India’s Financial Drain

Global Financial Integrity recently published a study, The Drivers and Dynamics of Illicit Financial Flows from India: 1948-2008, that found that India has lost $462 billion in illegal assets during the period, as a result of corruption, bribery and tax evasion. $125 billion dollars were lost in just the past decade, and nearly half the total losses were incurred after economic liberalization in 1991.<--break->

At first glance, the figure put out by this study may raise eyebrows—how can illicit financial flows possibly be measured to the point of a concrete figure? The study uses the World Bank Residual Method and the IMF Direction of Trade Statistics to arrive at outflows of $213 billion, which when adjusted for accumulated interest increases to $462 billion. The study admits that the authors regard this figure as a conservative estimate—with outflows due to smuggling and trade mispricing not considered, and disparities in trade statistics not taken into account. If these factors were included, the figure would inevitably surge. At its core, the study is a situation model examining the interplay of various factors (economic, structural, governmental) that underlie the transfer of illicit financial capital; but due to the inherent randomness of illicit financial flows, the model is not predictive—i.e. it provides indications but cannot be used to chart out the future direction of these flows.

The real value of this study then lies in its laying out of a formal approach to understanding the drivers of illicit flows and how they are dynamically engaged with one another. The motivational drivers in this context are of course difficult to test empirically—illegal financial flows are not recorded, and motivations to build hidden stockpiles of wealth are difficult to measure. The proportional interplay of these forces is what is ultimately illuminated; a perhaps first of it’s kind map of the extraordinary financial toll of corruption, bribery and tax evasion the country has incurred since its’ independence.

An interesting finding of the study is that governance and structural issues carry more of the blame for these flows than India’s macroeconomic policies. Budget deficits and inflation, while playing their roles, were only a minor contributor to the scale of illicit outflows. The consequences of these outflows described by the study—draining currency reserves and reducing tax collection—contribute toward the widening income inequalities India’s population has faced over decades.

 

The GFI study recommends that financial institutions should be required to identify in their records the natural (real) persons that own a financial account or any legal entity that owns a financial account.

 

The policy challenges this presents are immense—accelerating income inequalities have widespread consequences beyond the economic for India’s social growth and civil unrest, and the rise of money-laundering rackets have implications for national security (funding terrorism) and social health (drug and human trafficking). The government must strengthen anti-money laundering efforts and provisions to combat the financing of terrorism—efforts that the Financial Action Task Force notes are relatively young. The government also needs to aggressively collect and utilize internationally available data on banks, and pricing of imports/ exports to detect abusive transfer pricing. India also needs to strengthen existing laws in order to widen its tax base and ensure that higher income groups do not get away with tax evasion and avoidance.

A recent conference I attended on Understanding the Politics of Taxation in India, had several speakers from various civil society organizations pointing toward tax reform as a means to curb illicit outflows. There was also anger at the accommodation of hot money in island tax havens, where many claimed that billions of dollars are funneled from the private wealth of Indian citizens and then transferred back into the country for investment, in what becomes an unaccounted for vicious cycle of transfers. Moves toward domestic tax reform, would then be helped by “internationally agreed tax standards” such as those proposed at the London G20 Summit in 2009 that led to the drawing up of a tax havens blacklist. The GFI report recommendations echo this when they point toward both developed and developing countries needing to uphold standards of financial integrity with their institutions so that domestic efforts in the developing world are not undermined by weak policies on the part of developed nations.

Globalization and liberalization have led to a widening of the illicit tax haven circuit—Alex Cobham in his Oxford Council on Good Governance Report “The tax consensus has failed!”, claims that the proportion of assets in tax havens belonging to residents of developing nations like India are similar to the share of these nations in World GDP. His results show that developing countries as a whole lose approximately $50 billion annually from the use of tax havens to evade tax. As income inequalities in India become more severe, wealth becomes more concentrated within a small group of high net worth individuals—a group the GFI study claims are the “main drivers of illicit financial flows”. Apart from the use of tax havens, corporate entities also use mispricing and tax planning to help with “profit shifting”—a practice that results in the loss of tax revenue as well as capital flight. The GFI study recommends that financial institutions should be required to identify in their records the natural (real) persons that own a financial account or any legal entity that owns a financial account. Policies geared toward creating a more equal income redistribution (addressing factors like the promotion of regressive taxes, the failure to charge all income to tax), would be significantly aided by large-scale efforts toward a corporate culture that promotes giving and discourages tax evasion and avoidance.

Redistributive policies and tax reforms in India to curb illicit financial flows are  urgently needed to begin to address the country’s rising shadow economy and ensure that income generated is inclusively shared by the population. These measures must be matched by strong international financial laws and institutions as well as engagement with theendemic corruption across Indian institutions and measures to improve private sector attitudes toward taxation. Given the sheer scale of financial outflows, a commitment to the policy guidelines set out by Global Financial Integrity would be a step toward addressing stagnating poverty levels and improving performance on human development.

Rishiv Khattar is a Research Intern at the Accountability Initiative.

Explore AI’s Document Library

Our website www.accountabilityindia.org is designed as a comprehensive source on the state of accountability in India with information on civil society experiments, accountability tool kits, and relevant research and analytical work.

An important component of the website is the Document Library. This is a collection of conceptual, analytical and empirical literature on the broad subject of governance and accountability from India and around the world. It is designed as a one-stop source of information for students, researchers, academics, practitioners and policymakers interested in these issues.

<--break->

The documents are organized into different categories including Decentralization, Democracy and Citizenship, Service Delivery Reforms (Education, Health), International Case Studies, Corruption, Right to Information, Budgets, Media, and so on. Most of the documents can be downloaded from the website. Where this is not permitted/ possible, a link is provided to the website hosting the document or information is provided about how to access it.

Selection criteria: We monitor a wide range of publication sources regularly, including Universities, Research and Policy Institutes, NGOs and Donors. Materials are carefully selected by our research team to ensure that they are relevant to the topic areas, demonstrate good practice or significant insight and represent a range of perspectives. Only the most credible and policy-relevant research, toolkits, analyses and case studies are included.

We believe that a collection of documents such as in our library can be a valuable resource for student researchers working on governance issues. We invite you to explore the library and make use of it.

The Accountability Initiative Team

We regularly update the collection in the library. If you would like to recommend any new publications for inclusion, please email us at [email protected]. Please supply a link to the full text online if possible so that we can review the document and link to it. Alternatively, if you are the copyright holder you can send us an electronic copy of the document if you would like us to review it and possibly host it on our web site.

New RTI Act Rules Top Secret?

It appears that the Government of India is attempting to draft a new set of Rules under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The minutes of a  meeting held at the Central Information Commission (CIC) on 16th November 2010 indicate that it has been asked to comment on a set of draft RTI Rules prepared by the Government of India.  Specifically, the minute’s state:

“Agenda 1Draft RTI rules- for discussions

Commission discussed the draft rules and suggested some modifications. The changes as suggested by the Commission shall be incorporated and sent to the Government at the earliest. (Action: Secretary/JS (law)) “

<--break->In the 21st century where the RTI Act seeks to establish a regime of transparency, rules governing the processes of seeking and obtaining information are being discussed by only a handful of people behind closed doors. There is no official word on what the draft RTI Rules contain. Till date neither the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) the administrative department for the RTI Act, nor the CIC, have taken any steps to consult with the people of India on these draft Rules. The people of India are the primary stakeholders  in India’s democracy and have a deeply vested interest in ensuring that there is transparency in the administration, especially in policy making and implementation. The secrecy surrounding the draft RTI Rules is in clear violation of two decisions of the CIC emphasising the duty of public consultation while drafting laws and policies. Whether the CIC has reminded the DoPT about the imperative of public consultation on these Draft RTI Rules in not publicly known.

Public Consultation is necessary while drafting legislation or policy: CIC directs the Delhi Government

In July 2010 a single member bench of the CIC directed the Government of the Delhi to fully comply with Section 4 of the RTI Act while formulating draft laws and policies. In this decision the CIC observed as follows:

A plain reading of Section 4(1) (c) of the RTI Act suggests that every public authority is required to publish or disclose all facts and circumstances which are relevant and taken into account while formulating policies and taking decisions that would affect the public. Section 4(1)(c) of the RTI Act requires proactive disclosure of proposed laws/ policies and amendments thereto or to existing laws/ policies to enable citizens to debate in an informed manner and provide useful feedback to the government, which may be taken into account before finalizing such laws/ policies. Given that the DP Bill” (Delhi Police Amendment Bill) “is a significant legislative change, the relevant public authorities involved in drafting of the said bill had a duty to proactively disclose its contents under Section 4(1)(c) of the RTI Act… The public authority should have disclosed the contents of the DP Bill suo motu and by omitting to do so, the very purpose of Section 4(1) of the RTI Act stands defeated.

Public Consultation is necessary while drafting legislation or policy: CIC full bench directs the Central Government 

In September 2010 a full bench of the CIC reiterated this stand and directed the Cabinet Secretariat under the Government of India and the DoPT to take steps to create a mechanism for public consultation on draft laws before they are tabled in Parliament. In this decision the CIC observed as follows:

“The Commission further recommends u/s 25 (5) that Cabinet Secretariat considers amending Part V of Circular No. 1/16/1/2000-Cab of 15.4.2002 to allow for public consultation in appropriate form.”

What does Part V of Circular No. 1/16/1/2000-Cab of 15.4.2002 contain?

The Cabinet Secretariat issued a circular in April 2002 instructing all departments and ministries under the Government of India on the methodology of preparation of Cabinet notes. Drafts of proposed laws or amendments to existing laws are attached to draft Cabinet notes and circulated to the relevant ministries and departments for consultation. Part V refers to the procedure for conducting such inter-ministerial consultations. During such consultations with various ministries the draft Cabinet note is circulated with the classificatory label – “TOP SECRET“. So save a handful of senior officers, all other citizens of India are excluded from this consultation process. The full bench of the CIC directed the Cabinet Secretariat to amend this portion of the circular and create appropriate spaces for public consultation.

Despite the principle of mandatory public consultation having been laid down by the CIC, the DoPT has not yet begun consultation with the people of India on the draft RTI Rules. If the draft is ready for consultation with the CIC which is a body outside of Government, surely it can be opened up for a more widespread consultation with the people of India who are using this law every day. Surely no harm would be done if people’s views are elicited on so important a subject. The Rules lay down the detailing of the framework for accessing information under the RTI Act. The people of India have a right to be consulted on the draft Rules as they are the primary users of the RTI Act. THE PEOPLE OF INDIA HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE CONSULTED NOW.

Venkatesh Nayak is the Programme Coordinator of the Right to Information Programme at the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi. For CHRI’s alerts on the RTI and related issues click here  

 

First Global Conference on Transparency Research: Call for papers

The First Global Conference on Transparency Research. takes place at Rutgers University-Newark on May 19-20, 2011.  The deadline for proposals is November 30, 2010.  Information on the conference and the Call for Papers is provided here: http://tinyurl.com/2uoq44v

<--break->The advisory committee for the First Global Conference on Transparency Research is pleased to announce Professor Christopher Hood as the keynote speaker.  Dr. Hood is the Gladstone Professor of Government and Fellow of All Souls College Oxford. He has written extensively on the topics of transparency and accountability, and co-editedTransparency: The Key to Better Governance (Oxford University Press, 2006). The keynote speech is sponsored by Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions.

Travel assistance

Conference organizers will provide hotel accommodations and on-site meals for all individuals presenting papers.  A limited number of travel bursaries are available and supported by Canada’s International Development Research Centre, the Open Society Institute’s Right To Information Fund, and the World Bank Institute.  Information on travel funding is available on the conference webpage.

For more details contact:

Professor Suzanne J. Piotrowski

Conference Chairperson

School of Public Affairs and Administration

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

111 Washington Street, Newark, NJ 07102-3026

 Ph. 973.353.5199, Fax 973.353.5907

[email protected]

Local-Level Accountability: Lessons from Latin America

Suvojit Chattopadhyay

Expectations of gains from citizen participation in governments is a strong motivator for proponents of democratic decentralisation. These expectations need to be realistic, as experiences with local governments in various contexts have shown. One of the measures of local-level accountability is the level of corruption in local government.  A 2009 NBER paper by Ferraz and Finan asks whether electoral accountability can reduce corruption in Brazil. They find that local government officials facing re-election are significantly less corrupt than those who are not, with the former witnessing corruption levels that are, on average, 27% lower than the latter.

<--break->Overall, the findings suggest that electoral rules that enhance political accountability play a crucial role in constraining politician’s corrupt behavior even in an institutional context where corruption is pervasive and elites dominate local politics. 

The importance of electoral accountability is also brought out in a recent paper by Merilee Grindle, which discusses local-level accountability in Mexico. In order to determine the chances of popular participation translating into accountable governments, Grindle suggests we ask the three following questions –

1. Can citizens use the vote effectively to reward and punish the general or specific performance of local public officials and/or the parties they represent?

2. Can citizens generate response to their collective needs from local governments?

3. Can citizens be ensured of fair and equitable treatment from public agencies at local levels? 

In other words, to what extent do citizens have recourse to sanctions, benefits, and rights when local governments assume more responsibilities and political systems become more competitive? 

Grindle points out that the ability of communities to reward and sanction through elections; employ strategies to secure benefits from public institutions/officials; and to demand rights is dependent on their specific experiences of participation in governance over the years. Of course, electoral accountability is not all that straightforward. Limits on terms of elected local government members is a constraint to people’s power to sanction. Emergence of a perverse culture of patronage politics is another hindrance to effective electoral accountability. On the other hand, the potential gains from elections are also significant –

…the increased importance of competitive elections in Mexico’s municipalities also provided opportunities for new leadership groups to reach public office, some of whom had strong commitments to introducing more participatory and responsive forms of governance.  As experience with more democratic local elections increases, it may well be that ideas about the right to good performance will become more prominent. Additionally, the accountability mechanisms introduced in a number of municipalities from the top down may become more institutionalized over time and thus provide more focus on good performance as an everyday expectation.

Suvojit Chattopadhyay works for Innovations for Poverty Action, Ghana. This piece has been cross-posted from his blog“On My Way”.  

Budget 2010 – A Preliminary Assessment

Anit Mukherjee

The much-anticipated budget for the financial year 2010-11 can be termed as a consolidation budget. It needs to be looked upon in the context of a rebounding economy and relatively stable political environment but with high inflationary pressures and the need to significantly alter the structure of government’s income and expenditure. The budget also has to be seen in the context of the recommendations of the Thirteenth Finance Commission (FC-XIII). Being a statutory commission, the recommendations are in a large part binding upon the government.

The road map for fiscal consolidation as enunciated by both the budget and the FC-XIII report are very clear. The fiscal deficit has to be reduced progressively, and the revenue deficit has to be eliminated altogether. Moreover, accounting tricks of previous years such as oil bonds and fertilizer subsidies being kept outside the deficit calculation has to be done away with. In both these areas, Budget 2010 makes a good beginning by projecting a fiscal deficit of 5.5 percent for FY 2010-11. Reduction in the fiscal deficit essentially means that the government would be borrowing less from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), therefore leaving a greater share of credit for private sector. This also means that the pressure on interest rates is reduced, since the government has first charge on the available credit from RBI. Monetary policy can be calibrated to tackle inflation, now that the government has signaled its intent on a rollback of the stimulus measures.

This brings us to the most important policy direction contained in Budget 2010 – a structural change in the way government earns its income and spends the money especially in infrastructure and social sectors such as education, health and rural development. On the income side, the next year promises to be the ‘Big-bang’ year if both the Direct Tax Code (DTC) and the Goods and Service Tax (GST) are introduced from April 1, 2011. The Finance Minister is clear about the former, but the latter depends whether the States can agree to a unified GST rate and the consequent compensation for the tax revenues foregone. Given the fact that the GST deliberations have progressed substantially, the remaining issues may be more technical – constitutional amendments, GST database and the mode of revenue sharing. If both the DTC and GST come into force from 2011 as expected, the revenue position of the Central government is expected to improve significantly over the second half of the government’s mandate. The high-point of Budget 2010 – the cut in personal income tax – is to lay the groundwork for the implementation of DTC from next year. This was also made possible by the fact that all the pay arrears on account of the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission was already factored into the previous budget.

On the indirect taxes, the increase in central excise duties from 8 to 10 percent reflects a calibrated exit from the stimulus package announced over the last 18 months. The re-imposition of customs duties on petroleum may signify that price decontrol of petrol and diesel may come later rather than sooner. However, silence on kerosene and LPG is a hint towards a change of the pattern of subsidies that may come later in the year as per the recommendations on this topic presented to the government, the latest being the Kirit Parikh Committee Report.
As noted earlier, the government expects the GST to be rolled out from April 2011. To that effect, for the first time the central excise and service tax rates have been aligned at the same rate of 10 percent. If the compensation to the states on account of their revenue loss has to be kept at reasonable limits, then a 16-18 percent GST rate could be the consensus. In that sense, this budget consolidates the fiscal position of the Central government and puts a Central GST rate of 10 percent as an acceptable proposition. It is now up to the Empowered Committee of State Finance Ministers to hammer out an agreement before the next budget.

The Economic Survey which was released the day before the budget is a welcome departure from the uninspiring document that it usually is. The major policy guidelines are enunciated in Chapter 2 of the Survey where the most interesting discussion is about subsidies. It has been acknowledged in many fora that subsidies are a huge burden on the government exchequer, and limit the flexibility of the ruling dispensation to reduce them mainly due to populist political pressures. The total subsidy bill on three major items – food, fuel and fertilizer – is estimated to be nearly 1.5 lakh crore, or nearly 3 percent of GDP. On the other hand, parties on the Left argue that this is necessary to protect the interests of the poor, which makes them vulnerable to price shocks and leaves them without a social safety net.

There is a point to both the arguments, but until now the middle ground has been elusive. The budget has signaled that the answer to this dilemma lies in better targeting of subsidies for the poor, and in the larger national interest. The decontrol of nutrient based fertilizer prices (and the increase in urea) is the first step – already the government projects significant savings from this measure in this year’s budget. Against the backdrop of the Food Security Bill to be tabled later this year, the budget hints that food subsidy and buffer stock management will undergo systemic changes by leveraging new IT initiatives such as the Unique ID Number (UID) and the conversion of the food subsidy into a cash transfer after identification of the beneficiaries. The kerosene and LPG subsidies may actually be the first ones to be converted into this system. Over the next two years, therefore, a lot of emphasis would be on prudent management of government expenditure (especially on the subsidies front) and in improving targeting of the beneficiaries. If duplicate ration cards are weeded out from the system, everybody will gain. If kerosene is not used to adulterate diesel, fuel consumption and fuel emissions will both go down. The challenge is to change the incentives, enforce the rules and track the outcome.

This year’s budget does not break new ground. Rather, it is an effort to level the playing field in many areas. The question is how far the intent will be translated into action. The government’s record on inflation management has been ineffective until now, the disinvestment process is running into rough weather and monetary tightening is on the cards. The year ahead will be both challenging and exciting in different ways. We can then look forward to a ‘Big Bang’ 2011 budget.

Anit Mukherjee is with the National Institute of Public Finance Policy (NIPFP).

AI Budget Briefs Series 2010

The Accountability Initiative, Centre for Policy Research is pleased to launch its Budget Briefs Series 2010. The 8 briefs in this series examine trends in social sector allocations and expenditures in the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Mid-day Meal Scheme, National Rural Health Mission, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, Water and Sanitation, Food Subsidy, Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission and the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna.