The economies around the world in the last few months are trying to adjust to the neutron bomb like devastation that downed many titans of the financial market and decimated large part of the forces, both officers and the foot soldiers, all around the world. We in India have also been caught the wake of this destruction and has been exposed to a fair share of misery ourselves. This experience has since raised questions from many as to whether this is a signal that the market economy too is a failure; like the failures of communism and planned economies in the last couple of decades. For a country like ours that is struggling out of the paralyzing hold of the planned economy, the lower impact this meltdown had on our economy naturally triggered these doubts. Fanning these worries are many who enjoyed the protective cocoons, of licenses and controls we had for practically each and every economic activity ranging from manufacturing to imports and exports, which ensured profit for few at the cost of many.
I am not an expert to assess the reasons and impact of the quake that shocked the financial world. But I couldn’t help pen few thoughts that come to my mind on the issues that are being discussed among my crowd of friends.
It is in the nature of market to see cycles of growth and creative destruction. During the cycles of growth we will see extensive rallies of innovations. Many of these innovations are meant to die. Like experimental mutations of evolutionary process. The environment around test these mutations and the ones that can survive these tests precede forward in the path of evolution. As Garry Hammel has explained in ‘Future of Management’, this is one lesson we need to learn from the evolutionary process if we want to build sustaining institutions.
Some time these innovations build a momentum that takes it to ridiculous heights. If we recall, similar enthusiasm and short term orientation resulted in blowup of about 65 billion dollars in the dotcom revolution. Internet then was a new idea opening up opportunities that were not dreamed. The matrices to measure the performance were just evolving. In the meantime there was much causality. Did the internet industry die? No. The right kind of models survived. In past most of these such bubbles were localized to industry and market. Whenever new technology or new product ideas have been identified, we have seen an immediate profusion of organizations that spring up to exploit this. Most of them die and few survive to become successful players in the market. Men with showels who ventured to prospect diamonds when new continents were discovered to the number companies which were set up to manufacture electrical machinery to computers are cases in point. How many have survived till today? Very Few.
What can control this runaway acceleration is healthy governance and stronger regulatory institutions to ensure that the innovations are good for the market as whole and not just for few people. Any game would need clear set of rules and an umpire who understands the game, its rules, its compulsions and who is fair. Else, greed or muscle power or fraud will rule the game.
In the last few years we saw out of balance developments in the market in comparison to the development in regulatory mechanisms. When complex financial engineering products were being structured and marketed the credit rating institutions who are supposed to signal the true risk associated with these products failed in their duty. The pull of the unhealthy incentive structure for these agencies (where their income was derived from companies whose products are being rated by these rating agencies) distanced them away from their fiduciary responsibility leading to ratings that failed to reflect the true risk which in turn lead to mis-allocation of funds.
When such ingenious financial engineering helped US sub-prime loans to reach un-sustainable levels the bubble broke. The mere scale and spread of infected assets across the market players suddenly came to light. That took away the trust that these institutions had among them; the trust that kept the money flow between these entities.
When the inter-institutional trust evaporated the absence of such well structured markets were exacerbated. This squeezed flow of money in the international money markets. The pumps that pressured the flow were no more primed sufficiently. It was this flow that provided the lubrication for the economy to work. And the sudden drying of the money market seized many of the moving parts of the real economy.
Financial markets can be compared to the circulatory system in a body (the other industry segments may be compared to different organs of the body). In an integrated world the infection in the circulatory system spread very fast and wide and it had its impact even in India although there has been no build up of toxic assets in India. The drying up of the western money markets added pressure on the international investors who had invested in India and the Indian corporate who had exposure to international money market which contributed to selling pressure in Indian stock market and a credit squeeze in Indian Money market.
Governments realized the magnitude of this disaster and the need for immediate action. They quarantined the infected, separated toxic assets and pumped in liquidity. Like the doctor taking series of actions to contain the infection and suggesting a life style of extreme moderation till recovery to normal health. It also suggested the need of disciplined life.
But this no way suggests the ossified existence of a vegetating economy with a permanent freeze on any innovation and experimentation. I don’t think the governments of US and Europe that came in with a bailout package, plan to permanently run these as nationalized institutions frozen permanently into a mummified existence. They wanted to contain the mess, doctor them to health and put them back to the competitive pressures of the evolution process. If we look a bit cynically, this is in a way similar to Buffet pumping funds to Goldman Sachs and buying controlling stake really cheap. I am sure both these parties are going to be better off from these transactions once the tide has turned and will not be saddled with unproductive and unresponsive companies to run. I am not suggesting that the intention of the interventions was profits; it was primarily stabilizing the rocking boat. But the process and the expected outcome is going to be similar.
The failure that we witnessed in the market and the governmental interventions even in the developed countries seem to spur pressure on the policy makers in our country to revert back to more government control of business. Let us for a second look back at what the prevailing situation was in our country before started our journey towards liberalized market economy.
The Indian manufacturing was protected from both internal and external competition. Import restrictions and high import tariffs protected them from external competition. The government licensing system, coupled with the MRTP removed any incentive for innovation or even providing quality product, customer service or improvement of product features. The history of our automotive industry is a classical case in point. India commenced production of motor cars in 1957 ; Toyota commenced production of cars in 1937 and Honda motor company of Japan commenced production of cars in 1963. For the next four decades we produced the same car, sold it at ridiculously high prices and the buyer had to wait for months after placing an order after paying an advance. In the meantime the Toyota and Honda established as world leaders in automotive industry. This is not something that was unique to automotive industry. Each and every Industry in our country from blades to cement to pharmaceuticals has the same story.
Banking and financial services industry was no better. Customers of the banks, instead of being serviced were made to feel like mendicants asking for alms. Stock market was a closed club of brokers with the interest of the investor always coming last.
What did it mean to Indian Economy? India was never regarded as place where anything was happening. The slow growth rate of around 3% was considered the characteristic Hindu rate of growth. The consumer had no options for any new products. The job opportunities were limited. Few connected industrialists made all the money by cornering licenses, sharing the booty with the political bosses who were also able to exploit this state of affairs by attracting the patronage of masses who were living in a world of shortages.
Since we gradually moved towards a liberalized economy we have now established ourselves as a place where things do happen. There is a feeling of widespread optimism that we are on a path of real development and not in a spiral of poverty.
Let the nostalgia or the convoluted interpretations of the happenings around blind us to the history. But let us use this as an opportunity to learn from these mistakes and strengthen our institutions so that the momentum we built is not extinguished.
No comments:
Post a Comment