Monday, August 20, 2018

India: the UPA's unsustainable growth spurt

In 2015, the Government of India adopted a new GDP calculation method with the base year of 2011-12.  (Resetting the baseline year is a routine matter.)   The new method was more comprehensive in the data it used.  Nevertheless, the new series provoked a lot of suspicion especially because the old GDP numbers were not restated in terms of the new series.



Well, finally MoSPI has come up with provisional estimates of what the new GDP series would look like in the past years.  And now the opponents of the government are crowing that it was them that delivered double-digit economic growth.

Well, it was always true that the UPA government delivered some years of high growth for the Indian economy, no matter which GDP series you use.  The question to me always has been - was that growth sustainable?  I believe not.  These charts from tradingeconomics.com illustrate the issue. The high growth years were also years of unsustainable deficits.

PS: I have not even touched upon the bad bank loans given out during UPA-2 that continue to be a problem today (bank NPAs - Non-Performing Assets). e.g. The Economic Times, July 2014 (....the four-fold rise in bad loans over the past two years, mainly of public sector banks...)

Note that the y-axis does not always start at 0%.


Central Government Budget Deficit as a percent of GDP

Government expenditure as a percent of GDP


Current Account Deficit as a percent of GDP

Comments (3)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
All the defaulters are also India's top business houses, including Adanis and Ambanis. Now at the time of awarding these loans if the banks knew that a Adani or an Ambani or a Mallya would not pay back the loans then I don't think the bank would have advanced them loans. Govt. also can't know in advance that leading Industrial houses of the nation would default on their loan payment down the road.
2 replies · active 342 weeks ago
They have to do due diligence and assess the risk associated with the loan, not just give it to big names (that is the meaning of crony capitalism). For example, US banks didn't loan any money during the 1990s and 2000s to Donald J. Trump who is now the President of the USA, because despite all his wealth, he is a poor credit risk.
https://swarajyamag.com/economy/raghuram-rajan-id...

"Rajan also dropped clear hints at subversion of established processes because of external considerations. This can be borne out by his statement that “too many loans were made to well-connected promoters who have a history of defaulting on their loans.”"

Post a new comment

Comments by