Digital Economy, Society and Governance

I came across this interesting discussion in which governance of the digital economy is analyzed. I have tried to review and present my thoughts on this lecture by Prof. Rainer Kattel.

Rainer Kattel: Governing the digital economy | University College London (UCL) Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose (IIPP)

Prof. Kattel begins with some facts about the digital economy and its effects on privacy, productivity, employment, market concentration and global trade. He only uses these as a plane to discuss some more fundamental changes in our society brought about by digital technologies and its version of capitalism.

Features of the digital economy:

  • Not just automate but informate: Citing Zuboff, the lecture notes that today’s technologies learns not just about processes but also about users, their abilities and deficiencies such that it improve itself – a fundamental shift from earlier machines which performed routine, automated tasks. This presents questions for management of firms and organization behavior. Although this is a transformation, Zuboff’s work also notes the imperatives of what she calls ‘surveillance’ capitalism are different from managerial capitalism that the lecture focuses on.
  • Collective production of innovation: Citing Benkler, the lecture notes that production has always been a social process and in the digital age, this is more so as people willing give information into networks that becomes channels of innovation. For example, Open Source Software like Linux which has been amended and improved by myriad developers without profit motive. The question is, why have organized firms if innovation can be peer-produced? This process, according to Benkler, is varied in terms of granularity and modularity such that peer-production happens according to convenience and expertise of the developers.
  • Intangible Capital: Citing Haskel and Westlake, the lecture notes the increases relevance of brands, teamwork, social networks of employees, ability to source ideas from outside the firm etc. present challenges of measuring value of people as well as products and processes.

Digital Innovation and Competition

While classical economics argues for perfect competition, innovation happens via imperfect competition, as Schumpeter had proposed. The rapid expansion of market share which happens if technology itself learning to do things it is designed to do, can only be viewed as imperfect competition. This leads to reinvention of capitalism as technology changes every few decades, with an emergent new common sense, new products and new opportunity of profits – not of which have the ideal market of perfect competition.

For this, the lecture cites Prof. Carlota Perez’s work on the history of innovation, which shows that for every technological revolution, there is an installation period with bubbles and mania for initial investors, followed by turning point of collapse and recessions, which eventually leads to the general deployment of the technology for general prosperity with the intervention of the state.

Carlota Perez

While this may be the general trend of technological development and innovation deployment, the length of the frenzy, turning point and start of ensuing deployment period varies across societies and technologies. It is not inherent in the technology but a socio-political decision as to how and when the state responds to intervene such that the technology is used for general welfare. Similarly, the new common sense is also socially constructed.

Challenges:

The lecture also presents multiple interdependent challenges for economists, society and governments that digital technologies present:

Economics:

  • Why have firms when products and services can be crowdsourced or peer produced? Will their purpose only be rent extraction from this production? What would it mean for national accounting systems, if tasks that create economic value are so dis-aggregated?
  • What does this means for markets? Why do we need privately owned platforms when peer-production can be just as or more efficient?
  • If production of information is collective, why not have commons type ownership? What does it mean for the notion of property?

Society:                                                                                                                             

  • Welfare state vs personalized services – universality of government policies vs individual-focused customization
  • Statistical self vs automated self – following norms set by government vs going along with personalized feedback from devices
  • Countervailing institutions vs digital nomad – unionized labor vs gig workers

Governance:

  • Stability and predictability vs agility and experimentalism
  • From reaction to anticipation – predictive policing
  • Automation, platforms and inclusion – governments thinking like platforms e.g. payments systems, identity systems and automated services

Criticism:

While these comparisons and contrasts are important, the state and the firms seems to be understood here in the same fashion i.e. as centralizing institutions compared to the individual. Although they may have centralizing tendencies, there economic and political functions are fundamentally different – something we should never lose sight of. Even if the government provides some services or acts like platforms in a digital economy, its political identity has to be understood as separate from firms.

Similarly, the juxtaposition of universality and personalization may be less antagonistic and more about balance,as against what is presented in the lecture. While the automated self with personalized services becomes more prominent, it might not be wise for the state to lose sight of some universality and statistical averages in terms of policy making even as it focuses on the calibrating itself to individual citizens. Moreover, governance that has agility, is experimental, is automated or anticipates policy issues has to be always looked through the lens of inclusive democratic norms before institutionalizing these changes, which may not themselves yield inclusive or constitutionally sound results.

Notwithstanding these concerns, the lecture is an insightful analysis of the challenges and opportunities of the coming digital economy, what we need to think about, where to intervene and how to understand and shape the changes taking place around us.

India: Regional Disparity in Growth (#6)

First Post – India: Regional Disparity in Growth (#1)

INDICATORS OF REGIONAL DISPARITY (#4):

  • Industry:

Private Investment:

Private investment has arrived abundantly in the more affluent states leaving little for the poorer ones. Since per-capita income reflects the savings rate, the conversion of savings into capital investment is lower in poor states. Additionally, richer states have better infrastructure, governance and a more skilled workforce. As with per-capita income, liberalisation seems to have further skewed this disparity in investment levels by increasing the mobility of private investment which was earlier allocated by political bargaining of licenses.

Data source: Reserve Bank of India

The states that have managed stronger growth recently, compared to previous decades, like Bihar, Assam, West Bengal Madhya Pradesh have retained their small, negligible in case of Bihar, shares of manufacturing in this growth. Manufacturing has had little or no positive role to play in the growth turnaround in these states although share of agriculture has dropped in states like Bihar and Assam.

Here, Nurkse’s vicious cycle of poverty is visible with low income states, which effectively have low savings, have low investment and hence a low late of capital formation and low productivity which ultimately means low output. We can safely conclude, “a state is poor because it is poor”.

Public Investment:

The public sector is still very important in India despite the process of liberalization 25 years ago. States with higher levels of per capita income can raise higher per capita tax revenue, thereby enabling them to finance higher levels of public investment. Poorer states do not have this luxury, hence they have to have had to rely on redistributive transfers from the centre to provide them with that extra revenue.

Data source: Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Govt. of India

However, the graphs above and below show that this redistribution has not been able to balance the regional disparities that persist. North-eastern states have see negligible growth in PSUs with the exception of Assam. Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Uttaranchal etc. have seen only moderate increases while staying low on the ladder of private investment as well.

Data source : Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises, Govt. of India.

Priority in industrial licensing, incentive schemes for attracting greater private investment to backward areas, greater allocation of resources through plan investments, special programmes for building up infrastructural facilities in backward regions – these are some of the instruments that were used by policymakers. However, it did not materialize as expected. Thus, redistribution assumes more importance post liberalisation as market-reform and relaxation of state control can further accentuate these disparities across states, thereby putting a greater burden on the already ambiguous system of centre-state transfers.

Data source: Reserve bank of India

This mixture of public and private investment can be seen in the gross output produced by the states. The disparities of supply of capital are reflected in the output. While Gujarat, Maharashtra and Karnataka outshine others, followed by Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. The rest of the country have been virtually crowded out by these states.

Data source: Reserve Bank of India

Again, north-eastern states barely register themselves on the plot while Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and others slowly inch upwards. This shows that recent pick up in growth in these states has relied on services rather than on manufacturing as its engine which means that the benefits are concentrated into skilled and educated population, only slowly trickling down to the barely literate people – a major chunk of population dependent on daily wages.

Nexus of public and private investment:

Private investment and public investment seem to affect and are affected by state’s level of income, meaning that state governments can play an important role in enhancing their own growth prospects. Public expenditure on education and health is of critical importance. In practice, however, state governments are limited by their ability to increase levels of capital expenditure as well as to ensure efficiency in its use. The former, in turn, depends greatly on the tax-revenue, dependent on per-capita income, along with centre-state government transfers which are irregular.

There seems to be a complementarity in public infrastructure, which has influence on improving human capital, and private investment such that public investment, which is higher in richer states, “crowds in” private investment as well as skilled labor. Indeed, the backward states had high rates of outmigration while the developed states were absorbing these migrants – a sort of ‘suction mechanism’ is in operation within India. (UNESCO, 2013)

Foreign Direct Investment(FDI):

FDI was concentrated in few states with Maharashtra receiving highest chunk followed by Karnataka, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Punjab and Tamil Nadu. The North-eastern States have been largely untouched by FDI while poor but populous states like Bihar, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh etc. have seen scant FDI. Again the disparity that existed in private investment persists. Notably, this also reflects poorly on social conditions of the states that do not or only scantily receive FDI.

Data source:Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Govt. of India

Inter-state disparity in agriculture:

The irrigated area as a portion of sown area in Punjab and Haryana increased to lie in the range of 80-90% while in Kerala, Assam or even nearby Himachal Pradesh it lied between 10-20%. Similarly, use of High Yielding Variety of seeds increased multifold in the former states. This is visible in inter-state trade.

Share of major exporters in total internal trade in 2014 (per cent)

Source: Director General of commercial Intelligence and Statistics (2014)

While Punjab was the most important exporter of agricultural commodities followed by Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Haryana and Maharashtra. Similarly, Haryana, West Bengal, Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh were found to be the largest importers of agricultural products.

Share of major importers in total internal trade in 2014 (per cent)

Source: Director General of commercial Intelligence and Statistics (2014)

Dominance of few states indicates high degree of export concentration among states and this dependency is associated with various problems. Any supply side shock, a regular feature of droughts and bad monsoon, can drastically hurt the farm production and exports. On the import side, this shock means lower supply as well as higher prices for imported commodities in the short run. Hence, these importing states are left to the mercy of federal assistance and subsidies in order order to fulfill their demand. (Khanal, 2016)

Seventh Post – India: Regional Disparity in Growth (#7)