As
usual, there is another school of economists who argued that using Forex reserves
for infrastructure development is not a prudent act, for usage of short-term funds
for long-term purposes that too, for investments which do not ordinarily generate
foreign exchange earnings, can create liquidity crisis should FIIs withdraw their
investments from the capital market. In support of their argument, they even cited
the 1997 East Asian crisis.
They
have another argument, which is very fundamental in nature and thus merits everyone's
attention: the current level of poor private investment in infrastructure project
is not due to lack of funds but more because of lack of clarity in our policy
initiatives. How else, they questioned, can we explain the high inflows of private
capital into sectors like telecom while little or nothing has flown into roads,
power transmission, etc. And they did have a point to make.
Probably,
infrastructure sectors such as roads, power generation and transmission, etc.,
are not making business sense to private investors, either due to frequent shifts
in our policy stances or the embedded social obligations of those projects, where
non-enforceability of toll collection on all, free supply of power to certain
sections, etc., is in vogue. In other words, what is being argued is that it is
not lack of funds, but the conducive "atmospherics" that is holding
back private investments to flow into infrastructure. |