Indian Economy - News & Discussion 27 May 2012

Supratik · Post by **Supratik** » 23 Jul 2013 16:50

The correct model of INC is "crony socialism, crony capitalism, pseudo-secularism".

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Jul 2013 16:58

Latest india today had a lead article on indian political dynasties.. Suffice it to say everyone from congis, rajnath singh to chandrababu naidu are grooming their sons and to give them a good break in political industry.

subhamoy.das · Post by **subhamoy.das** » 23 Jul 2013 20:02

It is perfectly ok to induct ones child into the same business as the father. But what is no OK is to stop others to enter the business and keep the control of the business inside your family and then it becomes a family business which is devoid of competion and merit. BJP and CPIM are the only two cadre based parties where common folks with no family background - read Modi - can make it to the top based on merit and stamina. All others are some sort of family business - be it INC, BSP, Chandrabu party, Biju party etc.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 23 Jul 2013 21:09

The nepotism angle has been the bane of India from time immemorial. In Pandya kingdom records there is an incredible period of 300 years in the 8th century where son followed father for 18 generations! The only good thing about the modern age is we get to kick the lot out when we feel like it.

Hard though it is to believe, India is not at catastrophe yet! With $280 Billion in the bank, fiscal deficit of 5%+/-, Growth of 5%, Inflation of 7% and Tax revenues still rising, we are not yet in the sort of pain needed to trigger reform.

My own view is very similar to Vina saar. The GOI has no business being in business.

BTW 1991 was not the only crisis. 1998 and 1999 was also a crisis. In some ways worse, as for a while India and Indians were cut off from technology. NDA reforms were smashed through during the crippling sanctions regime, with less than $35 Billion in the bank. By 2003 when sanctions were off, even a simple change in labor law from 500 employees to 5000 employees was a hill too steep to climb for NDA.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 23 Jul 2013 21:47

what is the track record of sons of political chiefs?

stalin is still the "youth" wing leader. word is that he has all but taken over the party and managed to confine the step brother azhagiri in madurai limits (used to be many districts in the south). I am divided on how he will actually perform because the damn old man has still not stepped out. He did a reasonable job as mayor, getting all those flyovers built which have proved to be so useful now. I have actually met the guy in person, in massa..he was completely out of character there.

Akhilesh - what is the track record, now that his honeymoon is over?

naveen - not bad and not great?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 23 Jul 2013 21:52

Guys, this is becoming the politics thread. Best to stop before bredators come charging in.

Supratik · Post by **Supratik** » 23 Jul 2013 23:17

We want to see the change in our lifetime. Can't do with "chalta hai".

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 24 Jul 2013 00:26

Reg. 'needing to invest in the social sector', I would like to ask a few questions to keep the discussion relevant, without everyone just picking up their pet political dead horse to flog:

* What's more critical, primacy for headline growth, or primacy for stable social sector investment ? The current administration apparently believes the latter. Who pays the attendant costs (see next point) ?

* Does *anyone* attempt to quantify the cost of spending in the social sector - the immediate burden on the budget deficit and accrued fiscal deficit, as well as the lost opportunity cost in the form of higher interest rates caused by the government crowding out the private sector out of the credit system ?

* The word 'investment' in 'social sector investment' is overused. Investment, per se, must have a very closely aligned measure of RoI, with an imperative to modify the plan based on RoI. What are the parameters of what determines the use of the word investment here ? Please spare me hazy 'for the benefit of the downtrodden' emotional stories. In the real world every effective spending measure - altruistic or not - has (at least on paper) specific goals and metrics.

* How do we address the conflict of interest in any government having no incentive to be impartial and result-driven about effectively goal-free spending measures ? The 'system' has no built-in incentive to perform on specific tasks that stretch the definition of the word 'investment', just to hand out cash. Performance - economic, governance or otherwise - is today a personal crusade on the part of a few notable leaders, not the goal of the system.

* The previous statement may sound absurd, but think about it - what clear cut imperative exists for any politician to be an administrative star in order to further his own career ? It is one of the options available, but there are easier ways. The notable ones who become administrative stars today choose it for reasons of personal conviction more than self interest. As they say, appeal to self interest, not morality.

* What's a better way to align a political process whose self interest is aligned with the desire of the population to advance themselves ? For example, how does 'social sector investment' in rural areas benefit the economy long term ? It's far better to invest in giving people enough to survive, some skills, and enough connectivity to get out of the rural areas, and invest in urban areas where they can be employed in low/mid end of the economy.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 24 Jul 2013 02:26

OK. I'll bite.
2011 Census.
Women's workforce participation rate: 25%

So tell me how you build a modern economy with that number.
What is the ROI on getting 40% of your working population into the labor force?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 24 Jul 2013 02:43

Theo_Fidel wrote:OK. I'll bite.
2011 Census.
Women's workforce participation rate: 25%

So tell me how you build a modern economy with that number.
What is the ROI on getting 40% of your working population into the labor force?

So which of the government schemes was supposed to fix this? NREGA, where the government is basically paying one set of people to dig a hole and another set to fill it up?

Abhijeet · Post by **Abhijeet** » 24 Jul 2013 04:31

The point -- that I agree with -- is that well-designed social development programs are a very important part of the government's role, especially in an extremely poor country like India. The key phrase, of course, being "well designed".

The fact that the government throws money down the drain in the name of "social welfare" does not mean that social development programs are not necessary, only that they need to be improved. I think that is the limited point being made.

As it stands, India spends money neither on hard infrastructure like roads or hospitals, nor on soft things like education or skills development.

The quality of democracy that results from having an overwhelming percentage of voters at a low level of human development is easy to see.

disha · Post by **disha** » 24 Jul 2013 04:42

Theo_Fidel wrote:The nepotism angle has been the bane of India from time immemorial. In Pandya kingdom records there is an incredible period of 300 years in the 8th century where son followed father for 18 generations! The only good thing about the modern age is we get to kick the lot out when we feel like it.

Hard though it is to believe, India is not at catastrophe yet! With $280 Billion in the bank, fiscal deficit of 5%+/-, Growth of 5%, Inflation of 7% and Tax revenues still rising, we are not yet in the sort of pain needed to trigger reform.

My own view is very similar to Vina saar. The GOI has no business being in business.

BTW 1991 was not the only crisis. 1998 and 1999 was also a crisis. In some ways worse, as for a while India and Indians were cut off from technology. NDA reforms were smashed through during the crippling sanctions regime, with less than $35 Billion in the bank. By 2003 when sanctions were off, even a simple change in labor law from 500 employees to 5000 employees was a hill too steep to climb for NDA.

Please. On the subject of nepotism, it is bane of humankind. It is normal and not specific to India.

For eg. the European Monarchy was so intertwined in marriages that one of the monarch was basically a scion of siblings for several generations (it was so messed up that even a brother & a sister will not produce the closeness of genes).

In great US of A, already there are second and third generations coming into the field across political spectrum. UK has all the "lord ships" and neither France is an eden of "liberty, equality" etc.

So how does one break the nepotism logjam? Just give more opportunities to more people. In short increase the economic pie.

And for "socialists" (basically people calling for investment in "social" sector)., where will the money come from for all the spending? So grow your economy first and then talk about re-distribution. And to grow the economy, strengthen governance first. The basics of "law and order".

Abhijeet · Post by **Abhijeet** » 24 Jul 2013 05:09

I think the post above is a good example of how the general standard of discourse on the forum has gone down. It simultaneously does a couple of things that lead to a lowered level of discussion:

1. Name calling: People who support social development programs are socialists
2. Non-sequitur equal-equal: bringing in the European monarchy into a discussion on India today

Arguing in absolutes is not very useful -- there is nuance to everything. *Some* social development programs are necessary in any country. We might disagree on the extent and types of programs necessary, but advocating such programs in a poor country, if they do their job properly, does not make anyone a socialist.

Similarly, nepotism does exist in most countries, but the depth of the problem is different in countries where the majority of voters are poor and under-educated. People in the US did not generally vote for George W Bush *because* he was the son of Bush Sr, but people in India will happily vote for Rahul Gandhi just because of his surname.

Obviously there is not an either-or with growing the economy and investing in human development. Both need to be done. This government has certainly choked growth to fund unviable social development schemes, and I would be happy to see a move toward more business-friendly policies. But the government cannot shy away from delivering on the basics -- primary education, healthcare, roads, power, sanitation -- that are very much part of its responsibility.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 24 Jul 2013 05:33

nachiket wrote:So which of the government schemes was supposed to fix this? NREGA, where the government is basically paying one set of people to dig a hole and another set to fill it up?

Well it is the MNREGA now technically. I'm not sure why you would bring that up with me. Opposed it all the way back when it was a twinkle in Jean Dreze's eye. Not least because my wage bill has gone up dramatically.

Still, recent research data shows that the MNREGA has stabilized the income of rural migrant women, at least in TN. Women are disproportionately the beneficiaries. This means they are able to stay put long enough to get most of their kids into school, allowing said kids to get more years of education, esp. girls. A small spike is noticeable in years of education recently.

I still am opposed to the MNREGA, but a bit more muted now due to the data that has come out.
Apologize for being influenced by reality and data.

Also no one knows whats going to work where. What works in TN won't work in MP. Governments around the world try everything hoping something sticks in such circumstances. As Suraj pointed out, the missing link is the feedback loop that tells GOI what works and what does not.

disha · Post by **disha** » 24 Jul 2013 06:15

Abhijeet wrote:I think the post above is a good example of how the general standard of discourse on the forum has gone down. It simultaneously does a couple of things that lead to a lowered level of discussion:

1. Name calling: People who support social development programs are socialists
2. Non-sequitur equal-equal: bringing in the European monarchy into a discussion on India today

Arguing in absolutes is not very useful -- there is nuance to everything. *Some* social development programs are necessary in any country. We might disagree on the extent and types of programs necessary, but advocating such programs in a poor country, if they do their job properly, does not make anyone a socialist.

Similarly, nepotism does exist in most countries, but the depth of the problem is different in countries where the majority of voters are poor and under-educated. People in the US did not generally vote for George W Bush *because* he was the son of Bush Sr, but people in India will happily vote for Rahul Gandhi just because of his surname.

Obviously there is not an either-or with growing the economy and investing in human development. Both need to be done. This government has certainly choked growth to fund unviable social development schemes, and I would be happy to see a move toward more business-friendly policies. But the government cannot shy away from delivering on the basics -- primary education, healthcare, roads, power, sanitation -- that are very much part of its responsibility.

Abhijitji, do not you stand accused of the same crime you call others for - name calling? Anyway,

In a very narrow interpretation, if re-distribution of wealth via social development is not socialism, then tell me what is? And adherents to that are socialists. If not then what are they? So let us remain on the plank of social development.

Regarding nepotism, I just was giving a data point, that "nepotism" is a bias applicable to all and hence cannot be applied subjectively. Removal of nepotism via social development is a hoary goal, it is still in the realm of idealism. Neither social development interventions in USSR/China/Cuba has removed the bane of nepotism, nor has it removed from Kerala. So let us keep the issue of nepotism aside.

Now what exactly is social development? Is it same as human development? Please do not confabulate the two terms. Human development is distinct from social development!

Here are some cases for social development via legal intervention

1. Raising the legal age of marriage. Criminalising Child marriage.
2. Equal property rights irrespective of gender
3. Equal marital rights irrespective of gender.

The above has a cost, but again is subsumed under the general cost of governance. That is legal courts exist and judges are trained and they will be taking up property rights cases anyway, so they have to go the extra mile to incorporate new changes in law and adjust processes accordingly.

But again the above is indeed an intervention in social sector and "social development".

So what exactly is this "investment on social development" that requires real monetary investment?

Let us take the example of providing food to the poor and needy. It is "social development" since you are addressing to the lower and left-out sections of the society. How would you go about it?

1. Buy food grains and distribute it. You need money to buy food grains and you also spend money to distribute it. OR

2. Enhance the "food basket" by ensuring productivity in agriculture. That is improve your agriculture to the point that a diverse sources of food is available and competing for attention. For eg. India just does not have two main crops Rice and Wheat. There was Jowar and Bajra too. There was several different vegetables. Fruits etc.

A question which of the above is better is valid? Is it one over other? Or both (then in what proportions?)? I will leave it up to the reader to decide which on of the above is better and sustainable in the long run! If the answer is #2 or a major share of #2, then serious questions are raised for "social development interventions". Because #2 is subsumed in the larger growth of economy (Guj. development model of 10% continued growth in farm sector - includes animal husbandry, raising water table, providing reliable electricity etc).

Let us take another example. That is going into brothels and saving underage girl child from further prostitution. How can that be done? Yes one has to ensure orphanages and half-way homes are run efficiently and require investments and necessary. But a larger question on busting child prostitution rings remain. Which is important? The later is squarely a law-and-order situation. Any further legal intervention here will help? Like actually legalizing prostitution for example? That way one has to obtain a "license" and hence are under watch from get go?

Take another case of social development for Tribals. I have interacted with tribals and I will make a bold statement, they do not need any social development. In fact their societies are already highly developed - socially and morally. So what intervention they require? What I found was they need legal protection. What has been their land is generally usurped and their way of life disrupted. This is more a failure of governance requiring a later band aid on a deep wound rather than any requirement for social investment.

For material development of tribal societies, they require access. They do not want to be in a situation that will take them 3 days of trekking to reach the nearest medical or trading center.

Now here is the curious case, growth does not occur in a lawless society. Look no further than neighbours. So a focus on growth will lead to focus on governance and hence an overall improved law-and-order. Case in point, women empowerment in Gujarat. For all the HDI Kerala croaks about, its women empowerment is worst than Bihar. Go figure.

[edited - to fix some typos]

disha · Post by **disha** » 24 Jul 2013 06:23

So what gets my "goat"?

All the social investment, human development wannabes to me do-gooders but good-for-nothing air-fluffs. They do not understand the real issues and did not face such issues. It is to comfort themselves about their own shortcomings that they go out and want to "do something good".

I also started out that way. Wanted to do something "good" for the tribals for example. One hour of interaction with them knocked enough sense in me - for example in one hour I found out that they needed

1. Better knives - so that they can notch their Gum trees efficiently
2. Better pots - or rather standardized pots so that they can transport & trade efficiently
3. Access to markets - in 3 days, their collected gum resins are useless!
4. A rightful unfettered place in the market

And no you do not require an MBA to understand that. And neither they asked for food grains or English education. All they wanted was equal rights and access. And to be left alone after that.

disha · Post by **disha** » 24 Jul 2013 06:26

Theo_Fidel wrote:...Also no one knows whats going to work where. What works in TN won't work in MP. Governments around the world try everything hoping something sticks in such circumstances. As Suraj pointed out, the missing link is the feedback loop that tells GOI what works and what does not.

That is what the NGOs are supposed to provide. Again check out Gujarat's model on women education & development and how some NGOs were re-purposed.

That is how they found out that in several areas of Gujarat, it is sanitation (or access to clean sanitation) in schools that is paramount.

Edited: Added "in schools" which was missing earlier.

disha · Post by **disha** » 24 Jul 2013 06:33

Bringing back nepotism now.,

An earlier post pointed out that "nepotism is a bane of India since Pandyan/Chozam era". My only point then and continues to remain is that nepotism is an human trait and will remain and cited European monarchical nepotism as a case in point (to reflect on familiar comparisons).

BTW, Bush family are the royal dynasty of Texas in case if that was not know. They are an evolving dynasty on American soil (so soon? Already?)

Added later: And I did not bring in nepotism. Once one brings in a global concept, it cannot be restricted to a local (Indian) context

vina · Post by **vina** » 24 Jul 2013 08:11

Classic example of a Planning Commission Ding-Dong , Baboon and Mantri Driven Business reaching it's limits. It gets unreal beyond a point. Think of this example, Singapore, which a Planning Commission , Baboon and Mantri ,wet dream, the results of which, if executed perfectly and ruthlessly with no care of consequences in an authoritarian set up can do, and it is now well flailing.

Check out this Singapore Plots Economic Lift Off with Satellites & Spacecraft

The whole thing is so unreal. If three years ago I was doing YumBeeYea giri and someone proposed this to me , I would have laughed that joker off the room! Think of it, a place you have ZERO competitive advantage, a stagnant and very small industry globally with extremely strong entry barriers due to it's strategic nature, a no real market that is broad based and then some Singaporean Baboons and Mantris decide that they can do their tired old LP record kind of play book of "Tax incentives, National Champions, Multinational Headquarters and allowing in skilled people" will do the trick !

All the more reason for govts to just focus on the basics (which they did brilliantly in Singapore, and leave business to business, they did that brilliantly as well, to the multinationals, there is no real Singaporean or globally competitive business beyond Tiger Balm!, but who cares, they have a first world economy and living standards , but now they want to ape the PRC and their stalinist planning, good luck, but it will end badly)

disha · Post by **disha** » 24 Jul 2013 09:16

^ S'Gpore. All I can say while

is good luck.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 24 Jul 2013 11:15

Abhijeet wrote:I think the post above is a good example of how the general standard of discourse on the forum has gone down. It simultaneously does a couple of things that lead to a lowered level of discussion:

1. Name calling: People who support social development programs are socialists
2. Non-sequitur equal-equal: bringing in the European monarchy into a discussion on India today

Agree with you here. Both of your points need to be addressed.

1. There needs to be a generally agreed definition for 'socialist'. Folks supporting a level of social spend that would clearly lead to impairment of acceptable fiscal norms would qualify for the term 'socialist' as also those who do not provide sufficient emphasis to economic growth and instead focus on redistribution schemes. The Dynasty and the UPA very certainly qualify by these parameters.

2. Agree with you on this point. Bringing in European monarchy into a discussion on India was a non-sequitor. Also what was a non-sequitor was Theo's 'equal equal' in trying to white-wash the Dynasty's 5-generation power grab that completely pollutes the modern Indian experiment with democracy - with irrelevant examples from ancient Indian monarchy ! This attempt at deflecting Congress failings onto supposed 'failings' of Hindu / Indian society is a standard Congress / Theo trick that we are all increasingly familiar with. Need to put a stop to this particular trolling technique that results on lower standards of discussion.

Supratik · Post by **Supratik** » 24 Jul 2013 14:57

I don't think nepotism is that big in advanced countries. At least that has been the general experience staying abroad. What happened in the middle ages or a few exceptions do not qualify. An equal opportunity system is contrary to nepotism. A socialist is someone who is obsessed with wealth redistribution whereas a capitalist is someone who is obsessed with wealth creation. Both these species are demons from the past who refuse to go away. We need new paradigms in the 21st century as neither socialism nor unbridled capitalism have been successful. May be we need to find an Indic balance.

disha · Post by **disha** » 24 Jul 2013 21:58

Supratik wrote:I don't think nepotism is that big in advanced countries. At least that has been the general experience staying abroad. What happened in the middle ages or a few exceptions do not qualify. An equal opportunity system is contrary to nepotism. A socialist is someone who is obsessed with wealth redistribution whereas a capitalist is someone who is obsessed with wealth creation. Both these species are demons from the past who refuse to go away. We need new paradigms in the 21st century as neither socialism nor unbridled capitalism have been successful. May be we need to find an Indic balance.

A large percentage of immigrants to US are Gen I wave - that is a wave created during dot-com and later years., and are highly concentrated in urban areas connected with high-tech (it-vity). A smaller wave is via the student population and naturally plugged into hi-tech (or hi-skilled like medicine).

That is a bubble. Step outside of that bubble and you will realize the levers held within families (the germplasm of nepotism). For example have you heard of the walton family or the koch family? The first 25 families in US collectively owned $500 Billion assets in 2010. There has been a net 30% gain in those assets since. And the list does not count Carnegies, Kennedy's, Fords etc!!

The only difference between you (the rhetorical you) and them is a lucky sperm or an egg. That is nepotism and from a social standpoint, that wealth has to be distributed. Right?

Advocating for growth economics does not necessarily mean advocating for unbridled american capitalism based economics. Of course one needs to find Indic balance, but there is no need to "deride" Indians by harking back to wild perceptions derived from Pandyan/Chozan eras.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 25 Jul 2013 07:39

Subbarao's tenure 'worst era of performance by RBI governor', says economist Panagariya

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Jul 2013 08:08

vina wrote:Classic example of a Planning Commission Ding-Dong , Baboon and Mantri Driven Business reaching it's limits.

but they do have atypical success stories of sorts in chartered semiconductor and ST kinetics the defence firm...infact ST was in the running for some howitzer & 4x4 deals here...think of it....a city state like singapore making something we havent been able to do yet!

any system can work if the people at the top are honest and focussed. no system will work with the kind of mantris and tantris we have under INC sultanate

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 25 Jul 2013 08:49

^+1.

One of em-bee-yeh case studies we did was on Singapore economy. S'pore tried this model before. Identify an industry/technology and invest heavily in it to leap in to next layer of social prosperity.

Looks like they identified space technology to be their next catalyst. It would be Important to understand why they selected that field and what they envision to be the market. Who knows, they might be betting on space tourism demand from the ultra rich or something like Elysium

Irrespective of the outcome, one should appreciate their national vision. So what if they fail, at least they tried some thing different, unlike our xxx-security bills after 65 years independence.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 25 Jul 2013 08:58

Supratik wrote:I don't think nepotism is that big in advanced countries.

that's what they want you to think

terms like glass ceiling and good ol' boy network were not fevered imaginations, you know..

gone are the days where you put your back into it and you can make it in america. these days, the working poor will be working poor, the middle class will be middle class and the top rich will get more rich. if this is now generational, then that is a form of nepotism is it not?

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 25 Jul 2013 09:27

Since a few posts above made boastful claims about how women empowerment in Gujarat is far better than in Kerala, had to just google for the same for the two states to get this real data, than just believe someone's imaginative post. When people make claims it needs to be questioned with data. The significant difference is regarding safety for women in which GJ seems to do better, but that seems to have been so for a decade or more. The idea is not to bash Modi as such to post this here, but to show the shallowness of arguments made by someone here in great disregard to the actual data on the ground. I am not going to post the favorable links I found doing this search for women empowerment in KL.

Truth vs hype in Modi's boast about Gujarat's women

In 2004, when Narendra Modi saw his state's female foeticide numbers based on the 2001 census, he got goose bumps, the Gujarat chief minister on Monday told the FICCI women's wing.

But Modi, who peppered his nationally televised address with references to "small initiatives" he had taken to help empower women, skipped the fact that Gujarat's sex ratio dropped further under him, from 918 in 2001 to 915 in 2011.

The four-time chief minister who is being seen as the face of the BJP ahead of the 2014 Lok Sabha elections may have succeeded in making his state friendlier than most others for investment, and for private enterprise.
related story
Modi reaches out to Mamata, says West Bengal progressing

In PM mode, Modi spells out strategy on big issues
Modi sticks to core agenda at Ficci meet
‘We aren’t matas, we’re hey girls!’

But by most parameters, women in the state have not had it easier than counterparts in the rest of India, suggesting that Modi's anecdotes of Jasuben the pizzeria owner who apparently gave Pizza Hut a run for its money and the women behind the Amul milk cooperative revolution, may be more exceptions than pointers to a deeper trend.

From their birth, through schooling and university, and even in the workforce and in leadership positions, women in Gujarat have not seen much -- if any -- improvement under Modi, even slipping on certain indicators during his tenure.

Women's safety is an exception. Gujarat is traditionally a safer state for women than most, and the rate of crimes against women has remained consistent at about 1.4% under Modi.

Nationally, India's sex ratio rose just barely, from 933 to 940, between 2001 and 2011. But only Bihar and Jammu Kashmir, and the union territories of Daman and Diu, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli that abut Gujarat saw an actual decline in their sex ratio, apart from Gujarat.

In school, girls in Gujarat have a poorer gender parity index in enrolment than the national average. Nationally, 94 girls are enrolled in elementary and in secondary school, for every 100 boys. In Gujarat, the numbers drop to 88 girls in elementary classes, and 84 in secondary school.

The University Grants Commission offers a post-graduate scholarship for the single girl child, open to all girls who meet a basic set of criteria.

Only 18 eligible girls applied - and won the scholarship - from Gujarat in 2012 out of a national total of 2419, much less than other major states like Andhra Pradesh (161), Karnataka (143), Kerala (577), Tamil Nadu (456), Maharashtra (60) and West Bengal (706).

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Images/Po ... etro13.jpg

Women in Gujarat do not have it easier at the workplace either.

Nationally, women constituted 19.9% of the organised workforce according to labour ministry data.

In Gujarat, this fraction has persistently hovered between 13% and 15% over the past decade.

In his speech to FICCI women on Monday, Modi also spoke about the absence of women in leadership roles, with the power to make decisions and affect policies.

But the Gujarat chief minister's own council of ministers has 2 women out of 19 members.

That's a worse ratio than the already poor 9 women in 74 member council headed by a Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who Modi loves to mock as weak and ineffective.

disha · Post by **disha** » 25 Jul 2013 11:03

Bade Sir., can you please explain the difference between "Women Empowerment" and "Gender Sex Ratio" and "Gender biased education gap"?

Why is Hindustan Times bringing in "Sex Ratio" and "Gender Education Gap"? Now Kerala has the least "Gender Education Gap" - so what is its impact?

And here are your quotes:

The significant difference is regarding safety for women in which GJ seems to do better, but that seems to have been so for a decade or more.

Decade or more Modi was at helm (hey, attribute 2002 to him, but detract 2002 from him? Talking about shallowness!). And prior to that it was almost a decade of non-Congress government.

And this takes icing on the cake:

The idea is not to bash Modi as such to post this here, but to show the shallowness of arguments made by someone here in great disregard to the actual data on the ground

Fair enough. Somebody does not know how to regard "actual data" and has shallow arguments. So for arguments sake, can you please define the following (and in the following order):

Gender Sex Ratio
Gender Education Gap (I will call it "Gender Literacy Gap")
Women Empowerment

And for added measure, can you please educate the shallow posters on how they impact economy?

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 25 Jul 2013 11:22

Please keep political polemics and discussion of individuals out of this thread, and only discuss issues. Otherwise posts will either be deleted without notice, or moved to the Modi (or another appropriate) thread.

Supratik · Post by **Supratik** » 25 Jul 2013 11:29

I am talking about nepotism at a more general level. I am not talking about family held businesses or "glass ceiling" or "old boys club" - the latter being more racist than anything else. Try finding an academic position in India and you will find out. If you know someone that your cousin's friend knows in a particular office you will get things done quickly. Just like petty corruption is non-existent in advanced countries, petty nepotism is much less compared to India. This among people who are of similar race. In India nepotism also works along regional lines. For the same job a Bengali has far greater chance of getting it in Kolkata than a Malayali or a Telegu in Hyderabad than a Punjabi. Most of our research institutions our segregated along regional lines with very little emphasis on competence. That is why their output is so poor. Nepotism is big in India as compared to advanced countries. That is an unpalatable reality.

disha · Post by **disha** » 25 Jul 2013 11:44

True, nepotism is big in India. Everybody needs a job, even a nephew. Particularly when the economy is sinking. Now if it is a deserving nephew, why should the nephew lose out just because he is a nephew?

Now is nepotism solely an Indian trait? I can cite several cultures/countries/societies that has it entrenched. So why was it brought in? Is it a goal of social development to reduce nepotism? If yes, how are they planning to reduce it and what are the tools that will be used to measure the reduction?

And if the goal of social development is to reduce nepotism, where is it in the priority stack? At the topmost - above human trafficking or right after that? Where does access to health (medicines, vaccines, doctors, hospitals) fall?

disha · Post by **disha** » 25 Jul 2013 11:47

A request, can we first agree on the following terms (and introduce more terms as we develop agreements on the terms)?

Gender Sex Ratio
Gender Education Gap (I will call it "Gender Literacy Gap")
Women Empowerment

Supratik · Post by **Supratik** » 25 Jul 2013 12:27

disha wrote:True, nepotism is big in India. Everybody needs a job, even a nephew. Particularly when the economy is sinking. Now if it is a deserving nephew, why should the nephew lose out just because he is a nephew?

Now is nepotism solely an Indian trait? I can cite several cultures/countries/societies that has it entrenched. So why was it brought in? Is it a goal of social development to reduce nepotism? If yes, how are they planning to reduce it and what are the tools that will be used to measure the reduction?

And if the goal of social development is to reduce nepotism, where is it in the priority stack? At the topmost - above human trafficking or right after that? Where does access to health (medicines, vaccines, doctors, hospitals) fall?

Just becoz someone else is doing it does not necessarily mean it is good. Nepotism is antitheitical to a true progreessive market economy driven by innovation - so called knowledge economy.
In India it started to reduce with liberalization as we had MNCs recruiting from wherever they could and competence was the key criteria which is why we have cosmopolitan Bangalore, Hyderabad, Pune, etc. Mumbai was an earlier crude version of it but resulted in the "Marathi manoos" syndrome. Even if you go back to DRDO, HAL, BARC, etc in the 80s you would find people from a particular region getting recruited in large numbers. Situation is getting better as the economy becomes pvt sector oriented and performance driven. It is starting to get reflected in academia (top 5-10%) as well but we are still far from a competence-driven process. A greater problem is services. 20-30 yrs back you had to know someone to get quicker services apart from bribing. It is still an issue that has not gone away. This is reflected in politics as well where nepotism is the key to a political future for many of our politicians and political families irrespective of party and performance. So is true with Bollywood. In sports you have to compete at the international level so you cannot push your cousin beyond a certain point although there were murmurs of the "Bombay lobby" in cricket pre-90s. We became world-beaters in cricket when it became an opportunity to everyone. I think it is an issue that we need to seriously address.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 25 Jul 2013 22:29

Arvind panagriya at "walk the talk"

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/po ... /1146220/2

he says that the current rbi is the worst performing one in the sense that it over reacted to inflationary presssures .

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 26 Jul 2013 20:54

Arjun wrote:1. There needs to be a generally agreed definition for 'socialist'.

A simple definition for socialism is that it a framework that takes financial decisions based on a set of values, without regards to their economic merits.

For example, Air India is unprofitable, but kept around for other non-economic reasons. Similarly, power if provided free without regard to the economic consequences on utilities. Social development programs that are not supported by research to establish economic value would also fall into this bucket.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 26 Jul 2013 23:40

So after badmouthing NRIs the govt wants their money now? And it wants it from them instead of getting loans from other sources because they'll impose conditions to actually shape up? Sure, why not!
http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/07/2 ... 1X20130726

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Jul 2013 10:04

I dont think NRI will put in their hard earned money just out of love of India but because there is good financial returns to be made by investing in indian bonds ofcourse if the returns are not attractive they wont put any money its simple Economics at the end.

How much money is GOI really expecting from NRI ?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 27 Jul 2013 11:37

Austin wrote: How much money is GOI really expecting from NRI ?

I don't think they have done any serious calculations. The GOI is desperate and they are trying whatever short term measures they can think of hoping atleast one of them will have some positive impact on the economy before the elections.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Jul 2013 21:11

India Still Second Fastest Growing Economy: Chidambaram

Noting that India continued to be the second fastest growing economy in the world after China, Finance Minister P Chidambaram today said people should not be worried about the current slow down and expressed hope of achieving six per cent growth this fiscal.

"People should remember India continues to be the second fastest growing economy after China. Even China's growth which was at 10 per cent has come down to seven per cent now, while our growth has slid to five per cent from nine per cent," he said at a bank function here.

"Economic slowdown is there in all the countries. When there is slow growth rate in the world, India cannot remain unaffected," he said inaugurating the 2110th branch of the Indian Bank in this small town in his Sivaganga Lok Sabha constituency.

Chidambaram said even European countries had been affected by the economic slow down.

Many countries including Mexico Brazil were behind India, he said. Expressing hope that the country's growth would touch six per cent this year, he said "People should be confident..Self confident and take bank loan to invest in farm sector, small industries, housing etc. You should hope for bright tomorrow, and not worry about the slow down."

On the petroleum products prices, he said it had gone up due to the price of crude oil touching 108 US Dollars per barrel, adding the price of petrol and diesel would show a declining trend only if crude came below USD 100 per barrel.

India imports over 70 per cent of its oil demand and efforts are on to explore crude and gas in the country.

"Sometimes they succeed in hitting crude and sometimes they do not and it requires a lot of investments such as thousands of crores.

"We have to reduce the import of crude to fifty per cent for reducing the petrol and diesel prices," he said.

Chidambaram also said plans were on to open 8,000 new bank branches this year. This would create 50,000 jobs and would also help the economy to grow.

He suggested women should form more Self-help groups and obtain loans boldly to start new ventures.