Click here to Visit the RBI’s new website

RBI Bulletin


Search Archives

PDF document (515 kb)
II. Aggregate Demand
Date : May 10, 2012

Most components of aggregate demand slowed down in 2011-12. Investment, as noted in aggregate capital formation as well as corporate investment intentions, has been drying up and is expected to start improving slowly in 2012-13. Net export demand dipped reflecting global slowdown. However, firmer oil prices have dented government’s fiscal numbers due to high fuel subsidies and in the absence of price adjustment, added to the aggregate demand in 2011-12. While the Union Budget for 2012-13 has enunciated a commitment to cap subsidies, any slippage in the fiscal deficit numbers will have implications for demand management and could come in the way of reviving investment.

Investment downswing in conjunction with net exports drags down demand

II.1 Capital formation in the economy dipped during April-December 2011. This reflects in part, the lagged impact of the anti-inflationary monetary policy stance. Net exports also declined, particularly in Q3, reflecting an adverse base effect as well as a higher outgo on imports due to rupee depreciation (Table II.1). Given the Advance Estimates of the expenditure- side growth rates for 2011-12, the implicit growth rates of private consumption expenditure and gross fixed capital formation during Q4 of 2011-12, show a marked increase over the corresponding period of the previous year. While consumption would benefit from the dip in inflation and also election-related spending in a few states, investment should improve largely on account of the base effect. This further validates growth having bottomed out in Q3.

Table II.1: Expenditure Side GDP (2004-05 prices)

(Per cent)

Item

2010-11
QE

2011-12
AE

2010-11

2011-12

2010-11
Apr-Dec

2011-12
Apr-Dec

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

 

Growth rate

Real GDP at market prices

9.6

7.5

9.5

8.9

10.1

7.7

8.5

6.7

6.3

9.5

7.1

Total Consumption Expenditure

8.1

6.0

9.6

9.2

7.1

7.5

5.5

3.4

5.9

8.6

5.0

(i)  Private

8.1

6.5

9.3

8.7

7.6

8.0

5.9

2.9

6.2

8.5

5.1

(ii) Government

7.8

3.9

11.1

12.2

4.7

4.9

2.9

6.1

4.4

8.8

4.4

Gross Fixed Capital Formation

7.5

5.6

8.8

6.9

11.1

0.4

4.9

-4.0

-1.2

8.9

-0.2

Change in Stocks

37.4

2.9

39.4

35.5

37.7

4.6

1.8

-4.7

-0.4

37.5

-1.1

Net Exports

5.5

-30.1

-40.8

-10.1

18.6

34.8

-14.3

38.5

-33.0

-6.6

-1.6

 

Relative shares

Total Consumption Expenditure

70.1

69.1

73.0

72.4

72.9

63.1

70.9

70.1

72.6

72.7

71.3

(i)  Private

58.7

58.1

62.0

61.7

60.4

52.6

60.5

59.5

60.4

61.4

60.2

(ii) Government

11.4

11.0

11.0

10.6

12.5

10.5

10.4

10.6

12.2

11.4

11.1

Gross Fixed Capital Formation

32.5

31.9

32.2

34.0

32.3

32.1

31.2

30.5

30.0

32.8

30.6

Change in Stocks

3.7

3.5

3.7

3.8

3.5

3.4

3.5

3.4

3.3

3.7

3.4

Net Exports

-6.0

-7.3

-7.9

-7.9

-6.3

-3.9

-8.4

-4.6

-7.8

-7.3

-7.0

Memo:

` billion

Real GDP at market prices

52,368

56,277

12,088

12,268

13,538

14,693

13,120

13,093

14,389

37,894

40,602

QE: Quick Estimates.                         AE : Advance Estimates.
Note:
As only major items are included in the table, data will not add up to 100.
Source: Central Statistics Office.

Decline in savings and investment rates a concern

II.2 Both investment and saving rates declined in 2010-11 (Table II.2). The decrease in the overall savings rate in 2010-11 was due to both households and the private corporate sector, which more than offset the improvement in the public sector savings rate. The household sector savings rate declined in 2010-11, after touching a record high in 2009-10. Within household savings, while the financial savings rate declined sharply, the physical savings rate increased in 2010-11. The decline in the net financial savings rate was on account of the slower growth in households’ savings in bank deposits and life insurance as well as an absolute decline in investment in shares and debentures, mainly driven by redemption of mutual fund units. Even so, there was a shift in favour of small savings and currency during the year.

Table II.2: Gross Domestic Savings and Gross Domestic Capital Formation

(Per cent to GDP at current market prices)

Item

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11 QE

1

2

3

4

1. Gross Domestic Savings

32.0

33.8

32.3

1.1 Household Sector

23.6

25.4

22.8

i) Financial savings

10.1

12.9

10.0

ii) Saving in physical assets

13.5

12.4

12.8

1.2 Private Corporate Sector

7.4

8.2

7.9

1.3 Public Sector

1.0

0.2

1.7

2. Gross Domestic Capital Formation*

34.3

36.6

35.1

2.1 Household Sector

13.5

12.4

12.8

2.2 Private Corporate Sector

11.3

12.7

12.1

2.3 Public Sector

9.4

9.2

8.8

* : Adjusted for errors and omissions.
QE : Quick Estimates.

II.3 The decline in the rate of gross domestic capital formation (investment) in 2010-11 was on account of a decline in private corporate sector and public sector investment rates even as the household investment rate increased. Given the huge demand for infrastructure development as well as extremely strained capacity in sectors such as petroleum refinery, there is a compelling case for increasing the rate of capital formation in the economy, both in construction and in machinery and equipment. Going forward, the revival and sustainability of a high growth rate over the medium-term is contingent upon the enhancement of savings and investment rates, besides improvements in productivity.

Corporate investment remains subdued

II.4 Corporate pipeline investment has shrunk and new investment remains tepid. As such, investment revival is expected to materialise slowly in 2012-13. Analysis of the time-phasing details of projects sanctioned institutional assistance in various years reveals that intended capital expenditure incurred by private corporate (non-financial) sector during 2011-12 is likely to be lower than that in the previous year (Table II.3). Higher interest rates and rising input prices, among other factors, are likely to have adversely affected the investment sentiment.

II.5 The deceleration in capital formation is apparent in the sharp moderation in the number/ outlay of projects sanctioned finance by major banks/financial institutions (FIs). The moderation that started in Q3 of 2010-11 has persisted through Q3 of 2011-12 (Table II.4). The decline in outlay/projects that were sanctioned financial assistance is particularly acute for ‘metal and metal products’ and power industries (Chart II.1).

Table II.3: Phasing of Capital Expenditure of Projects Sanctioned Assistance by Banks/FIs

(` billion)

Capital Expenditure in the Year ®

Up to 2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

Beyond 2013-14

Grand Total

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Year of Sanction ¯

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Up to 2007-08

1,826

1,317

583

376

98

47

-

4,247

2008-09

265

1,029

864

568

366

84

46

3,223

2009-10

2

448

1,494

1,282

853

365

116

4,560

2010-11

-

3

373

1,262

1,294

979

691

4,602

2011-12*

-

-

14

154

527

419

437

1,551

Grand Total #

2,093

2,797

3,328

3,642

3,138

1,894

1,290

-

*: Data available up to Q3:2011-12
#: The estimates are ex ante, incorporating only the envisaged investment, and thus are different from those actually realised/utilised.


Table II.4: Institutionally Assisted Projects and their Envisaged
Cost (Quarter-wise)

Period

Number of
Projects*

Project Cost
(` billion)

1

2

3

2010-11

Q1

199

1,431

 

Q2

239

1,508

 

Q3

173 (166)

801 (795)

 

Q4

185

864

2011-12#

Q1

144

880

 

Q2

176 (172)

363 (361)

 

Q3**

124

310

*:   Based on data reported by 39 banks/FIs.
**: Data for Q3:2011-12 is based on reported data from 34 banks/ FIs. Corresponding data for Q3:2010-11 and Q2:2011-12 is given in brackets.
#: Data for 2011-12 is provisional.


3

Corporate profitability hit by high interest expenses and rising input costs

II.6 While sales continued to be healthy during Q3 of 2011-12, registering higher growth on both y-o-y and q-o-q basis, operating profit and net profit declined as expenses and interest cost increased substantially (Tables II.5 and II.6). Net profits were further dented on account of the large non-operating deficit of a few large companies.

Table II.5: Corporate Sector- Financial Performance

Item

Common Companies (y-o-y growth in per cent)

2010-11

2011-12

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

No. of Companies

2,352

Sales

24.7

18.9

17.6

20.6

22.6

19.3

19.4

Change in stock

411.6

-45.5

110.1

131.5

-39.4

-2.9

88.0

Expenditure,

29.1

20.1

19.6

22.7

23.0

22.8

24.9

of which Raw Material

37.1

21.6

20.9

25.3

27.9

23.6

25.6

Staff Cost

16.4

20.4

21.2

19.8

20.1

17.7

19.0

Power & fuel

17.7

13.0

19.6

26.6

27.1

26.0

30.2

Operating Profits (PBDIT)

15.4

7.3

11.1

16.6

12.5

-0.9

-5.7

Other Income*

-21.5

58.7

6.3

-15.3

39.6

25.9

69.3

Depreciation

20.1

17.5

14.7

15.2

9.8

9.8

10.4

Gross Profits (PBIT)

8.9

9.5

9.7

11.6

16.1

-0.1

-2.5

Interest

27.4

6.2

23

31.2

22.1

47.6

42.8

Tax Provision

6.2

10.0

6.5

2.2

21.6

3.8

-2.4

Net Profits (before non-operating profit)

4.5

10.4

7.0

9.6

12.3

-16.3

-16.7

Net Profits (PAT)

3.7

9.1

9.4

13.6

6.7

-15.4

-31.0

 

Ratios in per cent

Change in stock# to Sales

2.5

0.8

1.3

2.3

1.2

0.5

2.2

Interest to Sales

2.8

2.6

2.6

2.5

2.8

3.2

3.1

Interest Burden

20.7

19.2

19.6

18.6

21.7

28.6

28.5

Interest Coverage

4.8

5.2

5.1

5.4

4.6

3.5

3.5

PBDIT to Sales

16.2

15.4

15.9

15.3

14.9

12.8

12.5

PBIT to Sales

13.7

13.5

13.5

13.4

13.0

11.3

11.0

PAT to Sales

8.6

8.6

8.4

8.6

7.5

6.1

4.8

Other Income to PAT

16.4

21.7

15.9

19.9

21.4

32.3

39.6

#: For companies reporting this item explicitly.
*: Other income excludes extraordinary income/expenditure if reported explicitly.
Note:
Growth rates are percentage changes in the level for the period under reference over the corresponding period of the previous year for common set of companies.


Table II.6: Corporate Sector- Financial Performance – Sequential

Item

Common Companies (q-o-q growth in per cent)

Q1:2010-11 over Q4:2009-10

Q2:2010-11 over Q1:2010-11

Q3:2010-11 over Q2:2010-11

Q4:2010-11 over Q3:2010-11

Q1:2011-12 over Q4:2010-11

Q2:2011-12 over Q1:2011-12

Q3:2011-12 over Q2:2011-12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

No. of Companies

2,352

Sales

-4.5

5.9

5.7

12.9

-3.1

3.1

5.7

Change in stock

100.0

-66.2

75.3

95.1

-47.7

-44.7

234.3

Expenditure,

-3.8

5.0

5.7

14.8

-3.6

4.9

7.6

of which Raw Material

-4.1

3.1

9.4

15.8

-2.3

1.6

8.4

Staff Cost

3.2

8.1

2.1

5.2

3.6

5.8

3.4

Power & fuel

11.6

1.0

4.4

7.6

12.3

-0.1

7.9

Operating Profits (PBDIT)

-2.1

0.8

8.8

8.6

-5.6

-11

3.1

Other Income*

-44.7

39.7

-24.2

44.7

-9.1

26.3

3.2

Depreciation

1.3

2.1

3.2

8.0

-3.6

2.1

3.6

Gross Profits (PBIT)

-10.1

4.5

5.8

12.4

-6.5

-9.9

2.9

Interest

17.5

-2.7

7.7

6.6

9.4

18.7

2.7

Tax Provision

-11.9

4.4

2.0

9.0

4.8

-11.2

-4.0

Net Profits (PAT)

-10.3

5.6

3.4

16.1

-15.8

-16.3

-15.6

*: Other income excludes extraordinary income/expenditure if reported explicitly.

II.7 The ratio of stock-in-trade to sales was higher in Q3 of 2011-12 compared to the corresponding period of the previous year and the preceding quarter (Chart II.2). The accumulation of inventory in Q3 was mainly observed in chemical fertilisers and pesticides, iron and steel, refineries and food products and beverages industries.

1

II.8 Sector-wise analysis shows that Information Technology (IT) was the best performing sector in terms of sales and operating profit. Hence, the net profit margin of the sector remained largely intact (Chart II.3). This mainly reflected the depreciation of the rupee. Higher growth in input prices and interest payments led to a decline in profits for both manufacturing and services sectors.

Significant budgeted reduction in fiscal deficit for 2012-13 needs to be supported by credible fiscal consolidation strategy

II.9 The central government could not contain its fiscal deficit within the budget estimates for 2011-12, resulting in the widening of the gross fiscal deficit (GFD)-GDP ratio to 5.9 per cent. The fiscal situation is, however, budgeted to record a significant improvement in terms of both revenue deficit and GFD indicators in 2012-13. The fiscal correction, as indicated in the Union Budget, along with other policy measures to address supply-side bottlenecks in agriculture, energy and transport sectors, are expected to create conditions for revival of investment activity in the economy.

2

II.10 It may be noted that the proposed fiscal consolidation in 2012-13 is primarily based on the revenue-raising efforts of the central government. The achievement of budgeted reduction in GFD-GDP ratio would also depend on the commitment of the government to contain its expenditure on subsidies within the stipulated cap of 2 per cent of GDP in 2012-13.

II.11 The amendment of the FRBM Act, 2003 and introduction of a Medium-term Expenditure Framework Statement in the Act, which will, inter alia, include three-year rolling targets in respect of expenditure indicators, is expected to bring about fiscal discipline and create the fiscal space essential for the government to pursue its objective of a faster, sustainable and more inclusive growth during the Twelfth Plan. Notwithstanding the envisaged fiscal correction, the key deficits will remain higher than the path set out by the 13th Finance Commission (Table II.7).

Budgeted tax buoyancy for 2012-13 reflect tax measures but is subject to downside risks

II.12 Given the slowdown in 2011-12 as well as tax changes introduced earlier, both direct and indirect tax revenues grew at a lower rate than the budgeted rate for the year as well as the rate in 2010-11 (Table II.8). On the basis of tax measures announced in the Union Budget 2012-13, viz., widening the base of services tax through stipulating a negative list of exempted categories, partial rollback of reductions in standard excise duty and service tax rates, and the rationalisation of customs duty rates, tax buoyancy is budgeted at 1.39 for 2012-13. This is significantly higher than the long-term average tax buoyancy of 1.11 for the period 2003-04 to 2011-12 as well as the average of 1.14 for the recent period 2010-11 to 2011-12.

Table II.7: Key Fiscal Indicators

(Per cent to GDP)

Year

Primary Deficit

Revenue Deficit

Effective Revenue Deficit

Gross Fiscal Deficit

1

2

3

4

5

Centre

2009-10

3.2

5.2

-

6.5

2010-11

1.8

3.3

2.1

4.9

2011-12 BE

1.6

3.4

1.8

4.6

2011-12 RE

2.8

4.4

2.9

5.9

2012-13 BE

1.9

3.4

1.8

5.1

13th FC

-

1.2

-

4.2

2013-14

 

 

 

 

Rolling targets

-

2.8

1.0

4.5

13th FC

-

0.0

-

3.0

2014-15

 

 

 

 

Rolling targets

-

2.0

0.0

3.9

13th FC

-

-0.5

-

3.0

States*

2009-10

1.2

0.5

-

2.9

2010-1 1RE

1.0

0.3

-

2.7

2011-12 BE

0.6

-0.2

-

2.2

Combined

2009-10

4.5

5.7

-

9.4

2010-1 1RE

3.4

3.8

-

8.1

2011-12 BE

2.5

3.2

-

7.0

BE: Budget Estimate.                    RE: Revised Estimate.
13th FC   : Thirteenth Finance Commission.
*: Data based on budget documents of 28 state governments.
Note:
Negative sign (-) indicates surplus in deficit indicators.
Source: Union Budget 2012-13 and 13th Finance Commission.

Commitment to cap subsidy expenditure from 2012-13 onwards a positive step

II.13 As noted in the Union Budget for 2012-13, overshooting of expenditure on subsidies was one of the main reasons for deterioration of fiscal balance in 2011-12. The expenditure restructuring strategy in 2012-13 is premised on capping expenditure on subsides while raising allocations for capital expenditures (both plan and non-plan components). Restricting expenditure on subsidies to below 2 per cent of GDP in the coming years would be a major achievement towards fiscal consolidation.

II.14 There are latent pressures on the expenditure side of the central government finances for 2012-13. On the petroleum subsidy front, upside risks stem from high international crude oil prices and pressures on the exchange rate. Unless the government progresses towards phasing-in flexible pricing of administered petroleum products in the early part of the year, the risk to budget projections remain substantial. If prices for these products are not adjusted upwards, the under-recoveries in 2012-13 would well exceed that in 2011-12. This will lead to a large fiscal slippage.

II.15 Also, the budgeted growth of 3 per cent in food subsidies in 2012-13 appears to be modest when viewed in the context of the implemention of the Food Security Bill (Table II.9).

Table II.8: Central Government Finances

Item

Growth rate (per cent)

Per cent to GDP

2010-11

2011-12 RE

2012-13 BE

2010-11

2011-12 RE

2012-13 BE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1. Total Expenditure

16.9

10.1

13.1

15.6

14.8

14.7

2. Revenue Expenditure

14.1

11.6

10.7

13.6

13.0

12.7

3. Capital Expenditure

39.0

0.1

30.6

2.0

1.8

2.0

4. Non-Developmental Expenditure

7.3

15.4

16.1

7.2

7.1

7.3

5. Development Expenditure

26.1

6.8

9.2

8.7

8.0

7.6

4. Non-Plan Expenditure

13.5

9.0

8.7

10.7

10.0

9.5

5. Plan Expenditure

24.9

12.6

22.1

4.9

4.8

5.1

6. Revenue Receipts

37.6

-2.7

22.0

10.3

8.6

9.2

i) Tax Revenue (net)

24.8

12.7

20.1

7.4

7.2

7.6

ii) Non Tax Revenue

88.0

-42.9

32.0

2.8

1.4

1.6

7. Gross Tax Revenue

27.0

13.7

19.5

10.3

10.1

10.6

i) Direct Tax

18.1

12.3

13.9

5.8

5.6

5.6

ii) Indirect Tax

40.5

15.5

26.5

4.5

4.5

5.0

Memo :

 

8. Revenue Deficit

-25.6

56.6

-11.3

3.3

4.4 (3.4)

3.4

9. Effective Revenue Deficit

-

56.3

-27.8

2.1

2.9 (1.8)

1.8

10. Gross Fiscal Deficit

-10.7

39.7

-1.6

4.9

5.9 (4.6)

5.1

11. Gross Primary Deficit

-32.0

76.5

76.5

1.8

2.8 (1.6)

1.9

BE: Budget Estimate.     RE: Revised Estimate.
Note:
Figures in parentheses are budget estimate for 2011-12 as per cent to GDP.
Source: Union Budget 2012-13.


Table II.9: Total Subsidies

(Amount in ` billion)

Items

2010-11

2011-12 RE

2012-13 BE

Amount

% to GDP

Amount

% to GDP

Amount

% to GDP

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Total Subsidies

1,734.2

2.3

2,163.0

2.4

1,900.2

1.9

of which:

 

 

 

 

 

 

i. Food

638.4

0.8

728.2

0.8

750.0

0.7

ii. Fertiliser

623.0

0.8

672.0

0.8

609.7

0.6

iii. Petroleum

383.7

0.5

684.8

0.8

435.8

0.4

iv. Interest subsidy

46.8

0.1

57.9

0.1

79.7

0.1

v. Other subsidies

42.2

0.1

20.0

0.0

24.9

0.0

Source: Union Budget 2012-13.

Increasing dependence on market borrowing for financing fiscal deficit could exert pressure on interest rates

II.16 The fiscal deficit financing pattern for 2012-13 shows continued reliance on market borrowings though the recourse to short-term financing through treasury bills is budgeted at 2 per cent, significantly lower than the 22 per cent in 2011-12 (Table II.10). The larger market borrowing of the central government could put pressure on yields, especially at the long end. Such pressures could exacerbate considerably if credit demand picks up with recovery in growth, increasing the interest burden on the government and crowding out private investment.

Economic recovery hinges on credible fiscal consolidation, inflation control and higher capital formation

II.17 Even though investment spending floundered in 2011-12, a slow recovery could set in during 2012-13. The recovery would be dependent on inflation not accelerating again. On current assessment, investment should start picking up at a moderate pace, especially if the cost of capital comes down. Rigidities in funding costs for the banks and the large draft of the government on financial surplus of the households, however, impart stickiness to interest rates.

II.18 The Indian economy maintained a reasonable consumption-fixed investment mix, during the 4-year period beginning 2004-05. However, in recent years the consumption component has been the predominant driver of growth, with the contribution of the fixed investment component showing a sharper decline from the pre-crisis (2005-08) levels. Deceleration in investment reduces the potential output of the economy, emphasising the importance of rebalancing. High levels of government spending do provide a consumption stimulus but compound the inflationary situation. Reigning in inflation through tight monetary policy assumes importance in promoting sustainable growth and investment, even if it results in high cost of capital in the short run.

Table II.10: Financing Pattern of Gross Fiscal Deficit

(Amount in ` billion)

Item

2011-12 (BE)

2011-12 (RE)

2012-13 (BE)

1

2

3

4

Gross Fiscal Deficit

4,128.2

5,219.8

5,135.9

Financed by

 

 

 

Net market borrowing*

3,531.3

4,843.0

4,930.0

 

(85.5)

(92.8)

(96.0)

Small savings (net)

241.8

-103.0

12.0

 

(5.9)

(-2.0)

(0.2)

External assistance

145.0

103.1

101.5

 

(3.5)

(2.0)

(2.0)

State provident fund

100.0

100.0

120.0

 

(2.4)

(1.9)

(2.3)

NSSF

0.9

60.8

49.4

 

(0.0)

(1.2)

(1.0)

Draw down of cash balances

200.0

-246.6

-

 

(4.8)

(-4.7)

-

Others

-90.9

462.5

-77.0

 

(-2.2)

(8.9)

(-1.5)

RE: Revised Estimates.       BE: Budget Estimates.       –: Nil
* includes dated securities and 364-day treasury bills only.
Note:
Figures in parentheses represent percentages to GFD.

II.19 In this context, it is important to note that fiscal consolidation as envisaged in the latest budget is subject to risks, especially with respect to subsidies. Tax revenues may also be adversely affected if the economic climate remains subdued. The indirect tax measures introduced in the budget will themselves have inflation implications. Against this backdrop, aggregate demand management poses challenges for policy during 2012-13.


* Despite well-known limitations, expenditure-side GDP data are being used as proxies for components of Aggregate Demand.


2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
Archives
Top