The two “M”s of economic policy-making in India are Manmohan Singh and Montek Singh Ahluwalia. On lists of economists with most impact on policy, the “top two names will almost certainly be Manmohan Singh and Montek Singh Ahluwalia”. That’s a quote from the Shankar Acharya-Rakesh Mohan introduction. The cognoscenti know Isher Ahluwalia and Ian Little edited Essays for Manmohan Singh in 1998, also published by OUP. Now it is Montek’s turn, and there is a Foreword by the Prime Minister which says, “These essays have been written by friends and colleagues, each distinguished in his or her own right” — Surjit Bhalla, Suresh Tendulkar, C Rangarajan, Shankar Acharya, Rakesh Mohan, Jaimini Bhagwati, Ashok Gulati, Gajendra Haldea, Isher Ahluwalia, Sunil Jain, TN Ninan, Martin Wolf, Anne Krueger, Nicholas Stern, Ruth Kattumuri and Nandan Nilekani. And they have jointly written 13 papers divided into four parts — (i) Growth, Inequality and Reform; (ii) Macroeconomic and Financial Policies; (iii) Sectoral Perspectives; and (iv) Global Perspectives. This book is about Montek, for Montek, and about the Indian economy. Several authors mention in their essays their individual associations with Montek.
The comparison with the earlier Ahluwalia-Little volume is inevitable, even if odious. It figures in the introduction and was a recurrent theme at the launch function of this book in Delhi on February 9. Both on coverage, contents of individual papers, and production quality, Ahluwalia-Little was superior. For instance, given the UPA’s focus, there should have been papers on health, education, efficiency of public expenditure, administrative reforms, governance in general, and energy and natural resources (the thrust of the climate change paper isn’t quite this). The introduction ends, “However, we have not been able to gear up public administration structures to improve the delivery of public or semi-public goods and services. It is this area that needs the focused attention from all levels of government in the years to come.” If that is the case, shouldn’t we have had papers on these? Isher Ahluwalia’s paper on social sector development, a perspective from Punjab, does touch on these issues but not in great enough detail. If association with Montek was the criterion for inclusion, how about Yugandhar, NC Saxena, Mihir Shah, NK Singh, Bimal Jalan, Kirit Parikh and AK Shiva Kumar? Some of the gaps would have been plugged. And while on omission, why didn’t this volume reprint the note Montek wrote in 1989-90, which reportedly played a crucial role in the introduction of reforms? Several people refer to it (such as Rangarajan in this book) and it isn’t in the public domain. There cannot be anything confidential, not any more. A detailed Montek biography, more than the sketch given in the introduction, with a list of all his publications, would also have been a good idea.
There are pleasant surprises. In any edited collection, the introduction is often perfunctory, no more than summary of individual papers. This one is an exception and is written extremely well, weaving strands of the various papers into an integrated story. The potshots taken by the editors at one of their contributors (Surjit Bhalla) jar a bit though. Though warranted, they seem a trifle excessive. Once one names the authors, anyone familiar with their work can reasonably predict what they are likely to say, or write on. However, there are pleasant surprises in Surjit Bhalla, Suresh Tendulkar, Isher Ahluwalia, Sunil Jain-TN Ninan and Nandan Nilekani. Surjit has transcended interest rates, exchange rates, poverty numbers (though he brings in the first two) and has interesting points to make about growth performance. Suresh Tendulkar looks beyond poverty and inequality numbers and makes a plausible distinction between inequality and inequity. Isher on social sectors is relatively new too. With Nicholas Stern and Ruth Kattumuri, Nandan Nilekani has been roped in on climate change. This is a very odd paper. Despite three names as co-authors, large chunks are explicitly attributed to Stern alone and the essay doesn’t quite hang together. Why didn’t Nandan write on identity cards/numbers and targeting subsidies, and delink himself from climate change? Sunil Jain and TN Ninan make valid points about the role of services. But did one write the paper and the other lend his name? One asks because there is a footnote 5 which, incidentally, is put on the wrong page (p.339). This states, “To the best of my (note the singular) knowledge, software workers are not classified as workmen.” Incidentally, this could have been easily checked. Software enterprises are typically under the Shops and Establishment Act and not the Factories Act.
Of the 13 papers, nine-and-half are really good. That’s not a bad percentage. But given the authors, all should have been good. Gajendra Haldea’s paper is good on substance, but inferior in form. Knowing that this was going to be an academic style book, Gajendra should have improved the writing. This leaves three papers as sub-par — C Rangarajan, Jaimini Bhagwati (capital markets) and Anne Krueger. Rangarajan picks two “discreet” (p.102) events in the reform story — transition to market-determined exchange rates and phasing out of ad hoc treasury bills? Does he mean discrete or is this a reference to reforms by stealth. But there is little value addition in either episode and there is little value on offer in the Krueger essay too.
Not a bad collection of papers, there is plenty of information. But, bearing Ahluwalia-Little in mind, Montek deserved better — on coverage (choice of authors), content, editing and production quality.
INDIA'S ECONOMY, PERFORMANCE AND CHALLENGES
Essays in Honour of Montek Singh Ahluwalia
Edited by Shankar Acharya and Rakesh Mohan
Oxford University Press, 2010
XV+465 pages; Rs 795