India in Reverse

India’s once booming economy is sliding into a deep slump.

Clip_13The country grew just 4.4 percent this summer, a far cry from the 7.7 percent average for the past decade. Its currency, the rupee, has tumbled 16 percent against the dollar in the last three months. And analysts expect things to get even worse in the coming months.

Like Indonesia, Brazil and other developing countries, India has been hurt as investors have moved money to the United States to take advantage of the prospect of higher interest rates. But most of India’s biggest problems — like its high inflation, which was nearly 5.8 percent in July and has been rising partly because of the falling rupee — have domestic causes. Until the coalition government led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reforms the country’s economy, India will fall far short of its potential.

During the global financial boom of the mid-2000s, investors indiscriminately dumped cash into fast-growing countries and India’s shortcomings were easily overlooked. The financial crisis forced investors to pay more attention to fundamental problems in emerging markets. Analysts and business executives say the country has become even less hospitable in recent years. In the nine years that the coalition government has been in power, several ministers have resigned in corruption scandals; large infrastructure projects have been delayed by mismanagement; the government’s budget deficit has ballooned, thanks towasteful spending like subsidies for diesel fuel; and politics have thwarted reforms in labor and education.

Mr. Singh has been an ineffectual leader without much authority. The real power is held by his political patron, Sonia Gandhi, who leads the Indian National Congress Party, which has expressed little concern for the country’s ailing economy.

Sadly, most analysts expect Ms. Gandhi and Mr. Singh to make no politically difficult changes — like privatizing bloated state-owned enterprises or easing counterproductive regulations and delays on public infrastructure projects — until after national elections next year.

As the economy slows, India’s poor suffer most. Many have lost jobs in hard-hit sectors like construction and manufacturing. They are also seeing their meager incomes eroded by rising food costs. One change that would help is for government to provide welfare payments directly to families instead of funneling subsidized food grains, fuel and other commodities through corrupt officials who siphon off up to 60 percent of the benefits. In Brazil and Mexico, direct transfers to the poor have helped reduce poverty and cut down on corruption and waste.

The new governor of India’s central bank, Raghuram Rajan, a respected economist, can also help by pushing through delayed reforms to make the country’s financial industry more competitive by, for instance, granting licenses to new banks. But unlike the Federal Reserve, the Reserve Bank of India is subject to significant political meddling, which could limit how far Mr. Rajan can go.

In 1991, when the country was facing a financial crisis and had to pledge its gold reserves for an emergency loan, the Indian government pushed through landmark economic reforms like freeing businesses to produce as much as they wanted without seeking government approval. The situation is not as dire today, but the country needs solutions that are just as far-reaching.

Published by alaiwah

ALAIWAH'S PHILOSOPHY About 12 years ago, while studying Arabic in Cairo, I became friends with some Egyptian students. As we got to know each other better we also became concerned about each other’s way of life. They wanted to save my soul from eternally burning in hell by converting me to Islam. I wanted to save them from wasting their real life for an illusory afterlife by converting them to the secular worldview I grew up with. In one of our discussions they asked me if I was sure that there is no proof for God’s existence. The question took me by surprise. Where I had been intellectually socialized it was taken for granted that there was none. I tried to remember Kant’s critique of the ontological proof for God. “Fine,” Muhammad said, “but what about this table, does its existence depend on a cause?” “Of course,” I answered. “And its cause depends on a further cause?” Muhammad was referring to the metaphysical proof for God’s existence, first formulated by the Muslim philosopher Avicenna. Avicenna argues, things that depend on a cause for their existence must have something that exists through itself as their first cause. And this necessary existent is God. I had a counter-argument to that to which they in turn had a rejoinder. The discussion ended inconclusively. I did not convert to Islam, nor did my Egyptian friends become atheists. But I learned an important lesson from our discussions: that I hadn’t properly thought through some of the most basic convictions underlying my way of life and worldview — from God’s existence to the human good. The challenge of my Egyptian friends forced me to think hard about these issues and defend views that had never been questioned in the milieu where I came from. These discussions gave me first-hand insight into how deeply divided we are on fundamental moral, religious and philosophical questions. While many find these disagreements disheartening, I will argue that they can be a good thing — if we manage to make them fruitful for a culture debate. Can we be sure that our beliefs about the world match how the world actually is and that our subjective preferences match what is objectively in our best interest? If the truth is important to us these are pressing questions. We might value the truth for different reasons: because we want to live a life that is good and doesn’t just appear so; because we take knowing the truth to be an important component of the good life; because we consider living by the truth a moral obligation independent of any consequences; or because we want to come closer to God who is the Truth. Of course we wouldn’t hold our beliefs and values if we weren’t convinced that they are true. But that’s no evidence that they are. Weren’t my Egyptian friends just as convinced of their views as I was of mine? More generally: don’t we find a bewildering diversity of beliefs and values, all held with great conviction, across different times and cultures? If considerations such as these lead you to concede that your present convictions could be false, then you are a fallibilist. And if you are a fallibilist you can see why valuing the truth and valuing a culture of debate are related: because you will want to critically examine your beliefs and values, for which a culture of debate offers an excellent setting.

Leave a comment