Total Pageviews

Is India\'s Rising Billionaire Wealth Bad for the Country?

Mukesh Ambani, chairman of Reliance Industries is the richest Indian according to the Forbes Billionaires list 2012.Amit Dave/ReutersMukesh Ambani, chairman of Reliance Industries is the richest Indian according to the Forbes Billionaires list 2012.

The strength and direction of the Indian economy may be up for debate, but one remarkable fact is not: There has been massive growth in the number and wealth of billionaires in India since the economic liberalization measures in 1991.

The phenomenon has often been compared to the United States' experience in the latter part of the 19th century. This was a period evocatively described by Mark Twain and Charles Dudley Warner as America's “Gilded Age,” a time characterize d by industrialists so wealthy and powerful that they came to be pejoratively called “robber barons.”

According to the 2012 list of the world's billionaires, compiled annually by Forbes, 48 of the 1,153 billionaires are from India, accounting for a little over 4 percent of the total. This compares to India's share of global output at 2.6 percent when compared using nominal exchange rates, or 5.7 percent when compared using “purchasing power parity” exchange rates.

By this metric, India's share of billionaires in the global total seems comparable to its overall share of the global economy. But look more closely, and a different picture emerges.

A recent study by the economists Aditi Gandhi, formerly of the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi, and Michael Walton of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard attempts to parse the sources of the wealth of India's billionaires as well as placing the Indian experience in comparative perspective. The data reveals a staggering increase in billionaires' wealth as a percentage of national income in India, from a low point of less than 1 percent in 1996 to a whopping 22 percent in 2008.

That number has dropped off as a result of the global financial crisis and plummeting stock markets in India and elsewhere, but as of 2012 it stands at just under 10 percent.

How does this compare to other countries? India is now on par with the United States and Mexico, where billionaires' wealth in both countries is about 10 percent of national income. Among the large emerging economies known as the BRICs, (referring to Brazil, Russia, India and China) India is more unequal than China (where the comparable statistic is below 5 percent) and amazingly even with Brazil (a little above 5 percent), historically a country noted for wide disparities in wealth and income.

Among the BRIC countries, only Russia has a higher share of billionaires to natio nal income (pushing 20 percent) â€" and that in a country famous for its oligarchs, latter-day robber barons who emerged during the heady days of former President Boris Yeltsin in the 1990s, when Russia held the dubious moniker of being the “Wild East.”

The other important finding emerging from Ms. Gandhi and Mr. Walton's research is that 43 percent of India's billionaires came from sectors that the researchers classify as “rent-thick,” that is, those enjoying what economists would consider above-normal profits because the companies possess certain privileges. What is more, these billionaires account for a majority (about 60 percent) of the total wealth of India's billionaires.

The Forbes list of richest Indians, released last week, is full of businessmen and women from “rent-thick” sectors: real estate, construction, infrastructure, media, cement and mining. These are sectors in which the government continues to play a large role, in the form of lice nses and other forms of control, and in which there's a presumption of a government-business nexus â€" or collusion, to use a less flattering term, according to Ms. Gandhi and Mr. Walton.

For example, they contend that “the real estate sector is well known for the large number of ‘black' transactions, and the nexus between politicians and realtors has been documented in recent scams.”

An obvious inference, although one difficult to prove rigorously, is that the above-normal profits earned in industries like real estate or cement accrue because of the cozy relationship between business and government.

There is some heartening news, though, in the study by Ms. Gandhi and Mr. Walton. According to their analysis, the majority of Indian billionaires are “self-made,” and around 40 percent represent wealth that is “inherited and growing,” like the Ambani brothers, Mukesh and Anil, sons of the late Dhirubhai Ambani, founder of the family business empi re.

Not surprisingly, the self-made billionaires are in fields like information technology, which are offspring of the 1991 economic reform measures, and not holdovers from the era of the “license raj.”

Why might this be important? According to research, there is a positive correlation between economic growth and the wealth of self-made billionaires, while there is a negative correlation between growth and inherited wealth. It's impossible to establish a conclusive cause-and-effect relationship, but the finding is at least suggestive of the fact that economies populated by those whose wealth is self-made are more dynamic than those that rely on the perpetuation of existing economic elites and their descendants.

As Jayant Sinha, an investment adviser, and Ashutosh Varshney, a political science professor at Brown University, have argued in a column in The Financial Times, the current state of the Indian private sector, which they dub “curry capitalism,â € requires sweeping reforms, intended to ensure that cronyism and corruption are curbed while India's entrepreneurial ethos is given a much-needed boost.

What is more, even in the United States, there is an increasingly urgent debate on whether worsening income and wealth inequality, as captured by the importance of billionaires to the economy and other factors, is helpful or harmful for economic growth, the subject of a recent Times “Room for Debate” feature.

In an era of flagging growth rates and a renewed reform impetus from the incumbent government, the possibility that excessive inequality could be bad for the economy may be the most important lesson to come out of the Forbes billionaire list.

Vivek Dehejia is an economics professor at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, and a writer and commentator on India. You can follow him on Twitter @vdehejia.



Image of the Day: Oct. 29

A woman performs a ritual on the banks of Yamuna River in New Delhi, on the occasion of Sharad Purnima. It is traditionally celebrated by Hindus during the first full moon in the Hindu month of Ashwin.Kevin Frayer/Associated PressA woman performs a ritual on the banks of Yamuna River in New Delhi, on the occasion of Sharad Purnima. It is traditionally celebrated by Hindus during the first full moon in the Hindu month of “Ashwin.”

India Goes to the Races: A Weekend of Formula One

Related
  • Article: No Surprise: Vettel Captures the Indian Grand Prix Again


A Conversation With: Asha Bhat, Kashmir\'s Only Female Panchayat Leader

Asha Bhat, center, a member of the village panchayat, at a meeting in Kashmir in this July 8, 2011 file photo.Kuni Takahashi for The New York TimesAsha Bhat, center, a member of the village panchayat, at a meeting in Kashmir in this July 8, 2011 file photo.

WUSSAN VILLAGE

Asha Bhat is the only female Kashmiri Pandit in Kashmir valley to serve on the village council known as a panchayat. She won a seat on the Wussan village panchayat in April 2011, when the state held council elections for the first time in more than three decades.

The village, which sits on the edge of the Himalayas amid tall chinar trees and flowing streams, is home to over 100 Muslim families but has only five families o f Kashmiri Pandits, a Hindu community that for the most part fled the region in the 1990s under increasing threats of violence. Only some Pandit families, including Mrs. Bhat's, chose to stay behind.

Mrs. Bhat's election was celebrated as a sign of growing tolerance in the region, although some of the initial euphoria has died down since then. Both voters and Mrs. Bhat have expressed disappointment at what she has been able to achieve on the council for the village. She also works as a low-level secretary at the village school for a monthly honorarium of $1.20. Mrs. Bhat, 52, has two married sons and recently became a grandmother.

Q.

Why did you decide to contest the village panchayat election?

A.

I wanted to help my fellow villagers, particularly women. I wanted to bring some job opportunities for women in the village, like a shawl knitting center or an anganwadi [day care] cen ter.

Q.

You chose to stay in the Kashmir valley while most of the Kashmiri Pandit families migrated to Jammu and other safer places. Why?

A.

We chose to stay here because we never felt threatened, even at the peak of militancy. No harm and no threat were ever given to us. We never felt that we are Hindus and living among Muslims. We always thought that we are living among our brothers and sisters.

Q.

Were you concerned that Muslims would not vote for you because you are a Hindu Pandit woman?

A.

No. In fact, my Muslim neighbors approached me and persuaded me to contest the election. There are only five Pandit families in the village. It is the Muslim families who got me elected.

Even before elections I used to help people in village matters. On many occasions I used to talk to army people to get our village boys released. The army used to hold up t hose boys on suspicion during the militancy days. That created my image in the village as a social worker, and the people got me elected to the village body.

Q.

Are you satisfied after working for more than one year as a panchayat member?

A.

No, I am not satisfied. I am not able to help poor people. I am not able to help poor women. We do not have enough powers and resources to help people. For everything we need to go to government officials. Their pace of work is very slow. We need to go to them for small issues several times.

We are not able to fulfill the aspirations of poor people. We feel that we are not able to do much work. I could not establish any center in the village that could have given some jobs to women.

Q.

What do the villagers say now to you?

A.

They say, “We voted for you, we elected you, now help us.” The expectations are v ery high. They think that we can get anything done. That is not the reality.

We could get some of the things done in the village like some hand pumps for drinking water, laying down of some village alleys, construction of some small drains, etc. That is not enough. We need to do much more.

Q.

What do you think is needed the most in the village?

A.

The villagers need to improve their income, particularly women. If I can help to bring in some center that can provide some employment opportunities to women, that will be a big achievement. Poor villagers desperately need to improve their income.

Q.

You became famous throughout India. Did that help you at all?

A.

Yes, I became famous, and I liked that initially. I gave interviews to media people. I gave TV interviews. I was invited to Delhi, Nagpur, Pune and Mumbai for awards and to speak about my work.

But all that publicity did not help me in my work in the village. In fact, it has become a problem for me. The people saw me on TV. They think that I am the key to everything. My villagers say that I am not able to get things done even after becoming so famous.

Q.

What are the major hurdles you face in performing your duties?

A.

We do not have enough resources to spend in the village. We do not have any funds to help poor people. Whatever money that comes is routed through officials. The officials do not transfer the money without taking a bribe. If we get some work done, the officials will not clear the wage bill without a bribe. Corruption has become the biggest hurdle.

We are not paid any salary or any transport charges to be panchayats. We are supposed to spend from our own pocket. How long we can spend from our own pocket?

Also, the panchayat system is not fully in place. The elections only took place at village level, not at a block and district level. Maybe it will become more functional with block- and district-level elections.

Q.

Do you think that the panchayat system can help in eradicating poverty from villages?

A.

Corruption is the biggest hurdle. Corruption is defeating the whole purpose of panchayats. Until we eradicate corruption, we cannot eradicate poverty.

Q.

Many panchs and sarpanchs have resigned because they fear for their lives. Two were killed recently by militants. Do you feel threatened?

A.

No, I do not feel threatened. Nobody in our area has resigned. We do have some concern, but no threat as such. We will not resign.

Q.

What inspires you?

A.

I am a follower of Anna Hazare. I am against corruption, and I want to fight against corruption.

Q.

Are you hopeful that the panchayat system will improve?

A.

I never lose hope. You live with hope till you die.

(This interview was conducted in Hindi and translated into English. It has been lightly edited.)



No Surprise: Vettel Captures the Indian Grand Prix Again

No Surprise: Vettel Captures the Indian Grand Prix Again

NEW DELHI - Great news for Formula One in India: In the second year of its running, the Indian Grand Prix outside Delhi looked like any other Formula One race. But this time on the track it was a far better spectacle than the one last year, with more wheel-to-wheel racing, more overtaking and nearly as many spectators.

What did not change was that for the second year in a row Sebastian Vettel of the Red Bull team started from pole position and won the race, leading from start to finish. It was Vettel's fourth victory in a row this season and his fifth of the year, and it increased his lead in the series to 13 points over Fernando Alonso, of Ferrari, who finished in second position. Mark Webber, the other Red Bull driver, finished third.

“I have had an incredible two years to come here and win the race on Sunday,” Vettel said. “A very special Grand Prix, and I don't know what it is about this circuit but I really like the flow of it.”

It was the 26th victory of Vettel's career. The race effectively turned the championship title race into a duel between Alonso and Vettel, although Kimi Raikkonen, Webber and Lewis Hamilton still have a mathematical chance to win the title, with 75 points available to the winner of all of the final three races.

Vettel leads the series with 240 points, Alonso is second with 227 points, Raikkonen of Lotus is third with 173, Webber is fourth with 167, and Hamilton is fifth with 165. Only Jenson Button, Hamilton's teammate at McLaren Mercedes, was eliminated from the title race on Sunday, although he finished the race in fifth.

For Hamilton to win the title, he would have to win the remaining races, and Vettel would have to gain no more points. Alonso would also have to race poorly the rest of the season.

“Obviously it is not easy at the moment to fight with Red Bull, but we never give up,” Alonso said. “We have to congratulate them. They were fantastic this weekend. But we want to be happy in Brazil.”

The racing in India on Sunday was far from the tame affair of the first edition of the race, with plenty of overtaking. With 12 laps left, Alonso made a spectacular and important move, passing Webber to take second position and gain a few more points.

In the final laps, even Vettel had a tense time, as his floorboard had come loose and sparks were flying from under his car as the floorboard scraped along the track. In the meantime, Alonso began catching up to him.

“The plank is on the ground,” a Ferrari engineer said to Alonso over the radio, telling him of Vettel's plight. “Let's keep pushing, let's put him under pressure.”

With three laps left after catching up a little, however, Alonso slid slightly off the track, before getting the car back under control. But he could never get close, and finished 9.4 seconds behind.

“Nice work, you weathered the storm brilliantly,” his engineer said to Vettel.

Right from the start, it was tense action as the two Red Bull drivers pulled up alongside each other. Vettel defended his position against his teammate, Webber. Behind them the two McLaren drivers, Hamilton and Button, fought for position, and Alonso, who started fifth, profited by that battle to slot in between the two of them, moving immediately to fourth.

He then passed Button on Lap 4 to move into third.

“There are 75 points available and we are 13 behind, and hopefully we can improve; the races are long and there can be problems,” Alonso said. “So there are still many points on the table and I am still very optimistic.”

In the final laps of the race, Hamilton gained on Webber, who had a problem with his power-boost system, but the British driver never managed to pass the Australian and finished 0.6 seconds behind him.

“Another two laps and he would have got me,” Webber said.

By the end of the race, Raikkonen was also only half a second behind Felipe Massa in the other Ferrari, and the two finished sixth and seventh.

The action also got stormy at the back of the pack. Up and down the pack cars were overtaking and slipping off the track, exchanging positions.

It was a vast improvement on the calm procession of last year's race, which was nevertheless hailed as a victory for India in its effort to host an international sporting event after the fiasco of the Commonwealth Games in 2010.

The race Sunday was attended by an estimated 80,000 spectators, compared with 95,000 last year.

“I think it is an impressive country,” Vettel said. “In here in the paddock is something we know, but looking at Delhi or outside the circuit it is quite a different life. To see how people live here and see the culture, it's very different.”

A version of this article appeared in print on October 29, 2012, in The International Herald Tribune.