Former CEA Arvind Subramanian has said methodological changes led to overestimating GDP growth by 2.5 percentage points per year between 2011-12 & 2016-17.
Through film, textile, scent, sound, and gesture, spectators are invited to descend into an immersive environment where inherited knowledge seeps through material and form.
November exports to the US saw 10% growth from the previous month. Overall, in the first 8 months this fiscal, the merchandise exports to the US touched has touched $59bn.
Of the total package, $649 million will be utilised for additional hardware, software, and support services, and the remaining for Major Defence Equipment (MDE).
Don’t blame misfortune. This is colossal incompetence and insensitivity. So bad, heads would have rolled even in the old PSU-era Indian Airlines and Air India.
I read articles of both Arvind Subramanian and Arvind Pangariya with interest. Both are well known economists in their own fields and former is well known in the field, personally not known to me and the later is my class-mate from Uni. Rajashan Jaipur. However, Arvind Surbamanian appears more close to the field of economic growth than Panagariya who is a basically is an economist of International trade theory but became a development economist overnight promoted by Pro-American promoter of IMF/World Bank outdated ideas and failed development models prescribed to developing countries which resulted in resignation of Stieglitz from Chairmanship of World Bank. In fact, following the worldwide financial crises many great economists including Nobel Laureate Paul Krugeman rejected neoclassical models although there on difference between Subramanian and Pangariya on relevance of neoclassical models except on a minor methodological issue.
In my view, Panagariya’s attack on Subramanian is too harsh and appears politically motivated as this undermines success of neoclassical models of growth in period of 2012-216 covering the years under both the Congress and BJP governments to which either Panagariya has championed their success and got Padmabhooshan or served as the Vice-Chairman a toothless body, NITI Ayog. He had no impact on public policy at all during his tenure at NITI Ayog. Panagariya’s in attacking Subramanian’s methodology on the basis of PM Modi’s Economic Advisory Council consisted of corporate interests namely, Swaminathan Aiyar, Surjit Bhalla, Bibek Debroy, Charan Singh, and a Govt body CSO whose credibility has been called in question many times which backfires on his criticism of digging Subramanian’s motives for writing his article. In fact, he lost all his professionalism in attacking Harvard University to attack his credibility. Although everything emanating coming from Harvard and Columbia does not provide a litmus test may universities’ working papers are far more credible than any published paper in a peer review journal. The fact of the matter is Panagariya’s own predictions of GDP turned out to be false, for example, in 2011 at the Econometric Society Conference (though not an econometrician) held in Indore, based on an IMF report he openly eulogies Dr Manmohan Singh’s achievements and declared with a bang and show that a 10% growth in GDP is sustainable and also claimed that after adjusting India’s GDP with Purchasing Power parity (PPP) is 11.5% greater than China which I found quiet absurd then, but subsequently his dream was shattered when GDP plunge to 4.8% in 2012-13. Soon after that Panagariya has taken a 180 degree turn and started advocating Modi’s success in Gujarat who late rewarded him with Vice Chairmanship of NITI Ayog. If on applies a legal test to Subramanian’s prediction, an independent observers, who is not overly sensitive, will come out with a belief that he was right and Panagariya was wrong. I did not find any serious flaw in Subramanian’s methodology contrasting with Govt and its agents’ assertions.
I read articles of both Arvind Subramanian and Arvind Pangariya with interest. Both are well known economists in their own fields and former is well known in the field, personally not known to me and the later is my class-mate from Uni. Rajashan Jaipur. However, Arvind Surbamanian appears more close to the field of economic growth than Panagariya who is a basically is an economist of International trade theory but became a development economist overnight promoted by Pro-American promoter of IMF/World Bank outdated ideas and failed development models prescribed to developing countries which resulted in resignation of Stieglitz from Chairmanship of World Bank. In fact, following the worldwide financial crises many great economists including Nobel Laureate Paul Krugeman rejected neoclassical models although there on difference between Subramanian and Pangariya on relevance of neoclassical models except on a minor methodological issue.
In my view, Panagariya’s attack on Subramanian is too harsh and appears politically motivated as this undermines success of neoclassical models of growth in period of 2012-216 covering the years under both the Congress and BJP governments to which either Panagariya has championed their success and got Padmabhooshan or served as the Vice-Chairman a toothless body, NITI Ayog. He had no impact on public policy at all during his tenure at NITI Ayog. Panagariya’s in attacking Subramanian’s methodology on the basis of PM Modi’s Economic Advisory Council consisted of corporate interests namely, Swaminathan Aiyar, Surjit Bhalla, Bibek Debroy, Charan Singh, and a Govt body CSO whose credibility has been called in question many times which backfires on his criticism of digging Subramanian’s motives for writing his article. In fact, he lost all his professionalism in attacking Harvard University to attack his credibility. Although everything emanating coming from Harvard and Columbia does not provide a litmus test may universities’ working papers are far more credible than any published paper in a peer review journal. The fact of the matter is Panagariya’s own predictions of GDP turned out to be false, for example, in 2011 at the Econometric Society Conference (though not an econometrician) held in Indore, based on an IMF report he openly eulogies Dr Manmohan Singh’s achievements and declared with a bang and show that a 10% growth in GDP is sustainable and also claimed that after adjusting India’s GDP with Purchasing Power parity (PPP) is 11.5% greater than China which I found quiet absurd then, but subsequently his dream was shattered when GDP plunge to 4.8% in 2012-13. Soon after that Panagariya has taken a 180 degree turn and started advocating Modi’s success in Gujarat who late rewarded him with Vice Chairmanship of NITI Ayog. If on applies a legal test to Subramanian’s prediction, an independent observers, who is not overly sensitive, will come out with a belief that he was right and Panagariya was wrong. I did not find any serious flaw in Subramanian’s methodology contrasting with Govt and its agents’ assertions.