India's Informal Sector Workers: PLFS Vs ASUSE

How many informal sector workers are there in India? Two different surveys are giving two very different numbers. The Annual Survey of Unincorporated Sector Enterprises (ASUSE) says it is 12 crore. But the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) says it is 20 crore!

ASUSE explicitly gives this number. PLFS does not explicitly give this number - but we can calculate it as:

Number of informal workers = % of informal workers among non-agricultural workers X Number of non-agricultural workers

And number of non-agricultural workers = % of non-agricultural workers X Number of all workers

And number of all workers = Worker Population Ratio X Total population

So number of informal workers = % of informal workers among non-agricultural workers X % of non-agricultural workers X Worker Population Ratio X Total population

= 73.2% X 53.9% X 43.7% X 120 crore = 20.7 crore!

A caveat: PLFS defines informal enterprises as proprietary* and partnership* (P & P) enterprises. Whereas ASUSE defines them as enterprises that are not registered under the Companies Acts - so this means not just P & P enterprises, but also self-help groups, cooperatives, societies/trusts, etc. So ASUSE has more enterprises than PLFS. Then ASUSE's number of informal workers must be more than PLFS's. But the opposite is the case here! In fact, PLFS's number is almost twice the ASUSE's number!

The only way to explain this discrepancy is that many (almost half) P & P enterprises (which are considered informal in PLFS) are registered under the Companies Acts - and hence not covered by ASUSE. Also, since registered enterprises will be bigger than unregistered enterprises, the fraction of registered P & P enterprises can be less than half to account for this discrepancy. But it still has to be a large number. So what is the probability that so many P & P enterprises (which PLFS considers informal for a reason) are registered under the Companies Acts? If anybody can explain this discrepancy, I will be grateful . . .

*[Crudely speaking, 'proprietary' means one owner and 'partnership' means a few owners]

Best Movies Of 2024

BEST MOVIES OF 2024

1. Phulwanti

2. Main Atal Hoon

3. Article 370

4. Razakar

5. Gladiator 2

6. Kingdom Of Planet Of Apes

7. Alien: Romulus

RBI, Inflation And Interest Rate

Last week the November inflation number came out at 5.5% - below the upper limit (6%) of the inflation target. So the media is saying that RBI must cut the interest rate. Is this view correct?

The RBI's Bulletin in July said that India's neutral/natural interest rate is around 1.5-2%. What does 'neutral/natural interest rate' mean? The top table illustrates this:

a) When the real interest rate is at the neutral/natural level, it neither decreases nor increases inflation. This is neutral monetary policy.

b) When the real interest rate is above the neutral/natural level, it decreases inflation. This is contractionary monetary policy.

c) When the real interest rate is below the neutral/natural level, it increases inflation. This is expansionary monetary policy.

Currently the inflation and interest rate situation is:

1. Inflation is 5.5% - above the target level (4%). So it must be decreased. That is - real interest rate must be above the neutral/natural level of 1.5-2%. 

2. But the repo rate is 6.5%. So the real repo rate = 6.5% - 5.5% = 1%, which is less than the neutral/natural level (1.5-2%).

3. So monetary policy is actually expansionary - ie, tending to increase inflation!

So to what level must inflation come down to justify a rate cut (in an already expansionary monetary policy)? The bottom table illustrates this. If inflation comes down to 4.5% (Case 1) then the repo rate can be cut to 6.25%. Because then the real repo rate will be 6.25% - 4.5% = 1.75%, which is above the lower limit (1.5%) of the neutral/natural level (1.5-2%) - which it has to be because inflation (4.5%) will still be above the target level (4%). Whereas inflation coming down to even 4.75% will not justify a rate cut (Case 2).

Of course, this is by taking the lower limit (1.5%) of the neutral/natural interest rate (1.5-2%). If we take the upper limit (2%) then inflation has to come down all the way to its target level (4%) to justify a rate cut (Case 3). Even inflation coming down to 4.25% will not justify a rate cut in this scenario (Case 4).

Low Salaries: Law Of Demand And Supply

The internet has many posts criticising the low salaries for:

1. Assistant Professors (like ₹ 35,000/month) in many colleges and universities

2. Fresh engineers (like ₹ 3 lakh/year) in companies like TCS, Wipro and Infosys

Wage is the price of labour. And the most fundamental law of economics is that all prices are decided by demand and supply. High demand or/and low supply leads to a high price/wage. And low demand or/and high supply leads to a low price/wage. Low salaries for Assistant Professors and fresh engineers are simply a reflection of the high supply of these workers.

The average wage of a casual labourer (like farm workers and construction workers) in India is ₹ 400/day. So if a farm/construction worker works 30 days a month, he/she will earn only ₹ 12,000/month - for doing back-breaking work in the hot sun the whole day. Is this fair? Of course, it is not. But the world does not run on fairness - it runs on the laws of economics, especially the law of demand and supply . . .

Why Did The Industrial Revolution Happen In Europe – And Not India Or China?

WHY DID THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION HAPPEN IN EUROPE – AND NOT INDIA OR CHINA?

How did the West become rich? Why did the Industrial Revolution happen in Europe - even though historically, India and China were more advanced in science? This is the biggest question in economic history. Economic historian Eric Jones answered this question in his book 'The European Miracle' (1981). The ultimate determinant of history is geography - and a unique combination of geographical factors put Europe on a unique path of political, economic and technological development:

1. Latitudes: India is in the tropical/sub-tropical zones, China and Europe are in the sub-tropical/temperate zones. The tropical and sub-tropical zones were prone to droughts and famines - which retarded India's and China's development. But North Europe (Britain, France, Germany - the growth engine of Europe) is in the temperate zone - so it did not have this problem.

2. Coastline: India and China have short/smooth coastlines - but Europe has a long/jagged coastline. So India and China did not give much importance to sea transport, but Europe gave it a lot of importance - and hence advanced in shipping. The earth's surface is 70% water - so Europe's advancement in shipping enabled it to reach all parts of the world, and conquer them.

3. Divisions: Both India and China are unified land areas. But Europe is divided by seas, rivers and mountains into separate geographical units - and these separate geographical units became separate countries (Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc). And these separate countries continuously competed with one another technologically and economically - and put Europe on a path of technological and economic development. India and China, on the other hand, were ruled by single empires - and did not have this division and competition.

4. Central Asia: Central Asia is a vast grassland whose people were horse-riding tribals. And these tribals (Turks and Mongols/Mughals) invaded the nearby advanced civilisations of India (to the south) and China (to the east) - and retarded their development. But Europe is far away from Central Asia - and so escaped this problem.

5. Americas: North America and South America were thinly populated continents rich in natural resources. America is 10,000 km from Asia - but only 5,000 km from Europe (half the distance). So it was easier for Europeans to go to the Americas, occupy them and get their vast natural resources - which accelerated Europe's development.

Dharmonomics: Dharma And Economics

DHARMONOMICS: DHARMA AND ECONOMICS

Last month Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James Robinson won the Nobel Economics Prize for showing how institutions produce economic growth. In particular, they have shown the importance of 3 institutions:

1. Law and order 

2. Enforcement of contacts

3. Protection of property rights 

In ancient Indian philosophy, the concept of Dharma (order/morality) had 3 main components:

1. Satya (truth)

2. Asteya (not stealing)

3. Ahimsa (non-violence)

We can see that the 3 components of Dharma are similar to the 3 institutions that produce economic growth . . .

'Phulwanti' Movie Review

'PHULWANTI' MOVIE REVIEW

Based on the famous novel (of the same name) by the great Marathi writer Babasaheb Purandare, 'Phulwanti' is a beautiful meditation on the relationship between knowledge and the scholar (and art and the artist) - and also the real meaning of love. The script, direction, acting, set design, costume design, music and choreography are all top-notch. The movie has English sub-titles.

[An economist's irrelevant aside:

A civilisation that can produce a great work of art like Babasaheb Purandare's 'Phulwanti' is indeed a great civilisation. Where we have fallen short is in building efficient systems - like economic system, administration system, etc . . .]