Integrated circuit (IC), colloquially referred to as a “chip” or “semiconductor”, is the building block of the diverse, ubiquitous electronics, information & communication, and critical technologies such as smartphones, medical devices, Artificial Intelligence (AI)…
On 20th of March 2023, like every year, the world celebrated “International Happiness Day”. Happiness is a fundamental human goal , the United Nations affirms, while calling for a holistic, pragmatic, and poised approach to pursue economic growth. In common parlance, The International Day of Happiness is deemed to be a day reserved for celebrating and enhancing people’s happiness, but it begs to answer the questions – what does it mean for a modern state? Is there a relationship between people’s happiness and the functioning of a country? How does the state materialise it in practice? The World Happiness Report is published annually and The World Happiness Report 2023 ranked India 126 out of 136 countries on its happiness index. The World Happiness Report measures happiness on six parameters, namely :GDP per capita, Social Support, Healthy life expectancy, freedom to make life choices, generosity and corruption. The Report has faced a lot of flak domestically for the abysmal ranking accorded to India, and to the prudent mind, the criticism may well be warranted. The research desk of the State Bank of India in its weekly report in April 2023 decided to censure the World Happiness Rankings, and rightly so. As asserted by the SBI Report “Ecowrap”, the biggest lacuna in the happiness survey is the one fits all approach. Happiness foremost is an extremely subjective emotion, and while it can now be reduced to a scientific concept and measured via structured determinants, it still cannot be devoid of its subjectivity. The biggest example of the same is the juxtaposed difference in the way the Bhutanese, considered to be the pioneers of happy-nomics, measure happiness for their goals and the way the Happiness Index in the World Happiness Report does it. The SBI Report highlights this intrinsic lacunae of the WHR, and goes ahead to measure India’s happiness according to a different set of parameters. According to the SBI, India stands on the 48th position in their Happiness Index; which unfortunately may not be as promising as it sounds. One, India is 48, but among 61 countries as per the SBI rankings, which still puts India at a similar percentile, much like the World Happiness Report. Two, the SBI Report fails to capture the objective of these happiness rankings. This ranking, much like the World Happiness Report, is not solely a measure of the ‘emotional happiness’ of a country, the objective is to make “national happiness an operational objective for governments”. It is at this stage where detractors of the happiness movement bring forth the subjective nature of the concept and thus, the issues in quantifying it as an absolute determinant of public policy. For this purpose, scholars over a period of time have realised that a country’s development cannot be measured only on the basis of its GDP. It has been accepted that a more holistic approach has to be undertaken, and that’s where “happiness” or more precisely “Subjective Well-Being (SWB)”, comprising of life evaluations, positive effects and negative effects, comes into the picture. Countries are being conscious to take steps to formulate policy and laws from the happiness perspective, so as to promote a more holistic model of development. India’s rankings in the World Happiness Index, from its very inception, have been unenviable to say the least, which seriously undermines India’s global positioning as a fast growing economic powerhouse with a stable and democratic government. Moreover, with an entire chapter in its written constitution endowing far-reaching fundamental rights to its citizens and an activist judiciary guaranteeing the rights to the people, the rankings lead to a paradoxical situation; as the entire objective of these rights is the enhancement of the social, political and economic well-being of the citizenry. India’s constitutional structure is based on the welfare model, with the goal of the Government being the upliftment of the citizenry. It is also true that ideologies aside, the Government has taken up a plethora of measures for the progress of the country, be it infrastructural, socio-economic, legal etc. Hence, India is no novice to the happiness agenda. However, the welfare policies of the Government have somewhere fallen short of realising their actual potential. Whether it is our National Food Security Act or the different Housing schemes floated by the Central Government and the State Governments or MNREGA, the list being endless, the authorities have time and again implemented a wide range of welfare policies with the objective of increasing people’s happiness. And yet we rank 126 as per the perceived Happiness index. Pragmatically now what is required is not to introduce the happiness agenda into the Indian polity, for the Indian constitution is very much a consequence of this agenda, but to create a framework so as to measure the efficacy of policy vis-a-vis happiness. It has become pertinent to bring public policy and happiness together, to achieve beyond the set traditional contours of any welfare action. It is time that we build upon a policy of happiness; for it will definitely go a long way in serving as a fulcrum for all consequent policy initiatives. India needs to bridge the gap between the ideal and the reality, for the New India, is an economically thriving and more importantly, not an unhappy nation.
The biblical story of David and Goliath is oft used to voice the case of the underrepresented underdog winning the battle of right v. wrong, against the well-established, perceived as the arrogant giant. In this tale, the institutions envisioning services to citizens and legal entities, unfortunately have seemed to have gone astray, being adversarial to the ones which they have sought to serve. The Indian economy has made its mark as the fastest growing economy in the world, having a 5.5% average GDP growth rate in the last decade. By 2031, India’s GDP is forecasted to surpass US $7.5 trillion by 2031. As per the Economic Survey of 2020-2021, India’s merchandise exports grew to US $301.4 billion- a 50% year on year growth, while having the 4th largest forex reserve in the world as of November, 2021. The top 10 commodities which were torchbearers for the Indian export growth story were: Petroleum products, Precious/semi-precious stones, Iron and Steel, Drug formulation & Biologicals, Gold & other jewellery, Organic chemicals, Electric machinery and equipment, Aluminum & its products, Iron & steel products and Marine Products. These top 10 commodities, account for 39.7% of total Indian exports, amounting to US $115 Billion (just between April and November, 2021). Therefore, exports form a strong sentinel supplementing the Indian economy’s growth picture. While global trade amounted to US $28.5 trillion in 2021, the quantum of merchandise exports was valued at US $17.6 trillion. Therefore, the market of global trade in exports is an ocean of wealth and opportunities. But as with every opportunity, comes a risk. There are a multitude of risks associated with exports and trade across the world, in the unknowns. “Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India (ECGC) is a government company (under the control of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry). ECGC provides a range of credit risk insurance cover to exporters. Sidestepping, a quick glance at the Indian insurance sector would reveal that insurance penetration (calculated as the ratio of insurance premium to GDP) was 4.2% in 2020. The vision of ECGC states that it strives to support the Indian export industry by providing cost-effective insurance and trade-related services to meet the growing needs of the Indian Export market through optimal use of the available resources. The key motifs, which emerge in the ECGC’s vision are: firstly, to support the Indian export Industry, secondly to have cost effectiveness as a focal point and lastly, to deploy all its available resources. Though the conduct of the ECGC is quite contrary to its innate values. The ECGC prides itself on the fact that the claims ratio to outstanding commitment increased from 0.25% to 0.3% in 2020 vis a vis 2019. The data available in the public disclosures of the ECGC on the pendency of claims dawns a grim picture. From the years 2016-17 to 2019-20, the number of claims pending for 1 year to 5 years has seen a 267% increase, while the amount involved has almost tripled. Similarly, the number of claims being processed in 6 months or less, between the years 2016-17 and 2019-20, has seen a sharp 103% increase. Juxtaposed, against 811 total claims pending in 2019-20, only 553 were settled, that means a settlement ratio of 0.4. It is alarming that while the numbering claims pending for 1-5 years is booming, the disposal of claims smacks of inefficiency. Another alarming fact is that though 553 claims were settled, it’s not known whether they were allowed or disallowed – and how many have been appealed. A corporation whose goal, identity, and business is vastly affected by claim dispensation, these numbers do not inspire confidence in the ECGC’s ability to deftly address the core (and only) consumer turmoil of claim resolution. The objective of the National Export Insurance Account (NEIA) through its cover for projects aims to help make Indian project exports more competitive and gain a stronger foothold in regions of national strategic interest. Successful project will improve a sustained visible impact on India’s capacity to execute projects. Thus, the NEIA and in turn ECGC, seek to achieve important economic effects. Hedging risks will make the business of project exports more viable, and once more viable and lucrative a larger number of Indian businesses will aim to provide services abroad. The catalytic effect of such needs no enumeration, job creation, more forex, diplomatic collaborations. an increased strategic soft power among others. Each of these results, in turn spur further microeconomic benefits. A negative perception of the ECGC and its functions, loses consumer confidence, therefore hurting long term economic advantages, which are needless to explain. It is unfortunate that ECGC, which falls under the purview of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, seems to miss the big picture, draining the efforts the Central government or the Ministry makes in promoting India as a political and economic superpower. With the advent of further infusion of funds as grant, the ECGC needs to reflect and plug in the holes in its systems and processes, to mitigate the loss in consumer confidence. It is crucial to note, that the Law Commission of India in 1984, while envisioning a litigation policy, had remarked that litigation could be avoided if the official machinery is more energetic, more sympathetic and more imaginative. But alas, this caution has fallen on deaf ears, much akin to the ECGC. As the analysis over the next few paragraphs will espouse, the organisation seems to be losing its core value to promote exports by hedging credit risks, and cloaking an autocratic approach lacking energy and sympath Let’s take a look at the claim resolution motif available in the public domain. For instance, in the Supreme Court judgement recently reported as Haris Marine Products v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation Ltd., the appellant which was a manufacturer of fish meat and fish oil, in 2012 has exported some goods, secured by ECGC’s policy which covered the failure of foreign buyers to pay for the goods exported. The period of policy started from 14th December 2012,
