Connect with us
//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Asean

Export-oriented FDI can jumpstart Indian manufacturing

Published

on

Authors: Abhirup Bhunia, Institute of Economic Growth and Geethanjali Nataraj, Observer Research Foundation

Addressing a joint session of parliament, Indian president Pranab Mukherjee laid out the roadmap of the new Modi government by emphasising three distinct economic policy thrusts: FDI, jobs and manufacturing. Talk of encouraging investment — including by foreign investors — and boosting labour-intensive manufacturing is not new. Scholars such as Arvind Panagariya have long attributed India’s poor performance in manufacturing to the lack of suitable policy designed to utilise the country’s abundant unskilled labour force.

But while utilising the labour force should not amount to exploitation or curtailing democratic rights of workers, archaic labour laws intended to be labour-friendly have had the opposite effect. The problem is one of means and ends. Current labour laws in India require firms of over 100 employees to obtain government permission to sack employees, even if they are unproductive. Furthermore, firms find it difficult to exit in the face of financial loss, unprofitability or any other good reason to shut up shop. These and other restrictive clauses discourage firms from investing in Indian manufacturing.

In 2013, the manufacturing sector contributed only about 15 per cent to India’s GDP, the lowest in a decade. In fact, for several decades the manufacturing sector’s contribution to GDP has remained stagnant at 17 per cent. An underdeveloped industrial sector leaves herds of unskilled Indian youth jobless, giving credence to the possibility of an impending demographic disaster.

So what can be done about it? Reforming labour laws and soliciting export-oriented FDI — something the United Progressive Alliance did not do in the ten years it was in power — could be a good place to start.

In India there are an additional 10 million low skilled workers every month. To create sufficient jobs, large scale manufacturing needs to expand. For this to happen, India needs to become an attractive place in which to undertake manufacturing, and from which to export. In short, it has to become a hub of manufacturing for global export, not just domestic consumption.

Export-oriented FDI has the potential to vault India into the league of industrial economies: a stage which it allegedly skipped on its way to becoming a post-industrial service-based economy. Unlike the predominant market-seeking FDI, export-oriented FDI is labour — and employment — intensive. In 2001, foreign affiliates accounted for only five per cent of India’s total exports. In the same year in China, foreign invested enterprises made up 50 per cent of total exports. In China export obligation is mandatory for foreign investors. This is not the case of India. Export obligation for FDI should be introduced in India to enhance exports.

Export-oriented FDI requires quality physical infrastructure. Thus, a major bottleneck of poor infrastructure must first be dealt with. In this area, massive state investment combined with private sector partner support can rescue India from this sorry state.

From high speed trains to upgrading ports to power sector reforms, Narendra Modi has so far made the right noises. Given that uninterrupted power and seamless transport infrastructure are two crucial demands of the manufacturing industry, it is a good sign that energy and infrastructure form the core of the new cabinet’s economic policy focus.

Modi, widely seen to be a clean pair of hands and a tough taskmaster, is likely to ensure a corruption-free government. At the same time, transparency and an end to unchecked discretionary powers will help to gain the faith of the corporate sector, which has held back investment plans over the last few years of policy paralysis. Once infrastructure is in place, trade and transactions costs will fall, giving a further boost to manufacturing and exports.

In terms of labour cost, India is not at a disadvantage relative to China or East Asia. India’s wage levels are more or less at par with these economies. Additionally, India has one of the best stocks of raw materials in the world and an abundance of workers. Thus as far as factor endowments are concerned, India possesses the bedrock of a thriving manufacturing sector.

Yet it would be irrational to have a single-minded focus on low-skill manufacturing in India at a time when the country has already made strides in the services sector, including in high value-added services. What is needed now is for India to treat manufacturing and services as the two equally important pillars of its economic foundation.

The government should focus on labour-intensive manufacturing for the vast swathe of the low- to medium-skilled populace, while simultaneously undertaking a national skills mission, boosting research and development spending and improving the quality of education at all levels. FDI on its own accord will contribute to some of the above while developing useful production linkages with the local economy.

As in China, export-oriented FDI can help fortify India’s domestic manufacturing base. Much of the recent sophistication and value addition in China’s manufacturing export basket is also largely due to FDI in the sector. A synchronisation of India’s export and FDI policies is needed. This can be achieved by increasing FDI in export-oriented sectors like gems and jewellery, light engineering, goods and textiles, among others. Up till now, FDI in India has been concentrated in telecom, infrastructure and financial services.

Eventually rising exports, on the back of growing export-oriented FDI, will help India address its troubling trade deficit. One of China’s great success stories — and a reflection of effective policymaking in that country — is that it built a trade surplus by exploiting FDI sourced from various parts of the world. Prime Minister Modi often talked of rivalling China on many issues, including commerce, during his election campaign. Encouraging export-oriented FDI would be a winning strategy to translate those assertions into meaningful action.

Abhirup Bhunia is a research analyst at the Institute of Economic Growth in New Delhi.

Geethanjali Nataraj is a senior fellow at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi.

Here is the original post:
Export-oriented FDI can jumpstart Indian manufacturing

Asean

ASEAN weathering the COVID-19 typhoon

Published

on

Vietnam's Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc addresses a special video conference with leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), on the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), in Hanoi 14 April, 2020 (Photo:Reuters/Manan Vatsyayana).

Author: Sandra Seno-Alday, Sydney University

The roughly 20 typhoons that hit Southeast Asia each year pale in comparison to the impact on the region of COVID-19 — a storm of a very different sort striking not just Southeast Asia but the world.

 

Just how badly is the COVID-19 typhoon thrashing the region? And what might the post-crisis recovery and reconstruction look like? To answer these questions, it is necessary to investigate the strengths and vulnerabilities of Southeast Asia’s pre-COVID-19 economic infrastructure.

Understanding the structure of the region’s economic house requires going back to 1967, when Southeast Asian countries decided to pledge friendship to one another under the ASEAN framework. While other integrated regions such as NAFTA and the European Union have aggressively broken down trade barriers and significantly boosted intra-regional trade, ASEAN regional economic integration has chugged along slower.

Southeast Asian countries have not viewed trade between each other as a top priority. The trade agreements in the region have been forged around suggestions for ASEAN countries to lower tariffs on intra-regional trade to within a certain range and across limited industries. This has lowered but not eliminated barriers to intra-regional trade. Consequently, a relatively significant share of Southeast Asian trade is with countries outside the region. This active extra-regional engagement has resulted in ASEAN countries’ successful integration into global value chain networks.

A historically outward-facing region, in 2010 around 75 per cent of Southeast Asian commodity imports and exports came from countries outside of ASEAN. This share of extra-regional trade nudged closer to 80 per cent in 2018. This indicates that ASEAN’s global value chain network embeddedness has deepened over time.

Around 40 per cent of ASEAN’s extra-regional trade is with the rest of Asia. From 2010 to 2018 Southeast Asian countries forged major trade relationships with four Asian countries: China, Japan, South Korea and India. Outside Asia, the United States is the region’s major trading partner. ASEAN’s trade focus on Asia’s largest markets is not surprising. Countries tend to establish trade relationships with large, geographically close, and culturally similar markets.

Fostering deep relationships with a few large markets, however, is a double-edged sword. While it has allowed ASEAN to benefit from integration in global value chains, it has also resulted in increased vulnerability to the shocks affecting its network connections.

ASEAN’s participation in global value chains has allowed it to transition from a net regional importer in 1990 to a net regional exporter in 2018. But the region’s deep embeddedness in a small and tightly-coupled network cluster of extra-regional global value chain partners has exposed it to disruption to any and all of its external partners. By contrast, ASEAN’s intra-regional trade network structure is much more loosely-coupled: a consequence of persistent intra-regional trade barriers and thus lower intra-regional trade intensity.

In the pre-COVID-19 period, ASEAN built for itself an economic house held up by just five extra-regional markets, while doing less to expand and diversify its intra-regional trade network. The data shows that ASEAN trade became increasingly concentrated in these few external markets between 2010 and 2018.

This dependence on a handful of markets does not bode well for risk and crisis management. All of the region’s major trading partners have been significantly affected by COVID-19 and this in turn is blowing the ASEAN economic house down.

What are the ways forward? The immediate task at hand is to get a better picture of the region’s position in global value chain networks and to get on top of managing its network risk exposure. Already there are red flags around the region’s food security arising from its position in food value chains. It is critical to look for ways to introduce flexibility into existing supply chains for greater agility in responding to crises.

It is also an opportune time for ASEAN to harness the technology transfer gains of global value chain participation and invest in innovation-driven diversification of products and markets. The region’s embeddedness in global value chain networks certainly places it in a strong position to readily access large export markets not just in Asia but also Europe and the Americas.

Over the longer term, ASEAN is faced with the question of whether it should seriously look…

Source link

Continue Reading

Markets

Tiger Trade Launches SGX Trading, Meeting Demand from Asian Investors

Access to the Singapore Exchange (SGX) adds to Tiger Brokers’ current menu of stock exchanges, such as the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and the Nasdaq Stock Market (NASDAQ), the world’s two largest stock exchanges, as well as the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKEX).

Published

on

SINGAPORE (ACN Newswire) – Tiger Trade, a one-stop mobile and online trading application by Tiger Brokers, has launched access to the Singapore Exchange (SGX).

(more…)
Continue Reading

Asean

Can Asia maintain growth with an ever ageing population ?

To boost productivity in the future, Asian governments will have to implement well-targeted structural reforms today.

Published

on

Asia has been the world champion of economic growth for decades, and this year will be no exception. According to the latest International Monetary Fund Regional Economic Outlook(REO), the Asia-Pacific region’s GDP is projected to increase by 5.5% in 2017 and 5.4% in 2018. (more…)

Continue Reading