Skip to main content

Mumbai: An international financial centre?

The Percy Mistry report was an amalgamation of the thoughts and opinions of a High Powered Executive Committee (HPEC) on establishing Mumbai as an international financial centre comparable to London, New York and Singapore. It came out in April 2007, and a little more than a year has passed. Interestingly, almost none of its recommendations have even begun to be implemented. The report itself is interesting for many reasons.
The first is that it lays bare the tangled webs of regulation, supervision and repression that the Indian financial system is currently struggling under. The second is that it critically compares Mumbai to four other IFCs – London, New York, Singapore and Dubai. Each has their strengths and weaknesses, and a cross-IFC perspective on these is extremely illuminating, even by itself. The third is that it does not restrain itself to criticism, but lays out a concrete road map towards achieving these goals and provides solutions towards this end – including important recommendations regarding fiscal, monetary and financial policy (the one that is most obviously desirable and logistically easy to implement is to begin issuance of rupee denominated bonds to be sold to global capital markets). The growth implications are also clearly charted out.

What are the limitations? I feel that the report provides only big-picture perspectives, and working out the details is where the true challenge lies. For example, on the monetary front, the separation of monetary policy, debt management and financial regulation is undoubtedly desirable – since conflicts of interest are rife and obvious. Establishing independent agencies for each function and adopting inflation targeting by the RBI is also a desirable goal, although creating roadmaps for each of these is a task in itself. While the report had pioneered many of these ideas in the Indian context, it seems to serve more as an overarching piece of Indian economic utopia, telling policymakers what they should look for and work towards.

 

Post Comment

4 Comments

Ramesh Mohan

You are doing great work. Can you please write an article about N-Deal. Pros/cons for us.

Gregore Lopez

G'day Shruti,

East Asia is considered by many as the next centre (if not already) the centre of economic growth. How do you see India and South Asia in relation to East Asia - is a East Asia a competitor to South Asia or do you see South Asian and East Asia forgin strong economic links - which is currently quite weak.

Thanks
Greg
www.eaber.org

Shruthi Jayaram

Hi Greg, thanks for the comment! I think there is scope for greater trade ties as well as investment relations between India and E Asia. No doubt you know that China is one of India's largest trade partners. I think that India needs to deregulate both FDI and portfolio investment in order to stimulate more bilateral ties with E Asia, and there is also large scope for mutually beneficial trade in goods/services.

Gregore Lopez

Yes, there is great scope Shurthi, particularly if India will be able to liberalise in a stable manner. India specifically, South Asia and definitely East Asia in general will benefit from great openness in India. Over here at the East Asian Bureau of Economic Research (EABER), we see a great interest represented by governments in East Asia is seeing India liberalise further. A recent project to explore opportunities are captured in our website ( http://www.eaber.org/intranet/main/eaber_home.php ) and ( http://www.ncaer.org/downloads/Lectures/EABER-NCAER2008/eaber-ncaer2008.htm ).

Do hope more intellectuals will promote greater cooperation between these two high growth regions.

Cheers
Greg

To comment you must be a registered user.