Gold not villain of the piece in growing CAD

Comments print
Raj Kumar Ray: New Delhi, Jan 04 2013, 01:28 IST
Gold.jpg
The worsening of the current account deficit to a record $22.4 billion or 5.4% of the GDP in July-September had much less to do with the gold imports than widely perceived.

The overall merchandise trade deficit, attributable in good measure to the bigger differential between oil imports and exports, primarily caused the CAD to widen to such unprecedented level.

On its part, the net services export has lost some of its ability to mitigate the impact of the (larger) merchandise trade deficit on the CAD.

Gold imports which stood at 185% of the CAD in Q4 of 2010-11 accounted for just 47% in the CAD in Q2 of 2012-13. In 2011-12, when the government’s worries over the gold imports increased, prompting it to curb imports by increasing customs duty twice, imports of the yellow metal accounted for 74% of the CAD.

Even in terms of absolute value, gold imports have declined to $19.6 billion in first half of this fiscal compared with $29 billion in the year-ago period. So, the curbs on imports of the yellow metal and some diminishing of its lure as a safe haven investment have indeed reduced imports. This means that finance minister P Chidambaram’s statement earlier this week, hinting at further measures to make gold imports “a little more expensive” may be a bit out of place.

Instead, what is required is to spur exports, clamp down on some non-essential imports (especially of finished goods) and arrest the decline in net services exports that had until

... contd.

Ads by Google
   1 | 2 | 3 | Next
Previous Story  Tata Power pulls plug on Rajasthan discoms as payment arrears mount Next Story  Peugeot keen on India even after losing 200 acres
Reader's Comments (1)| Post a Comment

Welfare without growth will take us back to 1991

Vinny | 04-Jan-2013Reply | Forward
UPA came to power in 2004 on back of inclusive growth and aam aadmi agenda. What they did in first 5 years was crony capitalism. They have spent too much on welfare during that period but economy was growing so things were smooth. In same period, they stopped worrying about growth and ended up killing it. Now they dont have money to fund welfare and growth is gone too. This happened when an economist was our PM.

Post your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *
Email *
Message *
 
captcha
please enter the above characters in the box below