It is helpful to think of the Union Budget as satisfying two important objectives--growth, and stability. Depending on the state of the economy and availability of fiscal resources, electoral compulsions etc, a given Budget is either more growth-oriented or stability-oriented. Which category does the Union Budget of 2023-24 fall into?
The Union Budget is an annual statement of the government’s income and expenditure. From that standpoint, this Budget was a critical one, for two main reasons. First, for several years the government has been struggling to spend within its means and the fiscal deficit had been increasing. In the pre-pandemic year of 2019-10, the fiscal deficit of the central government alone was more than 4.5 percent of GDP, much higher than the 3 percent medium term target set by the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act. During the pandemic period, the deficit shot up first to 9.2 percent of GDP in 2020-21, and then to 6.9 percent in 2021-22. Such high levels of fiscal deficit raise concerns about macroeconomic stability, and can be detrimental to the economy’s growth. Hence all eyes were on the Budget this time to see whether the government would continue on the path of fiscal consolidation that it had embarked upon in 2022-23.
Secondly, this was the last full-year budget before the country goes into general elections in 2024. There was a general apprehension that the government would throw caution in the wind, and use the budget to announce populist schemes for specific electoral constituencies.
Instead, the Budget was a relatively conservative one. It refrained from populist measures, and projected a fiscal deficit of 5.9 percent for 2023-24, implying a 0.5 percent reduction from this year’s deficit. From this perspective, it sounds like a stability-oriented budget.
The important question to ask is, how credible is the fiscal consolidation path? Three points are worth noting in this context.
First, the Budget adhered to the fiscal deficit target of 6.4 percent for 2022-23. This was facilitated by the government’s conservative estimates of nominal GDP growth and gross tax revenues for 2022-23. As the economy normalised from the pandemic, both nominal GDP growth and tax revenues exceeded the government’s expectations. In particular, GST (goods and services tax) revenue was boosted by two main factors: an increase in sales of luxury goods which carry higher tax rates, and a big jump in imports. Both these maybe considered one-off shocks. Nominal GDP also received a boost from rising inflation. In 2023-24, as the economy slows down owing to global headwinds and weak domestic demand, and as inflation cools off, it is plausible that tax revenue growth will be lower than the Budget estimate, and nominal GDP growth will be less than the estimated 10.5 percent.
Secondly, while total non-debt revenue for 2023-24 is projected to be around Rs 27 lakh crore, tax revenue is projected to be around Rs 23 lakh crore. This implies that Rs 4 lakh crore must come from non-tax sources. This seems ambitious. For example, the Budget has set a disinvestment target of Rs 51,000 crore. Given that the disinvestment receipts in 2022-23 are unlikely to be anywhere close to the target, it is not clear how the target for 2023-24 can be achieved, especially in a year when economic growth is predicted to slow down, both domestically as well as globally.
Third, given the decline in global commodity prices, the government will incur some savings in 2023-24 on account of its subsidy bill. And some more savings have been budgeted on account of reduction in current expenditure. Using this savings to bring down the fiscal deficit would have made sense. But the Budget has also announced a steep increase in capital expenditure. This raises questions about the credibility of the fiscal math. Moreover it also raises questions about what fraction of the expenditure burden is being passed on to the states. It is important to note that ultimately what matters from a macro stability perspective is the consolidated fiscal deficit of both the centre and the states.
On the growth front, the Budget announced a 33 percent increase in capital expenditure. The objective, like last time, is to “crowd-in” private investment. While many would applaud this sustained capex push, it is problematic for two reasons.
First, it maybe argued that the increased capex spending by the government since last year has not resulted in the desired “crowding-in” of private sector investment which continues to be sluggish.
Second, and more importantly, the capex increase conveys a worrisome message. The government clearly feels compelled to do the heavy lifting of investing and boosting demand in the economy because the private sector is not investing in capacity expansion. This is deeply concerning because for an emerging economy like India to grow at 5-6 percent, and more importantly, to create the jobs required to absorb the millions of young people entering into the labour force every year, it is imperative that the private sector starts investing on a large scale.
The other important driver of growth is exports. While the Budget did announce several customs duty reductions, these were primarily aimed at reversing the inverted duty structure (i.e. higher duties on imported inputs but lower duties on imported finished goods), and it also announced several customs duty increases. The Budget also does not contain any major steps to roll back the protectionist policies the government has been implementing over the last few years.
In summary, only time will tell what impact the “growth” measures announced in the Budget will have on the economy, and while the Budget seems to have ticked the right boxes on “stability”, it lacks clarity on how this stability will be achieved.
No comments:
Post a Comment