O que é este blog?

Este blog trata basicamente de ideias, se possível inteligentes, para pessoas inteligentes. Ele também se ocupa de ideias aplicadas à política, em especial à política econômica. Ele constitui uma tentativa de manter um pensamento crítico e independente sobre livros, sobre questões culturais em geral, focando numa discussão bem informada sobre temas de relações internacionais e de política externa do Brasil. Para meus livros e ensaios ver o website: www.pralmeida.org.

Mostrando postagens com marcador India. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador India. Mostrar todas as postagens

sábado, 10 de março de 2018

Como a India avançou mais do que a China (relativamente) - World Economic Forum

A matéria é antiga, mas continua relevante...

Here’s how India became more competitive than China

Image: REUTERS/Jitendra Prakash
Attilio Di Battista, Economist, World Economic Forum

India’s GDP per capita (in terms of purchasing power parity) almost doubled between 2007 and 2016, from $3,587 to $6,599. Growth slowed after the 2008 crisis, hitting a decade low in 2012–2013. But if anything, this provided the country with the opportunity to rethink its policies and engage more firmly in the reforms necessary to improve its competitiveness. Growth rebounded in 2014, and last year surpassed that of China.
India’s overall competitiveness score was rather stagnant between 2007 and 2014, and the country slipped down the rankings in the Global Competitiveness Report as others made improvements. However, improvements since 2014 have seen it climb to 39th in this year’s edition of the report — up from 48th in 2007–2008. Its overall score improved by 0.19 points in that time.
What makes India so competitive?
Improvements in health, primary education and infrastructure contributed most to this improvement — although this is partly explained by the relatively large weight these “basic requirements” components have until now been given in factor-driven economies, each accounting for 15% of the final score.
On health and basic education, India almost halved its rate of infant mortality (from 62 to 37.9 per 1,000), increased life expectancy (from 62 to 68) and primary education enrolment (from 88.8% to 93.1%).
Improvements in infrastructure were small and faltering until 2014, when the government increased public investment and accelerated approval procedures to attract private resources. Macroeconomic conditions — the third-biggest positive contributor — followed a similar path: the recent slump in commodity prices has helped India to keep inflation below its target of 5%, while rebalancing its current account and decreasing its public deficit.
Another improvement over the past decade has been increased market size (the adoption of new PPP estimates by the IMF in 2014 also contributed to the upward increase in the measure of market size used in the GCI). Institutions deteriorated until 2014, as mounting scandals and seemingly unmanageable inefficiencies caused businesses to lose trust in the public administration — but this trend was also reversed after 2014, and the institutions score has returned to its 2007 level.
Have you read?
In other areas, India has not yet recovered to 2007 levels, with the biggest shortfall coming in financial market development — this pillar taking 0.03 points off India’s 2016 score in comparison to 2007 (a reduced pillar score of 0.52 points, multiplied by a pillar weight of 6%). The Reserve Bank of India has helped increase financial market transparency, shedding light on the large amounts of non-performing loans previously not reported on the balance sheets of Indian banks. However, the banks have not yet found a way to sell these assets, and in some cases need large recapitalizations.
The efficiency of the goods market has also deteriorated, as India failed to address long-running problems such as different local sales and value added taxes (this is set to finally change as of 2017 if the Central GST and Integrated GST bills currently in parliament are fully implemented). Another area of concern is India’s stagnating performance in technological readiness, a pillar on which it scores one full point lower than any other. These three pillars will be key for India to prosper in its next stage of development, when it will no longer be possible to base its competitiveness on low-cost, abundant labour. Higher education and training has also shown no improvement.
What areas should India prioritize today? India has made significant progress on infrastructure, one of the pillars where it ranked worst. As the country closes the infrastructure gap, new priorities emerge. The country’s biggest relative weakness today is in technological readiness, where initiatives such as Digital India could lead to significant improvements in the next years. India outperforms countries in the same stage of development, mostly those in sub-Saharan Africa, in all pillars except labor market efficiency.
Even on indicators where India has made progress, comparisons with other countries can be sobering: although life expectancy has increased, for example, it is still low by global standards, with India ranking only 106th in the world; and while India almost halved infant mortality, other countries did even better, so it drops nine places this year to 115th. Huge challenges still lie ahead on India’s path to prosperity.
The Global Competitiveness Report 2016–2017 is available here. You can explore the results of the report using the heatmap below.

Originally published at www.weforum.org.

segunda-feira, 24 de julho de 2017

BRICS Co-operation: Assessment and Next Steps - Seminar Itamaraty, August 1, 2017, 9am-4pm




BRICS Co-operation: Assessment and Next Steps
Auditório Paulo Nogueira Batista, Anexo II, Palácio Itamaraty
Brasília, 1 August 2017

Draft Programme*

09:00–09:20
Opening

§  Ambassador Sérgio Eduardo Moreira Lima, President of FUNAG
§  Ambassador Georges Lamazière, Under Secretary General for Asia and the Pacific
§  Ambassador Li Jinzhang, Ambassador of China to Brazil
§  Assistant Minister Hu Zhengyue, Vice President of China Public Diplomacy Association (CPDA)

09:20–10:40
One Decade of the BRICS: Assessment and Next Steps

§  Professor Wu Xiaoqiu, Vice-President of Renmin University
§  Ambassador Sergio Florencio, Director for International Economic and Political Relations, IPEA
§  Minister Mariana Madeira, Head of the Division for BRICS and IBSA, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
§  Minister Benoni Belli, Secretary for Diplomatic Planning, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
§  Professor Thomas Dwyer, Co-ordinator, BRICS Studies Project, University of Campinas

10:40–11:00
Coffee Break


11:00–12:40
Breadth and Depth: Priorities for BRICS Co-operation
Moderator : Professor WangWen, Executive Dean Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China

§  Mr. Zhao Xiyuan, Secretary-General of China Public Diplomacy Association (CPDA)
§  Counsellor Rina-Louise Pretorius, Embassy of South Africa to Brazil
§  XX, Embassy of India to Brazil
§  XX, Embassy of Russia to Brazil
§  Professor Zhao Xijun, Deputy Dean of School of Finance, Renmin University of China
12:40–14:00
Lunch Break



14:00– 15:40

Financial Co-operation, Investment and the New Development Bank
Moderator: Minister Paulo Roberto de Almeida, Director of IPRI

§  Professor Murilo Portugal, President of FEBRABAN
§  Minister Norberto Moretti, Director of the Department for Financial Affairs and Services, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
§  Professor Wang Wen, Executive Dean, Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China (RDCY)
§  Professor Marcos Troyjo, Director, BRICLab, Columbia University
§  XX, Embassy of China in Brazil
15:40–16:00
Wrap-up and Closure

§  Minister Paulo Roberto de Almeida, Director of IPRI
§  Minister Mariana Madeira, Head of the Division for BRICS and IBSA, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
§  Professor Wu Xiaoqiu, Vice-President of Renmin University

Supporting Partners:
Alexandre de Gusmão Foundation (FUNAG)
China Public Diplomacy Association (CPDA)

Co-Host:
Institute for Research on International Relations (IPRI), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Brazil
Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies,Renmin University of China (RDCY)



* Participants' names to be confirmed.


Chinese Participants' list:
- Wu Xiaoqiu, Vice President of Renmin University of China
- Zhao Xijun, Deputy Dean of School of Finance, Renmin University of China
- WangWen, Executive Dean Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies ,Renmin University of China
- Cui Yue, Executive Editor-in-Chief of Information Centre, Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies ,Renmin University of China
- Cheng Cheng, Vice Research fellow of Industry Research Department of Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies , Renmin University of China

sexta-feira, 23 de junho de 2017

India: como a religiao pode destruir a prosperidade de um povo - The Economist

The Economist, June 22, 2017
India’s huge buffalo-meat industry is in limbo

IN A corner of the state of Uttar Pradesh (UP) stands a gleaming building dedicated to animal slaughter on an industrial scale. Neatly mown lawns lead the way to a corral for hundreds of the curly-horned Murrah buffalo typical of the region. Nearby is a lorry-sized, stainless-steel machine in which the animals are killed. A Muslim cleric stands ready to oversee the incantation that ensures each carcass will be halal. Upstairs a microbiology lab monitors the progress of each beast through stages of chilling, deboning and deglanding. Each pile of disaggregated buffalo is then frozen solid and put into a loading chamber.

Such facilities are common in UP, although they do not advertise their whereabouts for fear of antagonising “cow vigilantes”, Hindu militants who harass and extort in the name of protecting cows, which a majority of Indians hold to be sacred. India earns around $4bn a year from exporting beef, and last year was the world’s biggest exporter of the product. But nearly all of it comes from buffalo, not cow.
A few dozen integrated meat companies have harnessed the potential of water buffalo over the past 15 years, developing the means to send herds of beasts from tiny farms through mechanised slaughterhouses and on to foreign markets. Firms such as Hind Agro, Allana and M.K. Overseas, plus dozens more, most of them crowded into the west of UP, have helped raise the value of India’s beef exports 14-fold within a decade—their worth is now equivalent to nearly a third of the country’s monthly trade deficit.

But the environment ministry has put the business on the chopping block. In May it ordered that cattle, including water buffalo, may no longer be sold in open markets for the express purpose of slaughter. The ruling was issued with immediate effect, on the ground of preventing cruelty to a class of animals that defines oxen and even camels, as well as water buffalo and cows, as “cattle”.
The ruling has prompted an outcry. Many note that the ban appears unconstitutional. India’s individual states, some of which allow cow slaughter, are objecting. It also seems biased against the country’s Muslims, who are heavily involved in the meat and tannery trades both as workers and owners. The Supreme Court heard a case against the ruling on June 15th.

The timing of the ban is particularly irksome for the industry, because it ought to be enjoying a golden period. Brazil, the second-largest exporter, has been hobbled by a meat-contamination scandal affecting JBS, the world’s biggest meatpacker. Shiploads of Brazilian meat have been waiting in the Pacific, as Asian buyers have had second thoughts.

India’s industry is well-placed to take advantage. High standards, regulatory and sanitary, have been enforced, partly because of local sensitivities about animal slaughter. Teams of foreign buyers considering the Indian market have brought extra scrutiny. Their inspectors are relentless: three teams of Malaysians spot-checked 32 plants in one fortnight in April, for example. Unlike the giant feedlot operations of the American Midwest, say, which tend to stink of manure and death from miles away, the high-tech UP abattoir sits near neighbours on other industrial estates, kept spotless and odour-free by an enormous workforce.

Unless the government’s ruling is overturned, however, such advantages are hypothetical. Farmers and traders have become even warier of transporting their animals within the UP plant’s 200km-radius catchment area. That is a reprieve for the buffalo, at least.

sexta-feira, 30 de setembro de 2016

Como a India se tornou mais competitiva do que a China: Global Competitiveness Report (WEF)

Here’s how India became more competitive than China

Image: REUTERS/Jitendra Prakash
Attilio Di Battista, Economist, World Economic Forum

India’s GDP per capita (in terms of purchasing power parity) almost doubled between 2007 and 2016, from $3,587 to $6,599. Growth slowed after the 2008 crisis, hitting a decade low in 2012–2013. But if anything, this provided the country with the opportunity to rethink its policies and engage more firmly in the reforms necessary to improve its competitiveness. Growth rebounded in 2014, and last year surpassed that of China.
India’s overall competitiveness score was rather stagnant between 2007 and 2014, and the country slipped down the rankings in the Global Competitiveness Report as others made improvements. However, improvements since 2014 have seen it climb to 39th in this year’s edition of the report — up from 48th in 2007–2008. Its overall score improved by 0.19 points in that time.
What makes India so competitive?
Improvements in health, primary education and infrastructure contributed most to this improvement — although this is partly explained by the relatively large weight these “basic requirements” components have until now been given in factor-driven economies, each accounting for 15% of the final score.
On health and basic education, India almost halved its rate of infant mortality (from 62 to 37.9 per 1,000), increased life expectancy (from 62 to 68) and primary education enrolment (from 88.8% to 93.1%).
Improvements in infrastructure were small and faltering until 2014, when the government increased public investment and accelerated approval procedures to attract private resources. Macroeconomic conditions — the third-biggest positive contributor — followed a similar path: the recent slump in commodity prices has helped India to keep inflation below its target of 5%, while rebalancing its current account and decreasing its public deficit.
Another improvement over the past decade has been increased market size (the adoption of new PPP estimates by the IMF in 2014 also contributed to the upward increase in the measure of market size used in the GCI). Institutions deteriorated until 2014, as mounting scandals and seemingly unmanageable inefficiencies caused businesses to lose trust in the public administration — but this trend was also reversed after 2014, and the institutions score has returned to its 2007 level.
Have you read?
In other areas, India has not yet recovered to 2007 levels, with the biggest shortfall coming in financial market development — this pillar taking 0.03 points off India’s 2016 score in comparison to 2007 (a reduced pillar score of 0.52 points, multiplied by a pillar weight of 6%). The Reserve Bank of India has helped increase financial market transparency, shedding light on the large amounts of non-performing loans previously not reported on the balance sheets of Indian banks. However, the banks have not yet found a way to sell these assets, and in some cases need large recapitalizations.
The efficiency of the goods market has also deteriorated, as India failed to address long-running problems such as different local sales and value added taxes (this is set to finally change as of 2017 if the Central GST and Integrated GST bills currently in parliament are fully implemented). Another area of concern is India’s stagnating performance in technological readiness, a pillar on which it scores one full point lower than any other. These three pillars will be key for India to prosper in its next stage of development, when it will no longer be possible to base its competitiveness on low-cost, abundant labour. Higher education and training has also shown no improvement.
What areas should India prioritize today? India has made significant progress on infrastructure, one of the pillars where it ranked worst. As the country closes the infrastructure gap, new priorities emerge. The country’s biggest relative weakness today is in technological readiness, where initiatives such as Digital India could lead to significant improvements in the next years. India outperforms countries in the same stage of development, mostly those in sub-Saharan Africa, in all pillars except labor market efficiency.
Even on indicators where India has made progress, comparisons with other countries can be sobering: although life expectancy has increased, for example, it is still low by global standards, with India ranking only 106th in the world; and while India almost halved infant mortality, other countries did even better, so it drops nine places this year to 115th. Huge challenges still lie ahead on India’s path to prosperity.
The Global Competitiveness Report 2016–2017 is available here. You can explore the results of the report using the heatmap below.

Originally published at www.weforum.org.