India’s Outsized Efforts for Outsized Growth Ambitions with Aurélien Kruse
insights on what it will take to unlock India’s long-awaited growth potential.
In this episode, economic journalist and author Puja Mehra speaks to Aurélien Kruse, Lead Economist of the Economic Policy team in India at the World Bank and lead author of its recent report on India. The conversation unpacks how India can break out of the middle-income trap, why small firms struggle to scale up, and what stalled reforms on land, labour, and credit mean for the country’s competitiveness.
They also discuss whether India’s large domestic market is enough to drive growth, the limits of tariff-led industrial policy, and why inclusive development—not just fiscal incentives—will ultimately determine the size of India’s consumer class and its ability to attract sustained private capital.
Tune in for insights on what it will take to reignite private investment, implement reforms that actually deliver, and unlock India’s long-awaited growth potential. This episode offers both a reality check on India’s reform story and a roadmap for policymakers to create a more predictable, investment-friendly future.
NOTE: This transcript is done by a machine. Human eyes have gone through the script but there might still be errors in some of the text, so please refer to the audio in case you need to clarify any part. If you want to get in touch regarding any feedback, you can drop us a message on [email protected].
—
TRANSCRIPT
Puja Mehra: Aurélien, thank you so much for joining the show.
Aurélien Kruse: Thank you, Puja. It's a pleasure to be on the show and to be talking to your listeners.
Puja Mehra: The World Bank brought out a report earlier this year, I think in February if I'm not wrong, which to my mind was with a sense of urgency for India saying things that India needs to do in order to shift gears from what was described as business as usual to accelerated reforms required for India to become a developed economy by 2047, which is the national aspiration. In contrast to this, there is broadly a discourse in India which is quite gung-ho, at least has until recently been quite gung-ho. India's economic policy approach has centred largely on public capex push for infrastructure building, production-linked incentives, employment-linked incentives for manufacturing firms for them to make more and more in India, for them to hire more and more people.
There have been tax cuts, there's been tax simplification, there are all kinds of cash handouts for farmers and in states for women and other targeted groups. There's been monetary policy easing, a whole lot of policies, schemes, spending, etc. has been undertaken.
I wanted to start by asking you, all of these policies put together, all of these efforts, where do they put India in the gradation of the three scenarios that you laid out in the report?
Aurélien Kruse: Really, going straight to the core of the report and the argument, but you're also asking a very big question, so perhaps we can unpack it and maybe break it down. First, you say that there's this sense of urgency that comes out of the report around the need to shift gears. That's entirely true and that's indeed the message we have in the report, but I think this sense of urgency is not a negative thing.
Actually, I would say it's a positive thing and let me explain what I mean by that. I think the Prime Minister said something very similar in his independence address. He said something, if I remember well, to the tune of 2047 is not far away, every minute is precious.
That's also what we're saying in the report. What we're doing, basically, is we're taking the Vixit Bharat objective, which we simplify in a way by equating it to becoming a high-income country, and we use this as our starting point. Then we work backwards and we ask ourselves, what will it take to get there?
When you do that, the urgency is obvious, not because India is lagging, but because the goals are incredibly ambitious to begin with. In the light of these really ambitious goals, 20 odd years is really a very, very short period of time. So just think about the following kind of counterfactual scenario.
We could have set ourselves a very different target for the report. For instance, what will it take for India to transition from lower to upper middle-income country and to remain the world's fastest growing large economy? This would have been a perfectly acceptable target and you wouldn't have had the sense of urgency, which we have in the report.
So you get my point, right? This is a good sense of urgency. It means you've pitched your goals exactly where they need to be, not so high that they're unrealistic, because if they're unrealistic, then there's no urgency at all, but also not too low that you don't need to stretch yourself no matter how well you're doing to begin with.
So to sum up, the urgency doesn't mean India is not doing well. And by the way, in my country, we'd love to have 6% growth year-on-year, right? Instead, what it means is if you have an outsized ambition, you need an outsized effort, and that's perfectly fine.
Why am I saying that this target is really ambitious? The fact is that this transition from lower middle-income to high-income country in the span of generation, it's something that really only a handful of countries have managed to do, right, in recent history. You've had countries with vast natural wealth relative to their populations, you know, the Qatars of this world.
You've had the EU accession countries that exited out of communism, but with their productive infrastructure there, with highly skilled populations, and were able to get into the bandwagon of the EU. Then you had countries like China, South Korea, but heavily on export-orientated development at a time when globalisation was booming. So you could say all of these are exceptions, whereas the rule, historically speaking, is that countries get to a certain point and they get caught in that proverbial kind of middle-income country trap, and think of Turkey, Brazil, Malaysia, Mexico.
These are all economies that became higher middle-income countries and then remained there, at least for the past 30 years, right? Does that mean India can't do it? I wouldn't say that.
In fact, I'd like to tell you an anecdote. In the early 60s, the World Bank did a report on Korea, and in that report, you know, the main conclusions were that Korea's growth prospects really didn't look great, and if anything, Korea should do agriculture and not heavy industries. We know how that turned out, right?
So the moral of the story is threefold. Some growth miracles do happen, and not because they're miracles, but because there's a lot of hard work, and this hard work is rewarded. The second moral of the story is take whatever economies profitize with a sense of caution.
And the third moral for us as the World Bank is we shouldn't be in the business of assessing or rating countries. We should be in the business of helping countries meet their own objectives. That's the spirit in which we've written this report.
For the second part of your question, which is more about, is India doing the right thing? Is India on track? You're in this business long enough to know you're not going to get a clear-cut answer to your question, especially from an economist, but I'll still start.
You know, I think when you think of policies, especially because you hear so much about all the things that are going on, it's helpful to make a distinction between, on one hand, those policies that are short-term, focused on demand, the types of Keynesian responses that are meant to kind of stabilise the business cycle, and on the other hand, the kind of medium-term, supply-side, structural reforms that seek to really impact the trajectory of the growth process.
And what we're doing in the report is obviously looking at that second type of reforms. And if you look at the examples you mentioned, such as tax cuts, monetary policy easing, what you call cash handouts, and I prefer to call cash transfers, I would say these belong to the Keynesian family of short-term demand management. So it doesn't mean that they don't make sense.
You can argue they make perfect sense, but I don't think they'll fundamentally affect the long-term trajectory of the economy. By contrast, you could say that those policies that affect total factor productivity, the level and quality of investment, how labour does or doesn't contribute to the growth process, this is what really structurally drives the pattern of growth. So from that point of view, I'd say tax simplification qualifies.
It really makes it easier for businesses to operate and therefore to invest. I'd say that public investment in critical public infrastructure, although it has some limits, is also one of those policies because it makes private investment more viable. And I'm less clear about PLI and ELI, frankly.
It's not something we cover in the report. That's more of a personal opinion. I think incentive programmes don't really change things in a structural way unless they're really trying to address a specific bottleneck.
Like, you know, they're addressing the fact that businesses are waiting for demonstration effects to materialise. They're addressing the fact that you need to tip the cost curve just below the point where then suddenly it becomes profitable for private investors to get in the market. But I'm a bit on the fence.
Well, the PLI, you could argue that ELI, maybe I don't understand it well enough to say that it qualifies. But to make a long story short, we care, at least in this report, about structural reforms and structural policies. There's a lot of steps being taken in the right direction, but we argue that there's a lot more that could be considered.
You know, I could list efforts to ease access to land for firms, alleviating regulatory burdens, which way on SMEs, making public investment more strategic, better targeted than it currently is, unlocking bond market financing for firms. And then, of course, the elephant in the room, finding ways to make female labour force participation contribute more to growth going forward. So to sum up, lots of things are going in the right direction, but it's going to be a marathon over decades, right?
It's not a sprint. So there's a lot more that can be done. And you always need to be thinking about what comes next, what gives me the biggest bang for the buck, not over the next six months, over the next 20 years.
Puja Mehra: Point about urgency well taken. The report also discusses the disparities between small firms and large size firms and better access to technology, resources, land credit, etc., and productivity gains. Many of the things that you mentioned that you'd like to see as part of structural reforms, because that's what makes a difference to the long term trajectory and the realisation of the goals and ambition that is being set for the country.
I wanted to understand, I wanted you to explain to our listeners what these disparities are, what causes them, why it is important to resolve them in the context of the long term goal that you have just discussed.
Aurélien Kruse: The disparity between large and small is important because, of course, it exists in every country, right? In every country, you'll find the full spectrum of firms from the mom and pops operated by two people to a small firm, medium, and then the very large ones. But that bifurcation in India is particularly striking in the sense that you have on one hand these very large firms that are world class, they operate at the technology frontier, they can compete with Silicon Valley, they're really star performers, and they create a lot of growth, but they don't create a lot of employment.
And on the other hand, you have this plethora of very, very, very small establishments that actually employ the bulk of the workforce in India, they're just not efficient at all. And why is that a problem? Because it is through jobs that high growth translates into inclusive development.
So what you want to see is a much closer link between productivity growth, and employment growth. And that link right now is not operating to its full potential. And so what's the implication?
Not at all that you should stifle big firms that you should harm them in any way or take resources away from them, because they may not be employing a lot of people, but they drive innovation, they create wealth, they lead the way they discover markets, you name it. However, what it means is that you should really, really focus on upgrading and upscaling the rest of the economy where the jobs are, and where they're likely to be created when India transforms away from agriculture as almost every single developing economy in the world has done before. How do we do that?
We look at the constraints that are specific, micro, small and medium enterprises. What that means to me is first recognising that small firms, unlike the big players, cannot find workarounds to avoid the barriers in terms of access to land, access to credit, access to skilled labour, access to technology, that large firms, because they're large, because they have the financial resources are able to find shortcuts to avoid. Second priority, I think, is to make it easier for those in that SME ecosystem that are particularly innovative, that have the potential to grow from either micro to small or small to medium or medium to large to enter the markets.
You could do that by focussing really on what's the constraint for small firms to access land for their operations. You could look at what prevents them from scaling up and staffing up, such as making the financial sector work better for MSMEs or improving the kind of ease of doing business issues that are particularly binding for small firms, or finding ways to make it easier for firms to exit. If a small firm is unable to scale up, and by the way, you see this a lot in India, where those small firms don't grow, they just remain small over the course of their lifetime.
Finding ways to make it easier for a firm to exit and for these resources to be reallocated to firms that may have better prospects of growing, perhaps making bankruptcy easier for MSMEs. So the point that I'll conclude with is maybe just highlighting how important deregulation is for all firms in India, but specifically for MSMEs, because they have neither the time nor the resources to deal with the compliance issues that deregulation is meant to address. So I would highlight this as a big priority for sure.
Puja Mehra: I think governments are cognisant of that. A few years ago, the economics overused the term dwarfism to describe these firms that over decades and decades remain small, sometimes because the incentive in the regulatory system is for them to remain small. You know, tariff rates, for instance, we discussed earlier on the show in a different episode.
Power tariffs for smaller firms encourage them to remain small because if they become bigger, they'll have to pay more for power. But what you said also reminds me of something Prime Minister Modi just said yesterday in his address to the nation about encouraging Indians to consume more Swadeshi products. I did not see in that address anything where he suggests that he is going to, or his government policies are going to discourage exports, but I'm sure a lot of people will stretch what he said to revive a debate which global trade uncertainties also sort of encouraging people to have in India, which is whether the Indian economy's best bet is its large domestic consumption base, or if India must look to have a bigger contribution from exports for becoming a developed economy. What are the report's recommendations and your thoughts on that?
Aurélien Kruse: That's a very good question. It's a very topical question. So the Prime Minister talks a lot about self-reliance.
And I get it, especially a country with India's history needs to be worried about food security, needs to be worried about security security, needs to be worried about energy security. So that makes a lot of sense, right? But at the same time, there's a fine line that you need to walk between security and efficiency.
Ideally, you want both, but you don't want one at the expense of the other. That's a bigger point. On whether India should pivot to the domestic market, exploit its really large consumption base and the domestic market.
It sounds reasonable, although it's not like India has been prioritising production over consumption in the past, right? It's a consumption-driven economy already. So you could argue that that's already the case, but more fundamentally, I'm not sure I understand what people mean when they say this, or I'm not sure they understand what they mean when they say this, right?
I mean, do they mean import substitution? If that's the case, I think it's a terrible idea. Do they mean that you should double down on making the domestic market more productive?
Absolutely. That's what our report is about, right? So I would say yes, but you haven't said much once you've said that.
The question is how to do that. Can India achieve its ambition without a bigger contribution from exports? I think that's a huge question.
I'd say yes and no. The good thing about being a large market is you can reach scale economies, you can foster competition, you can build a diversified economy all within your borders. You can't do that if you're Luxembourg or if you're Liechtenstein.
You're just too small. So you have the scale to do that in India. At the same time, as large as India may be, the world is bigger, right?
So why would you not tap into that bigger market if you can? It's kind of like saying, I don't need a laptop because I have a calculator. It's a great calculator, but a laptop is better.
So why would you not look for this? I think more fundamentally, the reason why empirically you don't find examples of countries that have developed very fast over sustained periods of time without tapping into exports is not because you need exports to raise the demand for your products. So it's not the exports themselves that drive growth.
It's just because exposure to foreign know-how, exposure to foreign competition, the type of knowledge that's embedded in FDI, that drives learning, that drives improvement, that then reverberates throughout the whole domestic economy. So it's not choosing external versus domestic. It's making sure that you get the best from the external to boost the productivity of your domestic market, right?
And that's what's critical. Let me just make one last point. The events right around trade have been very dramatic around the past few days, but I don't think we should throw the baby with the bathwater, right?
Or be too rushed. If you pause to think about it, India has a lot to gain from participating in the global market. India's share of global goods exports, do you know what it is?
It's 2%, right? So you don't need global trade to grow terribly to improve your share, right? I mean, you can improve your share twice, thrice, even if the world trade is not growing dramatically.
And then likewise, if you think, yes, the U.S. is my biggest market for goods exports, that's true if you don't think the EU is a single market. But if you think the EU is a single market, then it's the EU, right? So you may be losing out on the U.S. front, but you're working on a free trade agreement with the EU that can unlock a market that's as interesting as the U.S. market. So maybe you do have a lot to gain from being more aggressively pro-trade than aggressively anti-trade. And, you know, I think the Prime Minister is making the point very often that India's all it takes to compete on the world stage. Look at global capability centres.
I agree, right? So from that standpoint, India shouldn't be defensive. It should be offensive on the basis of its strength.
Puja Mehra: The report also mentions how in the last couple of years tariff walls in India, protectionism had begun to increase, which was a reversal of the direction we had seen since 1991. And now we, like you say, are seeing an acceleration in signing up or at least negotiations for free trade agreements. The UK got signed.
The EU, I suppose, will get done by the end of this year. Who knows what's going to happen with the U.S.? Keeping fingers crossed for it to happen quickly as well. But to some people, it seems like a contradiction.
On the one hand, the tariff went up. And on the other hand, the keenness to sign free trade agreements. Is there a lack of cohesion in the policy, overall policy, or it's something else that we're not seeing properly?
Aurélien Kruse: On this one, honestly, your guess is as good as mine. And it's not something that we even anticipated, right, when we wrote the report. So you need to read it with that huge grain of salt that all of these later developments were not something we anticipated.
What I think is that the world hasn't fundamentally changed. What has changed is that one of the main players and actors and animators of this world is taking a different approach. As big as the U.S. economy may be, its share in the world economy is not that large. The point I was making is before basing your entire strategy, your entire outlook on the action of one player, you should remind yourself that the rest of the world is actually very happy to continue working by the same rules that have paid off handsomely for people who participated in the past. So, of course, you want to protect yourself against risks. The perception of risks has gone up.
And I think it has been a very useful reminder to everyone that in a very interconnected world, risks are also interconnected. And therefore, you need to build firewalls, right, so that you're more resilient. Does that mean disengaging?
Absolutely not. I think the same coherence that existed before, should still prevail today around these fundamentals.
Puja Mehra: I meant Tax coherence in India's policy approach towards trade.
Aurélien Kruse: I think India has always been ambivalent in a way. I don't think there was ever one period in post-independence history where it was a very clear and ambiguous, coherent and cohesive set of approaches to international trade and orientation. And to a large extent, I think it's normal given India's history.
I studied history before economics. So I'm very mindful of the fact that you cannot assess a country's priorities based on just first economic principles, right? There's a lot of emotions and history shapes the way you look at things.
And I understand the point, for example, that the prime minister makes when he says, I cannot sacrifice the farmers, right? If the cost of a policy that maybe 50 years down the line makes everyone better off in this very kind of economist sense of makes everyone better off without really thinking about distributional impacts, but at the price of massive disruptions and social upheaval and changing your way of life, I think it's okay for people to weigh the pros and cons. So I don't think that India ever had or necessarily needs to have a unified approach.
What I'm afraid of though, is that before the most recent episodes of trade policy changes, I felt that there had been a change in the mood in Delhi, in the sense that the constituency that always was there, right, of people arguing for more integration, more openness had been empowered and emboldened. The changes on the US side have in a way brought the pendulum back to the other side, right? So these constituencies always existed.
The question is, which one is tipping which way? And it was tipping in favour of the open camp, if you want, and now it's shifting back a little bit, I feel, in the Swadeshi or in the self-reliant side. So to me, it's about getting balance and it's about restoring balance.
So I think we shouldn't tip too much in one direction and make sure we hear the other side as well, because it still has a lot of things to say.
Puja Mehra: What I draw comfort from is that the very day after Prime Minister Modi talked about not throwing farmers to the guerrillas of international trade, the import duty on cotton, on raw cotton was dropped. So I thought that was a balanced approach. He was addressing the narrative, but at the same time, policy-wise, decisions that needed to be taken were being taken.
Aurélien Kruse: In that sense, it's a really interesting thing because you think of protecting farmers, yes, but you're not only hurting consumers, you're also hurting textile industries, right? Because these guys are not able to compete if they're not able to import raw materials or the inputs that they need. So in that case, I think you can make a really good case.
It's not just about opening for the sake of opening, it's opening for the sake of allowing those labour-intensive industries. And that has been the problem for India, right? Finding those labour-intensive industries and allowing them to grow.
That is precisely one of the possible outcomes of this policy. So I would wholeheartedly embrace it in that case, yes.
Puja Mehra: I think from what he had said in his Independence Day speech, and if one was to take a nuanced view of what he said yesterday, and given what the international scenario is, it does seem to me at least, I'm hopeful, that there is space for economic policy on the government's agenda and priorities now. And if that is so, what would you like to see India doing, keeping in mind that big ambition of becoming developed 2047?
Aurélien Kruse: I read the English transcript of the Independence address. I don't know how it compares to the original, but I thought it was a very powerful speech. Very powerful because you could feel a sense of vision, a sense of drive.
And we all know that political will is the sine qua non condition for anything to happen, right? You have great plans, if you don't have political will, it's not going to happen. I also really like what I thought was an implicit connection in the speech between prosperity and freedom.
As in, prosperity is really the last frontier of the liberation struggle, of the independent struggle, right? Independence will be achieved when India is prosperous. And for an economist who was really influenced by, you know, the likes of Amartya Sen, it's a very important connection.
I find it noble and inspiring to think of development in this sense. The big picture of the speech was self-reliance, and we've talked about it. I think you need a balance.
I think it's okay to want to build ships and chips, but maybe not everything in between. Pick your battles and pick your champions, but if you're not parsimonious in the way you do this, then it can backfire. Then after that, it was short on specifics, right?
The speech, as perhaps an inspirational speech ought to be, there was a lot of talk about the GST. We talked about the ways in which it is on one hand, mostly a Keynesian kind of policy that doesn't fundamentally affect the big picture. I think making the tax administration much more simple will ultimately have a bigger impact than, you know, boosting consumption that it affords. And, you know, what that does is it points out something that is important, and that's implementation, right?
So the speech talks about, or I think the speech, or at least the PM has talked about putting in place this deregulation commission. I really am keen to see when it will be put in place and what it will do, but I think the challenge, and a lot of people probably will agree with me that there is a huge challenge in India. It's implementation.
Take the labour laws. The union has made really important and impressive progress in terms of harmonising the labour codes and simplifying everything, but ultimately, states have to implement, right? And so you can have a lot of progress on paper, but that doesn't translate into action.
So the regulation commission is great. Let's see what they propose, but let's also make sure that they have a plan for implementation. And the good thing about having an implementation challenge, which is big, is you have a big opportunity.
That doesn't cost anything, right? Because you don't need new laws. You don't need to reinvent the wheel, but if you make progress in implementation, you get a really big bang for a very little buck.
And so it brings us back to the motivation, to the vision, to the drive. If they're able to channel it towards implementing what's already on their books and making sure it works, a lot of good things can happen as a result.
Puja Mehra: And private investors kind of remain unresponsive to all of the RPIs and governments' varied and sustained efforts, the promise and potential of the economy. What are they waiting for? I mean, of course, they're waiting for structural reforms that you've just described, but that they've been waiting for for many, many years.
It's in the last 10 years that we've seen a slowdown in the private investment cycle, and it just doesn't get revived.
Aurélien Kruse: Yeah, so I like to think about it in this way. It's true that, you know, in the early 2000s, there was this big investment boom in India, and that's why people think back at it and say, okay, private investment slowed down. But I don't know, was it sustainable in the first place?
Right? That big push, we saw the kind of havoc that it resulted in. The financial sector, these bad loans, took many, many years and decades to clean up, and it was really tough. So I'm putting it out there as a question mark.
Is that the right yardstick? Or was it not really retrospectively thinking part exuberance also, as opposed to some kind of golden age that you'd want to replicate? I'm not saying it was or wasn't.
I'm just saying that when we look back, or when we analyse the present in the light of yesterday, we need to be making sure that the baseline is the right one, right? But it does remain true that private investment, particularly corporate investment in India is below where it should be given the potential of the country. But you know, let's break it down further.
I hope I won't shock you or I won't shock your listeners by saying that business people, private sector operators, they don't invest out of patriotic duty. They invest when they're looking at the bottom line, right? If there's an opportunity for profit, they will take that opportunity for profit.
So that's what's driving private investment, right? And so private investment happens when the risk adjusted benefits outweigh the cost of investment. So how do you make sense of this in India?
There's been a lot of efforts at reducing costs, including the cost of finance. As you were saying, RBI, you know, interest rates have come down, access to finance is much better than it was. Of course, there's a lot of things that can be done and reforms can be taken, but the cost part may not be the most binding. Then you look at the return side of the equation and people say, India is such a huge market.
Why wouldn't anyone and everyone rush to that market and try to get a slice of it? It's a huge market, but does the reach that they give translate into revenues? I'll ask you a question.
What do you think is the fraction of the population in India that has the average income of the UK? What fraction of India's population has the average income of the UK? The answer is 0.1%, right?
0.1% of India's population has the average income of a citizen of the UK. 0.1% in India, mind you, is not bad, right? So yes, India is a huge market, but it's not a huge market of very rich people.
So if I try to put myself in the shoes of an investor, you know, that's looking at the Indian market, I would definitely think I want to have a foot in the Indian market, but I would still be waiting for just the right time when the consumer market is going to pick up, right? It hasn't picked up yet because it's a very small part of the pie. We all know that it's going to start growing and growing and growing, but do you want to make your investment now or do you want to wait and see until the market is mature, until that kind of exponential increase starts taking off?
I don't know. I'm not a private investor, but I'm guessing, if I'm trying to be psychological about it, that a lot of investors are in that wait and see kind of attitude where you want to be present enough that you don't lose out when the action starts, but you also don't want to be the first mover because you don't want to incur all the discovery costs, all the risks that come with being a first mover. That's my guess to explain what otherwise seems like a really big puzzle, right, that no one has a great answer for.
What does that mean then for policymakers? Continue working on the costs, right, because the lower the costs, the faster you get over that cost-benefit threshold that's impeding investment. And we've talked about implementing reforms that can be just as powerful as new, more reforms all the time.
And then the second implication, I think, for policymakers is to be smart about the schemes and the incentives you provide, right, because investors won't invest until they feel that the market is secure. So your schemes, or are mature, your schemes are useful if they help unlock a market or if they target those firms that are really on the fence. But if not, if they're too broad or if they don't target the right firms, then it's just a leaky bucket and you really don't want to use scarce public resources into a leaky bucket.
And then the third point that I'll make is that part of the kind of risk-benefit calculation also has to do with risks and predictability, right, so providing a predictable, secure, safe environment really, really affects the calculations of private investors. And then the final point, which I think is important and, you know, really brings us back to the core essence of the World Bank twin focus on poverty reduction, shared prosperity and growth, on the other hand, is that inclusive development is what ultimately will give you the bigger consumer class that ultimately will be making it worthwhile for private operators to invest in this market. So, you know, going back to basics, making sure that the people who are not currently in the consumer class see their incomes and their ability to consume grow to that point is really ultimately what is going to drive that upshift in investment that we're all waiting to see materialise.
Puja Mehra: Thank you. Thank you so much.
Aurélien Kruse: You're most welcome. I hope it was useful. I'm always very keen to have feedback on the things we say because ultimately I'm sure your listeners know better and have a lot of wisdom that they're able to share.
So I'm always happy to hear feedback. I should give credit to the team. I'm not the main author.
I hope I did it justice, but the team worked really hard on it.
Puja Mehra: We're going to put the link for the report in the description of the show. My own view was that it was one of the most insightful reports I have seen on the Indian economy and I would recommend all listeners should read it.
