Author: cprindia

LISTEN TO THE INDIA AND THE PANDEMIC PODCAST SERIES
PODCAST HEALTH

India embarked on its COVID-19 vaccination roll-out in early January prior to the second wave. In this episode of India Speak, Yamini Aiyar (President and Chief Executive, CPR) speaks to Partha Mukhopadhyay (Senior Fellow, CPR) to discuss India’s vaccine policy and guide us through the many bottlenecks, confusions, and successes we have encountered in the last few months. Why didn’t India start vaccinating earlier? How did the policy evolve once the second wave hit?

Mukhopadhyay who has been closely tracking the vaccine policy walks us through the different phases of the vaccine strategy across the country. He sheds light on the many inequities of the policy, the state of private supply, the role of the Supreme Court, the Centre-State dynamic and more. He further discusses how the digital inequity was built in with the CoWIN app from an economic, linguistic, and spatial standpoint. Finally, Mukhopadhyay share’s his perspective of where we are today vis-a-vis our goals on achieving universal vaccination.

About the Series

The second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic poses serious challenges that need immediate attention. The collapse of an already strained health system, vaccine supply shortage, an unprecedented economic crisis and sharpening inequality, are factors that raise crucial concerns. How must India confront this crisis? The Centre for Policy Research (CPR) brings leading experts to discuss what the country’s response should look like in a new podcast series, India and the Pandemic.

NEW BOOK BY AMBASSADOR SHYAM SARAN
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS SOUTH ASIA

Former Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran has had a ringside view of the most critical events and shifts in Indian foreign policy in the new millennium, including the epochal India-US nuclear deal. In his new book, How India Sees the World: Kautilya to the 21st Century, Saran discerns the threads that tie together his experiences as a diplomat. Find below a curated list of discussions, reviews, and interviews on the book:

• The Wire’s Maya Mirchandani interviews Shyam Saran on his new book (above)
• Shyam Saran is joined by prominent commentator and expert on foreign policy, Senior Fellow at CPR Srinath Raghavan, for a discussion (video) at CPR on the various topics explored in the book. The question and answer session that followed can be accessed here.
• Other audio visual interviews of his book include an NDTV chat with Prannoy Roy; a CNN News 18 discussion with Anubha Bhonsale; and an interview with Sheela Bhatt on News X.
• There is a written interview of Saran with IANS; and a coverage of his book launch in The Hindu.
• His book has also been reviewed by C Raja Mohan of Carnegie India, and by Siddharh Singh in the Open Magazine.

WATCH THE FULL DISCUSSION AND READ THE CURATED ANALYSIS BY CPR FACULTY
POLITICS ELECTION STUDIES

The results of the Lok Sabha Elections of 2019 mark an important turning point in Indian politics. Scholars at the Centre for Policy Resarch (CPR) have been closely following the electoral journey. In this analysis of the 2019 verdict, CPR faculty shed light on factors that led to the resounding victory for the Narendra Modi-led, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and examine what the future trajectory of India’s democracy looks like.

Starting June 4, CPR will also be launching a policy document on its website, titled, ‘Policy Challenges 2019-2024: The Big Policy Questions for the New Government and Possible Pathways’. This document covers various key policy issues including foreign policy & national security, climate, energy & environment, legal regimes for natural resource management, federalism, citizenship, and economy & welfare. Watch this space for more updates on the same.

CPR organised a discussion to analyse the results of the verdict for the 2019 General Election. Rahul Verma and Neelanjan Sircar made a presentation based on Election Commission data. The presentation was followed by a panel discussion featuring Yogendra Yadav, Shekhar Gupta, Tariq Thachil, Vandita Mishra, G Sampath, and was moderated by Yamini Aiyar, to analyse the factors that led to the election verdict. The question and answer session that followed the discussion can be accessed here. The edited excerpts of the discussion, published in the August 2019 issue of Seminar can be read here.

FACTORS THAT LED TO THE BJP’S VICTORY

• Rahul Verma and Pranav Gupta write in ThePrint analysing reasons that led to BJP’s astounding victory in the elections. Verma and Gupta shed light on the shaky unity of the opposition, Narendra Modi’s unmatched popularity and failure of the opposition to project an alternate leader and the BJP’s extremely strong organisational machinery as factors that contributed to the resounding majority. They also write that such a victory would not have been possible without the support of the several beneficiaries of welfare programmes by the Modi government and hence this victory cannot be solely attributed to a focus on national security post Pulwama attacks and polarisation.
• In another article in the same vein, Rahul Verma writes in the Economic Times that while the Balakot incident changed the narrative in favour of the BJP, passion alone does not drive the vote choice of Indian voters. He points to the failure of the opposition to mobilise voters against the government, Narendra Modi’s unmatched popularity and the role of several government schemes such as Ayushman Bharat, Ujjwala, direct cash transfers for farmers etc., pointing out that ‘the 2019 verdict is a sum total of competitive credibility on all these factors.’
• Neelanjan Sircar writes in Hindustan Times about how the 2014 election result was not a black swan event but rather, the first step towards political consolidation. Sircar points to how voters are drawn to Narendra Modi, the quality of the BJP’s communication with voters and the strength of the BJP’s party machinery and the financing of that machinery to explain the reasons behind the party’s spectacular performance especially vis-à-vis the Congress.
• Yamini Aiyar writes in Hindustan Times about how the Congress failed to provide an alternative ideological counter point to the BJP. Aiyar points out that while the Congress tried to build a campaign on critical issues of the economy, it ‘cannot fight an ideological battle through policy’. She stresses that the Congress can no longer shy away from a real debate on secularism and must articulate an ideological counterpoint to challenge the BJP’s hegemony.
• In an interview with Money Control, Rahul Verma highlights how ‘the Congress got everything wrong’ in this election. Verma highlights that the Congress lacks an ideological vision for India, which is a prerequisite for an electoral strategy and if the party has to revive, it needs leadership that is convinced about such a vision.
• In an interview with TheWire, Neelanjan Sircar points to how the BJP has consolidated its existing geographic core and expanded into new areas in the East. Sircar highlights that Modi has successfully treated all of the Hindi heartland as a single state, pointing out that the BJP has functioned like a state government that has been scaled up to the national level. He also sheds light on the symbolic message underlying the BJP fielding Pragya Thakur from an electorally ‘safe’ seat in Bhopal, highlighting that if the party believed she was a big voter catcher, then she would have been fielded from a competitive seat.
• In an interview with CNN, Yamini Aiyar analyses the resounding victory of the BJP despite its disappointments on several critical issues like growth, jobs, inclusive development. These were the issues on which BJP had been voted into power in 2014. Aiyar sheds light on the divisive and polarised election campaign – ‘a campaign for achieving ideological dominance’ and highlights the economic challenges that the new government now faces.

THE FUTURE OF INDIAN DEMOCRACY

• Rahul Verma writes in Firstpost about what Modi’s historic mandate means for the trajectory of Indian democracy given the BJP-led dominant party system, the marginalisation of the Congress, and decimation of the Left. Verma points to the possibility of India becoming a democracy with majoritarian sensibilities and cautions that ‘only magnanimity towards ideological adversaries and tolerance of dissent can complete the new idea of sabka vishwas.’
• Shyam Saran writes in The Tribune about how India’s political democracy and liberal values associated with it are its most valuable assets and there must be a complete rejection of the idea that a more authentic India is emerging in which these are alien concepts. Saran stresses that while the current political dispensation may set its own norms of nationalism that go beyond citizenship, the vision for India that is enshrined in the Constitution must remain our guidepost for the future.

THE FOREIGN POLICY QUESTION

• Brahma Chellaney writes in Hindustan Times about how the election result represents a fresh mandate for change – that ‘Indians not only want their country to stop punching below its weight but also to emerge truly as a great power’. In the midst of foreign policy challenges including China’s muscular revisionism, the unpredictable Trump administration, the need for a credible counterterrorism strategy, Chellaney highlights that Narendra Modi must take hard decisions to advance national security through fundamental reforms to dispel India’s image as a soft State.
• Brahma Chellaney writes in Japan Times about how India-Japan ties under Narendra Modi and Shinzo Abe could potentially reshape the strategic landscape in Asia. Chellaney highlights that ‘India under Modi appears to be moving from its long-held nonalignment to a globalised practicality — multi-alignment’. He writes that the election results provide a fresh mandate for Modi ‘to reinvent India as a more secure, confident and competitive country, and forge closer ties with natural allies such as Japan.’
• Shyam Saran writes in India Today about the several foreign policy challenges that confront the new government. Saran sheds light on rising tensions between India and Pakistan, China’s fast growing economic and military capabilities and the consequent threat to India’s interests, and highlights that the government ‘must continue to strengthen relations with the US, Japan, Australia and Southeast Asia as part of countervailing and constraining this Chinese power.’

FULL VIDEO OF TALK
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CLIMATE RESEARCH

Watch the full video (above) of the talk by Dr Narasimha Rao, where he presents new results on the energy and climate impacts of providing everyone with a basic living standard, defined for the first time in material terms, but based on universal principles of human well-being.

Based on a bottom-up analysis, the results from Dr Rao’s study not only inform future energy policy priorities, but also provide a basis to assess climate justice from a human rights perspective.

THE MOST VISIBLE PROGRAMME REMAINS INVISIBLE ON THE GROUND, ACCOUNTABILITY INITIATIVE FINDS
BUDGET SANITATION SOCIAL SECTOR SCHEMES

BUREAUCRACY
October 2 marked the second anniversary of the Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM), the Government of India’s (GoI) flagship programme to achieve the goal of total sanitation by 2019. We bring to you findings from a recent study by Accountability Initiative (AI) at CPR, which analyses what has been achieved over the past two years. AI conducted a household survey of 7500 rural households in 10 districts spread across five states (Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan) in December 2015. In the conversation below with Yamini Aiyar, Avani Kapur and Vikram Srinivas, we unpack the reality on the ground.

Where are we after two years of the Swachh Bharat Mission in rural India?

Yamini: Let me start by laying out what we have achieved. I think one of the most important things that we achieved on 2 October 2014 with the photo-ops of the Prime Minister and other senior government officials sweeping the streets of Delhi, and the announcement of making India open defecation free by 2019, is that for the first time the political establishment staked their political capital on achieving sanitation. For those of us who have been following sanitation policy for a while, this was a very significant change from the past when sanitation was largely ignored. This change is also very visible on the ground. In every single district that the AI team works in or has travelled to over the past two years, the entire administration is talking about the need to implement the Swachh Bharat Mission. The political pressure at the top has made sanitation a key implementation priority in the districts.

Another important change is a shift in rhetoric about the intended target and goal of the programme. One of the biggest limitations of sanitation policy, now widely acknowledged, is the belief that toilet construction alone will lead to achieving sanitation. Rather, sanitation is about behaviour change that can lead to creating an open defecation free environment.

Lastly, there is some movement towards measurement–the GoI’s Drinking Water and Sanitation Department has recently made public data from the NSSO (National Sample Survey Organisation) survey on sanitation, including an attempt to rank districts on the basis of open defecation free declarations. There are many flaws in these measurement efforts. However, the fact that an effort is being made to pursue third party measurement is an important first step.

Thanks for sharing the achievements. Given this shift in policy environment, do we actually see a change on the ground?

Yamini: To understand this, AI conducted a sample survey of 7500 households in 10 districts spread across five states to study the process of implementation of the SBM. The original idea of the survey was to draw on households that have reported to have constructed toilets as claimed in the data made available by the Swachh Bharat Mission Portal on its Management Information System (MIS). However, owing to a number of limitations in the current data base a full-fledged audit was not possible. Hence our survey studied the SBM in two ways. 1500 of our sample comprised households whose names featured in the MIS and the remaining were randomly selected.

So what are the data gaps?

Avani: As Yamini mentioned, we had hoped to track villages, households and habitations through the MIS data, but unfortunately, the quality of the data did not allow us to do so. For instance, census codes were not provided making it difficult for us to match village names, habitation names were often misclassified, and in many instances, we were unable to find households mentioned in the list. A closer look at the lists also pointed to a number of duplicate entries (of names and even Aadhaar numbers!).

So can you share findings were from the survey of households, which featured in the MIS lists?

Avani: To begin with we found that featuring in the governments’ MIS is no guarantee that the household actually has a toilet. We found about 29% of the households, which according to the MIS data had toilets, in fact did not have toilets. There were district variations. For instance, Nalanda and Udaipur had the largest gaps between the toilets reported and the actual presence of these as compared to other districts like Satara, where this was not the case.

Second, having a toilet does not mean that it is usable. We found that 36% of households themselves reported that the toilets in their homes were unusable (for reasons such as broken pits, unsanitary conditions etc.); of these, the usability numbers were also lowest in Udaipur and Nalanda.

Vikram: According to the SBM guidelines, every eligible household that constructs a toilet, and subsequently applies for an incentive grant is entitled to receive Rs. 12000 from the government. We found that even if a household featured on the MIS list, which means they ought to have received money from the government, as many as 40% households whose names featured in the MIS did not receive money from the government. There are district variations again. For instance, in Jhalawar 40% did not receive the money, while in Satara 90% did.

What about the rest of your sample? What can you say broadly about the implementation of SBM?

Yamini: In order for the government to achieve its goal of an open defecation free India by 2019, it set for itself a target of constructing 11 crore toilets. To achieve this, the government has to focus on two critical components: i) the first raising awareness and fostering behavior change; ii) facilitating/ supporting toilet construction. We assessed the implementation of the SBM from both these aspects.

Our most startling finding is that despite the policy rhetoric, the ceiling of expenditure on awareness raising had dropped from 15% under the previous Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan to 8% under Swachh Bharat Mission. A closer look at the expenditure data also showed that this money was largely unspent across most states. Expenditure on Information Education and Communication (IEC)–government parlance for awareness programs–decreased from 8% of total expenditure in 2013-14 to 1% in 2015-16.

This lack of focus on awareness raising is very visible on the ground. For instance: an important innovation introduced under the SBM was the creation of a cadre of volunteers known as Swachhta Doots responsible for spreading door to door awareness; yet only 6% of the households surveyed were aware of these Swachhta Doots. Further, only 10% reported having any knowledge of the Panchayat Swachhta Samiti–this being the case even though Panchayats have been conceptualised to play a crucial role in ensuring local buy-in. Similarly, only 10% reported that awareness programmes on sanitation were conducted in their villages, while a mere 3% of the households reported being visited by a government official to explain the benefits of the programme.

All of this may seem counter intuitive, as anyone who has travelled around India would have noticed that nearly every village wall has a painted symbol or slogan of the Swachh Bharat Mission, and there is a buzz amongst officials across all districts we visited. Yet our survey shows that this buzz is still to translate into action on ground.

One important issue that we noticed during our field work is that districts are following standardised templates provided by the central government on how to build awareness. There is very little focus on building more local and direct engagement with the people involving actors like Swachhta Doots. It is equally important to create a concerted focus on the public health consequences of sanitation and hence the need for toilets. That is an important missing link–both administratively in terms of coordination between health and sanitation departments, as well as in terms of the messaging. The point needs to be driven home that the ultimate benefit of an open defecation free environment is ensuring quality public health outcomes.

Avani: The second critical component, as mentioned by Yamini, is the construction of toilets. Even today, two years into the programme, the lack of overall coverage of toilets and the continued presence of open defecation is a serious issue. Our survey found that only 37% of households had toilets in Jhalawar, 27% in Udaipur, and 58% in Jaipur in Rajasthan. Similarly, coverage was 23% and 33% in the districts of Nalanda and Purnia in Bihar respectively, and 40% in Sagar in Madhya Pradesh.

Yet, the picture is not all bleak. The pace of construction has undoubtedly accelerated in the last two years (since April 2014) with specific targeting of those districts, which had low toilet coverage according to Census 2011. For instance, in a district like Jhalawar, which only had 7% coverage in Census 2011, 81% of the toilets today have been built in the past two years.

However, there is an interesting observation here. Most people built toilets without government assistance: only one-fourth of the households that constructed toilets in the past two years received government grants. Further, the average cost of construction in most districts (except Sagar and Nalanda) was between Rs. 20,000–40,000, while the government grant is for only Rs. 12000.

Thanks for highlighting the issues with awareness raising and toilet coverage. But what about usage? This has often been mentioned as a critical lacuna in sanitation drives.

Vikram: It is encouraging to observe that with the exception of three of the districts we surveyed, most people who had toilets did use them. However, in the districts of Udaipur, Nalanda and Sagar, usage continues to be a problem despite the presence of toilets. For instance, 26% of households in Udaipur, 17% in Sagar, and 13% in Nalanda reported that at least one member of the household defecated in the open despite having a fully constructed toilet.

Yamini: An important thing that the usage data highlights is how difficult it is to actually track usage! We spoke to a number of sanitation experts before designing the usage question since the way you ask, how you ask, whom you ask, and how often you ask can all have consequences on the responses you may get. According to many experts, and even in our own experience, the best way to track and understand usage is through a deeper, qualitative case-study based approach. This may necessitate a different approach to monitoring. Usage may not be trackable through large scale surveys. Rather the government will need to build networks with anthropologists, sociologists, political scientists and others familiar with qualitative surveys to track usage effectively.

Based on your findings and understanding of the situation on the ground, what is the way forward to realise a Swachh Bharat?

Avani: Let us summarise what we recommend based on our survey findings:

• Data quality: There need to be independent checks and verification of the MIS data. Audits both by government machinery as well as third party evaluations are key.
• Awareness: it needs to be reiterated that it is important to establish the link between the need for an open defecation free environment and the resultant public health benefits at all levels, which is likely to generate greater uptake. The method employed needs to be direct, targeted, one-to-one communication, especially through generating local champions and building a movement. On the contrary, currently, one of the best practices put out by the government is the use of punitive measures, including vigilante groups and naming and shaming tactics, which is problematic.
• Improved monitoring: For every single aspect of the programme, whether it is awareness raising or verification of toilet construction, the government is meant to and must monitor. However, we found that monitoring is very low at present, which also feeds into the poor quality of MIS data, making tracking progress difficult.

FULL VIDEO OF BOOK DISCUSSION
ELECTION STUDIES POLITICS

Watch the full video (above) of the book discussion on ‘How the BJP Wins: Inside India’s Greatest Election Machine’, between author and well-known journalist Prashant Jha, and CPR’s in-house election expert and Senior Fellow, Neelanjan Sircar. The discussion explored in detail the BJP’s formidable election machine with authority and insight.

CLEARING THE AIR: MONTHLY COLUMN IN THE HINDUSTAN TIMES BY NAVROZ K DUBASH
AIR POLLUTION POLITICS

In the fifth instalment of a monthly op-ed series in the Hindustan Times entitled ‘Clearing the Air,’ Professor Navroz K Dubash explains why India must get serious about land, air and water reform to avoid a middle income environment trap.

With 15 years of high growth, India is now firmly a middle income country. Can India at 75 sustain this growth, or will it fall into the “middle income trap” that has plagued other emerging nations? The middle income trap results when growth is undercut by the changes it induces, such as East Asia’s low-wage labour-led growth undercut by rising wages in response to prosperity.

What are the risks of a middle income trap for India, and what is the likely driver? While cheap labour may not be a problem, India’s Achilles’ heel is likely to be the inefficient use of natural resources and growing pollution levels. According to the World Bank’s “Systematic Country Diagnostic,” India has less land and water available, and greater pollution, at lower levels of gross domestic product (GDP) than other middle income countries. India’s middle income trap is likely to be a natural resources and environment trap.

What could the new government do to ensure it does not fall deeper into a middle income environment trap? Clearly, past governments’ approach of sacrificing environment for growth makes the problem worse. Instead, a more nuanced approach is needed that looks at growth and natural resources as complementary objectives. Policy notes produced at the Centre for Policy Research provide some ideas for reform on the core issues of land, air and water.

First, disputes over land exert an enormous drag on the economy affecting investments worth USD 200 billion. Some 66% of civil cases in courts are tied to land and property. As Namita Wahi, a fellow at the Centre for Policy Research, explains, the problem lies in a complex, inconsistent land acquisition framework — an estimated 102 laws — coinciding with widespread local conflict over use and control over common lands governed by another set of statutes and conventions. With multiple ministries involved, and high rates of judicial pendency, ensuring peoples’ rights even while enabling land for economic development has become a Gordian knot.

The government must make a start on unpicking this knot, although this effort cannot come at the risk of running roughshod over peoples’ rights to the commons. Administratively, bridging separate rural and urban land use issues, reducing administrative fragmentation, and enabling transparency are all necessary. As this discussion suggests, unpicking the land problem is deeply tied to larger challenges of making the Indian state work better.

Second, India’s air pollution crisis is severe and requires attention beyond current scattershot efforts. For example, it is estimated to reduce the life expectancy of a child born in India by 2.6 years — more than that in hotspots like north India. To begin with, a few big-ticket ideas should be implemented swiftly and thoroughly. These include revamping Ujjwala to provide sustained LPG use for cooking; enforcing new power plant standards; implementing improved fuel quality standards; and massively increasing investments in public transport to ensure India’s cities are not locked into private mobility. These won’t solve the problem entirely, but they are a down-payment on credible action. To progress beyond these immediate measures requires a serious upgrade of our pollution control boards at the Centre and states; India’s air pollution cannot be solved without stronger regulatory institutions. Finally, a city by city approach has to rapidly give way to a broader airshed approach.

Third, water deserves to be high on the policy agenda; the Niti Aayog has warned that India’s water is in a crisis situation. Many states face acute water scarcity, water available per Indian declines every year, monsoons are becoming erratic, and water tables are falling even as we grow ever more dependent on groundwater. As Philippe Cullet, a senior visiting fellow at the Centre for Policy Research, suggests, the underlying challenge is one of water governance. Laws governing water use are inconsistent between surface and groundwater, groundwater law allows landowners control over pumping irrespective of the costs to others and to the aquifer, governance is scattered across institutions at multiple scales, and rules do not cater adequately to urban and rural differences.

These governance problems could be ameliorated by taking forward a National Water Framework bill to provide a single unifying frame of reference for water policy. Another important effort is a complementary Model Groundwater (Sustainable Management) Bill to take forward with states. Both efforts rest on long deliberation starting in 2011 by the UPA government and taken forward in 2015 by the NDA government. While implementation challenges will remain, new framework legislation will lay a platform to help ease India’s water governance woes.

If India is to avoid a middle income environment trap, we have to get serious about land, air and water reform. But there is an important caution. Reform should not be understood as an uncritical hacking away of legal and administrative safeguards, some of which are put in place to protect the poor and vulnerable who depend on natural resources for livelihood. Instead, in all three cases, the underlying challenges are governance-related: ensuring availability of resources, without degrading their quality, and while safeguarding the interests of the poor.

Navroz K Dubash is a Professor at the Centre for Policy Research. This is the fifth article in a monthly op-ed series in the Hindustan Times entitled ‘Clearing the Air.’ The original article, which was posted on June 19, 2019, can be found here.

Read more in the Clearing the Air series:

AN ANALYSIS IN THE RUN-UP
ELECTION STUDIES POLITICS

As 8 November approaches, read CPR researchers Neelanjan Sircar, Bhanu Joshi and Ashish Ranjan’s latest piece from the field on what is the likely result of the Bihar elections.

With no clear answer, their field observations analyse the importance of and the difference between the ground-level campaigns run by the Grand Alliance and the NDA. Whatever be the final outcome, the impact of the results of these elections will reverberate throughout Indian politics, they write.

FULL AUDIO OF THE PANEL DISCUSSION
ECONOMY

Listen to the audio (above) of the panel discussion on ‘Human Rights, Economic Development, Mega Projects and their Impacts’, where panelists R Sreedhar from Mines, Minerals and People; Namita Wahi from CPR, Natalia Angelo Cabo, from University of Los Andes, Bogota, and Komala Ramachandra from Accountability Counsel discussed the different dimensions of the impacts of development oriented mega projects on the lives and livelihoods of the poorest and most marginalised communities, both in India and Colombia.

The panelists spoke about the direct relation between resource extractions and human rights violations in India; the need for regulatory norms in carrying out environmental and social impact assessments of infrastructure projects; and the role civil society can play in attempting to ensure accountability of multilateral financial institutions that finance such projects at the cost of human rights.

FULL VIDEO OF LECTURE
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS ECONOMY

Watch the full video (above) of the lecture by Aravind Subramanian, where he uses a historical lens to analyse the future trajectory of globalisation, in light of the recent global developments.

In recent years, the international system has witnessed a series of developments which possibly portend tectonic shifts in the global political economy. In this talk, Subramanian examines and contextualises these developments to understand what they mean for the open global system and for India’s role in it.

Arvind Subramanian is the Chief Economic Advisor to the Government of India, on leave from his position as the Dennis Weatherstone Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. He has written on growth, trade, development, institutions, aid, oil, India, Africa, and the World Trade Organisation, and has published widely in academic and other journals.