Examining the performance of ERCs at APTEL

by Chitrakshi Jain, Bhavin Patel, and Renuka Sane.

Introduction

The efficiency of the State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (SERC)s, the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) and the Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission (JERC) influence investability and growth of the electricity sector. For example, it costs regulated entities time and resources to petition the relevant ERC for decisions and potentially, to challenge decisions taken by the ERC at the appellate tribunal (APTEL), which exercises supervisory control over the ERCs and reviews their decision-making.

This article studies how ERC decisions perform at APTEL. We collect information about aspects of the ERCs' functioning from the text of orders passed by APTEL. This helps us (a) identify the most-litigious areas across ERCs and (b) examine how the ERCs' decisions perform in appeal. We use sub-national comparative analysis to understand the variation in the functioning of the different ERCs and the litigiousness of issues in different states.

We ask the following questions:

1. Which ERCs contribute the most appeals at APTEL?
2. What are the most litigious issues at APTEL?
3. In how many appeals was the ERC's decision:
   1. Upheld, i.e. appeal was dismissed by APTEL?
   2. Partially upheld, i.e. appeal was partly allowed at APTEL?
   3. Overturned, i.e. appeal was fully allowed at APTEL?
4. How often were the ERCs ordered to reconsider their decisions, i.e. the matter was remanded?

Our results suggest that issues related to tariff determination and restructuring are the most litigated issues at APTEL across ERCs, with the exception of Maharashtra. ERCs are differently situated in their ability to defend their decisions at APTEL and in the quality and clarity of their orders. We argue that such assessments, if regularised, can assist ERCs in improving the quality and form of their decision-making by creating a feedback loop, and can also assist in identifying areas for policy reform at the sub-national level.

Methods: Data

We obtained the orders passed by APTEL between the years 2013-2022 where the ERCs are a party to the challenge before APTEL. We excluded interim orders given that they do not include the outcome of the case. We focused on ten states, including Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. These were selected keeping in mind geographical coverage, size of the state, and installed renewable energy (RE) capacity in the state.

We collected information on 26 indicators from the orders, related to the following categories:

1. Time-related: e.g., date of orders, date of impugned order
2. Party-related: names of appellants, respondents
3. Bench-related: e.g., quorum, members' names
4. Subject-matter related: e.g., prayers, issues
5. Outcome-related: e.g., disposition and remand

We processed the text of the orders through LLMs, which we prompted to collect the information by placing reliance on explicit language in the text. After collecting the information for the relevant indicators, we ran verifications based on rules of legal consistency and logic to ensure that the collected information is accurate and reliable. For indicators related to outcome, we have made subjective inferences when the explicit information regarding its outcome was not articulated in the order. We have relied on individual appeals as the unit of analysis, given that outcomes are typically uniform for all parties in an order. We have integrated human verification at every stage of data collection to ensure reliability. Our final dataset consists of 513 orders and 919 appeals. The data is available here.

Methods: Issue categorisation

In order to study the issues that were being agitated before APTEL, we identified themes from the statement of issues in appeals which explicitly articulated them. There were 318 appeals (out of 919) that did not include a statement of issues. After classifying the issues thematically, we decided upon the final categories presented in Table 1 in consultation with practitioners. We ran keyword searches to sort the statement of issues into identified categories and verified the classification by reading the statements when they yielded unclear results for accuracy and reliability.

Table 1: Categorisation of Issues

Issue Category	Coverage
Tariff determination and restructuring	Challenges to tariff determination and adoption under Sections 62 and 63; inadequate attention to principles in arriving at tariff; revision of tariff and truing up.
Contractual disputes	Liquidated damages, outstanding payments, renegotiation or termination of contracts, excluding change in law and force majeure.
Change in law and force majeure	Subset of contractual disputes, relating to change in law and force majeure clauses in the contracts.
Procedural and jurisdictional	Procedural lapses, violation of principles of natural justice, challenges to ERC's jurisdiction.
Open access consumers	Wheeling and banking charges, and issues relevant to open access consumers.
Transmission and grid-related	Connectivity, ISTS and grid-related issues, including compliance with grid code.
Specific compliance with regulations	Mandatory non-tariff-related requirements for obligated entities, such as RPOs and RECs.
Captive status	Captive status of power plants or group captive power plants.
Others	Issues not falling under previous categories, e.g., distribution licensing.

Methods: Limitations

For the categorisation of issues we have relied on the statement of issues as determined by APTEL, in the instances it was explicitly identified in the order. Understandably, analysing the full text of the order will give deeper insights on the litigated questions. The outcomes, such as appeal allowed or dismissed, also do not provide information about outcomes on specific issues. This would entail reading the full orders and making subjective inferences. While the outcomes at APTEL have been used to assess the performance of ERCs, they do not measure the functioning of ERCs holistically, especially because studying the performance of APTEL is beyond the scope of this research.

Results

1. Distribution of litigation

Between the ERCs under study, Maharashtra followed by Karnataka, contribute to the most litigation at APTEL, as represented in Figure 1. These results indicate that the two states have a relatively larger private industry. However our analysis excludes writ proceedings, which are also used as a way to challenge ERC decisions. The total number of orders passed by ERCs is also not available uniformly across the ERCs to accurately calculate the rate of appeal.

Figure 1: Distribution of litigation at APTEL

2. Most litigious issues

ERCs are empowered to decide a wide range of issues. As a consequence, the issues dealt with by the APTEL in appeals are also varied. An appeal may involve more than one issue, and hence the number of issues involved is more than the number of appeals. As represented in Table 2, tariff determination and restructuring are the most litigated upon issues at APTEL across ERCs with the exception of Maharashtra. In Maharashtra, procedural and jurisdictional issues emerge as the most litigious. While the high incidence of such issues is concerning, issues of the procedural and jurisdictional variety can be resolved easily if ERCs invest in capacity building and follow the procedure under the law faithfully.

Our results corroborate the findings of an earlier study (Prayas 2018) which had found that a third of the issues being litigated before APTEL were concerned with tariff. Pertinently, the ERCs have enacted specific regulations related to tariff determination and made the calculation of tariff an exercise which is assisted by detailed delegated legislation. In this context, it is worrying that tariff continues to be the predominant category with regard to appellate litigation.

Table 2: Issue portfolio at different ERCs (Values in percentages)

State	Total Issues	Tariff related	Procedural & Jurisdictional	Contractual disputes	Specific Compliance	Change in law & force majeure	Open access	Trans-mission & grid	Captive status	Other
Maharashtra	248	26.61	32.66	2.82	3.63	3.63	6.85	4.44	16.53	2.82
Karnataka	171	30.41	26.90	22.81	1.75	2.34	6.43	6.43	0.00	2.92
Tamil Nadu	138	28.99	12.32	7.25	20.29	0.72	5.80	7.25	10.87	6.52
Punjab	96	33.33	11.46	15.62	14.58	8.33	7.29	4.17	1.04	4.17
Rajasthan	76	25.00	11.84	19.74	10.53	13.16	5.26	7.89	1.32	5.26
Madhya Pradesh	75	41.33	17.33	13.33	0.00	1.33	9.33	4.00	9.33	4.00
Andhra Pradesh	65	47.69	26.15	9.23	3.08	1.54	1.54	7.69	0.00	3.08
Uttar Pradesh	59	33.90	16.95	20.34	8.47	5.08	1.69	13.56	0.00	0.00
Odisha	49	34.69	16.33	6.12	16.33	0.00	8.16	10.20	6.12	2.04
West Bengal	29	62.07	13.79	3.45	13.79	3.45	0.00	3.45	0.00	0.00

In addition to the most litigated issues, we could also identify the states which contributed most to the litigation of a particular issue at APTEL. Maharashtra contributes the most to issues related to tariff, and procedure and jurisdiction. This outcome is also a function of Maharashtra being involved in the highest number of appeals in our dataset. The findings are presented in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Distribution of Issues

ERC which contributes most to the litigation of a particular issue at APTEL and the percentage share of their contribution

ERC	Issue	Contribution (%)
Maharashtra	Tariff related	20.1
Maharashtra	Procedural and jurisdictional	37.5
Karnataka	Contractual disputes	33
Tamil Nadu	Specific compliance with regulations	34.5

3. Outcomes

We focus on indicators related to the 'disposition' of the appeal from the information we had collected. We scored the performance of the ERCs relative to each other by making the number of decisions that were upheld, overturned or modified by APTEL as the basis of comparison. The results have been compiled in Table 4.

At an outcome level, if an ERC succeeds in defending its decisions, then it would indicate that the orders are well-reasoned, and the ERC follows the procedure under the law. A high overturn rate would indicate weak decision-making capacity.

Table 4: Dispositions at APTEL across ERCs

ERC	Allowed	Dismissed	Partly Allowed	Other	Remanded	Total
Andhra Pradesh	27	32	7	4	11	70
Karnataka	103	49	14	5	67	171
Maharashtra	92	61	31	62	35	246
Madhya Pradesh	22	17	11	8	13	58
Odisha	17	15	17	2	6	51
Punjab	18	28	22	6	13	74
Rajasthan	32	45	7	3	20	87
Tamil Nadu	22	33	19	9	20	83
Uttar Pradesh	15	26	11	5	10	57
West Bengal	4	8	6	4	5	22
Total	352	314	145	108	200	919

_{The categories "allowed", "dismissed", "partly allowed", and "other" are mutually exclusive. That is, if an appeal is allowed, it cannot be dismissed. However, the appeals that are remanded form a subset of either allowed or partly allowed.}

We find that ERCs are differently situated in their ability to defend their decisions at APTEL and the quality and clarity of their orders. Rajasthan found the most success at APTEL, Maharashtra had the least.

Typically, matters are remanded when APTEL is of the opinion that the relevant ERC did not, amongst other things, follow the procedure or frame the issues or determine question of facts sufficiently well. A high remand rate is worrying since it implies that either the ERCs in question are ill-equipped to resolve disputes in the first instance or that APTEL, unless it has insufficient evidence to make the decision, is abdicating its mandate.

Remands lengthen the resolution of disputes and burden regulated entities with legal and compliance costs. This can stymie the growth of the electricity sector, especially in states like Karnataka, for KERC has been asked to reconsider most number of its decisions when compared to other ERCs.

Recommendations

Both APTEL and ERCs are empowered to implement these recommendations.

1. Regularise assessments through use of emerging technologies

We recommend that such comparative assessment exercises be regularised through the use of emerging technologies. The composition of ERCs is constantly changing, and members would benefit from information about the performance of their decisions at APTEL closer to the date of the decisions. This can be made possible by creating a customised tool that leverages LLMs and the competence of researchers and practitioners familiar with the sector.

2. Publish granular statistics

APTEL can improve upon the collection and publication of litigation statistics and include the subject matter of litigation and the relevant laws that are under litigation, amongst other categories, in this exercise. Similarly, while some ERCs publish the number of orders they hear and decide annually, they can include more relevant details in this publication and also publish these at shorter intervals. Collecting this data at source would make the identification of litigious issues, which are often proxies for policy problems, easier.

3. Identify areas for policy reform

ERCs should study the precise reasons for disputes that correspond with the litigious issue categories in their states and respond by changing and adapting their regulations to minimise them. The persistence of tariff as the most litigious category is concerning, given that detailed regulations on calculation and imposition of tariff have been enacted by the regulators.

Conclusion

In summary, we find that:

• Between the ERCs under study, Maharashtra, followed by Karnataka, together contribute to the most litigation at APTEL.
• Issues related to tariff determination and restructuring are the most litigated issues at APTEL across ERCs. This is worrisome given the detailed subordinate legislation that govern the regulation of retail and other categories of tariff.
• ERCs are differently situated in their ability to defend their decisions at APTEL and the quality and clarity of their orders. We find that Rajasthan found the most success at APTEL, while Maharashtra had the least.
• Remands lengthen the resolution of disputes and burden regulated entities with legal and compliance costs. This can stymie the growth of the electricity sector, especially in states like Karnataka, since KERC has been asked to reconsider the most number of its decisions when compared to other ERCs.

References

Amicus Populi? A public interest review of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity , by Vaishnava S, Chitnis A and Dixit S, 2018, Prayas Energy Group

The authors are researchers at TrustBridge Rule of Law Foundation. They would like to acknowledge and thank Natasha Aggarwal, Madhav Goel, Abhinav Hansaraman, Amol Kulkarni, Praduta Singh, Aparna Jha, Varun Soni, Gaurav Aswani, Tarang Rathi and Sumedh Gadham for compiling, collecting, and verifying the data used in our analysis. We would also like to thank Upasa Borah for helping with verifying, cleaning, and consolidating the dataset.

Balancing Power and Accountability: An Evaluation of SEBI's Adjudication of Insider Trading

by Natasha Aggarwal, Amol Kulkarni, Bhavin Patel, Sonam Patel, and Renuka Sane.

Insider trading is considered to undermine the fairness of the market and erode investor confidence. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has, in recent years, increased its focus on, and intensified its enforcement of, insider trading cases. Expanding enforcement actions should prompt a deeper examination of how effectively SEBI is performing this function vis-a-vis the "rule of law". Adherence to the rule of law by the regulator promotes transparency, creates a stable and predictable environment for businesses and individuals and builds public trust in the regulatory system. Regulatory actions need to be evaluated on benchmarks grounded in legal theory and the extant legal framework.

In a new working paper, Balancing Power and Accountability: An Evaluation of SEBI's adjudication of Insider Trading, we evaluate SEBI's orders on insider trading cases over a 15-year period (2009 - 23) as well as the performance on these orders in appeal before the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT). We develop an evaluation framework based on elements of the rule of law applicable to regulatory adjudication, with 56 indicators for SEBI orders, and 82 indicators for orders of the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT).

This paper addresses three critical questions:

• What do SEBI's enforcement actions look like, and how have they evolved over the years?

  SEBI's annual reports provide some broad data about the total number of enforcement actions undertaken in a year, but do not provide details of the type of enforcement actions taken for each type of violation, the particular legal or regulatory provision alleged to have been violated, or the impact of successful enforcement actions in reducing instances of insider trading.

  Our dataset comprises 320 SEBI orders - 255 orders are by Adjudicating Officers (AOs) and 65 are by Whole-Time Members (WTMs). Each order can contain cases against multiple entities - we call them alleged violators. The 320 orders contain a total of 912 alleged violators. SEBI officers have imposed sanctions on 565 of the 912 alleged violators (62% of the alleged violators). AOs and WTMs have imposed penalties in 336 cases and 82 cases respectively. The median penalty amount for AOs is about Rs. 7.8 lakh, and for WTMs is about Rs. 15 lakh. Only WTMs, and not AOs, have the power to impose debarment and disgorgement. We observed that they have imposed disgorgement in 144 cases, and debarment in 192 cases. The average disgorgement amount is Rs. 46 crore, while the median is only Rs. 1 crore. The average period of debarment is 3 years, and a median of 1 year.

  Our paper illustrates the number of insider trading orders issued between 2010 and 2022. This shows that a spike in orders on insider trading from 2017, and then again in 2019. There has been a slight drop in the number of WTM orders in 2022. This is consistent with statements in the SEBI annual reports, which suggest that insider trading has been high on the regulator's agenda.

• Are SEBI's orders consistent with the requirements of procedural and substantive rule of law requirements?

  The procedural rule of law measures are based on administrative law and natural justice principles, and deal with how SEBI has been performing in terms of procedural fairness while adjudicating insider trading matters. One aspect of procedural fairness is that the orders should include certain basic information. We find several shortcomings in providing factual information on basic rule-of-law indicators. First, several orders do not mention basic facts about the case such as the date of show cause notice (7%), period of investigation (17%), period of UPSI (27%), and a description of UPSI (20%). Second, orders do not cite precedent. We find that about 87% of orders do not cite any previous AO or WTM order. Finally, the orders do not specify the full details of the sanctions imposed. In 12% of cases where disgorgement was ordered, the time period for payment was not specified. Similarly, for both penalties and disgorgement, interest rate was not specified in a large number of cases.

  The substantive rule of law measures are based on the law relating to insider trading. These dive a bit deeper than the procedural requirements, and examine whether the orders satisfy the requirements of applicable law and regulation. For example, a key component of a good order on insider trading should be that SEBI has been able to clearly demonstrate that the violator is an insider. We find that SEBI has identified a clear insider relationship in only 335 (60%) of its orders. In the remaining 230 orders, it has described a connection in 152 (66%) orders. Describing a connection is not as clear as specifying the connection. If we were to give SEBI the benefit of the doubt and consider it as an acceptable description, even then, in 14% of the cases SEBI has failed to provide any explanation on how a person is an insider

• How do SEBI's insider trading orders stand up to challenge before the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT)?

  Our analysis resulted in a set of 119 cases in the SEBI and SAT datasets. These cases result in 183 appeals (32%) out of the total 565 cases with sanction. Out of these, 97 (53%) were allowed, partly allowed, or remanded, while 86 (47%) were dismissed. This suggests that once appealed there is a 50% chance that the SEBI order will not hold in appeal.

  We find that the higher the sanction, the higher the proportion of appeals. 38% of AO cases and 17% of WTM cases with a penalty amount higher than Rs. 10 lakhs resulted in an appeal, relative to 22% of AO cases and 5% of WTM cases below Rs. 10 lakh. This is more pronounced in the case of debarment and disgorgement, where appeals are present for more than half the cases with higher sanctions. We also find that it is less likely that an AO or WTM case with penalty above Rs. 10 lakh or debarment for more than one year will be modified in appeal. 79% of WTM cases involving higher disgorgement amounts and all WTM cases involving a penalty below Rs. 10 lakh were modified in appeal.

Regulatory enforcement actions are necessary to ensure that those who violate the law face consequences, and may also have a deterrent effect on others. However, there are adverse consequences if these actions emerge from a flawed process, or if the actions taken are arbitrary or disproportionate. SEBI is ahead of other Indian regulators such as the Reserve Bank of India in at least publishing its orders. An appeal rate of between 30-38%, and a win rate of 50% at the SAT could be further improved by investments in order writing, and by re-evaluating the regulations on insider trading.

The authors are researchers at the TrustBridge Rule of Law Foundation.

A guide to writing good regulatory orders

by Natasha Aggarwal, Bhavin Patel and Karan Singh.

India has several regulators that are vested with quasi-judicial powers and that play a pivotal role in economic governance. In exercising their quasi-judicial functions, regulatory orders must: (i) demonstrate compliance with the principles of natural justice, (ii) establish legitimacy by showing how they are taken strictly in accordance with, and to the extent authorised by the governing law, and (iii) be accountable, by ensuring that all the information an appellate authority may require for its evaluation of the regulatory action is clearly documented.

Regulatory orders significantly impact market participants and public trust. In particular, four sets of stakeholders are impacted by regulatory orders: (i) parties involved in the enforcement proceedings, (ii) the regulator itself, (iii) appellate and review fora, and (iv) the market and the general public. However, deficiencies in reasoning, structure, and clarity in quasi-judicial orders often undermine regulatory legitimacy and efficiency, leading to diminished stakeholder confidence. Moreover, arbitrary orders that do not demonstrate application of mind can be challenged or overturned or remanded in appeal. Such challenges, overturns, and remands lengthen the enforcement process and increase costs for all those involved. They also take away from the certainty of regulatory orders and affect the predictability of the law. Regulatory certainty and predictability are important requirements of the rule of law and are critical for the smooth functioning of markets.

The need for regulatory orders to be well-reasoned is recognised in Indian law. In a recent paper, titled "A guide to writing good regulatory orders", we propose a method of structuring regulatory orders that would aid readability, strengthen the logical flow of arguments, and enhance the accessibility and transparency of regulatory orders. In particular, we identify four sets of requirements for better order writing: informational, structural, substantive, and stylistic. Broadly, the information requirements relate to identificatory and citatory information that should appear in orders, and to information that helps establish that procedural requirements have been complied with, such as dates of Show Cause Notices. Structural requirements relate to the logical arrangement of the contents of orders in a manner that aids reading and comprehension, and which strengthens regulatory arguments. The substantive requirements help establish that all the requirements of the substantive law applicable to the matter discussed in the order have been addressed. Finally, our suggestions on stylistic requirements include the use of plain language and writing styles that are accessible and comprehensible to all affected persons.

We propose to conduct further studies on how the suggestions in this paper may be implemented through tools and technologies that could augment regulatory capacity for order writing.

The authors are researchers at the TrustBridge Rule of Law Foundation.

Are startups engaging in innovation in India?

by Aneesha Chitgupi, Karthik Suresh and Diya Uday.

Introduction

What is a startup? The academic literature takes a broad view --- startups:

• have a high growth rate (Moogk 2012),
• have a lower number of employees (Beck et al. 2008),
• are at the early stage of the life cycle of a firm (Eisenmann 2013, Stevenson and Jarillo 1990), and
• are drivers of innovation (Cohen and Klepper, 1996).

However, governments across the world focus on the link between startups and innovation. In the Netherlands, a startup is defined as "a business that translates an innovative idea into a scalable and generic product or service, using new technology." In the United States, a startup is one that "has never been an SEC reporting company, uses invested capital, often from venture capital investors, to build an innovative growth focused, scalable business." The Israeli "innovation model" is "largely based on the creation of technological value, mainly in start-up companies and multinational corporations R&D centres".

This is true of the Indian government as well. The stated objective of the Startup India Action Plan of 2016 is to promote innovation. The idea that startups are innovative is also reflected in the draft Science, Technology and Innovation Policy of 2020) as well as foreign policy initiatives like the Engagement Group on startups at the ongoing G-20 Summit.

The Startup India Policy offers a suite of regulatory exemptions and incentives linked to innovation by startups. Two key components of this policy are: (i) reduced fees and priority in processing patent and design applications for startups, and (ii) full exemptions on income tax to the startup following approval from an Inter-ministerial Board (IMB). The Startup India Policy has been amended several times. Key changes relating to the definition of a startup have been:

1. February 2016: a startup is (i) not older than five years from the date of its incorporation/registration, (ii) turnover in any of the previous five financial years has not exceeded INR 250 million, and (iii) it is working towards innovation, development, deployment or commercialisation of new products, processes or services driven by technology or intellectual property. The startup should develop and commercialise "a new or a significantly improved product or service or process that will create or add value for customers or workflow".
   To be registered with the DPIIT, as well as to qualify for the tax exemption, a startup needs to be recommended by a registered incubator, or an angel/private equity/ accelerator fund with at least 20 per cent funding, or by the Union or state government as part of a scheme to promote innovation, or it should have filed a patent.
2. May 2017: the age of an eligible firm and the period for calculation of turnover was increased from five to seven years from the date of its incorporation/registration (ten for firms in the biotechnology sector).
   In addition to the definition, a startup may now also have scalable business models with a high potential of employment generation or wealth creation to gain benefits.
   To register as a startup and avail of the tax exemption from the IMB, a firm now only has to make an online application by providing the details of (i) certificate of incorporation/ registration and "other relevant details as may be sought", and (ii) a write-up about the nature of business highlighting how it meets the criteria in the definition. The DPIIT would consider "innovativeness" from a domestic standpoint. DPIIT may grant or reject recognition after review.
3. February 2019: age requirement of an eligible startup was relaxed to ten years for firms across all sectors. The turnover limit was increased to INR 1 billion.

Given the emphasis on "innovation", we consider it important to examine whether India's policies are incentivising innovation by startups by asking the following questions:

1. Are startups in India engaging in innovation?
2. How innovative are Indian startups compared to non-startup firms?

To answer this, we require some well-accepted measure for studying startup innovation. We adopt the most popular method i.e. using patent fillings and grants as proxies to measure innovation (Wang 2018; de Rassenfosse 2019; Katila 2000). We chose this over other proxies like expenditure on R&D (Rothwell and Ziegler, 1981; Geroski, 1989). We examine our questions using patent filings and grants to startups. We also use a novel measure i.e. the benchmarks for innovation as defined under the Startup India policy. We found that startups are not driving "innovation" in the conventional sense of the term in India.

We lend new insights into the conventional wisdom on startups and innovation in India and highlight the need for a re-look at the current policy on startups in India.

Methodology

We use two methods to determine whether startups are engaging in innovation:

(i) Measuring innovation using patent applications and grants: We hand-collected data on patent filings and grants from the Indian Patent Office across different categories of entities for the years 2016-17 to 2020-21. We substantiate this data using the annual reports of the Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT). We examined the fraction of patents filed and granted by startups over the years compared to other entities.

(ii) Measuring innovation using startup registration and granted Income Tax (IT) exemptions under the Startup India Policy: The Startup India Policy 2015 requires startups to be innovative to (i) register as a startup and (ii) be granted IT exemptions under the Startup India Policy read with section 80-IAC of the Income Tax Act. We collected data on the number of startups that have successfully received tax benefits (after being classified as innovative). We then calculated the fraction of startups that were granted exemptions versus total startup registrations. For this, we collected data on startup registrations, applications for IT exemptions and approvals to applications of IT applications for all states and UTs in India between 2016-2022. We aim to gain insights into how many startups are "innovative" according to the policy definitions of "innovation".

We also collect currently available data on the total number of startups in India with the number of startups that are registered with the DPIIT. However, this is only available for the current year. We aim to examine how many startups in India qualify under the policy definition of a recognised startup to examine the stringency of the definition of a startup.

We conducted a detailed analysis of startup policies in India to give us further insight into our results from (i) and (ii) above.

Results

Impressive growth rate in patent filings by startups but their overall share remains small: We examined patents filed and granted by Indian startups versus other Indian entities which include small firms, private and public firms, and natural persons. We did not include foreign firms and institutions filing for patents in India or Indian entities filing for patents abroad. We found, across the years, that the number of patents filed by startups has increased possibly on account of the fee waiver and fast-tracking of applications. We also see specific increases in the years in which these interventions were made (May 2017, February 2019) when patent filings doubled (see Figure 1). The CAGR for patents filed by startups and other entities show a disproportionate growth rate for startups at 54 per cent for the period between 2016-17 to 2020-21 which was nearly 12 per cent for other entities for the same period. We found that startups constitute a small proportion of the total patents filed in India when compared to other entities. Patent filings were largely driven by large firms and universities.

Figure 1: Fraction of patents filed by startups over non-startups (2016-17 to 2020-21)

Disproportionately fewer startups were granted patents: The share of patents granted to startups peaked at 8.8 per cent during 2017-18, remained the same the following year and has declined since then. One reason for this could be that startups were obliged to file for a patent to receive registration under DPIIT as well as for applying for IT exemption. The reason for the drop in shares of both patents filed and granted during 2020-21 could be the removal of patents as a condition for registration of a startup and for IT exemption (in May 2017). We also believe that there could be an overall decline in the quality of patents filed. It appears that while the current policy has incentivised firms to file patents, their applications do not pass the more stringent test of proving innovation and hence they fail. The threshold required to grant a patent is strict and requires a firm to prove novelty, which is not the case at the application stage where anyone may file for a patent.

Figure 2: Fraction of patents granted to startups over non-startups (2016-17 to 2020-21)

Source: Annual reports of Indian Patents Office

Figure 1 showed that the share of patents filed by startups in total patents filed was rising during the period 2016-17 to 2019-20. This is not the case for the share of patents granted (Figure 2).

Less than two-fifths of startups registered with DPIIT qualify for benefits: We find that since 2016, the number of companies registered as startups under the Startup India Policy with the DPIIT has increased in absolute terms. However, the growth rate over time has reduced. We further find that out of all the startups that exist in India, only a percentage of them qualify as "startups" under the Startup India Policy and have been registered as such. For instance, there are 2,49,107 startups in India (as on February 2023) out of which only 90,939 (36.5 per cent) are registered by the DPIIT as startups. It is possible that the unregistered startups have either not applied to be registered or have not qualified as startups as per the definitions. This raises the question: is our current definition of a startup under the Startup India Policy the right one? Should we rethink the definition to extend the benefits of the policy to more startups on the ground?

Low grant percentage of IT exemptions for startups: We found that out of the total number of registered startups, less than 2 per cent of startups have been granted the IT exemption, signifying that few startups have been certified as innovative as described in the Startup Policy on external scrutiny by the IMB. We validated this with data on the number of applications for the IT exemption for the year in which this data is available (2017) and found that 90 per cent of registered startups applied for the IT exemption in that year. This indicates that the low fraction of startups receiving IT exemptions is not for the lack of application on the part of registered startups. This has even prompted questions in Parliament.

To be registered as a startup under DPIIT, a startup has to only declare that they are working towards innovation, whereas to obtain an IT exemption, the fact of innovation is scrutinised by the IMB based on specific criteria because of which a startup may not qualify. It is possible that, at registration under the policy a startup need not demonstrate innovation but only declare it, however, for the IT exemption it must now demonstrate and prove innovation in the manner specified in the policy. It appears that few startups are actually being innovative according to the Startup India Policy. Table 1 summarises our findings.

Table 1: Total startups registered and granted IT exemptions based on whether they are "innovative" (2015-2016 to 2020-21).

Year	Number of startups registered	Growth rate (%)	No of startups granted 80-IAC	Fraction of total (%)
2015-16	471	--	7	1.5
2016-17	5233	1011	69	1.3
2017-18	8775	68	18	0.2
2018-19	11417	30	162	1.4
2019-20	14596	28	83	0.6
2020-21	20160	38	70	0.3

Source: Authors' calculations from DPIIT data

Limitations: (i) We do not have access to consistent yearly data on the number of total startups v. those which are registered. (ii) We do not have data on the pre-policy period. (iii) Our present study is not focused on industry-level features. We intend to pursue this in the next leg of our study.

Discussion

Our findings indicate that both measures --- IT exemption grants based on innovation and patents filings and grants --- suggest that innovation in India does not consistently emerge from startups. Instead, our findings are in line with studies in other jurisdictions which suggest that large firms undertake most innovation on account of their risk appetite and R&D capacity (Cohen and Klepper 1996, Symeonidis 1996). Our findings are also aligned with reports that indicate large firms and universities engage most in innovation if measured by patent filings in India. Is this, however, a true picture of innovation on-ground? And what are the implications of our findings for current innovation policies for startups?

The literature makes the case for government intervention on startup innovation citing the disparity in the ability to compete as a market failure (Wang 2018, Symeonidis 1996). The argument is that startups require a boost to even out the playing field as they are unable to compete with larger firms with more resources. Our findings lend some support to this by demonstrating that (i) startups in India are not innovating as much as large firms, and (ii) patent filings by startups have increased since the Startup India policy came into effect. We also, find that patent grants to startups have not increased. Therefore, despite government intervention in India, startups are not driving innovation. Some explanations for this are as follows:

• The current set of incentives may not be sufficient to drive startups to innovate more. We find some support for this in the literature that finds that supply-side policies alone (e.g. subsidies) are not sufficient to stimulate innovation (Geroski 1989). Focusing on additional demand-side measures such as public procurement of innovation from startups may trigger greater innovation as it reduces the market risk for innovators (Rothwell et al. 1981; Tiwari 2017).
• Conventional notions of innovation are linked to "novelty" through patenting which is a very high standard for measuring innovation. In reality, startups in India may be engaging in innovation which is not eligible for conventional patents such as technological improvements or modifications suited to the domestic context. Reports suggest that startups in India adopt rather than innovate in the conventional sense. For instance, India is using the technology adoption route for developing Web3.
  Another reason could be that Indian firms are innovating but are not registering patents in India. Reasons for this range from poor enforcement in India to sector-specific commercial preferences. An example of the latter is the semiconductor sector --- India has a large chip design industry but this work is done on a contract basis for US semiconductor firms which file their patents in the US.
  Therefore, patents may not be the best way to measure innovation in India. Current startup policies in India should re-think the definition of "innovation" and make it more suited for the Indian context.

We gain some insights from the innovation-linked incentives that are offered by other countries. In South Korea, which has the highest per-capita granting of patents in the world, all startups irrespective of how innovative they are qualify for reduced fees in patent filings and certain tax exemptions available to SMEs. South Korean policy appears to focus more on promoting linkage between large and small firms to promote networking and market access. In the Netherlands, which ranks ninth in the world in patent filings, vouchers are given to SMEs for patent filing that cover up to 75% of costs. The Dutch Tax Office evaluates and grants specific tax incentives for "technical-scientific research" and "development projects". Both these countries, considered to be highly innovative, have tax schemes that are targeted at specific outcomes and there are some general exemptions for patent filings. India could perhaps learn from these policies.

Conclusion

We set out to answer two questions in this article: Are startups engaging in innovation? How innovative are startups compared to non-startup firms? Our findings using both measures indicate that startups are not driving "innovation" in the conventional sense of the term in India. However, many Indian startups have scaled up by engaging technology towards creative solutions in many industries such as payments (Paytm), e-commerce (Meesho), credit cards (CRED) and healthcare delivery (PharmEasy). While these firms may not do well on the conventional measures of "innovation", they have played a role in encouraging entrepreneurship to solve everyday challenges, all while benefiting their shareholders.[1] Policy in India must, therefore, be suitably modified to recognise such contributions towards innovation. This is an emerging idea that Indian policymakers are increasingly acknowledging. For instance, the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister of India noted the importance of FDI from tech transfers as a key source of promoting innovation in India. We need to think harder about what "innovation" means in India and what role should the government play in encouraging innovation.

In further research, we will analyse the pattern of patents filed and granted across various industries to understand which sectors are more innovative in the traditional sense. We will also examine the firms that have received the IMB's certification of being "innovative" to (i) study the characteristics of these firms and the industries to which they belong, and (ii) study the trends in the grant of certification by the IMB for innovation to startups. This will help us gain a more nuanced understanding of what drives innovation among startup firms in India.

Footnotes

[1] According to its Red Herring Prospectus filed at the time of its IPO (November 2021), Paytm does not own any patents.

References

1. Tom Eisenmann, Entrepreneurship: A Working Definition. Harvard Business Review, January 10, 2013.
2. Stevenson, H. H., and Jarillo, J. C., A Paradigm of Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial Management. Strategic Management Journal, 11 (1990), 17-27.
3. Dobrila Rancic Moogk, Minimum Viable Product and the Importance of Experimentation in Technology Startups, Technology Innovation Management Review, March 2012.
4. Beck, Thorsten and Demirguc-Kunt, Asli and Maksimovic, Vojislav, Financing patterns around the world: Are small firms different?, Journal of Financial Economics, Volume 89, Issue 3, September 2008, Pages 467-487.
5. Jue Wang. Innovation and government intervention: A comparison of Singapore and Hong Kong. In: Research Policy 47.2 (Mar. 2018), 399-412.
6. Wesley M Cohen and Steven Klepper, A Reprise of Size and R&D. In: Economic Journal (1996), 106 (437), pp. 925-51.
7. Gaetan de Rassenfosse, Adam Jaffe, and Emilio Raiteri. The procurement of innovation by the U.S. government. In: PLOS ONE 14 (Aug. 2019), pp. 1-11.
8. Katila, R. Measuring innovation performance. In: International Journal of Business Performance Measurement (2000), 2: 180-193.
9. P. A. Geroski. Entry, Innovation and Productivity Growth. In: The Review of Economics and Statistics 71.4 (1989), 572-578.
10. R Rothwell and W Zegweld. Industrial Innovation and Public Policy: Preparing for the 1980s and the 1990s. In: London: Francis Pinter Publications (1981).
11. G. Symeonidis, Innovation, Firm Size and Market Structure: Schumpeterian Hypotheses and Some New Themes, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, 161 (1996).
12. S.A. Low and M.A. Isserman. Where Are the Innovative Entrepreneurs? Identifying Innovative Industries and Measuring Innovative Entrepreneurship. In: International Regional Science Review 38.2 (2015), 171-201.

Aneesha Chitgupi, Karthik Suresh and Diya Uday are researchers at XKDR Forum. We thank Devendra Damle, Josh Felman, Dr. R. A. Mashelkar, Amey Mashelkar, Megha Patnaik, Arjun Rajagopal, Anjali Sharma and the anonymous referees for their feedback and comments.

Preparing for financially self-reliant and accountable regulators

by Rishika Rangarajan.

Introduction

Indian regulators are tasked with important functions in key sectors such as standard setting, supervising, and monitoring entities, enforcing standards, etc. Crucially, some regulators, namely the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, need to work towards developing and promoting their respective sectors. Achieving these goals involves employing technical and scientific capacity, engaging with relevant stakeholders, collating, and analysing sectoral data, etc. A regulator's ability to conduct these activities, independently and efficiently, requires adequate financial resources and flexibility.

In June 2022, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) published a Discussion Paper proposing a methodology for the regulator to become financially self-reliant. Currently, IBBI largely meets its budgetary requirements from government grants, with only 20% of its financial resources coming from regulatory fees. The paper observed that IBBI’s mandate being a resource-intensive one, requires “financial independence which allows the Board to have the required flexibility and human resources”. In the past, regulators such as the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and the Competition Commission of India (CCI) have also asserted their financial independence, claiming that fees are a means to achieve self-reliance. While it may seem intuitive to allow regulators to charge fees to secure independence, there may be important consequences of such a fee-based model on the accountability of regulators as well (Rangarajan, 2021).

In this article, I discuss the implications of a fee-based model and the potential concerns that may arise lacking such a framework - for example, an unchecked ability to raise fees by regulators may allow the misuse of funds. This article: first, discusses the key sources of funding and the importance of financial capacity; second, provides a summary of the incomes of SEBI, Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA) and Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) between 2015 and 2020; third, discusses important case laws on fee-based models; and finally, concludes the need for a formal and codified process for raising fees by Indian regulators, in line with accepted international practices.

Designing financially self-reliant, independent, and efficient regulators requires careful deliberation, which has not yet been done. It is critical that a fee-based model be designed to factor in principles of independence, accountability, and transparency.

Key Sources of Funding

Each parent Act creates separate accounts for regulators which will hold the grants of the government, fees and subscription charges and any other income such as interest, penalties, or disgorged amounts. Currently, the key sources of income for regulators are (i) grants-in-aid, (ii) fees and charges, and (iii) other funds. The process of raising money for each source is briefly summarised below:

1. Grants-in-Aid: To receive funds from the Appropriate government, parent statutes of regulators require regulators to prepare a budget with estimated receipts and expenditures each Financial Year. This budget is forwarded to the respective central ministry each Financial Year which will grant money from their annual budget, after due appropriation. This money is then taken from the CFI and is approved during the annual Union Budget presentation.

   For example, each Financial Year, IBBI submits their estimated revenue, capital and expenditure to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The Ministry, after considering the Actual Revenue and Expenditure for the previous year, determines the budget for grants-in-aid during the annual Union Budget discussions. The funds, after approval, are credited to the IBBI Fund established under Section 222 of the IBBI Act 2016. All regulators follow a similar procedure to receive grants from the Appropriate government.

2. Fees and charges: Regulators raise money through fees from regulated entities to conduct services such as registration, licensing, granting approvals, and other such activities. Commonly, regulators impose three types of fees: flat fees, fees based on the value of the transaction, and fees based on the nature of the transaction.

   The Act does not prescribe any process to calculate the quantum of fees and regulators have the flexibility to determine the required fees. Regulators issue regulations that prescribe the quantum procedure for collecting fees from regulated entities. These are laid before the Parliament. Currently, there is also no requirement for regulators to publicly disclose the rationale for imposing prescribed fees on regulated entities.

3. Other funds: Regulators can also invest their funds and receive interest on such investments. Other sources of money include penalties, donations, income from publications, interest from deposits, income from the sale/disposal of assets, etc. In addition, some regulators have a separate fund that holds other incomes.

   PFRDA can establish a separate Subscriber Education and Protection Fund which holds grants and donations received, interest on investments made and penalties imposed by the authority. Similarly, SEBI credits all amounts disgorged to an Investor Protection and Education Fund. Regulators can also own capital assets and hold separate capital/corpus funds and earmarked/ endowment funds which are reflected in their Balance Sheet.

The importance of financial capacity

The mandate of regulators is resource intensive. Some of the key expenses regulators incur include: (i) establishment expenses for salaries, wages, allowances, and other such expenses for employees; (ii) administrative expenses consisting of expenses on rent, electricity and water, vehicles, stationary, etc; (iii) grants and subsidies given to institutions or individuals (for ex., FSSAI offers grants to strengthen Food Testing Labs in states); and (iv) expenses for developmental activities including monitoring and supervising their sector

OECD’s Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy highlights that funding is one of the important pillars of regulatory authorities. Financial capacity is not only linked to efficiency, but also independence. It ensures that regulators have sufficient funds to conduct their activities and remain independent from any external factors, including the government or private sector.

Despite the early optimism around regulators, they often face similar capacity issues as the State. In 2018, the FSSAI cited that financial constraints have led to failure in upgrading their food safety mechanism. FSSAI sought a ‘quantum jump in budgetary allocation’ pointing out that counterpart organisations in other countries have a much higher proportionate budget.

On the other hand, SEBI is an entirely self-reliant regulator raising over Rs 800 crores through investments and fees in the Financial Year 2021 with a surplus of close to Rs 200 crores. Although there have been calls for transferring SEBI’s surplus funds to the CFI, there is nothing in the mechanism preventing regulators from raising fees that go above their budgetary requirements. This goes against notions of accountability and transparency - principles that form the bedrock of any public institution. Although a fee-based model allows regulators greater flexibility by avoiding delays and complications arising from the CFI disbursement process, it lacks processes that ensure accountability that come with a grant or tax-based regime.

Comparing incomes of regulatory authorities

To understand the role of fees and grants in the financial capacity of regulators, I have considered the income sources of three regulatory authorities SEBI, PFRDA and FSSAI, between 2015 and 2020. Income accounts of regulatory authorities provide us with a summary of the two key sources of funds: grants and fees/charges.

Evidently, the three regulators largely rely on either of the two sources (i.e., grants and fees) while the proportion differs for each regulator. For example, while SEBI does not rely on any grants from the central government, PFRDA and FSSAI, through the five-year period, largely rely on grants. Both FSSAI and PFRDA’s reliance on fees and subscriptions fluctuates through the period.

SEBI was also able to raise a sizable amount of money through income and interest earned which includes deposits in banks and other institutions; interest through loans provided to employees and interest from brokers.

SEBI makes available their board meeting minutes on their website, which includes the meetings where they decide the quantum of fees. These meetings reveal some of the contexts for why and how SEBI charges fees and the methodology they follow to decide the quantum. For example, in 2017, SEBI reduced the fees payable by brokers by 25% taking into account the projected income and expenditure for the subsequent three financial years and reducing the overall cost of transactions in the market. Similarly, in April 2020 they reduced the broker turnover fees and filing fees on offer documents to counter the challenges faced due to COVID-19.

PFRDA also makes available some of their board meetings - but, of the available minutes, none of them discussed any determination of fee matters. FSSAI does not make any board meetings publicly available and therefore there is no information on their fee determination.

Moving towards fee-based models

Fees have emerged as an important source of income for regulatory authorities, being seen as their way to function independently of the government.

The Report on Financial Sector Legislative Reforms Committee (FSLRC Report) submitted to the Ministry of Finance in 2013 reviewed the legal and institutional framework of the Indian financial sector. While discussing recommendations to reform the regulatory ecosystem, the report raised the importance of maintaining regulators’ independence. Amongst the reasons put forth, the FSLRC Report stated that regulators funding itself through fees would create “operational efficiencies” and ensures that the stakeholders who are the beneficiaries of the relevant market will bear the cost of regulation rather than the public as a whole. Regulators can also achieve freedom from the government on pay, potentially facilitating the hiring of experts. Fees can empower regulators to maintain independence from regulators and enable them to take timely decisions.

Fees are also easier to raise as compared to taxes, the latter being an important source of revenue for the central and state governments. The process of raising taxes is codified in the Constitution of India under Article 265 - “No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law”.

The process to raise taxes follows a multi-step process which begins almost six months prior to the date of presentation. Each ministry is required to submit estimated receipts and expenditures to the Government of India for their financial year which is examined by the Ministry of Finance in consultation with the Union Cabinet or the Prime Minister. After a series of consultations and discussions, the budget is presented in the Lok Sabha, usually on February 1st every year (commonly known as the Union Budget most recently presented by the Finance Minister, Nirmala Sitharaman).

Fees, on the other hand, are used by government departments, local authorities, and regulators to raise money to cover the costs of any services rendered. Over the years, courts have differentiated fees from taxes, empowering regulators to use fees to fund their activities and services. Courts have recognised fees as a legal means to fund regulators' activities but highlighted the need for a fair correlation between the fee charged and the cost of services rendered.

Differing standards of fees

In 2001, the Supreme Court of India considered the petition filed by stockbrokers challenging SEBI’s high registration fee charges. SEBI required stockbrokers to pay an annual registration fee based on their annual turnover over a period of five years. This is one of the earliest cases that dealt with regulators’ right to impose fees on regulated entities to fund their activities. The petitioners argued that the high fees were “excessive”, “unreasonable and arbitrary”. Second, they claimed that the fee is without the authority of law and is a tax guised as a regulatory charge. Finally, the levy has no nexus to the purpose for which the fee is collected and the demand for collection based on annual turnover extended over five years is arbitrary.

The Court rejected their arguments and found that SEBI does have the right to impose fees under the parent statute and therefore is authorised by law. The court did not consider the arguments on the quantum of the fees but held that regulators are not required to show a co-relatable quid pro quo. The court, however, refers to the Justice Mody Committee report which recommended preferable methods to calculate reasonable fees with SEBI in principle agreeing to implement them.

More recently, in 2020, insolvency professionals filed a writ petition, seeking the striking down of IBBI’s regulation charging ad valorem professional fees on them. They contended that there was excessive delegation, and the Act does not empower them to charge fees based on annual turnover or remuneration. They also raised that IBBI has not provided a quid pro quo to justify the charges. The Madras High Court ruled that regulators do not have to present a direct correlation between the fee earned and service rendered. In recent years, other regulators including PFRDA, CCI and PNGRB have also started to charge fees on an ad valorem basis.

As evidenced by the instances above, fees are specifically differentiated from taxes. Currently, taxes are the largest source of revenue for central and state governments with the process to determine and raise taxes set forth in the Constitution. Fees are becoming similarly significant to regulators. However, the same institutional safeguards are not put in place for regulators.

Designing financially self-reliant regulators

To raise taxes, governments must go through a rigorous and intricate process which accounts for principles of independence, transparency, and accountability. This has been coded into the Constitution of India. A similar framework is lacking for regulators funded through fees and charges, raising some concerns. While flexibility is necessary for regulators, equally, checks and balances need to be formalised to prevent misuse of their powers.

An unfettered right to raise fees can have far-reaching consequences on the relevant sector. High fees can impact the market since they are often translated into costs to the public directly or indirectly. To avoid this, it is important to ensure that there is a reasonable nexus between the cost of the services rendered and the fees charged. The FSLRC report highlighted that regulators should “clearly explain the fees it is charging and demonstrate that the fee is not disproportionate to the cost for the regulator”. The OECD report on The Governance of Regulators stated that the funding processes of regulators should be transparent and efficient while protecting their independence and objectivity.

An international example of good practice in raising fees is the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the United Kingdom which is funded entirely by the fees and levies from the firms they regulate. On their website, they explain how they calculate their annual fees and in addition publish an annual consultation paper which sets out its proposal on fees for the upcoming year and the model for calculating the various levies. The paper is open to comments from all FCA fee payers and businesses considering applying for FCA authorisation or registration. Similarly, the parliament of New Zealand also published a document on guiding principles for the levy of fees and charges.

Similar processes are lacking in the Indian context. Currently, regulators are not required to conduct consultations to determine fees nor required to disclose their justification of the fees to the public or the regulated entities. This makes it challenging for the government, regulated entities and the public at large, who indirectly bear the indirect burden of high regulatory fees to question and examine regulatory budgets.

Conclusion: formalising transparency and accountability

It is argued that budgetary independence is related to the larger autonomy of regulators - regulators can determine their staffing, they can incur sudden or additional expenditures without immediate justification to the State, and it may also improve the quality of their operations by allowing investment in new technologies or requirements to upgrade internal processes.

Regulators that raise money need to be accountable to regulated entities and the public. When governments raise taxes, they must comply with certain constitutional and legal principles before deciding on the quantum. Principles that are enshrined in the Constitution. The same processes are not sufficiently imposed on regulators - their parent Acts do not provide any limitation to their right to raise funds through levies nor does it prescribe any requirements for transparency.

With an increasing number of regulators and increasing responsibilities imposed on them, their role in Indian governance is critical. In this context, the need for financial capacity cannot be denied but does the current process to raise funds by regulators ensure the necessary accountability? We need to consider creating a codified framework that sets out the above principles for self-reliant regulators.

References

Rangarajan, R. (2021) Financial Autonomy of Independent Regulatory Authorities: Analysis of Legal Framework.

Kapur, D and Khosla, M (eds.). (2019). Regulation in India: Design, Capacity, Performance.

Burman, A., & Krishnan, K. (2019).Statutory regulatory authorities: Evolution and impact.

Burman, A., & Zaveri, B. (2018). Regulatory responsiveness in India: A normative and empirical framework for assessment. William & Mary Policy Review, 9 (2).

Sundaresan, S. (2018). Capacity building is imperative. Column titled Without Contempt in the editions of Business Standard dated August 2, 2018.

Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. Union Government Accounts of the Union Government, No 44 of 2017.

Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure. General Financial Rules 2017.

Rishika Rangarajan is a Researcher at the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru

The problems of public procurement and payment delays: A review of the recent literature

by Sourish Das and Rabia Khatun.

Introduction

'Public procurement'- the purchase of goods and services by the state from private enterprise -- tends to be a large part of economic activity in any country. The World Bank estimated that globally, public procurement in 2018 amounted to USD 11 trillion or 12 percent of global GDP(Bosio and Djankov, 2020). In India, these estimates are higher at 30 percent (Khan, 2017) and recent budget announcements suggest that these estimates are likely to increase.

Such magnitudes have a large multiplier effect on economic activity and economic growth. But the multiplier effect is dampened by the 'marginal cost of public funds' or MCPF which is the cost incurred by a rupee of public spending (Kelkar and Shah, 2019). In an ideal world, public procurement works well, and goods/services that are available in the private market for Rs.1 are purchased for Rs.1 by the government. In the real world, public procurement processes introduce an additional friction, an inefficiency, where the government pays Rs.A when purchasing something worth Rs.1. Every deficiency of public procurement procedures drives up the A.

There is a friction in taxation (the MCPF which Kelkar and Shah (2019) refer to as a cost of Rs.3 upon the economy when the government obtains Rs.1 as taxes). Similarly, there is a friction in contracting-out (the government pays A when obtaining services worth 1). These two come together in shaping the overall effectiveness of government action. A government that wishes to purchase (or contract-out)goods/services worth Rs.1 ends up with a true total cost for society of 3A. On the taxation side, this motivates research on understanding and reducing the MCPF. On the expenditure side, this motivates research on understanding and improving public procurement so as to obtain a reduced value for A.

The conventional processes of government do not produce information about these two elements of inefficiency. Researchers have to create mechanisms through which these estimates can be obtained. For example, there is a widely held perception that delays of payments are a persistent problem in public procurement. Such delays in payment translate into higher costs of doing business by the private enterprises that render services or deliver products to government or public sector enterprises, and raises the MCPF of public procurement. As has been happening elsewhere, the perception of the higher cost of doing business with the public sector is increasingly occupying the public discourse in India as a critical element of what is driving stress in the financial health of the corporate sector. At present, we have informal estimates about the difficulties faced in public procurement in India. As an example, Sahu (2020) recently estimated the size of the delayed payments from the Union government as totalling Rs.9.5 lakh crore, an estimate that was culled from public sources. The data presented included pending dues to road projects at NHAI, from power generating companies and power grid, in the sugar and fuel ecosystem, food distribution at FCI and to the micro, small and medium enterprises. But beyond such broad, aggregate estimates, there is little that is understood about the mechanics that drive this quantum of delay. What needs to be set right to solve the problem is not well understood.

In the present literature, two key features emerge. One is the issue of late payments by the state. This has become increasingly recognised as a major problem after the Financial crisis of 2008 and after the European debt crisis of 2009. Perhaps as a consequence, almost all of the studies are based on data from countries of the EU. A second central concern appears to be the effect of such late payment by governments on the financial health of firms, particularly Small and Medium Enterprises or SMEs. SMEs have been in the policy headlights over the last decade as a critical base of employment growth. Any factor influencing their financial health has also been highlighted as an important area of reform. SMEs are particularly affected by any adverse impact of payment delays.

In this article, we survey the literature on delays in payments by government and their consequences. We find it useful to classify this literature into two lines of thought about delayed payments in public procurement: (1) these hurt the profit of the private sector and increases the probability of bankruptcy, particularly for smaller businesses; and together (2) such delays have a significant negative impact on economic growth. Additionally, this literature shows pathways for setting up measurement systems that can then be used to regularly monitor the impact of public procurement processes on economic agents and the economy. Four papers appear to be the basis of understanding, which are Connell (2014), Checherita et al. (2016), Obeng (2016), and Conti et al. (2020).

Much of the work uses two components to measure late payments: payment delays and the duration of payment delays. Payment delay is calculated over agreed contractual period and it is the ratio of absolute delay (in days) to the agreed contractual period. Payment duration refers to agreed contractual period plus the absolute delay in days over agreed contractual period and is the sum of agreed contractual period plus payment delay. The data for payment delay and payment duration is obtained from Intrum Justitia, a private credit management firm which conducts an annual written survey among several thousand firms in 29 European countries. The survey results are published as the annual European Payment Index Report. Among other statistics, the survey reports the average annual payment duration and the average annual contractual payment period, both of which are further disaggregated into consumer, business-to-business, and public sector debtors terms.

The impact of delayed payments in public procurement on the health of firms

Connell (2014) attempts to estimate the economic effects of late payments that firms face in some European countries (Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain) regarding delays in payments in Business to Business (B2B) and Government to Business (G2B) transactions with two questions:

1. How can the cost to firms associated with government late payments be approximated? This cost is estimated as the short-term financial cost of firms associated with late payments. In order to calculate this, they use the volume of claims against the public administration, the average annual interest rate for loans to non-financial corporations and the average government payment delays expressed as a fraction of a year.
2. Do liquidity constraints associated with payment delays put the firms out of business? A panel regression is run between payment delays and the firm's exit rate. This was done for B2B and G2B transactions separately. The exit rate is defined as the ratio of death firms to the total number of active firms. The regression controls for size of the firms involved, country fixed effects to control for national time-invariant characteristics, and business cycles variables to control for changes in financial conditions.

The paper finds that payment delay is statistically significant and negative across all the countries studied, with higher payment delays being seen with higher exit rates. The estimated financial cost as a percentage of GDP in 2012 ranges from 0.19 percent in Greece to 0.005 percent in Finland. A one point reduction in the payment delay ratio would reduce exit rates by about 2.8 or 3.4 percentage points in a B2B transactions. As expected, these effects are exacerbated with business cycle effects. The results also show that bigger firms, with a larger number of employees, are more likely to survive the deleterious effects of payment delays. In G2B transactions, a one point reduction in the delay ratio leads to a decrease in exit rates of about 1.7 to 2 percentage points. The effect is lower than payment delays in B2B transactions which is suggested as being due to the different representations of SMEs in these different types of transactions. The overall findings of this study suggest that payment delays in commercial transactions by the public administration and private entities have detrimental effects on the health of a firm, and exacerbate the burden of already financially constrained firms which ultimately push them out of business.

Delayed payments in public procurement and its impact on the economy

Checherita et al. (2016) analyze the impact of government payment delays on private firms and on economic growth. They argue that increased delays in public payments can affect private sector liquidity and profits and hence ultimately economic growth. This study defined payment delays by including various measures of the accounts payable data from government accounts (as defined in ESA 1995 code AF.7) along with the other measures of payment duration defined earlier. In addition to the short-term impact of payment delays from government on real GDP growth, the study also analyses profit growth measured by economy wide gross operating surplus, and bankruptcy measured by the probability of default (using Moody's measure of distance to default) over the period spanning 1993 to 2012.

Using a panel regression analysis, they find a negative relation between delayed payments and growth. The results show that a one standard deviation change in delayed payments reduces the growth rate by 0.8-1.5 percent, and a one percent increase in arrears reduces growth by 0.6-0.9 percent. The paper finds a statistically significant impact of delayed payments on the growth rate of operating surplus of firms. A one standard deviation increase in delayed payments reduces profit growth by 1.5-3.4 percent. Finally, their results suggest that delayed payments reduce the distance to default. In similar work, Fiordelisi et, al. (2012) show that economic growth in Italy would have been an additional 0.38 per cent if the government paid its trade loans within 30 days.

Obeng (2016) investigates the impact of payment delays caused by a liquidity crisis in the European Union, using changes in the pattern of late payments among EU companies between 2005 and 2014. The paper finds the following features about payments delays during the financial crisis: payment delays increased across the board; delays had a higher negative impact on SMEs, low profitability firms, and low liquidity firms; significant variation in how delays increased depending upon the sector that the firm operated in. The paper analyses the variability of firm late payments under different macroeconomic conditions using data for 54,277 EU firms over the period 2005 to 2014 from the AMADEUS database, a commercial European firm database. A fixed effects regression model to estimate the impact of selected macroeconomic shocks on payment delays finds that the financial crisis has a significant negative impact on payment delays of accounts receivable, even after controlling for firm characteristics such as profitability, liquidity, size, sector, country, credit collections, and credit period.

This literature establish that impact of delayed payments by the government on firms and economy is negative and significant. The next strand of the literature asks what can be done to reduce the economic cost of delayed payments, and to improve the MCPF of public procurement.

Conti et al. (2020) analyze the regulatory framework of the EU (called the Directive on Late Payments or DLP) concerning delayed payments by government. This paper focuses on G2B commercial relationships, starting by investigating the impact of the DLP on firm survival, employment and investment. They use sector level data for a sample of 23 EU countries (and Norway) from 2008-2015, using 38 two-digit sectors from the Structural Business Statistics(SBS) database (an Eurostat firm database which provides information on European firms). The authors construct the exit rate of firms for a given sector in a country as the ratio between the number of enterprises that cease activity and the stock of active enterprises in a given year and for a given country-sector unit. A difference-in-differences analysis finds that after the introduction of the Directive, the exit rate of firms decreased in sectors that sell a larger fraction of their output to the government. They also find that there is an increase in employment in those sectors more connected with the government, and conclude that more discipline in government payment terms can have considerable positive effects on economic activity.

Implications

The results of the above studies present the first empirical estimates of the quantum of the negative impact on the economy when the government delays payments for procurement transactions.Some indicative estimates of the economic impact include:

1. One standard deviation worsening in delayed payments reduce firm profit growth by 1.5-3.4 percent.
2. One point reduction in delayed payments reduce firm exit rates by 1.7-2.0 percent.
3. One standard deviation worsening in delay of payments reduce economic growth rate by 0.8-1.5 percent.
4. Paying trade loans in 30 days imply an additional 0.33 percent economic growth.

Even with the caveat that these are values estimated for countries and firms operating in the countries in the EU, where contract performance and enforcement tend to be some of the best in the world, these are useful benchmarks to frame the impact of problems of public procurement for us in India. Such an exercise is particularly pertinent for the current times, where the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a severe reduction in GDP growth and there is a large scale loss of jobs. One estimate puts the reduction in the Indian economy at 23.9 per cent in the April to June quarter of 2020 (Choudhury, 2020).

India has followed the global response to such a systemic shock, with the state becoming the saviour of last resort and rolling out economic interventions in the form of income support schemes and various public expenditure programs. However, the present situation of the Indian fiscal conditions place constraints on the credibility and sustainability of new spending. What the above literature suggests, in addition to these recent interventions, is that India would do well to find ways and means to clear her dues to direct and indirect suppliers, particularly given that a large fraction of Indian enterprises are micro, small and medium enterprises. Sahu (2020) reports that INR 5 lakh crore out of the reported INR 9.5 lakh crore of dues from the government was due to MSMEs. If reducing the delays in payments can reduce the distress related bankruptcy of such firms by even one percent, it can have a material impact on the health of these firms and continued availability of avenues for employment. More importantly, such an action will improve the confidence of small traders and vendors across the country in participating in G2B transactions. If payments can be made on time, it will reduce the MCPF and strengthen the channels through which the state can deliver a positive impact on economic growth at the time when it is most required, and to those who need the support the most.

One path suggested in international literature is to put in place a regulatory framework on public procurement. However, there is no clear evidence that indicates that this can be successful in reversing payment delays. For example, Banerjee et al. (2020) show that e-governance reforms of the MNREGA system does deliver a positive impact on reduced leakage in social benefit programs but fails to reduce payment delays. Further, Roy and Uday (2020) analyse the link between the presence of a legal framework and the corruption and they find no correlation between the two.

Conclusions

What the existing studies show is the importance of establishing systems through which the impact of the public procurement processes can be understood. Unlike in the various EU countries where these studies have been carried out, there are no systematic empirical studies that have been done in India to quantify the economic cost of delayed payments on firms and the economy. A first step towards solving the problem of delayed payments and the overall processes of public procurement would be to facilitate opportunities to gather information of the impact of these process on the operational health of firms. Such information needs to developed for India and made largely available to the research community to get a sound empirical understanding of the process of public procurement and how to improve the cost of doing business with the Indian State.

References

Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo, Clement Imbert, Santhosh Mathew and Rohini Pande (2020), 'E-governance, accountability and leakage in public programs: Experimental evidence from financial management reform in India', American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 12(4).

Cristina Checherita-Westphal, Alexander Klemm, and Paul Viefers (2016), 'Governments payment discipline: The macroeconomic impact of public payment delays and arrears'. Journal of Macroeconomics, 47: 147-165.

Erica Bosio and Simeon Djankov (2020), 'How large is public procurement?', World Bank Blogs, 5 February.

Franco Fiordelisi, Davide Mare, Nemanja Radic, Ornella Ricci, Philip Molyneux, and Thomas Weyman Jones (2012). 'Government late payment: the effect on the Italian economy', Doctoral Dissertation, School of Economics and Business, Loughborough University, UK.

Gaurav Choudhury (2020), 'India's GDP contracts 23.9 per cent in Q1FY21 as lockdowns, restrictions bludgeon economy', 1 September.

Isaac Kwame Essien Obeng (2017), 'Delaying payments after the financial crisis: evidence from EU companies', Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 65(2): 447-463.

Maurizio Conti, Leandro Elia, Antonella Rita Ferrara and Massimiliano Ferraresi (2020), 'Government late payments and firms survival: evidence from the EU', Technical report, Societia Italiana di economica pubblica, Working paper No. 753.

M. H. Khan (2017), 'Public procurement issues with government of India', Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration (LBSNAA).

Prashant Sahu (2020), 'Forget stimulus, clear your dues: Rs 7 lakh crore unpaid dues to industry by central govt depts and PSUs', in Financial Express, 8 September.

Shubho Roy and Diya Uday (2020), 'Does India need a procurement law?', The LEAP Journal blog, 19 August.

Vijay Kelkar and Ajay Shah (2019), 'In service of the Republic: the art and science of public policy', Penguin Allen Lane.

William Connell (2014), 'Economic impact of late payments', Technical report, Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), European Commission.

Rabia Khatun is an independent researcher and Sourish Das is associate professor at the Chennai Mathematics Institute. The authors would like to thank Susan Thomas for comments and suggestions on the article.