40th anniversary of Sukhamoy Chakravarty paper: Debates raised in the paper resonate today

The academia in west celebrates and reflects on anniversaries of famous research papers. For instance, Friedman’s 1968 paper on limits of monetary policy, Douglass North’s 1968 paper on shipping productivity and so on.

We in India first barely have a list of such papers and second there is hardly any reflection on their anniversaries.

In this aspect, it is really nice to read this Mint article by Niranjan Rajyadhaksha (who else) who reflects on 40th anniversary of a research paper by Sukhaomoy Chakravarty. The paper was titled as On the Question of Home Market and Prospects for Indian Growth and was published in EPW.

Niranajan writes:

Economics is a discipline without a good sense of its own history. This is unfortunate because the past can often illuminate the present, especially in times of trouble. For example, it was only when the inadequacy of the dominant view became evident after 2008 that economists began to reach for the wisdom of older masters such as John Maynard Keynes, Michal Kalecki, Irving Fisher and Hyman Minsky. The selective amnesia is one reason why this column tends to wander off into history every now and then.

This year marks the 40th anniversary of a paper by Sukhamoy Chakravarty that should resonate in current debates about the Indian economy. Chakravarty was, by all accounts, one of the most brilliant minds of his era, who straddled the worlds of theory and practice. His theoretical work on how much a country should optimally save was as important as his modelling for the Fifth Five-Year Plan. As Paul Samuelson wrote in the foreword to one of the most celebrated books by Chakravarty, on development planning: “What makes for a beautiful problem in science? It may be logical beauty: proof that the set of prime numbers cannot be finite… is as aesthetically neat in our times as it was in Euclid’s. But a problem takes on extra lustre if, in addition to its logical elegance, it provides useful knowledge. By the above test, we must judge Professor Chakravarty’s book to be fascinating.”

Forty years ago, Chakravarty wrote a paper titled On The Question Of Home Market And The Prospects of Indian Growth. Several of its insights connect to the current debates on the Indian economic slowdown, and especially whether the loss of momentum is because of supply rigidities or aggregate demand weakness.

The original Nehruvian growth strategy was to focus on the supply side of the economy. The early plans argued that India needed rapid economic growth to roll back the scourge of mass poverty. To do that, it had to ease constraints on the supply side—a domestic savings constraint, a foreign exchange constraint, a food constraint, and an energy constraint.

India had initial success, but economic growth slowed down after 1965. Part of the reason was a problem inherent in an investment strategy directed by the state. The Indian government had decided to focus on building heavy industry first to give the country strategic depth as well as to produce machines that would eventually help increase the output of consumer goods. There was also bad luck. The Indian economy was also hit by a series of exogenous shocks—three wars, four droughts and two oil shocks between 1962 and 1980.

Chakravarty asked in his 1979 paper why Indian industrial growth had stalled even after many of the major supply side constraints had eased. His core argument was that despite easing supply constraints, demand for industrial growth was being held back by a narrowing home market. 

Chakravarty pointed to three reasons for the slowdown:

First, Chakravarty argued that the Green Revolution had benefited only a certain class of farmers rather than the entire rural population. The rise in rural inequality had restricted demand for basic consumer goods produced by Indian industry.

Second, he pointed out that the internal terms of trade had moved against agriculture and in favour of industry. This was explained by political strategy rather than by the prevailing trend in the marginal cost of production.

Third, whatever economic growth was taking place was not creating enough employment. Chakravarty argued that one solution was for public investment to be more employment intensive.

Many of these themes echo in our current debates. Rathin Roy of the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy has perceptively argued that India faces a contemporary version of the home market problem, as the entire economic structure has focused on the consumption needs of the top deck of the population, thus narrowing the domestic market rather than growing it. He has cited the Chakravarty paper in some of his recent writing.

The home market problem was not the only response from economists to the industrial stagnation after 1965. The trio of Jagdish Bhagwati, T.N. Srinivasan, and Padma Desai persuasively showed that the problem had its roots in the strategy of import-substituting industrialization under the infamous Licence Raj. Isher Judge Ahluwalia backed this argument in her detailed work in the 1980s on industrial stagnation. It is interesting that Chakravarty did not pay enough attention in his paper to foreign markets as a solution to the narrowness of the home market, or exports, though he did not dismiss that option either.

Fascinating bit. Lots of economic history here…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: