Executive Summary
Key Assumptions during the Twelfth Plan
Real GDP Growth |
8.5 per cent (Scenario I); 9.0 per cent (Scenario II); and 8.0 per cent (Scenario III) |
Inflation Rate |
5.0 per cent for Scenarios I and II and 6.0 per cent for Scenario III |
Revenue Deficit of the Centre and the States |
Taken as the binding target in the case of the Centre and the States |
Centre’s Revenue Deficit |
To evolve in line with the Medium Term Fiscal Policy Statement (2011-12) till 2013-14 and thereafter, assumed to decline annually by 0.5 to 0.6 per cent of GDP till 2016-17 |
Extra-budgetary resources of Central Public Sector Undertakings |
1.2 per cent of GDP |
Internal resources of Public Sector Undertakings |
4.0 per cent of GDP |
Losses of State Electricity Boards |
0.2 per cent of GDP |
World Real GDP growth |
3.3 - 4.9 per cent |
World Inflation Rate |
3.1 - 3.7 per cent |
International crude oil price of the Indian basket |
US$ 110 per barrel |
Savings Projections during the Twelfth Plan
Scenario I (Real GDP growth of 8.5 per cent; Inflation of 5.0 per cent) |
(per cent of GDP at current market prices) |
|
2009-10 |
2010-11 |
2011-12 |
2012-13 |
2013-14 |
2014-15 |
2015-16 |
2016-17 |
12th Plan Average |
Household |
25.4 |
22.8 |
23.2 |
23.6 |
24.0 |
24.4 |
24.8 |
25.2 |
24.4 |
Private Corporate |
8.2 |
7.9 |
8.3 |
8.4 |
8.5 |
8.6 |
8.6 |
8.7 |
8.6 |
Public |
0.2 |
1.7 |
1.8 |
2.0 |
2.8 |
3.5 |
4.2 |
5.0 |
3.5 |
Gross Domestic Savings Rate |
33.8 |
32.3 |
33.3 |
34.0 |
35.3 |
36.5 |
37.6 |
38.9 |
36.5 |
CAD |
-2.8 |
-2.7 |
-3.5 |
-4.1 |
-3.8 |
-3.3 |
-2.8 |
-2.5 |
-3.3 |
Scenario II (Real GDP growth of 9.0 per cent; Inflation of 5.0 per cent) |
Household |
25.4 |
22.8 |
23.2 |
23.6 |
24.0 |
24.4 |
24.8 |
25.2 |
24.4 |
Private Corporate |
8.2 |
7.9 |
8.5 |
8.6 |
8.9 |
9.1 |
9.3 |
9.4 |
9.1 |
Public |
0.2 |
1.7 |
1.8 |
1.9 |
2.9 |
3.6 |
4.3 |
5.0 |
3.5 |
Gross Domestic Savings Rate |
33.8 |
32.3 |
33.5 |
34.1 |
35.8 |
37.1 |
38.4 |
39.6 |
37.0 |
CAD |
-2.8 |
-2.7 |
-3.5 |
-4.3 |
-4.1 |
-3.8 |
-3.6 |
-3.6 |
-3.9 |
Scenario III (Real GDP growth of 8.0 per cent; Inflation of 6.0 per cent) |
Household |
25.4 |
22.8 |
23.2 |
23.6 |
24.0 |
24.4 |
24.8 |
25.2 |
24.4 |
Private Corporate |
8.2 |
7.9 |
8.5 |
8.3 |
8.3 |
8.4 |
8.4 |
8.4 |
8.4 |
Public |
0.2 |
1.7 |
1.8 |
2.0 |
2.8 |
3.5 |
4.2 |
4.9 |
3.5 |
Gross Domestic Savings Rate |
33.8 |
32.3 |
33.5 |
33.9 |
35.1 |
36.3 |
37.4 |
38.5 |
36.2 |
CAD |
-2.8 |
-2.7 |
-3.5 |
-3.9 |
-3.4 |
-2.7 |
-2.0 |
-1.5 |
-2.7 |
CAD denotes Current Account Deficit. |
Risks to the Savings Projections
-
The household savings rate could remain stagnant
or even decline as financial liabilities increase with
greater retail credit penetration.
-
The projected increase in the public sector savings
rate is contingent upon the continuance of the
fiscal consolidation process.
-
In respect of the private corporate sector, the
sustainability of at least the current levels of
efficiency would be important.
-
Large shocks to growth and inflation could alter
the savings scenario during the Twelfth Plan.
Memo: Savings Projections as per the Draft
Approach Paper to the Twelfth Plan
|
Twelfth Plan growth target |
9.0 per cent |
9.5 per cent |
(per cent of GDP at current market prices) |
Household Savings |
24.0 |
24.5 |
Private Corporate Sector Savings |
8.5 |
9.2 |
Public Sector Savings |
3.7 |
5.2 |
Gross Domestic Savings |
36.2 |
38.9 |
Current Account Deficit |
-2.5 |
-2.5 |
Other Projections during the Twelfth Plan
Flow of institutional credit to Agriculture |
`42,08,000 crore |
Credit Supply to MSME Sector |
(i) `76,49,000 crore |
|
(ii) `85,71,000 crore in an alternative scenario of higher assumed credit growth |
Flow of Private Resources for Infrastructure |
(i) `17,94,000 crore |
(ii) `26,67,000 crore, subject to the implementation of select measures. Total (budgetary and non-budgetary) projected flow of resources in this case, assuming USD/INR exchange rate of 50, is around USD one trillion. |
Report of the Working Group on
Savings during the Twelfth Five-
Year Plan (2012-13 to 2016-17)
Introduction
1.1 The Planning Commission, Government of India,
vide their Order No.3/2/2010-FR dated March 10, 2011
constituted a Working Group for the estimation of
savings during the Twelfth Five-Year Plan (2012-13 to
2016-17), with the following members:
1. Dr. Subir Gokarn
Deputy Governor
Reserve Bank of India |
Chairman |
2. Dr. Kaushik Basu
Chief Economic Adviser
Government of India |
Member |
3. Dr. Ashok Sahu
Principal Adviser
Planning Commission |
Member |
4. Adviser (FR) or his representative
Planning Commission |
Member |
5. Smt. Sibani Swain
Director, DPPP
Planning Commission |
Member |
6. Shri Ashish Kumar
Additional Director General
Central Statistics Office |
Member |
7. Smt. T. Rajeswari
Deputy Director General
Central Statistics Office |
Member |
8. Shri M. C. Singhi
Economic Adviser
Department of Industrial Policy and
Promotion, Government of India |
Member |
9. Shri D. K. Joshi
Chief Economist
CRISIL |
Member |
10. Shri Shashanka Bhide
NCAER |
Member |
11. Prof. Pradeep Agrawal
Institute of Economic Growth |
Member |
12. Prof. R. Nagaraj
IGIDR |
Member |
13. Prof. C. P. Chandrasekhar
JNU |
Member |
14. Prof. N. R. Bhanumurthy
NIPFP |
Member |
15. Dr. Susan Thomas
IGIDR |
Member |
16. Shri Ramesh Kolli
Expert (Ex. Additional Director
General, CSO) |
Member |
17. Chairman, NABARD or his
representative |
Member |
18. Chairman, State Bank of India or
his representative |
Member |
19. Chairman, SIDBI or his representative |
Member |
20. Chairman, Life Insurance
Corporation or his representative |
Member |
21. Dr. Mathew Joseph
Senior Consultant, ICRIER |
Member |
22. Shri D. K. Mohanty
Executive Director
Reserve Bank of India |
Member-
Secretary |
1.2 The Terms of Reference of the Working Group
were as follows:
(i) To estimate domestic private savings, physical and
financial and their components in light of the
policy and structural changes in the real and
financial sectors and the demographic pattern;
(ii) To estimate the flow of foreign savings, through
foreign direct investment, portfolio investment,
trade credit, non-resident deposits, ECB and in
terms of types of flows (debt/equity) and maturity
composition;
(iii) To estimate flow of external aid and its components
(loan/grant);
(iv) To estimate the public sector draft on private
savings keeping in view the evolution of the fiscal
path envisaged by the Thirteenth Finance
Commission, commitments under the Fiscal
Responsibility Act and resource requirements
related to infrastructure; and
(v) To estimate resources available for private
investment including infrastructure and likely
flows for SME and Agriculture.
1.3 The secretariat to the Working Group was provided
by the National Accounts Analysis Division, Department
of Economic and Policy Research (DEPR), Reserve Bank
of India (RBI).
1.4 The Working Group held two meetings on April 8
and September 9, 2011.
1.5 In the first meeting of the Working Group, the
trends in savings and investment in India were
reviewed against the evolving macroeconomic and
policy environment and the considerations that could
impact on the savings trajectory going forward were
discussed. Important among these considerations were
the growth rate of the economy, the evolution of the
fiscal path particularly in the context of the
recommendations of the Thirteenth Finance
Commission, demographic pattern, and productivity.
It was also decided, in line with past practices, to set
up Sub-Groups for estimation of savings in different
sectors. Accordingly, the following six Sub-Groups were
constituted:
1. Household Sector savings (Convenor: Smt. Balbir
Kaur, Adviser, DEPR, RBI);
2. Private Corporate Sector Savings (Convenor: Dr.
Goutam Chatterjee, Adviser, DSIM, RBI);
3. Public Sector Savings (Convenor: Dr. A. Sahu,
Principal Adviser, Planning Commission);
4. Foreign Savings (Convenor: Shri Anil Bisen,
Economic Adviser, Government of India);
5. Flow of Private Investment for MSME and
Agriculture (Convenor: Shri S.K. Mitra, Executive
Director, NABARD); and
6. Infrastructure Investment (Convenor: Shri Santosh
Nayar, Deputy Managing Director, State Bank of
India)
The composition and terms of reference of the
Sub-Groups are given in Annex 1.
1.6 The Working Group also decided in its first
meeting that all six Sub-Groups would adopt the
following five scenarios of real GDP growth and WPI
inflation as a common starting point for making
projections of savings relating to their respective sectors
over the Twelfth Plan:
Scenario |
Real GDP growth |
WPI Inflation |
Implied growth rate of GDP at current market prices* |
1 |
8.5 |
5.0 |
13.9 |
2 |
9.0 |
5.0 |
14.5 |
3 |
9.0 |
6.0 |
15.5 |
4 |
9.5 |
5.0 |
15.0 |
5 |
9.5 |
6.5 |
16.6 |
* Worked out as: [(1+real GDP growth rate)*(1+WPI inflation) -1] |
It was subsequently decided to include an
additional scenario of real GDP growth of 8.0 per cent
and WPI inflation of 6.0 per cent for savings projections
over the Twelfth Plan.
1.7 All the six Sub-Groups have submitted their
Reports, which are appended in the supplementary
volume to this Report. The Sub-Group Reports were
discussed in the second meeting of the Working Group.
1.8 While framing its Report, the Working Group took
note of the following. First, the Mid-term Appraisal of
the Eleventh Plan had attributed India’s superior
growth performance and resilience to shocks, to strong
macro-fundamentals including the high level of
domestic savings, resulting from substantial household
savings and the sharp improvement in public savings
and private corporate sector savings in the recent past.
Second, the draft Approach Paper to the Twelfth Plan,
which was released in September 2011, envisages two
alternative targets of real GDP growth during the
Twelfth Plan viz.; 9 per cent and 9.5 per cent. While
highlighting the healthy increase in aggregate savings
and investment rates particularly in the private sector,
the Approach Paper cautions that, ‘...[t]he current
situation of high inflation and tightening of monetary
policy at the domestic level and uncertainty in the
global financial markets require a careful appraisal of
the saving investment prospects for the Twelfth Plan
period…’. The Approach Paper also underscores the need to step-up investment rates, especially in areas
where supply side bottlenecks could trigger inflation,
in order to sustain high rates of growth of 9 per cent
or higher, while maintaining moderate inflation. Third,
the data gaps in the compilation of savings and
investment in India, as highlighted by the observations
of the High Level Committee on Estimation of Saving
and Investment (Chairman: Dr. C. Rangarajan), 2009,
need to be acknowledged for prognostications. Fourth,
while noting that past empirical studies have not been
unanimous on the effect of inflation on private savings,
the Working Group took cognizance of recent evidence,
as articulated in the RBI’s Annual Report 2010-11, which
shows the adverse impact of inflation on household
financial savings. Fifth, the rapid changes in the
macroeconomic and policy environment in the recent
period and the structural breaks in the data on sectorwise
savings in India pose challenges not only to
technical projections of savings over the medium-term
but also to judgements regarding the savings outlook.
1.9 The remainder of this Report is organized as
follows. Section II discusses the savings performance
of the Indian economy in a cross-country perspective
and then analyses the trends in India’s gross domestic
savings and its composition in the light of the evolving
macroeconomic and policy environment. The objective
of this Section is to get an overview of the scope for
further increases in the savings rate in India and the
macroeconomic/policy setting required for actualisation.
Next, drawing upon the Sub-Group Reports, in the
subsequent four Sections viz., III, IV, V and VI, the
Working Group takes a view on the estimation
methodologies and projections of household sector
savings, private corporate sector savings, public sector
savings and foreign savings, respectively, over the
Twelfth Plan. In each of these Sections, projections are
obtained for three scenarios viz., real GDP growth of
8.5 per cent and inflation of 5.0 per cent; real GDP
growth of 9.0 per cent and inflation of 5.0 per cent; and
real GDP growth of 8.0 per cent and inflation of 6.0 per
cent over the Twelfth Plan. Section VII consolidates the
projections of sector-wise savings as obtained from the
previous Sections to get the gross domestic savings over
the Twelfth Plan. The next two Sections viz., VIII and
IX draw upon the Sub-Group reports to summarize the methodology of estimation and projections of resources
available for private investment in the MSME sector
and agriculture, and infrastructure investment,
respectively. Section X sums up the discussion.
Acknowledgments
2.0 The Working Group gratefully acknowledges the
convenors and the members of all the Sub-Groups for
their arduous efforts in bringing out the Reports which
formed the basis of the main Report. The Working
Group places on record its appreciation for the excellent
support provided by Smt. Balbir Kaur, Adviser, DEPR,
RBI and the officers and staff of the National Accounts
Analysis Division of DEPR, RBI, particularly, Shri
Somnath Chatterjee, Director and Shri Rakesh Kumar,
Research Officer, in the consolidation of the main
Report. The support provided by Shri S.V.S. Dixit,
Adviser and Shri Rajan Goyal, Director, DEPR, RBI, in
the estimation of foreign savings is also gratefully
acknowledged. The Working Group also gratefully
acknowledges the technical support provided by the
following officers of the RBI viz., Shri P.K. Nayak, Shri
Binod Bhoi, Shri Rajeev Jain, Smt. Atri Mukherjee, Shri
Angshuman Hait and Shri Sanjib Bardoloi, Assistant
Advisers and Shri G.V. Nadhanael, Research Officer.
Section II: Trends in Gross Domestic
Savings
India’s Savings Performance in an
International Perspective
2.1 India’s savings performance has been quite
impressive in a cross-country context (Table 1). India’s
gross domestic savings rate in the recent period is
comparable to Indonesia, Thailand and Korea, much
lower than that of China, Malaysia and Singapore but
much higher than that of many other emerging and
advanced economies. The magnitude of increase in the
domestic savings rate in India and China during the
period 2000 to 2007 was among the highest in the
world. In fact, the savings rates of many of the advanced
countries and some of the Asian emerging market
economies witnessed a decline during this period.
India’s savings rate declined sharply in 2008, as it did
in many other countries, in the aftermath of the global
financial crisis, but recovered, to some extent, in 2009. Even though India’s savings rate in 2009 remained
lower than that in 2007, in contrast to that in China
and Indonesia for instance, the extent of decline in
India’s savings rate was much lower than those in many
of the advanced and emerging market economies. More
importantly, the gross domestic savings rates of India,
China and Singapore continue to show an upward
trend, even as those of many other emerging and
advanced countries have either stabilised at much lower
levels or are on a declining trend.
Table 1: Gross Domestic Savings Rate |
(per cent of GDP) |
Country |
1990 |
1995 |
2000 |
2005 |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
Asia - EMDEs |
India* |
22.8 |
24.4 |
23.7 |
33.5 |
36.9 |
32.0 |
33.8 |
China |
39.1 |
43.5 |
37.5 |
47.6 |
50.5 |
51.8 |
52.1 |
Indonesia |
32.3 |
30.6 |
32.8 |
29.2 |
29.0 |
28.9 |
33.8 |
Malaysia |
34.5 |
39.7 |
46.1 |
42.8 |
42.1 |
42.3 |
36.0 |
Pakistan |
11.1 |
15.8 |
16.0 |
15.2 |
15.4 |
20.8 |
11.4 |
Sri Lanka |
14.3 |
15.3 |
17.4 |
17.9 |
17.6 |
13.9 |
18.0 |
Thailand |
33.8 |
35.4 |
31.5 |
30.3 |
34.8 |
31.5 |
32.4 |
Select Other EMEs |
Brazil |
21.4 |
16.5 |
16.5 |
19.8 |
19.8 |
20.9 |
16.5 |
Mexico |
22.0 |
22.6 |
21.9 |
22.3 |
24.2 |
24.9 |
20.9 |
Russian Federation |
30.3 |
28.8 |
38.7 |
33.8 |
32.8 |
34.6 |
26.1 |
South Africa |
23.2 |
18.9 |
18.9 |
17.5 |
18.3 |
18.9 |
18.6 |
Select Advanced Economies |
France |
21.2 |
19.7 |
21.4 |
19.5 |
20.3 |
19.8 |
17.0 |
Germany |
23.1 |
22.7 |
22.1 |
22.2 |
25.4 |
24.9 |
21.4 |
Japan |
33.7 |
29.7 |
26.9 |
25.0 |
25.4 |
23.8 |
20.7 |
Korea, Rep. |
36.4 |
36.6 |
33.4 |
32.4 |
30.9 |
30.0 |
29.8 |
Singapore |
44.0 |
50.1 |
46.9 |
47.1 |
49.5 |
47.0 |
NA |
United Kingdom |
18.1 |
17.0 |
15.8 |
13.6 |
15.2 |
14.1 |
11.2 |
United States |
16.3 |
16.9 |
16.7 |
14.1 |
14.0 |
12.5 |
11.4 |
Memo |
World |
23.2 |
22.6 |
22.2 |
21.7 |
22.5 |
21.4 |
18.9 |
* Data for India are sourced from the national authorities.
Source: World Development Indicators 2011, World Bank. |
2.2 The Working Group recognized the significance of
general as well as country-specific factors underlying
the differential savings performance. For instance, in
the case of China, Ma and Yi (2010)1 have highlighted
that the increase in savings rate was reflected across
the three sectors - household, corporate and government. Apart from rapid economic growth, a number of factors
facilitated the increase in savings in the three sectors
such as tough corporate restructuring (including
pension and home ownership reforms), large-scale
migration of labour from rural to urban areas which
helped to restrain wage increases (and hence boost
corporate profits), sharp decline in the youth
dependency, the persistence of the saving habit among
the households, rising government income and a clear
preference for government investment over
consumption. The high savings rate of Singapore, on
the other hand, has been attributed to rapid economic
growth and the institution of the Central Provident
Fund which is a compulsory and comprehensive savings
plan. Similarly, rapid economic growth, favourable
demographics and mandatory contributions to the
Employee Provident Fund are some of the major factors
underlying the high rate of savings in Malaysia.
India’s Savings Performance over the Five-
Year Plans
2.3 Over the Eighth to the Eleventh Plan so far - an
18-year period that coincided with the structural
reforms process - the average rate of Gross Domestic
Savings (GDS) increased by around 14 percentage points
(Table 2). This was higher than the increase of around
11 percentage points in the GDS rate that occurred over
the First to the Seventh Plans, a period of around 40 years. The maximum increase (of around 8 percentage
points) in the average GDS rate occurred over the Tenth
Plan (2002-2007).
Table 2: India’s Average Savings Rates over the
Five-Year Plans |
Five-Year Plan |
Gross Domestic
Savings Rate
(per cent) |
Average annual
rate of change
in the savings
rate (percentage
points) |
First Plan (1951-56) |
9.2 |
|
Second Plan (1956-61) |
10.6 |
0.3 |
Third Plan (1961-66) |
12.1 |
0.3 |
Fourth Plan (1969-74) |
14.7 |
0.5 |
Fifth Plan (1974-79) |
18.5 |
0.8 |
Sixth Plan (1980-85) |
17.9 |
-0.1 |
Seventh Plan (1985-90) |
20.0 |
0.4 |
Eighth Plan (1992-1997) |
22.9 |
0.6 |
Ninth Plan (1997-2002) |
23.6 |
0.1 |
Tenth Plan (2002-2007) |
31.3 |
1.5 |
Eleventh Plan so far (2007-2011) |
33.7 |
0.6 |
Source: Central Statistics Office |
Evolving Macroeconomic and Policy
Environment
2.4 Against this backdrop, it may be apposite to briefly
recall the broad but significant changes in the
macroeconomic and policy environment over the past
four decades that have impacted India’s savings
performance. The 1980s broke the ‘jinx’ of the 3.5 per
cent annual growth rate of real GDP that had
characterized the previous three decades, enabled by
some reforms in the trade and industrial sectors, good
agricultural performance and fiscal activism. The
decade of the 1990s marked the initiation of wideranging
structural reforms and financial liberalization,
in response to the unprecedented external payments
crisis of 1990-91 that was wrought by the unsustainable
macroeconomic policies of the previous decade(s). The
decade of the 2000s was characterized by a build-up to
over 9 per cent real GDP growth during three
consecutive years ended 2007-08, a period that
coincided with the enactment and implementation of
fiscal responsibility legislation and an upsurge in capital
inflows, even as the rapid improvement in corporate
sector performance marked more or less the entire
decade. This was followed by a sharp decline in the
growth rate and increased financial market volatility in
2008-09 in the face of the knock-on effects of the global
financial crisis, and then, a quick recovery to the precrisis
trend rate of growth, facilitated by coordinated
fiscal and monetary policy actions. As the economy
emerged from the shadows of the global financial crisis,
it faced an upsurge of inflationary pressures engendered
by sharp increases in commodity prices and later by
the strengthening of domestic demand. In this context,
a series of hikes in policy interest rates were effected
by the Reserve Bank with a view to arresting inflationary
pressures. The uncertainty in the global economy has
refused to fade.
Trend and Composition of Gross Domestic
Savings
2.5 The Gross Domestic Savings (GDS) rate has
exhibited a generally upward trend since the 1950s, with some intermittent sharp escalations, notably over
the period 2002-03 to 2007-08 (Chart 1). The composition
of GDS shows the continued predominance of
household sector savings (at around 70 per cent),
notwithstanding a reduction in its share from the peak
attained in 2001-02 (over 94 per cent).
After the 1990-91, the share of the private
corporate sector in GDS has exceeded that of the public
sector, in contrast to the trends prevailing earlier. These
trends are explained in subsequent sub-sections.
Contrasting Movements in the Savings of the
Household, Private Corporate and Public
Sectors
2.6 The rapidly evolving macroeconomic and policy
environment has been associated with contrasting
movements in the rates of savings of the household,
private corporate and public sectors. As evident from
Chart 2, the years 2002-04 could be viewed as a break
point in the trends in the savings rates of the three
sectors. While household savings has continued to
account for the predominant share of gross domestic
savings over the years, the households’ savings rate
which had generally moved upwards at an increasing
pace till 2003-04, generally levelled off thereafter at
around 23 per cent. In contrast, the private corporate
sector savings rate which had remained nearly stable
at around 2 per cent upto the 1980s, picked up subsequently and increased sharply after 2002-03 to
over 9 per cent by 2007-08, on the back of improved
corporate profitability; the private corporate sector
savings rate has hovered around 8 per cent since then.
|
2.7 The private corporate sector has remained vibrant
and has benefitted from increasing consumption and
investment demand arising out of consistently high
economic growth. With robust sales growth, improved
productivity and healthy profit margin, corporates
recorded good growth in profits which translated into
higher saving.
2.8 The public sector savings rate declined steadily
from around 5 per cent in the early 1980s and turned
negative in the late 1990s and remained so for the next
few years. This largely reflected the fiscal profligacy of
the 1980s and the waning of the fiscal consolidation
process in the late 1990s. The public savings rate turned
positive once again in 2003-04 and peaked at around 5
per cent in 2007-08 largely reflecting the enactment of
fiscal responsibility legislation and improvement in the
finances of public sector enterprises. A sharp decline
in public sector savings occurred in 2008-09 largely on
account of the Sixth Pay Commission arrear payouts
and fiscal stimulus measures, which persisted in 2009-
10 with the public sector savings rate declining further
to 0.2 per cent.
2.9 It is also evident that the contrasting movements
in the savings rates of the private (i.e. household plus private corporate) sector and the public sector that were
observed during the 1980s and 1990s - indicative of a
form of Ricardian equivalence2 - were not discernable
during 2000s (Chart 3). It is noteworthy in this context
that both public sector savings and private corporate
sector savings improved substantially during 2000s,
even as household savings rate plateaued somewhat.
Trends in Household Sector Savings – Rate
and Composition
2.10 A striking feature of the 2000s is the general
leveling off of the household savings rate at about 23
per cent from around the middle of the decade in
contrast to the upward movement in the previous years
(Table 3 and Chart 4). Moreover, this leveling off
occurred even as the economy generally cruised along
a high growth trajectory (barring a brief hiccup in
2008-09). The factors underlying the stability in the
household savings rate are discussed next.
2.11 Total saving of the households comprises financial
savings and physical savings. Financial savings are
treated on a net basis i.e. households’ (change in gross)
financial assets less their (change in gross) financial
liabilities. It is evident from Table 3 and Chart 4 that
while physical savings of the households increased sharply during the first half of 2000s, the pace of
increase in gross financial assets as well as gross
financial liabilities slowed down. With the net financial
savings rate resultantly showing a modest increase,
most of the overall increase in the households’ savings
during the first half of the 2000s was on account of
physical savings. The household sector’s preference for
savings in the form of physical assets since 2000-01
could be attributed partly to the robust economic
growth as well as rising availability of credit to meet
financing needs of the household sector.
|
Table 3: Trends in Household Savings (Averages) |
(as per cent of GDP at current market prices) |
Period |
Changes
in Gross
Financial
Assets
(GFA) |
Changes
in Gross
Financial
Liabilities
(GFL) |
Changes
in Net
Financial
Assets
(NFA)
(2-3) |
Changes
in Physical
Assets
(HPA) |
Total
Household
Savings
(4+5) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
1970s |
6.0 |
1.5 |
4.5 |
7.3 |
11.8 |
1980s |
8.9 |
2.4 |
6.5 |
7.2 |
13.7 |
1990s |
11.2 |
1.6 |
9.6 |
8.2 |
17.9 |
2000s |
14.2 |
3.4 |
10.8 |
12.3 |
23.2 |
2000-05 |
12.8 |
2.4 |
10.3 |
12.9 |
23.1 |
2005-11 |
15.5 |
4.2 |
11.3 |
12.2 |
23.5 |
2.12 During the second half of the decade, even though
the gross financial savings (assets) and gross financial
liabilities of the households increased sharply, the
increase in net financial savings rate remained modest.At the same time, the rate of physical savings declined
partly in response to the tightening in credit norms,
offsetting the increase in the financial savings rate.
Consequently, the households’ overall savings rate
remained largely unchanged (at around 23 per cent)
since mid-2000s.
2.13 Since the 1970s, the allocation of household
savings between financial assets and physical assets
had been progressively moving in favour of the former,
with the notable exception of the first half of the 2000s.
The allocation became almost evenly balanced during
the second half of the 2000s.
2.14 The extent to which household physical assets
were funded through loans and advances increased
sharply during 2004-05 to 2006-07, coinciding with the
high growth phase and real estate boom. Subsequently,
this ratio has declined.
Evolving Structure of Households’ Gross
Financial Savings
2.15 The composition of (changes in) the gross financial
assets of households has also changed substantially
over the years (Table 4).
• The share of currency has declined to around 11
per cent during 2005-10 as compared with 14 per
cent in the 1970s, reflective of the spread of
banking facilities, the declining share of agriculture
in GDP and moderation in inflation.
Table 4: Composition of (Changes in) Gross Financial Assets |
(per cent) |
Period |
Currency |
Bank
Depo
sits |
Non-
banking
deposits |
Life
insu
rance
fund |
Provident and
pension fund |
Claims on
Govern
ment |
Shares &
deben
tures |
Units of
UTI |
Trade Debt
(Net) |
Gross
Financial
Assets |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
1970s |
13.9 |
45.6 |
3.0 |
9.0 |
19.6 |
4.2 |
1.5 |
0.5 |
2.7 |
100.0 |
1980s |
11.9 |
40.3 |
4.6 |
7.5 |
17.5 |
11.1 |
3.9 |
2.2 |
0.9 |
100.0 |
1990s |
10.3 |
34.7 |
6.8 |
10.1 |
18.8 |
9.5 |
7.0 |
3.8 |
-1.0 |
100.0 |
2000s |
9.6 |
44.7 |
1.3 |
17.4 |
12.4 |
11.1 |
4.1 |
-0.5 |
0.0 |
100.0 |
(i) 2000-05 |
8.9 |
37.8 |
2.0 |
14.7 |
15.1 |
19.5 |
2.8 |
-0.9 |
0.0 |
100.0 |
(ii) 2005-11 |
10.7 |
49.9 |
1.7 |
19.9 |
10.3 |
3.5 |
4.3 |
-0.2 |
0.4 |
100.0 |
• Bank deposits continue to account for the
predominant share of gross financial assets, with
their share increasing sharply in the second half
of 2000s in contrast to the declining trend in the
previous years; part of the recent increase in the
share of bank deposits could be attributable to the
increase in deposit rates and aggressive deposit
mobilization by banks.
• The share of life insurance funds continued to
increase during 2000s, in line with higher
insurance penetration and robust economic
growth. As indicated in the Economic Survey 2010-
11, Life insurance penetration3 in the year 2000
when the sector was opened up to the private
sector was 1.77 and it has increased to 4.73 in
2009. The increase in levels of insurance
penetration has to be assessed against the average
growth of over 8 per cent in the GDP in the last
five years.
• The share of provident and pension funds has
progressively declined over the years; this has
been attributable to a number of factors viz.;
-
The EPF and MP Act, 1952 covers mandatorily
those employees of organised sector whose
salary is below ` 6500/- per month. This
statutory limit is stagnant since 2002 while
there has been a phenomenal growth in wage
structure in industry over the years.
-
While the new enrolment of members has
become difficult as mentioned above, the exit of members by way of retirement, retrenchment
and death are keeping normal pace.
-
The increasing job avenues in global age
economy have stirred the job dynamics and
owing to this there is a brisk movement of
labour amongst the companies offering better
rewards. This has also resulted in settlement
of accounts rapidly and giving way to outflow
of contributions, as many of exiting members
do not come back under coverage profile due
to low statutory ceiling of wages.
-
The Employees’ Provident Fund Organization
(EPFO), of late, has taken a decision not to
allow interest on those accounts in which no
contributions have been received for last 36
months. This has been done with a view to
dissuade the ex-members to consider this
social security scheme as Investment Avenue.
With obvious exit of such members, this may
further erode the deposit base.
-
Reflecting the impact of the above factors, the
contributions received in the Employees’
Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, Employees’
Pension Scheme, 1995 and Employees’
Deposit-Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976
framed under the EPF & MP Act, 1952, have
been decelerating over the years as evident
from the table below:
(` Crore) |
Name of Scheme |
2005-06 |
2006-07 |
2007-08 |
2008-09 |
2009-10 |
EPF, 1952 |
11,793 |
14,414 |
18,782 |
23,247 |
26,558 |
EPS, 1995 |
6,885 |
8,051 |
9,012 |
10,488 |
10,925 |
EDLI, 1976 |
221 |
251 |
308 |
368 |
423 |
-
The share of claims on Government, which largely
reflect Small Savings, which had picked up over
the years, particularly during the first half of
2000s, declined during the second half largely in
response to the unchanged (administered) interest
rates on Small Savings since 2003-04. In fact,
households disinvested their holdings of Small
Savings during 2007-08 and 2008-09.
-
The share of shares and debentures in the gross
financial assets of households has remained quite
small (less than 10 per cent, on an average), even
though it increased sharply during the (early)
1990s, spurred by the reforms in the capital
market. Subsequently, the share of shares and
debentures started declining ---- largely reflecting
stock market conditions impacted by irregularities
and the downturn in industrial activity ---- and was
placed at less than 3 per cent in the first half of
2000s. The share of ‘shares & debentures’ picked
up very sharply during 2005-06 to 2007-08 largely
coinciding with the high growth phase and
buoyant stock market trends, but then plummeted
in 2008-09 in the face of knock-on effects of the
global financial crisis; on the average, however,
the share of shares and debentures improved
during the second half of 2000s.
-
Contrasting movements were observed in the
shares of bank deposits and shares and debentures
in the households’ gross financial assets till
around the first half of 2000s, indicative of
households’ perception of substitutability
between the two instruments in the allocation of
their financial savings. In the second half of 2000s,
however, the average shares of both the
instruments increased sharply in response to the
very buoyant economic conditions, pick up in
primary market activity (in the case of shares and
debentures) and increase in deposit rates (in the
case of bank deposits), and disinvestment of Small
Savings holdings by households during 2007-09.
-
The share of Units of UTI, Mutual Funds, etc has
generally been small and these turned negative
during 2000s. Trade debt (net) has been negligible.
-
In sum, bank deposits continue to account for the
predominant share of gross financial savings of the households and their share has increased
sharply during the second half of 2000s. The share
of Life Insurance Funds has also increased
progressively over the years. Provident and
Pension Funds, non-banking deposits, claims on
Government and currency have lost momentum
over the years. Shares and debentures constitute
a relatively small portion of household financial
savings, even though their share has picked up in
the recent period.
Gross Financial Liabilities of the Household
2.16 Advances from banks have remained the largest
component of the financial liabilities of households;
their share had dipped during the 1990s, but picked up
subsequently (Table 5). The shares of loans from other
financial institutions, Government and cooperative
non-credit societies have, on the other hand, declined
in recent years; in fact, the shares of loans from the
latter two institutions have become negligible.
2.17 The Central Statistics Office released the Quick
Estimates of national income aggregates for 2010-11 on
end-January 2011; data for some of the past years were
also revised. As per the updated information, the
household savings rate touched a record high of 25.4
per cent in 2009-10, largely reflecting substantial
increase in life insurance funds (under the financial
savings component). The attainment of the record
household savings rate in 2009-10 occurred despite a
sharp fall in the rate of physical savings. The household
savings rate, however, declined to 22.8 per cent in the
following year i.e. 2010-11. In this context, based on preliminary estimates, the RBI’s Annual Report for
2010-11 that was released in August 2011, had
explained, ‘……The decline in the net financial savings
rate of the household sector reflected the slower growth
in households’ savings in bank deposits and life
insurance fund as well as an absolute decline in
investment in shares and debentures, mainly driven
by redemption of mutual fund units. Even so, there
was a shift in favour of small savings and currency
during the year. Households’ financial liabilities,
however, increased reflecting higher borrowings from
commercial banks. Notwithstanding the pick-up in the
real GDP growth rate during 2010-11, persistently high
inflation, relatively slower adjustment of bank deposit
rates and the volatility in the Indian equity market
impacted by global macroeconomic uncertainties,
affected the level and composition of net financial
savings of the household sector.” (Para II.1.7)
Table 5: Composition of Gross Financial Liabilities |
(per cent) |
Period |
Advances
from
Banks |
Loan &
Advances
from
Other FIs |
Loan &
Advances
from
Govern-
ment |
Loan &
Advances from
Cooperative
Non-Credit
Societies |
Change
in GFL |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
1970s |
81.6 |
8.2 |
8.4 |
1.8 |
100.0 |
1980s |
86.2 |
7.4 |
4.2 |
2.1 |
100.0 |
1990s |
79.1 |
15.5 |
3.6 |
1.9 |
100.0 |
2000s |
90.6 |
8.4 |
0.8 |
0.2 |
100.0 |
2000-05 |
85.8 |
12.3 |
1.4 |
0.5 |
100.0 |
2005-11 |
95.5 |
4.2 |
-0.1 |
0.1 |
100.0 |
2.18 Tentative estimates, based on data available upto
early August 2011, indicated that household financial
savings in 2011-12 are likely to be around one
percentage point higher than that in the previous year.
The expected increase in the household savings rate is
largely on account of the increase in deposit rates and
the robust turnaround in mutual funds. With the
increase in bank deposits rates, the growth rate of bank
deposits has also increased while that of currency has
declined. At the same time, the moderation in the
growth rate of the construction sector during the first
half of 2011-12, is perhaps early indication of a decline
in the savings of the households in physical assets. On
the whole, therefore, the household savings rate may
change marginally.
Outlook for Select Instruments of Household
Sector Savings
Bank Deposits
2.19 In recent years, banks have moved to the Core
Banking platform which has enabled them to offer a
range of value-added products to customers across
geographies and across all sections, on a real time basis
24x7, which has enhanced the attractiveness of bank
deposits. Moreover, against the backdrop of financial
sector reforms and financial inclusion, supported by favourable demographic pattern, bank deposits would
continue to be one of the key drivers of the household
financial savings during the Twelfth Five Year Plan
period.
Life Insurance Funds
2.20 Given the changes in policy with regard to ULIP,
there has been a sharp fall in the life fund segment in
2010-11. The progressive withdrawal of tax incentives
have also impacted on the overall insurance segment.
Going forward, however, the increasing penetration of
insurance activity could increase the share of life
insurance in total financial savings of households.
Provident Funds
2.21 Since contributions to Employees’ Provident Fund
is mandatory only with respect to monthly incomes
below ` 6,500, the recent trends in terms of number
of participants and their contributions indicated the
prospects in respect of this instrument are dim,
notwithstanding a very high rate of tax-free return.
Prospects are likely to improve only after a couple of
years once the proposal to increase the monthly income
ceiling for mandatory contributions to `15,000 is
accepted and implemented.
Shares and Debentures
2.22 The Indian Securities market is growing rapidly
with introduction of new products and processes.
During the first five years of the current decade,
resource mobilisation from the primary market has
increased. In the next five years, the tempo continued
at a faster pace until the global financial crisis affected
the market. However, the trend in resource mobilisation
in the post-crisis period signals a quick recovery. Gross
resource mobilisation in mutual funds has also gone
up at an accelerated rate in the current decade, though
net resource mobilisation has shown a volatile trend.
Asset under management has also increased during
this period, except the fall in the crisis-affected year
2008-09 and in 2010-11. The number of investors in
the country has also increased manifold. At present,
India is the second fastest growing country in the world
next to China. With increase in per capita income, the
households are left with more investible resources. The increase in number of investors is reflected in the
increase in the value of shares settled in demat format.
Besides, the Securities and Exchange Board of India
(SEBI) is trying to improve the transparency in the
market with better regulations, efficient surveillance
of the market and better availability of information to
the investors. Investor education workshops are being
conducted all over the country. Looking at the past
trend of Indian securities market, which has witnessed
remarkable growth in the last two decades, it may be
conjectured that in next five years the expansion will
continue at a faster pace with more investors
participating in the securities market in India.
Physical Savings
2.23 The trend particularly since the late 1990s is that
households are investing substantially in the acquisition
of physical assets. Within physical assets, households
are now investing more in construction activities. These
trends are expected to continue.
Section III: Household Sector Savings
3.1 Against the backdrop of the review of the trends
in the level and composition of household savings as
well the outlook for select instruments of household
savings, this Section discusses the estimation
methodology and projection of household saving over
the Twelfth Plan.
Considerations Underlying the Estimation
Methodology
3.2 The Working Group first considered the different
estimation methodologies and projections of household
savings contained in the Sub-Group Report. It was noted
that the Sub-Group had decided to pool (i.e. take the
average of) the projections generated by (a) regressionbased
estimates of elasticities of broad categories of
household savings (i.e. Gross Financial Assets, Physical
Assets and Gross Financial Liabilities); (b) an estimated
household savings function with real GDP growth and
inflation as determinants and (c) an ARIMA model on
the household savings rate. The Sub-Group had,
however, not taken into account the projections that
were obtained from regression-based estimates of
elasticities of individual instruments of household
savings in the computed average. This was because this approach implicitly assumed the persistence of past
(long-term) trends for each instrument over the
projection period. Given the limitations in the
household savings data as well as the sharp year-to-year
changes that have occurred in the composition of
household financial savings, the Sub-Group felt that
the instrument-wise elasticity approach was unlikely
to appropriately capture the evolving medium term
scenario; this was endorsed by the Working Group.
3.3 The Working Group, however, felt that even the
afore-mentioned pooling of the projections of the
household savings rate obtained through the three
approaches was likely to have some upward bias. This
was primarily because econometric estimation
underlying approaches (a), (b) and (c) above were each
based on long period (30-year i.e. from 1980-81 to 2009-
10) data on different variables, which is considered to
be a minimum requirement for statistical tests of
significance. The Working Group noted in this context
that the Sub-Group had also worked out rolling
regressions over different time periods under approach
(a), so as to capture changes in elasticities, but in each
case, the time span of estimation was thirty years. It
was felt that projections based on such long period data,
notwithstanding their statistical robustness, were
unlikely to fully capture the dynamics of more recent
and evolving trends, being as these were, weighted by
the ‘memory’ of past data. In essence, a good statistical
fit may not necessarily generate good out-of-sample
forecasts, particularly when recent or evolving
tendencies diverge from the long-term trend.
3.4 Accordingly, the Working Group adopted a
different approach for the projection of household
savings. In this context, annual and three-year moving
averages thereof of the elasticity of household savings
with respect to GDP at current market prices were
obtained from 1981-82 onwards (Chart 6).
3.5 It is evident from the Chart above that the annual
and the three-year moving average of the elasticity of
household savings have not shown a stable trend over
the years. In fact, the three-year moving average of the
elasticity has generally declined after 2000-01,
coinciding with the near-stability in the household
savings rate, notwithstanding fairly high real GDP growth rates over this period4. The general reduction
in the elasticity of household savings over the past
decade or so seems to reflect the tendency of increases
in income to be progressively associated with the
entrenchment of lifestyles/household consumption
levels, facilitated, in part, by the easier availability of
credit and improvement in domestic macroeconomic
conditions. Furthermore, persistently high inflation, as
was evident recently, has tended to pull down the
savings rate, as households attempt to maintain their
real consumption levels. Moreover, as alluded to in
Section II in the context of the year 2010-11, if nominal
interest rates on some financial assets do not keep pace
with inflation, households may reallocate their savings
towards other assets, such as, physical assets or
valuables such as gold (which is not part of household
savings).
|
Projections during the Twelfth Plan
3.6 Against this backdrop, the Working Group decided
to use the latest three- year moving average (2008-09
to 2010-11) of the elasticity of household savings for
obtaining projections over the Twelfth Plan; this average
worked out to 1.14. The projections of household savings for the three scenarios of real GDP growth and
inflation (and the implied growth rate of GDP at current
market prices) turn out to be near-identical and thus
the common set of projections is set out in Table 6.
Table 6: Projections of Household savings Rate (in per cent of GDP) |
|
2011-12 |
2012-13 |
2013-14 |
2014-15 |
2015-16 |
2016-17 |
12th Plan Average |
Household savings rate |
23.2 |
23.6 |
24.0 |
24.4 |
24.8 |
25.2 |
24.4 |
3.7 It is evident that the projected household savings
rate increases from 23.2 per cent in 2011-12 to 25.2 per
cent in 2016-17, giving an average of 24.4 per cent
during the Twelfth Plan.
3.8 The Working Group considered the impact of
demographic factors on household savings. One
approach was to assess the possible effect of the
differential savings propensity across the age-profile of
the chief earner of the household. In this context, an
NCAER-Max New York Life Study (2007) [henceforth,
the NCAER Survey (2007)] provided some insights. The
Study showed, on the basis of a survey conducted in
2005 that the average savings per household in India
increased with the age of its chief earner, till the latter
attained the age of 65 years (Table A). This increase in savings was attributed to the growing need for old-age
financial security, apart from the general increase in
savings with (working) age.
Table A: Average Annual Saving per Household |
Age of Chief Earner of Household (in years) |
Average Annual Savings per Household (in Rupees) |
Less than 25 |
8,515 |
26-35 |
13,465 |
36-45 |
15,522 |
46-55 |
20,444 |
56-65 |
21,196 |
More than 65 |
17,011 |
Average |
16,1395 |
Source: Max Life New York - NCAER Survey (2007) |
Table B: Projected Age-structure of Population in India |
Age-Group
(in years) |
Percentage of population in that age-group |
Variation of 2016 over 2011 (percentage points) |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
2016 |
Less than 25 |
48.9 |
48.9 |
48.4 |
47.9 |
47.4 |
46.9 |
-2.1 |
25-34 |
16.2 |
16.2 |
16.3 |
16.3 |
16.4 |
16.4 |
+0.2 |
35-44 |
12.8 |
12.8 |
12.9 |
13.0 |
13.1 |
13.2 |
+0.4 |
45-54 |
9.8 |
9.8 |
9.9 |
10.0 |
10.1 |
10.2 |
+0.4 |
55-64 |
6.6 |
6.6 |
6.8 |
6.9 |
7.1 |
7.2 |
+0.6 |
Above 64 |
5.7 |
5.7 |
5.8 |
5.9 |
6.0 |
6.1 |
+0.5 |
Total |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
Source: UNSTAT |
3.9 The results of the NCAER Survey imply that if the
composition of the Indian population shifts in favour
of higher (working) age groups, household savings
would increase. The projected age-structure of India’s
population over the Twelfth Plan period, as given by
the United Nations database, is set out in Table B.
3.10 It may be observed that the age-groupings in the
UN database are almost identical to that of the NCAER
Survey. Furthermore, over the period 2011-2016, the
share of population in the ‘less than 25 years’ age group
is estimated to decline by 2.1 percentage points, while
it would increase in the case of each of the other agegroups.
The maximum increase of 0.6 percentage points
occurs in the case of the age-group 55-64 years, which
coincides with the age group of the chief earner of the
households whose average savings was found to be the
highest in the NCAER Survey. Thus, the impact of the
projected age structure of the Indian population over
the Twelfth Plan is expected to be positive on overall
household savings.
3.11 While the direction of the impact of the projected
age structure of population on household savings is
evident, quantifying the impact would require
assumptions about the evolution of income and the
number of households across each age group. But, in
any case, the impact of demographic factors would have
been captured under the real GDP growth rate.
Moreover, as the Sub-Group on Household sector
savings has observed, the dependency ratio is likely to
be negatively correlated with the income variables and, thus, the inclusion of both dependency ratio and
income variables as determinants of household savings
in the same equation would entail multicollinearity
problems. The Sub-Group, in fact, found that when real
GDP growth was regressed on the dependency ratio for
the period 1980-81 to 2009-10, the coefficient of the
dependency ratio turned out to be (-) 0.47, which was
statistically significant. Thus, the Working Group
concluded that the positive impact of demography was
already captured in the growth rate of real GDP which
was taken as one of the major determinants of
household savings rate in India.
3.12 The Working Group was also required to provide
estimates of the components of household savings, in
accordance with its Terms of Reference. Taking the
projections of household savings as set out in Table 6,
the components of household savings are worked out
by applying their respective average shares during the
period 2005-06 to 2007-08 i.e. period of over 9 per cent
real GDP growth just prior to the onset of the global
financial crisis. These projections are presented in the
Table 7.
Section IV: Private Corporate Sector
Savings
4.1 The private corporate sector comprises (i) nongovernment
non-financial companies, (ii) non-banking
financial companies in the private sector (iii) commercial
banks and insurance companies working in private
sector, (iv) co-operative banks, credit societies and noncredit
societies, and (v) non-profit corporate institutions.
The first three groups are also together referred to as
joint stock companies.
Table 7: Baseline Projection of the Components of Household Savings over the Twelfth Plan |
(As per cent of GDP at current market prices) |
|
|
2011-12 |
2012-13 |
2013-14 |
2014-15 |
2015-16 |
2016-17 |
Average XII Plan |
1 |
Currency |
1.6 |
1.6 |
1.6 |
1.7 |
1.7 |
1.7 |
1.7 |
2 |
Bank deposits |
8.6 |
8.8 |
8.9 |
9.1 |
9.2 |
9.4 |
9.1 |
3 |
Non- banking deposits |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
4 |
Life insurance fund |
2.9 |
2.9 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
3.1 |
3.1 |
3.0 |
5 |
Provident and pension fund |
1.7 |
1.7 |
1.7 |
1.8 |
1.8 |
1.8 |
1.8 |
6 |
Claims on Government |
0.8 |
0.8 |
0.8 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
7 |
Shares & debentures |
1.2 |
1.3 |
1.3 |
1.3 |
1.3 |
1.3 |
1.3 |
8 |
Gross Financial Assets (1 to 7) |
16.8 |
17.1 |
17.4 |
17.6 |
17.9 |
18.2 |
17.6 |
9 |
Gross Financial Liabilities |
5.1 |
5.2 |
5.3 |
5.4 |
5.5 |
5.5 |
5.4 |
10 |
Net Financial Savings (8 – 9) |
11.7 |
11.9 |
12.1 |
12.3 |
12.5 |
12.7 |
12.3 |
11 |
Physical Savings |
11.5 |
11.7 |
11.9 |
12.1 |
12.3 |
12.5 |
12.1 |
12 |
Household total Savings (10+11) |
23.2 |
23.6 |
24.0 |
24.4 |
24.8 |
25.2 |
24.4 |
4.2 Retained profits of the private corporate sector
adjusted for non-operating surplus/ deficit is considered
as its net saving. Retained profits are those which are
ploughed back into business after making commitments
to depreciation provision for various fixed assets, debts
(in the form of interest payments), government (tax
provisions) and to share-holders (dividends). Nonoperating
surplus/ deficit (NOP) comprises (a) profit/
loss on account of sale of fixed assets and investments,
(b) provisions no longer required written back, (c)
insurance claims realized and (d) income or expenditure
relating to the previous years and such other items of
non-current nature. Depreciation provision (DEP) at
book value, as provided in the profit/loss account, is
added to the net saving to obtain the gross saving (GS).
4.3 Among the constituents of the private corporate
sector, joint stock companies (financial and nonfinancial) accounted for more than 90 per cent of the
private corporate sector saving in the current decade
and their share reached about 95 per cent in the latter
half of the decade. Correspondingly, share of the
cooperative banks and societies including a few nonprofit corporate institutions steadily decreased from
7.8 per cent in 2004-05 to 6.3 per cent in 2006-07 and
further to 5.0 per cent in 2009-10. Within joint stock
companies, the share of non-financial companies
remained at the level of 95 per cent while the financial
companies, covering private banks and insurance
companies, and non-banking financial companies
accounted for the remaining 5 per cent.
Methodology of estimation
4.4 The saving estimates of the private corporate
sector were worked out using (a) ratio and (b) regression
approaches. Under the ratio approach, savings were
estimated for the three broad segments of the sector
separately: For (i) non-financial companies, sales
growth, the most important determinant of their
saving, was estimated first and assuming certain ratios,
retained profits out of generated sales were worked
out. For (ii) NBFCs and (iii) banks, insurance companies,
cooperative banks/societies and other quasi-corporate
bodies, the past trends in growth and ratios were
applied. On the other hand, in the regression approach,
a gross savings function for the private corporate sector
was estimated and then used for projections. Within
this approach, two variants were used viz., (i) simple
linear regression and (ii) linear spline trend regression.
(A) Ratio Approach
(i) Non-Financial Companies
4.5 The sales growth of sample non-financial
companies as a group was first regressed on real GDP
growth and inflation over the period 1980-81 to 2009-
10. The estimation revealed that the coefficients of real
GDP growth and inflation were positive and statistically
significant. The different scenarios for real GDP growth
and inflation during the Twelfth Plan were then used
to obtain the projected sales growth for sample nonfinancial companies as a group. The projected gross and
net savings of sample non-financial companies were then obtained by applying the assumed ratios set out
in Table 8.
4.6 The implied annual growth rates of gross/net
saving of the sample non-financial companies over the
Twelfth Plan were then applied to the actual ‘population’
of the gross/net saving of non-financial companies for
2009-10 (i.e. data for the latest available year), to obtain
projected overall saving of non-financial joint stock
companies.
4.7 A similar exercise was conducted by differentiating
between manufacturing and non-manufacturing
companies within non-financial joint stock companies.
Accordingly, the sales growth of sample manufacturing
and non-manufacturing companies were separately
regressed on real GDP growth and inflation. As in the
case of all companies, the estimated coefficients of real
GDP growth and inflation were found to be positive
and statistically significant for both manufacturing and
non-manufacturing companies. The projected growth
rates of sales of manufacturing and non-manufacturing
companies over the Twelfth Plan were obtained across
the different scenarios. Then, the assumed ratios (as
set out in the previous Table) were applied to obtain
the gross/net savings of the sample manufacturing and
non-manufacturing companies. Finally, the gross saving
of sample manufacturing and non-manufacturing
companies were aggregated to obtain the implied
annual growth rates which were applied to the latest
available aggregate saving of non-financial joint stock
companies, as before.
(ii) Non- Bank Financial Companies
4.8 It was observed that the gross savings of this
segment had fluctuated substantially, from more than 100 per cent to a negative of 50 per cent in different
years. Based on a conservative estimate, the annual rate
of growth of savings of the NBFC sector was assumed
at 25 per cent during the Twelfth Plan period.
Table 8: Assumptions regarding Financial Ratios of Non-Financial Companies |
Ratios |
All
Companies |
Manufacturing
Companies |
Non-
manufacturing
Companies |
Profit Before Tax (PBT)-to- Sales |
11% |
10% |
11.5% |
Tax Provision-to-PBT |
25% |
|
(same as in the first four years of the Eleventh Plan) |
Dividend Payout Ratio |
25% |
25% |
25% |
Non-Operating Surplus-to-Sales |
0.9% |
0.9% |
1.0% |
Depreciation-to-Sales |
|
4% |
5% |
(iii) Commercial Banks, Insurance Companies,
Cooperative Banks/ Societies and Other Quasi-
Corporate Bodies
4.9 The contribution of private commercial banks,
non-life insurance companies, cooperative banks/
societies and other quasi-corporate bodies in gross
saving of the private corporate sector is quite small.
Accordingly, the projections of savings of this segment
over the Twelfth Plan period were based on recent
trends. In this connection, it was noted that (a) as per
the latest data released by CSO for the period up to
2009-10, the gross saving of private commercial banks
increased at an annual average rate of about 40 per cent
between 2005-06 and 2007-08 but then decelerated in
the next two years; (b) some more banks may be
licensed in the private sector in the near future; and
(c) the private insurance sector has immense growth
potential. Accordingly, the growth rates of gross savings
of the different constituents of this segment that were
assumed for the Twelfth Plan period are set out in the
Table 9.
4.10 It may be, however, mentioned that the overall
saving of the private corporate sector has very low
sensitivity towards the assumed growth rates of this
segment.
(B) Regression Approach
(i) Simple Linear Regression
4.11 The private corporate sector savings rate was
regressed on a number of explanatory variables such
as real GDP growth, inflation and capital market development for the period 1980-81 to 2009-10. The
sharp jump in the private corporate saving rate after
2004-05 was captured through a time dummy.
Table 9: Assumptions regarding Rates of growth of Gross Savings of Financial Companies |
Constituents |
Annual Growth Rates of Gross Savings |
1. Commercial Banks, Insurance Companies |
25 per cent |
2. Cooperative Banks/Societies and Other Quasi-Corporate Bodies |
12 per cent |
3. Financial and Investment Companies |
25 per cent |
Explanatory variables |
Estimate |
Constant |
1.60* |
Inflation |
-0.08* |
Real GDP Growth (Previous Year) |
0.12* |
Capital Market Development Index |
0.06* |
Year dummy
(which takes value 1 from the year 2004-05 onwards) |
1.36* |
* Denotes significance. |
4.12 The results showed that all the explanatory
variables were statistically significant. The coefficient
of inflation was found to be negative which reflected
its adverse impact on the savings of the private
corporate sector. The estimated equation was used to
obtain projections of the private corporate savings rate
over the Twelfth Plan. In this context, besides the
alternative scenarios on growth rates of real GDP and
inflation rates, market capitalization was assumed to
grow at annual rates of 15 per cent for real GDP growth
rates of 8.0 per cent and 8.5 per cent and at 18 per cent
for real GDP growth of 9.0 per cent during the Twelfth
Plan period.
(ii) Linear Spline Regression
4.13 In this approach, the sharp jump (‘acceleration’)
in the savings rate of the private corporate sector from
2004-05 was captured by specifying differential slope
coefficients (instead of a time dummy). The results of
the regression indeed find a statistically significant
higher slope coefficient after 2003-04. The coefficient
of inflation, though negative, is not found to be
statistically significant. Projections of the private
corporate savings rate were obtained accordingly.
Explanatory variables |
Estimate |
Constant |
0.29 |
Basic Trend |
0.10* |
Acceleration |
0.22* |
Inflation |
-0.03 |
Growth (Previous Year) |
0.14* |
Capital Market Development Index |
0.04* |
* Denotes significance. |
Projections during the Twelfth Plan
4.14 The projections of the private corporate savings
rate over the Twelfth Plan based on the four approaches
under the three alternative scenarios are set out in the
Table 10.
4.15 The following are evident from the above Table:
-
Within the ratio approach, the disaggregated
method provides marginally higher savings
rates;
-
Within the regression approach, the linear
spline method provides higher savings rates;
these projections are also higher than those
obtained under the ratio approach;
-
The lowest savings rate is obtained in the
linear regression approach, under scenario III;
and
-
The highest savings rate is obtained in the
linear spline approach under all the three scenarios. This is contingent on the persistence
of ‘acceleration’ during the Twelfth Plan
period.
Table 10: Projections of Private Corporate Savings
(as per cent of GDP) |
|
Scenario |
I |
II |
III |
Model |
Growth |
8.5% |
9.0% |
8.0% |
Inflation |
5.0% |
5.0% |
6.0% |
Year |
|
|
|
Ratio Approach – |
2012-13 |
8.4 |
8.4 |
8.4 |
Sales Growth for All Companies |
2013-14 |
8.6 |
8.7 |
8.6 |
2014-15 |
8.9 |
9.0 |
8.8 |
2015-16 |
9.1 |
9.3 |
9.0 |
2016-17 |
9.4 |
9.7 |
9.2 |
Ratio Approach – |
2012-13 |
8.4 |
8.4 |
8.4 |
Sales Growth for Manf and non-Manf Companies |
2013-14 |
8.7 |
8.7 |
8.6 |
2014-15 |
9.0 |
9.1 |
8.9 |
2015-16 |
9.3 |
9.5 |
9.1 |
2016-17 |
9.6 |
9.9 |
9.4 |
Model |
Scenario |
I |
II |
III |
Regression Approach – |
2012-13 |
8.4 |
8.6 |
8.3 |
Least Squares Method |
2013-14 |
8.5 |
8.9 |
8.3 |
2014-15 |
8.6 |
9.1 |
8.4 |
2015-16 |
8.6 |
9.3 |
8.4 |
2016-17 |
8.7 |
9.4 |
8.4 |
Regression Approach – |
2012-13 |
9.8 |
10.0 |
9.7 |
Spline Regression Method |
2013-14 |
10.2 |
10.5 |
10.1 |
2014-15 |
10.6 |
11.0 |
10.4 |
2015-16 |
10.9 |
11.4 |
10.7 |
2016-17 |
11.3 |
11.8 |
11.1 |
4.16 The Working Group considered the projections
obtained via all the four approaches and felt that the
simple linear regression approach is likely to best
capture the evolution of private corporate savings
during the Twelfth Plan. The year dummy in simple
linear regression model appropriately portrays the
sharp jump in private corporate savings after 2003-04.
Moreover, the signs and statistical significance of the
estimated coefficients of the explanatory variables in
the model corroborate the trends in the private
corporate savings rate in recent years in line with high
real GDP growth rate and declining or stable inflation
rate (Chart 7). In the ratio approach, on the other hand,
while the impact of real GDP growth on the private
corporate savings rate was stronger than in the simple
linear regression model, the inflation rate was also
found to be a positive contributory factor. The spline
regression also captured the sharp jump in the
corporate savings rate after 2003-04, but the drag of the
inflation rate was not found to be statistically
significant.
4.17 Thus, the simple linear regression model seems
to best encapsulate the impact of different factors. The
projections of this model indicate that the private corporate savings rate would range between 8.3 per
cent and 9.4 per cent under alternative scenarios in the
terminal year of the Twelfth Plan.
Section V: Public Sector Savings
5.1 In accordance with its terms of reference, the
Working Group made projections of public sector’s draft
on private savings and public sector’s savings over the
Twelfth Plan period. The public sector comprises the
Central Government, State Governments, Central Public
Sector Undertakings (CPSUs) and State Level Public
Enterprises (SLPEs). Public sector’s draft on private
savings comprises (a) Gross Fiscal deficit (GFD) of
Central Government and Governments of States/UTs
taken together, (b) Extra Budgetary Resources (EBR) of
CPSUs and SLPEs and (c) Disinvestments. Of these, the
Gross fiscal Deficit (GFD) is the major component. The
public sector’s savings comprise: (i) (Central and State)
Government savings and (ii) savings generated by the
public sector undertakings in the form of internal
resources (IR).
Considerations on the evolving fiscal path
5.2 The Working Group noted that the annual average
combined (Centre and States) fiscal deficit during the
first four years of the Eleventh Plan is estimated at 7.3
per cent of the GDP; of this, the GFD of the Centre is
placed at 5 per cent of GDP and that of the States at 2.4
per cent of GDP (Table 11). The average revenue deficit
of the Centre and States are placed at 3.5 per cent of
GDP and -0.04 per cent of GDP, respectively. While the
revenue account of the States as a whole has improved
substantially, the Centre’s revenue deficit continues to
be an area of concern.
5.3 Going forward, the Working Group considered (a)
the fiscal roadmap envisaged by the Thirteenth Finance
Commission, particularly because the first three years
(2012-13 to 2014-15) of the Twelfth Plan overlap with
the last three years of the award period of the
Thirteenth Finance Commission; and (b) the targets for
fiscal and revenue deficits of the Central Government
for 2012-13 and 2013-14 (i.e. the first two years of the
Twelfth Plan) as set in the Medium Term Fiscal Policy
Statement (MTFPS) presented along with the Union
Budget 2011-12.
Table 11: Key Deficit Indicators during Eleventh Five Year Plan – (2007-12) |
(as per cent of GDP) |
|
2006-07 |
2007-08 |
2008-09 |
2009-10 |
2010-11 |
2011-12 |
Average (2008-11) |
Centre |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross Fiscal Deficit |
3.3 |
2.5 |
6.0 |
6.4 |
5.1 |
4.6 |
5.0 |
Revenue deficit |
1.9 |
1.1 |
4.5 |
5.2 |
3.4 |
3.4 |
3.5 |
States |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross Fiscal Deficit |
1.8 |
1.5 |
2.4 |
3.3 |
2.5 |
2.0 |
2.4 |
Revenue deficit |
- 0.4 |
-1.0 |
-0.2 |
0.7 |
0.3 |
-0.3 |
-0.04 |
Combined |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross Fiscal Deficit |
5.0 |
3.9 |
8.3 |
9.6 |
7.6 |
6.5 |
7.3 |
Revenue deficit |
1.5 |
0.1 |
4.3 |
5.9 |
3.7 |
3.1 |
3.5 |
5.4 According to the Thirteenth Finance Commission
the fiscal deficit of the Central Government should be
brought down to 3 per cent of GDP by 2013-14 and
maintained at that level in the subsequent year and the
Centre’s revenue deficit (RD) should be progressively
reduced and eliminated, followed by the emergence of
revenue surplus by 2014-15. As far as the fiscal path
of the State Governments is concerned, the Thirteenth
Finance Commission made the following
recommendations:
(a) States that incurred zero revenue deficit or
achieved revenue surplus in 2007-08 should
eliminate revenue deficit by 2011-12 and maintain
revenue balance or attain a surplus thereafter.
Other States to eliminate revenue deficit by 2014-15;
(b) The general category States that attained a zero
revenue deficit or a revenue surplus in 2007-08
should achieve a fiscal deficit of 3 per cent of GSDP
by 2011-12 and maintain such thereafter. Other
general category States to achieve 3 per cent fiscal
deficit by 2013-14;
(c) All special category States with base fiscal deficit
of less than 3 per cent of GSDP in 2007-08 could
incur a fiscal deficit of 3 per cent in 2011-12 and
maintain thereafter. Manipur, Nagaland, Sikkim
and Uttarakhand to reduce their fiscal deficit to 3
per cent of GSDP by 2013-14; and
(d) Jammu & Kashmir and Mizoram should limit their
fiscal deficit to 3 per cent of GSDP by 2014-15.
5.5 For the consolidated position of the State
Governments, the Thirteenth Finance Commission’s
recommendation translates into a fiscal deficit target
of 2.4 per cent of GDP in 2013-14 and 2014-15, given
the difference between the sum of GSDPs on the one
hand and GDP on the other. The Commission’s
envisaged roadmap for the revenue and fiscal deficits
of the Central and State Governments is set out below:
(per cent of GDP) |
|
2011-12 |
2012-13 |
2013-14 |
2014-15 |
Centre’s Revenue Deficit |
2.3 |
1.2 |
0.0 |
-0.5 |
Centre’s GFD |
4.8 |
4.2 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
States’ GFD |
2.5 |
2.5 |
2.4 |
2.4 |
5.6 On the other hand, the rolling targets of the
revenue and fiscal deficits of the Centre as set out in
the MTFPS 2011-12 are as follows:
(per cent of GDP) |
|
2011-12 (BE) |
2012-13 |
2013-14 |
Centre’s Revenue Deficit |
3.4 |
2.7 |
2.1 |
Centre’s Effective Revenue Deficit |
1.8 |
1.1 |
0.5 |
Centre’s GFD |
4.6 |
4.1 |
3.5 |
5.7 It is evident that the MTFPS target for the Centre’s
revenue deficit for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14 are
higher than those envisaged by the Thirteenth Finance
Commission. In this context, the Centre’s Fiscal Policy
Strategy Statement 2011-12 acknowledged the
difficulties in achieving a revenue surplus for the
Centre within the time frame envisaged by the Thirteenth Finance Commission. These difficulties
arise due to the fact that a substantial portion of the
Centre’s revenue expenditure includes releases (i.e.
grants, mainly under Plan heads) made to States and
other implementing agencies for implementing
Government schemes are largely for the creation of
durable assets even though such assets are not owned
by the Centre6. Accounting for such grants that are made
for the creation of capital assets and recognizing the
importance of such expenditures for the growth of the
economy, the MTFPS envisaged the elimination of the
Centre’s effective revenue deficit (rather than the
revenue deficit) in the medium term.
5.8 The MTFPS target for the Centre’s fiscal deficit is
lower than that of the Finance Commission for 2012-13
but higher in 2013-14, reflecting different assumptions
regarding disinvestment proceeds.
5.9 The Working Group acknowledged the difficulties
highlighted by the MTFPS in reducing the revenue
deficit at the pace envisaged by the Thirteenth Finance
Commission, keeping in mind the overall growth
objectives in the medium term. Apart from the fact that
following the cessation of Central loans to States since
2005-06, Central assistance to States for Plan purposes
has a predominant revenue component, a sizable part
of Centre’s Plan expenditure is revenue-loaded. Within
Non-Plan expenditure, interest payments, the salary
outgo in respect of both civil and defence employees
and ‘maintenance’ expenditures in respect of projects/
schemes initiated under the previous Plans, impart
downward rigidity to the Centre’s overall revenue
expenditure.
5.10 The Working Group noted that the difference
between the Centre’s fiscal deficit and revenue deficit,
as ratios to GDP, had hovered around 1.5 percentage
points since 2004-05 (i.e. since the enactment and
implementation of the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget
Management Act). Assuming that the entrenched
relationship between the Centre’s revenue deficit and
fiscal deficit persists over the Twelfth Plan would imply that only one of the two deficit measures could be taken
as the binding target. In case the revenue deficit is taken
as the binding target such that it declines to zero in
2013-14 in line with the Thirteenth Finance
Commission’s roadmap, the fiscal deficit would be
placed as low as 1.5 per cent of GDP in that year (and
not at 3.0 per cent). On the other hand, if the fiscal
deficit were to be taken as the binding target such that
it declines to 3.0 per cent of GDP in 2013-14 as per the
Thirteenth Finance Commission’s roadmap, the
revenue deficit would be placed at 1.5 per cent of GDP
in that year (and not be eliminated). The Working
Group, thus, noted that the Centre’s revenue and fiscal
deficit targets would be mutually consistent under the
MTFPS 2011-12, but not in the case of the roadmap
envisaged by the Thirteenth Finance Commission.
5.11 As far as the consolidated position of the State
Governments was concerned, the Working Group noted
that 28 State Governments had already enacted Fiscal
Responsibility Legislation. The consolidated GFD of the
State Governments had hovered around 2.5 per cent of
GDP in recent years (which was close to the target set
by the Thirteenth Finance Commission). In addition,
a revenue surplus was recorded for three consecutive
years i.e. 2006-07 to 2008-09 and the revenue deficit
for the following two years i.e. 2009-10 and 2010-11(RE)
was less than 0.5 per cent of GDP. Moreover, a revenue
surplus has been budgeted in 2011-12. In effect, the
fiscal roadmap envisaged by the Thirteenth Finance
Commission did not pose issues as far as the
consolidated position of the State Governments was
concerned.
Estimation Methodology
5.12 The Working Group adopted component-wise
projections of Central and State Government finances,
under different scenarios of real GDP growth and
inflation. The assumptions regarding the evolution of
budgetary variables are set out in the Table 12.
5.13 Acknowledging the structural relationship
between the fiscal deficit and the revenue deficit, the
revenue deficit was taken as the binding target for both
the Centre and the States. The Centre’s revenue deficit
is assumed to evolve in line with the MTFPS till
2013-14 and thereafter, assumed to decline annually by 0.5 to 0.6 per cent of GDP till 2016-17, the terminal
year of the Twelfth Plan; accordingly, in the terminal year, the Centre’s revenue deficit is placed at 0.6-0.7
per cent of GDP.
|
5.14 With the revenue deficit taken as the binding
target, plan expenditure (or gross budgetary support to
the Plan) is obtained as a residual in the case of both
Centre and States. The capital component of plan
expenditure is assumed to be fixed at 20 per cent during
the Twelfth Plan, which is higher than the average of
17 per cent during the Eleventh Plan. This is in
conformity with the recommendation of the Thirteenth
Finance Commission regarding an indicative ceiling on
overall transfer to States on the revenue account to be
set at 39.5 per cent of gross revenue receipts of the
Centre.
5.15 An important issue regarding State Plan financing
is that most of the Plan schemes and programmes at
the State level follow some non-flexible guidelines
under which it may be difficult for the States to change
the revenue capital mix of the Plan programmes. If the
States continue to be constrained with a fixed revenue
capital mix of 55:45 of Plan outlay (as in the Eleventh
Plan) during the Twelfth Plan then the GFD and RD of
the States would maintain a stable ratio. However, State
finances have improved substantially during the
Eleventh Plan with a realised surplus in the revenue
account. During the Twelfth Plan, the State finances
are expected to remain comfortable partly due to higher
resource transfer from the Centre due to implementation
of Thirteenth Finance Commission award. Therefore,
it is expected that States would be in a much better
position to mobilise higher Plan resources relative to
that of the Centre. All States together are expected to
mobilize at least 2 percentage points higher resources
than that realised during the Eleventh Plan.
5.16 Another issue relates to the impact of the losses
of State Electricity Boards (SEBs). The SEBs operate as
Departmental Undertakings in most of the States and,
therefore, their losses should form part of the budgets
of those State Governments. The State Government
budgets, however, do not include the SEB losses in their
Annual Financial Statements and, therefore, it is not
feasible to incorporate these losses into the budget
numbers to make any future projection of Government
finances. In this context, the report of the High Level
Panel on Financial Position of Distribution Utilities
(Chairman: Shri V.K. Shunglu), provides some insight.
The report provides an assessment of year-wise net losses that would be incurred over the period 2012-17
by SEBs of 15 States that account for 91 per cent of the
power consumption in the country. The net losses
aggregate around `27,000 crore in 2012-13 (0.3 per cent
of GDP) and are expected to decline gradually to about
`22,000 crore (0.1 per cent of GDP) in 2016-17. Even if
these losses are not reflected in the budget, these form
a definite liability of the State Governments and can
potentially reduce government savings. The year-wise
estimates of SEB losses, as per cent of GDP, over the
Twelfth Plan period are as under:
|
2011-12 |
2012-13 |
2013-14 |
2014-15 |
2015-16 |
2016-17 |
12th Plan Average |
Losses of SEBs (as per cent of GDP) |
-0.3 |
-0.3 |
-0.2 |
-0.2 |
-0.2 |
-0.1 |
-0.2 |
Extra-budgetary Resources (EBR) of PSUs
5.17 During the Eleventh Plan, the realised EBR of
CPSUs, as per the Union Budget documents, worked
out to be around 1.2 per cent of GDP. The same figure
is adopted for the Twelfth Plan projection.
Internal Resources of PSUs
5.18 Internal resources (IR) of PSUs increased more or
less steadily from around 3 per cent of GDP in 1990-91
to 4.1 per cent of GDP in 2004-05 and remained at about
4 per cent of GDP up to 2007-08. IR declined in 2008-09
and 2009-10 in the context of the global financial crisisled
economic slowdown. It is assumed that IR would
remain at the pre-crisis level of 4 per cent of GDP during
the Twelfth Plan.
Projections of Public Sector Savings and
Public Sector’s Draft on Private Savings
5.19 The results of the component-wise projections
exercise (for the terminal year of the Twelfth Plan) are
set out in the Table 13.
5.20 It can be seen from Table 13 that:
(i) The GFD and RD do not vary much across the three
scenarios mainly because the RD is set to evolve
in line with the MTFPS (for the Centre) and the
GFD and the RD are intrinsically related, as
explained earlier. The fiscal position of the States
is more comfortable than that of the Centre.
Table 13: Centre and States Combined Projections for Terminal Year of the Twelfth Plan* |
(per cent of GDP) |
|
|
Scenario I |
Scenario II |
Scenario III |
Growth Rate |
|
8.5 |
9.0 |
8.0 |
Inflation rate |
|
5.0 |
5.0 |
6.0 |
|
2011-12 |
2016-17 |
2016-17 |
2016-17 |
Centre |
|
|
|
|
GBS to Plan |
4.9 |
4.4 |
4.5 |
4.3 |
Fiscal Deficit |
4.6 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
Revenue Deficit |
3.4 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
States |
|
|
|
|
GBS to Plan |
4.9 |
6.9 |
7.1 |
6.7 |
Fiscal Deficit |
2.0 |
2.7 |
2.7 |
2.7 |
Revenue Deficit |
-0.3 |
-0.6 |
-0.7 |
-0.6 |
Combined |
|
|
|
|
GBS to Plan |
8.2 |
9.9 |
10.3 |
9.7 |
Fiscal Deficit |
6.4 |
4.6 |
4.6 |
4.5 |
Revenue Deficit |
3.1 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
* Excluding the impact of SEB losses. |
(ii) The projected combined budgetary position seems
to be quite comfortable in the sense that
Government would be in position to mobilise
larger resources for the Twelfth Plan while
containing the fiscal balance and revenue balance
position in line with the MTFPS targets. There
would be about 2 to 2.2 percentage point gain in
the resource mobilization in the terminal year
compared to the base year (2011-12).
Public Sector’s Draft on Private Savings
5.21 It may be recalled that public sector’s draft on
private savings is the sum of (a) Combined GFD, (b) EBR
of CPSUs and SLPEs and (c) Disinvestments. The
evolution of combined GFD over the Twelfth Plan is
given in the previous Table. EBR of PSUs is assumed at
1.2 per cent of GDP and disinvestment is assumed at
0.35 per cent of GDP. Taking into account SEB losses,
public sector’s draft on private savings during the
Twelfth Plan is, thus, estimated to be around 7.35 per
cent of GDP, on average.
Public Sector Savings
5.22 In the absence of an exact relationship between
the combined revenue deficit of the Government and
the Government savings, the latter could be estimated through the observed relationship between the two
variables over the past few years. On the basis of data
for the past few years, the gap between Government
savings and combined revenue deficit as percentage of
GDP at market prices is estimated as 1.2 percentage
points, on average. Government savings, unadjusted
for SEB losses, thus, works out to 1.1 per cent to 1.2
per cent of the GDP in the terminal year of the Twelfth
Plan under the three scenarios. The average Government
savings for the Twelfth Plan period could be marginally
negative at around (-) 0.3 per cent of GDP in all the
three scenarios. However, SEB losses also need to be
factored in, which implies a downward revision of
average Government savings for the Twelfth Plan to
around (-) 0.5 per cent of GDP.
Table 14: Public Sector’s Draft on Private Savings
for Twelfth Plan Under Alternative Growth Rate and
Inflation Scenarios |
(Annual average as percent of GDP) |
|
Scenario I |
Scenario II |
Scenario III |
Growth Rate |
8.5% |
9.0% |
8.0% |
Inflation rate |
5.0% |
5.0% |
6.0% |
Combined GFD |
5.6 |
5.6 |
5.6 |
Disinvestment |
0.35 |
0.35 |
0.35 |
EBR of PSUs |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
Losses of SEBs |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
Total Draft |
7.35 |
7.35 |
7.35 |
5.23 Public sector savings is given by the sum of
Government savings and the internal resources (IR) of
PSUs. It is assumed that IR of PSUs would remain at
the pre-crisis level of 4 per cent of GDP during the
Twelfth Plan. Accordingly, public sector savings are
projected to increase from around 1.8 per cent of GDP
in 2012-13 to around 5.0 per cent of GDP in 2016-17;
the average public sector savings during the Twelfth
Plan works out to around 3.5 per cent of GDP.
Table 15: Public Sector Savings |
(per cent of GDP) |
Scenario |
2011-12 |
2012-13 |
2013-14 |
2014-15 |
2015-16 |
2016-17 |
Plan Average |
I |
1.8 |
2.0 |
2.8 |
3.5 |
4.2 |
5.0 |
3.5 |
II |
1.8 |
1.9 |
2.9 |
3.6 |
4.3 |
5.0 |
3.5 |
III |
1.8 |
2.0 |
2.8 |
3.5 |
4.2 |
4.9 |
3.5 |
Section VI: Foreign Savings
6.1 The projection of foreign savings over the Twelfth
Plan period was approached in two different ways. First,
the Current Account Balance (CAB) was obtained by
estimating its major components - merchandise exports
and imports as well as the invisibles - via regression.
Second, the components of net capital flows - Foreign
Direct Investment (FDI), Foreign Institutional
Investment (FII), NRI deposits, External Commercial
Borrowings (ECB), external assistance, etc - which would
finance/supplement the CAB were estimated through
regressions or on the basis of past trends. The
explanatory variables considered for the estimation of
different components of the current account and capital
flows are summarized in the Table 16. All (non-rate)
variables were taken in US dollar terms.
Table 16: List of Dependent and Explanatory Variables with respect to External Sector |
Dependent Variable |
Explanatory Variables |
Current Account Balance = (1) - {(2) + (3)} +(4) + {(5) - (6)} +{(7) - (8)} |
1 |
Exports |
World GDP, REER |
2 |
Non-oil Imports |
GDP, REER |
3 |
Net Oil Imports |
GDP, Crude oil prices |
4 |
Net Private Transfers |
World GDP, Growth differential, Trend |
5 |
Services Receipts |
World GDP, REER |
6 |
Services Payments |
GDP, REER |
7 |
Investment Income Receipts |
Foreign Currency Assets of RBI, Interest Rate on medium-term US Government bonds |
8 |
Investment Income Payments |
External Debt, GDP growth |
Net Capital Flows = {(9) – (10)} + 11 + 12 + 13 (net) + 14 (net) |
9 |
Inward FDI |
Growth differential, International Investment Position/GDP, Gross Fiscal Deficit/GDP, Exchange rate, Time taken to start a business in India |
10 |
Outward FDI |
Openness, lagged outward FDI |
11 |
Net FII Flows |
Based on Past trends |
12 |
NRI Deposits |
Interest rate differential World GDP, Exchange rate |
13 |
Inward ECB |
Imports, Interest rate differential |
14 |
Other components of capital flows (such as Outward ECB, External Assistance, ADRs/ GDRs and short-term trade credit) |
Based on Past trends |
6.2 The assumptions regarding the explanatory
variables and the results of the regression are set out
in Annex 2 and 3, respectively.
6.3 The projections of the CAB and net capital flows
during the Twelfth Plan are set out in Table 17; the
detailed projections are given in Annex 4.
6.4 It may be observed that the average current
account deficit during the Twelfth Plan is expected to
range between 2.7 per cent (scenario III) and 3.9 per
cent (scenario II) of GDP. On the other hand, the average
net capital flows during the Twelfth Plan is projected
to range between 3.6 per cent (scenario III) and 3.8 per
cent (scenarios I and II) of GDP. Net capital flows in
scenarios I and III, besides financing the current account
deficit, would moderately add to the reserves.
6.5 From the policy perspective, it is essential to
assess the different scenarios from the view point of a
sustainable current account deficit. Conceptually,
sustainability refers to the ability of a nation to finance
its current account deficit on an ongoing basis i.e.
without resulting in any external payment difficulties.
Generally, the sustainable level of current account
deficit (CAD) is measured in terms of net external
liabilities relative to the size of the economy. The level
of Current Account Balance that stabilises the net
external assets/liabilities in relation to the size of the
economy is considered as sustainable. Based on the
empirical exercise, CAD in the range of 2.7 to 3.0 per
cent is considered to be sustainable.
6.6 From sustainability perspective, capital flows
should be enough to meet financing requirements and
to maintain an adequate import cover. Under each scenario, an import cover of at least 4-5 months would
be maintained, which is considered to be minimum.
Table 17: Projections of the Current Account Balance
and Net Capital Flows During the Twelfth Plan
(2012-13 to 2016-17) - Annual Average |
(per cent) |
Scenario |
CAB/GDP |
Net Capital Flows/GDP |
I. GDP - 8.5
Inflation - 5.0 |
-3.3 |
3.8 |
II. GDP – 9.0
Inflation – 5.0 |
-3.9 |
3.8 |
III. GDP - 8.0
Inflation - 6.0 |
-2.7 |
3.6 |
6.7 Further, it would be desirable to continue the
current policy of restraining debt creating capital flows.
Historically, during the last ten years on an average 58
per cent of the net capital flows was non-debt variety.
Non-debt creating flows moderate the net negative
spread of average return on external assets over the
average interest payments on external liabilities as debt
flows are contractual and non-debt flows are procyclical.
6.8 Thus, the need for concerted efforts to raise the
share of long-term stable flows is underscored. In sum,
there are limits to the recourse to foreign savings as a
source for financing higher investment rates in the
economy in view of their implications for external
sector sustainability.
Section VII: Consolidation of Sector-wise
Savings
7.1 The projections of the sector-wise savings rate for
the three scenarios of real GDP growth and inflation
are set out in the Tables 18, 19 & 20.
7.2 The average Gross Domestic Savings (GDS) rate
for the Twelfth Plan ranges between 36.2 per cent under
Scenario 3 and 37.0 per cent under Scenario 2. In all
the three scenarios, there is the assumption of
turnaround in public sector saving which is expected
to contribute significantly to the increase in the GDS
rate over the Twelfth Plan. The increase in private
corporate savings rate is the highest in Scenario 2, even
as the projected household savings rate remains
identical in all the scenarios. The average estimated
Current Account Deficit (CAD) for the three scenarios
ranges between 2.7 per cent and 3.9 per cent of GDP.
7.3 The average GDS rate of 37.0 per cent and CAD of
3.9 per cent of GDP under Scenario 2 is consistent with
the overall investment rate implicit in an average
growth rate of 9.0 per cent and ICOR of 4.5 (a little
above the present level) during the Twelfth Plan. The
ICOR is likely to increase slightly, on average, due to
the expected special thrust on (a) infrastructure
investment (which have relatively long gestation lags);
(b) the manufacturing sector during the Twelfth Plan;
and (c) resource intensive initiatives in agriculture to
address supply side concerns.
Table 18: Scenario 1 (Real GDP growth of 8.5 per cent; Inflation of 5.0 per cent) |
(per cent of GDP at current market prices) |
|
2009-10 |
2010-11 |
2011-12 |
2012-13 |
2013-14 |
2014-15 |
2015-16 |
2016-17 |
12th Plan Average |
Household |
25.4 |
22.8 |
23.2 |
23.6 |
24.0 |
24.4 |
24.8 |
25.2 |
24.4 |
Private Corporate |
8.2 |
7.9 |
8.3 |
8.4 |
8.5 |
8.6 |
8.6 |
8.7 |
8.6 |
Public |
0.2 |
1.7 |
1.8 |
2.0 |
2.8 |
3.5 |
4.2 |
5.0 |
3.5 |
Gross Domestic Savings Rate |
33.8 |
32.3 |
33.3 |
34.0 |
35.3 |
36.5 |
37.6 |
38.9 |
36.5 |
CAD |
-2.8 |
-2.7 |
-3.5 |
-4.1 |
-3.8 |
-3.3 |
-2.8 |
-2.5 |
-3.3 |
Table 19: Scenario 2 (Real GDP growth of 9.0 per cent; Inflation of 5.0 per cent) |
Household |
25.4 |
22.8 |
23.2 |
23.6 |
24.0 |
24.4 |
24.8 |
25.2 |
24.4 |
Private Corporate |
8.2 |
7.9 |
8.5 |
8.6 |
8.9 |
9.1 |
9.3 |
9.4 |
9.1 |
Public |
0.2 |
1.7 |
1.8 |
1.9 |
2.9 |
3.6 |
4.3 |
5.0 |
3.5 |
Gross Domestic Savings Rate |
33.8 |
32.3 |
33.5 |
34.1 |
35.8 |
37.1 |
38.4 |
39.6 |
37.0 |
CAD |
-2.8 |
-2.7 |
-3.5 |
-4.3 |
-4.1 |
-3.8 |
-3.6 |
-3.6 |
-3.9 |
Table 20: Scenario 3 (Real GDP growth of 8.0 per cent; Inflation of 6.0 per cent) |
Household |
25.4 |
22.8 |
23.2 |
23.6 |
24.0 |
24.4 |
24.8 |
25.2 |
24.4 |
Private Corporate |
8.2 |
7.9 |
8.5 |
8.3 |
8.3 |
8.4 |
8.4 |
8.4 |
8.4 |
Public |
0.2 |
1.7 |
1.8 |
2.0 |
2.8 |
3.5 |
4.2 |
4.9 |
3.5 |
Gross Domestic Savings Rate |
33.8 |
32.3 |
33.5 |
33.9 |
35.1 |
36.3 |
37.4 |
38.5 |
36.2 |
CAD |
-2.8 |
-2.7 |
-3.5 |
-3.9 |
-3.4 |
-2.7 |
-2.0 |
-1.5 |
-2.7 |
Section VIII: Credit Flow to Agriculture
and MSME Sector
A. Agriculture Sector
8.1 Credit plays a crucial role in maintaining
agricultural production by allowing producers to meet
their cash needs during the entire cycle of production
as well as for financing investment. The ground level
credit flow (GLC) from institutional sources to
agriculture has shown an increasing trend over the
years, the growth being substantial during 2003-2006,
which also coincided with the Special farm package
announced by the Government of India, which
envisaged the doubling of credit in three years starting
2004-05 (Table 21).
Estimation Methodology
8.2 GLC is composed of production (or short-term)
credit and investment (or long-term) credit.
Cooperatives, Regional Rural Banks and scheduled
commercial banks provide both production credit and
investment credit. Three approaches were adopted for
projecting the flow of Ground Level Credit (GLC) flow
in agriculture. In each case, the existing capacity of the
various agencies to meet the targets was taken into
account.
1. Projections based on Linear Trend
- The trend rate of growth of GLC in the first
four years of the Eleventh Plan worked out to
15.5 per cent.
Table 21: Ground Level Credit Flow to Agriculture and Allied Activities |
Year |
` Crore |
Year-on-Year Growth Rate (per cent) |
2002-03 |
69,560 |
|
2003-04 |
86,981 |
25.0 |
2004-05 |
1,25,309 |
44.1 |
2005-06 |
1,80,486 |
44.0 |
2006-07 |
2,29,400 |
27.1 |
2007-08 |
2,54,658 |
11.0 |
2008-09 |
3,01,908 |
18.6 |
2009-10 |
3,84,514 |
27.4 |
2010-11 |
4,47,513 |
16.4 |
Source: NABARD, Annual Report (Various Issues) |
2. Projections based on target rates of growth of GDP
Two scenarios of agricultural growth are
assumed during the Twelfth Plan:
Assumed rate of growth of
real GDP during the 12th
Plan (per cent) |
Corresponding rate of real
growth of Agriculture
(per cent) |
8.0-8.5 |
3.0 |
9.0-9.5 |
4.0 |
- In respect of each of two scenarios, ICOR in
agriculture is assumed to take two different
values viz.; 4 and 4.57. Thus, there are four
scenarios with different combinations of
agricultural growth rates and ICOR in
agriculture. Multiplying the real growth rate
in agriculture with the ICOR in agriculture
provides the required total real investment in
agriculture. Furthermore, in each scenario, (a)
the share of private sector in total investment
in agriculture is assumed at the existing level
of 80 per cent; (b) the share of institutional
sources of credit to finance private sector
investment in agriculture is also assumed at
the existing level of 80 per cent; and (c) the
inflation rate is assumed to be 6.0 per cent.
3. Projections based on trend in ratio of GLC to GDP
in Agriculture
This ratio increased from 10 per cent in 1999-
00 to 24 per cent in 2005-06 and is estimated
at 37 per cent by the end of the Eleventh Plan.
Based on this trend, and assuming an annual
agricultural growth rate of 4.0 per cent and an
inflation rate of 6.0 per cent, the GLC during
the Twelfth Plan is worked out.
8.3 Additional assumptions in each of the above three
approaches were as follows:
-
The shares of production and investment credit
in GLC would progressively change from (the
existing) 70 per cent and 30 per cent, respectively, in 2012-13 to 66 per cent and 34 per cent,
respectively, in 2016-17.
-
Within production credit, the shares of
cooperatives, Regional Rural Banks and scheduled
commercial banks would progressively change
from (the existing) 27.0 per cent, 11.5 per cent and
61.5 per cent, respectively, in 2012-13 to 30.0-31.0
per cent, 13.5 per cent and 55.5-56.5 per cent,
respectively in 2016-17.
-
Within investment credit, the shares of
cooperatives, Regional Rural Banks and scheduled
commercial banks would remain unchanged at
(the existing) 7.0 per cent, 4.5 per cent and 88.5
per cent, respectively, in each year of the Twelfth
Plan.
Projections during the Twelfth Plan
8.4 While the first and the third approaches were
supply-side projections, the second approach was based
on demand-side projections. The projected GLC during
the Twelfth Plan as obtained from the three approaches
is summarized in the Table 22.
8.5 The Working Group concurs with the Sub-Group’s
recommendation that the projected GLC be placed at ` 42,08,454 crore during the Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012-17), assuming a growth of 4 per cent in agriculture and
an ICOR of 4.5. The higher ICOR than that of 3.96 during
the Eleventh Five Year Plan, is considered to be
necessary in view of the shift in the cropping pattern from low-value maintenance crops to high value cash
crops, transition to commercial agriculture and
mechanisation on account of growing shortage of
agricultural labour.
Table 22: Projection of Ground Level Credit during the Twelfth Plan |
Approach |
Projected GLC
during the
12th Plan
(` crore) |
1 |
Trend-based |
37,39,022 |
2 |
Target growth rate |
|
|
Growth Rate of Agriculture |
ICOR in Agriculture |
|
|
(i) 3 per cent |
4 |
33,89,261 |
|
(ii) 3 per cent |
4.5 |
40,41,694 |
|
(iii) 4 per cent |
4 |
35,29,102 |
|
(iv) 4 per cent |
4.5 |
42,08,454 |
3 |
Ratio of GLC to GDP in Agriculture |
31,24,624 |
B. Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
(MSME) Sector
8.6 The MSME sector is an important pillar of the
Indian economy with a vast network of around 30
million units, generating employment of about 70
million, manufacturing more than 6000 products,
contributing about 45 per cent of manufacturing output
and about 40 per cent of exports, directly and indirectly.
This sector assumes greater importance as the country
moves towards a faster and inclusive growth agenda.
Moreover, it is the MSME sector which can help realize
the objective of the proposed National Manufacturing
Policy of raising the share of manufacturing sector in
GDP from 16 per cent at present to 25 per cent by the
end of 2022.
8.7 Despite the significant contributions of the MSME
sector, the sector continues to face certain constraints
like, as pointed out in PM’s Task Force Report, 2010,
non-availability of adequate and timely credit, high cost
of credit, collateral requirements, inadequate access to
equity capital and rehabilitation of sick enterprises, etc.
It thus emerges that adequate, timely and affordable
credit is one of the bigger challenges for the MSME
sector. The projection of the credit supply towards the
MSME sector during the Twelfth Plan may be viewed
against this backdrop.
Estimation Methodology
8.8 The supply of credit for (i) working capital and (ii)
terms loans of the MSME sector were separately
estimated.
(i) Working Capital
8.9 Working capital is largely provided by Scheduled
Commercial Banks (SCBs), RRBs and Urban Cooperative
Banks (UCBs) and, to some extent, by factoring
companies. For the estimation of supply of working
capital to MSME sector from these sources during the
Twelfth Plan, the following assumptions were made
(Table 23):
Table 23: Assumptions regarding Supply of Working Capital |
Source of Credit |
Assumed annual growth rate during the 12th Plan |
Remarks |
Total Credit to Micro Enterprises by SCBs |
20 per cent |
The RBI has advised SCBs to achieve 20 per cent annual growth in credit to Micro Enterprises |
Total Credit to Medium Enterprises by SCBs |
10 per cent |
Credit by public sector banks to Medium Enterprises increased by 10 per cent in FY 2011 |
Working Capital supply of SCBs to MSME Sector |
70 per cent of total credit to MSME Sector by SCBs (Remaining 30 per cent is Term Loan) |
As per estimates during the Eleventh Plan |
Working Capital supply by RRBs |
20 per cent |
The last three-year average growth rate was 18 per cent |
Working Capital supply by UCBs |
35 per cent |
As per the last three-year average growth rate |
Financial Support by Factoring Companies |
20 per cent |
It is assumed that 25 per cent of total factoring turnover flows to the MSME Sector |
(ii) Terms Loans
8.10 Terms loans to the MSME sector are largely
provided by SCBs, SIDBI, State Finance Corporations
(SFCs) and NBFCs. For the projection of supply of terms
loans to the MSME sector during the Twelfth Plan, the
following assumptions were made (Table 24):
Table 24: Assumptions regarding Supply of Term Loans |
Source of Term Loans |
Assumed annual growth rate during the 12th Plan |
Remarks |
SCBs |
30 per cent of total credit to MSME by SCBs, which indicates an annual growth of around 18 per cent |
Total credit supplied by SCBs to MSME sector, as obtained earlier for estimating working capital supply |
SIDBI |
25 per cent |
Based on the performance of the previous three years |
SFCs |
0 per cent |
Outstanding amount is assumed to remain constant at ` 8,596 crore from 2011-12 to 2016-17 |
NBFCs |
20 per cent |
Select sample data indicate that NBFC credit to MSME sector ranges between 22 and 28 per cent |
Projections during the Twelfth Plan
8.15 The projections of the supply of working capital
and term loans are set out in the Table 25.
8.16 It is evident from the above Table that the credit
supply to the MSME sector would increase at an annual
average rate of 19.4 per cent to `21,24,644 crore in
2016-17, the terminal year of the Twelfth Plan.
Table 25: Estimated Credit Supply to MSMEs |
As at end |
Projected supply of credit flow to MSME sector
(` Crore) |
Working Capital |
Term Loan |
Total Supply |
2010-11 |
5,04,492 |
2,32,669 |
7,37,161 |
2011-12 |
6,00,255 |
2,74,227 |
8,74,482 |
2012-13 |
7,16,139 |
3,22,810 |
10,38,948 |
2013-14 |
8,56,783 |
3,80,756 |
12,37,539 |
2014-15 |
10,28,000 |
4,49,928 |
14,77,928 |
2015-16 |
12,37,094 |
5,32,566 |
17,69,659 |
2016-17 |
14,93,278 |
6,31,365 |
21,24,644 |
8.17 If the year-on-year credit growth to MSME sector
by SCBs and all other sources is enhanced by a
minimum of 22 per cent per annum during the first
two years of the Twelfth Plan (2012-14) and by 25 per
cent per annum during the remaining three years
(2014-17), then the credit supply would increase to `25,42,145 crore in 2016-17 (Table 26).
Table 26: An Alternative Scenario for Credit Supply to the MSME Sector |
(` Crore) |
2010-11 |
2011-12 |
2012-13 |
2013-14 |
2014-15 |
2015-16 |
2016-17 |
7,37,161 |
8,74,482 |
10,66,868 |
13,01,578 |
16,26,973 |
20,33,716 |
25,42,145 |
Section IX: Resources for Infrastructure
Investment8
9.1 During the first three years of the Eleventh Five-
Year Plan, infrastructure investment was financed predominantly through Government budgetary
support.
Projections of Resources during the Twelfth
Plan
Commercial Banks
9.2 The share of infrastructure in gross bank credit
increased from 6 per cent (`1,44,531 crore) as at end-
March 2007 to 11 per cent (`5,40,390 crore) as at end-
March 2011. The rapid growth in bank credit to
infrastructure has resulted in a greater concentration
of risks in banks due to ALM mismatch and exhaustion
of exposure limits. Banks have prudential exposure
caps for infrastructure sector lending as a whole as well
as for individual sectors9; most of the banks have almost
reached the prudential caps for the power sector;
exposure limits in respect of other sectors such as roads
are also likely to be reached.
9.3 Going forward, credit growth will be mainly
determined by retained earnings and increase in banks’
capital. However, as most of the infrastructure lending
is by public sector banks, raising capital can only take
place if the Government dilutes its shareholding or
infuses capital into the PSBs. For the purposes of
projections over the Twelfth Plan, it is assumed that infrastructure credit growth would be determined
exclusively by retained earnings. Additionally, drawing
upon an IDFC study of 21 public sector banks and 5
private sector banks, the following assumptions are
made (Table 27):
Table 27: Assumptions regarding Commercial Bank Parameters during the Twelfth Plan |
|
Public Sector Banks |
Private Sector Banks |
Annual rate of growth of retained earnings (per cent) |
20.0 |
25.0 |
Incremental Debt/Retained earnings |
17.2 |
8.8 |
Incremental Total Advances as per cent of Incremental Balance Sheet total |
60.5 |
51.7 |
Incremental Infrastructure Advances as per cent of Incremental Total Advances |
15.0 |
12.0 |
9.4 Based on the above assumptions, the projections
of commercial bank credit for infrastructure are set out
in the Table 28.
9.5 As pointed out earlier, the power and road sectors
will, however, face significant constraints as the
exposure is already high even though some of the
smaller sectors will be able to get adequate funding
subject to availability of commercially viable and
bankable projects.
Table 28: Projections of Commercial Bank Lending to Infrastructure Sector |
(` Crore) |
Public Sector Banks |
|
2012-13 |
2013-14 |
2014-15 |
2015-16 |
2016-17 |
Total during 12th Plan |
1 |
Retained earnings |
53,613 |
64,336 |
77,203 |
92,643 |
1,11,172 |
|
2 |
Incremental Debt |
9,20,170 |
11,04,204 |
13,25,044 |
15,90,053 |
19,08,064 |
|
3 |
Incremental Balance Sheet (1 + 2) |
9,73,783 |
11,68,539 |
14,02,247 |
16,82,697 |
20,19,236 |
|
4 |
Incremental Advances |
5,89,031 |
7,06,837 |
8,48,205 |
10,17,845 |
12,21,415 |
|
5 |
Incremental Infrastructure Advances (A) |
88,355 |
1,06,026 |
1,27,231 |
1,52,677 |
1,83,212 |
6,57,500 |
Private Sector Banks |
6 |
Retained earnings |
17,268 |
21,585 |
26,981 |
33,726 |
42,157 |
|
7 |
Incremental Debt |
1,52,722 |
1,90,903 |
2,38,628 |
2,98,285 |
3,72,857 |
|
8 |
Incremental Balance Sheet Total (6+7) |
1,69,990 |
2,12,487 |
2,65,609 |
3,32,011 |
4,15,014 |
|
9 |
Incremental Advances |
87,838 |
1,09,797 |
1,37,246 |
1,71,558 |
2,14,447 |
|
10 |
Incremental Infrastructure Advances (B) |
10,541 |
13,176 |
16,470 |
20,587 |
25,734 |
86,506 |
11 |
Incremental Infrastructure Advances by Commercial Banks (A+B) |
98,895 |
1,19,201 |
1,43,700 |
1,73,264 |
2,08,946 |
7,44,006 |
Table 29: Projections for NBFC lending to Infrastructure Sector |
(` Crore) |
|
2010- 11 |
2011-12 |
2012-13 |
2013-14 |
2014-15 |
2015-16 |
2016-17 |
12th Plan Total |
Infrastructure Credit Outstanding |
2,17,658 |
2,60,883 |
3,12,692 |
3,74,790 |
4,49,221 |
5,38,432 |
6,45,361 |
|
Incremental Infrastructure Credit |
|
43,225 |
51,809 |
62,098 |
74,430 |
89,212 |
1,06,928 |
3,84,477 |
Non Banking Finance Companies (NBFCs)
9.6 Non-bank finance companies (NBFCs) also
increased their lending sharply as the credit demand
for power, telecoms and roads expanded. Outstanding
credit from major infrastructure finance companies
(IFCs) [such as Power Finance Corporation (PFC), Rural
Electrification Corporation (REC), India Infrastructure
Finance Company Limited (IIFCL), L&T Infrastructure
Finance Company, Industrial Finance Corporation of
India (IFCI) and Infrastructure Development Finance
Company (IDFC)] to the infrastructure sector increased
from ` 1,10,549 crore as at end-March 2008 to ` 1,81,595
crore as at end-March 2010, implying a compound
annual rate of growth (CAGR) of 28 per cent. The
outstanding credit of PFC and REC which together
constitute around 80 per cent of the lending by IFCs,
in fact, had increased at an annual rate of 27 per cent.
9.7 Going forward, the high historical growth rates
may not be feasible. Hence, for the purpose of
projections, the growth rate for infrastructure credit by
NBFCs has been assumed at 20 per cent per annum.
The projected lending of NBFCs towards infrastructure
is set out in the Table 29.
9.8 It may be reiterated, however, that the IFCs like
PFC and REC will largely fund only power sector
projects.
Insurance Companies
9.9 The Assets under Management (AUM) of life
insurers (Life Fund) increased at a CAGR of 16.3 per
cent over the period end-March 2007 to end-March 2010
(Table 30). However, infrastructure investments out of
these assets during the same period increased only
marginally at a CAGR of around 1.25 per cent per
annum. As a result, the share of infrastructure
investments in the total AUM declined from 15 per cent to 10 per cent over this period. On the other hand,
the AUM of non-life insurers increased at a CAGR of
9.6 per cent and the share of infrastructure investment
in the AUM increased steadily from 12 per cent to 16
per cent over the same period.
9.10 Going forward, insurance penetration is expected
to continue to rise, with the insurance premium
increasing from 4.1 per cent of GDP in 2010-11 to 6.4
per cent of GDP by the end of the Twelfth Plan. Total
investment by the insurance sector is assumed to
account for 63.3 per cent of premium income, which
is based on the average of the past few years, after
deducting commissions and expenses. Infrastructure
investment is assumed to account for 6.1 per cent of
total investment by the insurance sector. Thus, total
funds available for infrastructure investment from the
insurance sector during the Twelfth Plan is projected
at `1,47,960 crore (Table 31). It may be, however,
mentioned that prudential and regulatory constraints
impact on the larger availability of funds from the
insurance sector for infrastructure investment.
Table 30: Insurance Sector - Investment in Infrastructure during 2007 to 2010 |
(` Crore) |
|
End-March 2007 |
End-March 2008 |
End-March 2009 |
End-March 2010 |
Life Insurers (Life Fund) |
Asset Under Management as on |
4,65,555 |
5,41,630 |
6,29,650 |
7,32,613 |
Infrastructure Investments |
69,837 |
63,262 |
66,673 |
72,439 |
(per cent share) |
(15%) |
(12%) |
(11%) |
(10%) |
Non Life Insurers |
Asset Under Management as on |
50,383 |
56,280 |
58,893 |
66,372 |
Infrastructure Investments |
6,102 |
7,660 |
8,980 |
10,373 |
(per cent share) |
(12%) |
(14%) |
(15%) |
(16%) |
Source: IRDA |
Table 31: Insurance Sector - Projections for Infrastructure Financing |
(` Crore) |
|
2010-11 |
2011-12 |
2012-13 |
2013-14 |
2014-15 |
2015-16 |
2016-17 |
GDP at current market prices |
76,74,148 |
89,12,179 |
1,01,99,989 |
1,16,73,887 |
1,33,60,764 |
1,52,91,394 |
1,75,01,001 |
Premium as per cent of GDP |
4.10% |
4.40% |
4.70% |
5.10% |
5.50% |
5.90% |
6.40% |
Total premium |
3,14,640 |
3,92,136 |
4,79,399 |
5,95,368 |
7,34,842 |
9,02,192 |
1,120,064 |
Total Investment (63.3% of Premium) |
1,99,167 |
2,48,222 |
3,03,460 |
3,76,868 |
4,65,155 |
5,71,088 |
7,09,001 |
Infrastructure Investment (6.1% of Investment) |
12,149 |
15,142 |
18,511 |
22,989 |
28,374 |
34,836 |
43,249 |
External Commercial Borrowings
9.11 Infrastructure companies also tapped external
credit markets. A significant amount of the external
commercial borrowings (ECBs) in the Eleventh Plan was
for infrastructure, particularly air transport (airplanes),
telecom, and power equipment, although it declined
during 2008-09 and data available for the first half of
2009-10 does not show any sharp pick-up. The share
of infrastructure investments in overall ECB borrowings
has gradually declined from 33 per cent in 2007-08 to
26 per cent in 2009-10 (Table 32).
9.12 Over the Twelfth Plan, ECBs are projected at the
average of the actual inflows during 2006-07 to 2010-11,
which works out to USD 24,426 million per year. Most
of the infrastructure funding is of long tenor, whereas
ECBs are of shorter tenor. Therefore, for the purpose
of projections, it is assumed that 10 per cent of the total
amount of ECBs would be channelled towards
infrastructure investment. Taking a USD/INR rate of
50, which is close to the present rate, total ECB/FCCB
borrowings work out to `6,10,650 crore during the
Twelfth Plan and, of this, funds for infrastructure are
placed at `61,065 crore.
Table 32: ECB Inflows to Infrastructure during 2006-07 to 2009-10 |
(USD Million) |
|
2006-07 |
2007-08 |
2008-09 |
2009-10 |
2010-11 |
Total ECB inflow (USD Mn) |
25,353 |
30,967 |
18,363 |
21,669 |
25,776 |
ECB flow to infrastructure (USD Mn) |
6,211 |
10,156 |
5,223 |
2735@ |
NA |
ECB flow to infrastructure as % of total ECB |
(24%) |
(33%) |
(28%) |
(26%#) |
NA |
@ data available only for first half of FY10
# Half-yearly data annualized for estimating yearly % share
Source: RBI; Economic Survey 2010, |
Equity and FDI
9.13 Funding through equity/FDI during the first three
years of the Eleventh Plan accounted for approximately
14 per cent of the total infrastructure investment
whereas the overall debt contribution was 41 per cent;
this implied a debt-equity ratio of 2.93:1. The total debt
funding available, through commercial banks, NBFCs,
insurance sector and ECBs, for infrastructure investment
during the Twelfth Plan is projected (as above) at `13,37,508 crore. Assuming that the same-debt equityratio
prevails, equity/FDI available for infrastructure
works out to `4,56,487 crore during the Twelfth Plan.
Equity funding will be a key constraint going forward
– possibly even more binding than the availability of
debt funds. In this context, regulatory changes which
will make projects commercially attractive are urgently
needed to draw adequate equity capital to infrastructure
sectors. Other changes like amendment in pension/PF
regulations to allow investments in equity markets will
also be critical.
Total Non-Budgetary Funds available for
Infrastructure Investment
9.14 Based on the above analysis, the total funds
available from different sources, apart from Government
budgetary support, for infrastructure investment
during the Twelfth Plan are projected at ` 17,93,995
crore (Table 33).
Measures for Additional Funding
9.15 According to an independent study carried out by
IDFC in February 2011, diluting government stakes
in all major PSBs to 51 per cent by raising capital in
2013 could yield additional funds amounting to `1.45 lakh crore10. The study assumes that the equity
raised by dilution of government stakes to 51 per cent
in 21 PSBs would allow the banks to extend incremental
advances which are over and above that provided using
internal accruals. The advances to infrastructure have
been assumed at 15 per cent of total advances for
sample PSBs in FY13 and 14.
Table 33: Total Non-Budgetary Resources available for Infrastructure during the Twelfth Plan |
(` Crore) |
|
Source |
2012-13 |
2013-14 |
2014-15 |
2015-16 |
2016-17 |
Total |
1 |
Commercial Banks |
98,895 |
1,19,201 |
1,43,700 |
1,73,264 |
2,08,946 |
7,44,006 |
2 |
NBFCs |
51,809 |
62,098 |
74,430 |
89,212 |
1,06,928 |
3,84,477 |
3 |
Insurance Sector |
18,511 |
22,989 |
28,374 |
34,836 |
43,249 |
1,47,960 |
4 |
ECB |
12,213 |
12,213 |
12,213 |
12,213 |
12,213 |
61,065 |
5 |
Total Debt (1 to 4) |
1,81,428 |
2,16,501 |
2,58,717 |
3,09,525 |
3,71,336 |
13,37,508 |
6 |
Equity and FDI |
61,921 |
73,891 |
88,299 |
1,05,640 |
1,26,736 |
4,56,487 |
7 |
Total Funds (5+6) |
2,43,349 |
2,90,392 |
3,47,017 |
4,15,165 |
4,98,072 |
17,93,995 |
9.16 The dilution of government stakes to 51 per cent
in two major NBFCs viz. REC and PFC (from 67 per cent
and 74 per cent, respectively as at quarter ended June
2011), works out to about `7,994 crore at current prices
which may result in additional increase in lending
assets of NBFCs by around `53,300 crore (Table 34).
9.17 The current IRDA (Investment) Regulations and
clarifications issued there under, provide for debt/loan
investment in infrastructure companies to the extent
of 25 per cent of the project equity/capital employed
which in real terms works out to only 5 to 8.75 per cent
of the total project cost depending on the equity
brought in by the promoters (Debt-equity ratio 80:20
to 65:35). In order to have a higher investment by the
Life Insurance companies the exposure can be
considered for revision to ‘20 per cent of the total
project cost’ as being done by IIFCL. For example,
suppose a project costing `5,000 crore is financed by
equity of `1,000 crore and debt of `4,000 crore,
implying a debt-equity ratio of 4:1. Under the present
guidelines, LIC can provide rupee term loan assistance
to the extent of only ` 250 crore (5 per cent of the
project cost), whereas, if the change suggested above
is implemented, LIC can provide assistance to an extent of ` 1,000 crore (20 per cent of the project cost) which
is four times the current capability. Given the capital
base of large insurance players like LIC of India, it could
provide additional funding of around `4.52 lakh crore.
9.18 The total additional funds through debt
sources, as above, aggregate around `6,50,600 crore
during the Twelfth Plan. Assuming a debt-equity ratio
of 2.93:1, additional funds through equity and FDI
would work out to around `2,22,000 crore. Thus, total
additional funds that may be available for infrastructure,
subject to the implementation of the measures
suggested above, would be around `8,73,000 crore, over
the Twelfth Plan.
9.19 Taking into account the additional funding, total
non-budgetary resources available for infrastructure
investment during the Twelfth Plan is projected at `26,66,995 crore.
9.20 Assuming that budgetary resources would account
for 50 per cent of the total supply of funds for
infrastructure, as envisaged in the draft Approach Paper
to the Twelfth Plan, and assuming an USD/INR exchange
rate of 50, the total (budgetary and non-budgetary)
funds available for infrastructure works out to around
USD one trillion, which is the target for the Twelfth
Plan.
Table 34: Capital raising by PFC and REC |
|
Government Holding as on 30th June 2011 |
Market Cap As on 30th June 2011 (` Crore) |
Dilution up to 51% |
Capital
Raised
(` Crore) |
PFC |
73.72% |
18,300 |
22.72% |
4,157.8 |
REC |
66.80% |
24,286 |
15.80% |
3,837.2 |
Total |
|
42,586 |
|
7,994.9 |
Section X: Summing Up
10.1 India’s gross domestic savings rate has increased
near-steadily over the Five-Year Plans and is among the
highest in the world in the recent period. The changes
in the savings rate in recent years need to be viewed
in the context of both changes in the macroeconomic
environment and the level and composition of savings.
While the household sector savings rate has generally
stabilised, trends in private corporate sector savings
and public sector savings have influenced the changes
in the domestic savings rate. Going forward, it is
recognized that the attainment of higher growth target
during the Twelfth Plan would be contingent upon a
turnaround in public sector savings and sustaining the
momentum of private corporate sector savings.
10.2 Against this backdrop, three scenarios for the
evolution of gross domestic savings during the Twelfth
Plan were charted out viz.; (i) Real GDP growth rate of
8.5 per cent and inflation rate of 5.0 per cent; (ii) Real
GDP growth rate of 9.0 per cent and inflation rate of
5.0 per cent; and (iii) Real GDP growth of 8.0 per cent
and inflation rate of 6.0 per cent. The gross domestic
savings rate is estimated to rise from 32.3 per cent in
2010-11 (actual) to 38.9 per cent in 2016-17 (the
terminal year of the Twelfth Plan) in the first scenario,
to 39.6 per cent in the second scenario and to 38.5 per
cent in the third scenario. In all the three scenarios,
the expected improvement in the overall savings rate
is primarily on account of the public sector, even after
taking into account the possible impact of SEB losses,
which averaged around 0.2 per cent of GDP during the
Twelfth Plan period. The average gross domestic savings
rate during the Twelfth Plan works out to 36.5 per cent,
37.0 per cent and 36.2 per cent in the first, second and
third scenarios, respectively. The household savings
rate is also expected to rise gradually over the Twelfth
Plan period, reflecting, inter-alia, the impact of
favourable demographics. The average Current Account
Deficit for the three scenarios is estimated at 3.3 per
cent, 3.9 per cent and 2.7 per cent of GDP, respectively.
It is found that the savings projections in the second
scenario are consistent with the investment rate
implicit in an average rate of growth of 9.0 per cent and an assumed ICOR of 4.5, which is higher than the
present level.
10.3 The Working Group recognizes the downside risks
to the savings projections for the Twelfth Plan,
particularly in respect of the household and public
sectors. Notwithstanding the positive impact of the
evolving demographic profile, the household savings
rate could remain stagnant or even decline as financial
liabilities increase with greater retail credit penetration.
Similarly, the projected increase in the public sector
savings rate is contingent upon the continuance of the
fiscal consolidation process and improvement in the
finances of public sector enterprises. In respect of the
private corporate sector, the sustainability of at least
the current levels of efficiency would be important.
More generally, large shocks to growth and inflation
– the global environment being what it is – could alter
the savings scenario during the Twelfth Plan.
10.4 The flow of institutional credit to agriculture is
estimated around `42,08,000 crore during the Twelfth
Plan. The existing capacity of the various agencies to
meet the credit targets in the case of agriculture were
taken into cognizance in the projection exercise. The
credit supply to the MSME sector is projected to rise to
around `21,25,000 crore by 2016-17. In an alternative
scenario of higher assumed credit growth, the credit
supply to the MSME sector is estimated around `25,42,000 crore in 2016-17.
10.5 Flow of non-budgetary resources for the
infrastructure sector, from commercial banks, NBFC,
insurance companies, ECBs, equity and FDI is projected
around Rs. 17,94,000 crore during the Twelfth Plan.
Subject to the implementation of select measures such
dilution of Governments stakes in major public sector
banks and two NBFCs and higher permissible exposure
of LIC to infrastructure, the flow of non-budgetary
resources to infrastructure during the Twelfth Plan is
estimated to increase to around Rs. 26,67,000 crore.
Assuming that budgetary resources would constitute
50 per cent of the total funding, as envisaged in the
draft Approach Paper to the Twelfth Plan, and assuming
a USD/INR exchange rate of 50, total resources works
out to around USD one trillion, which is the target for
the Twelfth Plan.
Annex 1
Composition and Terms of Reference of the Sub-Groups |
1. Sub-Group on Household Sector Savings |
Composition |
1. |
Smt. Balbir Kaur
Adviser
Department of Economic and Policy Research
Reserve Bank of India |
Convenor |
2. |
Smt. Sibani Swain
Director
Development Policy and Perspective Planning
Planning Commission |
Member |
3. |
Ms. T. Rajeswari
Deputy Director General
Central Statistics Office |
Member |
4. |
Shri M.C. Singhi
Economic Adviser
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion
Government of India |
Member |
5. |
Prof. Pradeep Agrawal
Institute of Economic Growth |
Member |
6. |
Shri S.B. Mainak
Executive Director (Investment Operations)
Life Insurance Corporation |
Member |
7. |
Shri Rajesh Bansal
Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer
Employees’ Provident Fund Organization |
Member |
8. |
Shri Ramesh Kolli |
Member |
9. |
Dr. Brinda Jagirdar
General Manager and Head, Economic Research Department
State Bank of India |
Member |
10. |
Dr. Sarat Malik
Joint Director
Securities and Exchange Board of India |
Member |
Terms of Reference
(i) To review the developments and likely behavioral pattern of household sector saving during the Twelfth
Plan period;
(ii) To estimate household savings, physical and financial and their components, in the light of the policy
and structural changes in the real and financial sectors and the existing demographic pattern; and
(iii) To explain the methodology used for estimation. |
Annex 1
Composition and Terms of Reference of the Sub-Groups (Contd.) |
2. Sub-Group on Private Corporate Sector Savings |
Composition |
1. Dr. Goutam Chatterjee, Adviser, Reserve Bank of India |
Convenor |
2. Shri Ashish Kumar, Additional Director General, CSO, New Delhi |
Member |
3. Shri Radhey Shyam, Director, Ministry of Company Affairs, Govt. of India* |
Member |
4. Prof. Susan Thomas, IGIDR, Mumbai |
Member |
5. Shri D.K. Joshi, Chief Economist, CRISIL |
Member |
6. Dr. Sarat Kumar Malik, Joint Director, SEBI, Mumbai |
Member |
* Represented MCA in place of Dr. Joseph Abraham, Economic Adviser, who was initially nominated. |
Terms of Reference |
(i) To review the developments in overall economy and private corporate sector, particularly, in the 11th
plan and likely behavioral pattern during the 12th Plan.
(ii) To estimate the private corporate saving in light of the policy and structural changes in the real and
financial sectors during 12th Plan.
(iii) To explain the procedures followed for estimation. |
3. Sub-Group on Public Sector Savings |
Composition |
1. |
Dr. Ashok Sahu, Principal Adviser, Planning Commission |
Convenor |
2. |
Shri Arbind Modi |
Member |
3. |
Dr. K.L. Prasad, Economic Adviser, Ministry of Finance, Government of India |
Member |
4. |
Shri G.S.N. Murthy |
Member |
5. |
Prof. Pradeep Agrawal |
Member |
6. |
Prof. N.R. Bhanumurthy, NIPFP, New Delhi |
Member |
7. |
Smt. Sibani Swain, Director, Planning Commission |
Member |
8. |
Shri D. Bose, Director, Fiscal Analysis Division, DEPR, RBI, Mumbai |
Member |
9. |
Dr. Biswa Swarup Misra |
Member |
10. |
Shri Akshya K. Panda, Director (FR), Planning Commission |
Member |
Terms of Reference |
(i) To review the developments and likely behavioral pattern during the 11th Plan period;
(ii) To estimate the public sector draft on private savings keeping in view the fiscal sustainability and
commitments under the Fiscal Responsibility Act;
(iii) To explain the procedures followed for estimation. |
Annex 1
Composition and Terms of Reference of the Sub-Groups (Contd.) |
4. Sub-Group on Foreign Savings |
Composition |
1. |
Shri Anil Bisen, Economic Adviser, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi |
Convener |
2. |
Shri S.V.S. Dixit, Adviser, DEPR, RBI, Mumbai |
Member |
3. |
Shri M.C. Singhi, Economic Adviser, DIPP |
Member |
4. |
Prof. Pradeep Agarwal, Institute of Economic Growth, New Delhi |
Member |
5. |
Ms. Sutapa Majumdar, Director, Planning Commission, New Delhi |
Member |
6. |
Shri Prabhakar Patil, Joint Director, SEBI, Mumbai |
Member |
7. |
Ms. Rohini Malkani, Chief Economist, Citibank, Mumbai |
Member |
8. |
Shri Saugata Bhattacharya, Chief Economist, Axis Bank, Mumbai |
Member |
9. |
Shri Samir Kumar Bhattacharyya, General Manager, SBI, Mumbai |
Member |
Terms of Reference |
(i) To estimate the likely level of current account deficit during the Plan period under various scenarios.
(ii) To assess the level of capital flows for financing the CAD by estimating the major sub-components.
(iii) To explain the procedures followed for estimation. |
5. Sub-Group on Private Investment for MSME and Agriculture |
Composition |
1. |
Shri S.K. Mitra, Executive Director, NABARD |
Convenor |
2. |
Shri Akshay Panda, Director (FR), Planning Commission |
Member |
3. |
Prof. C.P. Chandrasekhar, JNU |
Member |
4. |
Shri C.D.Srinivasan, CGM, RBI |
Member |
5. |
Shri R.K. Das, General Manager, SIDBI |
Member |
6. |
Shri B.Jayaraman, CGM, NABARD |
Member |
7. |
Smt. Sunita Chippa, Economic Adviser, Ministry of Small & Medium Enterprises, Government of India |
Member |
8. |
Shri D.N.Thakur, Director, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India |
Member |
Terms of Reference
To estimate resources available for private investment including infrastructure and the likely flows for SME and Agriculture. |
Annex 1
Composition and Terms of Reference of the Sub-Groups (Concld.) |
6. Sub-Group on Infrastructure |
Composition |
1. |
Shri Santosh Nayar, DMD, SBI, Mumbai |
Convener |
2. |
Shri U.K. Sharma, Joint Adviser, Planning Commission, New Delhi |
Member |
3. |
Shri H. K. Sharma, ADG, Economic Statistics Division, CSO, New Delhi |
Member |
4. |
Ms. Aparna Bhatia, Director (PPP), Ministry of Finance, New Delhi |
Member |
5. |
Prof. Susan Thomas, IGIDR, Mumbai |
Member |
6. |
Shri D.K. Joshi, CRISIL, Mumbai |
Member |
7. |
Shri E. Sankara Rao, CGM, IIFCL, New Delhi |
Member |
8. |
Ms. Ritu Anand, Group Head Policy and Chief Economist, IDFC, Mumbai |
Member |
9. |
Shri S.B. Mainak, ED,LIC of India, Mumbai |
Member |
Terms of Reference |
(i) Underlying assumptions on the path of economy and infrastructure sector.
(ii) To estimate resources available for investment in infrastructure, broken up into various sources like
bank finance, private investments etc.
(iii) Resource requirement for the Twelfth Plan for infrastructure.
(iv) Issues relating to infrastructure. |
Annex 2
Assumptions Underlying Explanatory Variables in the External Sector
Growth and Inflation
- The various combinations of growth and
inflation in India for constructing the alternative
scenarios are as under:
Assumptions for Constructing Alternative Scenarios |
|
Growth Rate (%) |
Inflation Rate (%) |
Scenario I |
8.5 |
5.0 |
Scenario II |
9.0 |
5.0 |
Scenario III |
8.0 |
6.0 |
World GDP
- World GDP is simulated by taking the growth
rates of real GDP as projected by the IMF in its
World Economic Outlook (WEO), September
2011. WEO has projected real world GDP growth
in the range of 3.3-4.9 per cent during 2012-
2016.
World Inflation
- World inflation used for the estimations is based
on the IMF’s projections in its WEO, September
2011. WEO has projected world inflation in the
range of 3.1-3.7 per cent (moderation) during
2012-2016.
International Crude Oil Price
- International crude oil prices are assumed to be
around its current level of US$ 110 per barrel
during the Plan period.
Foreign Currency Asset (FCA)
- FCA is assumed to increase by 4 per cent
each year during the Plan period reflecting
anticipated increase in the capital inflows.
Exchange Rate
- The nominal average Rupee-US dollar exchange
rate is assumed to be around its current level
(i.e., the average level of 2011-12). On the other
hand, the real effective exchange rate (REER) is
assumed to appreciate to the extent of changes
in the inflation differential between India and
the world.
External Debt
- India’s external debt is assumed to increase by 4
per cent during each year of the Plan period on
account of anticipated increase in debt creating
capital inflows.
Global Interest Rate
- The LIBOR as projected by the WEO has been
used.
Domestic Interest Rate
- The domestic interest rates with respect to NRI
deposits and ECBs are assumed to move in a
direction so that the interest rate differential
remains at the present level during each year of
the plan period.
World Export Price and Import Price
- World export prices and import prices are
assumed to grow as per the past trend during
the plan period.
Annex 4
Alternative Scenarios with regard to the External Sector |
Scenario I: Projections of Current Account Balance for the 12th Plan
(Assumptions: GDP growth 8.5 per cent and Inflation 5 per cent) |
US$ billion |
Item/Years |
2012-13 |
2013-14 |
2014-15 |
2015-16 |
2016-17 |
1 Non-oil Exports |
289 |
355 |
435 |
535 |
651 |
2 Non-oil Imports |
403 |
495 |
601 |
731 |
890 |
3 Net oil Imports |
91 |
98 |
106 |
115 |
124 |
A Trade Balance (1-2-3) |
-205 |
-238 |
-271 |
-311 |
-362 |
B Net Invisibles (4+5+6) |
116 |
144 |
178 |
220 |
268 |
4 Services |
62 |
77 |
97 |
123 |
153 |
5 Transfers |
75 |
87 |
101 |
117 |
133 |
6 Income |
-21 |
-21 |
-20 |
-19 |
-19 |
Current Account Balance (A+B) |
-89 |
-95 |
-94 |
-91 |
-94 |
As% of GDP |
1 Non-oil Exports |
13.4 |
14.1 |
15.2 |
16.4 |
17.5 |
2 Non-oil Imports |
18.7 |
19.7 |
21.0 |
22.4 |
23.9 |
3 Net oil Imports |
4.2 |
3.9 |
3.7 |
3.5 |
3.3 |
A Trade Balance (1-2-3) |
-9.5 |
-9.5 |
-9.5 |
-9.5 |
-9.7 |
B Net Invisibles (4+5+6) |
5.4 |
5.7 |
6.2 |
6.7 |
7.2 |
4 Services |
2.9 |
3.1 |
3.4 |
3.8 |
4.1 |
5 Transfers |
3.5 |
3.5 |
3.5 |
3.6 |
3.7 |
6 Income |
-1.0 |
-0.8 |
-0.7 |
-0.6 |
-0.5 |
Current Account Balance (A+B) |
-4.1 |
-3.8 |
-3.3 |
-2.8 |
-2.5 |
Annex 4
Alternative Scenarios with regard to the External Sector (Contd.) |
Scenario I: Projections of Capital Account for the 12th Plan
(Assumptions: GDP growth 8.5 per cent and Inflation 5 per cent) |
US$ billion |
Item/Years |
2012-13 |
2013-14 |
2014-15 |
2015-16 |
2016-17 |
FDI Inward |
44 |
54 |
64 |
77 |
86 |
FDI Outward |
21 |
22 |
26 |
30 |
35 |
Net FDI |
24 |
31 |
39 |
47 |
51 |
Net FIIs |
20 |
20 |
25 |
30 |
30 |
Net ADRs/GDRs |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Net Portfolio Flows |
23 |
23 |
28 |
33 |
33 |
ECB Inflows |
32 |
39 |
47 |
58 |
70 |
ECB Outflows |
19 |
24 |
28 |
35 |
42 |
Net ECBs to India |
13 |
16 |
19 |
23 |
28 |
Net Short-term |
13 |
16 |
19 |
23 |
27 |
Net External Assistance |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Net Banking Capital |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
Net NRI Flows |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
Other Capital |
-2 |
-2 |
-2 |
-2 |
-2 |
Others (residual) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Net Capital Flows |
77 |
90 |
109 |
130 |
144 |
(Per Cent to GDP) |
FDI Inward |
2.1 |
2.1 |
2.2 |
2.4 |
2.3 |
FDI Outward |
1.0 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
Net FDI |
1.1 |
1.2 |
1.3 |
1.4 |
1.4 |
Net FIIs |
0.9 |
0.8 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.8 |
Net ADRs/GDRs |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
Net Portfolio Flows |
1.1 |
0.9 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
0.9 |
ECB Inflows |
1.5 |
1.6 |
1.7 |
1.8 |
1.9 |
ECB Outflows |
0.9 |
0.9 |
1.0 |
1.1 |
1.1 |
Net ECBs to India |
0.6 |
0.6 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
0.8 |
Net Short-term |
0.6 |
0.6 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
Net External Assistance |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
Net Banking Capital |
0.2 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
Net NRI Flows |
0.2 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
Other Capital |
-0.1 |
-0.1 |
-0.1 |
-0.1 |
-0.1 |
Others (residual) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
Net Capital Flows |
3.6 |
3.6 |
3.8 |
4.0 |
3.9 |
Annex 4
Alternative Scenarios with regard to the External Sector (Contd.) |
Scenario II: Projections of Current Account Balance for the 12th Plan
(Assumptions: GDP growth 9 per cent and Inflation 5 per cent) |
US$ billion |
Item/Years |
2012-13 |
2013-14 |
2014-15 |
2015-16 |
2016-17 |
1 Non-oil Exports |
289 |
355 |
435 |
535 |
651 |
2 Non-oil Imports |
406 |
502 |
612 |
750 |
919 |
3 Net oil Imports |
91 |
99 |
107 |
117 |
126 |
A Trade Balance (1-2-3) |
-208 |
-246 |
-285 |
-332 |
-394 |
B Net Invisibles (4+5+6) |
115 |
141 |
173 |
213 |
256 |
4 Services |
61 |
74 |
92 |
115 |
142 |
5 Transfers |
75 |
87 |
101 |
117 |
133 |
6 Income |
-21 |
-21 |
-20 |
-19 |
-19 |
Current Account Balance (A+B) |
-93 |
-105 |
-112 |
-119 |
-138 |
As% of GDP |
1 Non-oil Exports |
13.3 |
14.0 |
15.0 |
16.1 |
17.1 |
2 Non-oil Imports |
18.7 |
19.8 |
21.1 |
22.6 |
24.1 |
3 Net oil Imports |
4.2 |
3.9 |
3.7 |
3.5 |
3.3 |
A Trade Balance (1-2-3) |
-9.6 |
-9.7 |
-9.8 |
-10.0 |
-10.4 |
B Net Invisibles (4+5+6) |
5.3 |
5.6 |
6.0 |
6.4 |
6.7 |
4 Services |
2.8 |
2.9 |
3.2 |
3.5 |
3.7 |
5 Transfers |
3.5 |
3.4 |
3.5 |
3.5 |
3.5 |
6 Income |
-1.0 |
-0.8 |
-0.7 |
-0.6 |
-0.5 |
Current Account Balance (A+B) |
-4.3 |
-4.1 |
-3.8 |
-3.6 |
-3.6 |
Annex 4
Alternative Scenarios with regard to the External Sector (Contd.) |
Scenario II: Projections of Capital Account for the 12th Plan
(Assumptions: GDP growth 9 per cent and Inflation 5 per cent) |
US$ billion |
Item/Years |
2012-13 |
2013-14 |
2014-15 |
2015-16 |
2016-17 |
FDI Inward |
45 |
55 |
66 |
79 |
88 |
FDI Outward |
21 |
22 |
25 |
29 |
34 |
Net FDI |
25 |
32 |
40 |
50 |
54 |
Net FIIs |
20 |
20 |
25 |
30 |
30 |
Net ADRs/GDRs |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Net Portfolio Flows |
23 |
23 |
28 |
33 |
33 |
ECB Inflows |
33 |
40 |
48 |
59 |
72 |
ECB Outflows |
20 |
24 |
29 |
35 |
43 |
Net ECBs to India |
13 |
16 |
19 |
24 |
29 |
Net Short-term |
14 |
16 |
19 |
23 |
28 |
Net External Assistance |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Net Banking Capital |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
Net NRI Flows |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
Other Capital |
-2 |
-2 |
-2 |
-2 |
-2 |
Others (residual) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Net Capital Flows |
78 |
92 |
111 |
134 |
149 |
(Per Cent to GDP) |
FDI Inward |
2.1 |
2.2 |
2.3 |
2.4 |
2.3 |
FDI Outward |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
Net FDI |
1.1 |
1.3 |
1.4 |
1.5 |
1.4 |
Net FIIs |
0.9 |
0.8 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.8 |
Net ADRs/GDRs |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
Net Portfolio Flows |
1.1 |
0.9 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
0.9 |
ECB Inflows |
1.5 |
1.6 |
1.7 |
1.8 |
1.9 |
ECB Outflows |
0.9 |
0.9 |
1.0 |
1.1 |
1.1 |
Net ECBs to India |
0.6 |
0.6 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
0.8 |
Net Short-term |
0.6 |
0.6 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
Net External Assistance |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
Net Banking Capital |
0.2 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
Net NRI Flows |
0.2 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
Other Capital |
-0.1 |
-0.1 |
-0.1 |
-0.1 |
-0.1 |
Others (residual) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
Net Capital Flows |
3.6 |
3.6 |
3.8 |
4.0 |
3.9 |
Annex 4
Alternative Scenarios with regard to the External Sector (Contd.) |
Scenario III: Projections of Current Account Balance for the 12th Plan
(Assumptions: GDP growth 8 per cent and Inflation 6 per cent) |
US$ billion |
Item/Years |
2012-13 |
2013-14 |
2014-15 |
2015-16 |
2016-17 |
1 Non-oil Exports |
289 |
354 |
432 |
529 |
642 |
2 Non-oil Imports |
401 |
489 |
589 |
712 |
861 |
3 Net oil Imports |
91 |
97 |
105 |
113 |
121 |
A Trade Balance (1-2-3) |
-202 |
-232 |
-261 |
-295 |
-340 |
B Net Invisibles (4+5+6) |
118 |
147 |
184 |
230 |
284 |
4 Services |
64 |
80 |
103 |
133 |
170 |
5 Transfers |
75 |
87 |
101 |
117 |
133 |
6 Income |
-21 |
-21 |
-20 |
-19 |
-19 |
Current Account Balance (A+B) |
-84 |
-85 |
-78 |
-65 |
-56 |
As% of GDP |
1 Non-oil Exports |
13.3 |
13.9 |
14.9 |
15.9 |
16.9 |
2 Non-oil Imports |
18.5 |
19.2 |
20.3 |
21.4 |
22.6 |
3 Net oil Imports |
4.2 |
3.8 |
3.6 |
3.4 |
3.2 |
A Trade Balance (1-2-3) |
-9.3 |
-9.1 |
-9.0 |
-8.9 |
-8.9 |
B Net Invisibles (4+5+6) |
5.4 |
5.8 |
6.3 |
6.9 |
7.5 |
4 Services |
2.9 |
3.2 |
3.5 |
4.0 |
4.5 |
5 Transfers |
3.5 |
3.4 |
3.5 |
3.5 |
3.5 |
6 Income |
-1.0 |
-0.8 |
-0.7 |
-0.6 |
-0.5 |
Current Account Balance (A+B) |
-3.9 |
-3.4 |
-2.7 |
-2.0 |
-1.5 |
Annex 4
Alternative Scenarios with regard to the External Sector (Concld.) |
Scenario III: Projections of Capital Account for the 12th Plan
(Assumptions: GDP growth 8 per cent and Inflation 6 per cent) |
US$ billion |
Item/Years |
2012-13 |
2013-14 |
2014-15 |
2015-16 |
2016-17 |
FDI Inward |
43 |
51 |
61 |
73 |
81 |
FDI Outward |
20 |
22 |
25 |
28 |
32 |
Net FDI |
23 |
30 |
36 |
45 |
49 |
Net FIIs |
20 |
20 |
25 |
30 |
30 |
Net ADRs/GDRs |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Net Portfolio Flows |
23 |
23 |
28 |
33 |
33 |
ECB Inflows |
32 |
39 |
47 |
56 |
68 |
ECB Outflows |
19 |
23 |
28 |
34 |
41 |
Net ECBs to India |
13 |
16 |
19 |
22 |
27 |
Net Short-term |
13 |
16 |
19 |
22 |
26 |
Net External Assistance |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Net Banking Capital |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
Net NRI Flows |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
Other Capital |
-2 |
-2 |
-2 |
-2 |
-2 |
Others (residual) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Net Capital Flows |
76 |
88 |
106 |
126 |
139 |
(Per Cent to GDP) |
FDI Inward |
2.0 |
2.0 |
2.1 |
2.2 |
2.1 |
FDI Outward |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.8 |
0.8 |
0.8 |
Net FDI |
1.0 |
1.2 |
1.3 |
1.3 |
1.3 |
Net FIIs |
0.9 |
0.8 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.8 |
Net ADRs/GDRs |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
Net Portfolio Flows |
1.1 |
0.9 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
0.9 |
ECB Inflows |
1.5 |
1.5 |
1.6 |
1.7 |
1.8 |
ECB Outflows |
0.9 |
0.9 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.1 |
Net ECBs to India |
0.6 |
0.6 |
0.6 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
Net Short-term |
0.6 |
0.6 |
0.6 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
Net External Assistance |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
Net Banking Capital |
0.2 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
Net NRI Flows |
0.2 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
Other Capital |
-0.1 |
-0.1 |
-0.1 |
-0.1 |
-0.1 |
Others (residual) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
Net Capital Flows |
3.5 |
3.5 |
3.6 |
3.8 |
3.7 |
|