Tag Archives: Economics

Is the sky falling down on the aviation sector?

We all fall down ?

You don’t have to follow Vijay Mallya’s tweets to know that the aviation sector is in trouble.  There is trouble brewing everywhere in the industry which had shown great signs of promise since the liberalization of the sector in 2003.

Let’s look at the state owned Air India first.  Sometimes I watch things on the news and I hear Ron Paul’s words ringing in my head. I don’t even believe in his kind of economics, but the state of the public sector in India is such that sometimes you’d think even a homeopathic dilution of the kind of libertarian thoughts I see around me now would be a welcome change in the scenario.

I am looking at Air India’s financial statements as I speak, and really folks it is not all about high fuel prices , what I have with me is the Annual Report from 2009-10. I do not know why later versions are not available on the site.

This is a quote from the annual report for 09-10, which makes it clear that the problems run deeper than high fuel prices. It is mismanagement coupled with deception.

“Operating expenses declined by Rs 23,157.8 million due to a decrease in fuel prices by 29%”

They go on to say how this and other declines in operating expenses were offset by increases in expenses largely due to interest paid on newly acquired aircrafts and borrowings for working capital.

It’s true that fuel prices have since shot up, but it is also clear that while fuel prices are exacerbating Air India’s problem, they are also serving as a carpet under which more endemic defects are being swept under.

Attached with the Annual report is the Comptroller and Auditor General Review of the Annual Report.  Back in 2010, the CAGR has stated that AIR India understated their losses by around 54 percent. A couple of instances have been highlighted by the Auditor.

1)      Air India has been recording its maintenance expense as prepaid expense. That is, the lump sum the company pays for maintenance is recognized as expenditure and deducted from the revenue only when the maintenance work is actually carried out. While this may seem fair at the first glance, the auditor points out that as the need for maintenance is accrued for the hours already flown by the aircrafts, and not when the work is actually carried out. This is an expenditure that has already occurred and should be recorded as such.

2)      Deferred Tax Assets – These are assets which would be recognized as tax credits on future income, but to claim them as assets, there has to be a possibility of taxation in the future, that is the company should have some profits in the future which are taxable. There was no reason to believe that such profits would arise making the entire deferred tax assets phony.

Which brings us to the question of why the government is in the business of running an airplane business in the first place? Many arguments are being made including one that Air India connects remote areas of the country which private operatory wouldn’t cover.

Does such coverage have to come at the expense of huge losses to the tax payer? Does the entire badly managed business which has never known how to survive any kind of competition let alone the fierce competition seen in the civil aviation sector today have to maintained for this purpose? If a certain route is indeed that important, wouldn’t subsidizing a private player to fly that route be more efficient an idea? About the employment Air India generates, remember that the employees haven’t been paid for over quarter of a year now. How long are these operations going to be maintained on the shoulders of a purely welfare claim which also they fall short to achieve?

Looking at the entire market place, we see that it isn’t just the public sector but also the private sector which is in trouble.  Since the liberalization in 2003, which allowed private players in civil aviation, competition in the sector has been intense, with each player looking out for itself by slashing prices despite rising fuel prices and vying for the most profitable routes (except Air India ? )

Air India does not have the same incentives to maintain profitability as the private sector has, so it isn’t surprising that the government has been accused of pulling Air India out of profitable routes and allowing the private sector airlines to fly them. If there is no incentive to run a profitable business, why run it at all? Just for a few under the table deals and kickbacks that the collusive moves provide to someone high up in the bureaucracy? The tax payer money being lost here, in all probability belongs to an honest lower middle class Indian who may never even see the skies from the comfort of a plane seat.

Kingfisher’s troubles are a well-known fact. A luxury airplane in a price sensitive economy where competition was driving abnormal profits to zero! I guess nobody cared about in-flight entertainment or ‘personally selected’ airhostesses for their two-three hour flights; they just wanted to get going at a low price.  The highly leveraged buy-out of Air Deccan to create simultaneous low-cost operations did not work out too well either. It was badly timed with competition from Jet which acquired Air Sahara, sky rocketing fuel prices and the 2008 recession which did not bode well for any of the players. Indigo has stood through in this environment as a lone example of success, driven by well thought of strategic decisions in fleet acquirement and slow and steady expansion into the market. These however are examples of a competitive market doing what it does best, rewarding better decision making. What Air India which doesn’t even pretend to be interested in a profit is doing flying around with these players is beyond me.

Also why are taxes on fuel as high as thirty percent with an additional surcharge when the sector is clearly struggling? Why is Foreign Direct Investment ok in retail but not in aviation? It is easier to see why FDI in aviation would be a good thing. Another area worth looking into would be the high charges paid by carriers for using airport facilities.  Unless the private sector is given the leeway it requires, the liberalization of the aviation sector may come to nothing and people will once again be faced with air travel being a luxury for the very rich.


Posted by on April 2, 2012 in Economics, India, National, Politics


Tags: , , ,

The invisible hand is evil.

“Intelligent life on a planet comes of age, when it first works out the reason for its very existence. If superior creatures ever visit earth, the first question they will ask, in order to asses the level of our civilization is: Have they discovered evolution yet ?” – Richard Dawkins.

Education today trains us with a variety of skills. People are equipped to program computers and make power point presentations about mergers and acquisitions etc. That’s right, education today, trains us, but we learn very little, to me, this is a fundamental flaw which has led to imbalanced poorly informed societies. Of course fear contributes to all this, what would I do without a job and all the world’s learning in my head if I don’t have a skill required by a corporate ?.

The problem is, we don’t understand Darwin. Darwin, gave us the key to understanding ourselves. Dawkins made things a little simpler, I would make The Selfish Gene mandatory reading in schools, if I could. Natural selection is a fierce competition for the gene to survive. If Dawkins’ superior creatures were indeed, despite all odds, to pay us a visit, they would say, “Why these primitives have discovered evolution, but do not fully understand its implications.” It is true, that Darwin’s theories have turned around biology, but they should have also turned around the social sciences, the impact here hasn’t been felt as much, largely because people are willing to be willfully ignorant.

Natural selection tells us about the survival of the gene, the selfishness inherent in such a struggle for survival and how even apparently altruistic acts can be broken down into the selfish protection of a gene. (By the way, don’t anthropomorphise selfishness, the genes aren’t consciously selfish the way I am sometimes, but it is selfishness that helps them survive.) As Dawkins says (yes I am a HUGE fan) let us learn to be altruistic, because we were born selfish.

It is very interesting to note, that incomplete understanding of the theories of early survival, especially how brutal a natural Darwinian world is, how savagely without mercy the weaker of the species got killed off by nature, leads people to fall into the traps of Darwinism in the social sphere. The main point here is, we are instinctively geared to be Darwinian survival machines, selfish and thoughtless, the mainstream too a product of primitive survival mechanisms,promotes these ideas.

The most important take away from learning about evolution is that it is still happening today, why that is relevant is not because we may evolve into some weird hyper-intelligent species tomorrow (no evolution takes time) its important because it teaches us that we are still primates, controlled at our deepest level by the same forces that created us, the same forces that makes the wild world full of pain and suffering and a crazy struggle for survival. We are still competing, struggling, and leaving out half the population to be losers in the struggle, left behind and forced to die out by the razor sharp scythe of natural selection.

Of course equilibrium could arise, whats so great about that, you could have a market with an equilibrium price, with a large chunk of people too weak to be a part of it, the voiceless with sunken eyes, left to their fate by market forces, the new economic name for ruthless natural selection. The invisible hand of the market is evil if left to itself as it chooses not to grab the neediest of the needy.

Libertarians are economic darwinists, they like everything to happen naturally, for things to equilibriate, but some of us will always fall behind in the race, and more importantly some of our needs will never be fulfilled by competition alone. If you doubt that markets are an economic manifestation of natural selection, think about how they fail every time the ‘good’ in question loses its competitive character. You don’t see a large multinational company in the business of cleaning up the air, do you?.

Darwinism is something we need to learn to understand how things are, so that we can change our fate with an awareness no species before us has possessed. It is not and never should be a guideline to build our society, do note, that it is so programmed into us, that we don’t have to consciously follow it, it is escaping from its throes that would require conscious action.

I am not anti competition, competition has helped us a lot in both the natural and the economic world, it has brought out the best in us and kept our brains sharp. However, it will not serve the purpose of building a more equitable society, it will not remove the pain from the faces of the have-nots as they watch the haves whizz past them. For, nobody was born with the same abilities or in a level playing field. The forces that shaped us are impersonal, they may lead to our destruction with the same disregard they showed while creating us. If we do not learn to get over our selfishness and myopia, we will soon be another hapless species faced with imminent doom in the hands of natural selection and more dangerously the forces of nature.

Leave a comment

Posted by on February 10, 2012 in Darwin, Dawkins, Economics, Evolution, Society


Tags: , , , , , ,

Honey, I love you, but I am an Economist !

Disclaimer: Views expressed on this blog are my own, when I express my views based on the reading of works of others, it is solely my interpretation that is expressed here and not theirs.

I know how much people hate it when abstract ideas and emotions considered to have special significance like love, hope, fear, the origin of life, matter and energy etc are explained in scientific terms. It seems to take away the touch of magic, the aura associated with these terms.

Today I was reading a paper which like many other of its ilk I feel, provides evidence that marriage is a contract entered into with considerations of associated costs and benefits and an increase in costs, like the economics costs of getting married would decrease the rates of marriage. Don’t get me wrong, I am a romantic at heart who believes in love and companionship for a lifetime. I do however see marriage as a contract that two parties enter into for economic, social and cultural reasons which can all be broken down into their costs and benefits.

A lot of work has been done in this area of economics, but the one I am referring to here is Changing the Price of Marriage – Evidence from Blood Test requirements (Buckles, Guldi, Price, The Journal of Human Resources , 2011).

A lot of us know about the Blood Test Requirements some countries and states have enacted with regard to marriage. These laws exist to decrease the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and reduce the number of  children born with complications due to stds. The focus here is not on the effectiveness of these laws on reducing the above rates but on whether the additional cost of complying with them decreases the rates of marriage registration. A natural experiment which presented itself as most states started repealing BTR requirements helps make this analysis possible.

The authors have presented evidence which I see as a resounding Yes. They used marriage licensing data across US states from 1980 to 2008 to figure out whether the change in price of marriage actually made an impact on people’s decision to get married. They used a within group estimator with state level fixed effects and time trends to arrive at their results. What this basically means is that they were aware that marriage rates could vary from state to state due to trends specific to those states and also across time due to other factors (a growing importance of career for women could be one I guess). So they separate out these trends in a way that what’s left behind gives us the impact of Blood Test Requirement (BTR) laws on the licensing of marriage. 

Whats to be gleaned from the analysis is that while marriage rates have been historically falling overall, the gap is much more between the states which had BTR compared to those which did not. The repeal of BTR also lead to a jump in marriage licensing rates. The authors found that BTRs result in a 6 percent decrease in marriage licensing rates of the state. Only a third of this was associated with couples moving to a non BTR state to get married. The other considerable chunk (3-4) percent of couples just chose not to get married! Presumably due to the monetary, psychological and time costs of BTR.There are numerous other papers which show that increases in price of marriage due to government policy or an increase in opportunity cost of marriage due to other available options decrease marriage rates.

This has got nothing to do with my position for/against marriage or for/against BTR. (I personally do think arranged marriages make a strong case for BTR though.) This however is considerable evidence that marriage like many other things glorified in life, is just a contract and slight changes in the cost benefit equations result in major changes in the willingness of parties to accept it.

 Buckles, K. , Guldi, M. , & Price, J. (2011). Changing the Price of Marriage. Journal of Human Resources, 46(3), 539-567.


Posted by on October 1, 2011 in Economics


Tags: , , ,

%d bloggers like this: