff on the borders began to sink in- and for the PM the timing must have been particularly galling.

Xi Jinping was, no doubt, hoping that he would get India to open up to Chinese investment in a big way, providing China with a useful means of diversifying away from Japan and East Asia, without having to address the border issue. It didn't quite work out. There is talk of $20 bn of Chinese investment happening but there is reason to be sceptical.

One should not be surprised at the outcome. Negotiations can yield a fair outcome only if it happens between equals or between a powerful entity and a less powerful one who is seen as a partner. Neither condition is fulfilled in India's case. China and India remain rivals on the Asia stage so far as India is concerned. China sees the rivalry as settled in its favour given that the Chinese economy is today five times India's and China is far more powerful militarily.

The only meaningful resolution that is possible on the border issue is that India accepts China's claims on the western border (Aksai Chin) while China concedes India's claims in the east (Arunachal Pradesh). This was the deal that Chou-en-Lai offered Nehru but it was rejected by the latter. Today, China is perhaps even warier about Tibet and hence about the status of Arunachal Pradesh which borders it. (Mao had famously said that the issue in the 1962 war was not so much the border as Tibet- he thought India was upto mischief under American instigation).

So, the "talks" on the border are bound to drag on until the gap between India and China is narrowed. This means India's growth rate must overtake China's and it must stay that way for, say, five years. India's economy is bound to accelerate and China's is bound to slow down. The cross-over point is probably three to four years away, which would place it at 2017/18. Five years from then would be 2022/23. It is in the decade 2020-30 that we can expect a resolution of the border issue- provided things don't blow up in our face before that. Going by most projections, this is the decade in which India finally begins to come into its own. The rivalry between India and China will intensify in the coming years no matter that the economic relationship deepens.

The military issue for India is how to counter a vastly more powerful neighbour which has the advantage of geography in the North (since China is positioned at a higher level in Tibet)? The Economist has an interesting article on how India's strategic thinkers see the Andaman islands as a useful counter:

Hawks in Delhi who are suspicious of Chinese long-term aims say bluntly that India and its friends will acquire some sway over China only once the Andamans are treated as a “chokepoint”, a place to disrupt Chinese trade in the event of any future confrontation. Four-fifths of Chinese oil imports go through the strait. Chinese naval strategists warn of Indian designs to drop an “iron curtain” there.

Accordingly, there has been a steady build-up of naval and other capabilities centred on the islands:

An air base that opened two years ago in Campbell Bay, Great Nicobar, has taken Indian military aircraft 300km closer than before to the Malacca Strait. Other airstrips are reportedly being built or lengthened to handle big aircraft, including the Hercules transport plane. Airfields for helicopters will follow. The navy wants to deploy drones to track passing ships. New coastguard stations serve a similar purpose. Regular naval exercises with neighbours are interspersed with big international training manoeuvres hosted in the Andamans and named “Millan”. The most recent involved 17 navies in a disaster-relief exercise meant to mark a decade after the 2004 Asian tsunami.

This makes sense because among the three arms of the defence forces, the navy is the one arm in respect of which India comes close to Chinese capability especially in respect of capability to operate in the Indian Ocean.India's build-up in the Indian Ocean will be welcomed by Japan and others in East Asia. Go round the Malacca Straits and you enter the South China Sea. A book review in the Economist highlights the extent of Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea: China is laying claim to a stretch of rock and coral 1500 kms away from China's coast and just 107 kms from Malaysia's:

The Chinese nine-dash line is claimed also by Taiwan, as the descendant of the “Republic of China” whose mapmakers produced it. It sweeps through the “exclusive economic zones” asserted under UNCLOS by Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam. The Philippines is challenging its legal validity. But even if it wins, UNCLOS cannot adjudicate on sovereignty over islands, rocks or shoals. And China will ignore it anyway.

America's famed 'pivot' towards Asia is dictated by this display of Chinese assertiveness and the need to counter it. Japan and East Asia are not quite equal to the task. The US may be stretched in undertaking this exercise alone. That's where India and Indian naval strength come in. The US has an interest in bolstering India so that it can be a more useful partner to itself. PM Modi must see this more clearly after the Chinese president's visit. The strategic partnership between India and the US, started by Vajpayee and continued by Manmohan Singh, will be carried forward by Modi although the last years of the Obama regime may not see the proper fructification of it. 

National Airlines: Air India has plenty of company

Air India is not the only national airline being kept afloat by government money. There are plenty of others around the world, the Economist reports- and the ill-fated Malaysian Airlines is not the only one. Poland's national airline received $200 mn from the government. Italy's carrier, Alitalia, was bailed out by recently Etihad, the Gulf airline, taking a 49% stake. Indeed, national airlines that are doing well are exceptions:

The thriving airlines of Singapore and Ethiopia, and the Gulf carriers, Etihad, Emirates and Qatar Airways, all benefited from government money but have been allowed to operate as commercial enterprises with minimal interference. Such entrepreneurial thrust is rare. Elsewhere, inexperienced cronies often dominate management. State employees frequently travel free. Many carriers are obliged to maintain loss-making domestic routes to please politicians. Olympic Airlines was forced to deliver newspapers for a pittance to keep the country’s press barons happy. The Greek national carrier went to the wall in 2009.

The reasons for national airlines doing badly are common: overstaffing, poor management and strong unions. Air India, I would imagine, is in a slightly different category. Its financial problems are because of excess debt incurred by an aircraft-buying binge during the tenure of Praful Patel as civil aviation minister. The problem is not overstaffing or operational inefficiency. 

Grade inflation in Ivy League colleges

Grades and grade point averages at Ivy League colleges mean less than they did before, the Economist reports :

In 1950, Mr Rojstaczer estimates, Harvard’s average grade was a C-plus. An article from 2013 in the Harvard Crimson, a student newspaper, revealed that the median grade had soared to A-minus: the most commonly awarded grade is an A........Universities pump up grades because many students like it. Administrators claim that tough grading leads to rivalry and stress for students. But if that is true, why have grades at all? Brilliant students complain that, thanks to grade inflation, little distinguishes them from their so-so classmates. Employers agree. When so many students get As, it is hard to figure out who is clever and who is not.

An earlier piece in the journal takes a rigorous look at whether grade inflation is 'inflation' at all:

.... “inflation” in grades ought to mean that work of a given standard would be awarded an ever higher grade, year by year. The highest permissible grade would therefore have to keep rising: A this year, A-star the next, A-double-star and so forth thereafter, in a ceaseless procession of non-improvement. Because in reality the top grade is fixed, the process is not so much grade inflation as grade compression. This is worse: a distortion in relative prices is more confusing than a uniform upward drift. Grade compression squeezes information out of the system. At the limit, when all Harvard's students get As all the time, the university's grades will yield no information whatsoever. 

Faculty settle for higher grades for students because it makes their job easier, it flatters students and students may return the flattery by giving faculty good grades in their feedback. But grade inflation does interfere the 'signalling' that university education is supposed to be provide employers. One answer could be that employers will find their own ways to distinguish amongst students by using group discussions, case analyses, interviews - and recommendation letters from professors. But the last, as the Economist points out, could mean more work for profs. Better that they devote more energy to having a suitable distribution of grades.

Outsourcing whistle blowers- and boards?

Sebi's modified Clause 49 of the listing agreement, which takes effect from October 1, provides for the creation of a whistle-blower mechanism in companies. There are many issues that employees face in blowing the whistle unethical actions or violations of the law. Is it safe to report such things? If the MD is involved, whom do they report to? Will the complaint be acted upon?

A report in BS mentions the possibility of outsourcing whistle-blowing services. Then, perhaps, employees will face safer. Maybe. But who will the third party report to? The Compliance Officer, the MD or the Board? And who hires the third party? If the MD is unhappy with a hyper-active third party, what prevents him from terminating or not renewing the contract?

We are assuming here that all violations take place without the knowledge or consent of the MD. This may not be true in all cases. And if the MD himself is reported about or even a board member, should the third party not be bringing such cases to the attention of the regulator? In short, outsourcing of whistle-blowing needs to be carefully thought through with specifications of which matter should be taken to which authority.

In the Economist, Schumpeter raises the possibility of outsourcing the board itself.  The company would hire a professional services firm to provide board services. The professional firm would find the best directors. This eliminates the problem of self-dealing in companies, namely, management selecting board members convenient to itself. Competition among service providers of this kind would ensure that companies get the best service at competitive rates.

Sounds attractive but I can see several problems. Who will evaluate the performance of the board? The management, I guess. If management finds the board too inconvenient, it will simply not renew the contract. Secondly, if an outside firm is to provide such services, it may prove expensive relative to a company finding its own board members (although the fee should still be affordable for large companies). Thirdly, conflicts of interest could arise where an outside firm is providing boards to several companies.

If the idea is to distance board selection from the management, it would be simpler to just increase those involved in nominating members. Give large institutional investors, lenders, small investors and employees all the right to nominate one or two members each. Don't leave the selection entirely to management.

Incidentally, for public sector companies, such outsourcing already happens in a way. Board members are selected by the Bureau of Public Enterprises with inputs from the concerned ministries. Management at PSUs does not select board members. But here, it is the government as owner that is using its own agency to select the board. The job is outsourced so far as management is concerned but it is not outsourced where the principal investor is concerned. And the question of paying a commercial fee for board services does not arise.

What to do with failed banks?

Governments in the US and Europe have set their faces against bailouts of failed banks following the crisis of 2007- the Dodd FranK Act in the US prohibits such bailouts hereafter. Yet, as an article in the FT asks: what alternatives do we have?

A time tested-alternative, the author points out, was to merge a failed bank with a strong bank. Banks are now finding out that this can be costly for one reason or another. The huge fine that BofA has had to cough up has to do with the problems at Merrill Lynch and Country which it acquired in 2008 and these problems happened before the merger. This is going to deter future acquisitions and mergers because the amount of due diligence will take too long and will be too costly.

The other alternative, getting banks to prepare living wills  that will document an orderly winding up of a bank when it fails, is proving unworkable so far- in the US, the regulators have rejected living wills prepared by US and European banks. It's no use asking for banks to have contingent capital- this will be very costly and it may not suffice.

So, governments will have no recourse against bank failure other than bailouts. The only answer, which I have urged repeatedly, is to ensure that the problem is manageable when it happens and that is to limit bank size as a proportion of GDP. No policy maker or regulator is willing to touch this political hot potato.

Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana

The government's financial inclusion has the mighty backing of the PM. The early success in getting  in 1.5 crore accounts on the first day is no small measure to the PM writing directly to bank heads and (I believe) to lakhs of bank officers.

It is also better thought through than some of the earlier schemes. It's not just about creating deposit accounts- that doesn't attract people or make money for the bank. There is a loan product (overdraft of Rs 5000), an accident insurance policy for Rs 1 lakh and a life insurance policy of Rs 30,000, all of which are revenue generating. The public sector system is also better geared up today thanks to the experience it has had with banking correspondents and mobile technology.

There are problems on the ground. An important problem is multiple accounts being created with different banks. This has to be sorted out. Then, there are problems of communication. Many poor have queued up because they have been told that they stand to be paid Rs 1.05 lakh!

My analysis of the potential benefits of the scheme in an article in the Hindu, A big bang reform that may be spot on.

Modi's Great Leap Forward

It's a big bang reform alright but not quite what the reforms brigade has been clamouring for. The government's Jan Dhan Yojana, an ambitious plan for financial inclusion, has the potential to be a game-changer for the banking sector and the economy. It calls to mind Indira Gandhi's much-maligned bank nationalisation move which helped transform India's economic prospects over the decade of the seventies.

Bank nationalisation helped sweep small savings into the financial system and push up the savings rate from 10 per cent at the end of the seventies to over 20 per cent by the beginning of the eighties. That, in turn, caused the investment rate to double and helped lift India's trend rate of economic growth from 3.5 per cent to 5.5 per cent in the eighties. Bank nationalisation had its problems. The achievement on the lending side has not been as impressive as that on the liabilities side: small and marginal farmers and also small firms do not get the credit they need. The expansion of branches and balance sheets undermined viability in the banking system. But these problems could be dealt with over time as the basis for economic growth had been laid.

Jan Dhan Yojana holds out the promise of carrying forward the unfinished agenda of bank nationalisation. Sceptics again say it will add to the existing stresses in the banking system. The banking system will have crores of accounts that are inoperative.The overdraft of Rs5000 per accoun promised, if extended to the 10 crore accounts targeted, will create NPAs of Rs 50,000 crore.Banks may garner deposits but lending will remain an issue.And so on.

Yes, in the short run, there will be issues. Over the long run, however, the potential for transformation is enormous. The new accounts will not be idle for long. Large amounts of cash will flow in through the Direct Benefits Transfer. These could lead to large amounts of floats in the public sector (which is bearing the brunt of the initiative). Overdrafts will not be given overnight to all. Banks will watch the accounts for six months before doing so. Even if we assume that half the accounts get the overdraft and half of the overdrafts turn into NPAs, we are talking of  losses of Rs 12,500 crore over two or three years. That is bearable.

Once large numbers of people are brought into the financial system, banks will find opportunities and ways to lend. What has been the province of micro-finance institutions and Regional Rural Banks will move in a large way into the commercial banks. Banks already have made some headway with banking correspondents. Alliances with mobile operators should enable to them to leverage mobile banking as well. It is conceivable that Jan Dhan Yojana could just the shot in the arm that the public sector banks needed. Let me qualify this by saying that much depends on whether the moves under way in the finance ministry to strengthen both boards and management in the public sector bear fruit.

The goverrnment's initiative does undercut the RBI's attempts to pursue inclusion through new players such as payments banks and small banks. The RBI had taken the view that not much could be expected of the public sector and that private entrepreneurs were needed to infuse life into inclusion.The Modi government clearly has a different view. In a way, the entire locus of financial inclusion as well as bank governance has shifted from the RBI to the finance ministry. That could well be a comment on the present state of relations between the ministry and the RBI.

Above all, by unveiling an initiative that is quite different from what economists have pressed for urgently, Modi has shown his capacity for out-of-the box thinking- and his willingness to be guided by his grassroots understanding of what is required rather than the wisdom of experts.

US, ISIS and the "war on terror"

The gruesome killing of US journalist James Foley by ISIS, the Islamic group which has gained control of big swathes of Iraq and Syria, has given impetus to a rethink of what the US should be doing about the outfit. The US has already bombed ISIS targets in Iraq and has commenced surveillance of Isis positions in Syria. Both US and British special forces are said to have commenced the hunt for the killer of Foley, now believed to be a Briton. The US government has commenced a steady drumbeat of propaganda on the threats posed by ISIS, which is now touted as 'beyond anything we have seen so far', with the US media following suit.

This is beginning to seem like a horrible re-run of America's dealings with the Taliban. The US funded the Taliban and various Islamic forces in its proxy war against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. After 9/11, the US turned on the Taliban and its ally, Al Qaeda. The US has since been fighting the Taliban (both the Afghan and Pak varieties) in Afghanistan as well as the Afghan-Pak border.

So it is with ISIS. The US, at the very least, turned a blind eye to ISIS which first gained importance in the battle to overthrow President Assad of Syria. Other American allies, such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar are known to be active supporters and funders of ISIS. Once ISIS crossed into Iraq and threatened the government of Iraq, the US seems to have had a change of heart. However, while attacking the ISIS in Iraq, it has been reluctant to attack it in Syria because that would mean strengthening Assad. (The Syrian government itself is open to support from any country, including the US, in its bitter war against ISIS).

This is changing fast as ISIS looms begin to larger in Iraq and begins to pose a threat to Kurds. The US, which has portrayed the "war on terror" as primarily one against, Al Qaeda, is now well on its way to creating a new demon to take its place, ISIS. A new front is to be opened on the "war on terror". One head of the hydra has been replaced by another. How has this come about?

Patrick Cockburn offers a compelling explanation:

The "war on terror" has failed because it did not target the jihadi movement as a whole and, above all, was not aimed at Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the two countries that fostered jihadism as a creed and a movement. The US did not do so because these countries were important American allies whom it did not want to offend.

Saudi Arabia is an enormous market for American arms, and the Saudis have cultivated, and on occasion purchased, influential members of the American political establishment. Pakistan is a nuclear power with a population of 180 million and a military with close links to the Pentagon.

RBI's restructuring plan

I was on Bloomberg TV India this morning for a discussion on the RBI's restructuring plan, including the proposal to create an office of COO with the rank of Deputy Governor.

The restructuring plan is facing resistance from employee unions. It is the COO proposal, however, that has attracted the most flak in the media and drawn a frosty response from the government of India. Media reports indicate that the proposal was put up to the board of directors of RBI around the time of the budget. The board of directors of RBI does not have the same monitoring authority as a corporate board; the key entity, when it comes to monitoring, is the finance ministry. It is strange that the RBI did not take the ministry into confidence in the matter before listing the item at the board meeting.

At the board meeting, the finance ministry asked that the matter be deferred since their representatives would not be able to attend. At the next board meeting, the finance ministry made it clear that an appointment of the rank of Deputy Governor would require an amendment to the RBI Act and that somebody of that rank could not be appointed by the RBI governor; the appointment would have to go to the Cabinet Committee on Appointments.

That is not the only problem with the COO post. As media reports have pointed out, it signals that the person occupying the post is no 2 in the hierarchy, so that you have on Deputy Governor who is superior in rank to the others. That is not the tradition  at RBI. Moreover, the perception has gained ground that the post is being created into order to accommodate one particular individual. The perception may not be well-founded. But the very fact that it has gained currency is damaging to the RBI.

There is also controversy over the proposal to facilitate lateral entry into RBI. Nothing wrong with lateral entry. But the case must first be made as to what specialist skills are required and at what level. The RBI spends lavishly on training so that people are ready to take up positions that require special skills. If this is not adequate, there would be room for a specialist from outside. But, as I said, this has to be justified.

The RBI has acquired a certain stature and reputation over the years, in part because it is seen to be a meritocratic organisation. It has steered clear of the sort of controversies over appointments that have bedevilled other public institutions. The RBI must be careful to safeguard this hard-won reputation.

Raghuram Rajan's father was a spy

I have heard RBI governor Raghuram Rajan's father being described as a 'diplomat' and I have found it rather intriguing because it has never been said that his father was an IFS officer or ambassador. Well, the mystery, at least for me, is now cleared up with Rajan confirming, in an interview with FT,  that his father was an officer in India's intelligence service. ( It appears to be RAW). Rajan is quick to clarify that his father was no James Bond:

It is a topic Rajan discusses rarely, so I decide to be blunt. While growing up, did he know that his father was a spy? He didn’t, he replies, finding out only later. “He used to tell me that John le Carré got it largely right,” he says of his father’s profession. “You’re just like another bureaucrat, except you’re doing things that other people would find very, very interesting. But it’s not that you’re walking around with a Walther PPK and lovely women . . .  My mother would not have appreciated that.

For the record, Rajan denied any ambition to occupy political office, saying that he plans to get back to academics and focus on India-related research:

My intent has been, and is, to go back to academia,” he says, sketching out a future research agenda on the interplay of markets and democracy, with a particular focus on India itself. The question of what type of country India will become interests him in particular, especially given its socialist heritage and often-ambivalent relationship to the free market. “In India, we say one thing, and we do something else,” he says as we finish our coffee, and place our napkins to one side. “So what are we trying to do as a country? Figuring that out, I think, would also be fun.”

Raghuram Rajan on venal politicians

RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan's Lalit Doshi memorial lecture last week created a bit of a stir. Rajan chose to lash out against crony capitalism and the venal Indian politician:

Even as our democracy and our economy have become more vibrant, an important issue in the recent election was whether we had substituted the crony socialism of the past with crony capitalism, where the rich and the influential are alleged to have received land, natural resources and spectrum in return for payoffs to venal politicians. By killing transparency and competition, crony capitalism is harmful to free enterprise, opportunity, and economic growth. And by substituting special interests for the public interest, it is harmful to democratic expression. If there is some truth to these perceptions of crony capitalism, a natural question is why people tolerate it. Why do they vote for the venal politician who perpetuates it?

Rajan then proceeds to answer his question:

Our provision of public goods is unfortunately biased against access by the poor. In a number of states, ration shops do not supply what is due, even if one has a ration card – and too many amongst the poor do not have a ration card or a BPL card; Teachers do not show up at schools to teach; The police do not register crimes, or encroachments, especially if committed by the rich and powerful; Public hospitals are not adequately staffed and ostensibly free medicines are not available at the dispensary; …I can go on, but you know the all-too-familiar picture.

This is where the crooked but savvy politician fits in. While the poor do not have the money to “purchase” public services that are their right, they have a vote that the politician wants. The politician does a little bit to make life a little more tolerable for his poor constituents – a government job here, an FIR registered there, a land right honoured somewhere else. For this, he gets the gratitude of his voters, and more important, their vote.

What Rajan says is, of course, true. Go to the office of any municipal corporator, MLA and MP and you will see people queuing up for all sorts of favours. The politician dispenses these to win their goodwill. But this is not the only reason that the venal politician gets the vote. The venal politician delivers in other ways as well, by ensuring that various development measures happen in his constituency, whether new investment by the government or private sector, new schools, hospitals etc. The politician is often drawn from the oppressed classes and so the politician has a natural empathy with his constituents. Of course, he enriches himself but, in the process, he does his bit for his people as well. In other words, the venal politician is not as bad as Rajan makes him out to be.

Moreover, the politician is not the only venal character in the system. Businessmen, corporate professionals, lawyers, doctors, accountants- virtually all groups that constitute the upper classes- are venal in their own way. The voter sees the politician at least as being responsive to their needs- and that's because of the greatness of parliamentary democracy- in a way in which other groups are not. The rest can only look after themselves.

Rajan goes on to argue that the voter's dependence on the politician for favours is what keeps the politician from reforming the system, from ensuring better delivery of services: he has a vested interest in poor delivery so that he can then play saviour. That is why, Rajan argues, that direct benefit transfer linked to financial inclusion is so important.Then, the poor have the cash with which they can buy services from the private sector, they do not have to depend entirely on the public sector and the venal politician.

This is true only up to a point: there is only so much cash that the poor can get. There will still be a need to access public sector services, such as healthcare (the private provision of which cannot be bought with the cash given to the poor). It is also worth making another point: the focus on cash transfer and financial inclusion is being driven by the very venal politician on whom Rajan takes aim.

There are many ills in our polity and we need to address crony capitalism. It's a bad idea, however, to start off by condemning the political class.

Modi's independence day speech

Modi's maiden independence day speech as PM was a winner. The PM spoke without a prepared text, he was eloquent, he was passionate and he connected superbly.

The  PM started off on just the right note: he had come, not as PM, but as the prime servant of the  people. He was an outsider to the Delhi durbar. In two months, however, he had had a chance to develop an "insider's view" of Delhi. And what he had seen had given him a jolt. For, there was not one sarkar in Delhi but multiple sarkars within one sarkar. Departments were warring with each other, working at cross-purposes. It made news when he reminded public servants that they should show up on time. The spirit of public service was missing: the right question to ask was not 'what is in it for me' but 'what is in it for the nation'.

There was a lot on character building and serious shortcomings in Indian society. And there were some significant announcements: a plan for financial inclusion, the scrapping of the Planning Commission, a plan to create model villages etc.

The Republic Day is about a grand coming together of the nation. The event achieves this beautifully. The PM's Independence Day has, over the years, should be about the PM reaching out to the nation and sharing his perspective. It hasn't quite met this objective for a while now because that require oratory of a high order. It does appear that this is poised to change with PM Modi.

The Economist on Reliance Industries

The Economist had Mukesh Ambani on its cover in a recent issue. It carried an edit as well as a feature on the Reliance group with the edit titled, "An unloved billionaire".

The magazine is generous is handing out bouquets to the group. Reliance invests massively in India unlike other groups which have said they find the Indian environment uncongenial. It accounts for 15% of India's exports. It ventures into areas where other fear to tread and is hugely profitable.

However, the Economist thinks the group needs a major overhaul of governance. For two reasons. One, India is now exposed to MNCs with much better governance standards. Two, the country is "turning against its tycoons." The magazine has a number of suggestions:

There is plenty that Mr Ambani could do to reform his firm. He could adopt global accounting rules, reveal and simplify its ownership and appoint as directors global heavyweights with reputations to lose who can subject Reliance to scrutiny. The company’s shares—like those of many Asian firms—could be listed in America, which has the world’s toughest disclosure regime. To avoid conflicts of interest Mr Ambani could merge his private businesses into Reliance, on terms that are fair to minority shareholders. He could publish details of Reliance executives’ meetings with politicians and officials. He could sell its media assets. He would lose something in personal and political power but gain more through the opportunity to build a more global and more admired business.

One suggestion took my breath away, namely, that the company "could disclose its executives' meeting with politicians and officials." Is there any large company anywhere in the world that does this? If so, the Economist should publish a list of such companies. Also, how many other industrial groups in India have chosen to appoint global heavyweights on their boards who subject these groups to scrutiny?

I am all for improved corporate governance. However, I would like the Economist to enlighten me on which of the major companies in the world, it thinks, are models of governance.

Fighting inflation: the RBI and the Fed

The RBI and the Fed both enjoy a degree of independence or autonomy as central banks. At the moment, however, the two central banks seem to want to use their independence in quite different ways. The RBI would like to focus on inflation- it would like to bring the inflation rate down to 8% by January 2015 and 6% a year later. The finance ministry would like the RBI to give a little more weight to growth than the above policy would suggest. The RBI's present course run the risk of a collision with the finance ministry, as this report warns.

In the US, the situation today is rather different. The US Fed is taking a quite different approach at the moment. It would like to stick to its broad mandate of addressing both price stability and growth. However, the US Congress would like a sharper focus on price stability, as this article by Martin Feldstein points out. The US Fed is independent of the executive but not completely independent of Congress. The Congress is now pushing legislation that would commit the Fed to a monetary policy rule, namely, the well known Taylor rule. The Fed is resistant to such a rule for obvious reasons. Given an inflation target of 2 per cent, the Taylor rule would determine the fed funds rate which would end up much higher than today's rate:

It (the Taylor rule) states that the federal funds rate should be two per cent plus the current inflation rate plus one-half of the difference between current and target inflation and one-half of the percentage difference between current and full-employment gross domestic product (GDP). ....f the GDP gap is four per cent, as a recent Congressional Budget Office estimate implied, the Taylor rule would indicate an optimal federal funds rate of about 1.25 per cent (2 + 1.5 - 0.25 - 2), compared to the current rate of only 0.1 per cent.
While the federal funds rate may be heading to one per cent over the next 12 or 18 months, by then the narrowing GDP gap will imply an even higher Taylor-rule interest rate. And, complicating things further, given United States banks' vast holdings of excess reserves as a result of the Fed's bond-buying policies (quantitative easing), the federal funds rate is no longer the key policy rate that it once was. Instead, the Fed will be focusing on the interest rate on excess reserves.

Western central banks tend to be more hawkish on inflation than those in developing countries. Today, it would seem that the roles are getting reversed where the US and India are concerned.The US is willing to trade-off a little inflation with growth but not the RBI at the present level of inflation in India.

Reforms- who's right, Modi or his critics?

Some three months into Modi's government, the reforms brigade is getting worked up. What, no "big bang" reforms, they ask. Why isn't Modi privatising? Why isn't he pruning subsidies? And what about labour market reforms?

I argued in a post a few weeks ago that there are good reasons why the Indian polity is allergic to such reforms. But commentators are loath to accept these. In recent days, we have had an orgy of lamenting. The FT, which is normally sober, headlines a commentary piece as "Modi's transition from dictator to ditherer". There is little justification for the hysterical headline apart from the fact that it is alluringly alliterative. Victor Mallet writes:

Some of Mr Modi’s supporters, on the other hand, are nonplussed. They are disappointed by his near-silence on domestic matters, his obsession with foreign affairs and the absence of “big-bang” economic reforms after a decade of lacklustre Congress rule; “underwhelming” is the word used in New Delhi to describe the government’s first budget in July.

“Here is a government that came in with a lot of hope, riding a tide of high expectations, promising change. Ennui has already set in,” writes Bibek Debroy, co-editor of Getting India Back on Track , a book telling the government what it should do.

Ashoka Mody and Michael Walton, writing in BS, provide a rationale for reforms in slow motion:

The business-as-usual economic policy, with which this government has begun, should have been expected. For about a century, a motley group of lower middle class voters has steered Indian politics. Since independence, meeting their insistent livelihood demands has been the prime objective of every political party and government. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) attentively wooed this coalition with finely-tailored promises and remains anxious to hold on to this constituency in the forthcoming state elections. India's central political dynamic remains intact.....

The absence of a transformative agenda is a calculated accommodation to India's political economy. Modi brilliantly channelled the cry for change into an electoral platform. But the government has neither the mental model nor the political courage to effect real change. As so often, political and bureaucratic elites have made promises to the Indian electorate that they cannot keep. Acchey din may be a long way off.  

Shreekant Sambrani, also writing in BS, suggests that Modi is trying to emulate what he did in the Gujarat, which is to focus  on execution rather than sweeping changes in the policy framework:

Modi's strategy was to run the state as a business entity. For this purpose, he depended on two younger members of his team, both with business background and experience, Nitin Patel (current finance minister) and Saurabh Patel (current industries and energy minister). Modi trusted their acumen and gave them key responsibilities. They delivered on issues such as 24x7 power supply and industry-friendly ambience, leading to showcase projects such as Vibrant Gujarat. Modi orchestrated and executed many a scheme with great aplomb, which caught everyone's imagination, most of all, that of India Inc. Thus was born the legend of the Gujarat Model.
To this end, Modi depended heavily on the bureaucracy. His chief secretaries such as P K Laheri, D Rajagopalan and A K Joti delivered plenty. All through his chief ministership, Modi was very much his own chief economist with little regard for theory or ideology, but possessing pragmatism in abundance and an unerring instinct for what sells.

Sambrani thinks this won't work at the national level. Well, we have to wait and see. After all, the political pundits were telling us that, whatever Modi's oratorical skills and record in Gujarat, he would find it impossible to win a national mandate on his own steam. And yet we know he brought it off. It may well be that the answer to India's problems is not to attempt radical reforms and face the political unrest these will trigger but to get the government machinery to deliver better.

Economists argue that reforms must come first, then you get growth. Modi's approach seems to be to do a little better on growth first; once the economy recovers and incomes rise, perhaps the receptivity to reforms will be greater. He may well be proved right. It is wise not to under-estimate the capabilities of extraordinary leaders.

Mh 17- will the mystery be unravelled?

Writing in Atimes, Pepe Escobar asks why it's taking so long for the black box recorder transcripts to be released. In the case of the Algerian plane that went down recently, these were ready within days. He points to increasing evidence that MH-17 was brought down by cannon fine from a Ukranian plane, not by a missile fired from the ground by pro-Russian separatists:

Meanwhile, the MH17 tragedy is undergoing a fast metamorphosis. When the on-site observations by this Canadian OSCE monitor (watch the video carefully) are compounded with this analysis by a German pilot, a strong probability points to a Ukrainian Su-25's 30 mm auto-cannon firing at the cockpit of MH17, leading to massive decompression and the crash.

No missile - not even an air-to-air R-60M, not to mention a BUK (the star of the initial, frenetic American spin). The new possible narrative fits with on-site testimony by eyewitness in this now famously "disappeared" BBC report. Bottom line: MH17 configured as a false flag, planned by the US and botched by Kiev. One can barely imagine the tectonic geopolitical repercussions were the false flag to be fully exposed. 

This has not prevented the US and Nato from trying to box in Putin, aided and abetted by vicious media propaganda:

NATO's Plan A is to install missile batteries in Ukraine; that is already being discussed in detail in the run-up to NATO's summit in Wales in early September. Needless to say, if that happens, for Moscow, that's way beyond a red line; it implies a first strike capability at Russia's western borderlands.

Washington's short Plan A, meanwhile, is to organize a wedge between the federalists in Eastern Ukraine and Russia. This implies progressive, direct funding of Kiev in parallel to building up, via American advisers already on the ground, and vast weaponizing, a huge proxy army (nearly 500,000 by the end of the year, according to Glazyev's projection). Endgame on the ground would be to seal the federalists off into a very small area. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshensko has been on the record saying this should happen by early September. If not, by the end of 2014.  

Commentators have noted that Cold War 2.0 has started. The consequences could be no less serious than what unfolded a 100 years ago following one assassination and ended up as a ruinous world war. Why would the western powers want to precipitate a crisis? The motivation is pretty stark:

For Western plutocracy, that 0.00001% at the top, the real Masters of the Universe, Russia is the ultimate prize; an immense treasure of natural resources, forests, pristine water, minerals, oil and gas. Enough to drive any NSA-to-CIA Orwellian/Panopticon war game to ecstasy. How to pounce and profit from such a formidable loot?

Note that India under PM Modi has kept a cool ahead in this unfolding drama. Sushma Swaraj fielded a press conference with US Secretary of State John Kerry during which she was asked how India intended to deal with Russia following the imposition of sanctions. Swaraj replied icily that a nation's foreign policy did not change with a change in government and that ties with Russia would remain unchanged.

West's strategy: ignore Gaza, focus on Russia

Western governments have chosen to turn a blind eye towards the horrific killings in Gaza, apart from making anodyne statements that equate Israel's brutal measures with rockets fired ineffectually by Hamas. Instead, they have ratcheted up tensions in Ukraine, aimed clearly at pushing Russia on the defensive through harsher sanctions.

The US and western nations claim that they know it was a Russian missile supplied to pro-Russian separatists that brought down MH-17. Even if true, it is hard to prove that it was a deliberate act of killing. At worst, the separatists would have judged wrongly. The mistake would be no different from the downing of an Iranian civilian airplane by an American warship in Iranian airspace over Iranian territorial waters and in the course of the normal flight of the airplane. That too was a mistake: the Americans mistook the place for a military craft. The Americans refused to apologise and eventually settled for compensation of $62 mn.

In the case of MH-17, the facts have yet to be established clearly. What we have so far is pure speculation from the western propaganda machine. Atimes brilliant columnist Pepe Escobar has some hard-hitting things to say about this and he warns us about what to expect when the black boxes are decoded by the Brits:

Based on the wealth of info now in the open, the top probability of what caused the MH17 tragedy was an R-60M air-to-air missile shot from a Ukrainian Su-25 - and not a BUK (there's also the possibility of a double down; first an R-60M and then a BUK). The R-60M is very fast, with an ideal engagement distance of up to five kilometers. That's how far the Su-25 detected by the Russians (they showed the graphics) was from MH17.

SBU - Ukrainian intel - for its part confiscated the recordings of Kiev control tower talking to MH17. That would certainly explain why MH17 was overflying a war zone (Malaysian Airlines revealed they were forced to). Hefty bets can be made the recordings are now being "doctored".

Then there are the black boxes, which will not de decoded by the Malaysians or by the Dutch, but by the Brits - acting under Washington's orders. As The Saker blogger summed up the view of top Russian specialists, "the Brits will now let the NSA falsify the data and that falsification will be coordinated with the SBU in Kiev which will eventually release the recordings who will fully 'confirm' the 'authenticity' of the NSA-doctored recordings from the UK." To make it more palatable, and erase suspicions about Anglo-American foul play, the Dutch will announce it. Everyone should be forewarned.

Take a look also at a piece by M K Bhadrakumar on how the West is moving resolutely forward to box in Russia. The objective, he argues, is not containment of Russia alone but sustaining US dominance of the world order:

The rest of the world understands perfectly well what the new Cold War is all about. Even the Europeans aren’t duffers, they too comprehend what is going on, as their great reluctance to isolate Russia testified all these weeks and months. 

Most certainly, there is no ideology involved here. It is not a war on socialism or on terrorism, nor is it a war about Ukraine or Russia intrinsically. In plain terms, the new Cold War is about the perpetuation of the US’ global dominance. 

Without the Bretton Woods system, without NATO, without nuclear superiority over Russia, the US faces the prospect of becoming a vastly diminished power over time. Without the trans-Atlantic leadership, it gets reduced to what it used to be before World War I one hundred years ago — an influential regional power in the Western Hemisphere.

In the meantime, hell will continue to be unleashed in Gaza.

Hindu obscurantism?

On TV yesterday, I saw a panel discussion involving Dina Nath Batra whose books claim that ancient Hindus had knowledge of television, stem cell research etc. Karan Thapar was asking his guests whether there was any historical basis for these views. The historians on the panel scoffed at the suggestion and Thapar himself was ridiculing Batra's contentions.

This morning, I stumbled across a quote from Robert Oppenheimer, the father of the atomic bomb at a website about aspects of Hinduism:

While he was giving a lecture at Rochester University, during the question and answer period a student asked a question to which Oppenheimer gave a strangely qualified answer:
Student: “Was the bomb exploded at Alamogordo during the Manhattan Project the first one to be detonated?
Dr. Oppenheimer: “Well — yes. In modern times, of course.
Some people suggest that Oppenheimer was referring to the Brahmāstra weapon mentioned in the Mahabharata.The appreciation didn’t stop there. So much so he always gave the book (Bhagavad Gita) as a present to his friends and kept a copy on the shelf closest to his desk.

As is well known, watching the first ever atomic explosion at Los Alamos  in the Nevada desert, Oppenheimer was moved to quote from the Viswaroopa scene of the Gita, Brighter than a thousand suns, the splendour that is me. As the mushroom cloud reached its peak and the enormity of the destruction it wrought became evident, Oppenheimer was reminder of another line from the Gita, I am become death, destroyer of all worlds. 

Let I should be misunderstood, this is not an endorsement of Batra's works, I am not qualified to speak on the subject. I give the quote from Oppenheimer as it is of more than passing interest. 

BRICS Bank is a welcome idea

The Brics Bank will happen thanks, in large part, to the determination of the leaders of both India and China to make it happen. PM Modi let the Chinese proposal of locating the bank in China go through so that the idea could move forward. Xi Jianping settled for equal sharing of equity and voting rights.

Western commentators ask what binds the Brics together. Well, what binds together Israel and the Arabs in the UN or, for that matter, the US and Russia? The point is that international institutions subserve common interests. Initial lending by the bank will be small- say, $40 bn -$60 bn. But that's the financing that developing countries get for infrastructure from the World Bank. So even this small amount positions the bank as a direct competitor to the World Bank. Ditto with the $100 bn contingency fund for BoP crises. At least developing countries will not be entirely the mercy of the IMF-World Bank hereafter.

More in my EPW article, BRICS Bank future hinges on governance.

MH 17: We need the truth, not western hysteria

I wrote yesterday about western attempts to whip up hysteria against Putin over the downing of MH 17 without understanding the context in which the incident happened- or, for that matter, without getting to the bottom of what happened. The west think they have Putin cornered. International opinion over the shooting of a civilian aircraft, they hope, will stop Putin in his tracks where Ukraine and the countries that surround Russia are concerned.

Well, the Russians have hit back quickly, as this report in FT outlines. They seem to have proof that MH 17 was tracked by an Ukrainian military aircraft. More revelations should be forthcoming from Russia in the days ahead.

Read also this article in atimes. The author raises the all-important question of motive in the incident:

So who profits?
The key question remains, of course, cui bono? Only the terminally brain dead believe shooting a passenger jet benefits the federalists in Eastern Ukraine, not to mention the Kremlin.

As for Kiev, they'd have the means, the motive and the window of opportunity to pull it off - especially after Kiev's militias have been effectively routed, and were in retreat, in the Donbass; and this after Kiev remained dead set on attacking and bombing the population of Eastern Ukraine even from above. No wonder the federalists had to defend themselves.

And then there's the suspicious timing. The MH17 tragedy happened two days after the BRICS announced an antidote to the IMF and the World Bank, bypassing the US dollar. And just as Israel "cautiously" advances its new invasion/slow motion ethnic cleansing of Gaza. Malaysia, by the way, is the seat of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission, which has found Israel guilty of crimes against humanity.

Washington, of course, does profit. What the Empire of Chaos gets in this case is a ceasefire (so the disorganized, battered Kiev militias may be resupplied); the branding of Eastern Ukrainians as de facto "terrorists" (as Kiev, Dick Cheney-style, always wanted); and unlimited mud thrown over Russia and Putin in particular until Kingdom Come. Not bad for a few minutes' work. As for NATO, that's Christmas in July.

 

Downing of MH 17: a sober perspective

The shooting down of Malaysian airline MH 17 has drawn condemnation all around. Rightly so, for international civilian flights should not become part of hostilities raging anywhere in the world and particularly when neither the airline nor its passengers are in any way involved with the hostilities.

At the same time, one cannot help noting that the condemnation of the incident has quickly been sought to be turned into a condemnation of Russia and its role in the Ukraine conflict, with most of the western media duly obliging. This is uncalled for. In the first place, judgement must be reserved until an independent enquiry is completed and its findings become available. The west may have reason to believe that the shooting is the work of pro-Russian separatists but this has to be established.

Secondly, to say that it is Russia that is fomenting rebellion in Ukraine and that it is Russian weapons and support that must be held responsible for the shooting down ignores the full dimensions of what is going on in the region. Ukraine has been raining bombs on the pro-Russian people. In recent months, the separatists have sought to defend themselves by trying to bring down Ukrainian aircraft. Russia is helping the separatists who are predominantly Russian and have strong links to Russia.

Ukraine is being supported by the US and Europe. Western support to Ukraine, which has involved bringing Ukraine into a EU Free Trade pact and also attempts to bring it into Nato, is part of a larger design to pin Russia down to its neighbourhood with the help of nations that ring Russia. That would prevent Russia from projecting itself onto the international stage. This is the broader context in which the shooting down has occurred. It has been left to noted American scholar Stephen Cohen to present a sober and balanced picture of what's going on in the region:

Let me mention, because I think it’s relevant to what you’re covering here (the reference is to the news channel) your very, very powerful segments before I came on today about what’s going on in Gaza, the pounding of these cities, the defenselessness of ordinary people. The same thing has been happening in East Ukrainian cities—bombing, shelling, mortaring by the Kiev government—whatever we think of that government. But that government is backed 150 percent by the White House. 

Every day, the White House and the State Department approve of what Kiev’s been doing. We don’t know how many innocent civilians, women and children, have died. We know there’s probably several hundred thousand refugees that have run from these cities. The cities are Donetsk, Luhansk, Kramatorsk, Slovyansk—a whole series of cities whose names are not familiar to Americans. The fact is, Americans know nothing about this. We know something about what’s happening in Gaza, and there’s a division of opinion in the United States: The Israelis should do this, the Israelis should not do this. But we know there are victims: We see them. Sometimes the mainstream media yanks a reporter, as you just showed, who shows it too vividly, because it offends the perception of what’s right or wrong. But we are not shown anything about what’s happened in these Ukrainian cities, these eastern Ukrainian cities.

Why is that important? Because this airliner, this shootdown, took place in that context. The American media says it must have been the bad guys—that is, the rebels—because they’ve shot down other airplanes. This is true, but the airplanes they’ve been shooting down are Ukraine’s military warplanes that have come to bomb the women and children of these cities.

 There is another aspect to the tragedy that people have drawn attention to. The aircraft was using a route directly over the war zone that several other flights had steered clear of. Was the aircraft directed to that dangerous route? And by whom? See this story, for instance.

So much for "second generation" reforms

There is disappointment that Jaitley's budget didn't have much to offer in the way of "second generation" reforms. This was supposed to be just the right time. Two years from now, we would be approaching the next round of elections. Moreover, the government could now blame the state of the economy on its predecessor and justify reforms on that ground; further along, it would be difficult.

Why so? Well, because when the economy is floundering and people are in distress because of high inflation and lack of jobs, delivering "bitter medicine" is not easy, especially when it is not certain that the medicine will always produce the desired results. You can't have cash transfers unless you are reasonable sure these will work (so cash will reach correctly and there would be outlets from where people can access food, for instance). You can't privatise public sector banks wholesale and face the risk of a banking crisis. You can't allow foreign investors to gain control of companies in strategic sectors such as defence and insurance.

"Second generation" reforms can happen only in a gradual way and when conditions are more conducive. That's what the UPA thought and that's what the NDA is discovering. More in my article in the Hindu, Short-term costs, long-term benefits.

Did I read Nitin Gadkari's mind?

I wrote yesterday that it was futile to pin too much hope on PPPs in the present situation in which the model was broke. Along comes the following statement by Nitin Gadkari on how the government intends to proceed with road projects:

In a significant shift of policy, he (Nitin Gadkari) also said that public private partnership (PPP) model was not feasible at present for award of road projects due to a host of issues "created by the previous government" and that schemes will be bid out on engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) mode.
"Projects were bid out by previous government without even 10 per cent of the required land acquisition. Work could not start on the project where financial closure took place two years back. Banks withdrew financial closure...PPP mode is not possible now. We will work on EPC model for a few years," he said.
Unlike PPP model where the private sector has to fund the road building, in the EPC model, the government funds a highway, with private firms designing and building the road.

Some late thoughts on the budget

I was travelling, so didn't have a chance to comment on the budget (not a bad thing, considering the deluge to which hapless readers and TV reviewers are subjected on budget day and thereafter).

Well, the budget is a tribute of sorts to the UPA government. I don't mean this a criticism of the present finance minister or the government. They may have been vociferous in their criticism of the UPA when they were in opposition. Now, having assumed office, they are better placed to appreciate the constraints, both political and economic, very well. So, there is very little of the "second generation" reforms in the budget. The unwillingness to tackle subsidies is glaring. I also noted the reference to maintaining the "public sector character" of banks. That means the NDA government will not allow government shareholding to fall below 51%; the PJ Nayak committee report on bank governance has been ignored.

The budget is mostly an attempt to balance the books and keep the fiscal deficit under control so as not to rattle the credit agencies and the markets. Has the finance minister done a good job of that? Will the fiscal deficit target of 4.1% be met? The task is difficult, chances are that the deficit will end up at around 4.5%, but it's not impossible, seeing what Chidambaram did in FY 2014-14- ruthlessly cut expenditure in order to meet the target.

I guess Jaitley will do likewise if the revenues he expects don't materialise. There is, of course, a price to pay. The combination of fiscal and  monetary compression will mean that growth will be the casualty and growth in 2014-15 will end up 5-5.5% rather than 5.5-5.9% as projected. What astonishes me is that most of the media criticism has been mild; a budget such as this coming from the UPA would have been savaged. Not that the media would be right in doing so. My own reading, as I said, is that both the UPA and the NDA governments have read the political economy correctly. There is only so much that can be done in the present environment without seriously antagonising the electorate.

Let me now turn to the infrastructure sector on which the FM has lavished a lot of attention. The broad trend in recent years is for the government to reduce its own role in investment and to leave it to the private sector to drive infrastructure through the mechanism of public private partnerships (PPPs). Jaitely's budget seeks to accentuate this trend. According to one estimate, central government investment (directly and through support to the state plans) in infrastructure will be only 15% of the total. The rest is left to the private sector.

That's a tall order. For two reasons. First, in all of the developed world and in China, infrastructure development has been largely the domain the state. The FM mentioned that India has the highest number of PPPs in the world today, 900. How come we lead in this one respect while lagging behind in so many others? Could it be that the world has understood that PPPs are the not the best way to develop infrastructure?

Secondly, the PPP model we have used thus far is broke. Every component has to be reworked: the bidding norms, the concession terms, dispute resolution etc. There are issues extraneous to the model that need to be fixed: land acquisition, environment clearances, fuel supply linkages etc. In other words, there are major institutional issues that need to be addressed in order to get PPPs going again. This won't happen in a hurry.

The budget overlooks these realities and instead expects that private investment will be lured by improving returns at the margin through various means:

• Investment infrastructure trusts whose interest income will be exempted from tax\
• Tax holiday upto 2017 for power companies
• Less onerous CRR, SLR and priority sector norms for banks that raise long-term funds for infrastructure which will help banks lend at lower rates

All these will help improve returns. But the problem today is not the level of returns. It is variability in returns or risk. And that requires fixing the issues mentioned above. Once the demand side is taken care, supply of finance can be tackled.

I have serious reservations about the way bank finance for infrastructure is sought to be made cheaper. Lowering statutory requirements raises issues of risk management. A simpler way to reduce lending rates for infrastructure would have been been to allow banks to issue tax-free bonds. (Or simply revive development finance institutions with access to concessional finance). I also doubt that the level of bank recapitalisation budgeted, around Rs 11000 crore, suffices to give banks the confidence to increase loans to infrastructure in a big way.

There is one other issue in infrastructure today which cannot be ignored. Many of the leading companies are neck deep in debt. Their loans have to be restructured, they need to monetise their assets. Only then will banks will confident enough to lend. The bottomline: I can't see the infrastructure sector reviving in the near future.

Two people will be greatly disappointed with this budget, the BJP's mentors Jagdish Bhagwati and Arvind Panagariya. Wonder what they have to say. 

Sheryl Sandberg: how not to say sorry

Sheryl Sandberg charmed the media and got to meeting the PM and the president during her recent visit to India. But the storm created by Facebook's experiment on its users' emotions refuses to die down. One privacy group in the US is reported to have filed a complaint with the US Federal Trade Commission.

I have been trying to figure out what precisely was the violation of privacy involved. I must confess the news reports are less clear than I would have liked. Here is what I read in the Guardian:

The study conducted over one week in 2012 and published in the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, hid "a small percentage" of emotional words from peoples' news feeds, without their knowledge, to test what effect that had on the statuses or "likes" that they then posted or reacted to.

I guess this is what is being interpreted as an attempt to manipulate the emotions of Facebook users. Another article, written by Geeta Seshu, quotes from the study itself:

The experiment manipulated the extent to which people (N = 689,003) were exposed to emotional expressions in their News Feed. This tested whether exposure to emotions led people to change their own posting behaviors, in particular whether exposure to emotional content led people to post content that was consistent with the exposure—thereby testing whether exposure to verbal affective expressions leads to similar verbal expressions, a form of emotional contagion.

Leaving aside the allegations of violation of privacy, there is the matter of Sandberg's reaction to the episode. Lucy Kellaway, FT's columnist quotes Sandberg as saying that the experiment had been “poorly communicated. And for that communication we apologise. We never meant to upset you.”

Kellaway calls this a "perfect lesson in how not to apologise" and proceeds to spell out why in the most scathing terms:

This was bad on four scores. She didn’t take personal responsibility. She didn’t say sorry for the thing itself. Her “didn’t mean to upset you” was patronising, and worse than that, a lie. The experiment was specifically designed to upset some users, by showing them negative comments. That was the whole point.

Geeta Seshu points that India has 100 million Facebook users, next only in size to that of the US and likely to overtake the US soon. The privacy issues are significant, Seshu warns and she thinks Modi should have raised the issue with Sandberg:

But coming back to India and India’s huge population of Facebook users, in the absence of a privacy law, there is a dire need for much more debate and understanding on how much of our data is up for grabs and how much of control we have over its use/misuse.  

Sadly, our Prime Minister, who should have been more alert to issues of privacy and surveillance, given the disclosure last week that the US government’s NSA had authorized surveillance of his own political party, seems to have looked the other way. 

 

Should we worry about business houses owning media?

Reliance Industries' acquisition of control over Network 18 has generated some comment, albeit mostly on the Net, not the print media. There is concern over the implications of business houses or corporates owning or controlling the media, whether print or visual media. The Aditya Birla group  has a substantial stake in the India Today group and the Tata house controls Tata Sky. As Vanita Kohli Khandekar notes in a perceptive piece in BS, there is little people getting worked up over business groups entering, well, another business. Many of the large newspapers in the country are controlled by those who came from a corporate background.

The point is that as long as there is diversity in ownership, we need not worry unduly. Some business house will support the Congress, another will support the BJP and a third group may root for some regional party. What we need to ensure is nobody dominates, that is, there is plurality and diversity and that all conduct the media businesses in accordance with norms, in others, a regulator that keeps an eye on the media as a whole. Khandekar has valuable suggestions to make:

One, an independent-of-the-government media regulator with powers a la Federal Communications Commission (US) or Ofcom (UK). They set the business rules, keep a check on ownership, prevent the formation of monopolies, stop bad practices and create a healthy environment for free media.
Two, a law that forces any organisation in the news business to publish its accounts and every detail of who owns it, how it is funded, its revenues, and so on at fixed periods, online. This forced transparency will deter the "unsavoury" entrants, reduce hyper-competition and, therefore, the plummeting of standards.
Three, a high-quality, independent, taxpayer-funded broadcaster. If Doordarshan was a world-class news channel, it would force the private ones to aim for better quality like the presence of BBC has done in the UK.

The last point cannot be over-emphasised. I have noted in my blogs that DD has improved quite a bit. (Rajya Sabha TV's Samvidan on Sunday, which is about the making of the Indian constitution, is a model of quality programming). One hopes that under the new government, DD gets the support it needs in order to provide the lead to private players. 

Punish bankers, not banks

We have another mega-settlement for another mega-violation in banking. BNP Paribas has agreed to cough up $8.9 bn for violations of US sanctions against specified countries. An article in FT argues that the fines are disproportionate and that they hurt shareholders rather than bankers. Banks have no choice but to settle when American regulators come after them. This enables regulators to impose enormous fines and it also boosts the political fortunes of those who work for regulators:

These huge and disproportionate sanctions are the result of an unseemly competition between rival US regulatory agencies, each keen to mark its turf and get its teeth into the prey, while promoting the careers of political appointees. They are abetted by a legal system in which criminal indictment carries potentially fatal consequences. An institution that is accused of wrongdoing swiftly finds itself losing the confidence of investors and counterparties, making it impossible to do business. Its life saps away long before a case reaches trial. In these circumstances, banks have little option but to cough up.

The author argues that  regulators in Europe are more reasonable in the fines they impose and that a better way of punishing the banks would be impose higher capital requirements. This would also reduce profitability and hence the incentives for top bankers to misbehave.

The article is right in saying that the sins of bankers should not be borne by shareholders; it is also right about disproportionate fines. But it misses the central point: bankers who violate the law must go to jail. Imposing fines on the legal entities called banks hardly punishes the bankers. Another article in the FT makes this point tellingly:

Indeed, institutions do not break laws – individuals do. Lest there be any doubt on this point Benjamin Lawsky, the superintendent of New York’s Department of Financial Services stated that “BNP employees – with the knowledge of multiple senior executives – engaged in a longstanding scheme that illegally funnelled money to countries involved in terrorism and gdeenocide.”

So there you have it. And the punishment? About a dozen employees have been dismissed and others will be demoted to suffer pay cuts. A number of senior executives are departing. It would be interesting to know on what terms and with what perks. But no individual who was cited for wrongdoing will go to prison.......If no one goes to jail and the fine does no permanent damage, the settlement becomes more a transaction tax than a deterrent. It is unlikely to be seen as justice in the eyes of the public – people who tend to go to prison when they break the law.