The Hidden Costs of Tariffs: Why Retaliation Harms the US Economy

 The Hidden Costs of Tariffs: Why Retaliation Harms the US Economy

The report outlines a compelling case for the United States to abandon its current policy of retaliatory tariffs in favour of a more traditional tariff regime. The report, which details the reasons against the current approach, argues that the negative impacts on the U.S. economy and its geopolitical standing far outweigh any intended benefits. The document categorizes these consequences into short-term, medium-term, and long-term effects, highlighting a consistent pattern of economic harm and strategic disadvantage.

Short Term Impact

The short-term impacts of retaliatory tariffs are the most immediate and visible consequences. They represent the initial shock to the economic and political systems, affecting consumers, businesses, and international relations almost overnight.

1. Higher Inflation

Retaliatory tariffs act as a tax on imported goods. When a country imposes a tariff, the cost is often passed on to domestic consumers. This leads to an immediate increase in prices for a wide range of products, from consumer electronics and clothing to raw materials and industrial components. This price hike directly contributes to higher inflation, as a significant portion of what Americans buy is either imported or contains imported parts. This "tariff tax" on consumers is a direct and noticeable hit to household budgets.

2. Loss of Consumer Purchasing Power

As prices for goods and services rise due to tariffs, the real income of consumers effectively shrinks. This means that a person's paycheck can buy fewer goods than it could before the tariffs were imposed. This loss of purchasing power reduces consumer spending, which is a key driver of the U.S. economy. When consumers have less money to spend, overall economic activity slows down, affecting businesses and job growth.

3. Disruption of Supply Chains

Global supply chains are intricate networks built over decades to optimize efficiency and cost. Retaliatory tariffs can instantly shatter these networks. Businesses must scramble to find alternative suppliers in countries not affected by the tariffs, which is often a more expensive and less efficient process. This short-term disruption can lead to production delays, shortages of key components, and a host of logistical challenges that harm businesses' ability to operate smoothly.

4. Increased Costs for Businesses

Many U.S. businesses, particularly manufacturers, rely on imported raw materials, components, and machinery. Tariffs on these inputs increase their production costs. A U.S. automaker, for example, might face a significant cost increase if tariffs are placed on imported steel or aluminium. These higher costs can squeeze profit margins and make U.S.-produced goods less competitive both at home and abroad. Businesses are then faced with the difficult choice of either absorbing the costs, raising prices, or reducing their output and workforce.

5. Job Losses in Downstream Industries

While tariffs are sometimes intended to protect jobs in a specific sector, their short-term effect is often the opposite. The job gains in the protected industry are frequently outweighed by losses in other industries that are harmed by the tariffs. For instance, a tariff on imported steel might help a few U.S. steel manufacturers, but it can lead to job cuts in the much larger construction, automotive, and appliance industries that use steel as a key input. Furthermore, industries that rely on exports, such as agriculture, can face immediate and severe job losses when other countries retaliate with tariffs on American goods.

6. Financial Market Volatility

The uncertainty and unpredictability of a trade war can create significant volatility in financial markets. News of new tariffs or retaliatory measures can cause stock prices to fall, as investors worry about the impact on corporate earnings and economic growth. This uncertainty makes it difficult for businesses and investors to plan, leading to a "wait-and-see" approach that can stifle investment in the short term. The S&P 500, for example, has been observed to plummet after new tariff regimes are announced.

7. Reduced Business Investment

Heightened uncertainty about future trade policy discourages businesses from making new investments. Companies are less likely to build new factories, purchase new equipment, or expand their operations if they are unsure about their future costs, suppliers, and market access. This hesitation in capital expenditure in the short term has a direct negative effect on economic growth and job creation.

8. Strained Relationships with Allies

Retaliatory tariffs are often a "tit-for-tat" action that can target even the closest U.S. allies. This creates immediate diplomatic friction and erodes the trust that is essential for a stable international order. When countries like Canada, Mexico, or members of the European Union are hit with U.S. tariffs, they may retaliate with their own, damaging long-standing partnerships. This makes it harder for the U.S. to build international coalitions to address other geopolitical and security issues.

9. Agricultural Export Losses

One of the most immediate and painful short-term impacts of retaliatory tariffs is on U.S. agriculture. Countries often target U.S. farm goods as a form of retaliation because they are a politically sensitive sector. American farmers can lose access to major export markets overnight, leading to a sharp decline in commodity prices and a significant loss of income. This can cause immediate financial hardship and even business failures for farmers and agricultural communities.

10. Loss of Trust in International Partners

The use of tariffs as a blunt, unilateral tool in foreign policy erodes the goodwill and trust that are built over decades of cooperation. When the U.S. is seen as willing to disrupt trade for political reasons, other nations may question its reliability as a partner. In the short term, this can lead to a breakdown in negotiations and a more hostile international environment.

Medium Term Impact

The medium-term impacts of retaliatory tariffs are where the initial disruptions begin to solidify into more permanent changes, reshaping the economy and international relations in a way that is often difficult to reverse.

1. Loss of Net Jobs

While tariffs may create some jobs in the protected domestic industries, this is often offset by a greater number of job losses in other sectors. In the medium term, this imbalance becomes clear. Tariffs raise the cost of inputs for other U.S. industries, forcing them to either cut costs or raise prices. As these businesses become less competitive, they may lay off workers. Additionally, retaliatory tariffs from other countries on U.S. exports, particularly in agriculture and manufacturing, cause a decline in foreign demand, leading to job losses in those export-oriented sectors. The net effect over the medium term is often a decrease in overall employment, contrary to the stated goals of the policy.

2. Decreased Global Competitiveness

Tariffs make U.S. goods more expensive to produce and less appealing to foreign buyers. In the medium term, this can cause the U.S. to lose market share to competitors in other countries. As an example, if U.S. steel is more expensive due to tariffs on raw materials, a foreign company might shift its production to a country with a more favourable trade regime. This means that even after the tariffs are removed, the U.S. company may struggle to regain its position in the global market, as its foreign competitors have had time to establish new supply chains and customer relationships.

3. Erosion of the Rules-Based International Order

The U.S. has long been a leader in promoting a rules-based global trading system through institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO). In the medium term, a policy of unilateral and retaliatory tariffs undermines these institutions. When the U.S. bypasses established dispute resolution mechanisms and imposes tariffs on its own, it weakens the very framework that has benefited global trade for decades. Other countries may then feel justified in doing the same, leading to a breakdown of the system and a more chaotic, less predictable global economic landscape. This erosion makes future cooperation on a wide range of issues more difficult.

4. Suboptimal Trade Diversion

Instead of bringing production back to the U.S., tariffs often simply cause trade to be diverted from one country to another. For example, if the U.S. imposes a tariff on goods from China, companies may simply shift their sourcing to countries like Vietnam or Mexico. In the medium term, this does not "reshore" jobs or manufacturing but rather simply shifts the economic activity to a third country. This creates a more complex and often more costly global supply chain for U.S. businesses, without achieving the intended goal of domestic job creation.

5. Stifled Innovation

Tariffs can discourage innovation in several ways. In the medium term, the uncertainty they create can cause businesses to hold off on new investments in research and development (R&D). Furthermore, tariffs on imported components can make it more expensive and difficult for U.S. firms to access the critical inputs they need to innovate. For example, a tech company that needs a specific microchip from a country subject to a tariff may have to pay a higher price or find a less-efficient domestic alternative, which can slow down its ability to develop new products.

6. Negative Impact on Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs)

SMEs are often disproportionately affected by tariffs in the medium term. Unlike large multinational corporations, they typically lack the resources to absorb increased costs or to navigate complex new regulations and supply chains. They may not have the capital to invest in new equipment or to find and vet new suppliers in other countries. This can put them at a significant disadvantage, leading to business closures, bankruptcies, and a loss of economic dynamism.

7. Lower Economic Growth

By increasing costs for businesses, reducing consumer demand, and creating a climate of uncertainty, retaliatory tariffs can act as a drag on overall economic growth in the medium term. This can lead to a less prosperous economy, with less investment, fewer new businesses, and a lower rate of job creation than would otherwise be the case. The effects of this slower growth can be felt by a wide range of Americans, from investors to workers.

8. Reduced Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)

A country's trade policy is a major factor for foreign companies deciding where to invest. In the medium term, a policy of retaliatory tariffs can make the U.S. look like a less stable and less attractive place to do business. Foreign companies may be hesitant to build new factories or expand operations in the U.S. if they fear that their supply chains will be disrupted or that they will be hit with unexpected tariffs. This can lead to a long-term decline in FDI, which is a key source of job creation and economic growth.

9. Increased Political and Economic Instability

Trade disputes can escalate beyond economic issues, leading to increased political and even geopolitical instability. In the medium term, a trade war can create a cycle of retaliation that is difficult to stop. This can lead to a climate of distrust and animosity between nations, making it harder to address other global challenges. The economic pain caused by tariffs can also fuel domestic political instability and protectionist sentiment, both in the U.S. and abroad, creating a dangerous feedback loop.

10. Loss of U.S. Influence in the Global Economy

When the U.S. retreats from multilateral trade agreements and uses tariffs as a primary tool, it loses its ability to shape the rules of the global economy. In the medium term, other countries may step in to fill the vacuum, creating new trade blocs and agreements that exclude the U.S. This can diminish the U.S.'s long-term influence and a position of leadership, making it harder to advance its interests and values on the world stage.

Long term impact

The long-term impacts of moving away from retaliatory tariffs are profound and shape the United States' and the global economy's trajectory for decades. These effects go beyond simple price changes or job fluctuations and touch upon fundamental issues of economic structure, global leadership, and national security.

Long term impact

1. Global Economic Crisis

A long-term, sustained reliance on retaliatory tariffs can create a dangerous feedback loop that spirals into a global economic crisis. The most cited historical example is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which led to a wave of retaliatory tariffs from other countries. This trade war is widely considered to have deepened and prolonged the Great Depression. In the modern, highly interconnected global economy, a similar event would have catastrophic consequences, disrupting supply chains, freezing international investment, and causing a massive contraction of world trade, resulting in widespread economic hardship.

2. Erosion of the Rules-Based International Order

The U.S. has been a cornerstone of the post-WWII international order, which is built on multilateral institutions and agreements like the WTO. A long-term policy of unilateral tariffs and a disregard for international trade rules fundamentally undermines this system. This signals to other countries that international law and cooperation are no longer primary U.S. priorities. In the long run, this could lead to the collapse of the WTO and the fragmentation of the global economy into rival trade blocs, each with its own rules and standards. This would be a return to an era of "might makes right," which history shows is less stable and less prosperous for all nations.

3. Reduced National Competitiveness

While tariffs may provide a temporary shield for certain domestic industries, in the long term, they can make a nation less competitive. By protecting domestic firms from foreign competition, tariffs reduce their incentive to innovate, improve productivity, and become more efficient. Over time, protected industries can become stagnant and unable to compete on the global stage without government support. This leads to a long-term decline in U.S. competitiveness in a wide range of industries, from manufacturing to technology, as other countries with more open markets become more innovative and productive.

4. Failure to Address Underlying Economic Issues

A long-term reliance on tariffs can be a political crutch that prevents a country from addressing its true economic challenges. For example, a trade deficit is not caused by unfair trade practices but rather by a fundamental imbalance between a country's national savings and investment rates. In the long run, tariffs do not fix this imbalance; they merely rearrange the trade patterns. By focusing on tariffs, policymakers can avoid having to tackle more difficult structural problems, such as a lack of investment in infrastructure or education, which are the real drivers of long-term economic growth.

5. Increased Geopolitical Rivalries and Strained Alliances

The long-term use of tariffs as a punitive tool can harden geopolitical rivalries. Countries that have been hit with tariffs, even U.S. allies, may feel compelled to seek new partnerships and alliances to reduce their dependence on the U.S. This can push countries into the orbit of U.S. adversaries, weakening the U.S.'s influence and creating a more fractured and unstable geopolitical landscape. For example, countries that are subject to U.S. tariffs may be more inclined to join economic blocs led by rivals like China, which can have long-term strategic consequences.

6. Loss of Reputation as a Reliable Partner

In the long term, a policy of unpredictable and retaliatory tariffs damages the U.S.'s reputation as a reliable and stable trading partner. Businesses and governments around the world value predictability and stability. When the U.S. is perceived as a country that uses tariffs as a political weapon, foreign investors and governments may look for more predictable partners. This could result in a long-term decline in foreign direct investment in the U.S. and a loss of trust that could be difficult to regain.

7. De-Globalization and Fragmentation

The long-term consequence of a global trade war is a retreat from the interconnected, globalized world. Instead of a single, integrated global economy, the world could become fragmented into regional trading blocs, with each bloc trading primarily among its members. This de-globalization would reduce the gains from specialization and comparative advantage, leading to a less efficient global economy and slower growth for all. For the U.S., this would mean a smaller market for its goods and services and fewer opportunities for its businesses to grow and expand.

8. Higher Labor Costs Without Corresponding Wage Gains

In the long term, tariffs can lead to higher prices for consumers, which in turn can push up the cost of living. While this might pressure businesses to raise wages, the benefits often do not materialize for the average worker. Instead, the increased profits from a protected market may simply go to corporate executives and shareholders. Over time, this can lead to a long-term decline in real wages and a lower standard of living for the working class, despite the rhetoric of "protecting" jobs.

9. Reduced National Security

While tariffs are sometimes justified on national security grounds, a broad-based trade war can ultimately undermine national security. By straining alliances and disrupting global supply chains, tariffs can make it harder for the U.S. to access critical materials and components in a time of crisis. A weaker, less prosperous economy, which is a long-term consequence of protectionism, also means fewer resources for defence and security.

10. Entrenched Protectionism

Finally, a long-term reliance on tariffs can become a self-perpetuating cycle. Once protectionist policies are in place, the industries that benefit from them will have a powerful incentive to lobby to keep them. This can make it politically very difficult to reverse the tariffs, even if they are harming the broader economy. This creates a long-term structural problem where inefficient and uncompetitive industries are propped up by the government, leading to a persistent drag on economic growth and innovation for decades to come.

 

Retaliatory tariffs are a blunt and self-defeating instrument. They fail to address the root causes of economic challenges, such as trade deficits, and instead inflict pain on American consumers, businesses, and allies. To secure a prosperous future, the U.S. must return to its role as a leader in a stable, rules-based global trading system. US must abandon this harmful cycle of retaliation and re-engage with the world on a foundation of trust and mutual interest.

 

India’s Economic Momentum: A Consumption-Led Growth

 India’s Economic Momentum: A Consumption-Led Growth Story Amid Global Headwinds

India's economy stands as a testament to resilience and strategic foresight, defying global headwinds to emerge as the world's fastest-growing major economy. While external challenges persist, the nation's economic momentum is fundamentally driven by a powerful engine: domestic consumption. This internal strength provides a crucial buffer against international shocks, allowing India to chart a confident and stable growth trajectory.

The latest data from the National Statistics Office (NSO) paints a clear picture of this dynamism. India's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) expanded by a robust 7.8% in the April–June 2025 quarter, marking a five-quarter high. This impressive performance, which exceeded market forecasts, is a direct result of strong showings across key sectors. The services sector, for instance, recorded a stellar 9.3% growth, while manufacturing and construction also posted gains of 7.7% and 7.6% respectively. This broad-based growth underscores the economy's fundamental health.

A major contributor to this success is the sustained strength of private consumption, which accounted for approximately 61% of India's GDP in the first quarter of the fiscal year. This reliance on internal demand makes the economy less vulnerable to fluctuations in global trade. It's a stark contrast to export-heavy economies that are more exposed to international protectionism and geopolitical tensions.

The government's proactive policy measures have significantly enhanced this domestic growth story. The recent, radical reform of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) is a game-changer. By simplifying the tax structure to a two-slab system of 5% and 18% and reducing rates on a wide range of essential goods and services, the government has put more money directly into the hands of consumers. This move is expected to boost affordability and stimulate demand, particularly in the run-up to the festive season. The GST rate on small cars and motorcycles up to 350cc has been reduced from 28% to 18%, while taxes on household essentials like packaged foods, personal care products, and even cement have seen significant cuts. This consumer-centric approach is designed to fuel a new cycle of consumption-led growth.

Digitalization, Financial Stability, and the Export-Import Landscape

Beyond consumption, the democratization of digitalization has become a powerful force for economic inclusion and growth. India's digital economy contributed 11.74% to the GDP in 2022–23 and is projected to reach nearly one-fifth of the country's overall economy by 2030. Initiatives like the Unified Payments Interface (UPI) have revolutionized financial transactions, processing over ₹44 lakh crore through Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) alone. The Open Network for Digital Commerce (ONDC) is also empowering small businesses by providing them a level playing field in the e-commerce space. The widespread adoption of digital tools has not only enhanced efficiency but has also provided citizens with greater access to essential services and economic opportunities.

The financial health of the Indian economy has also improved significantly. The Reserve Bank of India's Financial Stability Report highlights a resilient banking system with strong capital buffers. The gross non-performing assets (GNPA) ratio of scheduled commercial banks has moderated to a 12-year low of 2.8% as of March 2024. India's foreign exchange reserves stood at a record high of USD 697.9 billion in mid-2025, providing a robust safety net against global economic shocks and covering over 11 months of imports. This financial stability creates a conducive environment for both domestic and foreign investment.

However, the recent imposition of high import tariffs by the U.S. presents a direct challenge to certain sectors of the Indian economy. The 50% tariff on goods like textiles, leather, and gems and jewellery could severely impact Indian exporters, as the U.S. is a major market. For example, the gem and jewellery industry exports over $10 billion to the U.S., accounting for nearly 30% of its total global trade. The tariffs could lead to job losses and a significant decline in export volume. While the U.S. tariffs will impact some sectors, the overall impact on India's GDP is expected to be contained, as exports to the U.S. account for only around 2% of India's total economic output.

In response, the government is actively working on a multi-pronged strategy to support exporters. This includes creating monetary and non-monetary incentives and exploring new markets through Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with countries like the UK, Australia, and the UAE. The "Districts as Export Hubs" initiative is a key part of this strategy, aiming to identify and promote products with export potential in every district of the country.

Conclusion: A Vision for Sustained Growth

While global uncertainties loom, India's economic foundation remains strong. Fuelled by a burgeoning domestic market, a transformative digital infrastructure, and a stable financial system, the nation is well-equipped to manage external pressures. The recent GST reforms and government incentives for exporters are not just reactive measures but are part of a larger, cohesive strategy to ensure sustained and inclusive growth. As India continues to capitalize on its internal strengths, it is poised to not only absorb external shocks but also to solidify its position as a dominant force in the global economic landscape. India's journey is a powerful narrative of self-reliance, strategic reforms, and a relentless pursuit of progress.

 

 

The Fed’s Crossroads — Three Paths to Growth, Stability, or Stagnation

The Fed’s Crossroads — Three Paths to Growth, Stability, or Stagnation

By R  Kannan , August 25, 2025

The write up based on the FOMC Minutes of July 25 and Statement on Longer Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy of August 25.

The Federal Reserve stands at a pivotal juncture. With inflation lingering above target, labour markets showing signs of fatigue, and geopolitical tremors reshaping global trade, the Fed’s next moves will define the trajectory of the U.S. economy for years to come. The July 2025 FOMC minutes and the reaffirmed Longer-Run Goals statement offer a revealing glimpse into the central bank’s evolving calculus. What emerges is a triad of strategic possibilities—each with distinct implications for growth, employment, and financial stability.

I. The Hawkish Gambit: Inflation First, Growth Later

In this scenario, the Fed doubles down on its inflation-fighting credentials. The federal funds rate remains elevated—possibly nudging above 4.5%—with continued balance sheet runoff and tighter financial conditions. The rationale is clear: inflation expectations must be anchored, even at the cost of short-term pain.

The July minutes underscore this concern. Tariff-induced price pressures, particularly in goods and services, have proven more persistent than anticipated. While core PCE inflation hovers around 2.7%, the Committee remains wary of upside risks. A hawkish stance signals credibility, but it risks tipping the economy into stagnation.

Growth will likely slow to below 2% annually through 2026. Consumer spending, already softening, may contract further. Unemployment could rise above the natural rate, testing the Fed’s tolerance for labour market slack. Yet, if inflation moderates decisively, the Fed may claim victory—albeit a Pyrrhic one.

II. The Balanced Path: Data-Driven Prudence

The second scenario is more nuanced. Here, the Fed holds rates steady at 4.25–4.5%, calibrating its stance based on incoming data. This approach reflects the spirit of the Longer-Run Goals statement, which emphasizes flexibility, transparency, and a dual mandate orientation.

The July minutes reveal a Committee divided but pragmatic. While inflation risks dominate, several members note the softening in hiring and wage dynamics. Real GDP growth in H1 2025 was tepid, and residential investment remains subdued. Yet, financial markets are buoyed by AI optimism and easing geopolitical tensions.

Under this scenario, growth stabilizes around 2% annually. Unemployment remains near 4.2–4.5%, with sectoral divergences. Inflation gradually declines toward the 2% target by 2027, assuming tariff effects fade. The Fed maintains credibility without overcorrecting—a delicate but achievable balance.

III. The Dovish Pivot: Growth Above All

The third path is the most accommodative. Faced with slowing growth and benign inflation expectations, the Fed cuts rates by 25–50 basis points in late 2025. Balance sheet runoff slows, and forward guidance turns explicitly supportive.

This pivot prioritizes employment and demand revival. The Longer-Run Goals statement allows for such flexibility, noting that employment may exceed estimates without threatening price stability. The July minutes hint at this possibility, with some members concerned about labour market fragility and investment inertia.

Growth rebounds above 2.5% in 2026, led by housing, consumer spending, and tech-driven productivity gains. Unemployment stabilizes or declines slightly. However, inflation may remain sticky above 2.5%, especially if tariff effects persist. Financial vulnerabilities—high asset valuations, nonbank leverage, and stablecoin expansion—could intensify.

Strategic Trade-Offs and Structural Undercurrents

Each scenario carries trade-offs. The hawkish path secures price stability but risks recession. The balanced approach preserves optionality but may lack conviction. The dovish tilt boosts growth but courts inflation and asset bubbles.

Beyond cyclical dynamics, structural forces loom large. AI adoption is reshaping labour markets, productivity, and wage structures. Immigration trends are altering demographic baselines. Climate-related shocks and fiscal fragmentation add layers of complexity. The Fed must navigate not just the business cycle, but a shifting economic paradigm.

The Fed’s Institutional Compass

The Longer-Run Goals statement offers a compass. It reaffirms the Fed’s commitment to maximum employment and stable prices, while acknowledging the limitations of measurement and forecasting. It emphasizes transparency, financial stability, and the need for periodic reassessment.

This institutional clarity is vital. In a world of polycrisis—where inflation, inequality, and innovation collide—the Fed must remain adaptive yet anchored. Its credibility depends not just on rate decisions, but on its ability to communicate, coordinate, and course-correct.

Strategic Action Framework for U.S. Monetary Policy and Growth

Considering the Present Scenario, US FED can consider the following Actions.

1. Maintain Data-Driven Rate Calibration

• 1.1. Continue holding the federal funds rate at 4.25–4.5% through late 2025 unless inflation accelerates unexpectedly.
• 1.2. Use real-time inflation decomposition (core vs. headline, goods vs. services) to guide rate decisions.
• 1.3. Monitor wage growth dispersion across sectors to detect latent inflationary pressures.
• 1.4. Avoid mechanical rate hikes; instead, apply scenario-based modelling to anticipate nonlinear effects.

2. Enhance Forward Guidance Clarity

• 2.1. Publish a quarterly rate path projection with confidence intervals to anchor market expectations.
• 2.2. Clarify the Fed’s tolerance for temporary inflation overshoots in public statements.
• 2.3. Use plain-language summaries alongside technical releases to improve public understanding.
• 2.4. Align guidance with fiscal and trade policy signals to reduce cross-policy friction.

3. Monitor Tariff Pass-Through Effects

• 3.1. Create a tariff-adjusted inflation index to isolate policy-driven price distortions.
• 3.2. Collaborate with trade economists to model second-round effects on supply chains and consumer prices.
• 3.3. Distinguish between transitory and structural tariff impacts in policy deliberations.
• 3.4. Communicate tariff-related inflation risks separately from demand-driven pressures.

4. Expand Labor Market Diagnostics

• 4.1. Track underemployment, discouraged workers, and gig economy participation as part of employment analysis.
• 4.2. Use real-time job postings and quit rates to assess labour market tightness.
• 4.3. Incorporate demographic breakdowns (age, race, education) into employment assessments.
• 4.4. Monitor regional labour disparities to detect asymmetric shocks and policy blind spots.

5. Balance Sheet Strategy Reassessment

• 5.1. Evaluate the pace of quantitative tightening (QT) against reserve adequacy and market liquidity.
• 5.2. Consider targeted reinvestment in Treasury maturities to smooth yield curve distortions.
• 5.3. Publish a balance sheet normalization roadmap with thresholds for pause or reversal.
• 5.4. Assess QT spillovers to emerging markets and global dollar liquidity.

6. Strengthen Financial Stability Surveillance

• 6.1. Expand stress testing to include nonbank financial institutions and fintech platforms.
• 6.2. Monitor leverage ratios and margin debt in equity and crypto markets.
• 6.3. Develop early warning indicators for asset bubbles using valuation metrics and sentiment indices.
• 6.4. Coordinate with FSOC and international regulators on systemic risk containment.

7. Integrate Structural Trends into Forecasting

• 7.1. Incorporate AI-driven productivity gains into long-run growth and inflation models.
• 7.2. Adjust labour supply forecasts based on immigration policy shifts and demographic aging.
• 7.3. Model climate-related disruptions (e.g., crop failures, energy shocks) into inflation volatility.
• 7.4. Use scenario planning to assess how digital currencies and automation reshape monetary transmission.

8. Coordinate with Fiscal Authorities

• 8.1. Establish a joint Fed-Treasury macro coordination forum for synchronized policy signalling.
• 8.2. Align monetary policy with fiscal stimulus timing to avoid overheating or underutilization.
• 8.3. Share inflation diagnostics with budget planners to inform subsidy and tax policy design.
• 8.4. Collaborate on infrastructure financing models that balance growth with debt sustainability.

9. Prepare Contingency Frameworks

• 9.1. Develop rapid-response protocols for geopolitical shocks (e.g., Taiwan Strait, Middle East).
• 9.2. Simulate commodity price surges and their impact on inflation and real incomes.
• 9.3. Create liquidity backstop mechanisms for stressed sectors (e.g., housing, SMEs).
• 9.4. Maintain readiness for unconventional tools (e.g., yield curve control, targeted lending) if needed.

10. Reaffirm Institutional Credibility

• 10.1. Use the annual review of the Longer-Run Goals statement to engage with academic and public stakeholders.
• 10.2. Publish retrospective evaluations of past policy decisions to foster accountability.
• 10.3. Increase diversity in FOMC deliberations by integrating regional and sectoral voices.
• 10.4. Invest in public education campaigns to build trust in the Fed’s mandate and independence.

Conclusion: A Moment of Monetary Truth

As the Fed deliberates its next steps, the stakes are high. The U.S. economy is resilient but vulnerable. Policy missteps could derail recovery or entrench inflation. Strategic clarity, data discipline, and institutional humility are essential.

The Fed’s choice is not binary—it is a spectrum. But the path it chooses will shape not just macroeconomic outcomes, but the lived realities of millions. In this moment of monetary truth, the Fed must lead with foresight, balance, and resolve.

 

NBFCs - Resource Mobilisation

 NBFCs Urged to Rethink Resource Strategy and Compliance Frameworks

I was very happy to make a presentation on the above topic ,At the 5th NBFC Tomorrow Conclave & DNA Awards held in Mumbai, on21st August 2025.  I underscored the urgent need for NBFCs to diversify funding sources and embrace technology-driven compliance solutions to remain resilient in a rapidly shifting regulatory and financial environment.

The Funding Conundrum

NBFCs continue to face structural limitations in accessing low-cost public deposits, leaving them heavily reliant on bank loans, commercial papers, and non-convertible debentures. This dependence, coupled with asset-liability mismatches and limited access to RBI refinancing, has exposed the sector to liquidity risks and market volatility.

I  emphasized the importance of strategic diversification. Advocated for co-lending partnerships with banks, securitization of loan portfolios, and tapping into alternative funding channels such as Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs), Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPIs), and global institutions like IFC, ADB, and JICA. I called for a dedicated refinancing window from the RBI to support long-term funding needs.

Compliance in the Age of Complexity

The compliance landscape for NBFCs has grown increasingly intricate, especially under the Scale-Based Regulation (SBR) framework introduced by the RBI. Smaller NBFCs, in particular, struggle to keep pace with evolving norms around KYC, AML, cybersecurity, and fair practices.

I urged NBFCs to invest in RegTech solutions to automate monitoring and reporting, adopt digital KYC and AI-driven AML tools, and strengthen cybersecurity infrastructure. I cited Jio’s successful deployment of large-scale e-KYC as a model worth emulating. Additionally, I stressed the importance of transparent disclosures, robust grievance redressal mechanisms, and proactive regulatory engagement.

A Call for Transformation

The presentation concluded with a strategic outlook for the sector. To thrive in the future, NBFCs must prioritize governance, build investor confidence, and adopt customer-centric practices. Technology will be a key enabler—not just for compliance, but for operational efficiency and risk management. The future of NBFCs lies in innovation, resilience, and trust. As the sector continues to evolve, those who adapt swiftly and strategically will be best positioned to lead.

 

Global Capability Centres - India

From Cost Centres to Catalysts: Rethinking Global Capability Centres in India

Harvard Business Review released a report on the above topic.

Observations from the report are as follows :

India’s Global Capability Centres (GCCs) are undergoing a quiet revolution. Once relegated to back-office support and cost arbitrage, they are now emerging as strategic engines of innovation, resilience, and transformation. This shift is not incidental—it is structural, intentional, and deeply consequential for global enterprises and India’s economic trajectory.

The numbers alone are compelling. With over 1,500 GCCs already operating in India and projections pointing to 2,400 by 2030, the sector is poised to generate $110 billion in value and employ 4.5 million professionals. But the real story lies beyond the metrics. It lies in how GCCs are redefining enterprise boundaries, talent models, and digital capabilities.

At the heart of this transformation is the BFSI sector. Banks and financial institutions, long wary of offshoring core functions, are now entrusting their GCCs with cybersecurity, AI, platform engineering, and regulatory compliance. This is not just a vote of confidence in India’s talent pool—it’s a strategic recalibration of risk, agility, and innovation.

India’s advantage is multifaceted. A deep bench of English-speaking, tech-savvy professionals. A thriving digital public infrastructure. A government that understands the power of ecosystems—from UPI to PLI. And a partner network that enables rapid scaling and coexecution. These are not just enablers; they are accelerants.

But the GCC story is not just about India. It’s about how global enterprises are reimagining their operating models. The rise of agentic AI and digital workforces is reshaping unit economics. GCCs are no longer people-centric alone—they are becoming autonomous, intelligent, and outcome-driven. This shift demands new governance frameworks, talent strategies, and cultural integration.

Consider Ford Business Solutions, which grew from 20 to over 13,000 employees in India. Or Mizuho Americas, which built cyber fusion centers that now anchor its global threat visibility. These are not isolated successes—they are signals of a broader trend: GCCs as centers of excellence, not just centers of execution.

Yet, challenges remain. Attrition, cultural misalignment, and regulatory complexity can erode value. GCCs must be treated as strategic assets, not transactional vendors. Leadership exchange, brand integration, and long-term investment are non-negotiable. Enterprises must embed GCCs into their core—not just their cost structures.

The ROI is clear. Most GCCs achieve breakeven within 15 months. Cost savings range from 30–40%. But the real dividend is strategic: faster innovation cycles, better risk management, and deeper market insights. GCCs are not just cheaper—they are smarter.

India must seize this moment. By positioning itself not just as a destination, but as a partner in transformation. By investing in skilling, infrastructure, and policy coherence. And by ensuring that GCCs are embedded in the national narrative of innovation and inclusion.

For global enterprises, the message is equally clear: the GCC model is no longer optional—it is existential. In a world of polycrisis, supply chain shocks, and digital disruption, GCCs offer resilience, agility, and strategic depth.

The future of GCCs will be defined not by where they are located, but by what they enable. Product development, AI integration, regulatory foresight, and market expansion. These are the new frontiers. And India is uniquely positioned to lead.

But leadership requires vision. It requires enterprises to move beyond cost arbitrage and embrace capability arbitrage. It requires policymakers to align incentives with innovation. And it requires GCCs themselves to evolve—from execution arms to strategic brains.

This is not just a business story. It is a governance story. A talent story. A technology story. And ultimately, a story of how India and the world can co-create value in an age of uncertainty.

GCCs are no longer the back office. They are the future office. And that future is already here.

 

Indian Statistical System - Report

Indian Statistical System - Report

Revamping India's statistical system is crucial for its economic future. The system, once a source of global repute, requires changes now to keep up with the emerging scenario . To navigate the country's economic and social challenges, we need to urgently invest in a modern, credible, and independent statistical framework.

The current system suffers from a set of challenges. Persistent delays and leave policymakers and businesses operating in the dark. The lack of disaggregated data at the state and district levels means that one-size-fits-all policies are made for a diverse country with vast regional disparities.

The Indian statistical system faces a wide array of challenges that hinder its ability to provide accurate, timely, and reliable data for effective governance and informed public discourse. These issues range from fundamental problems in data collection and methodology to systemic and institutional weaknesses.

Data Inconsistency and Credibility Issues

The credibility of India's statistical system has been significantly eroded by frequent revisions of key economic indicators, such as GDP growth rates, and noticeable discrepancies between data from different government sources. This lack of a single, coherent narrative undermines public and investor trust in the official data.

Delays in Data Collection and Dissemination

A major challenge is the considerable time lag between data collection and release. Critical surveys, like those on employment and household consumption, are often published years after the data is collected, making the information stale and less effective for addressing current policy needs.

Outdated Methodologies

India's statistical system still relies heavily on traditional, manual survey methods, which were designed for a different era. These methodologies struggle to accurately capture the complexities of a modern, digitized economy, including the rise of the service sector, e-commerce, and the gig economy.

Lack of Real-time Data

For a rapidly evolving economy, the absence of high-frequency, real-time data is a significant handicap. Policymakers need up-to-the-minute information on key economic and social indicators to respond quickly to dynamic issues like inflation spikes or unemployment trends.

Weak Institutional Autonomy

The National Statistical Commission (NSC) and the National Statistical Office (NSO) lack the full autonomy necessary to operate free from external pressures.

Inadequate Coordination

Poor coordination among central ministries, state statistical bureaus, and various data-collecting agencies results in duplicated efforts and inconsistent datasets. This fragmentation leads to a disjointed statistical landscape where different bodies produce conflicting figures on the same subject.

Insufficient Funding and Human Resources

Statistical departments are often underfunded and face a severe shortage of skilled personnel. This lack of investment hampers their ability to conduct large-scale, comprehensive surveys and adopt modern technologies, further perpetuating the system's reliance on outdated methods.

Poor Data Granularity

Many surveys provide only broad national aggregates, which are insufficient for targeted policy interventions. There is a critical need for more granular, disaggregated data that can shed light on regional disparities, gender inequalities, and caste-based differences at the district or sub-district level.

Challenges in Measuring the Informal Sector

India's economy has a massive informal sector, which is very difficult to measure. The lack of accurate data on informal enterprises and employment leads to flawed estimates of GDP, labour force participation, and overall economic activity, presenting a distorted picture of the economy.

Lack of a Legal Framework

The absence of a robust legal framework for official statistics is a major systemic weakness. This leaves the system without a clear, legally binding mandate for data collection and dissemination, and without clear policy guidelines, hindering accountability and transparency.

Poor Data Quality

The quality of administrative data, which is generated by various government departments as part of their routine functions, is often poor. This data is not standardized and contains significant errors and inconsistencies, making it difficult to integrate into the official statistical system for use.

Gaps in Data Coverage

Significant data gaps exist in critical sectors like employment, health, and social indicators. For example, India has not released official poverty estimates since the 2011-12 consumption survey, leaving a decade-long vacuum in a crucial area of public policy.

Technological Lag

The Indian statistical system has been slow to adopt modern technologies like big data analytics, AI, machine learning, and cloud computing. This technological lag prevents it from processing large datasets efficiently and from moving beyond traditional survey methods.

Sub-optimal Use of Administrative Data

India generates vast amounts of administrative data from schemes like the GST, Aadhaar, and various government portals. However, this data is not effectively integrated into the official statistical system, representing a missed opportunity to supplement and validate traditional survey data.

Lack of Data Transparency

The methodologies used for data collection and the raw data from surveys are not always made publicly available. This lack of transparency hinders independent verification, analysis, and research, making it difficult for academics and experts to scrutinize the official figures.

Inadequate Training and Capacity Building

The skills of government statisticians often do not keep pace with global advancements in data science and technology. There is a significant need for continuous training and capacity-building programs to equip them with the tools and knowledge needed for a modern statistical system.

Shortage of a Statistical Cadre

India faces a shortage of a dedicated, professionally trained cadre of statisticians. Many key positions are filled by general bureaucrats who may lack the specialized skills and expertise required for rigorous statistical work, impacting the quality of data collection and analysis.

Poor Data Dissemination

Official data is often not published in user-friendly formats, such as APIs or interactive dashboards. It is frequently released in static, difficult-to-parse formats like PDFs, making it challenging for researchers, policymakers, and the public to access, analyse, and utilize the information.

Over-reliance on Estimates

The statistical system often relies on extrapolating data from small sample sizes to produce national-level estimates. This can introduce significant inaccuracies and sampling errors, particularly when the sample size is not representative or is not properly "blown up" to reflect the diversity and scale of the country.

Action Taken by the Government 

Government has initiated several measures to address these challenges, though progress has been mixed.

Institutional Reforms

The government has undertaken significant institutional reforms to streamline the statistical system. A major step was the restructuring of the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI) and the creation of the National Statistical Office (NSO) in 2019. The NSO was formed by merging the two primary bodies: the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO), which was responsible for large-scale sample surveys, and the Central Statistical Office (CSO), which handled national accounts and industrial statistics. This consolidation was intended to improve coordination and avoid data discrepancies by bringing key functions under a single umbrella.

National Statistical Commission (NSC)

The government established the National Statistical Commission (NSC) as an advisory body to the government. The primary goal of the NSC is to bring a higher degree of professionalism and scientific standards to the collection, analysis, and dissemination of official statistics. By providing a platform for independent expert advice, the NSC aims to enhance the credibility and autonomy of the statistical system. However, its effectiveness has been debated, with some critics pointing to its limited executive powers and the fact that its recommendations are not always binding.

Support for Statistical Strengthening (SSS) Scheme

MoSPI launched the Support for Statistical Strengthening (SSS) Scheme to address the weaknesses in state-level statistical systems. Under this scheme, the central government provides financial and technical assistance to state statistical bureaus to improve their infrastructure, data collection methods, and human resources. The objective is to ensure that state-level data is collected more uniformly and to a higher standard, which is crucial for producing accurate national aggregates and for enabling granular, district-level analysis.

Adoption of Technology

To improve the timeliness and accuracy of data collection, the government has pushed for the adoption of technology. This includes the use of tablets for Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) in national surveys. Instead of using traditional paper questionnaires, surveyors now use digital devices to record responses. This move reduces errors, accelerates data submission, and allows for near real-time monitoring of survey progress.

Draft National Policy on Official Statistics (NPOS)

Recognizing the need for a comprehensive legal framework, MoSPI has proposed the Draft National Policy on Official Statistics (NPOS). This policy aims to provide a clear legal and institutional framework for the statistical system. The NPOS is designed to modernize the system, ensure data quality, and clarify the roles and responsibilities of various data-collecting agencies. It also seeks to establish a more transparent and credible system that can meet the demands of a modern economy.

Utilizing Administrative Data

The government has made efforts to utilize administrative data from various government programs and databases. A key example is the ongoing initiative to integrate data from the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) into national accounts and economic statistics. By using GSTN data, the government can get a more accurate and timely picture of formal sector economic activity, reducing the reliance on traditional, time-consuming surveys. This is part of a broader push to leverage the vast amounts of digital data being generated by government schemes.

Release Calendars

To improve timeliness and predictability, the government has made it a practice to publish advance release calendars for key statistical reports. This allows policymakers, researchers, and the public to know when important data, such as GDP figures or inflation numbers, will be released. This move enhances transparency and helps to mitigate concerns about data being withheld or delayed for political reasons.

Strategies for improvement

A comprehensive action plan to revamp the Indian statistical system can address institutional, technological, and human resource challenges to restore credibility and provide reliable data for a modern economy.

Strengthen Institutional Autonomy

A foundational step is to make the National Statistical Commission (NSC) a permanent, statutory, and fully autonomous body. It could have the legal authority to audit and certify data quality, ensuring all official statistics meet consistent standards. By operating independently , the NSC can ensure  the objectivity of data.

Modernize Data Collection

The system can transition from outdated, paper-based surveys to a fully digital, real-time data collection system. Using technologies like Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) and mobile apps allows field surveyors to instantly transmit data, drastically reducing time lags and improving accuracy. This shift is crucial for providing timely insights for dynamic policymaking.

Establish a National Data Warehouse

Creating a centralized, secure data warehouse for all official statistics is vital. This repository would provide a single, reliable source of information, eliminating inconsistencies and making data easily accessible to researchers, policymakers, and the public, while ensuring security and privacy.

Integrate Big Data and AI

The government can effectively utilize the vast amounts of administrative data generated by sources like the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) and the Unified Payments Interface (UPI). By using advanced analytics and Artificial Intelligence (AI), it can generate more granular and real-time insights than traditional surveys alone.

Conduct a Decennial Census

The decennial population census is the foundational baseline for all official statistics. Prioritizing and conducting the 2021 census without further delay is critical to update demographic and socio-economic data, which are vital for policymaking, resource allocation, and providing a reliable framework for all other surveys.

Create a Statistical Reforms Commission

Constituting a high-level, time-bound Statistical Reforms Commission is necessary to diagnose deep-rooted systemic issues. This body could have a clear mandate to recommend a new, robust legal framework to govern the entire statistical system and restore its integrity.

Overhaul Human Resources

The system needs a major overhaul of its human resources. This involves recruiting and training a dedicated, professional Indian Statistical Service (ISS) cadre and providing continuous skill development in modern data science, analytics, and data governance. This ensures the workforce can handle new technologies and complex datasets.

Increase Funding

Significantly increasing budgetary allocations for statistical agencies is essential. This funding is crucial for investing in modern technology, building necessary infrastructure, and attracting and retaining skilled personnel, all of which are critical for the system's long-term sustainability.

Improve Data Granularity

Future surveys can be designed to collect disaggregated data at the state, district, and sub-district levels. This level of detail is essential for creating targeted policy interventions that address specific regional disparities or social issues, rather than relying on broad national averages.

Bridge Data Gaps

New surveys can be launched or existing ones revamped to collect timely and reliable data on key indicators where significant gaps exist, especially for employment and household consumption. This would provide policymakers with up-to-date information on the economy and social welfare.

Enhance Data Transparency

To rebuild trust, it's vital to mandate the public release of all anonymized raw data and detailed survey methodologies. This transparency would enable independent scrutiny and academic research, allowing for data validation and new analysis.

Standardize Data Protocols

Implementing uniform standards and protocols across all central ministries and state governments for data collection and storage is crucial. This would ensure consistency, interoperability, and the ability to compare data from different sources without discrepancies.

Strengthen State Statistical Systems

The central government can provide additional funds and technical support to state-level statistical bureaus. Strengthening these systems is crucial because much of the ground-level data is collected at the state and local levels, impacting the quality of national aggregates.

Develop a National Statistical Policy

Enacting a new, legally binding National Policy on Official Statistics is a foundational step. This policy would provide a comprehensive legal framework to govern all aspects of the statistical system, from data collection and quality standards to dissemination protocols and accountability.

Engage with Stakeholders

Creating a formal mechanism for continuous feedback from data users, including economists, researchers, the private sector, and civil society, is essential. This ensures the system produces data that is relevant and useful to a wide range of users.

Establish a Data Quality Assurance System

Implementing a rigorous, third-party audit system is necessary to verify the quality and reliability of all official statistics. An independent body could perform regular checks to ensure data accuracy and adherence to best practices, enhancing the system’s credibility.

Measure the Informal Sector

Developing innovative and robust methodologies is critical to accurately measure economic activity in the informal and unorganized sectors. This could involve using a combination of survey data, administrative records, and new technologies to capture this hard-to-measure part of the economy.

Modernize National Accounts

The methodology for calculating key macroeconomic indicators like GDP needs to be updated to align with international standards and reflect the modernizing Indian economy, including the digital and gig economies, for a more accurate representation of economic activity.

Launch a Public Awareness Campaign

A public awareness campaign could be launched to educate people on the importance of statistics and the methodology behind them. This would not only help rebuild public trust but also encourage greater participation in surveys, leading to better data quality.

Foster International Collaboration

Collaborating with international statistical organizations and academic institutions can help India adopt global best practices, learn from other countries' experiences, and modernize its methodologies. This will ensure that India's statistical system is on par with global standards.

Comparison of the statistical systems of India, the US, the UK, and Japan

 

Structure & Organization

 

India: Has a decentralized statistical system. The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI) is the nodal agency, and it contains the National Statistical Office (NSO), which consists of the Central Statistical Office (CSO) and the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO). State-level Directorates of Economics & Statistics (DES) exist for coordination.

US: Highly decentralized. Over 100 agencies are involved, with 13 Principal Statistical Agencies (PSAs) responsible for the bulk of official data. Coordination is managed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Chief Statistician of the United States.

UK: A mix of centralized and decentralized. The UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) oversees the system, with the Office for National Statistics (ONS) as the main producer of statistics. Other government departments also produce statistics.

Japan: Decentralized. While the Statistics Bureau of Japan (SBJ) under the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC) conducts fundamental surveys, various other ministries have their own statistical departments.

Legal Framework

 

India: Governed by the Collection of Statistics Act, 2008, which allows the government to collect statistics on a wide range of subjects. Other specific acts, like the Census Act, 1948, also exist.

US: Has multiple laws. The Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act (CIPSEA) of 2018 is a key piece of legislation that ensures confidentiality and allows for data sharing among statistical agencies.

UK: The Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 established the UKSA and its legal authority to produce and regulate statistics.

Japan: The Statistics Act (2007) provides the legal basis for the production of official statistics and outlines the roles of various statistical bodies.

Key Nodal Agency

 

India: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI).

US: Office of Management and Budget (OMB), specifically the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).

UK: UK Statistics Authority (UKSA).

Japan: Statistics Bureau of Japan (SBJ) under the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC).

Primary Data Producers

India: The National Statistical Office (NSO), which includes the Central Statistical Office (CSO) and the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO).

US: The 13 Principal Statistical Agencies, including the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and the Census Bureau.

UK: The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is the largest producer, with other government departments also producing statistics.

Japan: The Statistics Bureau of Japan (SBJ) and statistical departments within other ministries.

 

Role of a Chief Statistician

 

India: The Secretary of MoSPI holds a similar role but lacks the statutory independence of counterparts in other countries.

US: The Chief Statistician of the United States in the OMB provides oversight and coordination.

UK: The National Statistician is the Head of the Government Statistical Service (GSS) and is the Chief Executive of the ONS.

Japan: The Director-General of the Statistics Bureau serves as the head of Japan's statistical system.

 

Coordination

 

India: Coordination happens through various committees and the NSO, but it can be challenging due to the decentralized structure and limited statutory power of the National Statistical Commission (NSC).

US: Coordinated by the OMB through interagency councils like the Interagency Council on Statistical Policy (ICSP).

UK: Coordination is facilitated by the UKSA and the Government Statistical Service (GSS), a network of all official statisticians.

Japan: Coordination is managed by the Statistics Commission, which provides advice and oversight to the MIC.

 

Statistical Independence

 

India: The statistical system has faced concerns about its autonomy and potential interference in data releases. The National Statistical Commission (NSC) is an advisory body but lacks statutory authority to enforce its recommendations.

US: The decentralized structure and the Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 provide a high degree of independence. Agencies are legally mandated to produce and disseminate statistics without political interference.

UK: The UKSA is an independent body that ensures the production of impartial, high-quality statistics, promoting public trust. The Code of Practice for Statistics is a key tool for ensuring integrity.

Japan: The Statistics Act and a well-established civil service tradition provide a strong framework for statistical independence.

 

Quality Assurance & Standards

 

India: The National Statistical Commission (NSC) sets standards, but their enforcement principles vary.

US: Standards and guidelines are set by the OMB and enforced across federal statistical agencies.

UK: The Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR), the regulatory arm of the UKSA, assesses official statistics against the Code of Practice for Statistics.

Japan: The Statistics Commission oversees the quality and methodology of statistical surveys.

 

Major Statistical Outputs

 

India: Key outputs include the National Accounts Statistics (NAS), Index of Industrial Production (IIP), Consumer Price Index (CPI), and results from the Annual Survey of Industries (ASI) and various socio-economic surveys.

US: Major outputs include the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Consumer Price Index (CPI), Unemployment Rate, and the Current Population Survey (CPS).

UK: Key outputs include the Consumer Price Index (CPI), GDP, Labour Market Statistics, and the UK Census.

Japan: Major outputs include the Consumer Price Index (CPI), Labour Force Survey, and the Population Census.

Data Accessibility

 

India: Data is available on the MoSPI website and various ministry portals, but it can sometimes be fragmented and lack comprehensive metadata.

US: Data is highly accessible through various agency websites and a central portal, data.gov. There is a strong emphasis on providing microdata for research.

UK: Data is readily available on the ONS website, with many datasets open to the public. There are also secure data research environments for more sensitive data.

Japan: Data is provided through the Portal Site of Official Statistics of Japan (e-Stat), which offers a consolidated platform.

 

Data Confidentiality

 

India: The Collection of Statistics Act provides for data confidentiality, with strong penalties for misuse.

US: The CIPSEA and other laws provide robust protections for confidential information collected by statistical agencies.

UK: Statistical agencies adhere to strict data protection and privacy laws, including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Japan: The Statistics Act ensures the confidentiality of information collected for statistical purposes.

 

Use of Administrative Data

 

India: Efforts are being made to increase the use of administrative data, but the integration and quality remain a challenge.

US: Statistical agencies are increasingly using administrative data to reduce survey costs and respondent burden.

UK: The use of administrative data is a key part of the statistical system's strategy to produce more timely and efficient statistics.

Japan: Administrative data is used, but a heavy reliance on traditional surveys remains.

 

Census & Surveys

 

India: The Population Census is conducted every 10 years by the Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner. The NSSO conducts large-scale household and enterprise surveys.

US: The Census Bureau conducts the decennial census and other large-scale surveys like the American Community Survey (ACS).

UK: The ONS conducts the UK Census every 10 years.

Japan: The SBJ is responsible for the Population Census, conducted every five years, and other major surveys.

 

Human Resources

 

India: Has a dedicated Indian Statistical Service (ISS) cadre for statisticians.

US: Relies on a combination of federal employees, contractors, and academic professionals.

UK: Has a Government Statistical Service (GSS), a professional body for all statisticians working in government.

Japan: The statistical system employs a dedicated workforce of statisticians and is supported by a robust training institute.

International Collaboration

 

India: Collaborates with international organizations and participates in global initiatives, but this could be strengthened.

US: A major player in international statistical collaboration, often setting global standards and providing technical assistance.

UK: Actively involved in international bodies and initiatives, sharing best practices and data.

Japan: A significant contributor to international statistical cooperation, especially in Asia.

The Path Forward

The government has initiated some reforms, but further reforms are being implemented. The nation can prioritize a legally binding National Policy on Official Statistics that provides a clear roadmap for reform. We can also launch a public awareness campaign to educate citizens on the importance of statistics and encourage their participation, helping to rebuild the bridge of trust between the system and the people it serves.

Reforming India's statistical system isn't just a technical exercise; it's a critical investment in the nation's future. Reliable data is the bedrock of a modern economy and a functioning democracy. By making our statistical system more credible, transparent, and responsive, we can empower policymakers to make better decisions, attract more investment, and ensure that India's growth is truly inclusive and sustainable.