Articles by Lekha Chakraborty

If the Reserve Bank of India hikes the policy rates against the backdrop of the mounting geopolitical risks and infl ationary pressures, the growth recovery process may slow down. At the same time, keeping the status quo on policy rates for a prolonged period could catalyse the de-anchoring of infl ationary expectations. The Union Budget 2022–23 has accommodated high fi scal defi cits and has emphasised on “crowding-in” effects of public infrastructure investment. The intensity of global macroeconomic uncertainties on economic recovery in India can be lessened through sustainable fi scal and monetary policy coordination.

As part of the COVID-19 economic stimulus package, the Government of India increased the borrowing limit of the states from 3% to 5% of the gross state domestic product. The power sector reform at the state level is one of the criteria to avail this extra borrowing. The efficiency parameters of the power sector are analysed here, and it is observed that there are statewise differentials in the financial and operational parameters. The average aggregate technical and commercial losses that should have been 15% by 2018–19, presently, on average, stand at 26.15%. The average cost of supply–average revenue realised has also widened. The operational parameters indicate widening inefficiencies across states in the power infrastructure.

High deficit has no fiscal costs if it can be substantiated with increased public investment or “output gap” reduction. When the monetary policy stance has limitations in triggering growth through liquidity infusion and the status quo policy rates, “fiscal dominance” is crucial for sustained growth recovery.

In the last few years, several central banks have implemented negative interest rate policies to boost the domestic economy. However, such policies may have some unintended consequences for the emerging Asian markets. The analysis provides an assessment of the domestic and global implications of negative interest rate policy and how it differs from that of quantitative easing. It shows that the impact of nirp is heterogeneous, with differential impacts for big Asian economies (India and Indonesia) and small trade-dependent economies (Hong Kong, Philippines, South Korea, Singapore and Thailand). Quantitative easing, on the other hand, has no significant impact on inflation but nominal gdp growth declines in eams. The currency appreciates and exports decline. The impact is much more severe in big emerging economies.

Launching an “excessive deficit procedure” in India is inevitable for growth revival. This is crucial, especially when there is considerable ambiguity about why the “escape clause” was invoked in the Union Budget 2020: whether to meet the shortfall in tax revenue emanating from the unanticipated fiscal outcomes of structural reforms, or to boost the capital formation in the economy.