Urbanomics

Examining the gravitational pull of index investing

noreply@blogger.com (Urbanomics) — Sun, 14 Jun 2026 23:30:00 +0000

The blockbuster IPO of SpaceX has drawn attention to the role of the index investing market segment, which originated fifty years ago. The scrutiny will only intensify in the days ahead as both Anthropic and OpenAI are listed.

Despite only about 4 per cent of SpaceX’s shares being listed, a high level of demand was built in, also because some index investors will soon be required to add the company to their portfolios. Nasdaq amended its rules (as also CRSP and FTSE Russell) to allow SpaceX to enter the Nasdaq-100 index via fast-track, thereby providing it free liquidity through a captive market. Morningstar follows 6,006 US-registered mutual funds and 5,100 ETFs, covered by 3,203 separate benchmark indices against which $41.1tn of assets are managed.

The current entry requirements for indices are very liberal for large companies.

However, what distinguishes SpaceX is its very low float (just 4.25% compared to above 90% for the other big companies) and the fact that it does not yet make any profit. Toby Nangle and Co at FT Alphaville tabulated that active fund managers (who want to ignore Musk) and passive portfolio managers (who have no choice) must purchase $14.2bn of SpaceX stock in the first three weeks of trading to avoid going short.

We think that managers who have absolutely no interest in going either long or short Elon will need to collectively buy $8.5bn of SpaceX stock on the 19th June, a further $1bn on 26th June and a final $4.7bn on July 3. And so we’re talking a cumulative, de facto mandated $14.2bn of mutual fund and ETF orders by July 4 to avoid having to take a view on Elon. That number would’ve been around $11bn higher if the S&P 500 index committee had leaned a different way. But it’s $13.2bn bigger than the $1bn it would’ve been if index committees had sat tight on their existing fast-track methodologies. And this is before we count institutional assets like pension funds, insurers and foundations, as well as every single foreign owner whose benchmarking habits we currently lack information.

So this is a big deal. Clearly, the market has been brazenly manipulated by changing the rules to create the stage for SpaceX (and the other two mega IPOs).

I took the help of Claude to generate a few graphics to understand the scale of index investing, its dynamics and distortions, and possible reforms.

The conventional measures dramatically understate index investing because they count only labelled index mutual funds and ETFs. However, using the indexation definition, passive ownership of global equity mutual funds and ETFs is 50% and 60% for US equities. In fact, a stunning three-fourths of the equity market exposure of the big three US asset managers is through ETFs.

SpaceX’s shares could have an index exposure of 43% in a year when it joins the S&P 500, and that too on a volume which would be a fraction of that for the Mag7 firms. It is estimated that S&P 500 funds would need to absorb 19% of SpaceX's public float upon inclusion, with the Russell 1000 and Nasdaq-100 funds absorbing another 24%. A tiny supply of $22-27 bn would meet a mandatory demand of 43%.

The research on the impact of index inclusion on stock price offers striking findings. Gabaix and Koijen find investing $1 in the stock market increases the market’s aggregate value by about $5. Since marginal holders of equity (index funds, pension funds, insurance companies) operate under mandates that fix their equity allocations within narrow bands, when aggregate demand shifts, few participants can absorb the change, and prices must move substantially to clear the market.

Haddad-Huebner-Loualiche point to a Mathew Effect in indiex investing. They find that a $3.6trn market cap company is only about five times as liquid as a $100bn company, despite being 36 times the size. The largest stocks are disproportionately impacted by each dollar flowing into passive funds, causing the largest stocks to outperform and stock market concentration to rise. Passive investing has reduced market efficiency by over one-third.

Index investing brings the benefits of access to a low fee, diversified, and tax efficient asset pool to the retail investors. In the words of the legendary investor Jack Bogle, index investing is the equivalent of not looking for the needle but instead buying the haystack.

However, it distorts price discovery, creates inelastic demand, amplifies concentration in stocks and asset managers, and erodes governance. All of these distortions are greater for the mega-cap stocks.

Further, index-investing comes from asymmetric flow elasticity. While passive funds are mechanically symmetric (the 1:5 multiplication), the rest of the system (margin lenders, derivatives dealers, momentum funds, retail behavioural agents) is not. When flows reverse, the multiplier still applies, but additional positive feedback channels switch on, creating an overshoot below fundamental value before mean-reversion can bring prices back. The resultant instability can tip markets into prolonged and deeper downturns. This is an illustrative example

Suppose 2 years post-IPO, growth disappointments and rate-policy reversal trigger a ~20% net outflow from Nasdaq-100 trackers ($280 bn × 20% ≈ $56 bn). Applying the firm-level multiplier (~2 for stock-specific flows, higher for concentrated names): mechanical impact on SpaceX share price could be ~30–45%, on top of any fundamental revaluation. The same flow proportionally affects all Mag 7. Index investing does not just amplify upside — it removes the price-discoverers who normally cushion downside.

Below is a listing of some channels that amplify the downside.

All things taken together, index investing must reconcile the conflicting requirements of democratising investing (through passive funds) and limiting market instability. The answer lies in the empirical fact - the more capital becomes index-tracking, the less price discovery the market performs, and the more the system is exposed to flow-driven valuation and procyclical unwinding. Clearly what is optimal for individual investor is not optimal for market function. In the circumstances, this can be an illustrative framework to reconcile the conflicting requirements.

The problem with index investing is that of internalisation of its negative externalities. Passive investors capture the upside of cap-weighted indexation (low fees, diversification, momentum) without bearing the price-discovery cost, whereas active investors bear the cost of analysis but cannot compete on fees.

This free-riding can be resolved only if passive investors internalise the marginal cost they impose on the system without eliminating the substantial benefits they deliver to retail investors. Like with carbon emissions, this can be done through fees, governance obligations, or structural caps.

To dive a bit deeper, there are perhaps four levers for reforming index investing - index methodology (rules of index construction), voting and governance obligations, fund-level liquidity thresholds, and limiting structural concentration in the passive investment ecosystem. A combination of all of them is a formidable regulatory toolkit.

Each lever will have its set of reforms. It may be required to prioritise a limited set reforms that have the highest-impact-per-cost. The simplest and highest value reform could be mandatory free float minimums (say 10-15%), a twelve-month public trading history before index inclusion, and a 4-5% cap on any single stock in an index. Second, bring index providers under SEC regulation as “investment advisers” subject to fiduciary duty and disclosure requirements.

Third, for passive funds with more than 1% holding, return governance to the ETF or index fund holders by allowing them to vote their proportionate share directly via the fund, thereby reducing the influence of the Big Three asset managers. Fourth, cap the passive fund ownership of US banks at 10% (the regulatory "controlling interest" threshold) and impose mandatory liquidity stress tests for funds with more than $5 bn AUM in cases of extreme outflows and market dislocation.

Fifth, the Department of Labour should tighten defined-contribution retirement-plan portfolio diversity rules, thereby providing a structural counterweight to cap-weighted default portfolios. Such plans must offer either equal-weight or capped-weight default or cap cap-weighted defaults at e.g. 80% of the plan portfolio. This would reduce forced concentration in 401(k) default portfolios. Finally, there could be regulatory roadmap for orderly winding-down of overweight positions during the life-cycle or retirement transition. A coordinated guidance, including some rule-based gradual decumulation, reduces fire-sale risk.

The proposals above seek to reconcile the diversification and fee benefits of indexation while also internalising its costs. Once index providers face fiduciary duty, once Big Three votes are partially passed through, once retirement defaults include non-cap-weighted options, once liquidity is stress-tested, and there is some transition guidance, the same products can continue to serve retail savers while delivering far less of the distortion that has been documented.

Weekend reading links

noreply@blogger.com (Urbanomics) — Sat, 13 Jun 2026 05:32:29 +0000

1. Ruchir Sharma goes behind the record corporate profits share of GDP in the US (11% of GDP, up from 7% in the 1990s) and finds two problems. One, the share is boosted by the lower corporate tax rates which translate into higher fiscal deficits.

Lately the US deficit has risen to more than 6 per cent of GDP and a deficit that high reflects a large transfer of income to households and corporations. Under a well-established accounting formula, the Kalecki-Levy Equation, corporate profits are in part a mirror image of the government’s deficit. Based on this framework, deficits were the single largest contributor to the increase in earnings as a share of GDP since the late 1990s. And in this decade, deficits have accounted for more than half of corporate profits, twice the level of the dotcom era. Strip away government support, and US profits look less extraordinary.

Second, the share falls sharply when we include the universe of private companies.

Since the dotcom bust in 2000, the number of publicly listed businesses has fallen by half, with many new companies remaining private for longer, funded by private equity and venture capital. This is the new home of excess and weak earnings. As a result, the profit growth of the average business listed in standard indices provides a misleading picture of the overall economy. Profit growth has been less impressive once the private companies are included in the data. Further, private firms planning to go public are much larger and less profitable today than in the 1990s. The biggest names in the IPO pipeline, including SpaceX, Anthropic and OpenAI, have little to no profits.

2. Britain's much-delayed HS2 railway project's cost has increased by another £20bn to £102.7bn (a range of estimates ( £87.7bn to £102.7bn in 2025 prices) and will be completed only by the 2040s, with the first trains not expected till 2036.

3. Why has oil not hit $150 or $200 despite about 12-15 mbpd being taken out?

One of the biggest surprises for the oil market has been China, the world’s largest importer. It slashed inbound shipments by almost 40 per cent in May compared to last year’s average, according to Vortexa Ltd. The reduction is enough to offset anywhere between a third and a fifth of the barrels lost to the war, depending on the estimates used. At the same time, the US has emerged as the world’s most important swing supplier since launching strikes on Iran in late February. American crude and fuel exports in May were more than 2 million barrels a day higher than the average for all of last year. Other emergency measures have also eased the strain. Governments around the globe coordinated a historic release of strategic reserves, while Gulf producers rerouted shipments through alternative export routes. Some tankers continued moving cargoes via the strait despite the risks, using increasingly opaque methods to avoid military threats... Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline shipped millions of barrels a day to the Red Sea, while the United Arab Emirates has been piping barrels to the port of Fujairah outside the gulf.

And this is important.

Another factor keeping a lid on prices has been Trump’s relentless jawboning, making it hard for even the most bullish traders to hold long positions for prolonged periods of time. Open interest in Brent crude futures is the lowest since August as elevated market volatility forces traders to roll back risk exposure. Steep price drops on the prospect of peace have pushed many oil bulls to the sidelines, leaving them to hold small positions for very limited periods of time, several traders said. The lack of risk-taking has helped keep a lid on financial flows, while supply levers have averted the worst hit to the market. The question now, is whether that can last without a peace deal.

4. The evidence to date points to widespread AI use not translating into anything proportionate in terms of business value creation. Sample this from the software industry pointed out by John Burn-Murdoch.

5. EU energy subsidies during the Ukraine invasion and spike in gas prices.

Between late 2021 and mid 2023, EU countries spent about €540bn on subsidising energy prices to protect consumers from price shocks in the aftermath of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and to cushion energy-intensive industries from soaring costs. Of that total, €158bn was accounted for by Germany, whose industry heavily depended on Russian gas supplies. In the wake of the Ukraine energy shock, Brussels also relaxed state aid rules for the rest of the decade to allow governments to subsidise clean technologies and industrial decarbonisation.

6. Emerging AI-related roles in the software industry.

Agent engineers who build and fine-tune agents; architects who determine how humans and agents divide tasks; AI governance specialists who keep agents compliant and accountable; AI transformation advisors who help enterprises navigate workflow reimagination; solution designers who translate business problems into agentic solution architectures; and AI assurance partners who help clients govern their own AI deployments.

7. Rana Faroohar makes the point that we may be at the cusp of a new investment super-cycle driven by the combination of AI, clean energy, defence, and manufacturing.

In a recent issue of his TPW Advisory Monthly report, investor Jay Pelosky did just that, collating data on AI, clean energy and defence spending around the world from sources including Gartner, BloombergNEF (on energy), the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (on defence) and others. So far, $6.9tn was spent globally in 2025 in the three areas, and the number will probably reach $10tn by the end of this year and $16tn by 2030.

What’s more, says Pelosky, these three areas reinforce one another, amplifying potential investment. AI requires more energy. The move towards tech sovereignty in the US, China and even Europe (in a nascent way) adds to the need for investment in AI and energy, while the move towards a more 19th-century “spheres of influence” geopolitics calls for greater defence spending globally. Add to this the desire of policymakers in all three regions to increase resilience in critical sectors affected by concentration or globally dispersed supply chains: products such as advanced semiconductors, active pharmaceuticals and lithium batteries, for example.

8. Rupee trajectory over the last two years

The rupee depreciating by nearly 6 per cent against the dollar in the first five months of 2026 alone, exceeding the combined full-year declines recorded in 2025 (5 per cent) and 2024 (2.8 per cent). The rupee touched a record intraday low of 96.57 per dollar on May 19 and has lost roughly 14 per cent of its value against the greenback over the past two years. Against the euro, the erosion has been equally stark, with the Indian currency declining by more than 7 per cent over the past 12 months and nearly 16 per cent in the past two years, he added.

The problem with a depreciating rupee is that foreign investors now must earn an extra 14% over the last two years to offset the depreciation.

9. India's FTAs may be creating a perverse incentive for even domestic manufacturers due to the inversion of duty structures.

Many finished goods now enter India at low or zero duty from partners such as ASEAN, Japan, South Korea, the UAE and Australia. As a result, Indian manufacturers often pay high duties on imported inputs, especially those sourced from non-FTA countries, while competing against finished products imported duty-free under FTAs. For example, steel and aluminium attract MFN duties of 7.5-10 per cent, but machinery, industrial equipment and engineering products made from these materials can enter India duty-free under several FTAs. Indian manufacturers, therefore, face higher input costs when competing with tariff-free imported machinery produced with globally priced inputs.

Similar distortions exist in chemicals, plastics, rubber and textiles. Duties on inputs such as caustic soda, soda ash, polypropylene, PVC and SBR raise production costs. At the same time, many finished products in these sectors can be imported at low or zero duty... the growing incentive for firms to manufacture outside India rather than within it. When raw materials and components attract duties in India, but finished products can be imported duty-free from FTA partners, companies may find it more profitable to locate production abroad and export back to the Indian market. In such cases, FTAs effectively encourage offshore manufacturing at the expense of domestic value addition. ASEAN countries are increasingly becoming manufacturing hubs for supplying the Indian market.

10. The Gulf War has resulted in a surge in Chinese exports of solar panels, especially to South East Asian and African countries. This came at a time when many Chinese firms laden with excess capacity, low margins, and large indebtedness were facing an existential crisis.

11. The revival of manufacturing in the US hits the wall of labour scarcity.

Perhaps the largest problem for would-be reshorers is a lack of labour. Despite widespread nostalgia for manufacturing jobs, new US factories often struggle to find reliable workers. When Japanese group Panasonic started producing electric vehicle batteries near Reno, Nevada in 2017, the company suffered more than 100 per cent annual turnover in its early years. Not only were employees reluctant to take jobs in an access-controlled, sterile environment, but every November, the group would lose workers to seasonal logistics jobs at nearby Amazon facilities that paid a similar wage... Despite political enthusiasm for reviving manufacturing, jobs posted on LinkedIn receive fewer applications than other sectors it competes with, such as technology.

12. More on the SpaceX bubble.

Goldman Sachs, the investment bank leading the IPO, projects that SpaceX’s AI revenues need to increase 100-fold by 2030, reaching $322bn from $3.2bn today. But its AI lab remains far behind Anthropic, Google and OpenAI at the frontier, and shows little sign of catching up. Morgan Stanley also estimates that overall revenue needs to increase 180-fold to $3.4tn by 2040, up from $18.7bn last year. Earnings must flip from a $4.9bn loss in 2025 to $2.7tn.

SpaceX ends the first day of trading at 20% premium on its $135 listing price, which raised $75 bn and left it with a valuation of $2.1 trillion. The listing prospectus claimed at $28.5 trillion addressable market.

SpaceX plans to use the IPO proceeds for a range of ambitious projects, from its skyscraper-sized reusable Starship rocket, founding a 1mn-strong colony on Mars, starting a lunar economy to building a network of orbital AI data centres capable of delivering vast amounts of computing capacity... A portion must also go towards repaying a $20bn bridge loan the group took out in March to back its merger with Musk’s lossmaking AI start-up, xAI, and social media platform X.

This is staggering.

It also hands Musk a vast financial windfall, with his 42 per cent stake in SpaceX valued at more than $800bn. Combined with his $280bn holding in electric vehicle maker Tesla, his wealth has now surpassed $1tn, equivalent to about a third of the market value of the UK’s FTSE 100 index.

Richard Waters explains the rationale driving the astronomical valuation.

It is hard to find changes in SpaceX’s business prospects that account for a fourfold valuation jump within the space of a year. Rather, it is testament to Musk’s unrivalled grip on the public imagination, transmuted into Wall Street gold. When the history of SpaceX’s record-breaking IPO is written, it will go down as a textbook case of Musk’s ability to conjure a compelling vision of the tech future for both Silicon Valley and Wall Street, ably backed by an army of promoters in the financial world. (With fees estimated at about $500mn, it’s probably not surprising that there were few warnings from the Wall Street establishment that the shares might be overvalued.)...

Musk has been busy in recent months spinning up new visions capable of embellishing his company’s prospects... What starts out sounding like science fiction fantasy doesn’t take long to seem not only plausible but even downright likely. Wall Street has been more than willing to translate Musk’s tech dreams into financial projections capable of supporting the sky-high valuation, implausible as those numbers may seem. Goldman Sachs, the lead bank on the IPO, predicted that revenue would soar to $474bn by 2030, most of it from AI...

The IPO involved only about 4 per cent of SpaceX’s shares, but a high level of demand was built in, partly because some index investors will soon be required to add the company to their portfolios. Even without the index funds, SpaceX’s sheer size — at about 2.5 per cent of US stock market capitalisation — has made it too big for many investment managers to avoid.

13. South Korean capitalism is spreading wealth around

Samsung Electronics... agreed last month for employees to share the chipmaker’s blockbuster profits from an AI-led boom... SK Hynix... handed employees a similar profit-sharing deal last year... Samsung is also going to give Won500mn loans at low rates to employees... Samsung and SK Hynix together control much of the market for the advanced memory chips used in AI servers. Employees at both companies are in line for average annual bonus payouts of Won600mn, which compares with a national average salary of about Won50mn... district of Hwaseong... expected to gain corporate income tax receipts of Won1tn to Won1.3tn from Samsung alone this year, an extraordinary sum for a city authority whose annual budget is about Won3.5tn.

14. Germany amps up spending on its ailing railways sector, where on-time arrivals of long-distance trains have fallen from 84% two decades back to 60%.

By the end of 2026, Deutsche Bahn will have rebuilt 900 kilometres of train lines since 2024, close to a quarter of its 2036 target. That is equivalent to half of the roughly 1,900 kilometres of new lines built after 1945. Flix, which started as a coach operator but also runs long-distance trains, has earmarked €2.4bn for up to 65 new high-speed trains that it plans to roll out from 2028. Italian high-speed train operator Italo also has ambitions for Germany, promising up to €3.6bn of investment in new trains if it gets multiyear access to the network.

Some thoughts on the likely impact of AI in countries like India

noreply@blogger.com (Urbanomics) — Mon, 08 Jun 2026 01:56:17 +0000

This post will argue that the long-term impact of AI innovations on the typical household’s daily life in a developing country like India will be far smaller than the discourse suggests. Much the same could be said for basic human development and public services delivery in general.

While there will be some overlap, I make the distinction between the macroeconomic impact in terms of automation and resultant job losses, and the material impact on the lives of people. Also, while much has been written about the former, this post will focus on the latter.

As a note of caution, as is the case with any such debates, evidence and data to substantiate claims are hard to come by. So there is a lot of judgment in the argument below. And I’ll only be too happy if the judgment is proved wrong.

The argument rests on four observations.

First, the bulk of the economy and daily life in these countries lies in domains where AI can barely reduce costs. The two main production modes, agriculture and manufacturing, are unlikely to be significantly affected (see the third point). The main products that we buy - homes, vehicles, jewellery, and consumer durables - and the everyday services we buy - haircuts, repairs, domestic help, transport, retail, eating out, etc. - are dominated by physical inputs of materials, energy, land, labor, and transport.

AI can reduce logistics and coordination overhead costs, which form a marginal share of the total production cost of these goods and services. The share of any of these prices that AI can potentially influence is likely a fraction. Of India’s roughly 470–565 million workforce, around 85% is informal, ~45% is in agriculture, and the formal IT/BPM/GCC sector employs only about 5.8 million people. The set of workers directly exposed to AI displacement is small - plausibly 5–8% over a fifteen-year horizon - and the consumption basket of the median Indian is composed almost entirely of goods and services whose prices AI is unlikely to meaningfully alter.

Second, the obvious rebuttal, that AI’s impact will come not through cost reduction but through dramatically expanded access to healthcare, education, finance, and government services for India’s 800-million-plus internet users, runs against some hard evidence. The last twenty years of EdTech, Medtech, SkillTech, and AgTech across India and comparable low-income contexts amount to a rich natural experiment. The result is essentially zero examples of even significant, much less transformational, district-scale impact in any of these domains.

Despite massive amounts and efforts on EdTech, aggregate learning outcomes, as measured in the likes of ASER scores, have hardly moved. In fact, the share of Class V children in rural India who can read a Class II text has actually declinedover much of the EdTech era. Like Diksha for school education, eSanjeevani logs vast consultation volumes with no measurable population health effect. It is hard to find meaningful signatures of MedTech in primary or secondary healthcare. In skill development, a succession of schemes has trained tens of millions with dismal placement outcomes, including using technology extensively. Digital Green and dozens of AgTech pilots have generated good papers, but no district has measurably transformed agricultural productivity because of them. Outside India, the picture is similar - Kenya's M-Health pilots, Brazil's rural EdTech, Indonesian AgTech apps. The hit rate on "scaled, measurable, transformational" is essentially zero.

The same could be said about most areas of public services delivery - primary health care and school education; municipal government services like tax assessment, building permissions, utility service connections; and the services of regulatory agencies. While there are pilots and small slivers of some success, aggregate impacts across all these realms attributable to digital technologies, notwithstanding numerous and repeated initiatives, have been minimal.

Third, the reason this pattern matters for AI is that it points to perhaps a wrong diagnosis being made about why previous efforts, including using technology, failed. The standard story that “the tech wasn’t good enough yet” implies AI will finally break through because it is qualitatively better. However, I’m inclined to argue that the diagnosis is wrong.

The binding constraint in these domains has never been information quality or delivery. The child in the village school does not fail to read only because she lacks access to a good pedagogical sequence; she fails also because she has accumulated large antecedent learning lags, the teacher is over-burdened, indifferent, or absent, the system has no consequence for non-learning, she is hungry and has chores in the evening, her parents cannot reinforce at home, and so on. A perfect AI tutor in Hindi and Math does not change those facts.

The villager seeking treatment doesn't suffer only because no one can diagnose her condition; she suffers also because the doctor is indifferent or isn't there, the PHC has deficient diagnostics or medicines, transport to the CHC costs a day's wage, and the prescribed drug regimen is incompatible with her work and food situation. It is not only the lack of plumbing knowledge that holds back the aspiring plumber. Instead, he also lacks an apprenticeship network, a credential the contractor trusts, and tools. The farmer is also constrained by the inertia to change long-standing practices, water, fertiliser subsidies, and the price he gets from the mill, not only by ignorance of best agronomic practice or market information.

In all four cases, the recipient is operating in a bound system where information is, at best, the fifth-binding constraint. Solving the fifth-binding constraint produces no visible improvement because the first four still hold. Even with this constraint, the ability of AI to make significant improvements at scale in these difficult contexts is questionable. More than two decades of the internet and digital technologies have made little or no impact on actual outcomes, except for a few oft-repeated pilots.

This is exactly what the vast majority of development economics literature has been telling us for two decades, and it’s why “information-delivery” technologies have a flat impact curve regardless of which generation of tech is doing the delivery. AI is, fundamentally, a much better information-delivery technology. By the logic above, it should be expected to have roughly the same impact profile - better demos and pilots, but similar real outcomes - unless something about AI breaks the pattern.

Having said this, it is also logical to argue that AI can address and relax all these constraints just enough to enable outcomes that, while not the best, are far better than those achieved now. While appealing and comforting, I am not inclined to agree.

Fourth, the genuine exceptions exist but are narrower than the transformational claims that mainstream discourse suggests. AI is plausibly different in three specific places: supply-side augmentation that flows through existing institutions (Qure.ai’s tuberculosis screening integrated into state programs is the cleanest example); voice and vernacular interfaces that break the literacy ceiling text-based apps could never cross; and AI built on top of India Stack to alter citizen-state interactions. These are real but bounded effects, not transformations.

So what’s the final assessment?

AI radiates a wide beam of capability (advice, diagnosis, tutoring, prediction); the beam hits a wall of thick structural constraints, each labelled with the human reality it represents and the domain it blocks (say, education, health, livelihood, farming). Only a thin sliver of information makes it past the wall to reach the villager with the phone below. AI delivers information, but not transformation.

The mainstream discourse on AI is built on the worldview that assigns outsized importance to knowledge-based services over the production of goods. This is a real blind spot that obscures the reality of the vast majority of non-AI-influenced interfaces and interactions in the daily lives of most Indians.

In conclusion, I’ll stick out my neck and argue that AI’s footprint on median Indian life will look much more like the mobile phone’s did - ubiquitous, individually useful, but hardly transformational on people’s daily lives. The mobile phone did not move India’s Human Development Index; it moved convenience and communication. AI is on track to do something similar: meaningful at the margin, but layered on top of structural conditions it cannot itself relax.

The global discourse, calibrated on knowledge-work economies where AI strikes the dominant production input, badly overstates the implications for a country where physical and institutional constraints set the floor.

Unfortunately, like with the internet and digital technologies, this is likely to be a costly distraction for development. Instead of working to get the plumbing right, it is likely to displace resources and efforts towards getting AI solutions to address these problems. I have blogged here, here, and here on this.

Weekend reading links

noreply@blogger.com (Urbanomics) — Sat, 06 Jun 2026 02:41:15 +0000

1. Potato glut hits Europe, and in particular Belgium.

Europe faces a surplus of five million metric tons of the type of potato used for fries. For months, the price of a metric ton of potatoes on the spot market in Belgium, the world’s biggest exporter of frozen fries, has languished at precisely zero. It was nearly 600 euros ($690) three years ago.

2. The Murugappa Group (through Axiro Semiconductors and CG Semi), the Tata Group (through Tata Electronics), and Crystal Matrix are leading India's semiconductor chip design and manufacturing push.

3. Very good assessment of a decade of the IBC law.

The idea was to enable timely exit of non-viable firms, preserve viable businesses, restore credit discipline, and unclog credit channels... Till March 2026, 1,419 companies had emerged from insolvency with approved resolution plans, with the proportion of companies achieving such outcomes improving steadily... Creditors have realised ₹4.32 trillion through resolution plans. The oft-cited haircut of around two-thirds, measured against admitted claims, can be misleading because claims are frequently inflated while asset values are deeply eroded by the time firms enter insolvency. A more meaningful benchmark is liquidation value: Resolution plans have, on average, yielded 167 per cent of the liquidation value. Importantly, firms resolved under the IBC demonstrated operational revival post-resolution. Within five years, sales and capital expenditure nearly doubled, asset utilisation improved sharply, and the aggregate market capitalisation of resolved firms rose from about ₹2.8 trillion to ₹9 trillion...

In all, 3,003 companies have entered liquidation under the IBC, but most had little realistic prospect of revival. Their assets averaged barely 5 per cent of admitted claims, and four-fifths were already sick or defunct before entering insolvency. The IBC merely provided an orderly exit for firms that had failed long before the process began. Yet, the incidence of liquidations in India is comparable to that in the United States and significantly lower than in the United Kingdom and Australia... Resolution plans rescued 78 per cent of distressed assets, while liquidations accounted for 22 per cent. When all pathways to revival are considered — resolution plans, withdrawals, settlements, appeals, and rescues during liquidation — the number of revived companies substantially exceeds those liquidated.

4. John Burn-Murdoch points to evidence that remote working and NOT AI is responsible for the ongoing declines in entry-level hirings.

Peter John Lambert and Yannick Schindler have a fascinating counter-proposal: the take-off of remote work. Early-career workers require more supervision than experienced hires, and build important skills, knowledge and social capital by observing and working alongside senior colleagues. Working from home adds friction to these processes, making entry-level workers more costly to bring on board in terms of time and resources and slowing their prospects for promotion. As such, the rise of remote work has worsened the trade-off for hiring entry-level workers, while leaving the calculus for senior hires unchanged. The evidence fits the theory. Lambert and Schindler analysed hundreds of millions of new hires and job postings and found that although both occupational exposure to AI and remote working rates line up with the outsized pullback in junior hiring, the link with AI evaporates once you account for whether a role is remote. In other words, it only looks like AI is behind the hiring crunch for junior software developers because coding jobs are also disproportionately done remotely. Jobs less exposed to AI but amenable to remote work (eg lawyers) have also seen weak junior hiring; roles with high AI exposure but an emphasis on in-person work (eg receptionists) have held up better.

5. Is Steve Jobs leaving the greatest corporate legacy ever?

Apple now rakes in sales of over $1bn a day. Its services business alone, driven by the App Store and Apple Pay, generates more revenue than Netflix, Spotify and Adobe combined, with a margin of around 75 per cent. Under Cook, the company has returned around $1tn to shareholders through dividends and buybacks… Nearly two decades since the product launched, Apple shipped well over 200mn iPhones in 2025 and the device still accounts for about half of Apple’s $400bn of annual sales, with high product margins underpinned by the highly efficient, Asia-based supply chain also created by Cook. Apple’s astonishing profitability is sustained by an annual cadence of new iPhones, each iteration featuring largely incremental improvements on the one before. Research and development spending as a proportion of revenue went from 8 per cent at its height in 2001 to a 2 per cent low in 2012 as the iPhone boom began, meaning that for a while Apple was spending proportionally far less than its Big Tech peers.

6. Good primer on why oil prices have remained less elevated than expected - decline in Chinese oil imports (almost 4 m bpd) and rise in US exports (almost 4.5 mbpd).

7. The US economy is increasingly resembling a one-trick pony of AI.

The US corporate profit share has climbed to a record 13.8 per cent of GDP, while net income margins across the broad US equity market have recovered to about 9.7 per cent, close to earlier highs. At the same time, market leadership has become unusually concentrated: a handful of AI‑linked stocks now account for roughly 40 per cent of the S&P 500’s market capitalisation, according to Bank of America data. Headline profitability is being flattered by a small slice of the economy earning extraordinary returns from the scramble to build AI capacity...

Spending strength is increasingly coming from upper-income households where wealth and income are more tied to equities than wages. The stock market has, in effect, become part of the growth model: rising AI profits lift share prices; higher share prices support the spending power of wealthier households; and that spending helps keep demand alive. Lower-income households, by contrast, are more exposed to squeezed real incomes and softer labour-market momentum... Large technology groups have produced surging revenues and margins with only limited growth in headcount... So long as investors believe AI will earn very high long-term returns, the loop can remain self-sustaining: capital expenditure stays firm, equities stay buoyant and affluent consumers keep spending.

8. The spectacular surge in Google's capex.

Five years ago, its capital expenditure on servers, network equipment and such was $25bn, which it funded out of operating cash flows of $92bn. In 2027, analysts expect $250bn of capital expenditure, versus cash flows of $260bn — a tighter fit. In its second quarter next year, Visible Alpha estimates suggest Google will spend more than it makes, for the first time in its listed history.

9. A good illustration of deficient national security discipline comes from how the US is allowing the exports of tungsten scrap to China even as it spends money abroad buying tungsten mines.

Since early 2025, Chinese scrap traders have been seeking tungsten throughout the US, prompted by a shortage outside China caused by declining supply and intense demand from the aerospace, weapons and tools industries. The effort has set off a bidding war with American buyers and calls to ban sales of a critical national security resource to overseas buyers... Sellers said they were fielding calls from Chinese buyers looking for the material, while American buyers said they were being outbid by Chinese rivals willing to pay as much as five times the usual price...

Tungsten scrap commonly comes from worn-out industrial tools such as drill bits and mining equipment. It can be crushed and chemically processed back into tungsten powder or carbide for use in new machinery and tools. The shortage has been triggered by Beijing imposing export restrictions on it and an array of other critical minerals in early 2025 and the country cutting mining quotas. China accounts for more than half of global mined and refined tungsten supply and about half of demand...

Tungsten is broadly used in military applications, including in bullets and missiles. Traders said stocks were already low before the Iran war and that companies do not typically hold large stores of the metal. There was “no availability” outside China of the so-called “intermediate” products that manufacturers need — mined ore that has been processed... The price of tungsten has risen by more than 200 per cent since May 2025, while tungsten scrap has risen 350 per cent, according to Argus Media.

10. The AI wave is lifting all stocks, including those legacy IT firms like HP and Dell.

11. India's non-tax revenue fact of week.

In the last three years, the share of RBI surplus in the government’s non-tax revenue has stayed between 42 and 52 per cent.

12. SpaceX IPO in a graphic.

13. Real Madrid at the top of European football club valuations.

14. The universe of PSUs in India has been rising.

15. Rama Bijapurkar's categorisation of India's consumption class.

The important thing is that 93% of households have annual consumption less than $5700.

16. Anthropic facts.

Last month, Anthropic crossed $47bn in run-rate revenue, a metric used by start-ups which estimates annual revenues based on short-term performance. This is a more than fivefold increase since the start of the year... Anthropic’s valuation has soared from $350bn to $900bn in 12 weeks. It is now one of the fastest-growing companies in history.

17. The biggest threat to the US superpower status now appears to be its surging public debt, which is now $36 trillion held by the public and federal agencies

The exorbitant privilege has ensured the dollar's status as the world's pre-eminent reserve currency and the Treasury market's role as the world's safest haven asset, thereby allowing the US access to unlimited global capital at a low cost. While there are no competitors to the dollar on the horizon, the Treasury's safe haven status is facing competition.

18. The most important difference between the dotcom bubble and the AI bubble.

19. Japan is losing people.

Japan’s population peaked in 2008 at 128 million, and it is projected to fall to 87 million by 2070. The country is now roughly the same size it was in 1989... All but two of the country’s 47 prefectures reported population decreases in 2025, and the rate of decline is accelerating.

20. Finally, this says as much about the Indian stock markets as about the Korean and Taiwanese markets.

India’s stock market capitalisation was overtaken in the past week first by Taiwan and then by South Korea, as the value of Indian equities held by foreign investors slumped to a 10-year low of 7.3tn rupees ($76bn) on June 1. The value of Indian stocks was more than double that of Taiwanese stocks and roughly 3.5 times that of South Korean stocks 18 months ago, analysts at Bernstein said this week. “Fast forward just five months into 2026, and that lead has evaporated,” they added.

The challenges with TOD implementation in India

noreply@blogger.com (Urbanomics) — Fri, 05 Jun 2026 00:22:09 +0000

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) remains an elusive urban planning goal for India despite nearly two decades of efforts. I blogged on TOD implementation in India here.

In simple terms, TOD is about minimising commute times, ideally by locating both homes and workplaces within walking distance of mass transit stations, or at least one location within walking distance.

This would entail crowding in high-density residential, office, commercial, and institutional developments around the station. This requires making it attractive for developers to prefer building within the TOD influence zone, despite its much higher land costs.

There are perhaps four big failings with the TOD policies over the years.

1. The biggest problem is that metro and commuter railway projects are primarily seen as infrastructure projects and only distantly as opportunities for urban development and economic growth. This is manifest in the limited involvement of the municipal corporations in their design. TOD is planned and executed mainly by the transportation entities without adequate ownership by the local governments.

The railways, Road Transport Corporations (RTCs), mass transit entities, state governments, and Urban Development Authorities (UDAs) view TOD primarily as station-based real estate development opportunities that lead to monetisation and revenue mobilisation. A second consideration is to increase housing supply. The UDAs tend to view TOD as an instrument to develop or monetise their own lands, mostly to increase housing supply.

The idea of minimising commute times is rarely explicitly considered as an important factor.

2. Policymakers have internalised a belief that the attractions of connectivity and higher (this too is mostly marginal) FAR are sufficient for developers to choose TOD influence zones.

But, as I blogged here, this assumption is seriously flawed. The global experience on TOD clearly points to the need for fiscal concessions to make it attractive enough for real estate development in the pricier TOD influence zone.

Given the higher land costs in TOD zones, the case for fiscal incentives to offset them and attract developers should be obvious. A TOD policy can therefore be effective only if the conflict between the objectives of minimising commute times (or densified development around stations) and maximising revenues is resolved in favour of the former, at least in the initial years

Planning officials are averse to dense high-rises. Bureaucrats are averse to foregoing revenues. Taken together, we have a TOD gridlock. The common ground is mid-rise residential property development where government lands are available around transit stations. This is the reality of TOD in India.

3. By its very nature, there cannot be a uniform TOD policy with tightly prescribed norms on use categories. However, governments (especially UDAs), struggling with the problem of housing, tend to view TOD primarily as an instrument to address housing problems in cities. This creates a pronounced bias towards housing in TOD zones. This, too, is a seriously flawed assumption.

The proportion of the different use categories varies across stations. So, for example, the vicinity of a large metropolitan downtown station would be more suitable for predominantly institutional and office uses, whereas that around a smaller suburban node would be suitable primarily for residential and commercial uses. This would allow the satellite nodes to grow by feeding off the metropolitan node, and the latter to decongest and grow sustainably. A prudent policy choice, therefore, may be to leave it to the market to decide the proportions of different uses within the TOD zone depending on the strengths and opportunities of each node.

4. TOD demands a high level of coordination among different government agencies. But it is a daunting challenge to coordinate across the universe of stakeholders involved in TOD - the municipal corporations, the UDAs, the RTCs, the metro or commuter rail SPVs, and Indian Railways.

This is best illustrated with modal integration - the seamless integration across the different modes of transport at a station, including ticketing - an essential requirement for TOD. This has proved elusive despite numerous serious efforts. Further, because each view focuses on real estate development and revenue mobilisation (or housing), and overlooks the primary objective of minimising commute times, their incentives pull in different directions.

Even something as apparently simple as the integration of the facilities of distinct metro, commuter rail, IR, and RTC in one station becomes a challenging exercise. Their physical integration as one unit to share and optimise space and services can be a bureaucratic nightmare. Instead of planning and developing the area as an integrated unit, each entity pursues its priorities with limited synergies.

There are no easy answers here. When a problem has proved elusive for a long time, a good starting point would be recognition of its complexity and piloting it. It may therefore be prudent to focus on implementing TOD at 1-2 stations in a bespoke manner.

What would be the nature of a TOD (the mix of categories of developments) appropriate for the station? What package of interventions and incentives would be sufficient to attract private developers to invest in the TOD influence zone? What governance arrangement can get all stakeholders on board at a high-enough level to ensure effective coordination?

Deploying public finance to derisk private capital in innovation and infrastructure

noreply@blogger.com (Urbanomics) — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 02:16:53 +0000

As the heading suggests, this post points to a few thoughts on the challenge of deploying public funds to derisk and crowd-in private capital into those areas of innovation and infrastructure that are not attractive enough for commercial capital.

I have blogged about public funding of innovation here and here, and this working paper is about public funding of infrastructure projects. The additionality with public finance arises from its risk-tolerant, patient, and concessional nature.

An urban water supply or sewerage, or an industrial bulk water supply, or an electricity distribution, or a solid waste management, or a streetlight energy saving project, or a mass transit project, will not attract commercial capital on its own. Similarly, a fledgling startup making transceivers, or display and camera modules, or high precision resistors/inductors/capacitors, or compressors, or brushless DC motors, or anode materials, or aluminium extrusions, or designing a narrow band IoT chip or some other mid-value chip, will generally struggle to attract risk capital.

But they can be derisked by blending with a layer of public finance. The challenge is how to do this derisking effectively. Specifically, the challenge is how public funds can be channelled to derisk these projects or sectors.

This is less of a problem with grant funding involving smaller amounts, which is simple enough to be done through public entities. In infrastructure, such grants come in the form of viability gap financing (VGF), and in innovation, they are given to those in TRL 1-5/6 stages. The problem lies in the deployment of risk capital (debt and, especially, equity and structured instruments) by public entities.

Given its administrative inflexibility and constraints, direct deployment of funds by the government itself is not only inefficient but also creates incentive distortions.

In the circumstances, the commonly suggested option is arms-length financing through Development Finance Institutions (DFIs). But this approach is seriously hampered by unreasonable expectations (about returns or at the least capital preservation) arising from a deficient understanding and acknowledgement that de-risking, by its very nature, entails a strong likelihood of losing money. It would involve investing in projects that would not attract commercial investors, by insuring for the additional risk borne by them.

Further, even with an arm's-length institutional structure, a fully government-owned entity is subject to constraints that prevent efficient deployment of funds.

The response to this problem has been to build institutional structures by partnering with private investors, even having majority private investors. This, it has been argued, will free them from the fetters and requirements faced by public entities.

However, India’s disappointing experience with infrastructure DFIs starting from IDFC, IIFCL, and NIIF, as documented in detail here, raises questions about this response. In all these cases, instead of complementing private capital, the DFI has ended up competing with private investors in their choice of investments. Instead of funding those risky sectors, the DFIs chase the derisked sectors like power generation, renewables, transmission, highways, ports, and airports.

In this backdrop, a commonly cited option, especially in the context of innovation financing, is to transfer public funds to commercial investment vehicles (or the Fund of Funds, FoF, strategy) and let the latter manage those investments. This looks great in theory, insofar as it aligns incentives and brings in private sector efficiencies.

But it has one problem. The private investors will be primed to invest, at best, in those marginally risky projects rather than in genuinely risky projects (or sectors) that sorely need public finance to derisk them. So, instead of deriskingprojects or sectors, public funding will do returns amplification for private capital.

Here, a big problem, a market friction, is the absence of a pipeline of such risky projects and sectors that investors can draw from. Their search costs are a significant enough deterrent for investors. In contrast, commercial investors have access to a widely known pipeline of investible projects or innovations.

It is also the case that the envelope of such risk capital available to fund infrastructure and innovation is much smaller than the envelope of investible projects. Therefore, there is little incentive to go beyond the confines of the mainstream and search out and fund the riskier projects.

In the circumstances, I can think of three options for the deployment of public funds such that we are able to realise its additionality, and not compete with and crowd-out private capital or end up being leveraged primarily for returns amplification.

1. Invest in FoFs, but with sharply defined funding mandates, almost prescribing the specific nature of projects to invest in, at least a part of their portfolio. However, this can be unsettling for the commercial investors and may turn away the GPs who sponsor the fund from accessing public funds.

2. The DFI could announce its offering as a set of financing instruments that meet the derisking objective. They could include credit guarantees (in the form of first-loss buffers), longer tenor, lower interest rate or hurdle rate, lower liquidation preference and a lower charge on the waterfall, subordinate debt, and so on. The DFI should market these instruments and possible investment projects to commercial investors.

3. The DFI could co-invest with private investors. This would entail the public entity scouting the project or entrepreneur, doing due diligence on it/them, and then shopping it to commercial investors with an offer of an attractive enough derisking financing layer. This would also require an acknowledgement of the fact that the role of public finance is to derisk and not maximise returns. This is perhaps the most ideal approach, one which mature entities like NIIF in infrastructure finance ought to be mandated to do.

The second and third options require highly capable and incentive-aligned institutions. Given weak state capability, that’s a demanding requirement. It is for this reason that even in developed countries, risk capital funding in infrastructure and later-stage innovations is largely deployed through FoFs, notwithstanding its aforesaid failings.

But this reality should not be a reason to ignore the failings of the FoF strategy and step away from pursuing the second or third options.

Implementing TOD in India

noreply@blogger.com (Urbanomics) — Sun, 31 May 2026 23:30:00 +0000

I have blogged here outlining nine low-hanging fruits in urban planning, here on the use of land value capture instruments, and here on TDR trading platforms. This one examines why transit-oriented development (TOD) has not worked in India and what could be done.

TOD is about densifying a defined neighbourhood around a transit station to minimise commute times. It would encourage people to use the mass transit system to commute between their offices and homes. TOD is especially relevant in the context of railway stations.

Globally, many cities owe their expansion to TOD. London and Mumbai are good examples. I used Claude to extract the schematic maps conveying TOD developments in commuter railway stations around London and Mumbai over the 1991-2011 period.

This is the London map for a longer 1991-2021 period.

The Mumbai map draws from the Marron Institute’s Atlas of Urban Expansion, and the London map uses the ONS census visualisations.

Despite several efforts for nearly two decades, Indian cities have struggled with TOD. The only genuine integrated mixed-use station-centric development in India is Gurgaon’s DLF Cyber City + Cyber Hub + Rapid Metro (125 acres, ~15 million sq ft of office, 400,000 sq ft of F&B). The Gurgaon Rapid Metro is itself a private TOD example (built by IL&FS/DLF), covering 12.85 km and 11 stations. Both were built privately by DLF and IL&FS, predating the 2016 TOD policy by years, and the Rapid Metro became financially unviable and had to be taken over by HMRTC in 2019. The MGF malls at MG Road station, Sector 29 at HUDA City Centre, and the Golf Course Road density are all pre-existing development that happens to lie near a metro — co-location, not coordinated TOD.

A fundamental problem with TOD Policy formulation is the assumption that higher FAR, coupled with the benefits of living or working adjacent to a station, will by themselves translate into utilisation. In other words, it is assumed to be sufficient enough incentive for builders and home buyers to choose the TOD zone over its neighbourhood and elsewhere. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case.

Worse still, governments tend to view TOD as also a large revenue generation opportunity from the flush of property developments. The combination of registration fees (in case of purchases), layout development fees, purchaseable FAR rate, building permission fees, etc., adds prohibitive cost layers for developers and buyers. They prefer to develop and buy elsewhere. The normalised expectation of high revenues also prevents governments from considering providing concessions. A gridlock ensues.

So how do other countries promote TOD?

The Tokyo region offers double or even triple FAR in TOD zones, and allows FAR transfer from adjacent lower-value land parcels. Most importantly, the zones have no development fees, with local governments recovering value through land appreciation and property tax growth, not upfront levies. MTR in Hong Kong also offers much higher FAR and does not levy any development charge, and even gives the land to the developer at pre-rail land values. Singapore has URA White sites where land use is left flexible, apart from a much higher FAR. The purchasable FAR rates are waived or significantly reduced. Additional FAR and no parking minimums in the US allow developers to build significantly more in the zones, especially for affordable housing. Australia allows FAR several multiples higher, fast-tracks permissions, waives off infrastructure levies for affordable housing, and even has lower property tax assessment.

The common thread across all of these is that governments provide a package of benefits in the TOD zone. It always combines higher FAR (making more revenue possible per unit of land cost) with lower upfront charges (reducing the cost stack) and faster approvals (reducing holding cost and uncertainty). The Japanese and Hong Kong models go furthest by making the TOD zone not just more permissive but more profitable than any suburban alternative.

So what can cities in countries like India do?

Fundamentally, the objective of any TOD Policy should be to ensure that it makes building in the TOD zone more attractive than outside or elsewhere.

Apart from higher land values, the TOD zone suffers from several other disadvantages - less likely to have larger vacant plots, more likely to be congested, noisier, and so on - that make them less attractive compared to their surroundings or the suburban areas. Besides, the surroundings of stations are not perceived as desirable residential locations.

In the circumstances, there must be a significant incentive to crowd-in development into the TOD zone. Such incentives come from both urban planning instruments and fiscal concessions. Apart from additional FAR, the former could include a higher base FAR, a lower price for purchasable FAR, higher TDR loading, and a more generous TDR conversion rate. Fiscal concessions could include lower stamp duty, layout development fees, building permission fees, and property taxes. If there is a betterment levy or impact fees, the same may also be discounted for those desirable developments (like high-rise buildings). These benefits could be limited to developments initiated within a certain period.

This would also require a shift in the way governments view TOD. They should prioritise the development of the zone over the maximisation of revenues. In fact, foregoing current revenues to harvest future revenues should be the mantra. The foregone revenues would be offset within a few years by those from the economic activities triggered by the developments.

In other words, the strategy should be to first crowd-in a critical mass of developments that is sufficient to sustain future development. Till this happens, revenue realisation should be strictly subordinate. This is especially required in the large Indian cities, which have poor urban planning and a culture of sprawling suburbs.

The timing of TOD adoption is also important. The best time to initiate TOD is just before the project work starts, when land values are lower, and the market is being catalysed. The marginal response to incentives is likely to be much greater in the initial stages when property prices too have not gone over the roof.

It may be useful to experiment in a few bigger cities by picking one or two locations (those with sufficient developable land) and providing a package of incentives for a period of 3-5 years. At the risk of repeating, the package should be designed keeping in mind the need to make the TOD zone significantly more attractive than its surroundings.

Weekend reading links

noreply@blogger.com (Urbanomics) — Sat, 30 May 2026 15:26:14 +0000

1. This captures the big problems with Chinese exports to Europe.

In the early 1970s workers at Dongfeng, or “East Wind”, imported American trucks to inform their early attempts at making off-road vehicles destined for the People’s Liberation Army. Nearly 60 years later Stellantis, the European owner of the Jeep brand, is partnering with Dongfeng to produce a new battery-powered version of the iconic American light utility vehicle for consumers in China, the Middle East and south-east Asia... International carmakers, struggling for survival amid an expensive transition to electric vehicles, are turning to China’s technologically advanced and cost-efficient factories as manufacturing bases for their global businesses. Foreign companies already account for around two-fifths of China’s car exports to Europe, when joint ventures with local groups are included, according to the Rhodium Group, a US consultancy... Indeed, Volkswagen, BMW, Nissan, Hyundai and others are increasing exports from Chinese factories with spare capacity to markets other than Europe and the US.

2. A new approach to making clean hydrogen.

Most of the hydrogen the world uses today — mainly for fertilizer and refining — is produced using natural gas in a process that creates lots of emissions. In recent years, the United States and other countries have invested billions of dollars trying to make “green” hydrogen with wind and solar power, but it has proved difficult and expensive. Now a growing number of companies think a better answer could lie underground. Dozens of start-ups are trying to find large reservoirs of natural hydrogen thought to exist below the surface. Others, like Vema, are trying to stimulate the processes that generate that hydrogen, without any emissions. It’s a field often referred to as “geologic hydrogen.”...

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and it gets made naturally in the Earth’s crust when certain iron-rich minerals react with water and rust. This process, known as serpentinization, often leaves behind rocks with a mottled green color. For a long time, many geologists believed that any natural hydrogen produced this way was unlikely to accumulate in large underground deposits because the tiny molecules would slip away through cracks in rocks. Lately, that conventional wisdom has been upended... By the 2020s, scientists were publishing papers estimating that natural hydrogen deposits underground could supply the world’s needs for hundreds of years. One promising location was North America’s Midcontinent Rift, an enormous formation of iron-rich basalt that stretches 1,200 miles from Kansas to Michigan... The Energy Department has estimated that geologic hydrogen could be produced for less than $1 per kilogram. That would be cheaper than hydrogen made from fossil fuels and one-sixth the current cost of making hydrogen from wind and solar power.

It has started attracting private capital.

Companies are racing to find the fuel. One of the best-funded start-ups, Koloma, has raised $400 million from investors including Amazon and United Airlines and has drilled exploratory wells in Iowa. HyTerra, an Australian firm, is searching for hydrogen and helium in Kansas and Nebraska. Not everyone thinks the best strategy is to search for natural deposits underground. A better idea, some say, is to create them. In Quebec, a startup called Vema Hydrogen plans to spend the rest of the year injecting water into its underground test wells to see if it can speed up the process of serpentinization that creates natural hydrogen underground... Vema has already raised $15 million and is working to raise more. There are ophiolites all over the Earth, including a ridge stretching from Costa Rica to Alaska, and the company is looking at sites in Oregon and California as well. Other start-ups, including one out of M.I.T. called GeoRedox, are developing their own approaches.

3. Semiconductor chips are one area where China lags badly.

Chinese companies will most likely make just 2 percent as many A.I. chips as foreign firms do this year, said Tim Fist, a director at the Institute for Progress, a think tank in Washington. The production gap between Chinese and foreign manufacturers is especially big for memory chips, which are essential for the large calculations done by A.I. Companies outside China will make 70 times as much memory storage capacity this year as Chinese chip makers will, Mr. Fist said...The inability to get essential tools from ASML has been a major chokehold for Chinese chip makers. Since U.S. officials led an effort to lobby the Dutch government to block shipments to China, no Chinese company has been able to buy ASML’s most advanced tools. Instead, Chinese chip makers have recruited engineers with experience using those machines at TSMC, the world’s top chip maker. And now, Chinese start-ups are trying to make their own chip manufacturing equipment... China’s A.I. companies are trying to get the computing power they need by strapping together numerous less powerful chips. Huawei has taken such an approach... The chips Huawei does produce are prone to defects and use more electricity than cutting-edge foreign ones.

4. This is one of the greatest messages from a student to a teacher, Albert Camus to his elementary school teacher Louis Germain after he won the Nobel Prize.

5. Japanification in demographics.

And this impact of smartphones is striking.

6. Soumaya Keynes has a good read on the history of export restrictions and their impact, and why trade wars will endure.

7. Southeast Asian economies struggle on the face of rising inflation from the War.

Their currencies have weakened.

The Philippines and Indonesia have already raised interest rates.

8. Good FT visual story on maritime chokepoints.

This is a good illustration of the extent of damage from the Strait of Hormuz closure.

In a sign of Bab el-Mandeb strait’s strategic importance, Djibouti – whose coastline runs along the waterway – is home to military bases of several major countries, including the US, Italy, France, Japan, and the sole People’s Liberation Army base outside China. The Bab el-Mandeb strait is among several trade chokepoints that, when blocked, require vessels to travel more than 8,000 miles. These also include the Strait of Gibraltar and the Suez and Panama Canals...

The knock-on effects of a blockage can be much more significant where there is no alternative route to fall back on, as with the Strait of Hormuz, the Øresund between Denmark and Sweden, and the Turkish straits, comprising the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus, which act as the gateway between the Black Sea and Mediterranean. With the Hormuz strait, says Jasper Verschuur, co-author of a study into the risks of the world’s 24 narrow straits, “there is no alternative for 80 per cent of the trade”.

This is India's exposure to various maritime routes

9. Sajjid Chinoy writes that India's economic problem is less of a current account and more a capital account problem, arising from the sharp decline in FDI and FPI inflows. In the circumstances, he argues that demand compression can be counterproductive by slowing growth. He suggests a combination of depreciation and augmentation measures for foreign capital inflows.

The objective must be to attract a large-enough quantum of near-term capital inflows across multiple avenues — even if it involves a subsidised swap — to change exporter, importer and investor behaviour, and prevent a destabilising overshooting of the Rupee.

I am not sure how this is at all possible precisely when capital is flowing the other direction.

10. For all talk of private participations and efficiencies, the long-distance railway networks in continental Europe is largely state-owned - Deutsche Bahn (Germany), Ferrovie dello Stato (Italy), Renfe (Spain), SNCF (France), and SBB (Switzerland). The Economist writes about how Italo, the private high-speed rail operator co-founded by Luca Cordero di Montezemolo, is trying to disrupt the German network.

11. Securitisation and deepening of financial intermediation in Europe.

The securitisation market in Europe remains moribund, comprising around 0.3 per cent of GDP compared with 4 per cent in the US.

12. SpaceX's IPO prospectus takes the widest liberties with US securities law.

13. K-shape in US economy.

And now in wage decline

14. Ukraine's drones are inflicting massive damage and casualties on Russia as the country forces its way into its most favourable situation since the war began.

Some intelligence reports indicate that a staggering 1.2mn Russian soldiers have been killed or wounded since February 2022, a casualty figure no major power has suffered in a single conflict since the second world war... Backed by some €90bn in EU loans, Kyiv is pouring resources into domestic arms production in a bid to reduce dependence on western weapons and the political constraints that often accompany them. It has moved at breakneck speed to scale up the manufacture of land, sea and air drones, artillery systems, electronic warfare equipment, and even ballistic and cruise missiles.

15. The consulting industry is threatened by AI.

Few industries are debating AI’s implications more intensely than consulting, whose core work of research, summarising data and producing neatly designed PowerPoint presentations is highly automatable. Richard Susskind, co-author of The Future of the Professions, says consultants are more vulnerable than other mainstream professions in part because the work of junior staff “can now be taken on, with mild supervision, by increasingly capable AI systems”. The sector now has two new competitors, he adds: “the AI-empowered client and disruptive start-ups. Both challenge the conventional model.”... AI also threatens one of professional services’ foundational economic models: billing by time. When a bot can review thousands of contracts in minutes and draft complex documents in seconds, the relationship between hours worked and value delivered begins to break down. Increasingly, clients are demanding pricing linked to outcomes rather than labour inputs.

16.

The missing link in India's FAR market - a trading platform

noreply@blogger.com (Urbanomics) — Tue, 26 May 2026 02:30:11 +0000

I blogged here on nine low-hanging fruits in urban planning in India, and here on the actual use of land value capture instruments in India. This post will discuss the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and Transferable Development Rights (TDR) transactions in Indian cities.

Fundamentally, FAR, beyond a certain limit that comes with property rights, can be purchased at a defined rate (up to the master plan limit). Further, when land is given up for a public purpose, instead of receiving financial compensation, the landowners can get additional FAR that can be traded (as TDR) and availed in certain predefined locations. Finally, the TDRs can be transacted through an institutionalised platform.

The table below shows the status of FAR and TDR transactions across Indian states.

Clearly, while all states have the requisite policy and legal frameworks in place, the actual implementation (in terms of FAR sold and revenues realised, and TDRs issued and transacted) has been limited, except in Maharashtra, and to some extent in Hyderabad.

Mumbai is the most complete illustration of FAR and TDR. It allows for purchaseable FAR (or premium FSI) of 0.5 to 0.84 over the base FSI, depending on the road width abutting the plot (nothing below a road width of 9 m). It is sold at 35-50% of the Ready Reckoner Rate (RRR), varying for residential, industrial, and commercial uses. The revenues are shared between the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), the state government, and the State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC). BMC itself has so far earned over Rs 14,000 Cr from premium FSI sales.

TDRs are issued (in the form of a Development Rights Certificate, DRC) by BMC for defined instances where land is surrendered for public purposes at the rate of 2.5X for the island city and 2X for suburbs against the surrendered land. It can be used across the municipal corporation limits (with some specific exclusions) in the range of 0.17 to 0.83, depending on the road width (cannot be used below 9 m roads). The TDR generated is indexed at the RRR, and an equivalent floor space is allotted at the receiving plot. Since April 2026, Mumbai has moved into a fully electronic trading platform for TDRs, and manual record keeping has been dispensed with.

An electronic trading platform is essential for unlocking the full potential of TDRs. It is particularly important since it significantly enhances TDR liquidity, enables efficient market clearing, brings transparency and certitude for landowners, and also prevents fraud and abuse. Mumbai is the only place with a blockchain-secured, workflow-automated e-trading platform that allows for buyer-seller bidding and matching.

A major reason for TDR trading failing to operate across states is the manual and opaque nature of the records and the problems with trading them. It forces cities to impose restrictions like limiting TDR to the same locality or zone, thereby sharply diminishing liquidity and deterring land owners from accepting TDRs. Until a state moves to a properly dematerialised exchange, secondary-market price discovery stays opaque, and TDR rates trade at significant discounts to face value. This is the main reason why so many landowners say, “We want money, not land.”

An illustration of its value comes from the experience of Hyderabad’s TDR Bank, which is currently only a depositary and coordination platform, though integrated with its building approval system. In the absence of a trading platform and the associated transparency and liquidity (and also the misguided unlimited FAR provision), in order to trigger TDR transactions, the state government was forced to come up with a government order (GO Ms No 95, March 2026) to mandate TDR utilisation for high-rise buildings.

All told, even highly urbanised states like Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, AP, Telangana, Karnataka, and Haryana have struggled to realise the potential of TDRs due to thin secondary markets that deter efficient market matching and price discovery.

An electronic TDR trading platform can significantly address these constraints and simplify TDR issuance by bringing complete transparency and allowing its trading across the city, thereby increasing liquidity and raising its attractiveness and credibility for land owners (both sellers/owners and buyers).

How do other countries and cities undertake TDR trading?

The table below captures how TDR trading happens across a few cities/countries.

Brazil's CEPAC is the gold standard for an exchange. It is the only system globally where development rights are explicitly structured as securities. As an aside, this also makes Mumbai’s success especially remarkable. CEPACs are auctioned by the Federal Bank of Brazil and can only be used in designated urban operation areas; they must be authorised by the CVM (the Brazilian equivalent of the U.S. SEC) to be traded on the B3 stock market, and have raised over USD 2.7 billion across 15 years from Faria Lima and Água Espraiada Urban Operations, with funds reinvested in transit, roads and parks. In Rio's Porto Maravilha, all CEPACs were wholesale-auctioned to Caixa Económica Federal, which financed all infrastructure improvement and 20 years of service costs without further public outlay.

In this context, I have a co-authored working paper here, where we propose the establishment of a similar exchange for trading FARs with mechanisms similar to those in Mumbai.

So what should be the design for a trading platform for TDRs?

The wide diversity across states and cities, coupled with the weak state capabilities, necessitates a qualified approach in designing TDR trading platforms for Indian cities. Besides, the TDR is a local commodity, whose trading is inherently local. A three-level design may therefore be prudent.

At the first level, as discussed here, there’s a need for a standardised national protocol layer, authorised by SEBI and MoHUA, and operated through a SEBI-approved entity. This layer could do four things: (a) define a Development Rights Certificate (DRC) standard with a unique national ID and QR code; (b) provide a centralised dematerialised depository with its eKYC, escrow, etc.; (c) set eligibility, disclosure, and dispute-resolution norms; and (d) supervise a national audit trail. This layer would enhance the credibility and efficiency of the platform.

Each municipal authority (BMC, GHMC, BBMP, CMDA, APCRDA, GMDA, DDA) could operate a city-bounded marketplace on the common rails, and trading within a master-planned area only. It could borrow from the Mumbai e-TDR, which has a single nodal bank (SBI) and one blockchain-secured ledger. This would be supported with a municipal TDR bank inside each metro exchange. It could be designed as a public buyer-and-lender of last resort that holds inventory, sets a price floor, and even guarantees loans collateralised by DRCs. This solves the landowner objection of “we want money, not land” by giving every certificate-holder a guaranteed cash exit at a reserve price.

This three-layer structure also matches India’s existing regulatory plumbing in trading platforms. Mutual funds, government securities, and electricity markets are organised with a national legal and depository spine, with state-specific trading layers on top.

The smaller cities in each state could have a pooled market, administered by an appropriate state government entity. Or it may be useful to start with the larger cities, and expansion to be done based on the emerging feedback.

Applying land value capture to public investments

noreply@blogger.com (Urbanomics) — Sun, 24 May 2026 23:30:00 +0000

Donald Shoup, the famous urban planner, posed this great question that goes to the heart of infrastructure finance: “How do you finance a project that has a return much higher than its cost, but nobody wants to pay the upfront cost?”

The answer lies in land value capture (LVC), a topic that I have blogged on numerous occasions (see here and here). Specifically, two instruments, betterment levy on existing developed properties, and impact fee on those which are undergoing development, have the potential to raise significant revenues.

In theory, LVC spans the spectrum from appropriating directly through ownership of a part of the developed land (through the likes of land pooling) and indirectly through one-time and/or recurring charge (betterment levy or impact fees).

The former, the best example is Gujarat’s historical town planning schemes (TPS), is perhaps the most ideal approach, insofar as it cleanly appropriates a share of the land itself (typically 40-60% of the total land). The problem is that it is an engagement-intensive activity requiring both high credibility and state capability, both deficient across state and local governments. The best illustration of this is Andhra Pradesh’s struggling experiment to develop its capital at Amaravati by pooling land through a TPS.

TPS entails that the state takes over the lands, develops infrastructure, and leaves developed plots for the landowners, all this within some defined period of time. The combination of the political economy of real estate and weak state capability creates a time inconsistency problem that erodes the credibility associated with such schemes.

It is also for this reason that, despite numerous efforts over the last three decades, there are still very few instances of genuinely successful slum housing redevelopment schemes in Indian cities. And there are numerous examples of badly delayed and poorly executed such projects.

In the circumstances, the best bet with LVC in the context of countries like India is to collect a share of the incremental value as a charge on some urban planning instrument. It is the instrument with the fewest implementation difficulties.

Consider the numerous ongoing infrastructure projects across the country, ranging from national highways and expressways to metro railway projects, airports and ports, data centres and industrial clusters, and generally any large investment that leads to the development of an area. In all these cases, there’s an immediate spike in property prices, which is almost completely appropriated privately. If some share of the property valuation increase can be appropriated through the LVC instruments, then it can be securitised to fund the projects themselves, at least a significant share of the cost.

Illustrative examples will include the nodes in the Delhi-Mumbai industrial corridor, stations in the Mumbai-Ahmedabad high-speed rail and the Regional Rapid Transit System(RRTS), vicinity of Navi Mumbai Airport, the corridor abutting Bharatmala pariyojana, the vicinity of several new airports like Jewar and Bhogapuram, and so on. None of these has any specific betterment levy or impact fee charged on properties in their influence zones. These are all massive missed opportunities and large revenues foregone.

The formally reported claims of LVC revenues from all these are either in the form of unlocking value through sales or lease of government properties, or, in a few cases, they include the sale of lands acquired through TPS.

In every one of these projects, the intent of capturing land-value gain from the project announcement onwards exists somewhere on paper. In practice, though, the only meaningful capture has come from in-kind land pooling, lease revenue/premia from sale of publicly-owned land, and a few development/impact-fee tweaks. The second one (lease revenue or premiums from sales of public lands) is pure monetisation and should not be confused with LVC.

A true betterment levy or impact fee, in the form of a charge on existing private property in the influence zone, payable from the first transaction after project announcement, has effectively not been deployed at scale in any of these projects. Therefore, the aggregated, publicly disclosed revenue from "pure" LVC instruments (betterment levy + impact fees, excluding land sales/leases/concession fees/toll/UDF) is very small, even negligible, relative to project cost in every case here. The genuine “capture” that has occurred is overwhelmingly through public-land monetisation or in-kind retention of pooled land, where the former leaves the increment on third-party private property untouched.

Perhaps the only true significant examples in India are the impact fees in a corridor of 1 km abutting the Hyderabad Outer Ring Road (ORR) (though its success in terms of realisation is a matter of debate), and the 1% metro cess on property purchases in Mumbai to fund the metro railway project. A promising effort with the Navi Mumbai Airport Notified Area (NAINA) was that of the 50% betterment levy on the increased property value notified in 2013, which was immediately reduced to a notional 0.05% following political opposition.

The political economy is an important consideration. Every such big public investment immediately invites large speculative purchases, especially by politically and bureaucratically connected individuals. They are an important sink for the large volumes of black money that slosh around the local economy. Vast sums are invested in the name of third parties (benamis) who front the local connected and influential. Throwing sand in the wheels of this speculative activity, much less appropriating a part of the windfall increments as public revenues, will be resisted to the hilt by the aggrieved interests.

It is therefore important to be careful while designing the LVC instrument. It should depend on the nature of the infrastructure project. The objective should be to capture the increment in land value that the incumbent land owner enjoys from the public investment by charging the first transaction after the project announcement (which triggers the spike). Ideally, it should also try to avoid penalising the buyer, who has internalised and paid for the land increment. However, if the increment is ongoing, like with a corridor that undergoes continuous development, there’s a case for also capturing the increment flows over time through an appropriate instrument.

It is also important to differentiate between brownfield (betterment levy) and greenfield (impact fees) areas.

Accordingly, the most appropriate betterment levy on existing (developed or brownfield) property owners (who are not likely to transact) comes from a cess on their property taxes. In theory, if the property taxes are indexed to the market value, there would be no need for a separate cess. However, this is never the case since the property prices are generally linked to the guidance or ready reckoner rates fixed by the local authorities, which are always lower than the market value, and the wedge widens after local property booms.

For properties undergoing development, the ideal option would be to charge from those selling the property. However, this is complicated and can be captured, and that too only partially (given the aforesaid wedge between market value and guidance value) from capital gains taxes. Administering this is infeasible (imagine two kinds of capital gains tax for land, where there’s land value increment from public investment and the rest). In the circumstances, for such properties, the options are to levy a charge on either the registration fees, the change of land use fees, the layout development fees or the building permission fees. The assumption would be that the charge shapes market expectations and cascades across the property market and is internalised by everyone in the property transactions chain.

It may be useful to keep in mind some principles while designing the LVC instrument. In theory, it can be charged on the first transaction for a property in the influence zone after the project announcement as a significant windfall fee, or on all transactions for a period (that reflects the time for the project to realise its benefits). A simple and practical strategy would be to impose a one-time cess (on the property value) on the first transaction on the property. A flat levy/fee, while administratively appealing, does not address the diversity in the types of development projects and their widely varying land value impacts.

An analysis of the projects mentioned above points to a few problems, even where some LVC framework exists. For one, the first transaction after the project announcement rule is not legally embedded. Most Indian betterment-levy provisions trigger at project completion (e.g., Section 37 of the DD Act 1957; Section 66 of the Bombay/Gujarat TP Act 1954/1976). By then, the original landowner has typically already transacted, and the increment has been captured privately. This is not only economically inefficient but also invites public discontent and political opposition.

Policy makers create confusion and skirt accountability by conflating land monetisation with value capture, as is the case with CIDCO, YEIDA, or DSIRDA. Alternatively, user-side instruments like User Development Fees (UDF) in airports, and tolls and concession fees on highways, also get lumped as LVC.

As the aforesaid discussion shows, designing an efficient (in terms of capturing value from the incumbent land owner at the time of project announcement) and least distortionary (in terms of not adding unreasonably to property development costs) LVC instrument requires careful thought and design.

As an illustration, I asked Claude to estimate the likely LVC revenues from the development of the newly announced data centre projects in the Visakhapatnam area in Andhra Pradesh, and other investments in the state.

It estimates a realisation of Rs 700-1500 Cr annually from the application of LVC instruments to the Google AI hub catchment, Bhogapuram airport zone, defence clusters, and metro corridors. Even half of this would be greater than the combined property tax revenue collection of all the state’s 117 municipalities.

As an implementation strategy, it may be useful to align incentives and design a revenue-sharing mechanism among all public stakeholders, especially the local government. So, for example, instead of all the LVC revenues from a national highway or other central government project going to the project development entity, a part should be shared with the local government. This creates the required local incentives to enable effective adoption of any LVC scheme.

In terms of policy mandates, it is time to mandate that all large public investment projects be accompanied by the adoption of LVC instruments by the local governments. This would entail the following: (a) notification of a LVC influence zone around the project, (b) notification of the appropriate LVC instrument and the LVC rate, (c) enabling a statutory framework and a physical mechanism for its collection, and (d) a transparent and public accounting of the realisations.

As a first step, all states should be encouraged to adopt an LVC policy, borrowing from MoHUA’s LVC policy. It may be useful for the Government of India to build on this policy and formulate a model document on both betterment levy and impact fees that can be issued as administrative orders by the state governments. To incentivise this, the Ministry of Finance should consider making this a mandatory requirement to access the 50-year interest-free capex loans being given to state governments under the Special Assistance Scheme for Capital Investment (SASCI).

The model documents and guidance on each of the betterment levy and impact fee instrument options may be useful to ensure that LVC instruments are adopted in letter and spirit. The documents should contain the detailed implementation design of the instrument, and the same should be incorporated into the financial closure, state support, and all other agreements associated with the project, and should be institutionally coded into the system along with the project announcement. All project appraisals should have tightly defined and enforceable requirements on LVC.

Finally, the central government's support for any project should be made contingent on the realisation of the LVC proceeds in both letter and spirit. This should become an integral part of the financing culture of all large projects in India. This is one of the very few big bang low-hanging fruits in the mobilisation of public revenues, especially for fiscally strapped urban local bodies.

Weekend reading links

noreply@blogger.com (Urbanomics) — Sat, 23 May 2026 03:38:55 +0000

1. Samsung's spectacular turnaround, from being in the doldrums as late as in 2024.

This month its market value, which has soared by 400% in the past year, hit $1trn for the first time, propelled by furious spending on artificial-intelligence infrastructure. In the first quarter of 2026 its operating profit rose to 57trn won ($38bn), more than eight times as much as a year before. Analysts expect profits to keep rising at a blistering pace, thanks in particular to the seemingly insatiable demand for its advanced memory chips... Semiconductors accounted for 61% of sales and 94% of operating profits in the first quarter. It is one of just three firms capable of making at scale the memory chips needed for ai, alongside SK Hynix, a South Korean rival, and Micron, an American one. The number of memory chips Samsung sold in the first quarter was up by about 20% on the preceding three months, but the average selling price rose by 90%.

2. The Economist argues that the calm in global oil markets despite a supply shock of some 14 mb per day can be traced to the 4 mbpd of increased exports by the US and the 4.5 mbpd of reduction in Chinese imports, coupled with rationing across countries.

3. As the rise of AI threatens white-collar jobs and increases the returns to capital, The Economist proposes some measures to redistribute the gains.

If employment falls, income that once went to workers is likely to show up as high profits in AI firms, chipmakers, data centres or elsewhere in the supply chain. Clever tax reforms, such as levies on corporate profits that are above a normal return on capital, on land and on natural resources, could capture these rents. The case for inheritance taxes to prevent the entrenchment of a capital-owning elite looks even stronger than before. At the same time governments could help workers adjust. Public wage-insurance, which smooths out falls in income after job losses, can help workers find better opportunities (and so can eventually pay for itself). Denmark’s active labour-market policies, in which the state helps people find and train for new occupations, have been proved to cut spells in unemployment...

A last set of radical ideas, such as the partial nationalisation of ai firms. This week a South Korean presidential adviser floated a citizens’ “dividend” from AI businesses, sending the local stockmarket down by 5%, before backtracking. In America politicians murmur about giving citizens shares in AI companies via “Trump accounts”. In economic terms there is little difference between a well-designed tax system and a government stake in the private sector—and countries without AI giants will have to rely on taxes rather than seizing shares in foreign companies. But America may find that some public ownership is the best way to make the social upside from the technology transparent.

4. The changing face of Reliance Industries.

5. America's remarkable productivity growth miracle since the pandemic (it predates the AI boom).

Now with AI coming of age, the productivity spurt is likely to continue.

6. Egypt may well be the leader in land monetisation to promote economic growth in any substantial form. (HT: Adam Tooze)

Since 2015, Egypt has increasingly contributed public land as equity, while foreign investors provide capital, development expertise, and project execution. Once a project is completed, revenues are shared according to pre-agreed division... in 2023, Egypt appointed the bank’s International Finance Corporation as its advisor for the asset monetization program, leveraging its experience supporting emerging markets. While land monetization has been tried elsewhere, Egypt’s projects are among the largest... For the Ras el-Hekma development on the country’s North Coast, Egypt contributed approximately 40,600 acres of state-owned land along the Mediterranean. The UAE (via its ADQ sovereign wealth fund) committed roughly $35 billion, the largest foreign direct investment in Egyptian history. Egypt received immediate foreign currency inflowsfor the land, a 35 percent stake in the project, and long-term profit participation... A similar project, also on the North Coast, is Alam el-Aroum/Samla near Marsa Matrouh. The Qatar Investment Authority-linked Qatari Diar is investing almost $30 billion, which includes a $3.5 billion upfront land payment for some 20 million square meters and $26 billion in development investments. A revenue share for Egypt (15 percent after cost recovery) is part of the deal.

Another arrangement is in place for Egypt’s New Administrative Capital (NAC). About thirty miles east of Cairo, the NAC is designed as the government seat and a commercial hub; reports estimate total development costs of up to $58 billion, including infrastructure and governmental, commercial, and residential districts. Foreign direct investment plays a role in specific sub‑components like the Central Business District (CBD) and future free-trade‑zone ventures. Chinese banks led by the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China provided 85 percent of funding for twenty towers in the CBD. The China State Construction Engineering Corporation developed the CBD; Gulf investors (such as the United Arab Emirates’ DP World) developed commercial parcels. The state monetized land incrementally for the NAC, and parcel sales financed development, without increasing Egypt’s debt.

All this appears very impressive. While the article paints a picture of success, it would be interesting to peel layers and scrutinise this.

7. This is anecdotal, but tells a lot about why India lags in manufacturing.

8. Spain is undertaking an ambitious experiment in immigration.

Since 2022, Spain’s foreign-born population has surged by an annual average of 665,000, the equivalent of adding a city the size of Málaga each year. Last year the country accounted for roughly one-third of the total increase in the EU’s immigrant population, according to the Rockwool Foundation, a Berlin think-tank. Supporters say the influx has given Spain’s ageing society a much-needed burst of economic vigour. Critics call it a poorly planned strategy that is straining the country’s infrastructure and creating new social tensions... In less than a quarter of a century, Spain’s foreign-born population has gone from one in 20 residents to almost one in five, a higher proportion than even the US... Last month the Spanish government’s most contentious immigration move to date took effect — a sweeping amnesty giving at least half a million people the chance to gain residency and work permits and move out of the shadow economy... applicants must prove he was in Spain before January 1 this year and has been there for five consecutive months.

The country is already experiencing an acute housing shortage, has among the highest youth unemployment rates at over 10%, and the anti-immigrant Vox party is running third. The final outcome on the rapid rise in immigration is yet to be known.

9. Ruchir Sharma points to an area where China trails badly behind the US, the negligible role of the renminbi as an international currency.

With a 17 per cent share of global GDP, but only 2 per cent of central bank reserves, China is trailing 30 to 40 years behind previous superpowers at a similar stage of their ascents... Britain at its peak accounted for 40 per cent of trade, but 60 per cent of trade payments were in sterling. China by contrast has a leading 15 per cent share of global trade, but only 2 per cent of trade bills are invoiced in renminbi...

China will remain an incomplete superpower until it can match this financial firepower. For decades, it has kept its financial system more tightly sealed than any other major nation. It now ranks in the bottom fifth of nations by international investment position, which captures the level of foreign ownership in the domestic market. Foreigners own less than 5 per cent of the stocks and bonds in China, one-fifth the level in the US. Its home market is something of a local prison. Beijing has generated economic growth with heavy infusions of government money, corralled at home by capital controls. Its money supply has multiplied sixfold since 1980 to 230 per cent of GDP, among the highest in the world. This liquidity sloshes around inside the walled economy, much of it in the domestic debt market, battered lately by a property bust. Beijing is wary of easing controls, lest it unleash capital flight.

10. The US has been the biggest oil export beneficiary of the Iran war.

11. The booming market for whey protein.

Prices for whey protein isolate have soared fivefold to €28,000 a tonne since 2023, outstripping cheese and butter prices by more than four times as producers struggle to keep pace with a booming protein market... Thirty years ago whey was primarily used in animal feed or spread on farmland as a fertiliser. Whey is the liquid separated from curds during the cheesemaking process. Now, dairy groups upgrade the liquid by filtration to produce whey protein isolate, a valuable ingredient for use in sports supplements as well as groceries such as yoghurt, bread and fizzy drinks, as weight-loss drugs and the protein megatrend propel demand. “This is reshaping the economics of dairy,” said Jose Saiz, analyst at Expana, a commodity market information service. “It used to be a product with no value . . . now cheese could become the byproduct of whey production.”

12. The UK's experience of small altnets driving broadband expansion and lowering prices has come with excesses.

Over the past decade, more than £31bn has been raised to roll out full fibre broadband across the UK, with private equity giants, including Macquarie and KKR, backing upstart challengers — or “altnets” — in the sector. Yet despite the initial investor optimism that the “altnets” could snatch customers away from industry leaders, the firms have been dogged by high build costs, lower-than-expected customer uptake and a sharp response from the country’s largest provider — BT’s Openreach — to deploy its own fibre infrastructure. The destruction of shareholder value has been brutal. At the last count, the “altnets” posted losses of more than £1.5bn in 2024, according to Enders Analysis. After accumulating some £9bn of net debt as of 2025, some companies have already been placed into administration, while others have fallen into the hands of lenders...

Prior to the “altnet boom”, which accelerated from 2021 onwards, only 24 per cent of Britons had access to full fibre internet, according to Ofcom. Fast forward five years, that number is now more than 78 per cent, with altnets serving almost 20mn homes with full fibre, according to Assembly Research. By next year, Ofcom estimates 95 per cent of UK homes will have full fibre, putting it in line with Europe’s leaders, including Spain and Luxembourg, where regulators encouraged full fibre rollout earlier than the UK. The “altnets” have also forced BT’s telecoms infrastructure provider Openreach and Virgin Media O2 to expand their own fibre networks, giving consumers a choice between providers who are now forced to think faster and harder about how to up their game. This added competition has meant prices have fallen, with the average monthly real-terms list price of UK full fibre broadband falling from £62.38 in September 2021 to £43.46 in September 2025, a drop of 30 per cent... altnets are taking close to 1mn [customer] lines from BT annually.

13. Alan Beattie argues that EU has initiatied several trade measures against China, though their implementation has been weak, primarily due to internal opposition within the bloc.

One of the recent instruments with a bit more bite is the Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR), launched in 2023 and designed to level the playing field against state-backed Chinese companies bidding for contracts or producing and selling in the EU. It’s notable that it gives a lot of investigatory and decision-making powers to the Commission, specifically to the internal market and competition directorates, which are used to having autonomous powers. By starting investigations into their operations, the FSR has managed to get some Chinese companies to pull out of public procurement bids. But when the EU tries to use its internal market powers to investigate supposedly subsidised Chinese businesses trading in the single market, it becomes clear just how strongly Beijing is willing to resist. Last week, in an investigation dating to 2024 into the Chinese cargo scanner company Nuctech, Beijing cited new supply chain security laws to forbid Chinese companies to comply with requests for information, saying Brussels’ extraterritorial reach was illegitimate.

14. Arvind Subramanian and Devesh Kapur on the contrasting tales of India and China in monetisation of lands by urban local bodies.

China’s land revenues increased from less than 1 per cent of GDP to more than 10 per cent at its peak. In contrast, India’s revenues have stagnated at about 1 per cent of GDP through the entire growth phase. Put differently, the Chinese government’s collections from land revenue for every urban resident that was available for spending were about 15 times more than India’s in 1999; at its peak in 2020, this multiple increased to 225.

15. As AI capex surges, there are growing doubts about whether it will generate the returns required to justify it.

For each of these hyperscalers, I collected the consensus estimates of analysts for the capital expenditures and revenues between 2025 and 2030. In these five years, capital investments are expected to rise by 20 per cent a year, a growth rate never seen before in this industry. Meanwhile, revenues are expected to grow 15 per cent annually. If we make the heroic assumption that there are no costs, then the additional revenue is the profit these companies are expected to make from their additional investments in AI data centres. Yet, even under these extremely optimistic assumptions, I calculate the implied return on investment is highly negative for all of them except Amazon. These numbers show that if the hyperscalers continue on the current trajectory, the AI boom will become a story of one of the largest destructions of shareholder value in history... If the hyperscalers want to generate, say, a 10 per cent return on investment, they would have to find an additional $2tn to $5tn in revenue a year. A tall order for a group of companies that currently generates revenues of just $1.5tn per year.

See this comparison with the technology, media and telecom (TMT) bubbles of the late nineties.

In 2025, US businesses invested almost $1.5tn in IT equipment and software. At the peak of the TMT bubble, it was $466bn or $829bn when adjusted for inflation. Indeed, the US economy is growing solely because of the tech boom. I calculate that over the past four quarters, 93 per cent of US GDP growth was explained by tech investments. Even at the peak of the TMT bubble, it barely reached 60 per cent.

16. Tim Harford points to evidence that retailers jack up prices in response to shocks much faster than they bring prices down, and that retailers make their money not so much during the upcycle than in the downward phase.

Johannes Brinkmann and Nikhil Datta of the University of Warwick recently published an analysis of the impact on petrol and diesel prices of the oil price shock in 2022, following Russia’s onslaught in Ukraine. They found that in the UK, retailer margins compressed: the wholesale price of diesel rose by 39 pence per litre, while retail prices only rose 16 pence. This is the opposite behaviour to that predicted by the greedflation hypothesis. A natural explanation of this price compression is that retailers feel under more intense scrutiny when prices are rising. Brinkmann and Datta show that searches on the petrolprices.com website increased dramatically when prices did — and that areas where such searches were more common were also areas where the price compression was more intense.

Brinkmann and Datta’s analysis is merely the latest in a long tradition of research describing “rocket and feather” pricing at the pump — capturing the idea that pump prices neither faithfully track the ups and downs of the crude oil market, nor exaggerate them — instead, they shoot up like a rocket but drift down again like a feather. What is more, the quick surge upward reaches prices less lofty than one would expect; it is during the slow descent that retailers make their money. Fifteen years ago, Matthew S Lewis and Howard Marvel noted that customers spent more effort searching when prices were rising, even though there was little benefit to that search, since most retailers were charging similar prices. When pump prices were falling, there was more variability from forecourt to forecourt and a higher return to shopping around, but most customers did not bother, feeling content that prices were moving in the right direction.

17. Preference shares are a complicated instrument.

The “preference” investors receive — usually a slightly higher dividend — comes at the expense of voting rights. Preference shares therefore arguably resemble the worst of both worlds of debt and equity. Like bonds, they do not offer any influence over the company’s decision-making. Like ordinary shares, they do not come with a contractual claim to annual payouts as dividends are subject to management discretion. Such non-voting shares have been a prominent feature in corporate Germany. Four of the 40 blue-chips in the Dax have used them to establish substantive two-tier share structures for years: Volkswagen, Porsche and BMW, the three auto giants, and glue and detergent maker Henkel. All are dominated by controlling families who hold a tight grip over the firm.

Two further Dax companies — Merck and Fresenius — are listed as “partnerships limited by shares”, a German legal structure known by its acronym KGaA, that makes some shareholders more equal than others through other means. Deutsche Bank listed its asset management arm DWS as a KGaA in 2018, too, warning at the time that this structure could dent its valuation. Yet the club of German blue-chips with differential voting rights will soon become smaller after BMW shareholders voted to abolish preference shares last week at its annual meeting. The group’s 54.7mn preference shares, representing 10 per cent of BMW’s equity, will soon be swapped into ordinary shares with voting rights... In the US, dual-class share structures have become increasingly popular as fast-growing tech groups want to tap public markets while keeping outsized voting power for insiders. Elon Musk’s SpaceX even wants to grant its CEO 10 times as much voting power as external investors.

Sample this about SpaceX

Elon Musk's special class of shares currently gives him control of 85 per cent of the voting power at SpaceX.

Some thoughts on sustaining high growth rates in India

noreply@blogger.com (Urbanomics) — Thu, 21 May 2026 04:46:07 +0000

The flight of foreign portfolio investors since October 2024, coupled with the declining net FDI, has sparked a debate on what should be done to attract and retain foreign capital to India. This has assumed greater significance given the stagnation in domestic savings at about 30% of GDP.

It is an accounting reality that if the economy has to sustain high growth rates, it must have the capital to support the high investment rates required. Domestic savings must therefore be supplemented with foreign capital. But how much can foreign capital contribute?

A recent op-ed argued that to achieve the Vikasit Bharat 2047 goal, which necessitates a 9% annual growth over the next two decades, India must strive to attract foreign capital in the range of 15% of GDP.

This may be an opportunity to step back and assess the realistic envelope of foreign capital that India can target. As an analytical framing, this would entail examining both the demand and supply sides for the different types of foreign capital available, India’s track record in attracting them, and then making a judgment.

What are good comparators of countries having successfully attracted significant foreign capital? What is the envelope of foreign capital that is looking to invest in markets like India? What’s the level of capital that India can absorb without engendering too many distortions? Based on all these, what is the realistic foreign capital target for India?

India’s net FDI inflows from foreign investors as a % of GDP have shown a continuous decline since 2020.

Taken together, net FPI and FDI as a share of GDP have never exceeded 4%, have been declining since the pandemic, and have been negative over the last two years. (All graphics below generated using ClaudeAI).

The highest FDI share of GDP was 3.6% in 2008, which has been more of an outlier since it has struggled to cross 2% in recent years.

One important thing to keep in mind is that none of the bigger economies have managed to sustain FDI beyond 3% of GDP for long periods. India’s sustained 10-year average has been 1.5% of GDP. Even sustaining it at 2% will be a challenge, leave aside 3% and above.

It is to be noted that the northeast Asian economies did not grow by importing foreign capital. South Korea grew at 8-9% for three decades with sustained FDI of about 0.7% of GDP; Taiwan, with 0.8%; Japan, with 0.2%; China, in its 1990-2010 peak-growth period, averaged ~3%. All four built investment rates of 35-50% of GDP through extraordinarily high domestic savings. The important takeaway is that, for sustained growth in a large economy, foreign capital has historically been a marginal supplement, and high growth has been delivered by domestic savings. Another important factor, which we shall discuss in detail later, has been their high investment efficiency.

Bringing together all types of foreign capital, the graphic below shows a realistic envelope of about 4.2% of GDP. Even this may be bordering on the optimistic, given India’s track record and global economic headwinds.

In fact, reversing the recent trend of declining net FDI and FPI, and reaching even a 2% of GDP target for foreign capital would also be challenging. In the circumstances, a 6.2% to 6.5% target for GDP growth rate on a sustainable basis would be an achievement. Anything beyond that will require substantial breakthroughs.

As a final word on foreign capital, it can be said that if India is to sustain high growth rates, it will surely have to attract foreign capital. But that will remain a marginal contributor. Instead, the heavy lifting will have to come by way of domestic capital, and especially by improving the efficiency of its utilisation. India must significantly increase domestic savings and also improve its capital allocation efficiency.

Since increasing domestic savings is itself a measure of broadbased economic growth and therefore endogenous (a point I have raised on several blog posts), capital allocation efficiency for any given investment rate becomes an important lever for sustaining high economic growth. The Incremental Capital Output Ratio (ICOR) measures the investment required to generate an additional unit of output, with a lower number indicating higher capital allocation efficiency.

India's ICOR has been in the 4 to 5 range since the late nineties, and has never gone below 4 on a sustained five-year period. It briefly fell below 4 during the high-growth phase of mid-2000s. Further, in recent years, it has risen to 5-5.3.

How does this compare with the East Asian economies in their high growth phases?

Each of these countries went through three to four distinct ICOR phases as it transitioned from labour-intensive take-off, through capital deepening, to maturity (or crisis). The lowest ICORs occurred during the take-off phase in Taiwan, Korea and Japan — and during China's pre-2007 reform years. The northeast Asian growth miracles (Korea, Taiwan, and Japan in the 1960s-80s) sustained ICORs of 2.6 to 3.7 through their fastest decades. China repeated the feat in the 1980s and 1990s with ICORs of 3.6-4.1, but its capital efficiency has deteriorated sharply since 2007, with ICOR roughly tripling from 3 to nearly 8. Investment efficiency deteriorated in every country either in the run-up to the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis or, in China's case, after the 2008 global stimulus.

The scatter plot below maps every economy-period in the dataset onto a single chart. The the dashed green diagonals are ICOR isoclines - every point on a given diagonal has the same ICOR. The main finding is important - the Northeast Asian growth miracles operated in a narrow corridor of moderate investment rates and very high efficiency. India operates in a corridor of similar investment rates but lower efficiency. China sits at the extreme right - very high investment rates, with efficiency that was once strong but has badly deteriorated.

India has never matched the East Asian miracle benchmark of ~3, and capital efficiency may well be the single largest constraint on its high growth ambitions. To put this in perspective, at India’s current ICOR of ~5, achieving 8% growth requires a 40% investment rate, well above India’s current ~33%, whereas at ICOR 3.5, the same growth would need only 28%.

In other words, lowering the ICOR by one full point reduces the investment requirement for any growth target by 7-10 percentage points of GDP, a larger lever than raising domestic savings, and far larger than attracting foreign capital. Therefore, the path to faster Indian growth runs through pulling the cluster of Indian dots upward and leftward, i.e., raising growth without raising the investment rate. Unfortunately, it appears to be going in the opposite direction for now.

So what drives lower ICOR?

In simple terms, it is about growth, which comes with lower investment and higher efficiency of capital conversion.

For a start, on the inputs side, services and labour-intensive manufacturing have a lower ICOR than capital-intensive manufacturing and real estate-driven development. Also, higher human resource quality brings greater bang for buck from an incremental unit of investment. On the efficiency side, higher capacity utilisation, expeditious project completion, and factor market reforms - land acquisition, labour mobility, and credit allocation - contribute to lowering ICOR. Finally, institutional quality, involving predictable regulation, contract enforcement, and competitive product markets, all raise the marginal productivity of capital.

These are also the main areas of reform that have been discussed ad infinitum.

An important observation here is that we cannot overlook the reality that while it is essential to move up the value chain to high value manufacturing, it is virtually impossible to generate high growth from it without far higher investment rates. It underscores the criticality of labour intensive sectors like textiles and footwear in the sustainable economic growth of a country, especially a large one like India. This is also underscored by the importance of labour-intensive manufacturing in the high growth periods of the northeast Asian economies.

It is also important to note that China’s ICOR tripled in 15 years (from 3 to 9) as it shifted from labour-intensive manufacturing to capital-intensive infrastructure, property, and state-directed lending. Growth fell from 10% to 5% during the same period, exactly what the ICOR deterioration predicts.

The relevance of capital allocation efficiency also highlights the importance of human resource quality. This is even more so of if the services sector is to increase its role in sustaining high growth rates.

Update on the AI spending boom

noreply@blogger.com (Urbanomics) — Tue, 19 May 2026 03:47:27 +0000

I blogged here on the emerging AI economy. This is an update on the trends in AI spending.

As the hyperscalers - Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft - ramp up their data centre investments to $720 bn in 2026, their age of bountiful cash flows is over. Three of them are expected to have at least a quarter of negative cash flows, and Alphabet will only just scrape above.

At around 40% of their revenues this year, the cloud giants’ capital expenditures will surpass those of the oil industry during the shale boom in the 2010s and the telecoms industry during the dotcom bubble in the 1990s… Nowadays investors judge the success of these firms on the basis of concentrated revenue contracts stretching far into the future, rather than dispersed sales received today. Mostly these contracts involve selling computing capacity to model-makers like OpenAI and Anthropic, which are themselves incinerating vast piles of cash. Total future revenue agreements have risen to $2trn, from $730bn last year, at Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Oracle (Meta is a buyer, rather than a seller, of computing capacity)…
Since the start of last year the big five have raised $260bn from bond markets, a quarter of all such borrowing by listed American non-financial firms… Nearly a third of the haul from selling bonds this year is in currencies other than the dollar… Much larger obligations lurk off-balance-sheet. The biggest are $820bn of future payments to lease data centres yet to be built, up from $270bn a year ago. Commitments to spend money on other things, like packing their data centres with chips, have risen as fast. Amazon, Google, Meta and Oracle now disclose $680bn of such obligations. Other bills are tied to special-purpose vehicles: separate entities with their own balance-sheets. Last year one assembled to build Meta’s new data-centre in Louisiana issued the biggest single corporate bond in history.

This is an interesting summary of the dynamic driving this investment boom

The five firms (hyperscalers plus Oracle) have assumed the role of central planners, attempting to make the complex chain of returns on investment work across the AI economy: data centres are useless if businesses don’t find models worth paying for, which only happens if model-makers can raise enough capital to make them. In the process, the hyperscalers have sacrificed their own returns… Big tech has also liberally lent its creditworthiness across capital markets. Many firms that contract with the giants can take those contracts to the bank (literally) and raise more debt.

There are perhaps three overlapping risks - circular financing, vendor financing, and off-balance-sheet leverage - which are not a set of isolated deals but a single integrated capital structure spanning seven participant types.

Claude generated this comprehensive diagram that captures the linkages across these seven layers.

A chipmaker (and hyperscaler) writes an equity cheque to an AI lab (purple, up the left side), the lab converts it into a purchase commitment back to that same chipmaker and the cloud landlords (orange, down the right side), the commitment becomes backlog that supports the vendors' valuations and their bond issuance (blue), and financiers fund the whole build through SPVs and private credit (amber). Money does not exit the system; it rotates.

Three properties convert a set of bilateral deals into a self-reinforcing system. First, circularity inflates apparent demand - taking equity from vendors and using it to support further borrowing has made the boom dependent on convoluted financial engineering (echoing the 1990s, when telecom-equipment makers like Lucent and Nortel advanced money to customers to buy equipment, only to face write-offs when bankruptcies hit). Second, a single weak node is load-bearing - if OpenAI cannot meet commitments, Oracle’s revenue, CoreWeave’s backlog, Nvidia’s and AMD’s sales, and the SPV lenders’ collateral all reprice together. Third, the risk has been pushed to where it is least visible (into private credit and SPVs) while equity markets have already capitalised the optimistic case. If demand does not materialise, no amount of financing ingenuity can address it, and given the amounts involved it is certain to have very large financial-market and economy-wide impacts, cascading through the balance sheets of corporates, financiers and households.

The risks are concentrated and largely contingent — they crystallise only if AI demand disappoints, but if it does, they crystallise simultaneously across all seven categories because they share the same underlying bet. Everything rests on AI demand growing fast enough to justify >$1tn in lab commitments and ~$725bn in annual hyperscaler capex. If the revenue curve stays ahead of the cost curve, the circularity is just efficient capital allocation. If it doesn't, the same circularity becomes the risk transmission mechanism.

All this circularity is also generating its set of accounting distortions. Robin Wigglesworth points to the curious spike in the “other income” line of the hyperscaler's quarterly account statements, attributable to the changes in valuations of their investments in AI companies.

Alphabet, for example, booked $37.7bn of “other income” in just the first three months of the year, accounting for over half the company’s net income over the period. Amazon reported “other income” of nearly $16bn in the first quarter, up from $2.7bn in the same period last year. That was nearly half its overall net income for the three months. Microsoft reported “only” $942mn of other income in the first three months of the year, but this line item has now made $7.2bn over the past nine months… what constitutes “other income” in this case: the ebb and (mostly) flow in the valuations of their sizeable private investments in companies like OpenAI and Anthropic…
Not only have private investments and increasingly engorged funding rounds become a meaningful driver of the hyperscalers’ aggregate earnings, but the money the hyperscalers have pumped into the likes of Anthropic and OpenAI has allowed the AI companies to sign huge computing deals with Alphabet’s Google Cloud, Microsoft’s Azure and Amazon Web Services… OpenAI and Anthropic now make up about half of the entire cloud computing order books at Oracle, Alphabet, Amazon and Microsoft.

A vendor invests equity in its own customer; the customer uses that equity to pre-commit purchases from the vendor; the vendor books the purchase commitment as backlog; the backlog supports the vendor’s own valuation and borrowing.

Even though AI expenditures are building the plumbing for the next-generation economy, something is unsettling about the scale and pace of spending. More worrying is the concentration and circularity of the transactions. Is AI spending going to be the mother of all circular trade bubbles?

The limits to reform as an accounting of activities

noreply@blogger.com (Urbanomics) — Mon, 18 May 2026 02:08:41 +0000

This post will urge a note of caution on the trend of treating reform as a purely transactional accounting exercise instead of one which also requires the creation and internalisation of an account about the reform. I’ll borrow Lant Pritchett’s framework of distinguishing between accounting and account-based accountability.

Consider two common examples that we encounter in our daily lives.

Gym memberships are among the commonest new year resolutions. The problem is that the initial enthusiasm ebbs quickly, and in just a couple of months, two-thirds of the enthusiasts drop out. People resolve the anxiety of being unfit by performing the procedure of “joining a gym”, without internalising the discipline that makes a gym useful. The goal of a healthy body was replaced by its most visible symbol.

Fire drills in office complexes are a periodic rite. People walk to the stairs, treating it either as a mild annoyance or a welcome break from work, and return after a few minutes. The drill is logged, and the compliance box is ticked. But ask anyone a few days later on where the nearest fire exit is, or what they should do if the corridor is smoke-filled, and few would have any idea. They went through the drill without internalising it, but merely as part of a record entry exercise and not to form a prepared mind.

Much the same applies to many public policy reforms. Take examples like Ease of Doing Business, deregulation, independent certification and accreditation, and formalisation of the economy, to name just a few.

EoDB is reduced to a set of tick-the-box automation or rule liberalisation, without imbuing the spirit of making it easy for firms to conduct their business. Deregulation is reduced to a process of procedural actions, without administrators actually imbuing the spirit of what constitutes good regulation (or deregulation). Third-party certification is similarly reduced to the form of compliance with a checklist of items, without regard for the realisation of the desired outcomes. Formalisation of the economy is pursued as a relentless effort to bring all economic transactions under the ambit of existing laws, never mind that it adds layers of costs that make the activity itself unviable.

In each case, there are perverse outcomes. In EoDB, the procedural requirements are met without leaving businesses significantly better off in dealing with government bureaucracies. A spring cleaning of existing restrictive regulations does little to prevent the accumulation of new restrictive regulations. Third-party certifications lead to isomorphic mimicry, a form of compliance without its substance. And formality shrinks economic activity or drives it further underground.

In all these cases, the bureaucracy reduces such reforms into a logistical exercise without regard to the human engagement aspects (internalisation of the spirit of the reform, or the account) and their impact on implementation quality. The important point is that a fairly complex issue gets reduced to a procedural/legal fix without the agents involved appreciating the spirit of why they are doing these fixes. There’s an accounting of the reform, without an internalisation of the account behind the reform.

These distortions are more likely when these reforms are implemented on a mission-mode approach within tight timelines. The bureaucracies have no option but to commoditise the reform and its implementation. The instrumental nature of the design and implementation of the reform, coupled with the forced pursuit of targets and over-optimistic timelines, shrinks the space for internalisation of the account.

Now, I am not suggesting that countries should stop pursuing the approaches they are following on these reforms. Nationwide implementations of such reforms invariably demand some form of commoditisation. But, focus on the accounting of the reform should not crowd out the need for internalisation of the account. Accordingly, the commoditised implementation should be complemented with measures to sensitise and instil the account of the reform among officials and stakeholders. This sensitisation should start at the top and should cascade downwards. The space and time required for this purpose must be made available.

Weekend reading links

noreply@blogger.com (Urbanomics) — Sat, 16 May 2026 05:04:25 +0000

1. German bread facts of the week.

Germany has what may be the most diverse bread culture in the world. The official bread registry overseen by Germany’s national bread institute (yes, really) lists more than 3,000 types. Specialities include pumpernickel, Dreikornbrot (three-grain bread) and Kürbiskernbrot (pumpkin-seed bread). There are specific regional iterations of rolls: Brötchen in the north, Semmeln in the south. In German the word “bread” is partially interchangeable with “meal”—a working lunch is Pausenbrot (break-time bread), dinner is Abendbrot (evening bread). Bavarians, who always do things differently, add Brotzeit (bread time).

2. The number of Indians studying abroad has tripled in five years to 1.8 million in 2025.

3. Visakhapatnam's data centre ambitions are staggering in scale.

Andhra Pradesh has promised Google, Meta, Reliance, Tata Consultancy Services, and half a dozen others a combined 5 GW of data-centre capacity in Vizag alone. That is more than three times everything India has built in 30 years, in a city that had near-zero data-centre infrastructure six months ago... (the government) has committed to 6 GW across Andhra Pradesh in five years, a cable network twice the size of Mumbai’s, and three undersea cable-landing stations—essentially building a digital future on the eastern coast... The state’s own electricity planning documents project Vizag’s peak district demand at 2.2 GW by 2029. Google alone has applied for 2.1 GW from the local distribution company...

Google is building a 1 GW campus across three sites: Tarluvada, Adavivaram, and the Rambilli-Atchutapuram cluster. Meta and information-and-communications-technology company Sify are reportedly building a 500 MW facility at Paradesipalem, a village 25km from the city. Reliance and alternative asset manager Brookfield’s joint venture has signed a $11 billion MoU for another GW. TCS, Adaniconnex and real-estate developer Anant Raj round out the cluster. Even if the announced 5 GW materialises, Vizag would rank among the largest data-centre clusters in the world. Northern Virginia, the global leader, sits at 6.6 GW. Beijing, London, Tokyo, Singapore—all around 2 GW each. Mumbai, India’s current data-centre capital, has around 600 MW of operational capacity.

The emerging constraint to these ambitions is power supply.

Deloitte has warned that data centres in Andhra Pradesh alone could add 2–3 GW of peak electricity demand by 2030—up to 20% of the state’s entire current peak load—risking grid instability if transmission infrastructure doesn’t keep up... The Andhra government’s Data Centre Policy 4.0 (the “4.0” a chosen suffix for most of the current TDP government’s industrial policies) offers electricity duty waivers for five years and a Re 1 per unit discount on industrial electricity tariffs for 15 years... state has committed over Rs 22,000 crore in incentives to Google alone... Vizag’s data-centre sites are on the eastern coast, far from the state’s renewable-energy generation zones in the south and west. “You would need entirely new, dedicated high-voltage transmission infrastructure. Not an upgrade to existing lines, but new corridors built from scratch,” said a former APIIC official. “In India, this typically takes years to tender and build. And I don’t see them speeding up the process for these mega projects.”

And the solution is to outsource electricity generation or sourcing to the data centre developers themselves.

In a first for the state, it has granted a private entity, Google, a distribution company licence, allowing it to bypass the standard grid entirely and procure power directly from generators. Reliance is going further still, building its own 6 GW solar project to supply its data-centre operations... when Google contracts directly with generators at premium rates, those generators have less power to sell to the state discom at regulated prices. The discom, which still has the same demand to meet, has to make up the shortfall by either paying more on the open market (which it then recovers through higher tariffs) or simply cutting supply to consumers who have no alternative. If enough large consumers exit the grid, the discom’s revenue base shrinks while its fixed costs stay the same. Eventually, the grid gets more expensive for everyone who remains on it... The data centres planned in Vizag will operate on a hybrid model—hyperscalers will anchor the demand, local operators will build and run the physical infrastructure. Google is the end user. Adaniconnex builds the campus and co-invests in the power infrastructure. Airtel builds the cable-landing station and fibre backhaul.

4. The rise and rise of Chinese cars.

The market share of foreign firms in China has almost halved in five years, to around 30% in 2025. Moreover, in 2023 China passed Japan to become the world’s largest exporter of cars. In 2025 over 8m of its vehicles went abroad, nearly a third more than the year before. In Europe over the past five years, Chinese brands have gone from almost nowhere to nearly 9% of all sales, estimates Schmidt Automotive Research, a consultancy. Incumbents are also under siege in markets from Mexico and Brazil to Indonesia and Malaysia.

5. China promulgates its version of US CFIUS.

In recent weeks the State Council, or China’s cabinet, has issued two menacing decrees. One threatens trade curbs in response to actions that undermine Chinese supply chains (potentially including shifting orders to foreign factories). The other vows countermeasures against firms that apply foreign sanctions against Chinese companies, which in effect criminalises compliance with American law.

6. If the US sanctions individuals, they will be denied access to the services offered by among others, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft, Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, Apple, Slack, WhatsApp, Zoom, YouTube, Uber, Instagram, UPS, Fedex, Booking.com, and Expedia. FT writes about the scenario of US extending sanctions to services.

Weaponising services would mark a clear escalation from trade disputes over goods and have huge repercussions for both sides. For decades, Europe’s economic relationship with the US has been defined by deep integration: goods flowing westward across the Atlantic, services coming back the other way. The EU’s surplus for goods in 2023 was €156.6bn; the EU’s deficit for services that same year was €108.6bn. As geopolitical tensions rise, that interdependence is seen by many EU capitals as a weakness that needs to be fortified as fast as possible.

7. A New York Fed study finds that around 90% of the Trump tariffs have been borne by US consumers and companies.

Further, the complexity of the tariff regimes and its multitude of carve-outs means that the effective rate is lower than the headline tariff.

8. Global economic imbalances are back. Two graphics capture them starkly. The first is how China and the US represent the two sides of the problem.

Global public sector indebtedness is at historic highs.

This is a good description of the way out, though it is unlikely to happen on its own.

As a first-best response, the Centre for Economic Policy Research’s fourth Paris Report recommends fiscal consolidation in the US, boosting household consumption in China and an increase in productive investment — modelled on former Italian premier Mario Draghi’s report — in Europe. These measures would encourage more balanced patterns of global saving and investment.

9. A ten-fold increase in export restrictions since the pandemic.

According to Global Trade Alert, the number of distortive export restrictions and bans has increased dramatically since the pandemic. Before Covid, an average of 22 export restrictions were being introduced a year. Since 2020, that average has shot up to 228.

The myth of ring-fenced "private" markets

noreply@blogger.com (Urbanomics) — Thu, 14 May 2026 02:23:18 +0000

One of the biggest enduring myths in the financial markets is the distinction between public and private markets, and the article of faith that private markets should be lightly regulated. The time may have come to question this article of faith.

The issue has become a topic of interest in light of the turbulence being faced in the private credit markets, and also the steps in the US and elsewhere to allow public funds to invest in alternative assets. It is also important, given the growing share of private capital markets, amplified as it is by the secular decline in interest rates (in turn a consequence of several factors, including ageing populations, financial market integration, and globalisation).

On the former (private credit markets), the FSB has just published a report on private credit, pointing to several vulnerabilities arising from complex interlinkages with banks, borrower credit quality concerns, and valuation opacity.

This activity has grown rapidly, to an estimated $1.5-2.0 trillion in assets at end-2024 and is heavily concentrated in a few jurisdictions… Banks and private credit funds are connected through financing arrangements and strategic partnerships. Across FSB members, the available data captures direct exposures of around $220 billion of drawn and undrawn bank credit lines to private credit funds, while some commercial estimates range from $270-$500 billion… there are also potential vulnerabilities from a range of other indirect exposures including through banks providing revolving credit facilities to companies that are simultaneously borrowing from private credit funds and the growing use of synthetic risk transfers.

The former Bank of England Governor, Andrew Bailey, writes,

Private credit has significant interlinkages with banks, asset managers, insurers and private equity. These multiple layers of leverage across the ecosystem deserve deeper scrutiny. While direct bank exposure to private credit funds may be limited, indirect connections are extensive. Banks are establishing partnerships with asset managers that have a credit focus and often provide revolving credit facilities to companies simultaneously borrowing from private credit funds. Insurers actively invest in private credit markets while also establishing indirect connections to private credit through participation in reinsurance arrangements. Private equity managers increasingly own the insurance companies. These interlinkages can be difficult to detect, assess and manage — and so can the related risks.

On the latter (public financial institutions’ exposure to private markets), in August 2025, President Trump signed an executive order directing regulatory agencies to reexamine existing regulations and open the $9 trillion US retirement market to cryptocurrency, private equity, and other assets like property. Following this, on March 30, 2026, the US Department of Labour issued orders allowing 401(k) plans easier access to alternative assets.

So why are private capital markets lightly regulated?

The standard response is that they are targeted at sophisticated, institutional investors who are presumed to have the ability to conduct their own due diligence and bear the risks, including high illiquidity. To this extent, it is argued, they do not pose the kind of negative public externalities and systemic risk that is associated with institutions that are public-facing (which take deposits, savings, premiums, etc., from retail investors). Any losers are those well-heeled investors who have the ability to absorb their losses.

Is it really the case? What does the evidence inform us?

The reality is, as the following figures and statistics show, that retail investors are increasingly participants, both directly and indirectly, in the private capital markets. Here is a simple illustration of the channels of exposure of public-facing financial institutions to the private capital markets.

What makes this arrangement questionable is that the people at the top of the chain, the actual end-bearers of the investment risk, are not the ones doing the investing. Whatever counts as "sophistication" sits with the agents in the middle layer, not the principals at either end. However, the costs and consequences are borne primarily by the capital providers.

The table below is a summary of the various institutional investors, their respective linkages to the private capital market, and their systemic risk channel.

The table below is a summary of these investors and the extent of their exposures to private capital markets.

The sheer volume of private funds is staggering. Between 2020 and 2023, assets in private funds grew by 34%, from $20.8 trillion to nearly $28 trillion. This is only slightly less than the just under $31 trillion in assets held by public investment vehicles (mutual funds, ETFs, and closed-end funds). In 2024, 87% of companies with revenue greater than $100 million are private, and private funds have approximately tripled in size in the last decade to $26 trillion in gross assets, comparable to the $23 trillion US commercial banking industry. But their capital comes overwhelmingly from public institutions.

US public pension plans have allocated 34% of their holdings into alternative assets, including private equity, hedge funds, real estate, and commodities. The channel runs directly from workers’ retirement savings into PE buyouts of companies, hospitals, and infrastructure, with liquidity terms that have no resemblance to the pension’s own annual payout obligations. Similarly, the assets of private equity-influenced insurers have grown significantly in recent years, with these entities owning significantly more exposure to less-liquid investments than other insurers. By 2024, financial and ABS private placements reached 8% of assets for PE-owned insurers, while they were only 4% for non-PE-owned insurers. Apollo’s Athene, KKR’s Global Atlantic, and Blackstone’s insurance partnerships route annuity premiums, the most conservative class of retail savings, into direct lending.

The numbers alone make it abundantly clear that private capital cannot be a ring-fenced ecosystem of alternative assets with little public externalities. Private markets have become too big to be ring-fenced. Given the linkages discussed above, any stress in the private capital markets will immediately cascade across to public stakeholders and the markets as a whole.

It is now the hidden layer of the public financial system. Its debts appear in pension statements, its managers appear in index funds, its loans back annuities, and its performance propagates through bank balance sheets and university budgets. The “private” part is increasingly a regulatory and disclosure category, not an economic one.

There’s also the political economy that perpetuates the fiction around a ring-fenced private market. For one, private market intermediaries and investors benefit from favourable taxation regimes like carried interest and a lower capital gains taxation rate. There’s also the trend of diminishing public markets and expanding private markets, with its implications on access and equity, given the entry barriers for retail investors to access private markets.

Both these dynamics threaten to create two distinct financial systems, with one serving retail investors and the other serving those well-off. Worse still, while the latter can access the former and benefit from it without bearing the proportionate costs, the former must bear disproportionate costs and consequences of excesses arising from the activities of the latter.

The time has come to view private markets as no longer confined to sophisticated high-net-worth and institutional investors, but ones with deep interconnections with the public financial markets, and therefore demanding greater oversight and regulation. The matter for debate should only be the extent of regulation.

Unfortunately, such a regulation as a preemptive process is unlikely given the political economy dynamics. However, it is only one big crisis away from such regulation. This painful learning pathway may be unavoidable and the only route to private market regulation.

Industrial policy is back, but the implementation challenge remains

noreply@blogger.com (Urbanomics) — Mon, 11 May 2026 03:19:00 +0000

The return of industrial policy to the top of the global development agenda has been formalised with a new World Bank report on the topic. The summary is here. I blogged earlier on this here.

Notwithstanding the standout success of the East Asian economies in using industrial policy to drive economic growth, for long the WB and others had sought to minimise its role and explain it away by pointing to their unique circumstances. Specifically, their high educational attainment, high savings rate, low inequality, and the capability of the governments to implement such policies. At best, they were targeted to address specific problems in the functioning of markets. These conditions, it was said, did not exist in other countries.

The report admits that industrial policy is now more replicable. It points to increased capabilities due to higher education levels, political support for delivering development objectives, and greater global trade integration. On their own, none of these is compelling enough for a re-examination. It is most likely that the widespread adoption of industrial policy by developed countries in response to Chinese competition is behind this change of mind within the Bank.

Two comments in this context. It would have been more appropriate for the WB to acknowledge that its assessment was incorrect and to revise its views. Two, given their own market dominance in manufacturing, it was in the interests of developed countries to then oppose industrial policy in developing countries. Now that China has assumed dominance, it has reverted to the same set of policies that allowed it to become dominant in the first place.

The WB report defines industrial policy as “the range of policy tools that governments use to shape what an economy produces rather than leave it to the discretion of markets alone”. It says that upper-middle-income countries now spend a record 4.2% of GDP on business subsidies. Low-income countries target growth of 13 industries on average, more than twice that in high-income countries.

It identifies 15 industrial policy tools and categorises them, as in the table below.

It analyses the minimum requirements for their adoption. The cells marked large indicate the tool needs a large fiscal space, market size, or government bandwidth, and vice versa for those marked small.

In general, when government capacity is small, local market size is small, and fiscal space is also small (as in the case of most low-income economies still), industrial parks constitute the best industrial policy tool. When all three of those advantages are large (as in the case of the world’s biggest economies), then import tariffs, innovation subsidies, local content requirements, and many other policy tools can be effective... These countries enjoy the widest range of opportunities to experiment with industrial policy for development… this report finds that low-income economies—usually characterized by small market size—tend to be the heaviest users of import tariffs, which require a large market size to be effective. Upper-middle-income countries, for their part, go big on business subsidies.

The report has the latest glowing impact assessment on one of South Korea’s industrial policy decisions, 33 years later.

They found that the impact of the government’s big push for heavy and chemical industry (in the 1970s) caused the economy’s GDP to be 3 percent larger each year in the long run. This benefit far exceeds the economic cost of the government’s “large subsidies,” estimated by the World Bank’s 1993 report at 2.4 percent of GDP in only one year.

While all 15 policy tools are well known, the report provides a very broad but widely-known framework for understanding and applying industrial policy, and has a good compilation of case studies. Beyond this, I’m not sure how relevant or useful the report is for policymakers and implementers struggling to make decisions on their industrial policy.

The framework presented in the report can perhaps be reduced to three different instruments of industrial policy - regulatory restrictions (restrict access to foreign firms/investors/imports), regulatory enablers (preferential treatment to domestic firms/investors), and fiscal support (tax concessions, input subsidies, capex incentives).

In theory, mandates (regulatory tools) appear simpler than subsidies since they seek to directly target the required change. For example, domestic content or technology transfer mandates or commodity export bans (Indonesia’s ban on nickel and now bauxite exports) are easier to adopt compared to subsidies for production, innovation, consumption, or exports. But mandates create the risk of suboptimal outcomes - poor quality, capture by vested interests, constraints on production (e.g., due to limited supply), poor uptake, etc. Compliance with the mandates becomes even more of a challenge when the manufacturing supply chain is so utterly dominated by China.

An underlying assumption behind advisorial policy prescriptions by entities like the World Bank, consulting firms, or research experts is that they are actionable and can be readily applied by practitioners without much effort and existing capabilities. This assumption is most often incorrect.

Assuming the objective (say, building local manufacturing capabilities) and the target industry (say, electronics devices), a practitioner who is preparing a proposal for financial appraisal and subsequent approval by the competent authority generally struggles with the following five questions.

1. What combination of instruments is adequate to achieve the objective?

2. What should be the degree or extent of incentivisation or regulation? Specifically, how much is just about enough to trigger the market response? More likely, is the proposed measure sufficient to trigger the supply response?

3. What should be the implementation design of the chosen policy tool (especially relevant for tools like skill development, market access assistance, innovation subsidies, R&D tax credits, etc.)?

4. How to know that the industrial policy is having its expected impact, and what revisions and course corrections are required?

5. What are the likely distortions from these interventions, including abuses during implementation, and how can they be mitigated?

The policymaker or implementer must make choices in constrained conditions - information, time, resources (financial and physical), acceptance, and capabilities.

For one, there is the absence of good data to assess, prioritise, and make choices. Second, the theories of change are complicated, especially given the multiple confounding factors. Third, the problem-solving required to figure out the combination of choices is often a challenging exercise that does not get done well. Fourth, given fiscal constraints, the sponsoring departments often end up being forced to compromise substantively on the unit rates for any fiscal support (like the percentage of concession or extent of subsidy). The fiscal support ends up being below the threshold and fails to generate the market response. Fifth, there are the deficient state capabilities that weaken effective implementation. Sixth, there’s no way to know whether the policy combination is meeting the intended objectives, beyond some headline numbers which are often deceptive and misleading. And so on.

To illustrate the points made above, the table below captures the uncertain elements. The tools and frameworks outlined in the WB report cannot be of much help in resolving the uncertainties and making decisions. The details of these elements matter, and are generally the difference between success and failure. Getting these details right is hard.

In this context, there may be some useful principles for resolving the aforementioned uncertainties and formulating an industrial policy that is likely to succeed.

In responding to a policy problem, it is advisable to start with a combination of instruments that are identified and prioritised using internal institutional judgment (and this is the way it happens in practice). But there should be rigorous monitoring systems that use administrative data (and targeted rigorous surveys, as required) to generate feedback on performance and impact, mainly to assess the directionality and order of magnitude of impact. Almost always, it is the absence or inadequacy of the latter that is a far bigger problem than the rigour of the choice and design of the former (combination of instruments). Surprisingly, the report overlooks this aspect completely.

It is typically the case that the extent of subsidy depends on the fiscal envelope available and/or the priority accorded to the objective or target industry by the government. If the primary objective is a national priority, then compromising on the unit rates (or the extent of subsidy) should be strictly avoided. The same risk is there with mandates - how much restriction is sufficient? The feedback loop mentioned above is critical for getting the details of both subsidies and mandates right.

Once the higher-level choices are made, it is essential to avoid constraining implementation with onerous eligibility, access, documentation, compliance, and general procedural requirements that are typically put in place to eliminate abuse and fraud. There should be less invasive and onerous mechanisms to achieve the objective of abuse elimination. Further, the system should condone some level of slack or abuse, like false positives (Type I errors).

Most importantly, competition is critical to ensure that industrial policy is not captured by vested interests. Just as the performers should be rewarded, the non-performers should be progressively excluded. As Joe Studwell has written, export competition was critical to the success of the Northeast Asian economies. Other arrangements/metrics of competition are therefore critical for the success of industrial policy. It shapes the overall expectations and aligns incentives for the policy to play out for the long-term.

Weekend reading links

noreply@blogger.com (Urbanomics) — Sat, 09 May 2026 04:47:00 +0000

1. China may be turning to its traditional industrial policy playbook to reduce its current import dependence and achieve self-sufficiency in food, especially animal protein, thereby upending global supply chains.

Adam Tooze writes, pointing to analysis by the research group Systemiq.

This involves a combination of investment and innovation. Beijing is coordinating central and provincial government, state-owned enterprises and financial institutions around smart agriculture. It has licensed the commercialisation of genetically modified maize and soya. Research clusters are forming around neoproteins, fermentation-derived ingredients, feed additives and agricultural biotechnology. State banks are on hand to provide cheap finance. To channel demand, Beijing is tightening food and feed standards and tweaking procurement requirements. This is the kind of whole-system policy that has given China a commanding lead in the new energy sectors. With all the levers in play, we may, by as early as 2030, see a significant fall in soyabean demand, slashing imports from the US dramatically. By 2040, innovation and efficiency gains could plausibly turn China into a net exporter of poultry, dairy, eggs, fish and seafood. If agriculture follows the industrial policy timeline, by 2050 we should expect to see China emerging as a major source of “cultivated meat”.

2. Indonesia's President Prabowo Subianto has signed a presidential regulation cutting the percentage that ride-hailing platforms like Grab and GoTo can take from each order to a maximum on 8%, down from the current 20%.

3. The latest on the dominance of the Magnificent Seven (US stocks make up 65% of global stock market capitalisation, up from 40% in 2010).

This is an important data point.

Bloomberg data suggests that almost 80 per cent of the S&P 500 companies that reported first-quarter results this month beat analyst earnings estimates.

4. Chinese ports facts of the week.

Chinese firms now operate or have a financial stake in at least 129 ports outside China (see map), and have spent at least $80bn on port construction from Antigua to Tanzania, with many of the investments tied to bilateral trade and regional shipping agreements. More than a third of China’s overseas ports are near maritime chokepoints, including the Strait of Malacca, the Strait of Hormuz and the Suez Canal, making them indispensable operators in strategic areas. China’s firm grip on global ports has rattled Western governments. MERICS, a think-tank in Berlin, found that after a terminal operating contract is signed, total trade with China rises by more than a fifth, while countries that allow Chinese firms to run all their terminals at one of their ports see a 19% drop in exports to the rest of the world. Operating ports allowed Chinese firms to prioritise their cargo and vessels and speed up customs and logistics...

China’s reach extends beyond physical infrastructure. LOGINK, a Chinese government-run logistics-management software, is used in at least 24 countries and 86 ports (America banned its use in 2023). LOGINK shares data with CargoSmart, another shipping-management software firm owned by COSCO, another Chinese state-owned firm, and in turn gives it access to the whereabouts of 90% of the world’s container ships. It also has a tie-up with CaiNiao, a logistics provider with hundreds of warehouses around the world... Chinese firms are also building industrial parks and manufacturing facilities close to their existing ports in Africa and Europe.

5. Good FT article on how data centres construction is triggering local backlash as residents fear for their water and electricity.

Around two-fifths of all US data centres are located in areas of high water stress, according to S&P Global... In DeKalb, a city of around 40,000 people, water demand averages just over 3mn gallons a day, rising to in excess of 4.5mn gallons at peak. The latter figure is broadly comparable to the needs of a single large AI data centre.

Data centres have already emerged as a significant driver of economic expansion in the US, accounting for 80 per cent of private sector growth in the first half of 2025, according to S&P Global... Researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory forecast that so-called hyperscaler data centres will consume anywhere between 60bn and 124bn litres (16bn and 33bn gallons) of water on-site each year in 2028. This figure excludes the indirect water use tied to electricity generation, which the lab previously forecast could be as much as 12 times higher than direct consumption...

Of the roughly 100GW of additional electricity capacity that the US is projected to need at peak times by 2030, roughly half will be used by data centres, according to the Department of Energy... On average, American bill payers — including residential, commercial and industrial customers — paid over 6 per cent more for electricity year on year at the end of 2025. This increase was starkly higher in the mid-Atlantic states which house a large number of data centres such as Pennsylvania and Virginia, where bills rose by 19 and 10 per cent respectively.

6. Indian equities suffer from a high valuation gap with EM peers.

In recent weeks, a string of global brokerages – including Goldman Sachs, Nomura, HSBC, UBS, and JPMorgan – have downgraded Indian equities in their emerging market portfolios. The concerns converge around a common theme: Deteriorating macro conditions amid rising energy prices, weakening earnings visibility and, crucially, more attractive opportunities in other EMs... The relative valuation gap still stands at around 65 per cent—well above South Korea, Brazil, China, Mexico and South Africa. “South Korea is expected to deliver about 180 per cent earnings growth at around 7x P/E. Taiwan offers about 35 per cent growth at 18x. China delivers about 14 per cent at 11x. India, by contrast, offers 8–14 per cent growth but trades at ~19x,” said Amish Shah, head of India Research, BofA Securities. From a global allocator’s perspective, India remains expensive.

The weight of Indian equities in the MSCI EM index has continued to fall since March 2025, from 18.5% to 12.58% in March 2026.

7. India's trade deficit with China continues to grow.

On April 8, Xu Feihong, Chinese ambassador to India, posted on X: “Glad to know that China has become India’s largest trading partner in FY2026 — for the 11th straight month.” This was great news for China but not for India. The $151.1 billion trade between the two comprised $131.63 billion of exports from China to India and a meagre $19.47 billion of imports from India. It was a one-way street. China was flooding Indian markets even as it became India’s “largest trading partner”...

India must import electronics and electrical equipment ($40 billion-50 billion), machinery ($27 billion), organic chemicals ($12 billion-13 billion), plastics, steel, medical equipment, and so on from China every year. These are critical products without which the Indian economy would not be able to function. Alternative sources exist for some, but at a much steeper price. Moreover, China has diversified its supply sources, so even if not directly from it, Chinese goods would still reach India through Southeast Asian and other manufacturing bases.

8. One explanation with oil markets are still not rising as much as expected.

In 1973, the year of the first oil price shock, I calculate from industry sources that about 80 per cent of one barrel of oil was consumed per $1,000 of global GDP in 2025 prices — 131 litres, to be precise. In 1980, the year after the Iranian revolution, this was down to 116 litres. Last year, it was 52 litres. The current level is still a lot, but the average oil burden is 60 per cent less than 50 years ago. If so much less oil is needed, real prices should have much more room to escalate before they cause the economic damage associated with previous disruptions. A simple illustration of today’s diminished oil cost burden to the global economy is to adjust the nominal price of oil not only for inflation but also for the efficiency improvements. If one does, a hypothetical price of $115 per barrel today compares with an average price of $339 in 1980 in today’s dollars. By this measure, prices have plenty of runway before the oil burden resembles 1980.

But it must be balanced against other factors pulling in the opposite direction.

Oil consumption today is more concentrated in high-value uses and in areas where there is no substitute, like road or air freight and maritime shipping. These are load-bearing economic activities, less price sensitive than discretionary or consumption-oriented drivers of growth. Once disrupted they are likely to cascade through the economy... Oil concentrated in high-value uses is a little bit like rare earths, tiny compared with the size of GDP but essential for much of it. If the size of a supply disruption requires demand to come down and prices surge to the required level, the response will be sudden with a potentially unforeseen and disproportionate impact on economic activity.

9. Jakarta's success with mass transit appears exemplary.

In 2014, Jakarta was crowned the world’s most congested city by the Stop-Start Index and a year later was ranked far below other Asian cities on livability by the Economist Intelligence Unit. Ten years later, Jakarta has the world’s largest and one of the most used bus rapid transit (BRT) systems. The old, crowded diesel commuter trains, famous for allowing passengers to ride on the roofs, are now electrified, air conditioned, and run on regular schedules linking the suburbs to the city center. There are multiple subway and light rail lines crisscrossing the city. The transformation has been remarkable: in 2015, less than 20% of residents were within walking distance of transit. Now, nearly 90% of the city has access to BRT or trains...

The user experience has also been streamlined. All of the new MRT lines are part of an integrated digital fare system. A journey from one end of Jakarta to another is capped at 10,000 rupiah (about 70 US cents). According to WRI Indonesia, as of 2024, 10 percent of trips in Greater Jakarta are now made by public transit, compared to just 2 percent in 2015... While the JICA loans covered the cost of building the MRTS and training local staff, the full cost of operation has now fallen to the city government. So far, this has worked reasonably well, with Jokowi arguing that the cost of running the system — at about 800m billion rupiah (US$50 million) a year — is justified by the estimated 65 trillion rupiah (US$3.5 billion) in annual economic losses due to traffic.

However, much more remains to be done.

The city has recently overtaken Tokyo as the world’s largest city, with a metro population of over 41 million people, and it is still growing rapidly. It is projected to add another 10 million people in the next 25 years. To serve this population, Greater Jakarta has only six train lines and under 250 miles (400 km) of track. Tokyo, by contrast, has an astounding 158 train lines and 2,930 miles (4,715 kilometers) of track connecting 2,210 stations throughout its massive metro area.

10. Foreign portfolio investors sharply cut exposure to Indian software firms.

Foreign Institutional Investors’ (FIIs) allocation to the Indian technology sector stood at an all-time low of 7.3% at the end of March compared to 10.1% at the end of FY25, according to brokerage Motilal Oswal Financial Services... So far in 2026, FIIs have sold $21.6 billion of Indian equities – more than the $18.9 billion they sold in all of 2025 – of which $2.4 billion worth of net sales have been of Indian IT stocks (until April 15). As a result, FII holdings in the IT sector reduced to $41.4 billion from $59.8 billion at the end of 2025.

11. TIDCO stake in Titan Company.

This state government-owned industrial promotion agency, TIDCO, has a 27.88% stake in Titan Company Ltd. That’s more than the combined 25.02% share of the Tata Group through its holding company and various subsidiaries. It makes TIDCO the main promoter of Titan, which was established in 1984 as a joint venture for manufacturing quartz analog watches at Hosur on the Tamil Nadu-Karnataka border. That company — originally Titan Watches Ltd — has today grown to a premier lifestyle accessories maker with a product portfolio spanning watches and wearables (Titan, Fastrack and Sonata brands), jewellery (Tanishq and CaratLane), eyecare, women’s bags (IRTH) and ethnic wear (Taneira sarees and tops). Titan Company earned a net profit after tax of Rs 3,337 crore on a total income of Rs 60,942 crore during the year ended March 31, 2025... at the share’s closing traded price on May 6... TIDCO’s 27.88% holding in Titan will alone be valued at Rs 1,07,873 crore... if TIDCO were to sell its entire stake in Titan Company, the Tamil Nadu government would be able to mobilise upwards of Rs 1 lakh crore and bring down its outstanding debt by roughly a tenth. The annual savings in interest outgo resulting from it will far exceed the Rs 272 crore that TIDCO received as dividend for 2024-25 from its 27.88% shareholding in Titan Company.

12. Ruchir Sharma makes some very important points about the critical role being played by retail investors in the US equity markets. Some numbers.

The share of US households that own stocks has surged this decade to nearly 60 per cent, the highest proportion in any country. Americans are all in on the market, holding more wealth in stocks than in their homes for the first time. And retail is now the most active class of traders as well. Retail’s share of daily trading in US stocks doubled in the past 15 years to 36 per cent, surpassing that of big banks or hedge funds, and making them the market price-setters. Last year US retail trading topped $5tn, exceeding the pandemic high, only this time Americans weren’t stuck at home or flush with savings.

He points to contributors to the rise of retail investors.

Three forces are encouraging small investors’ deep faith in the stock market: stimulus, bailouts and technology. Record sums of money pouring out of government and central banks, intended to lift the fortunes of the real economy, have instead been used by households (particularly the richer ones) to invest in the stock market. With policymakers rushing to rescue the economy at the slightest hint of trouble, investors have come to believe the government will always bail them out. And low-cost, mobile trading platforms have given everyone easy access to investments of all kinds.

Finally, a very important political economy dynamic arises from this trend.

The larger the retail community gets, the more pressure builds on politicians to support the market. What was said of Wall Street banks after the crisis of 2008 can now be said of the stock market as a whole: it’s “too big to fail”.

13. The rise and rise of stock market concentration in the US.

Analysts at UBS said that a measure of how many stocks were materially contributing to the index’s performance — so-called “effective constituents” — hit a record low of 42 last week, far below the level of about 100 that has been typical in recent decades.

14. Nice interactive story of how oil from the Gulf reaches Japan, gets refined, and is distributed.

15. The $725 bn capex spending projected by the Big Tech (Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft and Meta) is estimated to leave them with their lowest free cash flow since 2014.

16. Fascinating 5km split of Sebastian Sawe's sub-two-hour marathon.

Some low hanging fuits in urban planning

noreply@blogger.com (Urbanomics) — Wed, 06 May 2026 02:18:00 +0000

I have blogged on multiple occasions, highlighting the importance of instruments of urban planning in shaping the form of urban development, urban renewal, economic growth, and resource mobilisation.

This post will point to nine urban planning levers that are low-hanging fruits whose implementation can go a long way in creating the conditions for sustainable urban development.

1. Higher FAR (without restrictive conditions) - The objective should be to incentivise more built-up area on a plot of land, especially in built-up cities. Today, a reform involving an increase in FAR is often gated by minimum plot size and minimum road width requirements, which prevent most plots from qualifying. The reform should focus on relaxing these conditions, to the extent possible, so that more plots can be built vertically, easing housing supply and using land more efficiently. A proposal in this regard is here.

2. TDR for land foregone and a trading platform - When a landowner gives up land for public use (road, green belt, community facility, etc.), pay them not in cash but in a Transferable Development Rights (TDR) Certificate, which can be used elsewhere to build extra. This avoids land acquisition disputes, eliminates fiscal expenditures for the government, and gets roads and amenities built faster. This should be facilitated with a simple online exchange (like a stock market for TDRs) where buyers and sellers find each other transparently and in a regulated market. For each city, the numbers and values of TDRs allocated should be monitored.

3. TDR for affordable housing / urban renewal - Use the same TDR mechanism to incentivise specific outcomes, such as affordable housing units, slum redevelopment, and heritage preservation. The critical requirement here is to be generous with the provision of the TDR to incentivise the outcome. The TDRs would be issued and transacted on a platform. The number and value of such TDRs allocated should be monitored.

4. Purchaseable FAR and a digital transacting platform - Treat the basic FAR (say, 1.5) as a property right of the landowner, but make the remainder of the master-plan FAR (say, up to 3.5) available for purchase from the city. This generates substantial revenue for ULBs, gives developers a clear, predictable path to higher density, and removes the discretion-driven approvals that breed corruption. The purchasable FAR can, in turn, be sold at a lower rate to encourage certain outcomes, as with TDRs for affordable housing or urban renewal. The number and value of FAR purchases should be monitored.

5. Transit-oriented development (TOD) - Allow significantly higher FAR within walking distance (typically 500m) of metro and RRTS stations. The result would be that people living and working close to transit drive less, congestion eases, and the public investment in transit gets repaid in higher tax revenue and ridership. This should be made a mandatory requirement before sanctioning of any mass transit project. The number of stations and the extent of area covered, and the incremental FAR claimed, should be monitored.

6. Mixed-use on/beside metro stations - Build offices, shops, and homes directly above or right next to metro stations, and not several minutes' walk away in the sun. This is how Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Singapore work. In India, DDA's Karkardooma (1,800 flats) is the lone meaningful example. Every other metro/RRTS station is a missed opportunity. The numbers and descriptions of such developments should be captured and disseminated widely for emulation.

7. Land Value Capture (LVC) - When public infrastructure (a metro line, an expressway, a flyover) raises nearby land values, capture some of that uplift through a betterment levy or impact fee, and use it to repay the infrastructure investment. Hyderabad ORR is the Indian benchmark. Today, most of the value uplift goes to private landowners. Mandate the incorporation of the LVC framework of the MoHUA in the Development Control Regulations of all cities. The city-wise numbers of LVC tools in place and the amount of revenues collected should be monitored.

8. Business Improvement District (BID) / Tax Increment Financing (TIF) - Both are forms of LVC. In the case of BID, the businesses in a defined commercial area collectively agree to pay an extra small levy that is ring-fenced for upgrading and maintaining their own area - cleaning, lighting, security, beautification, etc. In the case of TIF, the future tax growth from a regenerated area is earmarked upfront to finance the regeneration itself. Both require enabling state legislation, and neither exists in India yet. The number of such BID/TIF, their area extents, and their respective annual realisations should be monitored.

9. Town Planning Scheme (TPS) - It is a land readjustment mechanism used for planning urban development by pooling adjacent land parcels, developing the consolidated area with infrastructure like roads, parks, and utilities, and returning a portion (usually half) of the developed, serviced land to the original owners. This is used extensively in Gujarat. Its adoption should be encouraged in the initial stages with incentives for the development using TPS. The numbers, landowners involved, and extents of land should be monitored.

While many states in India will claim to have issued rules adopting these, very few have implemented them in any meaningful manner to generate outcomes. Some have not been implemented at all in any city. The details matter for their effective implementation (or non-implementation). It is for this reason that the outcome metrics outlined above for each of these reforms should be monitored closely. This would force attention to the constraints that prevent their effective adoption.

None of these is likely to bear significant outcomes immediately. But they are the plumbing for sustainable urban development and address intractable problems like affordable housing, traffic congestion, and municipal revenue augmentation. There’s a strong case for central and state governments to mandate or incentivise the effective implementation of these reforms.

The problem of managing Chinese FDI to prevent another dependency

noreply@blogger.com (Urbanomics) — Mon, 04 May 2026 04:13:00 +0000

While most of the attention has been focused on addressing the flood of Chinese manufacturing imports, another issue that is rapidly emerging as a matter of concern is the rising Chinese FDI globally. The investment problem is rapidly emerging as an important issue, just as the trade issue. It is also an opportunity to ensure that opening up to Chinese FDI does not end up creating another dependency like that which has happened with Chinese imports.

The investment dimension assumes great importance given the rising wall of trade barriers that restrict access to imports from China. In many countries, this includes rising measures to trace and restrict trade re-routing through third countries to avoid barriers. Further, China’s near-complete dominance in industrial metals and many other manufacturing inputs, in addition to manufactured products, means that dependence on Chinese firms is unavoidable for the foreseeable future.

China’s sheer scale of production, especially its ability to supply metals and inputs at prices lower than almost anyone else, has pushed other producers and countries to the margins. This creates a real dilemma: if you try to restrict or control these imports, downstream industries struggle to survive due to higher costs; but if you don’t, dependence only deepens, and domestic capability erodes further. It’s a classic Catch-22, with no easy way out.

Complicating matters is the increasing strategic dimension of China’s manufacturing dominance. The former US Secretary of State Jake Sullivan has recently written that China is pursuing a theory of power that “places production, scale, and control of critical inputs at the centre of its national strategy”.

Chinese leaders are seeking to make the rest of the world dependent on China while making China independent from everyone else. And they have assessed that to achieve this, China does not need to lead in every frontier domain. Instead, it needs to control nodes of leverage—that is, the inputs and systems that advanced economies and militaries depend on to function. Beijing has already captured several of these nodes, including processed rare earths, precursor ingredients for pharmaceuticals, and batteries, and it is striving to capture others, such as robotics.

On the investment side, China is now a major outward investor globally. The graphic below shows that even as its inbound FDI has dived, China’s outbound FDI has surged.

Debashis Basu provides some interesting numbers.

With a cumulative overseas investment stock of $3 trillion-3.5 trillion and annual outflows in the range of $160 billion-190 billion, China is a major FDI player across every region. Asia absorbs close to 70 per cent of China’s outward investment stock — roughly $2 trillion-2.2 trillion — largely into Southeast Asia, where Chinese firms have transplanted entire manufacturing ecosystems, particularly in electronics, textiles, electric vehicles, and intermediate goods. Latin America is the second major destination, with a cumulative Chinese investment estimated at $300 billion-500 billion. Europe, while smaller in share, has still absorbed between $100 billion and $200 billion. Africa, though accounting for a smaller share — perhaps $50 billion–100 billion — occupies a strategic position. West Asia, meanwhile, has attracted multi-billion-dollar annual investment in energy, petrochemicals, and, increasingly, renewables.

While the US under President Trump has gone the way of imposing strict restrictions, others, including the EU, have been grappling with wooing Chinese FDI, but with conditions. In fact, the EU has emerged as Ground Zero on this issue. Electric Vehicles and battery manufacturing are the most high-profile examples.

Complicating matters is a collective action problem. While the EU as a whole commits to striving for reducing supply chain dependencies, individual members have an interest in benefiting from Chinese FDI and allowing their countries to be used as the source for exporting to the EU common market area. This has played into China’s hands, as it has pushed low-value-added assembly into these countries. Viktor Orban’s Hungary and Pedro Sanchez’s Spain have been the two Trojan horses for Chinese FDI into the EU.

Another example is the UK’s decision to allow China’s Lomon Billions (LB) Group, the world’s largest producer of titanium dioxide (TDO), to buy a bankrupt TDO plant in Teesside owned by Venator Materials UK for $70 million. The Teesside plant went into administration last October with the loss of 270 jobs after more than 50 years making TDO, an industrial whitening agent used in paints and plastics as well as strategic defence and green energy supply chains. TDO is also an input to make titanium metal, a key component in the defence industry.

The deal has faced strong criticism from European and US TDO producers who fear that the LB Group will use the plant as a source to flood the European markets with cheap TDO and drive out its manufacturers. As an illustration, the LB Group produced titanium dioxide at $1,500 a tonne in China, including subsidies, nearly half the estimated $2,800 a tonne cost to produce in the UK.

The scenario posed by critics is real since TDO is a good illustration of how cheap Chinese exports have destroyed manufacturing capacities globally.

LB Group produced titanium dioxide at $1,500 a tonne in China, including subsidies, nearly half the estimated $2,800 a tonne cost to produce in the UK... China became a net exporter of titanium dioxide after 2010, with exports rising from just 48,000 tonnes that year to more than 1.7mn tonnes in 2025, creating a global glut of excess production that coincided with a wave of factory closures outside China. Over those 15 years, factories with a combined capacity of nearly 1.3mn tonnes were shut down in Asia, Europe and the US, according to data compiled by industry analyst Reg Adams, who has tracked titanium dioxide markets since 1993. Chinese capacity hit 5.7mn tonnes at the end 2025.

In fact, the LB Group has made explicit its market strategy.

“By establishing new factories overseas, the company can directly connect with end-markets for production and sales, radiate out to surrounding markets . . . and circumvent high anti-dumping duties.”

The challenge then is to manage Chinese FDI in a manner that it does not end up replacing one dependence with another, Chinese imports with Chinese firms. Instead, the objective should be to use Chinese FDI to build domestic capabilities and reduce reliance on China’s supply chain.

This is going to be easier said than done. Chinese investments are unlikely to come cheaply.

Since President Xi Jinping has already made it clear that China sees supply chain dependence as a strategic security lever (or “weaponised”), Chinese firms will obviously resist and stonewall efforts to use interdependence them to reduce supply chain dependence. In the circumstances, this is going to be a game of cat and mouse where the best that can be expected is a long drawn series of extractions and concessions. China’s FDI hosts should strive for two steps forward and one step backwards.

So what are the strategies being pursued by countries to attract Chinese FDI?

The most comprehensive action plan has been outlined by the EU. The EU’s recently announced Industrial Accelerator Act (IAA) aims at increasing European manufacturing competitiveness and reducing supply-chain dependencies, and includes provisions to exercise control over foreign investment. Member states can veto any FDI exceeding €100mn in strategic sectors if the investor is from a country with more than 40 per cent of global manufacturing capacity.

Further, these FDI projects must fill at least half of their jobs with EU workers and satisfy three of five other conditions. The five conditions are a 49% limit on foreign ownership or voting share, a joint venture structure of the investment with EU partners, licensing of IP and technology to the EU target or asset, incur R&D expenditure of at least 1% of gross annual revenue within the EU, and source at least 30% of inputs from the EU.

An FT article nicely sums up the backdrop for the announcement of IAA.

The law is seen as the EU’s answer to decades of practices in China requiring foreign companies to invest alongside joint-venture partners and transfer their technology to local manufacturers. As Chinese manufacturers have acquired technology and been able to make higher-value products, rivals in Europe complain that they can no longer compete.

China has predictably reacted strongly to the new law and threatened countermeasures. This response is delightfully ironic in coming from a country that did the same for nearly three decades in its journey to establish manufacturing dominance. China’s commerce ministry put out a statement

…runs counter to basic market economy principles such as commercial voluntariness and fair competition… the act violated a range of WTO principles and international agreements governing intellectual property rights and subsidies… It will drag down the EU’s green transition process, damage fair competition in the EU market and bring new shocks to multilateral trade rules… (the EU should delete) “discriminatory requirements against foreign investors, local content requirements, mandatory transfer of intellectual property rights and technology requirements, public procurement restrictive policies, and other content.

There’s a deep irony in these measures coming from Europe, and they also represent the wheel turning the full circle. In their early years of industrialisation, the US and Europe pursued infant industry protection policies to build domestic manufacturing capabilities. Once they became dominant, they embraced the principles of free trade and forced developing countries to lower tariffs and open up their markets. Now, having given up their manufacturing dominance to China, the same countries are back to pursuing protectionist policies to safeguard their industries from Chinese competition.

Another example of Chinese investments that should be watched with interest is that made in Indonesia’s nickel processing and refining, and now being made in the same country’s alumina processing and aluminium manufacturing.

In 2014, Indonesia banned the export of raw Nickel, with a total ban from 2020, thereby encouraging Chinese companies, led by the steel giant Tsingshan Holding Group, to set up processing plants across the country. The transformation since has been remarkable for a country that, a decade ago, was not even a major nickel producer.

Although Indonesia held the world’s largest reserves… most of it was low-grade nickel that it had not yet figured out how to process efficiently… Before 2014, most of Indonesia’s nickel ore was sold to nickel and steel manufacturing plants in China… Huge investments came from Chinese steel, nickel and battery manufacturers, including Tsingshan, CATL and Lygend, who partnered with Indonesian mining companies to set up processing facilities. Chinese stakeholders control over 75 per cent of Indonesia’s refining capacity, according to a recent report by C4ADS, a Washington-based security non profit. Not only did the companies bring capital, they also brought the knowledge to process Indonesia’s low-grade nickel reserves quickly and profitably… The Chinese had made advancements in rotary kiln electric furnaces, which turns nickel ore into raw material for steel. They had also mastered the high-pressure acid leach technology, a refining process that converts low grade nickel ore to battery-grade — a procedure that western companies had struggled with for years…
Indonesia has gained control of the market and cemented itself as the epicentre of global nickel production for years to come. Last year, Indonesia accounted for 61 per cent of the global refined nickel supply up from just 6 per cent in 2015… Its market share is expected to grow to 74 per cent by 2028. This means Indonesia now controls more of the world’s supply of nickel than Opec did of oil at the cartel’s peak in the 1970s — then around half of global crude oil output.
And it has achieved this position of market dominance just at the moment when new customers are desperately trying to secure reliable supplies. Not only are carmakers like Tesla, Ford and Volkswagen racing to source the metal for lithium-ion batteries, nickel is also widely used in smartphones and other electronics — as well as being a vital ingredient in stainless steel… Surging production in Indonesia has wiped out competition from companies such as Australian mining group BHP and dramatically reshaped the global supply chain. By flooding the market and driving down prices, the Sino-Indonesian partnership has made it much harder for rivals to produce the metal economically elsewhere in the world.

Similarly, in 2023, Indonesia banned the export of bauxite, the mineral used to make Aluminium, forcing companies to establish domestic refining (bauxite to alumina) and smelting (alumina to aluminium) facilities. Chinese processors, already facing restrictions on capacity expansion in China, moved to Indonesia to invest in the high-margin industry. A combination of Chinese production caps, sanctions on Russian smelters, closures in Africa and Australia due to rising energy costs, and now the damage to facilities in the Gulf has squeezed supply and is driving up prices. This, in turn, could accelerate Indonesia’s smelters build out, especially by the Chinese companies. The country produced 5.9mn tonnes of alumina last year, up from 3.3mn in 2022.

The Indonesian experiment with Nickel and Aluminium export bans and forced domestic processing, primarily with Chinese investments, is a test case for leveraging Chinese companies and their technologies. The extent of localisation and domestic value addition, and technology transfer and spill-overs that have happened in these two industries is not known. Clearly, given the strategic nature of these metals and the attendant leverage, the Indonesians may have missed a trick by not insisting on joint ventures with domestic firms.

Infrastructure is sometimes considered another destination for Chinese FDI. However, as I have blogged here, China is unlikely to undertake FDI in infrastructure. Instead, its primary channel for funding infrastructure is through loans to governments, as has been institutionalised through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). This channel is filled with pitfalls and problems that are well documented.

Even equity investments in infrastructure come with strategic risks. An illustration of this is that in ports.

Chinese firms now operate or have a financial stake in at least 129 ports outside China, and have spent at least $80bn on port construction from Antigua to Tanzania, with many of the investments tied to bilateral trade and regional shipping agreements. More than a third of China’s overseas ports are near maritime chokepoints, including the Strait of Malacca, the Strait of Hormuz and the Suez Canal, making them indispensable operators in strategic areas. China’s firm grip on global ports has rattled Western governments. MERICS, a think-tank in Berlin, found that after a terminal operating contract is signed, total trade with China rises by more than a fifth, while countries that allow Chinese firms to run all their terminals at one of their ports see a 19% drop in exports to the rest of the world. Operating ports allowed Chinese firms to prioritise their cargo and vessels and speed up customs and logistics...

China’s reach extends beyond physical infrastructure. LOGINK, a Chinese government-run logistics-management software, is used in at least 24 countries and 86 ports (America banned its use in 2023). LOGINK shares data with CargoSmart, another shipping-management software firm owned by COSCO, another Chinese state-owned firm, and in turn gives it access to the whereabouts of 90% of the world’s container ships. It also has a tie-up with CaiNiao, a logistics provider with hundreds of warehouses around the world... Chinese firms are also building industrial parks and manufacturing facilities close to their existing ports in Africa and Europe.

So what does all this mean for India?

Debashis Basu again provides these numbers on FDI from China.

Chinese FDI in India amounts to a trivial $2.51 billion, or 0.32 per cent of India’s cumulative equity inflows, since 2000. Even if one broadens the definition to include venture-capital investment and indirect flows routed through third countries, the total rises only to $15 billion-20 billion.

The Economic Survey 2023-24 also proposed that India should seek to attract Chinese FDI to benefit from the ‘China plus one’ strategy embraced by foreign multinationals seeking to diversify away from that country.

The challenge, like with all things in public policy, is about how to do it. For a start, it might be useful to study the EU’s IAA. It is important to prepare a multi-track strategy that places different conditions for sectors depending on their importance and the extent of Chinese dominance. I had blogged here outlining some mitigation strategies for India as it grapples with chokepoints in trade.

It must be a conscious strategy of attracting Chinese investors with some broad requirements and then gradually tightening the conditions to first increase domestic value addition and then gradually technology transfer to domestic suppliers. This will be a game of hardball, and India must be prepared to play it with China.

It has had opportunities to pursue this strategy earlier. In 2020, one analysis reported that 16 out of India’s then 29 unicorns had Chinese investors, with them being lead investors in eight. Tencent and Alibaba were the largest investors. As relations soured, these investors were forced out or left.

Basu’s description of how China itself courted foreign investment is appealing in theory, but very hard to execute for several reasons, especially given the current circumstances of countries having to deal with China.

Beginning in the 1990s and accelerating through the 2000s, China actively courted FDI and technology, particularly from Japan, the United States, and Europe, in a period known as “reform and opening up” (gaige kaifang). China did not see foreign capital as a threat; it saw it as an instrument of transformation if the state retained strategic control over direction. Multinationals were often required to form joint ventures, localise production, and, in many cases, transfer technology — the phrase “bring it in” (yin jin lai) capturing this mindset. To take full advantage of this, special economic zones provided infrastructure, policy stability, and export incentives, enabling China to integrate into global manufacturing networks and develop deep supplier ecosystems, skilled labour pools, and process expertise. China used this phase to absorb technology, build domestic champions, and gradually move up the value chain, eventually becoming both an exporter and an investor in the next phase — “go out” (zou chu qu).

I’m not sure that Chinese manufacturing firms will come in with low minority stakes just because of the Indian market size. Historically, it has not happened, even in much larger and more attractive markets like the US and Europe. And Chinese FDI has generally steered clear of India.

This strategy will require high institutional capabilities that track emerging FDI trends and global developments, and dynamically shape and steer India’s FDI policy, especially with respect to China (or countries with land borders). This will have to be quite a different approach from that which has generally been followed by India.

Weekend reading links

noreply@blogger.com (Urbanomics) — Sat, 02 May 2026 05:38:00 +0000

1. China's beggar-thy-neighbour trade policy, titanium dioxide edition.

LB Group produced titanium dioxide at $1,500 a tonne in China, including subsidies, nearly half the estimated $2,800 a tonne cost to produce in the UK... China became a net exporter of titanium dioxide after 2010, with exports rising from just 48,000 tonnes that year to more than 1.7mn tonnes in 2025, creating a global glut of excess production that coincided with a wave of factory closures outside China. Over that 15-year period, factories with a combined capacity of nearly 1.3mn tonnes were shut down in Asia, Europe and the US, according to data compiled by industry analyst Reg Adams, who has tracked titanium dioxide markets since 1993. Chinese capacity hit 5.7mn tonnes at the end 2025.

2. John Burn-Murdoch points to the aspiration gap among today's youth, or the gap between their actual incomes and their expectations.

Even though today’s young adults, and graduates in particular, are over-represented in the top quartile of the earnings distribution, they are also far more likely to be at the bottom than the top for earnings relative to reasonable expectations. In both the UK and US, even though only 10 percent of graduates are in the lowest earnings quartile, one in three is in the bottom bracket for earnings relative to expectations.

The average thirty-something university graduate in the UK today sits at the same rank of the earnings ladder as the average high school graduate did in 1995 and the average high school graduate today sits at the same rank as someone who never completed school in 1995.

Are today’s twenty- and thirty-somethings earning more than their parents did at the same age? Yes. But their relative position in society is lower than their parents’ was, and their position relative to their peers and expectations is significantly lower. Since it’s the latter that drives satisfaction, young adult malaise should come as no surprise.

3. The US AI spending estimates pale in comparison to the money spent on railways in the late nineteenth century.

By 1890 railway companies in the US alone had issued about $5bn worth of bonds. Adjusting for inflation that equates to about $180bn in today’s money. However, this understates the enormous scale of the undertaking, because the US economy was much smaller then. In 1890, $5bn was about one-third of America’s GDP, so the investment spree was arguably the equivalent of spending over $10tn today. It also resulted in an epic, generation-defining crash. In 1873, Jay Cooke & Co, the premier investment bank run by America’s dominant financier at the time, suddenly collapsed under the weight of unsold railway bonds. This caused a giant financial crisis and ushered in what was long known as the Great Depression, until the even larger one in the 1930s.

4. McKinsey Global Institute have identified 18 future arenas of growth.

Their performance over the 2022-25 period validates their prioritisation.

They added about $18 trillion in market capitalisation in the last three years.

5. The 2 hour mark in a marathon is broken as Sebastian Sawe of Kenya wins the London marathon.

Both Sawe and Assefa were wearing Adizero Pro Evo 3 shoes, which were only unveiled a few days before the race. Known as “supershoes”, such ultralight, high-tech trainers cost hundreds of dollars a pair, but are worn only once in competition races by elite runners. Since the release of the Nike Vaporfly, the first supershoe, in 2017, the number of men and women breaking new time barriers has risen sharply. Based on a UK size 8.5, the new shoes worn on Sunday by Sawe and Assefa weigh just 97 grams, according to Adidas, making them 30 per cent lighter than the German sportswear company’s previous design. They also cost $500 a pair.

Also this.

6. Power subsidy facts of the week.

7. Ajay Shah points to an important opportunity in the Gulf as the post-war reconstruction starts.

The region of the Persian Gulf will have capital expenditure for massive construction and engineering projects, expanding to perhaps $150 billion annually. Simultaneously, the geopolitical environment dictates investment in military capability. Procuring new defence systems to protect against drone and missile attacks will require approximately $100 billion annually. We may then envision this combination of engineering and defence procurement as a new pathway for demand of $250 billion a year into the global economy from the GCC... A lot of the projects in West Asia will be done by global firms, using Indian workers. Remittances from Indian workers will do well. Renewables, drones and missiles, oil and gas engineering: These three areas are important in export markets. The domestic environment in these areas is relatively subdued. Indian firms will do well by trying to obtain revenues from the coming engineering boom in the West Asia, and from the global boom in renewables and defence.

8. So far Apple has ploughed back its massive cash surpluses to buyback more than 40% of its outstanding shares!

This is an important moat for Apple (its profit after tax is set to touch $125 bn this year!).

Around 40 per cent of Apple’s profits now come from services, led by App Store commissions and Apple’s cut of the revenue Google makes on its gadgets. This makes it look less like an innovative tech leader and more like a powerful gatekeeper able to extract tolls from those who want to reach the estimated 1.5bn people with iPhones... Apple’s shares are still close to their all-time highs, reflecting the market’s generally sanguine view that it doesn’t need to join the ruinously expensive AI race that is consuming much of the tech world. Instead it can just sit back and take a cut from distributing the AI services of others to its massive user base.

9. Xiaomi is trying to compete with Tesla et al in the European premium brand market.

Just two years after building its first car, China’s largest smartphone maker has already delivered 650,000 electric vehicles — on par with the number of Tesla vehicles sold last year in the world’s largest automotive market. Xiaomi founder Lei Jun, who has earned comparisons with Steve Jobs, now aims to take on Elon Musk’s company in Europe with its premium EVs known for their breakneck acceleration and advanced features... Since Lei announced his plan to build a car in 2021, Xiaomi stunned the global car industry with the launch of its first model — the Speed Ultra 7 sports sedan — just three years later... After the SU7 became one of China’s best-selling cars, its second model, the $35,000 YU7 that rivals Tesla’s Model Y with designs resembling Ferrari’s Purosangue model, received 200,000 pre-orders in just three minutes at last year’s launch...

Xiaomi established an EV research and development centre in Munich last year, hiring more than 75 engineers. Many Chinese brands have rapidly expanded into Europe with prices roughly double those in China, yet they remain affordable due to advanced software... At its only EV factory in China, Xiaomi has deployed its own manufacturing methods and materials to bring down production costs while strengthening the durability of its vehicles. The plant, which produces a car every 76 seconds, has a 91 per cent automation rate with hundreds of robotic arms to assemble the cars while “autonomous mobile robots” carry car parts around the factory.

10. Announced Vs actual Trump tariffs.

11. EV prices are falling and ranges are rising.

Prices for lithium-ion batteries, the primary type used for E.V.s, have fallen to around $100 per kilowatt-hour in 2025, from $1,000 in the early 2010s, according to BloombergNEF. Battery density has gone up too. As battery costs fell and manufacturers built more E.V.s, ranges rose and prices fell. Tesla’s cheapest Model 3 climbed to a range of 321 miles this year, up from 220 when it was launched in the late 2010s, while its inflation-adjusted price decreased. Or consider the Leaf, which debuted 15 years ago. By 2016, the cheapest Leaf had 84 miles of range and cost around $30,000, the equivalent of $40,000 today. Nissan’s $32,000 2026 Leaf has a range of more than 300 miles.

12. Facts about German rearmament.

After loosening its constitutional debt brake last year to unlock virtually unlimited spending on the sector, Berlin intends to allocate €779bn to defence between 2026 and 2030 — more than double the previous five years. By the end of the decade — more than five years ahead of the 2035 target date — the country would surpass Nato’s goal of spending 3.5 per cent of GDP on the military, with an annual budget reaching almost €190bn.

13. The Strait Hormuz is one of the biggest global trade chokepoints.

The loss of oil supply is the highest in history.

And it has impacted the prices of several commodities.

14. Microsoft, Meta, Alphabet and Amazon are set to invest $700 bn this year on AI infrastructure.

15. Nice illustration of the conflict of interest problem that bedevils health care.

A graphical summary of chokepoints in global trade

noreply@blogger.com (Urbanomics) — Fri, 01 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000

After China’s rare earth minerals export restrictions and Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, chokepoints in international trade have become a hot topic. Never mind that the biggest chokepoint in the world economy has long been the US stranglehold through the threat of sanctions.

Martin Wolf has an excellent oped that illustrates the importance of the Strait of Hormuz.

I have used it as an opportunity to do a deep dive into chokepoints using Claude AI.

Among maritime routes, the Strait of Malacca stands out as the most important chokepoint in terms of sheer volume. The Panama Canal is critical for the US.

The table below maps each chokepoint across eight dimensions. Note that the Turkish Straits punch above their weight. While it carries only 3% of global seaborne trade, that includes around 20% of global wheat exports from Ukraine, Russia, and Romania, making them a food security flashpoint. The Taiwan Strait is classified as "critical (latent)", with 40% of the world's container fleet passing through it, and any escalation would instantly cascade through semiconductor and electronics supply chains globally.

This is a list of alternative routes and their respective detour costs. As can be seen, there is no viable alternative to Hormuz for Gulf states. A closure is modelled to push oil prices to $120–150/bbl.

Among companies, ASML (monopoly in EUV lithography machines), TSMC (64% of global pure play foundry, and almost all 3 nm and 5 nm), and Nvidia (92% of data centre GPUs) are standout corporate chokepoints. China, for materials and several inputs to manufacturers globally, stands out as the foremost national chokepoint. However, the mother of all chokepoints may perhaps be the SWIFT money transfer system controlled by the US.

There are nine corporate chokepoints. The Western chokepoints tend to be policy-leveraged through export controls and sanctions. The Chinese chokepoints are leveraged through state-controlled industrial policy and export licensing.

The hardest substitutability problems aren't the ones with the highest market shares, but those with the longest replacement timelines. ASML and heavy rare earths both require over ten years to replicate at scale.

Let’s now examine India’s external vulnerabilities. India’s most acute dependencies are in the sectors of energy & fertilisers, pharmaceuticals, critical minerals & battery materials, and electronics & semiconductors, with China being the chokepoint country in all but the first.

In defence, while India’s dependencies have grown more diversified, the vulnerabilities are widely known. The hidden defence vulnerability is naval gas turbines from Ukraine's Zorya-Mashproekt, and rare earth magnets used in radars and missile guidance - both of which sit on geopolitical fault lines.

The pattern of leverage shows a sharp dichotomy: India's strategic vulnerability is concentrated in two countries - China (electronics, pharma APIs, rare earths, critical minerals processing, batteries) and Russia (oil, defence, fertilisers) - while its geographical chokepoint exposure sits at Hormuz, Bab el-Mandeb, and Malacca. The most acute vulnerabilities feature single companies as well: TSMC for advanced chips, CATL for batteries, Saudi Aramco/ADNOC for Gulf oil.

So how can these vulnerabilities be mitigated?

The table below has the proposed diversification measures categorised into three: short-term (focused on supplier diversification, strategic stockpiles, and emergency tariff calibration), medium-term (activate PLI schemes, trade agreements, and government-to-government deals (Saudi DAP 5-yr contract, Argentina lithium, Australia rare earths), and long-term (aim for genuine strategic autonomy).

In conclusion, like any other economy today, small or large, India cannot eliminate dependencies. But it can change the politics of dependency by making suppliers compete and by retaining genuine substitutes for each input. The most successful precedent is the SIPRI defence data showing Russia’s share collapsing from 72% to 36% in just a decade, achieved through sustained policy effort and friend-shoring.

Some thoughts on the RBI's exchange rate management policy

noreply@blogger.com (Urbanomics) — Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000

The pressure on the rupee in the aftermath of the Gulf War has generated considerable attention and discussion. I have blogged here on the implications of the Gulf War on India’s external account.

This may also be a good time to examine the dynamics driving the rupee downward. The rupee’s weakness is nothing new. Since the beginning of 2025, the rupee has been the weakest-performing EM currency, behind only the Turkish lira. As reported here, the rupee has weakened from 107 in early 2025 to 92 in the 40-country trade-weighted real effective exchange rate index, despite the RBI intervening heavily to backstop the decline. In fact, since October 2024, foreign investors have pulled out at least $45 billion, and their shareholding in Indian equities is currently at a 15-year low.

The graphic shows that the rupee held steady for two years, from at least the beginning of 2023 to the end of 2024, on the back of rupee purchases to prevent it from depreciating and find its level. In fact, compared to an annual USD-INR volatility of 5% in the 2000-22 period, the INR-USD volatility fell to just 1.8% during this period, the lowest in over 20 years, lower even than the 2000-2004 period when INR was effectively pegged!

This drastic volatility suppression, combined with India’s higher inflation (CPI averaging ~5%) vs trading partners (2-3%), produced the biggest REER overvaluation build-up in the emerging-market universe during this cycle. The rupee’s 40-currency REER (base 2015-16) peaked at 108.14 in November 2024, and since then has depreciated sharply to below 95 by March 2026. This depreciation has been far in excess of any peer.

Similar trend is visible with respect to USD too. The rupee stands out for its unique flat trajectory through 2022-24 even as peers depreciated substantially in response to the Fed tightening cycle. However, since Oct 2024 the rupee has depreciated steeply, overtaking several peers.

It becomes clear that the rupee was held artificially overvalued for over two years. This, by itself, should have been reason enough that pressure mounted for a corrective depreciation. In addition, there was the pressure from the spike in oil prices (and associated worsening of the external account, already weakening from the tariffs and FPI repatriation) and the general trend of risk-off and capital flight to the safety and liquidity of the dollar.

By itself, the Gulf War would have put enough pressure on the currency. But its combination with the stress built up due to the forced overvaluation amplified the capital flight induced by the Gulf War, thereby exacerbating the pressure on the rupee and worsening the depreciation when it happened.

The table below is a quantified decomposition of what drove the 11.9% depreciation. It shows two alternative decompositions at the peak (Mar 2026), which capture the overshoot moment, and at current levels (Apr 2026), after partial reversion.

At peak (Mar 2026), the biggest driver by far was the overvaluation correction (63% of the fall), which is the “hidden cliff” the RBI’s peg concealed and which was unique to the rupee. The general market volatility (36%), experienced by all peers, was a secondary driver, reflecting genuine dollar/EM repricing. The net overshoot, at least till now, has been negligible.

Has there been a Dornbush overshoot? Rudiger Dornbusch's 1976 overshooting model predicts that when exchange rates are flexible, but goods prices are sticky, a monetary or policy shock causes the exchange rate to overshoot its long-run equilibrium before reverting. In simple terms, if the currency has been artificially propped up, the "stickiness" is extreme, and therefore, when the adjustment finally comes, the overshoot magnitude is larger than in a regime of continuous flexibility. However, the Dornbusch overshoot and reversion are not yet visible. The reversion might happen in the coming weeks.

So what are the lessons?

By maintaining the rupee as a de facto pegged currency from 2023 to October 2024, the RBI accumulated an 8% REER overvaluation that had to be corrected. When the regime shifted — Trump election, FPI outflows, US tariffs, Iran war — the correction was both deeper and faster than peers experienced, precisely because the catch-up component (8pp) was additive to normal drift (3.8pp). The rupee is now at or near its new equilibrium of ~94-95, down 11.9% from Oct 2024.

The RBI’s 2022-24 intervention pattern - buying ~$400bn in forex reserves while keeping the rupee rigid - converted exchange-rate risk into reserve-allocation risk. When the regime shifted, reserves fell by $80bn in four months without preventing the correction. Further, the sharp Mar 2026 overshoot caused imported inflation, margin stress on exporters who had hedged at 84, and a sudden repricing of corporate foreign-currency debt. A gradual depreciation path through 2023-24 (releasing 3% per year against the peer-consistent rate) would have spread this adjustment at much lower systemic cost. The rupee has done exactly what a freely-floating currency would have done gradually over 3 years, but compressed into 18 months because the peg delayed adjustment, and with serious credibility cost (for investors).

The speed of adjustment was consistent with Dornbusch dynamics (7.2% in a single month from Feb to Mar 2026 is unprecedented for INR). However, the second half of the Dornbusch pattern - reversion toward long-run equilibrium - has not so far materialised, though it could yet in the coming weeks. The rupee is currently 94.10, only 0.8% below its 94.86 peak. This is within noise, not meaningful reversion.

This is a teachable moment on currency management for central banks. Policies that keep a currency overvalued are always counter-productive, especially for developing countries that are always at risk of being caught in an episode of sudden stop and capital flight. When such episodes are triggered, the overvalued currency invariably experiences a steeper slide and greater overshoot, with all attendant consequences. Most importantly, steep devaluations convey a macroeconomic instability signal to investors. It increases the country risk for investors, who must now factor in the likelihood of episodes of sharp depreciation risks while making their investments. It is a dent in the central bank’s credibility.

The rupee is going through one such episode. The original sin may have been committed in the 2023-24 period.

Impact of policy interventions and shocks on India's economic growth

noreply@blogger.com (Urbanomics) — Sun, 26 Apr 2026 23:30:00 +0000

The sustainable growth rate of any economy is that which strips out the positive effects of the government’s fiscal interventions and the negative effects of economic shocks. This blog has held that, given its deficient human, physical, and financial capital, India’s neutral growth rate is about 5-5.5%.

This post provides a framework to figure out the underlying economic growth rate by stripping these positive and negative contributors.

So, what has been India’s underlying neutral (stripped of the impact of policy interventions) economic growth rate?

Answering this requires us to identify the specific interventions and events that have contributed to the positive and negative shocks, and to try to figure out their respective economic impacts.

In the last decade or so, the economy has faced three large negative shocks: demonetisation, the introduction of GST and associated efforts to formalise the economy, and the pandemic. In addition, on the external front, it has faced the oil shocks from the Ukraine and Iran wars, and the Trump tariffs.

The economy as a whole has benefited from three fiscal events - corporate tax rate reduction, income tax rate reduction and rationalisation, and the GST rate reduction.

While it is now clear that the government suffered revenue loss from the corporate tax rate reduction, the income tax rate reduction, and rationalisation appear to have boosted the tax base and increased revenues. It appears (at least for now) that the existing corporate tax rate was on the left side of the Laffer curve, whereas the direct tax rate was on the right side.

The government clearly benefited from three positive fiscal events: the long period of low oil prices (increased excise tax revenues due to not passing through the reduced oil prices), the surge in RBI dividends, and the large additional fiscal space from discarding the FRBM framework.

The net boost to fiscal balance resulted in a sharp spike in capital expenditure. It is to the credit of the government that it eschewed the subsidies and revenue expenditure route. This increase in capex includes taking on the budget account capital expenditures of NHAI and Railways. In addition, there has been the introduction of the zero-interest 50-year loan to state governments under the Special Assistance to States for Capital Investments (SASCI).

What have been their respective contributions to the output growth? Here is a graphical summary.

This table captures a brief description of the assumptions and estimations used.

On the positive boosts to the government’s fiscal position, the contributions of the three factors are shown below.

On the capital expenditure side, the government assumed in the budget the expenditures on railways and highways.

The fifty-year interest-free loan to states under SASCI was a new addition, amounting to about Rs 1.5 lakh Cr each year.

This explains how the increase in capex could be disaggregated and distributed among the different parts discussed above.

The disaggregated impact of the positive and negative factors on the economic output is shown below.

Based on the above, the underlying neutral economic growth appears to be in the range of 5-5.5%.

Clearly, since the pandemic, policy interventions have played an important role in boosting the economic output.

The important point here is that while policy interventions may have boosted economic growth for some time, it remains to be seen in the coming years whether they have shifted the economy onto a higher underlying steady state growth trajectory. This is especially important since the headroom for further interventions, like fiscal space for more capex or tax cuts, may have shrunk, and we may be entering a world of increasing uncertainties and headwinds for the foreseeable future.

In the final analysis, the balance sheet of the policy interventions will boil down to this question. Did the fiscal transfers of the last few years create the conditions (by broadbasing economic growth or increasing capital accumulation, for example) for a shift to a higher trajectory of growth, or was it a case of merely providing a temporary boost to the national output?

Weekend reading links

noreply@blogger.com (Urbanomics) — Sat, 25 Apr 2026 03:21:00 +0000

1. The world's food supply chain is deeply enmeshed in fossil fuels from the Gulf.

In 2024, for instance, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Qatar together supplied more than three-quarters of India’s ammonia imports and 30 per cent of Morocco’s. As a result, food production in south Asia and north Africa has become deeply dependent on Gulf nitrogen flows... About 70 per cent of the world’s ammonia is used in fertiliser production, and just under30 per cent of global ammonia exports originate in the Middle East... Roughly half of the world’s global seaborne sulphur passes through the Strait of Hormuz, with most of this produced by the Gulf’s state-owned energy companies — above all Adnoc, QatarEnergy, the Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Saudi Aramco... Gulf countries account for 35 per cent of global urea trade; Saudi Arabia was the world’s largest urea exporter in 2024, while Oman ranked third. Monoammonium phosphate (MAP) and diammonium phosphate (DAP), two of the principal fertilisers used to supply crops with phosphorus, are also closely tied to Gulf production and export routes. In 2024, countries upstream of Hormuz accounted for 18 per cent of global MAP and DAP trade.

As Leiden University’s Christian Henderson has recently shown, Gulf countries have also become deeply enmeshed in cross-border control of large agribusiness companies throughout the Middle East as a whole. Egypt, the world’s second-largest urea exporter, offers a clear example of what this means for the production of fertiliser. A substantial share of Egypt’s export-oriented nitrogen capacity is controlled by Fertiglobe, a company in which the UAE’s Adnoc now holds a controlling stake and that claims to be the world’s largest seaborne exporter of urea and ammonia, according to its 2024 financial results. Fertiglobe’s Egyptian assets include the Egyptian Fertilizers Company, with an annual capacity of 1.7mn tonnes of urea and 0.9mn tonnes of ammonia, alongside Egypt Basic Industries Corporation, which adds another 0.7mn tonnes of ammonia. For comparison, Misr Fertilizers Production Company (MOPCO), which operates Egypt’s largest nitrogen fertiliser plant, reported 1.7mn tonnes of urea and 1.1mn tonnes of ammonia in 2024. About 44 per cent of MOPCO is owned by Saudi and UAE investment funds.

This level of dependence on the Middle East makes claims of food security ring hollow in countries like India. These countries can exercise chokeholds that can expose countries to deep vulnerabilities in their food security system. It is an area that needs to be kept in mind and diversification strategies should be pursued.

2. European luxury houses are struggling.

So far this year, nine leading European luxury stocks have lost at least a collective €140bn in market capitalisation, a bitter blow for an industry that was riding high during the first half of this decade, when LVMH was the continent’s most valuable company... The luxury sector, which supersized between 2019 and 2023, was already grappling with some hard truths before the conflict began. Middle-class shoppers who previously spent tens of billions of dollars on luxury items pulled back once their Covid-era savings and furlough payments ran out and the cost of living rose. Some 50mn luxury consumers exited the market between 2022 and 2024, according to a report by Bain, most of them aspirational shoppers who felt left behind by skyrocketing prices... the Chinese market, the motor of growth until 2023, has been hit by relatively weak consumption in the pandemic’s aftermath.

And the problems in the Middle East will worsen matters, given that the UAE is an important market.

3. India's contract manufacturers command much higher PE valuations than their much bigger global counterparts.

Take Dixon Technologies. Over five years, its revenue has grown nearly fivefold to about Rs 18,000 crore, helped along by the PLI scheme and by assembling for companies like Xiaomi and Google... And yet, for all that scale, the economics remain surprisingly thin. Profit margins hover around 2%. A meaningful chunk of profits comes from government incentives. More tellingly, even at this scale, Dixon still depends on imported components, external designs, and global clients. India may now assemble a significant share of the world’s smartphones, but much of the value still sits outside the factory.

What happens when PLI gets phased out?

4. Sobering statistics about higher education in general and specialised fields like Agriculture.

A 2020 survey at the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University found that less than 12% of students thought of farming as a future career. Nearly 60% of students wanted to be government employees, and more than a quarter of them wanted to get into business and entrepreneurship. Only 3% said they wanted to work for private companies. And it’s not just about the students. Their goals come from practical considerations. Take the case of the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore. Just a little over 16% of its total 882 students of agriculture got placed in 2023–24. It only gets slightly better in the postgraduate courses, where only 37% out of the 287 students were placed. The story is similar in other universities as well.

What does it tell us about the career prospects in specialised fields like agriculture when nearly 60% of students want to be government employees?

5. Some stock market facts on the Adani Group.

Adani Green is trading at a trailing price-to-earnings (P/E) multiple of 1,109X, compared to peer Tata Power’s 47X, according to data from market information provider Screener.in. And Adani Total Gas’s trailing P/E multiple is 473X, compared to Indraprastha Gas’ 18X... the shareholding patterns in Adani group companies... several of them shared common foreign portfolio investors (FPIs). And strangely, several of them had negligible investments in non-Adani companies. As a result, the percentage of shares effectively available for trading by the public was just about 5% in Adani Total Gas and 11% in Adani Green. The comparable figure for Indraprastha Gas is 55%, and for Tata Power, 53%... only one FPI owns more than 1% of Adani Green now, compared to 10 in December 2020. But that FPI—Asia Investment Corporation (Mauritius)—is still heavily invested in the Adani Group, with 93% of its holdings in Adani companies... LIC’s stake in multiple Adani Group companies has gone up over the last few quarters.

See also this and this on the conglomerates in the Indian economy.

6. The New Yorker essay raises the question of whether Sam Altman can be trusted.

Altman has a relentless will to power that, even among industrialists who put their names on spaceships, sets him apart. “He’s unconstrained by truth,” the board member told us. “He has two traits that are almost never seen in the same person. The first is a strong desire to please people, to be liked in any given interaction. The second is almost a sociopathic lack of concern for the consequences that may come from deceiving someone.” The board member was not the only person who, unprompted, used the word “sociopathic.” One of Altman’s batch mates in the first Y Combinator cohort was Aaron Swartz, a brilliant but troubled coder who died by suicide in 2013 and is now remembered in many tech circles as something of a sage. Not long before his death, Swartz expressed concerns about Altman to several friends. “You need to understand that Sam can never be trusted,” he told one. “He is a sociopath. He would do anything.”

This is a good portrait.

Altman is not a technical savant—according to many in his orbit, he lacks extensive expertise in coding or machine learning. Multiple engineers recalled him misusing or confusing basic technical terms. He built OpenAI, in large part, by harnessing other people’s money and technical talent. This doesn’t make him unique. It makes him a businessman. More remarkable is his ability to convince skittish engineers, investors, and a tech-skeptical public that their priorities, even when mutually exclusive, are also his priorities. When such people have tried to hinder his next move, he has often found the words to neutralize them, at least temporarily; usually, by the time they lose patience with him, he’s got what he needs. “He sets up structures that, on paper, constrain him in the future,” Wainwright, the former OpenAI researcher, said. “But then, when the future comes and it comes time to be constrained, he does away with whatever the structure was.” “He’s unbelievably persuasive. Like, Jedi mind tricks,” a tech executive who has worked with Altman said.

7. Guyana's dramatic oil-led economic transformation.

Guyana, a former British colony on the north-eastern flank of South America with a population of about 800,000, is undergoing rapid change following ExxonMobil’s 2015 discovery of about 11bn barrels of oil, one of the largest finds in decades. Crude production has since risen to more than 900,000 barrels per day, with consultancy Wood Mackenzie projecting that the government’s share of oil profits will total $41bn over the next five years. Between 2019 and 2024, Guyana’s GDP almost quintupled to $25bn.

8. India's trade balance sheet.

The cumulative exports (merchandise and services) during FY26 (April-March) are expected to be $860.09 billion, as compared to $825.26 billion in FY25 (April-March), an estimated growth of 4.22 per cent. A closer look reveals stagnation in merchandise exports over the last four years, with a negative CAGR (compound annual growth rate) of 0.42 per cent, while total export figures have been lifted by services exports, which grew at a CAGR of about 8.9 per cent over the same period... in April 2015, the government said that the objective of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20 was to double India’s share in global merchandise exports in five years. The reality is that since 2014, India’s merchandise exports have grown from $314 billion to $441 billion, a CAGR of 2.9 per cent, and India’s share in global merchandise exports has remained stuck at about 1.8 percent.

9. Ruchir Sharma points to the spectacular boom in South Korean and Taiwanese equity markets led by three semiconductor stocks - TSMC, Samsung, and SK Hynix.

Over the past year, these two nations accounted for 75 per cent of emerging market returns, and most of those gains came from just three stocks — all big makers of semiconductors... Together their profits are on track to top those of Apple, Amazon and Alphabet combined. Samsung is expected to increase operating profit more than sixfold this year to around $185bn, surpassing every member of the “Mag Seven” American companies other than Nvidia... TSMC is the most widely held stock, owned by 92 per cent of global equity funds. In comparison, Microsoft, the most widely owned US stock, is held by 84 per cent of those funds... Today, by some measures, emerging markets have grown even more concentrated than the US, with the leading five stocks accounting for a greater share of the index. While the top US stock (Nvidia) represents 8 per cent of the US index, the top EM stock (TSMC) accounts for a record 13 per cent of the EM index. In fact, based on MSCI methodology, TSMC now constitutes a larger share of the MSCI EM index than all the stocks in India put together.

10. China could boost consumption by cutting its high payroll taxes.

China levies European-level payroll taxes, creating a large wedge between the cost of employing a worker and their after-tax income — around 38 per cent. These taxes are also highly regressive, applied to income below a ceiling of three times the average wage. Payroll taxes raised 6.5 per cent of GDP in 2024, against just 1.1 per cent for personal income taxes. A dramatic, permanent payroll tax cut would therefore significantly boost consumption. It would put more money in workers’ pockets, especially lower-income workers with the highest propensity to spend. It would raise employment by lowering labour costs. And it would reduce informal labour by giving workers stronger incentives to participate in the social security system.

11. Striking facts about India's gold ownership.

Between 2011 and 2025, India imported approximately 12,670 tonnes of gold at a cumulative cost of roughly $609 billion. At the current spot price of $4,677 per ounce (as of 4 April 2026), that gold is now worth approximately $1.905 trillion. The $1.3 trillion appreciation alone exceeds India’s entire stock of foreign exchange reserves. No other asset class, government scheme, or financial product has generated comparable wealth for Indian households over this period. Data shows there is not a single year between 2011 and 2025 in which holdings have not at least doubled in value... Gold imported in 2015 for $35 billion is now worth $157 billion—a 350% gain... Even the pandemic year of 2020, when India imported just 430 tonnes at $22 billion, has returned $65 billion at today’s prices... Estimates from the World Gold Council suggest Indian households hold between 25,000 and 34,600 tonnes of gold. At today’s prices, that equates to a holding worth between $3.8 trillion and $5.2 trillion—roughly equivalent to India’s entire GDP.

12. Norway's brand equity of democracy and humanitarianism comes up against allegations of being a war profiteer due to rising oil prices, as it adds billions to its $2.2 trillion sovereign wealth fund.

The country has earned about $140bn more in 2022 and 2023 from petroleum following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine than it did in 2021. Now, Nordea credit investment director Robert Næss has forecast Norway has earned at least an additional $8bn from the conflict in Iran, which shows no immediate signs of ending...

Norway was something of a regional laggard in terms of support to Kyiv in the early days of the Ukraine conflict, behind the Baltic states and on some metrics neighbouring Sweden and Denmark relative to the sizes of their economies. It has since somewhat caught up but its support as a percentage of GDP is still behind Estonia and Lithuania, according to the Kiel Institut’s Ukraine Support Tracker.

13. AI bests humans in table tennis.

An AI-powered robot has beaten expert table tennis players in a landmark machine-over-human triumph in a major competitive sport. The mechanical maestro, known as Ace, uses a network of cameras and AI to achieve the rapid planning and reaction times needed to compete. The invention made by Japanese tech group Sony highlights how researchers are using AI to improve robots’ ability to adapt to physical tasks they have struggled with, particularly those involving people... Ace beat three out of five elite table tennis players who had more than ten years of training, and scored 48 points versus 70 in two defeats to professionals, according to a paper published in Nature on Wednesday. The robot had improved further, Sony said: since the paper’s submission, it had played four further matches against humans, beating two elite players and winning one out of two matches against professionals. The robot handled spin and unexpected changes in trajectory caused by the ball clipping the net on its way over, the researchers said. It outscored the elite players in aces — points won directly from serve — by 16 to eight.

14. EVs make up half of car sales in China. Of the 27.8 m cars sold in China in 2025, 13.9 m were EVs accounted for 13.9 m, a steep increases from just 1.3 m five years back.

The government aims to have 28mn public charging facilities installed by the end of next year, up from 21mn at the beginning of this year. This would be enough to power about 80mn EVs (there are already more than 50mn on China’s roads). The plan targets underserved areas such as rural communities, as well as expressway service stations and public parking lots. State media estimated the three-year investment period would drive about $28bn in spending on equipment and construction. Chinese companies are also pouring billions of dollars into research aimed at improving EV range and charging speed. CATL, the world’s biggest battery maker, on Tuesday unveiled cells that power a car for 1,500km on a single charge. As battery technology and access to charging infrastructure improves, analysts expect consumers in lower-tier cities — who number in the hundreds of millions — will favour EVs.

15. India rural-urban income facts of the week.

According to the Institute for Competitiveness’ 2025 report on Income Inequality and Labour Markets in India, in 2023-24, the top 10 per cent urban income threshold of ₹44,000 was more than double the rural equivalent of ₹21,500. The top 1 per cent urban threshold of ₹90,000 was 80 per cent higher than its rural counterpart, up from 68 per cent in 2017-18. At the bottom, the urban floor of ₹6,000 was double the rural equivalent of ₹3,000, a figure that has remained flat in nominal terms over seven years.

16. Some striking graphics from a16z. The combined market cap for the 10 largest companies in the S&P is about six times larger than it was in 2015.

Since 2023, Tech has been responsible for more than 60% of earnings growth.

While tech is big today, it’s still not nearly as big (relatively) as Transport (or Real Estate and Finance) ever were at their peaks in the 19th Century.

Finally, about 70% of today's market is in industries that were tiny or non-existent in 1900. While in 1900, the economy was basically textiles, iron, coal, steel, and tobacco, the rails to transport them, and the banks to finance them, today those sectors are a tiny fraction of the overall pie.