印度能重新定义资本主义吗？

    印度实施自由市场改革的历史性机遇给投资者和经济分析人士带来了令人兴奋的遐想，但真正让所有人热情高涨的应该是这个国家拥有重新定义资本主义的独特机会。随着纳伦德拉•莫迪成为新任总理，印度已经为建设自己的资本主义做好了准备，这种资本主义将满足这个世界上最大的民主国家的复杂需求，从而打造真正的现代化经济。

    和更成熟也更稳固的美国经济不同，印度经济刚刚成形。原因是，在过去几十年中，金融和政治失误一直让印度深陷于准商业主义、效率低下、腐败和不均衡发展构成的泥沼之中。虽然印度政府在20世纪90年代放松了金融监管，但农业和煤炭等关键行业仍然受到政府的控制。印度对外资也有限制，造成急需资源匮乏，从而削弱了印度的商业潜力。现在，掌握着这些资源的外国投资者就等在印度的国门之外，叫嚷着要进入这个前景光明的新兴市场。印度国内的大型企业同样资金充足，急待发展。

    对印度总理来说，让上述各方获得他们所希望的自由、让市场来决定一切是一件很有诱惑力的事，但也是一招错棋。治愈印度的经济痼疾并不一定要解除所有的投资和经营活动限制。印度的新法律应该鼓励盈利、但不是牟取暴利，而且应该要求企业肩负起更多责任。基于这样的法律，在规划好的框架内小心地向自由企业打开大门才是印度经济问题的解决之道。应该鼓励本国公司和外资企业做出全面改善，包括员工权力、工资水平和环保标准等方面的改善，从而构建出既能盈利、又负责任的经营环境。

    以农业、具体来说是小麦种植为例。目前印度的小麦年产量为9500万吨。然而，由于缺乏合适的存储设施，再加上国有企业印度食品公司（Food Corporation of India）管理的运输系统颇为糟糕，因腐烂变质而损失的小麦几乎达到22%。这不仅造成供需失衡、提高了部分地区的粮食价格，还导致印度无法扩大小麦出口。今年的降雨量预计将低于正常水平，腐烂变质和管理不善问题可能给占印度GDP 14%的农业带来更大的压力。

    值得赞赏的是，莫迪已经承诺要实现农业现代化，改善粮食经销体系，以期借此创造就业机会，同时遏制已经超过9%的食品通胀。但这些计划需要投入大量资金，还需要民营行业解决方案的参与，包括来自美国等科技更发达国家的企业。

    在这个问题上莫迪需要小心，他还需要把孟山都（Monsato）的经验作为今后的指南。这家农业化工和农业生物科技公司的总部设在圣路易斯。1988年，世界银行（World Bank）迫使印度放宽了对农业的限制，孟山都随即成为印度种子市场的主要参与者。对一个低效市场来说，出现这样的情况或许在所难免。然而，这家公司的转基因种子以及相关专利让它得以建立起了一个“缴租”体系，缴纳租金的都是贫穷的农民。孟山都曾在印度推出适应性更强的新型棉花，称为Bt棉。农民们原本希望这种新型棉花产生的收益能超过成本，但相关的使用费却推高了棉花种子的价格。

    很难弄清楚那些冒险种植Bt棉花的农民是否获得了回报，但有一点很明显，那就是这种商业模式让孟山都在一些国家成为众矢之的。人们指责这样的商业模式让当地农民债台高筑，而且经常引发自杀事件。更不用说Bt棉好坏参半的表现说明，这样的超级种子也许并不像看上去那样有利可图。此外，还有人指责孟山都支付给农业工人，特别是女工的工资低于应有水平，而且还在印度使用童工。

    India’s historic opportunity to institute free market reform has excited the imagination of investors and economic analysts, but what should really enthuse everyone is the nation’s unique chance to redefine capitalism. With the election of new Prime Minister Narendra Modi, it’s positioned to create a brand of capitalism that fits the complex needs of the world’s largest democracy and therefore create a truly modern economy.

    Unlike the more mature, but entrenched U.S. economy, India’s is in its infancy due to decades of financial and political missteps that have mired the nation in a quagmire of quasi-mercantilism, inefficiency, corruption and uneven growth. Despite the loosening of financial regulations in the 1990s, the country has continued to control key industries, such as agriculture and coal. It also places restrictions on foreign investment, which has starved the nation of much needed resources and compromised its business potential. These resources are now waiting at the door in the form of foreign investors clamoring to get in on a promising emerging market, as well as big domestic companies with hefty war chests and a hunger for growth.

    It’s tempting for India’s prime minister to simply give these parties the freedom they want and let the markets do the rest, but that would be a mistake. The answer to India’s economic malaise is not necessarily the lifting of all restrictions on investment and business activity. Rather, it’s a careful opening of the door to free enterprise within a planned framework of new laws that encourage profit-making but not profiteering and which hold businesses to a higher standard of accountability. Both Indian and foreign companies should be encouraged to improve their performance on everything from workers’ rights and wage levels to environmental standards that can create a business environment that is both profitable and responsible.

    Take, for example, the agriculture industry – specifically, wheat. India currently produces 95 tons of wheat a year, but due to lack of proper storage facilities and poor transport systems administered by the government-run Food Corporation of India, almost22% of the wheat is lost to spoilage. This not only creates a supply-demand imbalance and increases food prices for locals, but it also prevents India from being able to export more of its produce. And with rainfallforecast to be lower than usual this year, spoilage and mismanagement could put even more pressure on India’s farming sector, which accounts for 14% of its GDP.

    To his credit, Modi has promised to modernize agriculture and improve the food distribution system in hopes of creating jobs and reining in food inflation of more than 9%. Those plans, however, will require heavy financial investment and the involvement of private sector solutions, including from companies in more technologically advanced nations like the U.S.

    This is where Modi needs to proceed carefully and use the Monsato MON 0.32% experience as a guide for the future. The St. Louis-based agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology company became a major player in the Indian seed market in 1988 when the World Bank forced India to deregulate the sector. It was perhaps an inevitable development for an inefficient market. However, Monsanto’s genetic modification of seeds and patenting of the same also enabled the company to create a system of rent-paying by poor farmers. When the company introduced a new type of cotton engineered to be more resilient, called Bt cotton, to India, the associated royalties raised the price of cotton seeds for farmers who hoped that the benefits of the crop would outweigh the cost.

    It is hard to know whether the gamble paid off for individual farmers, but what is clear is that the company is currently under fire in several countries for this business model, which critics claim puts local farmers into deep debt and often leads to suicides, not to mention that the mixed track record of Bt cotton illustrates that these super seeds may not be as profitable as they seem. What’s more, Monsanto has been accused of paying sub-level wages to agricultural workers, especially women, and using child labor in India.