Economic Times ⁽²¹⁸⁾

If victory and defeat were judged by juxtaposing the initial objective and final outcome, India suffered an unequivocal defeat in Doha. But by that count, Doha produced no winners. Economic Times, November 21 2001 (Tuesday Debates) IF VICTORY and defeat were judged by juxtaposing the initial objective and final outcome, India suffered an unequivocal defeat in Doha. But by that count, Doha produced no winners. The US wanted to include labour standards in the agenda, exclude anti-dumping and peak tariffs from it and retain the existing intellectual property rights regime. EU was vehemently opposed to the “phasing out of subsidies” in agriculture as a negotiating goal and desperately wanted the Singapore issues to be included in the negotiating agenda. Both failed to achieve their respective goals. But victory and defeat in negotiations must be judged differently. The questions we must ask are whether the outcome was in the negotiating party’s interest and whether it had a significant impact on the negotiations. Regarding the first question, I have already argued (ET, November 21, 2001) that the Doha outcome squarely promotes India’s…

“A FIVE per cent per annum rate of increase in real national income seems entirely feasible...” If these opening words in a memorandum addressed to the government of India do not impress you, think again: the date on the memorandum is November 5, 1955 and its author is Milton Friedman, the 1976 Nobel Laureate in Economics. Economic Times, October 24 2001 “A FIVE per cent per annum rate of increase in real national income seems entirely feasible on the basis of both the experience of other countries and of India’s own recent past. The great untapped resource of technical and scientific knowledge available to India for the taking is the economic equivalent of the untapped continent available to the United States 150 years ago.” If these opening words in a memorandum addressed to the government of India do not impress you, think again: the date on the memorandum is November 5, 1955 and its author is Milton Friedman, the 1976 Nobel Laureate in Economics. Friedman visited the ministry of finance briefly during 1955 and wrote the memorandum at the invitation…

This year, I successfully predicted all three Nobel laureates and surprising a figure no less than Professor Assar Lindbeck, the chairman of the Nobel Committee from 1980 to 1994. Economic Times, October 16 2001 IN MY write-up on the Economics Nobel laureates last year, I began by stating that if you wanted to predict future laureates, your best bet was to look at the list of the recipients of the John Bates Clark Medal, awarded every other year to the best American economist below 40 years of age. This year, I successfully applied this model, predicting all three Nobel laureates correctly and surprising a figure no less than Professor Assar Lindbeck, the chairman of the Nobel Committee from 1980 to 1994. Lindbeck and I happened to be together in Manila around the time the prize was announced. Daniel McFadden, the Clark Medal recipient in 1975, was awarded the Nobel Prize last year. Martin Feldstein, the 1977 recipient of the medal, has not appeared prominently on the recent lists of potential Nobel laureates. Lindbeck, who knew the winners in advance, also…

“Removing the main barriers to growth would free India’s economy to grow as fast as China’s, at 10% a year.” This is the central conclusion of a recent report entitled “Achieving India’s Economic Growth Imperative” by the McKinsey Global Institute. Economic Times, September 26 2001 “Removing the main barriers to growth would free India’s economy to grow as fast as China’s, at 10% a year.” This is the central conclusion of a recent report entitled “Achieving India’s Economic Growth Imperative” by the McKinsey Global Institute. The conclusion itself is not exceptional since many others, including the present author (Economic Times, January 12, 2000), have argued for some time that a double-digit growth is well within India’s grasp. Indeed, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee himself has mentioned 9 percent annual growth as necessary to double the country’s per-capita income in the next ten years. What is exceptional about the report is the set of reforms it regards crucial to attaining the 10 percent growth rate and, even more importantly, the reforms it regards as not so crucial. The report identifies three…

India has expressed its clear opposition to the launch of a new round of multilateral negotiations at the forthcoming WTO ministerial in Qatar. India’s position is not without justification. Yet, unless intended to be an interim, tactical move, it can hurt our ultimate interests. We have much to gain from a new round provided we actively engage in shaping its agenda. Economic Times, August 25, 2001 India has expressed its clear opposition to the launch of a new round of multilateral negotiations at the forthcoming WTO ministerial in Qatar. India’s position is not without justification. Yet, unless intended to be an interim, tactical move, it can hurt our ultimate interests. We have much to gain from a new round provided we actively engage in shaping its agenda. But consider first the reasons why the hard-line position taken by India is not without justification. First, the origins of the skepticism on the part of India and several other developing countries can be traced back to the Uruguay Round (UR). Few developing countries had anticipated that Punta del Este Mandate, which launched…