Calcutta Notebook

B J

The Modi Government, like its predecessor UPA Government, is pursuing economic growth as a path to securing welfare of the people. Assumption is that economic growth leads to increase in the wage rates and improved standard of living of the people. The ground reality, however, is very different. The rate of growth has increased substantially after the state embraced globalisation. But this has not been accompanied with an increase in real wages.

Wages are reckoned in "nominal" or "real" terms. Data indicates that the nominal wages have risen continuously in the last two decades. However, the real wages have stagnated except for a short time. The nominal wages increased between 1998 and 2010. But the prices also increased at the same time. The increase in nominal wages was almost equal to the increase in prices. Growth rate was high around 7 percent. It led to increase in nominal wages but not to an increase in real wages because the prices increased at nearly the same rate. Then there took place a steep increase in real wages between 2010 and 2014. The growth rates remained high as previously. The increase was the impact of the Employment Guarantee Scheme. Workers stayed back in their villages because they got some assured employment. They demanded higher wages and got the same. A combination of high growth rate and MNREGA led to an increase in real wages. Then the real wages declined again between 2014 and 2016 after the NDA Government came into power. Well, this was because there was a marginal decline in the growth rate. This means that, left to itself, economic growth is barely able to secure increase in nominal wages equal to the increase in prices. Accordingly, economic growth has produced only a stagnation in the wage rates. The high growth rate in the UPA period prevented a decline, but could not secure an increase in the wage rates. More action such as by MNREGA is required to secure an increase in the same. It is clear from these data that economic growth alone cannot be relied upon to secure an increase in the real wage rates.

Worse, inequality has risen at the same time. Then poverty is not an absolute concept. It is reckoned comparatively. A family living in a pucca house in the slums of Mumbai is considered "poor" even though it has a fridge and desert cooler; while one living in a pucca house in the village is considered to be "rich" even without an electricity connection. It is possible, therefore, that the income of the poor increases but they feel impoverished because the increase in the incomes of others has been much more and they have been left behind in comparison. Thus, the impact of economic growth on poverty has to be assessed by looking at inequality as well.

There are many indications that inequality has increased. Fifteen years ago, the top graduate of IIM received a starting salary of about Rs 10 lac per year. The daily wages of an unskilled worker at that time was Rs 50 per day or Rs 15,000 per year. The IIM graduate received 67 times the wages of an unskilled worker. Today the top graduate gets a starting salary of Rs 2 crore per year while the unskilled worker's wages have risen to Rs 100,000 per year. The gap between the two has increased from 67 times to 200 times. That implies that inequality has increased along with relative poverty.

Economic growth has not led to increase real wages because it promotes capital-intensive production. For example, about 20 years ago 10 tons of goods were carried in a truck. Nowadays three-axle trucks carry 30 tons of goods, courtesy globalisation. Previously three drivers and three cleaners were required to transport 30 tons of goods. Now only one each is needed. The share of labour in the income from transportation has declined while that of capital has increased. Real wages have declined in tandem with the reduced share of labour in production.

Another argument in favour of the positive impact of economic growth on wages is that economic growth leads to higher revenues and enables the government to run welfare programmes which benefit the poor. However, most money is consumed in paying salaries of the welfare bureaucracy. This is the reason that increase in welfare expenditures between 1998 and 2010 did not bring about an increase in the wages. It was only a particular type of welfare expenditure under MNREGA that led to increase in real wages. The fact that real wages have remained stagnant through most of the last two decades shows that the welfare programmes except Employment Guarantee have not had a positive impact.

The conclusion is that economic growth alone is a non-starter. Specific policies like MNREGA are required that directly push the wages upwards.

Frontier
Vol. 50, No.37, Mar 18 - 24, 2018