Skip to playerSkip to main content
  • 1 week ago
In an exclusive interview, Sanjeev Sanyal, Member of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister, addressed India's latest GDP growth print of 7.8 percent, stating that the '7.8% GDP growth rate is a very strong one.' Sanyal noted that growth was broad-based across manufacturing, construction, and services sectors, supported by public and private investments. Responding to geopolitical risks and inflation concerns, he highlighted the diversification of energy supplies and noted that unemployment rates continue to drift downward according to official data. Addressing political criticisms over corporate profitability versus household consumption, Sanyal dismissed claims of widespread household distress, pointing to record car sales and robust consumer purchases. He also defended the updated GDP base year methodology, explaining that updating baskets to include newer growth sectors aligns with international best practices and standard statistical norms.

Category

🗞
News
Transcript
00:00Joining me first on the show is Mr. Sanjeev Sanyal, member of the Economic Advisory Council
00:04of the Prime Minister. Mr. Sanyal, I appreciate your time. Real GDP grew 7.8% this quarter,
00:12well above the RBI's own estimate. Manufacturing at 9.2%, services at 10%,
00:18every engine fired together. Is this genuinely broad-based growth or one exceptional quarter?
00:30Well, you are indeed right that 7.8% was a lot stronger than many of us expected. This is
00:38not
00:38just RBI, it's stronger than I expected as well. Yes, also that it is being driven by a whole bunch
00:45of different sectors. So it's not just one sector doing especially well. Manufacturing did well,
00:51but so did many services segments like financial services, and even you also had construction
00:57doing very well. So there are a lot of things driving it. It's also driven to a significant
01:03extent by investment. So of course, obviously, government investment, public investment is
01:09doing well, but the private sector is also investing reasonably. So it is very broad-based growth. So
01:25do remember that the environment where we are in is very, very disrupted. We do have a war right next
01:33door in Iran, and that impacts many things. You know, it's not just our energy supplies where
01:39everybody talks about it. Do remember the Middle East is a big export market. There are 10 million
01:45odd Indians living there, and they send remittances, and they do various things which have an impact on
01:50economy. And then, of course, there are the whole disruptions with the Trump tariffs, and not just
01:57the ones that deal with us. Do remember that disrupting the world economy generally is bad for
02:02us, because it means our, you know, the rest of the world is not conducive for exporting. So in this
02:07environment, doing the 7.8 is good, no doubt. Sustaining it, however, will require us to continuously
02:15adjust and work very hard. I mean, we have the additional problem of an El Nino, which is
02:20impacting us as well. So this is not an easy place in which to sustain these kind of growth rates.
02:26I
02:27would be quite happy with anything in the range of 7%. You know, since you spoke about El Nino,
02:33the Brent crude has spiked after the US-Iran exchange of fire, and a strengthening El Nino threatens
02:39the monsoon. If those risks materialize, how much of this 7.8% actually survives?
02:48Well, 7.8% is for that quarter. So that is for that quarter. The question is, what will it
02:55be in the
02:56subsequent quarter? So it's not about surviving. But the question is, will the momentum be at the same
03:01level going forward? Now, I think I would be very surprised if there's no impact of the El Nino on
03:08agriculture. So I think there will be some impact of that, maybe not as bad as many people have
03:13feared, or what has happened, for example, in Europe, where, you know, there's a massive drought.
03:19So I think we dodged the extreme drought bullet, but I think there will still be some impact on
03:25agriculture. The monsoons are still playing out, so I can't really put a number on it. But
03:29it is something we need to look at. And yes, you just mentioned oil prices have spiked again.
03:35We have managed to keep going by keeping a very diversified source of energy coming to us from,
03:44whether it's from Venezuela, even the US, of course, Russia. And it's not been easy. You know,
03:50there's always threat of sanctions and all kinds of other threats. And of course, the threat of tariffs
03:57as well. So in this environment, you know, at some point, we will have some things that we will
04:04have to take on our chin. But I think given the circumstances, we are doing very, very well.
04:10Okay, since this has led to a massive political slugfest as well, Congress President Malik Arjun
04:17Kharge has called this the three U's. Unemployment, unbearable price rise, unbridled inequality.
04:24And I said that retail inflation is at a 19-month high, even as GDP posts its best print in
04:32years.
04:32How do you explain this growth and kitchen table pain rising together, both rising at the same time?
04:42Well, I mean, irrespective of what those numbers came in at, we would have heard exactly these comments.
04:48So I would just put this aside because, you know, frankly, I wouldn't like to respond to non-serious
04:55political insinuations. What I will say is, let's look at the hard numbers. The government's PLFS numbers,
05:03by the way, it is the best unemployment indicator there is. There is no other, you know, serious
05:09survey in the country. And it clearly suggests that unemployment rates, both urban and rural,
05:16have slowly been drifting downwards. So there is no doubt of that. There is an issue with
05:22the segment of educated unemployed, which I can discuss that separately. But I think overall
05:30unemployment has, if anything, come down. Prices, by the way, yes, you know, look at the amount of
05:37pressure on energy prices. I think given that the feed through to the domestic economy has been
05:43quite moderate. And even when they are talking about inflation going up, do remember that this is,
05:52you know, inflation in the four to five percent range. You know, till a decade ago, our inflation
06:00used to be in the eight to 12 percent range on a routine basis.
06:04So the fact that people are debating inflation in the four, five percent range itself, it tells you,
06:10you know, how much progress we have made. I don't know. It would be great if we didn't have this
06:15external pressure. But I think given the circumstances, oil prices and generally prices of
06:22food have remained reasonably well contained. These numbers, Mr. Sanyal, have been fueled by
06:29the manufacturing sector. So my next question will be on that. Manufacturing operating profits jumped
06:35from 9.4 percent to 21.3 percent in a single quarter. That's a massive surge. But private
06:41consumption grew only 7.1 percent. So who's actually benefiting from this growth? Companies and their
06:47margins or the ordinary household?
06:51Well, I mean, the fact of the matter is that, you know, it's good for everybody if the manufacturing
06:56sector is becoming more profitable. Do remember that the manufacturing sector is also an employer.
07:04It is also these profits are what belongs to a large numbers of shareholders. So I think this socialist
07:14idea that there is, you know, it's something between the households and the large corporations,
07:22I am sorry, that is not how the world works. Even if you wanted to talk about the households,
07:29do look at the amount of purchases they are making. I mean, car sales are at record highs.
07:37You know, sales of all kinds of things, air conditioners and all kinds of other items are doing
07:42well. So I think this idea that households are somehow in stress is not true.
07:48Okay, since again we are seeing this kind of statistical gymnastics charge, this is coming
07:54from Jairam Ramej, who has called this data statistical gymnastics. And there isn't this
08:00allegation of change in methodology to flatter the number. Is that a serious charge you want
08:07to answer? You need to answer?
08:11I don't think any serious economist is looking at this data and saying that it's not credible.
08:18We did have a problem with methodology till last year because the base year had not been updated,
08:24but incidentally a matter that I had been raising as well. And the reason we were unable to update the
08:30base year was a very simple reason. You see, every decade we update the base year at the beginning
08:36of the decade. We could not have done it in this decade for the simplest reason. Those were COVID
08:40years. And so the beginning of the decade years were not typical years. So we had to wait till 2024
08:47before we got a typical year that we could use as a base year. Now, once we got that, we
08:53of course
08:53updated the base year. And at the time that it happened, I did warn everybody that, look,
08:59don't complain now that we have updated the base year, which is what you were complaining about,
09:04that the GDP growth rate will look good because when you update a base year, what happens? You get
09:09rid of the old dying sectors from the basket and you add in relatively younger, higher growth sectors.
09:18And this is precisely what has happened. So I don't think anybody should complain. We did exactly what
09:25the IMF and others were asking us to do. And I think no serious economist is going to complain
09:31about this. The GDP is very visibly strong and it's showing through, incidentally, in other areas as
09:37well. Look at car sales numbers. Those are not from government. Corporate profitability is doing
09:43decently well. Those are not government numbers. So I think, you know, under the circumstances, but even
09:48in any circumstance, 7.8% GDP growth rate is a very strong one. As I said, I will be
09:55personally
09:56expecting it to temper going into the next few quarters. But even then, I think you will get a
10:02very decent GDP growth rate print for the year as a whole.
10:06Okay, Mr. Sanyan, my last question to you, and this is with regards to what the concerns are.
10:13Record low FDI, stagnant manufacturing employment and a mismatch between corporate revenue growth and
10:21the GDP growth as evidence that the headline figure doesn't really match the lived economic
10:26reality. So if the macro data and the micro data are telling different stories, which one should the
10:33country actually trust?
10:37They are not telling you different stories at all. I just heard, we just, you yourself just pointed out
10:42on one hand that, you know, manufacturing companies are seeing record profits and then you're complaining
10:48that the manufacturing sectors are not doing well and they're not employing people. There is no evidence
10:53of this. They're just, you know, not presenting data at all as a evidence. And in fact, they will on
11:04one
11:04side say that, you know, companies are doing well and then in the very next breath say they are not
11:09doing badly. You need to decide which side of this micro or macro data you are. They are clearly in
11:16line
11:16with each other. As I said, the manufacturing numbers are doing well. They are showing up in GDP
11:21numbers. They are also showing up in corporate profitability. They are also showing up in all
11:26the association numbers on sales of various products. I don't know how they are not in sync.
11:35All right, Mr. Sanjeev Sanyal, appreciate your time. Thank you for joining us and sharing your views
11:41on the GDP numbers.
Comments

Recommended