thedialogue.

co
Optimized just now
View original

Economic Growth Uncategorized

Growth in India under NDA and UPA Governments: The Role

of Luck vs. Skill
By Aniruddha Bagchi - May 24, 2016 1725 0

How well did the recent Indian governments manage the economy? In order to
answer this question, several aspects of economic management, e.g., poverty
reduction, export promotion, etc., should be considered. For this article, I only
consider the growth story in India under the last three governments- NDA 3 (1999-
2004), UPA 1 (2004-2009), and UPA 2 (2009-2014). All of these governments
completed a full term in office and therefore we have enough information to judge
their performance.

Economic growth measures the increase in average income in an economy. Income

can be measured either in nominal terms or in terms of affordability. I am not
interested in the nominal value of income because this does not tell us much about
the standard of living. Instead, my primary interest is in measuring the amount of
goods and services an average person can afford. This can be measured using the
concept of GDP per capita in terms of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) (World
Economic Outlook 2016 by IMF).

During the time of the NDA 3 government, GDP per capita grew at an average rate of
6.1% which is undoubtedly a good rate. However, the economy performed much
better during the time of the UPA governments; during UPA 1’s rule, the average
growth rate was 9.4% while during UPA 2’s rule the average growth rate was 7.4%.
Therefore, on the face of it, the growth rate was higher under the UPA governments
and some commentators have indeed pointed that out in the past (Ghatak et al.
2014).
Does it necessarily mean that the UPA government was a better manager of the
economy? We cannot draw any conclusion based upon just this much evidence. Let
us think of an analogy. Suppose, we want to evaluate two workers and find out who is
the better one. Merely looking at the output of each worker is not enough because
output depends upon a worker’s skill as well as his luck. To the extent possible, we
would want to determine who is more skilful because skill is replicable but luck is not.
The same principle applies to the performance evaluation of governments too.

At different points of time, a country can be affected (either beneficially or adversely)

by factors beyond its control- these are the elements of luck. For example, a country
that depends on tourism may be adversely affected if there is an outbreak of a
contagious disease such as Ebola in that country. A relative evaluation of different
governments without adjusting for these external factors would mix up elements of
luck and skill. As much as possible, we should filter out the elements of luck in order
to have a better idea of the skill of a governing coalition in managing the economy.
Table 1 has a list of three external factors that potentially can affect the Indian
economy. Each of them is an element of luck since they do not depend upon any
policy choice of the Indian government.

NDA 3 UPA 1 UPA 2

Avg. Indian Growth Rate 6.1 9.4 7.4
Avg. U.S. Growth Rate 3.8 4.1 1.8
Avg. Annual Precipitation 977 1091 1111
Price of Crude Oil $33 $76 $99

Table 1: Average values for growth rate in India and potential external factors (Growth rate
of U.S. is measured in percentages and is derived from data on its GDP per capita in PPP.
Annual precipitation is measured in mms. The price of crude oil is measured in terms of
2014 $ per barrell. Sources: U.S. GDP: World Economic Outlook 2016 by IMF; Precipitation:
CRU, University of East Anglia; Price of Crude Oil: BP.)

The first external factor is the growth rate of the U.S. economy. For many years now,
the U.S. is the largest export market for India. The reasons are quite obvious: India
depends too much on the IT & ITES (Information Technology & Information
Technology enabled services) industry, and the U.S. is clearly the largest market for
these services. The U.S. used to account for slightly above 20% of Indian exports in
1998, exposing the Indian economy to the ebb and flow of the American economy
(World Integrated Trade Solution Database).
By 2014, that proportion reduced to 13% but this is still quite high. As a result, if the
American economy sneezes, then the Indian economy catches cold. We can see from
Table 1 that the U.S. economy performed quite well during the time of UPA 1 and did
quite badly during the time of UPA 2 because of the housing crisis. During the time of
the NDA 3, there was a crisis in the tech industry which affected the U.S. growth rates
in 2001 and 2002. We would expect that these troubles in the U.S. economy would
hurt the UPA 2 government the most followed by the NDA 3 government.

The second external factor is the amount of rainfall. India still being an agricultural
country depends significantly on the rains. As Table 1 shows, annual precipitation
was substantially less (slightly over 10%) during the time of the NDA 3 government. It
is quite natural to expect that this would hinder the growth rate of the Indian economy
during this time. The third external factor is the price of crude oil. High oil prices force
consumers to reduce their consumption of other goods. Since India is an oil importer,
therefore such a substitution reduces demand for products that are made in India. As
we can see from Table 1, oil prices were the highest during the time of UPA 2.

In order to have a better idea of the skill of a government, one needs to filter out these
elements of luck. Therefore to implement this idea, I ran a statistical model (a
“regression”) that controls for these three external factors and the identities of these
governments. It turns out that the predicted growth rates from even such a simple
model closely follow the observed growth rates (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Plot of Observed and Predicted Growth Rates (1981-2014)

Interestingly, when the external factors are controlled for, then the statistical evidence
is clear that there is no perceptible difference in the performance of these three
governments.

In the regression model, I estimate the coefficients of the three external factors and
three dummy variables for these governments. Then I check if the coefficients of the
dummy variables are pairwise different from each other. The differences are not
significant even at the 10% level. So neither was the UPA 1 government the star
performer nor was the NDA 3 government the laggard as it seems from the growth
rates alone. The NDA 3 government was adversely affected by poor rainfall and there
is strong evidence that this factor indeed lowers the growth rate of the Indian
economy. The other two external factors do not seem to have a significant effect.

Why is there no perceptible difference in the performance of the three governments?

The UPA 1 government ruled at a time when external conditions were unusually
favorable. For example, rainfall was normal in most of the years, the U.S. economy
was doing well, and oil prices were at a moderate level. Hence, it was simply riding its
luck. During the time of the UPA 2 government, its luck gave away and the economy’s
performance declined even though many of the same people were at the helm of the
government. The average growth rate of 7.4% is therefore a better reflector of the
skills of the UPA regime because it was achieved under harsher conditions. However,
compared to the NDA 3 government, the UPA 2 government still benefitted from
favorable rainfall. Now consider how the results would have changed if average
rainfall during NDA 3’s rule was same as the average rainfall during UPA 2’s rule. In
that case, growth during NDA 3’s rule would have been approximately about 1.3%
more than what was observed. Once this is added to NDA 3’s average growth rate of
6.1%, then the difference between the NDA and UPA governments almost vanish. In
conclusion, once we account for these three external factors, the evidence is that
both of these coalitions had approximately the same amount of skill in managing the
economy.

For Reference: Ghatak, M., P. Ghosh and A. Kotwal. 2014. Myths and Reality: Growth in the
Time of UPA. Economic and Political Weekly 49(16): 34-49

Aniruddha Bagchi

Aniruddha Bagchi is an Associate Professor of Economics at the Coles College of Business,

Kennesaw State University, GA, USA. He received his Ph.D. in Economics from Vanderbilt
University. One of his areas of research is Industrial Economics. In particular, he is
interested in examining the processes and institutions that encourage innovative activity. He has also
written on the effect of regulation and economic outcomes.

Comments
comments

TAGS BJP Congress Economic Growth NDA UPA

Previous article

What is it that can be offered for free?

Next article

Should surge pricing be regulated?

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

 Economic Growth Eco
nom
ic
Gro
wth

Paul Romer’s Charter Cities: Bold Vision or Neo-Colonial Nightmare? Poverty and Aspirations Failure

Economic
Growth

Expectations from the new RBI Governor

NO COMMENTS

LEAVE A REPLY

Name:

Email:

Website:

8 − = 4

Post Comment

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Ideate

Follow us on Twitter

My Tweets

The Dialogue

The Dialogue

Subscribe

Enter Your E-mail

Subscribe

Submit

Social

About Us Team Publish with The Dialogue Editorial Style Guide Copyright Policy Contact us

© All Copyrights are reserved with The Dialogue