Is India in the grip of an employment crisis? This question has acquired a good deal of salience in the wake of media reports that the Indian government has tried to suppress an official report that shows that unemployment has reached historically unprecedented levels. The key findings of the report were leaked to a leading financial newspaper in India.
Author: Yan
I am an Adjunct Professor, Griffith Asia Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. I am also a former Chief, Labour Market and Employment Policies Branch, ILO, Geneva. I was educated as an economist at Manchester, Western Ontario and Cambridge. I am one of the founding editors of the Journal of Asia Pacific Economy (Routledge, London and New York).
I was invited by the Dhaka-based South Asian Network for Economic Modeling (SANEM) to deliver a keynote speech at its inaugural workshop on macroeconomics that was held on January 11, 2019. I was part of a panel that included Dr. Atiur Rahman, former governor of the Bangladesh Bank, Professor Shamsul Alam, member of the Planning Commission, and Professor Selim Raihan, Executive Director of SANEM. I reflected on the need to rethink macroeconomics that is more suited to developing country circumstances than the dominant neoliberal framework.
This blog revisits the sudden resignation of Urjit Patel on 10 December as the governor of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). Patel cited ‘personal reasons’ for his resignation, but it is widely acknowledged that he was unable to manage or withstand a rift with the government. Does this threaten the RBI’s autonomy and thus portend an uncertain future of a venerable institution? Or is the significance of central bank autonomy overrated, as some critics contend? Perhaps, as some have argued, Patel’s resignation is a reflection of his aptitude and characteristics as an individual rather than an existential struggle over the future of RBI.
I had the pleasure and privilege of representing the Griffith Asia Institute at an international forum on poverty reduction. It was held in Beijing on November 1 and 2, 2018. The aim was to showcase China’s stunning economic success.
In a recent statement, the Bangladesh Prime Minister noted that, once the nation’s biggest infrastructure project, known as the multi-purpose Padma Bridge, is fully operational, GDP growth would increase by 2% annually. This would mean that the current rate of growth of 7.9% would reach 10%. Where did she get these numbers from? Is she exaggerating the growth impact of the Padma Bridge?
There is little doubt that the Padma Bridge would transform the lives of millions. For the first time, the southwest of Bangladesh would have a continuous road/rail link to the more developed east. The World Bank, which initially wanted to fund the project but pulled out in 2012 because of corruption concerns with the construction and management of the project, had this to say in 2011:
‘The Padma Bridge is expected to… transform the lives of nearly 30 million Bangladeshis living in the South West. By reducing distances to major urban centres like Dhaka by almost 100km, the Bridge will reduce poverty in the region and accelerate growth and development in the country as a whole.’
Formal evaluations that were undertaken by Bangladeshi economists suggest that the net economic benefits would be substantially positive, but the equivalent annualized addition to national GDP would be about 0.33 per cent. On the hand, regional GDP in the southwest would increase between 1.7% and 2.3%.
It is possible that the Prime Minister’s speechwriters glossed over this distinction between regional and national GDP. After all, 2% extra growth – rather than the more modest fractional numbers – acts rather well as a soundbite.
Reflections on development and governance 