Budgeting in the time of Trump: Balancing growth, jobs, and governance

Economic policymaking must always reckon with uncertainty. There are times when the uncertainty is acute. The biggest challenge in recent years was the Covid-19 pandemic. It was hard to tell how long it would last. The policy response to it was, however, quite clear — fiscal and monetary stimulus, although nations came up with varying degrees of stimuli.

 

What looms ahead of the Union Budget for FY26 is, perhaps, even more challenging. Nobody quite knows how the US President-elect, Donald Trump, will proceed with his plans and how other nations will respond.  Also uncertain are his stance on the two geopolitical hotspots at the moment, Ukraine and West Asia, not to mention his own additions, Greenland and the Panama Canal. The only known is that the world economy must brace for major shocks. The focus in the coming Union Budget must be to keep the growth momentum going so that the economy is better placed to withstand any shocks that arise.

 

Going by the latest estimates of the National Statistics Office, the government is likely to fall slightly short of the nominal growth target of 10.5 per cent for FY25. It may still meet the fiscal deficit target of 4.9 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) because capital expenditure will fall below the budgetary estimate.

 

For FY26, the priority must be to maintain the central government expenditure at the FY25 level of 3.4 per cent of GDP, at the very least. This must not happen at the expense of capital expenditure by public sector undertakings (PSUs). Total central public expenditure (central government plus central PSUs) must be maintained at the FY25 level of 4.5 per cent.

 

This could well mean exceeding the fiscal deficit target of 4.5 per cent of GDP for FY26 indicated in last year’s Budget. So be it. The imperative is to aim for GDP growth of close to 6.5 per cent in the coming year. It is hard to see any big rise in private investment driving growth in the face of looming uncertainties.

 

The finance minister had indicated in her speech last year that, from FY27 onwards, the government would focus on ensuring a fall in the central government debt-to -GDP ratio rather than on the fiscal deficit itself. In blunt terms, this means letting go of what has turned out to be a futile two-decade quest to meet the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) fiscal deficit target of 3 per cent.

 

A strong fiscal stimulus is especially required because the scope for monetary easing may turn out to be less than what analysts had hoped for. The issue may not just be the persistence of domestic inflation. Mr Trump’s position on tariffs spells higher inflation in the US and a strengthening of the dollar, at least in the short-run. The US Federal Reserve has indicated that rate cuts in 2025 will be fewer than previously anticipated. Post-Trump, other economies may find it more difficult to delink their policy rates from those of the Fed.

 

The second priority in the Budget must be the issue of unemployment, especially educated unemployment. Last year’s Budget had announced three schemes aimed at incentivising employment in the private sector, along with an internship programme. It projected an expenditure of Rs 2 trillion over five years, or Rs 40,000 crore annually. However, the discernible allocation in the Budget was only Rs 12,000 crore.

 

The coming Budget should tell us what the outcomes have been. It is unlikely that the private sector has met the government’s expectations for job creation, or that it will in the future. Manufacturing has not taken off as expected, and it cannot be relied upon to generate large numbers of jobs in the near future. The services sector generates jobs but many are of low quality.

 

To alleviate educated unemployment on a crash basis, the government must go all-out to fill vacancies in government. It must also offer the promised internship stipend of Rs 5,000 to all those who apply for internship through the government’s portal and fail to secure one within six months. There will be much hand-wringing over unproductive jobs in government and freebies. Critics will say that the government must instead invest more in education and healthcare or in infrastructure. The latter would create conditions for the growth rate to move to over 7 per cent.

 

We have seen, however, that faster growth does not automatically create sufficient jobs or the right quality of jobs, not just in India, but also in other parts of the world. A large swathe of the population needs relief. With both the Centre and the states announcing handouts in various forms, we are moving towards an Indian version of a universal basic income. Like it or not, that is the consensus across the political spectrum. If we can, nevertheless, sustain GDP growth at around 6.5 per cent in an adverse global environment, investors will view India’s growth-with-inclusiveness model as no mean achievement.

 

Lastly, the government must focus on improving governance and performance at PSUs and public sector banks (PSBs). The imperative is even stronger now that privatisation and asset monetisation have been put on the back burner. 

 

The Financial Services Institutions Bureau (FSIB) has turned out to be a good model for making top-level appointments. The Bureau comprises professionals, a representative of the Reserve Bank of India and a representative of the finance ministry. It recommends whole-time directors and non-executive chairpersons for financial institutions. The government takes a call on the recommendations made by the Bureau.

 

The Bureau’s mandate should also be extended to the appointment of independent directors. The responsibilities cast on independent directors by the RBI have increased considerably. Compensation for independent directors at public sector banks needs to be improved —it is eminently affordable today. A graded scheme can be introduced, depending on the size and performance of a bank.

 

The Public Enterprise Selection Board, which performs similar functions at public enterprises in the non-financial sector, needs to be recast along the same lines as the FSIB. It too must be mandated to appoint independent directors, and on better terms. A separate panel could be created to evaluate the performance of boards at all public enterprises.

 

A growth rate target of around 6.5 per cent, a high level of public capex, increased government spending on job creation, a relaxed view of the fiscal deficit target, and a greater focus on performance at PSUs/PSBs—the recipe may seem distinctly unglamorous. Well, that is what is required in the uncertain times that the arrival of Mr Trump bodes. 

ttrammohan28@gmail.com