Calcutta, Aug. 21: World Bank chief economist Kaushik Basu doesn't believe that a sustained 9 or 10 per cent growth in India's gross domestic product (GDP) - an aspiration often articulated by the Modi government, more in self-gratulatory pride than deep conviction - is possible, given the current state of the global economy.
"If you are looking at the medium term and sustained growth, then a double-digit growth is out," Basu said in an interview. He spoke on a wide range of topics, from the need to change the rules of the game because traditional policy responses to crank up stuttering global economies weren't working to the desirability of the Mamata Banerjee government embracing the idea of land acquisition in order to empower the farmers who were otherwise deprived of the means to monetise the value of their land holdings.
Basu won the Serar Sera award at the ABP Ananda Sera Bangali 2016 programme on Saturday evening.
The World Bank's top economist, who served as India's chief economic adviser during Manmohan Singh's regime, said a sudden spike in economic growth - driven by a confluence of several positive factors including a bumper harvest - could yield a double digit growth in any year.
"But in the immediate short run or on a medium term, that is ruled out. And that is not such a tragedy," Basu said, pointing to the World Bank's forecast of 7.6 per cent in India's GDP in 2016 and 7.7 per cent in the two subsequent calendar years.
Basu said: "The entire world has slowed down ever since 2008.... But right now what is true is that even with 7.6 per cent, India has managed to get to a place that it has not occupied in the past, which is at the top of the growth charts of the major economies."
The Indian economy grew 7.6 per cent in the fiscal year ended March 2016.
Basu said it would be hard for him to suggest whether the Reserve Bank of India should trim interest rates because he wasn't following the Indian economy as closely as he once used to. But he believed that the standard traditional policy responses to a global downturn - a sharp cut in interest rates or pump-priming measures - were no longer working.
"The standard policies do not seem to be creating the sort of reactions that we had come to expect in the past. We have got now some six central banks with negative interest rates. And the whole idea was that if you lower the interest rate, you will trigger growth. I personally feel that the negative interest rate in so many countries was a worthwhile experiment. But it is now time to call it a day - and say that this is an experiment that is not working and you need to get out of it," he added.
He didn't believe that the world could have a situation where the leading economies pulled in different directions - negative interest rates in Denmark, Japan and very low rates across Europe while the US Federal Reserve was mulling the timing of a rate hike.
"What is needed is a bit more of a coordinated monetary policy across the central banks; they all must decide that this is not working. No one can individually move away from this. But let us coordinate and go back up to a slightly high interest rate regime. That is the kind of direction that the world economy needs today," he added.
Basu believed that the goods and services tax (GST) was an acceptable trade-off even though there were some legitimate concerns about the loss of autonomy of states in levying taxes, felt Aadhaar could bring about a transformative change in the country in the way it provided benefits to the poorest sections of society, and the government had to intervene more aggressively to spread education and healthcare. He also reckoned that the new bankruptcy law would provide an exit route to businesses that were trapped in ugly situations.
He had two bits of advice for the Mamata government, which, he said, were being proffered even though he didn't "follow that economy closely enough to be able to give detailed advice".
"You do want industry to flourish. And by industry I don't just mean manufacturing... there is services (sector), information technology and even manufacturing. You want it to flourish because once industry starts to move into the state, demand for labour goes up and demand for land goes up. And this means your workers begin to be better off because there is greater demand. And since there is greater demand for land, your farmers, who own land all over, become better off," he said.
While accepting that land acquisition was a complex issue, he said India needed to study the eminent domain law in the US and modify it to suit local conditions. For the Bengal government, the advice was to relent on its hard line against land purchases by industry.
"If it is impossible for anyone to buy your land, this land becomes a valueless object. Yes, you can produce a little bit of agriculture that you are producing but it is not a wealth that you can use in the marketplace. But if you make it possible for others to buy your land, you are empowering the person who owns the land. So, the important thing is that you have to allow land acquisition because that is what is going to empower the farmer," he said.
The second advice to Bengal - which he felt could be renamed as such because the "adjective seems to be a bit redundant" - was to focus on higher education, a field where it once had a huge historical advantage.
"This higher education advantage is a 20-year advantage. Because when you lose out, you are doing damage in the long run. I feel there ought to be huge attention being paid to higher education in the state so that it becomes a unit that is catering to other Indians and globally also so that people come to study over here. So, attracting industry and stepping up of higher education are two areas where the state should give a lot of attention," he added.
Basu ducked a question about the possibility of his accepting an assignment in India once again - he was tipped as a front-runner for the RBI governor's post until Saturday's late evening announcement of Urjit Patel as Raghuram Rajan's successor.
"Right now, I am itching to go back to writing and teaching and research. That is the strongest urge right now," said the C. Marks Professor of International Studies and Professor of Economics who is currently on leave from Cornell University.
THE INTERVIEW WITH Dr KAUSHIK BASU FOLLOWS:
Q: I was just looking at the World Bank report that came out in June and one of the things that you spoke about was the muted growth in the world economy. The forecast is that the world economy will grow at the rate of 2.4% in 2016, down from the 2.9% forecast that was put out in January. Given that scenario and the fact that you have given India a forecast of 7.6% in 2016 and 7.7% in the two subsequent years, how do you respond to the robust growth scenario painted by the politicians here in India who seem to believe that 9% growth is achievable, possibly even double-digit growth sometime soon. Is the forecast of a double-digit growth an aspiration that is overblown and overstated?
A: An aspiration for a double-digit growth in the medium term in the long run is fine; it is not impossible for India to get there. A sudden spike in growth to a double-digit growth in any year can happen anytime. You get a bumper harvest and if two-three other things go right, you can get a double-digit growth in any year. But if you are looking at the medium term and sustained growth, then a double-digit growth is out. But (a growth of) 7.5% or 7.6% growth in today's global climate is actually very, very good. The entire world has slowed down ever since 2008. In earlier years, a growth of 7.6% -- the World Bank's forecast for this year -- would not have put you at the top of the charts. There would have been several other countries that would have performed better than 7.6%. But right now what is true is that even with 7.6%, India has managed to get to a place that it has not occupied in the past, which is the top of the growth charts of the major economies as we call them. There are a couple of smaller economies that are growing even faster. But among major economies, India is at the top.
On the economic front, India's performance is fairly good. Yes, you should aspire to get to 10% sometime in the future or in a sustained manner. You can get a spike and it can happen once. But in the immediate short run or on a medium term that is ruled out. But that is not such a tragedy that double-digit growth is ruled out in the short and medium term.
Q: Are you comfortable with the methodology used for estimation of macroeconomic numbers?
A: Are you talking about the Indian methodology?
Q: Yes.
A: Yes, I am comfortable (with the methodology). But let me explain that a little bit. India did a little bit of a recalculation of its GDP. GDP has some conceptually tricky areas, which are always difficult. After all, GDP is putting together thousands of goods consumed in the country down to a single number. Whenever you do that, there are some conceptually open questions and people can debate that on two sides. But the process by which India has reached this new methodology is very open. I know from making inter-country comparisons that the Indian process is open. Political meddling is negligible. It is very difficult to meddle in India thanks to the system. There are hundreds of people working, collecting data and putting it together. The system makes it very difficult to tamper with it. So that makes me very comfortable with the data. Having said that, it is not as if you can't stop splitting hairs and saying that value added in the corporate sector should have been calculated in a different way. But I don't think there is any deliberate manipulation of data going on in India, which occasionally happens in some countries.
Q: Does the Indian estimation of the macroeconomic numbers feed into the World Bank numbers?
A: Yes, it does feed in. The way the World Bank puts the global numbers together is like this: the basic data we get from the different countries. We check it out occasionally; if there is a problem, we make some corrections. But we take the basic data from different countries. But when we are projecting into the future, that is our forecast. We have our own equations and models which will finally churn out numbers which will suggest that by the end of this year that will be the growth for this country. That has nothing to do with India's calculations. We do that independently.
Q: Let us turn to inflation. Retail inflation in India has just topped 6% which is the upper bound of the range that has been set as the inflation anchor for the conduct of monetary policy. As a result, there has been this growth versus inflation debate which is sort of central to the whole idea of whether the Reserve Bank of India should cut interest rates or not. There is this huge clamour for a cut in interest rates. Where do you stand on this debate on whether India should cut interest rates or not? And the other thing is that, does a cut in interest rates automatically trigger growth?
A: It is difficult for me to give direct advice on what India should do. A couple of years ago, it would have been easier for me to do so because I used to follow this so closely. This requires a hugely detailed analysis of our country. So I can't give you that kind of advice. But here is one thing to be said: basically the rules -will a rate cut cause growth -are in jeopardy around the world. Something has happened to the global economy; it is changing structure. The standard policies do not seem to be creating the sort of reactions that we had come to expect in the past. We have got now some six central banks with negative interest rates. And the whole idea was that if you lower the interest rate, you will trigger growth. I personally feel that the negative interest rate in so many countries was a worthwhile experiment. But it is now time to call it a day - and say that this is an experiment that is not working and you need to get back out of it. So, the lowering of interest rates - we are seeing it in the European Central Bank (ECB), the Swiss National Bank, the Bank of Japan, several other countries are doing it - they are not getting the growth that you would have got earlier. So, there is something that is going wrong with the interest rate movements. In the case of India and developing countries, my only advice is that we have to be a bit more experimental about the rules of monetary policy. Traditionally, developing countries learnt these rules by watching the US Federal Reserve, Bank of England... you watch them, and you develop the rules. Economies differ and very often a policy that works in one country may not work in another. And I feel we ought to be much more experimental, devise our own rules of how to respond to the economic situation.
Q: Leading on from that is the stimulus program that Japan has now brought in. Is that the way to go...that you pump money to prop up a faltering economy?
A: Pump money is the usual response. When growth slows down and inflation is low, you pump money and the expectation is that inflation is going to pick up and growth will also pick up. But it is not happening. So my feeling about what is happening...
Q: So, don't cut interest rates or take it down to negative rates; and fiscal stimulus is not working...
A: ...Yes, so there is something more structural that is going on. You may have to live with low growth because the standard policies are not working. But here is another thing that must be kept in mind. When several countries go into very low interest rates - negative interest rates - it becomes very difficult for a single country to pull in a different direction. You are seeing this already in the United States. The US is standing ready to raise interest rates but not being able to do that with another six big central banks keeping interest rates extremely low. The US is not able to move away on its own to a higher interest regime. Japan is facing the same problem with ECB at low interest rates, the central bank of Denmark, the Swiss National Bank - all at low interest rates. Japan does not have much of an option. If it raises interest rates alone, it is going to get a backlash. So, what is needed is a bit more of a coordinated monetary policy across the central banks; they all must decide that this is not working. No one can individually move away from this. But let us coordinate and go back up to a slightly high interest rate regime. That is the kind of direction that the world economy needs today.
Q:What about Brexit? What is the impact of Brexit going to be? Is it negligible or will it have a big impact?
A: A part of the Brexit effect is already visible and the way the British pound has lost value is a consequence of that. I do believe that in the short run, and in the long run, Brexit will be hurtful to Britain and to the global economy. But here are a couple of things that have to be kept in mind. How people view Brexitin retrospect depends a lot on what happens to the European Union and to the Euro zone. If the Euro zone gets into trouble, then people in Britain will say thank goodness we got out of it ... A lot of this depends on how this will play out. Someone influential said that a lot of the success or failure of Brexit is in comparison to what will happen to the Euro zone... that remains to be seen. Here is one more thing to be kept in mind: for Britain and for Europe, Brexit is not good. But for other economies, Brexit in general is negative. But there are some countries that can get some benefits out of it. India is a possibility. India today is a country that actually is in a position that is exactly the opposite of what used to happen in the colonial times. India invests a lot of money in the UK in particular, but other countries as well. So, our foreign direct investment goes there. Earlier when the European Union was one bloc, India's negotiation was with the entire bloc. Now, with UK separated - if it happens, it still remains to be seen - India gets a little bit of bargaining power. Will I invest in EU, or will I invest in the UK? And as in the olden days -- we know about the Divide and Rule -- India has an advantage of a little bit of that when it comes to its investment. And if you look at the Indian exchange rate movement after the Brexit announcement, actually the rupee strengthened. (It was) among the few currencies that strengthened. So, I feel there are some countries, emerging economies that invest and put money in Europe, they can begin to get some advantage out of these being two separate units to bargain with. So, it is going to be a complex reaction. On the whole, Brexit is negative - negative for Britain, negative for Europe. Most countries will get a negative output out of that. But people who are in trade, business and investment, they can get some advantage out of the fact that you will have two bodies to negotiate with.
Q: Let us now turn to another issue and this is about the fact that economic growth does not translate into inclusive growth. You have said this often. Therefore, the government needs to intervene and create an environment to ensure that the benefits of growth trickle down to the bottom of the pyramid. Do you think that the Narendra Modi government is doing enough to push the inclusive agenda. You were there during the UPA regime which championed the cause of inclusive growth. So, is inclusive growth happening in India?
A: It is a complex matter and let me explain this a little bit. See, I am a champion of growth. I feel growth is extremely important, especially in developing countries and emerging economies. They ought to stress on growth and grow rapidly. But the growth needs to be distributed. And growth in the end is not an end in itself. It is an instrument for achieving other things. So, growth has to be complemented with other policies, which includes distribution and the poorest segment should benefit out of it. The trouble is that interventions are not always easy. What appears to be good at first sight, you know, may not turn out to be good. So, I don't think that there is any deliberate obfuscation by this government or the previous government. But this needs a very good, planned way of intervention. One of things that used to trouble me when I was in India is that a lot of the intervention that we tried -- to carry the food and other benefits all the way from the farm to the doorstep - the government would get involved. And that invariably causes leakages and it would spill out. In the case of food, 40% would not go to the intended beneficiaries. So, when you want to reach the poor, you have to do it intelligently so that the spillage is at the minimum. Now, there is a greater scope for doing it cleaner and tighter. I have been arguing for a very long time to give benefits directly - not the food directly. Give people the buying power and let the market bring the food to their doorstep. Once you give them the buying power, it is in the ordinary trader's interest to take food to these people because they have the power to buy that food. So, you have to use the private trader along with the government coming in and giving the direct benefit. I had always given that advice but it was very difficult to do. But now with Aadhar, which is a huge success story...Aadhar could be a transformative change for India. Aadhar is huge, and I have to give credit to the government that there are some areas in which direct benefits are being given so that the leakage is going down. We must use Aadhar much more and use it more effectively so that the benefits go directly to the poor. The other thing that several other people have written and commented including Amartya Sen - my adviser - is that there are some areas where you do have to have the government hand over altogether. Health and education are two such areas. It is the responsibility of the government to spread better healthcare and better education. Historically, we have not done well in these two areas and it has nothing to do with this government or the previous government. India has not done well enough. China is a very good example, a neighbouring country. With all its other faults, it was reaching healthcare and basic literacy and education much more widely to the population than India has done historically. In fact, things have begun to improve on the literacy front a little bit. Indian literacy is going up. But health we need much more intervention. There is stunting and malnutrition in India that is disproportionate given India's income levels. We should not have it at these levels. We do want interventions to cure these ills.
Q: One of the issues which is the focus of attention right now is the goods and services tax (GST). The Constitutional amendment bill has been passed and the Centre and the states will now need to pass the subsidiary legislations. But Tamil Nadu was one of the states that walked out of the debate raising a fundamental concern: GST would abridge the constitutional right of the states to levy taxes. Given the fact that the US does not have a GST because of the need to balance the taxation rights of the Federal government and the states, would you say that GST would be the right way to go for India? Is this an issue of some concern?
A: It is a trade off because you are taking away some of the autonomy of the states. But in this case, I feel that this is a trade-off that is well worth it. And I have to give my tribute to the ministry of finance for having pulled it off. And here is the thing about GST that has to be kept in mind: in India what the GST was doing negatively was two things. You get a lot of double taxation: the same product being taxed at different levels; it is not centrally coordinated well enough. Some products are being over taxed and some goods are being under taxed. With GST you can put it all under a uniform tracker and relatively uniform charges. Having so many points of taxation was making the economy cumbersome and sluggish. Moving goods from one state to another was a very time-consuming affair because you are going to be stopped at a checkpost. The biggest advantage of the GST is not whether the prices will right now move up a little or move down a little. That is a one-time effect; it will be gone. But GST makes it easier for businesses, for traders to move goods and do business. And the advantage of that can be disproportionate. So, the main benefit of the GST is not the immediate impact on prices. The main benefit is that it is creating a unified market for the Indian economy which makes it easier to produce in one place and sell it at another. And these advantages can give a huge boost to the economy; future growth could go up by half a percentage point. That is a huge thing.
Q: Is there a possibility of a loss of revenue to states at least in the initial years?
A: Initially, the Centre has given a guarantee that it bear the losses for a period of five years. After that, there will be winners and losers. Some states will tend to lose out because of that and other states will gain. But the overall benefit for the Indian economy is going to be sufficient that we should not squabble over the minor gains and losses.
Q: If there are losers - and you say there will be - do you think it would impair the ability of such states to attract investment?
A: I don't think so. Not at all. Losers means in terms of revenue collections. First of all, that could be corrected. If a state is a loser, the Centre can decide -after all there is the Finance Commission -- to compensate states as it is in fact doing in the first five years. But the bigger loss is that the foreign direct investment does not come in, things like that. That I think is all going to be beneficial because of GST. Because even if a state loses out because of GST, it is so much easier to produce in one state and sell in another state that businesses will come in. In terms of business and corporate incomes, I think there will be benefit across the board. In terms of inter-state, yes, there will be some winning and losing as far as state revenues go.
Q: Just turning to FDI. One of the things that the World Bank does is the Doing Business Survey which ranks India pretty poorly in terms of enforcement of contracts. The ranking is abysmal. Given that and you have a whole stack of cases where businesses want to leave the country and are unable to do so. There is also an overhang of cases from the issue of retrospective taxation as in the Vodafone case even though the government has said that it doesn't intend to use retrospective tax laws...
A: About the overhang of cases, I don't know. You know in the case of doing business in general...you want to make a country's transaction costs for doing business as low as possible. The world is complex and there are many parts of the world which have retroactive tax laws. But that is quite separate from the issue of ease of doing business. How easy is it for a firm to close down its business? On this front, there is another case for paying tribute to the current government. The new bankruptcy law is going to make a big difference. Because earlier there was no exit route; you can start up a business but you can't get out of it. But that can be eased hugely by the new bankruptcy law.
Q: Your father was a former speaker of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly and so you, presumably, got deep insights into the politics of Bengal and the working of the government. Is there any policy prescription that you would like to give the Mamata Banerjee government? The state has gone into industrial decline. Is there anything you would like to suggest to revive it?
A: Two pieces of advice. But before that let me tell you that my father was the mayor of the city first. And then he was Speaker. But deep insights I never got from my father because he was never a political person. He came from outside; he was a lawyer. He did this for a few years and then he got out of it. In fact, when he was Speaker, the only detailed interaction I had with my father had nothing to do with politics. He taught me school geometry because I had done badly in school (laughs)...With that history now, let us turn to the advice to Bengal. Again I don't follow that economy closely enough to be able to give detailed advice. But here is the thing: you do want industry to flourish. And by industry I don't just mean manufacturing... there is services, information technology and even manufacturing. You want it to flourish because once industry starts to move into the state, demand for labour goes up and demand for land goes up. And this means your workers begin to be better off because there is greater demand. And since there is greater demand for land, your farmers, who own land all over, become better off. So, you do want to attract different kinds of industry into the state and a lot of effort has to go into that. And I feel that this is not to benefit industry. It is to benefit farmers and workers because their demand has to go up. So, there has to be a big effort to make it attractive in that way.
There is another area where I have given general advice to India and West Bengal has an even greater historical advantage over there which it is losing out: Higher education. Entire India can do much better on higher education by becoming a global hub where people from all over the world come to study. For Bengal, that opportunity is huge because of its history. It is losing out; there is no two ways about that that it was absolutely dominant when it comes to the higher education sector. Before we used to see that at the Delhi School of Economics, when we took an admission test all over India, Bengal would dominate. That has gone down. But it is a shame because this higher education advantage is a 20-year advantage. Because when you lose out, you are doing damage in the long run. I feel there ought to be huge attention being paid to higher education in the state so that it becomes a unit that is catering to other Indians and globally also so that people come to study over here. So, attracting industry and stepping up of higher education are two areas where the state should give a lot of attention. Having said that I should just point out that West Bengal has actually done well, especially in rural Bengal where it has been visible to us. (When it comes to) interventions in terms of the girl and women - giving them bicycles to ride which empowers them - there have been very important moves. And because Bengal has made some important changes, it raises my hope that with a couple of other things, it can really once again surge ahead.
Q: You mentioned land. Land acquisition has been a contentious issue. In fact, the Centre has dropped the legislation and left it to the states to decide. Obviously, it is going to be tough for states, especially in West Bengal, which have other issues attached to the issue of land.How can you get around the problem?
A: It's not easy - and for the following reasons. I can see any good politician will be a bit hesitant to allow free purchase of land because very often what happens is that a lot of corruption goes on. When you know that a particular industry is going to be developed in one area, the insiders will go and buy up the surrounding land knowing that they will benefit, and the farmers don't get any benefit. So, you need a regulatory system within which all this happens. But to enable people to buy land and acquire land is crucial for people who own land to benefit. Because if it is impossible for anyone to buy your land, this land becomes a valueless object. Yes, you can produce a little bit of agriculture that you are producing but it is not a wealth that you can use in the marketplace. Whereas if you make it possible for others to buy your land, you are empowering the person who owns the land. So, the important thing is that you have to allow land acquisition because that is what is going to empower the farmer. He can say no, I won't sell my land unless you give me this much price. So, you have to allow for that. We know that there are different methods to allow this. China has used one method - a lot of forced acquisition which is possible in the case of China, which is not possible in the case of India. India ought to follow the United States which has the eminent domain law. India ought to look at that eminent domain law, modify that a little bit for local conditions.
Q: Do you have any views on the move to rename West Bengal?
A: Banga and Bengal? No views really. In general, I like to treat a city's name or a country's name as a bit of an historically inherited thing. So, I don't like the idea of a name change. But West Bengal to Bengal may not be a bad idea because it is an adjective that seems to be a bit redundant. Very often when one looks at a jingoistic reason to change names, I don't like that because I feel what you inherited is a part of your history and you should live with that (change the name).
Actually on Bengal, I have to say that I do like the idea of dropping West.
Q: You were chief economic adviser to the finance ministry during the UPA regime. Would you be ready to consider another assignment - perhaps, Governor of the Reserve Bank of India (Basu was a front-runner for the position till Saturday's late evening announcement of Urjit Patel. The interview was held on Saturday morning)
A:You know, right now I am itching to go back to writing and teaching and research. That is the strongest urge right now.
Q: One last question. When you were the chief economic adviser, you came out with a working paper which had a very radical theme - the issue of harassment bribery. And you came up with this idea that the government should not take punitive action against the guys who were paying small bribes. You said that it was a personal view but felt strongly enough to come out with that working paper. Have you ever tried to push that as an idea that governments can embrace?
A: I have pushed that. I think it is a very good idea. I stand by that by that idea. I pushed it by putting it into the public domain. Subsequently, after that paper was put up, it caused a huge amount of controversy. Actually, now a lot of people have written to me from around the world with evidence of countries that made this kind of change. China made a change of this kind - I have to look up which year. And actually it shows a drop in a certain kind of corruption when you bring in this asymmetric punishment. So, I do believe that - in fact, I feel stronger - that for harassment bribes, the person who pays the bribe ought not to be penalized. The person, the civil servant who is taking the bribe, must be doubly punished and making this asymmetric would cause corruption of a certain kind to go down. So it would be desirable.
Q: Is there a monetary threshold of what the bribe should be to qualify for such asymmetric treatment?
A: Actually, it is not the size of the bribe. I had defined harassment bribe as bribery being asked of you when you have done nothing wrong. Or something which is legitimate. So, that can be something small. I have just taken a driving test; I have driven perfectly. But before giving the licence to me, the person asks for a bribe. That is a harassment bribe. I have a right to the licence now, you are holding it back. But it can also be big. I have bought a huge consignment of imports into India. I have paid the dues, the taxes, done the paperwork. The customs person tells me that unless you give me a bribe, I won't let you bring these goods into India. There again I am being harassed. I have done nothing illegal and being asked for a bribe. So, it is not the smallness (of the bribe) as much as it is the fact that I am being harassed. If I ask for something illegal and the officer says you have to give me money, that is still wrong. The officer should not make money. But that is not a harassment bribe since I am trying to get something illegal. So, when I am trying to get something that is legitimately owed to me, and the civil servant comes and asks for a bribe, I should not have to pay any penalty. The civil servant should have to pay double the penalty. That was the idea.
Q: If we just extend the idea and take the civil servant out of it...you have this situation in several parts of the country where people with political influence are also part of the bribery system - demanding and extorting money. How would you deal with that? Do the same rules apply?
A: No, there are many areas where this is not actually going to apply. Nothing happens to that kind of corruption and bribery. But in the case of petty (bribery cases) - and even some larger ones - where there is harassment going on, a change of this law, I think, is going to make a very big difference. But I do want to stress that corruption is a many-spangled object. So, there are several types of corruption that this is not going to touch, and will probably continue. But for one big segment, I think this can make a big difference by bringing down corruption.
