|
COVER STORY: BUDGET 2001
I SUBSIDIES WILL NOT
BE REDUCED
BECAUSE any price hike will be unacceptable to politicians in an election
year.
Fuelled
more by political expediency than the needs of the poor, subsidies today
eat up 15 per cent of India's national income (GDP). That's more than
Rs 2,50,000 crore. According to the Government's own estimates, two-thirds
of the total subsidies are of "non-merit" variety, e.g. money
lost in tax exemptions or in postponement of tax arrears and investment
in PSUs yielding very low returns. By eliminating just half of the non-merit
subsidies, the entire fiscal deficit of the Government of India, which
is hovering around 5 per cent of GDP for years, can be covered. But a
simple logic like this isn't politically acceptable. Result: Subsidies
continue to surge.
Parties
like the TDP, Akali Dal or the Lok Janashakti won't even entertain a discussion
on subsidy cuts. Union Chemicals and Fertilisers Minister S.S. Dhindsa
rules out a possibility of raising fertiliser prices, even though the
Finance Ministry's Expenditure Reforms Commission (ERC) has recommended
a 7 per cent hike to bring down the current fertiliser subsidy bill of
Rs 13,200 crore. "Subsidy is the need of the hour. We can't justify
any hike in fertiliser prices. Where will the farmer go?" argues
K. Yerran Naidu, TDP's parliamentary party leader. That being the view
of one of the more progressive partners in the NDA coalition, Sinha will
not find support for subsidy reduction within his own government.
The Congress seems to have a more open mind on the matter. Senior party
leader and former finance minister Pranab Mukherjee proposes an all-party
discussion on subsidies before the Government decides what subsidies to
cut. That isn't a new suggestion though because an open discussion on
subsidies did happen in 1997 when the United Front government had prepared
a white paper on the subject. But the discussions didn't lead to any reductions.
With elections less than two months away, subsidy cuts will be bypassed
this year too.
 |
|
| Congress |
 |
 |
 |
| YES:
But we shouldn't be seen saying it |
 |
"There
should be an all party meet on the issue"
Pranab Mukherjee |
|
 |
|
| Telugu Desam Party |
 |
 |
 |
| NO:
We have a little problem at home |
 |
"Subsidies
are needed. Where will farmers go?"
K. Yerran Naidu |
|
 |
|
| Akali Dal |
 |
 |
 |
| YES:
Today's subsidy is tomorrow's vote |
 |
"We
can't put a further burden on the farmer."
Sukhdev Singh Dhindsa |
|
II
GOVERNMENT WILL NOT DOWNSIZE
BECAUSE a 24-party coalition run by a 72-member Cabinet lacks conviction
to cut the flab.
It
was an innocent Sinha who made the following commitment in his 1999 budget
speech: "The high rate of growth of non-developmental expenditure
is a source of concern. The most effective and lasting solution to this
problem is to begin the process of downsizing government. We are making
an immediate beginning by abolishing four secretary-level posts through
a process of merger and rationalisation of Central government departments.
This will take effect on April 1, 1999." Two years later, nobody
knows which four posts were abolished. If at all they were.
Sinha also announced setting up of the ERC in the speech. The ERC has
been diligently submitting its recommendations, but there are no takers.
Officially all three ERC reports have been accepted. Only acceptance doesn't
mean implementation. Looking back on his speech, Sinha must feel naive
about having made such specific commitments on the downsizing of government.
After all he is part of a Union Cabinet that is one of the biggest in
India's history. That will dent the credibility of any promise that Sinha
may make on downsizing.
"After
10 years of liberalisation the role of government in the economy has decreased,
but the size of government has increased. There are more ministers and
secretaries than ever, with less work and higher perks," comments
Ajit Singh, former industry minister and president of the Rashtriya Lok
Dal. Chidambaram, who first proposed the setting up of an expenditure
reforms panel, blames the Government squarely for its failure to cut the
flab. "It's purely due to lack of political will. There is no constituency
against downsizing of administration," he says. He cites the phenomenal
success of the bank VRS schemes to prove his case. Beyond downsizing,
Sinha is betting on the passage of the Fiscal Responsibility Bill to rein
in government spending. The bill, tabled in the Lok Sabha in December
2000, sets out targets for deficit reduction starting with the forthcoming
budget. But since the bill not going to be cleared soon, chances of any
expenditure control are no higher than they had been in the past.
 |
|
| Tamil Maanila Congress |
 |
 |
 |
| YES:
Easier prescribing medicine than administering the dose |
 |
"It's
lack of political will. people are not against downsizing."
P. Chidambaram |
|
 |
|
| Rashtriya Lok Dal |
 |
 |
 |
| YES:It
doesn't pay politically to talk about such lofty matters |
 |
"Government's
role has decr- eased, but its size has increased."
Ajit Singh |
|
|