R. Ramakumar
Across
the world, people are rising in anger against policies of financial austerity,
which have led to sharp cuts in social spending. Western governments, who once
lectured developing countries about the need for cutting deficits, have
themselves broken all rules to raise deficits in times of crisis. All efforts
to cut deficits have met with powerful people’s struggles, and these struggles
have already pulled down many powerful rulers. There is increasing realisation
that deficit reduction has to be revenue-led, and not expenditure-led. Yet, the
Indian government appears to be in no mood to listen to voices of people from
across the globe. Will its people reply in 2014? All indications are in the
affirmative.
Source: http://www.asianage.com/columnists/poll-calculation-gone-wrong-757
Budget 2013-14, in a sense, had just one big objective: to
cut fiscal deficit drastically and create a case for growth-promoting monetary
policy intervention by the Reserve Bank of India. Let us take two time points:
2011-12 and 2013-14. In 2011-12, the fiscal deficit was 5.9 per cent, which is projected
to fall to 4.5 per cent in 2013-14. At the same time, the gross tax revenue is
expected to grow slower from 10.1 per cent of GDP in 2011-12 to 11.1 per cent
of GDP in 2013-14. In other words, the overall strategy of the budget necessarily
entails a cut in expenditures.
The strategy to cut expenditures had already begun from the
last financial year, or 2012-13. Compared to the budgeted total expenditure of
14.9 lakh crore, the government actually spent only 14.3 lakh crore, or Rs
60,100 crore less. If we take plan expenditures, the fall was steeper; compared
to the budgeted amount of 5.2 lakh crore, the government spent only 4.3 lakh
crore or Rs 91,838 crore less. As a result, comparisons of budgeted allocations
for 2013-14 with the revised estimates of 2012-13 are misleading. For instance,
the budget shows a rise in plan expenditures between 2012-13 (RE) and 2013-14
(BE) of 1.3 lakh crore. However, if the 2012-13 (BE) and 2013-14 (BE) are
compared, the rise in plan expenditures is only 34,297 crore! In real terms,
this may even represent stagnation, if not a fall.
If the government simply refused to spend last year, the
strategy for the coming year is to drastically cut subsidies. Last year, the
government had announced that subsidies would be limited to 2 per cent of the
GDP. As if that was not enough, the announcement this year is to limit
subsidies to 1.75 per cent of the GDP. There is absolutely no economic
rationale for such arbitrary targets being set for subsidy outlays. The amount
of subsidies to be provided to each sector is to be determined by how much each
sector needs, given its overall socio-economic significance. To subject it to such
arbitrary cuts is nothing but dogmatic thinking.
Which sector is likely to face the sharpest cut in
subsidies? Undoubtedly, petroleum. Compared to Rs 96,880 crore in 2012-13, the
budgetary allocation for petroleum subsidies in 2013-14 is only Rs 65,000
crore, or Rs 31,880 crore less. Thus, the government is determined to sharply
raise petroleum prices in the coming year. This is quite apart from the
declared policy of shifting petroleum prices according to global price changes.
That such a policy is being declared in the midst of persistent inflation rates
does not appear to bother the government. Further, the allocation for food
subsidy is raised only by Rs 10,000 crore, while the requirement is likely to
be far higher in the light of the contemplated food security legislation. Where
will the money come from?
Apart from proposing cuts in subsidies, the growth rates of
expenditures on major economic sectors are also set to fall in 2013-14 as
compared to 2012-13. For economic services as a whole, the growth of revenue
expenditure is to fall from 13.5 per cent between 2011-12 and 2012-13 to 6.8
per cent between 2012-13 and 2013-14. In agriculture and allied sectors, the
growth of revenue expenditure is to fall from 7.9 per cent between 2011-12 and
2012-13 to 5.6 per cent between 2012-13 and 2013-14. Capital expenditures in
agriculture are set of fall in absolute terms. Thanks to last year’s poor
rainfall, we are staring at one of the worst drought years in many years in
rural India. Yet, the rise of revenue expenditure for irrigation and flood
control is just Rs 698 crore.
Yet another example of expenditure compression is in the
flagship programme of the government: the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment
Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS). In 2012-13, the budgeted allocation for MGNREGS was
Rs 33,000 crore. The implementation of the scheme has been in doldrums, thanks
to governmental inaction and the strong opposition to the scheme from landlords
and rich peasants in the villages. As a result, the actual expenditure on
MGNREGS in 2012-13 was lower at Rs 29,387 crore, or about Rs 4000 crore less.
For 2013-14, the government has allocated only Rs 33,000 and claimed an
increase over the actual estimates of 2012-13. However, the fact that not a
rupee more than last year’s budgeted allocation has been earmarked for MGNREGS
shows complete governmental disinterest in successfully implementing its own
flagship scheme.
The deliberate cut in spending for the last year did not
prevent the government from allowing corporate tax exemptions to rise in the
last year. In 2011-12, the revenue foregone from corporate taxpayers was Rs
61,756 crore, which has risen to Rs 68,008 crore in 2012-13. This represents a
10 per cent rise. If we take the aggregate tax revenues, the amount foregone
was Rs 5.33 lakh crore in 2011-12 and Rs 5.73 lakh crore in 2012-13. This
represents a 7 per cent rise, which is lower than the rise in corporate tax
income foregone. As the budget document admits, “the total revenue foregone is
showing an upward trend, both for direct and indirect taxes.” While the
government does not appear to have any qualms in allowing corporate taxes to go
uncollected, it puts its foot down in the case of subsidies for the poor.
Source: http://www.asianage.com/columnists/poll-calculation-gone-wrong-757
No comments:
Post a Comment