Articles by A N Oza

The government has fought shy of implementing the recommendations of the Sachar Committee on amending the MRTP Act. This is not altogether surprising.

A Critique of the New Licensing Policy A N Oza FOLLOWING the recommendations of the Industrial Licensing Policy Inquiry Committee (Dutt Committee), industrial licensing policy was very .substantially revised in February 1970, primarily with a view to circumscribing the role of large business houses. However, in February this year licensing policy was again revised in such a manner as to materially dilute the effects of the polity introduced three years ago. That in a matter of three years the government should have developed cold feet about striking at the roots of the growth of big business shows how unsure and insincere it is about controlling the growth of big business houses so as to more widely distribute the opportunities for growth in the private sector.

of changes in estimates over those contained in the feasibility reports and delays in construction and commissioning of projects, even as procedures and methods have been insisted upon which would necessarily result in cost escalation and delays. The criticism has become more strident lately and now has come the move to change the policy itself and go back to turnkey arrangements with foreigners. To justify the change in policy, invidious comparisons are being drawn, without regard to the vastly different operational conditions in the two instances, between the time taken for putting up some of the plants in the private sector with foreign collaboration and that taken in building public sector plants. Particularly, the delay in the erection and commissioning of the Durgapur fertiliser project has been used as a handy weapon to decry the work of the FCI.

Within the short period of one year it has become obvious that if the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act is to achieve the objectives for which it was enacted, some of its more important provisions will have to be amended and the procedure of its administration will need to be changed. That the need for these amendments should have become apparent in so short a time shows how unimaginatively and carelessly the Act had been drafted.

A N Oza LAST month some thirty to forty economists met in Bombay to discuss Monopoly and Public Policy at a three- day all-India seminar organised by the Centre for Advanced Studies in Economics of Bombay University. The seminar was held at least two years too late. The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act had already been passed a month earlier. And, considering the fact that there was a lapse of about three years between the introduction of the Bill in Parliament and its enactment, the academicians have woken up too late for their criticisms and suggestions to influence the anti- monopoly legislation. This once again confirms that our academicians prefer ex-post to ex-ante analysis of Government policies. No wonder then that, despite all their expertise, academic economists have failed to have much influence on economic policy or legislation. Having said that it must be added that it is nevertheless creditable that at least one university thought it fit to discuss problems of anti-monopoly legislation before the new Act is actually implemented.