Some important trends in the Indian Economy

July 7, 2007 by 2 Comments

Deepankar Basu

In an article in the Business Standard a couple of months ago, economic commentator T N Ninan pointed to some of the important emerging trends in the Indian economy, what he called the “mega trends”. In his words, these trends deserve to be called “mega trends” because they “cannot easily be reversed, have large ripple effects, and … therefore will define the future”. While these “mega trends” are important for throwing up interesting empirical regularities, these can be equally well, if not better, understood within a Marxist paradigm, a paradigm built on looking at reality from the perspective of labour. Adopting the perspective of labour is important for another reason: it allows us to see the incompleteness, the one-sidedness of bourgeois economic analysis. It is only by complementing Ninan’s “mega trends” with some important but neglected trends that are often invisible to bourgeois economists (which I merely point to at the end) that we can get a better understanding of the evolution of Indian economy and society.

The first trend – “acquiring of scale” in Ninan’s words – refers to the growing “concentration and centralization” of Indian capital, a process that inevitably accompanies the development of capitalism. The growth of concentration and centralization is leading to the much talked about growth of “self-confidence” of Indian capital, buttressed no doubt with incursions into foreign territories. As Ninan points out, Indian capital was acquiring “three overseas companies a week, through 2006.”

The second trend – “spread of connectivity and awareness” according to Ninan – refers to the technological development accompanying the growth of capitalism; Ninan limits himself to the technological developments in the communications sector but it can easily be extended to other sectors of the economy too. But there are several important reasons to focus on the transportations and communications sector. First, an increasing efficiency of communications and transportations is essential for a smooth and efficient completion of the numerous “circuits of capital”; the increasing volume of surplus value being generated in the economy needs well functioning circuits of capital to be realized into profit. Second, technological development of the communications technology, especially information technology, is important for the establishment of the networks through which finance capital exerts its influence over the economy. Third, and related to the earlier, is the necessity of swift and reliable communications to support all the processes that facilitates the “concentration and centralization of capital”.

The third trend – “the growth of the middle class” in Ninan’s analysis – if put into proper perspective, refers to two things: (1) the increasing inequality that inevitably comes along with the growth of capitalism, and (2) the changing nature of the Indian working class. What Ninan refers to as the “middle class” is really the fraction of the Indian working class (though it does not want to see itself as part of the working class) that acquires high wage employment in the “leading” sectors of the economy by acquiring skills useful for capital.

The fourth trend – what Ninan calls the “growing problems of growth” – refers to the serious environmental problems created by a regime dominated by the logic of capital accumulation. As the problem of global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere has come into focus, it has become clear that cosmetic changes and technological solutions will not be enough to deal with the whole range of environmental problems under capitalism. What will be required is a wholesale, radical socio-economic transformation, in other words, a transition to socialism. It will become increasingly important for radical political forces representing the interests of capital to come to grips with this issue in India and other underdeveloped economies undergoing rapid (dependent) capitalist development.

The fifth trend – “India’s growing openness to the world” according to Ninan – refers to the growing penetration of the Indian economy by imperialist capital; being supplemented by the growing “export of capital” from India to foreign economies, the two together points to the growing “interpenetration” of imperialist and Indian capital and the incorporation of the Indian capitalist class into the global ruling bloc. The penetration of imperialist capital underlies the oft-forgotten “dependent” nature of the capitalist development in India, a capitalism which cannot, almost axiomatically, benefit the majority of the population.

The sixth trend – what Ninan sees as “the continuing dominance of youth” – refers to the demographic backdrop of capital accumulation in India. The fact that a large proportion of the population will be part of the workforce (if they manage to get employed at all!) will mean that huge reserves of labour will be readily available for capital to exploit and extract surplus value. It will be a long time before these reserves dry up and increasing wages start eating into the profit rates, a process that seems to have already started in China.

It is not, as Ninan asserts, that these “mega trends” will “define” the future in a mechanical sense; it is rather the case that these trends will define the framework within which the class struggle will unfold. For it is the class struggle which will ultimately “define” the future of India. But even in the sense of defining the framework of class struggle, Ninan’s characterization is inadequate because it leaves out labour from the picture, other than in a marginal sense. How will India’s working class evolve over the next few years or decades? What are the trends, working silently but decisively, that can be observed in the evolution of the Indian working class? To even attempt to pose this question adequately, one will have to look at the agricultural sector of the Indian economy and all the forms of labour associated (directly or indirectly) with it. Ninan, quite remarkably, has nothing to say about the sector of the economy which continues to employ (directly or indirectly) the majority of the working people in India!

Filed Under: DIARIES Tagged With: , , ,

Should the Financial System under Capitalism be Regulated?

July 5, 2007 by 1 Comment

Deepankar Basu

A view that is very popular among the votaries of capitalism rests on the alleged efficiency of the financial markets of a “well functioning” capitalist economy. Financial markets, it is claimed, provide the prime mechanisms for channeling funds from savers to the most efficient investment projects, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the economy. Lack of well-developed financial markets are often interpreted as markers of underdevelopment and economic stagnation. That this is not always the case, that financial markets are unusually prone to “irrational exuberance”, that financial booms and busts are part of the regular functioning of financial markets if often forgotten by this fundamentalist viewpoint.

A more nuanced version of this view is marked by a more measured view towards financial markets. Proponents of this view start by asserting that the financial system is composed of two parts: financial markets and the web of interdependent financial institutions. They recognize the fact that financial markets, by themselves, are often unable or unwilling to perform several important functions (like collecting, processing and disseminating reliable information about borrowers; providing liquidity services; offering deposit and check-writing facilities) required for the smooth functioning of an advanced capitalist economy. Hence, they recognize the important role of institutions, especially financial institutions (like commercial banks, insurance companies, mutual funds, etc.), within the architecture of advanced capitalism. But very often they also go on to assert that the financial system works best if left to itself; that government intervention in the financial system creates unnecessary inefficiencies. When confronted with the evidence of endemic instability of the financial system, they argue that crises and problems have led, over the years, to the development of a host of institutions that are capable of dealing with such episodes; it is both unnecessary and undesirable for the State to regulate the financial system, they claim.

A closer look at the history of the financial system in the US – the leading capitalist nation today – will demonstrate that such a view is seriously misleading; the government has always had to intervene to put the financial house in order. In fact one can go further and assert that the financial system cannot properly function without supervision at crucial moments by the State, if not constant supervision. Let me illustrate this with three well-known historical instances when the State had to step in to deal with the endemic instability of the financial system in the US. These historical instances are important, apart from illustrative purposes of this article, for at least two more reasons. One, they are the defining interventions in the financial system of the US; the financial system as we know it today has been largely shaped by these interventions and the institutions created at those moments. Two, they destroy the facile opposition that is often constructed, both by the Right and even some on the Left, between private capital and the State; the State is an institution created to protect the interests of capital as a whole even though, on occasion, it has to act against some capitals (some firms or industries or even some sectors of the economy). These instance demonstrate clearly that even when the State acted against some financial firms or sectors it was doing so to save and strengthen the capitalist system.

The first major instance of government intervention stands at the very foundational moment of the modern financial system in the US. The unregulated banking industry in the US led to massive bank failures in the late 19th century: waves after waves of bank failures where savers lost their deposits and lenders could not borrow to meet their needs; this led the Congress to create the Federal Reserve System (the Central Bank of the US) in 1913.

Within less than two decades we come to the second major intervention: creation of the FDIC. In the late 1920’s, the US economy was into the biggest downturn it had ever faced: the Great Depression. During this traumatic period, there were thousands of bank failures again (along with a huge stock market crash) and confidence in the whole financial system was greatly eroded. The Congress again stepped in to create the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) which was meant to deal with the problems that the unregulated banking industry could not handle: bank runs.

The third major intervention (also made around the time of the Great Depression) had been to restrict competition in the banking industry (i.e., to force some form of branching restrictions across geographical regions) and also to restrict the areas into which a commercial bank could enter (basically to separate commercial and investment banking to prevent conflict of interest).

The last instance of government intervention is important because over the last few decades, these laws and the supporting institutions have been generally nibbled away at. For instance, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 had created a “wall” separating commercial and investment banking; from the 1970s onwards the growing power of finance has been continuously trying to attack and change this very important law. Finally in 1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act repealed the Glass-Steagall Act!

The effects are already coming to the fore in the form of major banks’ (like J P Morgan Chase’s) involvement in financial frauds and other irregularities (see the Spring 2007 issue of Dollars & Sense). For instance, Chase was one of the banks which had systematically assisted Enron in its accounting frauds. It had also, in its role as an underwriting agent – one of the main functions of an investment bank – sold Enron stocks to the public knowing full well that Enron was in bad shape. This is precisely the kind of “conflict of interest” that the Glass-Steagall Act was meant to take care of. Now that it has been thrown out, we can expect many more instances of such irregularities.

The bottom line is that I do not share in the optimism about the US financial system (which many people seem to harbour), nor do I think that there is any evidence for such optimism. To suggest that the US financial system has managed to take care of the problems of instability is to willfully ignore well-known empirical evidence. Here are a few: the Savings and Loan (S&L) crises through the 1980’s, the wave of bank failures in the late 1980’s, the stock market crash of 1987, the LTCM scandal in 1998 (when the Fed had to step in to bail out a major financial firm), the dotcom bubble and bust, the imminent meltdown in the sub-prime mortgage market …one could go on and on; but let us look a bit more closely at only two of these well-known episodes of financial trouble: the LTCM fiasco and the sub-prime mortgage meltdown currently underway in the US.

LTCM (Long Term Capital Management), a very famous financial firm of the late 1990s in the US had been feted by Wall Street as one of most technologically sophisticated financial firms in existence; after all it had offered close to 40% annual returns for two years in a row and had towering figures from theoretical finance among its founding members. It was a “hedge fund” formed in 1994 and had, among its founder member two Nobel laureates in Economics: Myron Scholes and Robert Merton. Within four years LTCM was on the verge of collapse! More details about the the rise and fall of LTCM can be found here (there are lots of useful references at the end of this article; among others, there is a very nice PBS documentary on the whole episode which is worth watching.)

A little note about “hedge funds” might not be inappropriate at this point. A “hedge fund” is, to be brief and simple, a financial institution which pools the money of a few very rich individuals and then invests it around the world to make huge profits. Membership to hedge funds is not open; it’s stocks don’t trade in the financial markets; it is always very secretive about how it invests and also about who its investors are. Usually the smallest amount of money that is required by an individual to become part of a hedge fund (i.e., an investor who is one of the many whose money has been pooled into the hedge fund) is $1 million. In most cases, it is much higher. If we look at hedge funds from the point of view of ordinary citizens, we cannot escape the well-known (and increasingly well-recognized) fact that they are notorious for creating instability in financial markets, especially in the low and middle income economies. Their huge size and ability to move funds very rapidly gives them undue power and influence over small and medium economies (now even large economies are facing the music of hedge funds), whose macroeconomic stability is severely jeopardized by their investment strategies.

Coming back to the stunning LTCM collapse, it is important to remember that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York had to step in to arrange credit for its bailout. If the Fed had not intervened to bail out the tottering giant, it might have led to a asset price deflationary spiral leading to a string of failing firms and lost jobs and lost output and macroeconomic instability. For the purposes of this essay, it is merely necessary to note that the financial system could not deal with this problem on its own!

Let us now move on to the second story, a story that is still unfolding: the sub-prime mortgage lending crisis in the US. Referring to the sub-prime mortgage meltdown that is currently underway in the US, a recent report by the Centre for Responsible Lending has estimated that more than 1 million low-income families have lost their homes on net (i.e., after accounting for those who have gained home ownership) over the past nine years. Have the banks and financial firms that created this crisis lost much? It is doubtful whether the banks originating the mortgages, the focus of all the attention in the mainstream press, have really lost anything.

Let me remind readers that the “sub-prime” mortgage meltdown refers to the market for mortgage loans (i.e., loans for buying real estate) supposedly for low-income households without good credit histories. The rule of the game, as it evolved over the last decade, was that the house that is bought with the mortgage loan is used as collateral for the loan so that whenever a family fails to make a single monthly payment (there might be a little variation on this), it leads to “foreclosure” and the bank that had made the loan takes possession of the house to recoup its losses.

But why the term “sub-prime”? The attribute of “sub-prime” comes from the fact that most of these loans made on this market are at above-average (much above the market interest rate for mortgages) interest rates and at very onerous terms; the term contrasts this market with the “prime” mortgage market where loans are available at much lower interest rates. In most cases, these “sub-prime” loans are made in bad faith because the concerned families are “convinced” of the suitability of high-interest rate and “coaxed” into the loans at unreasonable terms. More often than not big banks use various kinds of methods to consciously keep out low-income families from the “prime” mortgage market (where they might have got loans at reasonable rates and terms); most of these families, needless to say, are either African-American or Latinos. Once, in this way, these families have been pushed out of the “prime” mortgage market and into the “sub-prime” market, the same banks turn into loan sharks and strip the low-income families to their bones. It is, therefore, hardly surprising that many families are unable to meet the monthly payments of the mortgage and lose their house and most of their life’s savings. That is what has been documented by the Centre for Responsible Lending and that is what is creating havoc in the lives of many working-class Americans.

These are but two small instances of the operation of financial system under advanced capitalism; one can very easily multiply them ad nauseum. The evidence, if one cares to look, strongly suggests that the US (or any other capitalist economy for that matter) will have to learn to live with inescapable instability; these episodes are as much part of life under capitalism as are economy-wide business cycles. Of course, under capitalism, the overwhelming cost of these episodes of financial and other forms of instability will be always borne by the working people. Hence, all political formations claiming to represent the interests of the working people must vociferously argue for the regulation of the financial system without taking recourse to the false opposition between the State and capital.

Filed Under: DIARIES Tagged With: , , ,

Some random thoughts on political economy

June 2, 2007 by 2 Comments

Deepankar Basu

1. The Indian economy is currently undergoing a boom, a moderately long boom for a less developed economy: “between 1999-2000 and 2006-07, the gross domestic product (GDP) in constant prices increased at an average annual rate of nearly 7 per cent. And for the past three years, the economy has been growing at 8 per cent.” This boom is a profit-led boom, where surging profits of the Indian corporate sector is leading the growth in savings and investment. This seems to be a far cry from the general economic “stagnation” in the “semi-colonies” predicted by the classical theories of imperialism. Of course, this growth is accompanied by growing inequality; capitalists are gaining more than workers and big capitalists are gaining more than the small-sector capitalists. This is a situation which had occured in Argentina, Brazil and Chile (and Mexico and Iran possibly) about four decades earlier and continues to this day; this is what has been called “dependent development”: dependent, to take account of the continued operation of imperialism (through various channels) and development to take account of the non-trivial industrial development (as opposed to the earlier periods of general economic stagnation and no industrial development). Would this (the move from semi-colonial stagnation to dependent development) change the agenda for radical social transformation?

2. A mark of the recent trend in the Indian economy are the new economic kings, the new capitalist moguls whose wealth (in purchasing power parity terms) would equal those of the richest in the First World. Here is a typical example of the rising wealth of the new capitalists. It is important to reiterate that these are capitalists and not feudal lords, and they are (or will, in the near future, be) calling the shots in India. Is it not capitalism, dependent capitalism to be sure, that is the dominant mode of production in the Indian socio-economic formation?

3. One area of the Indian economy which is going to see a lot of turmoil in the coming months is the retail sector. Recall that the retail sector directly employs about 8 percent of the workforce; the indirect employment is probably much larger. Most of the “firms” in this sector are what are called the “mom-and-pop” shops; these are small family-owned and managed businesses, often employing very outdated technology (transportation, storage, etc.). Big corporate entities, both Indian and foreign, have already started entering this market which is estimated to be around $250 billion! Two interesting things can be expected to happen here. One, big corporate entities entering and wiping out the mom-and-pop shops will considerably increase the technological level of the retail sector; it will lead to a huge growth of the productive forces. Two, Indian big capital, represented by Reliance, is going to fight for this huge market against the Walmart-Bharati enterprises combine which is a foreign capital led alliance. Given these two facts, how will the revolutionary forces consistently oppose this development while (a) accepting the primacy of the development of productive forces for social transformation and (b) adhering to their anti-imperialist stance.

4. I want to return to Marx’s famous letter to Vera Zasulich in relation to the question of the socialist revolution in Russia. In the draft letter to Vera Zasulich, Marx had specifically mentioned that the Russian peasant commune could be used for the development of a higher form of social ownership and labour, i.e., socialist labour and that defending and deepening the communes should be an express task of the revolutionary movement of the working class. In the preface to the second edition of the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels added a crucial condition for this possibility to materialise.

“The Communist Manifesto had, as its object, the proclamation of the inevitable impending dissolution of modern bourgeois property. But in Russia we find, face-to-face with the rapidly flowering capitalist swindle and bourgeois property, just beginning to develop, more than half the land owned in common by the peasants. Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West? The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development (Source). ”

If we juxtapose this assertion to the debate about the possibility of building socialism in one country then we come up against an inconsistency. Let me elaborate.

It is well-known that the Bolsheviks gave a call for a socialist revolution in Russia in 1917 with the express recognition that the Russian revolution could only be sustained if it “becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other”; the Bolsheviks were especially anxious about the outcome of the German revolution. Thus, both the call for the socialist revolution and the movement for the strengthening of the peasant commune (to be used as a springboard for the construction of a higher form of socialized labour) rested on the hope of support from proletarian revolutions in the West. The Bolsheviks gave the call for a socialist revolution but did not give a call for strengthening and deepening the peasant communes. Why?

5. This is a nice picture of the enduring (and possibly growing) strength of the anti-capitalist strand within the anti-globalization struggle.

Filed Under: DIARIES Tagged With: , ,

The Real Debate over Economic Reforms in India

March 26, 2007 by Leave a Comment

Dipankar Basu

The debate over economic “reforms” in India has been going on for quite a long time now. This long and heated debate has been centred around the effects of what has been called “economic reforms”, a sharp change in the policy regime governing the Indian economy. It might be useful to recall that the policy regime in India gradually started changing right after Rajiv Gandhi came to power towards the end of 1984; of course the change was considerably accelerated after Manmohan Singh, the current prime minister, became the finance minister in the Congress government in 1991. Since then there has been no looking back; whether it is a coalition government led by the centrist Congress or led by the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), economic reforms have continued apace. In fact, consensus about the necessity and desirability of reforms is evident across the whole political spectrum, ranging from the right-wing BJP to the social democratic communist parties, CPI and CPI(M). Of course there are subtle differences in emphasis and speed of implementation, with the social democrats trying to play an oppositional role at the federal level while adopting those same policies in the states under their rule, notably West Bengal. It is as an attempt to forcefully impose this policy regime on the people of West Bengal, where a broad coalition of social democratic forces has been in power for the last three decades, that we must try to understand the recent brutalities of the State in Singur and Nandigram.

The main thrust of the policy change comprising “economic reforms” was a move towards according greater role to market forces in the economy and came in many guises. For instance it meant the lowering most tariff and non-tariff barriers to promote the trade of goods and services across Indian borders; it meant liberalizing many legal procedures related to investment, corporate taxation, trade, commercial banking, stock market activity and most importantly the hiring and firing of labour; it meant the disinvestment of public assets like public sector units, which in most cases meant selling off public assets built with tax receipts over the years at below-market prices to private capital; it meant an uncritical adoption of “fiscal fundamentalism”, i.e., paying especial attention to the balancing of the budget or at least making some serious efforts at reducing the government budget deficit; it meant the gradual entry of foreign capital into the Indian economy (both as FDI and as portfolio investment); it meant a gradual retreat of the State from the provision of social services like health and education and also meant the simultaneous encouragement of private capital to enter into these areas and many more similar changes. Compared to even the pseudo-socialist policy framework that had been established after the British departed in 1947, the new policy regime meant a massive swing in the direction of unfettered capitalism. And this could not but generate debate, vigorous and heated debate.

The debate centred around the effects of such changes; and since the effects of these policy changes would become clear only after some years, the debate almost wholly concerned itself with predictions, with the future. The crucial question was whether this new set of policies would benefit the economy as the proponents asserted or would lead to disaster as the critics pointed out. Ranged on both sides were the who’s who of the Indian economics and policymaking community. Arguing for the reforms were noted economists Jagdish Bhagwati, T N Srinivasan, Montek Ahluwalia, Manmohan Singh, Arvind Panagariya, Bibek Debroy, Surjit Bhalla, Shubhashish Ganguli and many others; on the other side of the table were equally distinguished economists like Prabhat Patnaik, C P Chandrashekhar, Jayati Ghosh, Praful Bidwai, Ashok Mitra, Amiya Bagchi and others.

Most critics of the economic “reforms” had argued that the adoption of the above set of policies would be disastrous for the Indian economy. They had argued that opening up the Indian economy to trade would lead to “deindustrialisation”, i.e., foreign goods would flood our markets and displace locally produced goods leading to closing down of local industries and thus increasing unemployment in the Indian economy. This, they had argued, would lead to a fall in the growth rate of the Indian economy (once the pent-up consumption expenditure boom was over) and lead to a fall in the economy’s overall productivity. They had argued that the poverty rate as measured by the head count ratio (the proportion of the people whose annual consumption expenditure fall below the poverty line) would increase and that income and wealth inequality would also increase dramatically. They had argued that the investment rate in the Indian economy would drop and lead to a shrinking of the capital goods sector. The proponents had, on the other hand, argued exactly the opposite; they had argued that the new policy regime would lead to growth in the economy and reduction of poverty.

Fifteen (or twenty if we start from the mid 1980s) years down the line, the evidence is at best mixed; if anything the empirical evidence seems to bear out the proponents’ claims more than the critics’. The growth rate in the Indian economy (as measured by the growth rate of the per capita income) has certainly increased over the last two decades; opening up the economy has not led to deindustrialisation (in fact our exports have increased as also our imports). The Indian economy does not have a large current account deficit which means that we have not been flooded with foreign capital. In fact, over the last few years, outward FDI from India has increased rapidly and in 2006, the Indian economy was a net outward FDI originator. Savings and investment rates have also dramatically increased. And probably most importantly, the poverty rate has consistently declined over the last twenty years; the rate of decline had itself declined in the nineties before picking up again in the last six years. But along with this we also have increasing income inequality, acute rural distress, a degrading environment and most importantly a stagnation in some of the most important indicators of well-being (like the infant mortality rate, the maternal mortality rate, the life expectancy at birth, the primary and secondary enrolment rates and many others).

The process of economic growth and development is more complex than either the well-known proponents or the critics would have us believe; both present only half-truths. When proponents of “reforms” ask us to look at the facts, they want us only to see that the poverty rate (as measured by the head count ratio) has declined; they do not want us to see that this decline has not been accompanied by an improvement in the measures of social well-being, they do not want us to understand the reasons behind the acute rural distress that has led to farmer suicides on such a large scale. The overemphasis on economic growth and the head count ratio by the proponents tries to discount years of research that has drawn our attention to the inherent limitations of this rather narrow measure of development and poverty.

Equally dishonest, I feel, are the intellectuals associated with the official, social democratic left. Faced with evidence that goes against their earlier pronouncements, they continually shift their stands without as much as acknowledging possible problems in their formulations. Notice how they have shifted their discourse on poverty: from poverty decline they have gradually moved onto the rate of poverty decline. Recall that most of them had started the debate by asserting that poverty would increase; once empirical evidence shows that it has not, they have started talking about how the rate of decline has itself declined! Recall also that they used to never focus attention on the indicators of social well-being that they find so important now; issues like education and health were looked at with little more than derision, matters for the “development economists” and not for radicals. Radicals indeed.

To put the whole debate in proper perspective it is important to realize that at bottom, the process of economic development is broadly a matter of increasing the productivity of social labour; and this, we know since Adam Smith and the classical political economists, can be best achieved by increasing the division of labour. Institutions which can support an extended division of labour will lead to increasing labour productivity and thus create grounds for general prosperity in the economy. I think there is much of relevance in classical political economy that can shed light on current debates and let me make a small digression into the writings of Adam Smith. Duncan Foley’s recent book, “Adam’s Fallacy: A Guide to economic Theology”, contains an extremely lucid, well-informed and critical introduction to classical political economy and I will borrow briefly from Foley’s account to motivate the point that I want to highlight.

What makes a nation prosperous, asked Adam Smith at the beginning of his inquiry into the causes of the wealth of nations. His answer is profound because of its stark simplicity: the extent of the division of labour. Not the abundance of natural resources, not the amount of precious metals like gold and silver, but the extent of the division of labour within a country determines the potential prosperity that it can offer its citizens. Behind this assertion lies the understanding – shared by all classical political economists – that the ultimate source of wealth is the labour that goes into the process of social production. The extent of the division of labour, by determining the productivity of that labour, ultimately determines the potential wealth of any nation.

In Smith’s account, the division of labour refers to “the breaking down of useful production into a series of separate tasks, each of which can be accomplished separately from the other”. It is important to realize that Smith sees the division of labour occurring at two very different levels, one at the level of the enterprise and the other at the level of society as a whole. The first, which Smith calls the detail division of labour, refers to the process by which production within a firm is broken up into separate tasks; it is the detail division of labour that finally creates the conditions for the introduction of machinery into the production process. But the division of labour also occurs at the aggregate or societal level; this is what Smith refers to as the social division of labour, which is the process by which “parts of a complex production process can be separated into different points of production, which may be located in different firms, or even different geographic regions”.

Smith’s account of the causes of the wealth of nations is completed by positing a positive feedback loop between the division of labour, labour productivity and the extent of the market; this link, when and where it can take hold, operates as a positive feedback loop. Widening extent of the market (i.e., growth in effective demand) supports an increasing division of labour, which increases the productivity of labour, leading to falling prices and rising real incomes. Growth in real income increases the extent of the market in turn, completing the virtuous spiral.

Notice how, in narrating this story of economic development, Smith the political economist has almost imperceptibly melted into Smith the theologian of capitalist social relations; this is the critical point that Foley helps us understand. For hidden within his “objective” description of the workings of a capitalist economy are two implicit value-laden propositions. First, that the process of technological progress and economic growth – the virtuous spiral of economic development – is beneficial for all members of society, i.e., it is autonomous and class-neutral: how else could it be morally justified? And second, that the defining institutions of capitalism – private ownership of the means of production, and markets – are the only ways to support a society-wide, complex division of labour with its attendant benefits in terms of high labour productivity.

To my mind, this is where the critique of economic “reforms” should really be located, not where the social democratic left has placed it. If India manages to establish the institutions of capitalism properly, then there is no doubt that this can lead to technological progress and economic growth. This growth will also lead to a decline in the poverty rates, much like that has happened in Korea and is currently happening in Vietnam or China. If this is true then why oppose economic reforms? This is a legitimate question which the social democratic left does not even attempt to answer. To my mind, the opposition to economic reforms lies in opposing the claim that capitalism is the only way to support an economy-wide complex division of labour. It is to take account of the cost of economic development alongside the benefits. It is to assess the class-nature of these costs and benefits in an already class-divided society. We must ask ourselves: will we oppose a development path that reduces poverty rates but only at the cost of increasing inequality? Economic development through capitalist industrialization (whose logic is, what Marx famously called, “Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets!”) will lead to dislocations of millions of lives in the medium and short run, though in the long run, the economy-wide poverty rate might go down. The question really before us is this: are we ready to ignore these medium and short-run costs for the long-run benefits which might materialize only in decades or even longer? Are we ready to accept a dispensation where the costs of economic development are disproportionately borne by those who will rarely, if ever, get to enjoy the benefits of that development?

The author is associated with Sanhati (www.sanhati.com), a solidarity forum for resistance to neo-liberalism in West Bengal, India.

Filed Under: DIARIES Tagged With: , ,

Global Ruling Class: Billionaires and How They “Made It”

March 25, 2007 by Leave a Comment

James Petras

While the number of the world’s billionaires grew from 793 in 2006 to 946 this year, major mass uprisings became commonplace occurrences in China and India. In India, which has the highest number of billionaires (36) in Asia with total wealth of $191 billion USD, Prime Minister Singh declared that the greatest single threat to ‘India’s security’ were the Maoist led guerrilla armies and mass movements in the poorest parts of the country. In China, with 20 billionaires with $29.4 billion USD net worth, the new rulers, confronting nearly a hundred thousand reported riots and protests, have increased the number of armed special anti-riot militia a hundred fold, and increased spending for the rural poor by $10 billion USD in the hopes of lessening the monstrous class inequalities and heading off a mass upheaval.

The total wealth of this global ruling class grew 35% year to year topping $3.5 trillion USD, while income levels for the lower 55% of the world’s 6-billion-strong population declined or stagnated. Put another way, one hundred millionth of the world’s population (1/100,000,000) owns more than over 3 billion people. Over half of the current billionaires (523) came from just 3 countries: the US (415), Germany (55) and Russia (53). The 35% increase in wealth mostly came from speculation on equity markets, real estate and commodity trading, rather than from technical innovations, investments in job-creating industries or social services.

Among the newest, youngest and fastest-growing group of billionaires, the Russian oligarchy stands out for its most rapacious beginnings. Over two-thirds (67%) of the current Russian billionaire oligarchs began their concentration of wealth in their mid to early twenties. During the infamous decade of the 1990’s under the quasi-dictatorial rule of Boris Yeltsin and his US-directed economic advisers, Anatoly Chubais and Yegor Gaidar the entire Russian economy was put up for sale for a ‘political price’, which was far below its real value. Without exception, the transfers of property were achieved through gangster tactics – assassinations, massive theft, and seizure of state resources, illicit stock manipulation and buyouts. The future billionaires stripped the Russian state of over a trillion dollars worth of factories, transport, oil, gas, iron, coal and other formerly state-owned resources.

Contrary to European and US publicists, on the Right and Left, very few of the top former Communist leaders are found among the current Russian billionaire oligarchy. Secondly, contrary to the spin-masters’ claims of ‘communist inefficiencies’, the former Soviet Union developed mines, factories, energy enterprises were profitable and competitive, before they were taken over by the new oligarchs. This is evident in the massive private wealth that was accumulated in less than a decade by these gangster-businessmen.

Virtually all the billionaires’ initial sources of wealth had nothing to do with building, innovating or developing new efficient enterprises. Wealth was not transferred to high Communist Party Commissars (lateral transfers) but was seized by armed private mafias run by recent university graduates who quickly capitalized on corrupting, intimidating or assassinating senior officials in the state and benefiting from Boris Yeltsin’s mindless contracting of ‘free market’ Western consultants.

Forbes Magazine puts out a yearly list of the richest individuals and families in the world. What is most amusing about the famous Forbes Magazine’s background biographical notes on the Russian oligarchs is the constant reference to their source of wealth as ‘self-made’ as if stealing state property created by and defended for over 70 years by the sweat and blood of the Russian people was the result of the entrepreneurial skills of thugs in their twenties. Of the top eight Russian billionaire oligarchs, all got their start from strong-arming their rivals, setting up ‘paper banks’ and taking over aluminum, oil, gas, nickel and steel production and the export of bauxite, iron and other minerals. Every sector of the former Communist economy was pillaged by the new billionaires: Construction, telecommunications, chemicals, real estate, agriculture, vodka, foods, land, media, automobiles, airlines etc..

With rare exceptions, following the Yeltsin privatizations all of the oligarchs quickly rose to the top or near the top, literally murdering or intimidating any opponents within the former Soviet apparatus and competitors from rival predator gangs.

The key ‘policy’ measures, which facilitated the initial pillage and takeovers by the future billionaires, were the massive and immediate privatizations of almost all public enterprises by the Gaidar/Chubais team. This ‘Shock Treatment’ was encouraged by a Harvard team of economic advisers and especially by US President Clinton in order to make the capitalist transformation irreversible. Massive privatization led to the capitalist gang wars and the disarticulation of the Russian economy. As a result there was an 80% decline in living standards, a massive devaluation of the Ruble and the sell-off of invaluable oil, gas and other strategic resources at bargain prices to the rising class of predator billionaires and US-European oil and gas multinational corporations. Over a hundred billion dollars a year was laundered by the mafia oligarchs in the principle banks of New York, London, Switzerland, Israel and elsewhere – funds which would later be recycled in the purchase of expensive real estate in the US, England, Spain, France as well as investments in British football teams, Israeli banks and joint ventures in minerals.

The winners of the gang wars during the Yeltsin reign followed up by expanding operations to a variety of new economic sectors, investments in the expansion of existing facilities (especially in real estate, extractive and consumer industries) and overseas. Under President Putin, the gangster-oligarchs consolidated and expanded – from multi-millionaires to billionaires, to multi-billionaires and growing. From young swaggering thugs and local swindlers, they became the ‘respectable’ partners of American and European multinational corporations, according to their Western PR agents. The new Russian oligarchs had ‘arrived’ on the world financial scene, according to the financial press.

Yet as President Putin recently pointed out, the new billionaires have failed to invest, innovate and create competitive enterprises, despite optimal conditions. Outside of raw material exports, benefiting from high international prices, few of the oligarch-owned manufacturers are earning foreign exchange, because few can compete in international markets. The reason is that the oligarchs have ‘diversified’ into stock speculation (Suleiman Kerimov $14.4 billion USD), prostitution (Mikhail Prokhorov $13.5 billion USD), banking (Fridman $12.6 billion USD) and buyouts of mines and mineral processing plants.

The Western media has focused on the falling out between a handful of Yeltsin-era oligarchs and President Vladimir Putin and the increase in wealth of a number of Putin-era billionaires. However, the biographical evidence demonstrates that there is no rupture between the rise of the billionaires under Yeltsin and their consolidation and expansion under Putin. The decline in mutual murder and the shift to state-regulated competition is as much a product of the consolidation of the great fortunes as it is the ‘new rules of the game’ imposed by President Putin. In the mid 19th century, Honore Balzac, surveying the rise of the respectable bourgeois in France, pointed out their dubious origins: “Behind every great fortune is a great crime.” The swindles begetting the decades-long ascent of the 19th century French bourgeoisie pale in comparison to the massive pillage and bloodletting that created Russia’s 21st century billionaires.

Latin America

If blood and guns were the instruments for the rise of the Russian billionaire oligarchs, in other regions the Market, or better still, the US-IMF-World Bank orchestrated Washington Consensus was the driving force behind the rise of the Latin American billionaires. The two countries with the greatest concentration of wealth and the greatest number of billionaires in Latin America are Mexico and Brazil (77%), which are the two countries, which privatized the most lucrative, efficient and largest public monopolies. Of the total $157.2 billion USD owned by the 38 Latin American billionaires, 30 are Brazilians or Mexicans with $120.3 billion USD. The wealth of 38 families and individuals exceeds that of 250 million Latin Americans; 0.000001% of the population exceeds that of the lowest 50%. In Mexico, the income of 0.000001% of the population exceeds the combined income of 40 million Mexicans. The rise of Latin American billionaires coincides with the real fall in minimum wages, public expenditures in social services, labor legislation and a rise in state repression, weakening labor and peasant organization and collective bargaining. The implementation of regressive taxes burdening the workers and peasants and tax exemptions and subsidies for the agro-mineral exporters contributed to the making of the billionaires. The result has been downward mobility for public employees and workers, the displacement of urban labor into the informal sector, the massive bankruptcy of small farmers, peasants and rural labor and the out-migration from the countryside to the urban slums and emigration abroad.

The principal cause of poverty in Latin American is the very conditions that facilitate the growth of billionaires. In the case of Mexico, the privatization of the telecommunication sector at rock bottom prices, resulted in the quadrupling of wealth for Carlos Slim Helu, the third richest man in the world (just behind Bill Gates and Warren Buffet) with a net worth of $49 billion USD. Two fellow Mexican billionaires, Alfredo Harp Helu and Roberto Hernandez Ramirez benefited from the privatization of banks and their subsequent de-nationalization, selling Banamex to Citicorp.

Privatization, financial de-regulation and de-nationalization were the key operating principles of US foreign economic policies implemented in Latin America by the IMF and the World Bank. These principles dictated the fundamental conditions shaping any loans or debt re-negotiations in Latin America.

The billionaires-in-the-making, came from old and new money. Some began to raise their fortunes by securing government contracts during the earlier state-led development model (1930’s to 1970’s) and others through inherited wealth. Half of Mexican billionaires inherited their original multi-million dollar fortunes on their way up to the top. The other half benefited from political ties and the subsequent big payola from buying public enterprises cheap and then selling them off to US multi-nationals at great profit. The great bulk of the 12 million Mexican immigrants who crossed the border into the US have fled from the onerous conditions, which allowed Mexico’s traditional and nouveaux riche millionaires to join the global billionaires’ club.

Brazil has the largest number of billionaires (20) of any country in Latin America with a net worth of $46.2 billion USD, which is greater than the new worth of 80 million urban and rural impoverished Brazilians. Approximately 40% of Brazilian billionaires started with great fortunes – and simply added on – through acquisitions and mergers. The so-called ‘self-made’ billionaires benefited from the privatization of the lucrative financial sector (the Safra family with $8.9 billion USD) and the iron and steel complexes.

How to Become a Billionaire

While some knowledge, technical and ‘entrepreneurial skills’ and market savvy played a small role in the making of the billionaires in Russia and Latin America, far more important was the interface of politics and economics at every stage of wealth accumulation.

In most cases there were three stages:

1.During the early ‘statist’ model of development, the current billionaires successfully ‘lobbied’ and bribed officials for government contracts, tax exemptions, subsidies and protection from foreign competitors. State handouts were the beachhead or take-off point to billionaire status during the subsequent neo-liberal phase.

2.The neo-liberal period provided the greatest opportunity for seizing lucrative public assets far below their market value and earning capacity. The privatization, although described as ‘market transactions’, were in reality political sales in four senses: in price, in selection of buyers, in kickbacks to the sellers and in furthering an ideological agenda. Wealth accumulation resulted from the sell-off of banks, minerals, energy resources, telecommunications, power plants and transport and the assumption by the state of private debt. This was the take-off phase from millionaire toward billionaire status. This was consummated in Latin America via corruption and in Russia via assassination and gang warfare.

3.During the third phase (the present) the billionaires have consolidated and expanded their empires through mergers, acquisitions, further privatizations and overseas expansion. Private monopolies of mobile phones, telecoms and other ‘public’ utilities, plus high commodity prices have added billions to the initial concentrations. Some millionaires became billionaires by selling their recently acquired, lucrative privatized enterprises to foreign capital.

In both Latin America and Russia, the billionaires grabbed lucrative state assets under the aegis of orthodox neo-liberal regimes (Salinas-Zedillo regimes in Mexico, Collor-Cardoso in Brazil, Yeltsin in Russia) and consolidated and expanded under the rule of supposedly ‘reformist’ regimes (Putin in Russia, Lula in Brazil and Fox in Mexico). In the rest of Latin America (Chile, Colombia and Argentina) the making of the billionaires resulted from the bloody military coups and regimes, which destroyed the socio-political movements and started the privatization process. This process was then even more energetically promoted by the subsequent electoral regimes of the right and ‘center-left’.

What is repeatedly demonstrated in both Russia and Latin America is that the key factor leading to the quantum leap in wealth – from millionaires to billionaires – was the vast privatization and subsequent de-nationalization of lucrative public enterprises.

If we add to the concentration of $157 billion in the hands of an infinitesimal fraction of the elite, the $990 billion USD taken out by the foreign banks in debt payments and the $1 trillion USD (one thousand billion) taken out by way of profits, royalties, rents and laundered money over the past decade and a half, we have an adequate framework for understanding why Latin America continues to have over two-thirds of its population with inadequate living standards and stagnant economies.

The responsibility of the US for the growth of Latin American billionaires and mass poverty is several-fold and involves a wide gamut of political institutions, business elites, and academic and media moguls. First and foremost the US backed the military dictators and neo-liberal politicians who set up the billionaire-oriented economic models. It was ex-President Clinton, the CIA and his economic advisers, in alliance with the Russian oligarchs, who provided the political intelligence and material support to put Yeltsin in power and back his destruction of the Russian Parliament (Duma) in 1993 and the rigged elections of 1996. And it was Washington, which allowed hundreds of billions of dollars to be laundered in US banks throughout the 1990’s as the US Congressional Sub-Committee on Banking (1998) revealed.

It was Nixon, Kissinger and later Carter and Brzezinski, Reagan and Bush, Clinton and Albright i who backed the privatizations pushed by Latin American military dictators and civilian reactionaries in the 1970’s, 1980’s and 1990’s . Their instructions to the US representatives in the IMF and the World Bank were writ large: Privatize, de-regulate and de-nationalize (PDD) before any loans should be negotiated.

It was US academics and ideologues working hand in glove with the so-called multi-lateral agencies, as contracted economic consultants, who trained, designed and pushed the PDD agenda among their former Ivy League students-turned-economic and finance ministers and Central Bankers in Latin America and Russia.

It was US and EU multi-national corporations and banks which bought out or went into joint ventures with the emerging Latin American billionaires and who reaped the trillion dollar payouts on the debts incurred by the corrupt military and civilian regimes. The billionaires are as much a product and/or by-product of US anti-nationalist, anti-communist policies as they are a product of their own grandiose theft of public enterprises.

Conclusion

Given the enormous class and income disparities in Russia, Latin America and China (20 Chinese billionaires have a net worth of $29.4 billion USD in less than ten years), it is more accurate to describe these countries as ‘surging billionaires’ rather than ’emerging markets’ because it is not the ‘free market’ but the political power of the billionaires that dictates policy.

Countries of ‘surging billionaires’ produce burgeoning poverty, submerging living standards. The making of billionaires means the unmaking of civil society – the weakening of social solidarity, protective social legislation, pensions, vacations, public health programs and education. While politics is central, past political labels mean nothing. Ex-Marxist Brazilian ex-President Cardoso and ex-trade union leader President Lula Da Silva privatized public enterprises and promoted policies that spawn billionaires. Ex-Communist Putin cultivates certain billionaire oligarchs and offers incentives to others to shape up and invest.

The period of greatest decline in living standards in Latin America and Russia coincide with the dismantling of the nationalist populist and communist economies. Between 1980-2004, Latin America – more precisely Brazil, Argentina and Mexico – stagnated at 0% to 1% per capita growth. Russia saw a 50% decline in GNP between 1990-1996 and living standards dropped 80% for everyone except the predators and their gangster entourage.

Recent growth (2003-2007), where it occurs, has more to do with the extraordinary rise in international prices (of energy resources, metals and agro-exports) than any positive developments from the billionaire-dominated economies. The growth of billionaires is hardly a sign of ‘general prosperity’ resulting from the ‘free market’ as the editors of Forbes Magazine claim. In fact it is the product of the illicit seizure of lucrative public resources, built up by the work and struggle of millions of workers, in Russia and China under Communism and in Latin America during populist-nationalist and democratic-socialist governments. Many billionaires have inherited wealth and used their political ties to expand and extend their empires – it has little to do with entrepreneurial skills.

The billionaires’ and the White House’s anger and hostility toward President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is precisely because he is reversing the policies which create billionaires and mass poverty: He is re-nationalizing energy resources, public utilities and expropriating some large landed estates. Chavez is not only challenging US hegemony in Latin America but also the entire PDD edifice that built the economic empires of the billionaires in Latin America, Russia, China and elsewhere.

  • Note: The primary data for this essay is drawn from Forbes Magazine’s “List of the World’s Billionaires” published March 8, 2007.
    • Filed Under: DIARIES Tagged With: , ,
    «Previous Page