Roaring corporate sector and a booming economy!! But what about the last man standing on the street??

“20000 points on the sensex, the economy growing at 9% have a good weekend” wrote economic times on one Saturday. It is indeed great to have a booming sensex and it’s equally good to know that we are one of the fastest growing economies of the world. But does it end there?? Is a booming sensex and a roaring corporate sector all we want for our country, where millions of people still sleep on the road. In the history of our country this is truly one of the most important eras because on one hand we are the front runners in economic growth and global investments. In fact in the Presidential debate of 2004 between President Bush and Senator Kerry, Senator Kerry assured the people of America that if he becomes President then he will prevent American jobs from being “Bangalored” and sent to India where a booming IT sector awaits the best talent on the globe. On the other hand we are also known to be the front runners in mal nutrition and poverty and illiteracy. Do these people who are mal nourished and illiterate even know why their country is respected globally? They don’t, and why should they?? When the hyped growth and the boom that Economic Times raves about has not gone even remotely close to them.

Therefore the time has come when we need to make economic growth more inclusive. The current pattern of economic growth is only favoring specific sectors of the economy. And therefore people associated with those sectors are also benefiting. But the people who do not come under the purview of those sectors are experiencing stagnant growth. An article recently published in the Navbharat Times pointed out that the present government or for that matter any government has a tendency to start worrying about things only when a worrisome situation gets created. While the situation is gradually going from bad to worse they are indifferent. The economic policies being followed by the current government have undoubtedly increased foreign investment, boosted economic growth and made India one of the preferred destinations on the globe for any kind of business and financial activities. But at the same time as a result of all of this, the government is forced to reduce the fiscal deficit as per the terms and conditions of IMF and WTO. Reduction in fiscal deficit results in declining expenditure for essential services like health and education. According to the Kothari commission led by Dr Vijay Kothari in 1966 expenditure on education has to be minimum 6% of the GDP but for the last several years it has remained between 2.5% to 3.5%. In the eleventh plan it is estimated to be at around 4%. Recently it was reported the IITs don’t have enough funds to pay proper salaries to its professors. IIT Bombay made a request to the government to give a grant of 20000 crores, so it can look after its basic expenditure. This is one of the implications of reducing the fiscal deficit that even the premier institutes are down in the dumps. IMF tells our government to reduce the fiscal deficit to control inflation. According to an article on the Indian economy, when the government borrows money from the RBI it tends to increase the quantity of money and hence it results in inflation. This argument has two flaws one that the new quantity of money doesn’t chase the same goods conventionally perceived. While the quantity of money circulating in the economy increases the production and output also increases. But apart from these technical details and principles, it is important to note that if the government reduces its expenditures on health and education then any significant development for the masses is not achievable, and then it’s meaningless to merely float on the fact that sensex is on 20000 and economy is growing at whatever percent when it is of no consequence to majority of the population.

Retail sector in India and corporate houses

Entry of the corporate houses in the retail market or for that matter into any sector is popularly perceived to be a part of economic growth. The increasing participation of the private sector is considered as one of the instruments of economic growth and job creation. Economic growth by itself creates jobs says Lord Desai a professor of economics at the London school of economics. But this I reiterate is a popular perception, whether the entry of corporate houses into every market and field is justified or not is a different matter. In my view it is incorrect to make general statements about economic growth and job creation, one has to be very precise when dealing with this subject. Economic growth I agree does create jobs; it does push the economy to a more productive stage. As the economist Rosenstein Rodan has said in his theory the “Big push” that for a plane to take off it requires a certain minimum ground speed, anything less than that and the plane wont take off, similarly to pursue economic growth we need to mobilize a certain minimum amount of investment, anything less than that is inadequate. And investment mobilization happens through the corporate houses or the private sector. So Im not against the private sector per se, but for the government and people to jump to a conclusion that the corporate houses no matter what they do and where they go will bring beneficial results certainly comes under a cloud of suspicion. To prove that the entry of the corporate houses into the retail market is beneficial we would have to rely on the theory of trickle down effect, but the trickle down effect is simply another way of saying that what is good for the business houses is good for the country, which is obviously not true. Trickle down effect has been named the horse and sparrow theory by JK Galbraith “if you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows.” Unfortunately today the horse is the corporate sector and the sparrow is the working class.

When we speak of the retail market we are primarily dealing with a section of society where the people are not economically privileged. Retailers at the lower end, like the vegetable sellers, the fruit sellers basically are the underprivileged section of the society, and when the government permits the corporate houses to enter this field with their attractive pricing strategies the government is practically wiping these 4 crore middle men out. And the justification given is “growth will create jobs for them as well”. For people who say my question is can you give a guarantee that those very 4 crore people will get their jobs back. And they are 4 crore human beings not ants who can be trampled under the feet of men.

Entry of the corporate houses into the retail market is a part of the de licensing policy which was started in 70s. Before the 70s most of the industrial production was handled by the public sector. In the 70s it was realized that the participation of the corporate houses is also very essential if we have to be on par with the rest of the world in terms of technology and capital. For this reason the license policy was scrapped out. Only industries of national importance like defense, railways, atomic energy were to be kept in the control of the public sector. So the purpose of the de licensing policy was to increase productivity. Today in 2007 if we analyze the repercussions of this policy we find that the corporate houses have increased productivity no doubt, but have also increased the divide between rural areas and the urban areas, between the bourgeois and the proletariat. This divide has very unfavorable social consequences which need to be settled first than increasing productivity for only a certain class of society.