It's The Revenue Deficit, Stupid!

Budget 2009-10 has projected the Fiscal Deficit at 6.8% of GDP. This is certainly a cause for concern, but even more alarming is the four-fold increase in the Revenue Deficit.

I will articulate my worry about the Revenue Deficit, but first some basics because these two terms are easy to mix-up.

What exactly is the Fiscal Deficit(FD) and the Revenue Deficit(RD)?

The fiscal deficit is the difference between the government's total expenditure and its total receipts (excluding borrowing).

The revenue deficit is the difference between the government’s current (or revenue) expenditure and total current receipts.

Basically,

RD = Current Revenue(from taxes) - Current Expenditure(salaries, repayment of past borrowings etc)

FD = RD + Capital Expenditure

What's the current status?

The RD for 2009-10 is budgeted to go up an astonishing 412% from that estimated for 2008-09. In 2008-09 the RD will account for 70% of the FD. This is the highest RD since the reform process began in 1991.

Problem with a large RD

Revenue deficit does not result in the creation of any assets. It merely adds to the interest and repayment burden without creating the capacity to repay the debt. If the reason for a large FD is Capital Expenditure(building roads, ports, power plants etc) it will prove to be useful for the economy in the long run. The increased expenditure has further multiplier effects because of the subsequent spending of those whose incomes go up because of the initial expenditure. The overall rise in economic activity in turn means that the government’s tax revenues also increase.

To give a simple analogy, if the FD is like a household borrowing to build a house, the RD is akin to borrowing to eat and drink and be merry.

The Road Ahead

Logically, there are two ways in which the deficit can be reduced — by raising revenues or by reducing expenditure. Reducing expenditure is always difficult in India. Raising revenues is easy only when the economy is booming. During a downturn, tax revenues fall. Levying more taxes will worsen the slowdown by dampening consumption.

Remember, it took us three years to get the RD down from 4.39% of GDP in 2001-02 to 2.59% of GDP in 2005-06. During these years taxes grew at a CAGR of almost 30%. This performance is not going to be repeated in the next few years.

The targets indicated in the government’s medium-term fiscal policy statement — RD (3%) and FD (5.5%) by 2010-11 and RD (1.5%) and FD (4.0%) — lack credibility. It is highly unlikely that the government will achieve the ambitious targets set out in its medium-term plan.

Budget 2009: Tax, Borrow, Spend

The Congress Party was re-elected in May on a promise of economic populism that the country can't afford. On 6th July the government delivered on that promise. This is bad news for India, and especially for its poorest citizens. The budget outlines three priorities: 9% economic growth, "inclusive development" and better public services. It would achieve these outcomes by boosting spending by 36% to 10.2 trillion rupees ($211 billion), mostly on handouts and infrastructure. No major public-sector rationalization or private-sector liberalization were announced.

This is in effect a revival of India's socialist past and a rejection of the 1990s reforms that gave India the best kind of "inclusiveness": economic growth. The Govt thinks that creating more 'yojanas'(schemes) and throwing money at them will eliminate poverty. Infact statistics show the exact opposite. More people were lifted out of poverty in the last 18 years(1991 to 2009) than in the previous 44 years(1947 to 1990).

Going back to 70's economic formula - government spending, large deficits and high interest rates will stifle economic growth and increase poverty. The 9% growth achieved in the last 4 years(2004-2008) was due to India's private sector. Mr. Mukherjee seems to understand some of these ideas, at least in principle. Yesterday he said private investment was "the principal growth driver" of India's boom years. Yet he did nothing to ease private industry's tax burden, cut regulatory red tape or liberalize the country's restrictive foreign direct investment regime. He also praised Indira Gandhi's 1969 bank nationalization as "wise and visionary" and "an inspiration".

The 9% growth achieved in the last 4 years was powered by foreign capital inflows(FDI, FII, Private equity, Venture Capital). These flows have slowed due the credit crisis. The main reason why Indian industry is dependent on foreign money is that the Government swallows a large portion of the domestic savings to finance its fiscal deficit. Things on this front do not look encouraging. In the financial year 2007-08 (i.e. between April 1, 2007 and March 31, 2008) the government spent Rs 1,26,912 crore more than what it earned. For the financial year 2009-10 (i.e. between April 1, 2009 and March 31, 2010), the government plans to spend a whopping Rs 4,00,996 crore more than what it earns.

When the government spends more than what it earns, it borrows by issuing financial securities known as treasury bills and bonds or government securities. So in the year 2007-08 the government borrowed Rs 1,26,912 crore to service its deficit. And in the year 2009-10, it will have to borrow Rs 4,00,996 crore to fund its deficit. Large Government borrowings are already leading to an increase in interest rates. The yield on the 10 year Gilt is already at 7% and could rise to 7.5%. The increase in the cost of borrowing could dampen investment and consumer demand.

Pranab Mukherjee's Budget wallows in the optimism that "something will turn up" and restore the Indian economy to high growth while miraculously restoring a sense of balance to the mounting fiscal deficit. Apart from making some ritual genuflections to fiscal responsibility -- he remarked that it was important to return to fiscal deficit targets "at the earliest possible opportunity" and that "reforms were required" to curb the fiscal shortfall -- he offered nothing concrete. The very real risk of a sub-par monsoon this year could upset all hopes of a sustained recovery.

If Pranabda is counting on a developmental Deus ex machina to save the day, I would bet against him.

The Bandra-Worli Sea-Link is now The Rajiv Gandhi Setu Bridge

The Bandra-Worli Sea Link opened for the public at midnight on 30th June 2009 (finally!!). The fact that the project is an engineering marvel is well known but what about the name of the project? As is always the case in India, when any sufficiently large infrastructure project (ports, airports, fly-overs, bridges etc.) is ready to be inaugurated there is a huge debate over the name of the project.

The Congress wants everything to named either Gandhi or Nehru. The BJP wants any of the other leaders involved in the freedom struggle. Local politicians demand that leaders from the region in which the project is located be chosen. The public is largely indifferent to the name; they are more interested in the benefit that will accrue to them from the project.

For example the Bandra-Worli Sea Link has been named "The Rajiv Gandhi Setu Bridge". This has (predictably) led to a huge controversy. This is something that has happened in the past and considering the political scenario will continue to happen in the future.

Why should projects be named after political leaders?. The right to name a project should be auctioned. It will be like an advertising contract just like the title sponsor for any major sporting event. (Barclays Premier League, DLF Indian Premier League etc). This will kill two birds with one stone. The political controversy over the name will be eliminated and money will be generated from the contract. The contract can be devised as a long term (say 5 years) advertising deal. The winner bidder will get prominent slots around the project area. The winning bidder will be able to use photographs of the project in other advertising campaigns(TV, Web, Print).

Infrastructure projects are expensive to build and maintain. The Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC) still has unpaid bills worth Rs 480 crore towards the construction of the Sea-Link. The money raised from such deals will definately prove useful.

This is not as radical as it sounds. BEST buses and Railway trains are already covered with advertisements. Companies can pay the Indian Railways to have an entire train covered with their advertising. In many places companies maintain public gardens and in return they get advertising rights. It really is a win-win situation.