COMMENTARY

october 6, 2012 vol xlviI no 40 EPW Economic & Political Weekly10

Where Do India’s Billionaires Get Their Wealth?

Aditi Gandhi, Michael Walton

Aditi Gandhi (gandhi.aditi@gmail.com) is at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi. Michael Walton (Michael_Walton@harvard.edu) is at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University and the CPR.

Out of India’s 46 billionaires in 2012, 20 had drawn their primary source of wealth (at least originally) from sectors that can be classifi ed as “rent-thick” (real estate, construction, infrastructure or ports sectors, media, cement, and mining). The remaining 26 billionaires had drawn their primary source of wealth from “other” sectors (IT/software, pharmaceuticals and biotech, fi nance, liquor and automotives, etc). Overall, 43% of the total number of billionaires, accounting for 60% of billionaire wealth in India, had their primary sources of wealth from rent-thick sectors. Indian capitalism seems to have two faces. Does international experience provide a guide?

One of the most striking features of India’s growth since the 1990s has been the sharp rise in

extreme wealth. Since the early 1990s, the number and wealth of India’s billion-aires has risen dramatically, in relation to India’s own growth and in relation to other countries. India is now an outlier with respect to the size of billionaire wealth relative to the size of her economy, especially for a relatively poor country.

We present here some of the facts on India’s billionaire wealth, over time and in the international context. We also look at the primary sources of the wealth of billionaires. A tentative categorisation suggests this is often from sectors in which there is signifi cant connectivity with the state and potentially thick with “economic rents”.

The extent of wealth raises questions for India’s economy and polity. It might be a sign of the dynamism of India’s cor-porate sector. Or it could be problematic to have such extreme wealth amidst both continued poverty and a clearly corrupt-ible state. Indeed, it has become increas-ingly common to compare India today with the United States’ “Gilded Age” of the late 19th century Robber Barons.

Data

We have used data from the annual billionaires list compiled by Forbes, publicly available on forbes.com, and based on research by Forbes staff. It aims to include all sources of individual or family wealth. There are many caveats: it only includes disclosed wealth, and wealthy individuals may well under-re-port. However, it seeks to apply a con-sistent methodology across countries and over time, and we believe it is of value in making comparisons.

The database includes information on whether billionaires are self-made or

inherited, their nationality and country of residence and main sectoral source of wealth. We have classifi ed billionaires by their country of residence, excluding Indian billionaires not resident in India, such as Lakshmi Mittal.

There were two billionaires in India in the mid-1990s, worth a combined total of $3.2 billion. By 2012, there were 46, with a total net worth of $176.3 billion. Mukesh Ambani (Reliance Industries) with a net worth of $22.3 billion was the richest individual in India for the sixth year in a row. Two billionaires, Azim Premji (Wipro) and Savitri Jindal and family (Jindal Steel) had wealth over $10 billion, eight had wealth between $5 billion and $10 billion and the rest had less than $5 billion.

The fortunes of billionaires move closely with economic growth and the stock market, which accounts for a large part of their wealth. Billionaire wealth soared with the stock market boom of the mid-2000s, and then dropped sharply (by almost 70%) when the stock market crashed (by some 60%) in the wake of the international fi nancial crisis. By 2011, total net worth was way above 2007 levels, if still below the 2008 high, then fell below 2010 levels in 2012 as stock market valuations and the overall economy weakened (Figure 1, p 11).

How does growth of extreme wealth compare with India’s overall growth? Total billionaire wealth to gross domestic product (GDP) provides a proxy (Figure 2, p 11).1 This ratio rose from around 1% in the mid-1990s to 22% at the peak of the boom in 2008, and was still 10% of GDP in 2012, refl ecting both new entrants and increased wealth of existing billionaires.

Figure 3 (p 11) then shows India’s bil-lionaire wealth to GDP ratio in the inter-national context for 1996 and 2012. In 1996, China and India had very low ratios. Among the rich countries, the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK) had ratios in the range of 4% to 6% of GDP; Japan was signifi cantly lower. Oil-rich Kuwait and Saudi Arabia had higher ratios. Indonesia, Korea, Mala ysia, Singapore and Thailand had mostly higher ratios than Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Mexico,

COMMENTARY

Economic & Political Weekly EPW october 6, 2012 vol xlviI no 40 11

0.90.9 0.90.9 0.40.4 1.61.6

4.64.6

2.92.9 2.52.5 1.81.8

3.33.3 3.53.5

6.66.6

11.411.4

22.222.2

6.86.8

11.911.9 12.112.1

9.99.9

0

5

1010

1515

2020

2525

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Figure 2: The Ratio of Billionaire Wealth to GDP, 1996-2012 (%)

Source: Forbes.com and World Economic Outlook, IMF.

Figure 3: Billionaire Wealth as a Proportion of GDP across Economies, Over Time

Aggregate Net Worth as a % Share of GDP in 1996

ARGARG BRABRA

CHLCHL

CHNCHN

COLCOL ECUECU

INDIND

IDNIDN

ISRISR JPNJPN

KWTKWT

MYSMYS

MEXMEX

RUSRUS

SAUSAU

SGPSGP

KORKOR

THATHA

GBRGBR

USAUSA VENVEN

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 GDP Per Capita PPP

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Aggregate Net Worth as a % Share of GDP in 2012

20

15

10

5

0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000

GDP Per Capita PPP

ARGARG

BRABRA

CHLCHL

CHNCHN

COLCOL

ECUECU

INDIND

IDNIDN

ISRISR

JPNJPN

KORKOR KWTKWT

MYSMYS MEXMEX

RUSRUS

SAUSAU SGPSGP

THATHA

GBRGBR

USAUSA

VENVEN

Source: Forbes.com and World Economic Outlook, IMF.

countries notorious for their extreme levels of inequality.2 East Asian countries have often been characterised as paragons of “shared growth” (World Bank 1993). There were indeed sharp reductions in poverty incidence, but there was also accumulation of extreme wealth by busi-ness families in their growth process.

The picture changed dramatically by the 2000s. Billionaire wealth as a pro-portion of GDP had fallen sharply in Indonesia, Korea and Thailand in the wake of the 1997-98 east Asian crisis – amidst a newly discovered concern with “crony capitalism”. By contrast, wealth in Chile, Mexico and Russia rose sub-stantially; Saudi Arabia and Kuwait ex-perienced some decline. Chile has a small number of very rich families in a relatively small country that has experi-enced rapid growth. Mexico is renowned for its billionaires, many of whom were created in the era of privatisations in the early 1990s; this in particular helped the business career of the world’s richest man Carlos Slim Helú. India is in inter-esting company. The ratio also rose in China, but much less than in India.

Sources of WealthWe turn now to the sources of wealth of India’s billionaires from two perspectives: inheritance and sector of origin.

Inherited and Self-made Wealth: Morck, Wolfenzon and Yeung (2005) note an interesting pattern across countries: they fi nd a positive association between growth and self-made billionaire wealth, but a negative one with inherited wealth. While no causality can be inferred, this is aligned with the view that self-made wealth is more likely to be associated with aggregate economic dynamism.

In addition to self-made and inherited, Forbes also has a category of “inherited and growing”, for billionaires who inherited their wealth but subsequently experienced substantial growth in wealth.3 Figure 4 (p 12) shows that while the largest number of Indian billionaires (21) is “self-made”, some 40% of total billionaire wealth is in the “inherited and growing” category, including, for example, Mukesh and Anil Ambani.

Caste origins are also of interest for India. Damodaran (2008) has documented

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Figure 1: Net Worth of Billionaires and the Stock Market

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Sensex (LHS)

Aggregate Net Worth (RHS)

Source: BSE database and Forbes.com

Sen

sex

(Hig

h)

Net

Wor

th ($

bn)

COMMENTARY

october 6, 2012 vol xlviI no 40 EPW Economic & Political Weekly12

the importance of the route from India’s merchant castes to modern business wealth, but also found increasing entry into business activity from other groups: from brahmin and other upper castes

(from “Offi ce to Factory”) and from Other Backward Classes (from “Field to Factory”). This is evident in the billion-aire list: 28 of the 46 billionaires in 2012 are from traditional merchant classes – Banias (including Marwaris), Parsis and Sindhis. A number belong to upper caste communities, including brahmins (Mallya, Murthy) and Khatris (Thapar, Munjal, Mahindra). A smaller group comes from other backward and lower castes such as Nadar, Jat and Reddy. There is one Muslim and no dalit.

Sectoral Sources of Wealth and ‘Eco-nomic Rents’: All of India’s billionaires are linked to corporate activity. There is an array of sectoral sources, including mining, energy, petrochemicals, phar-maceuticals, information technology, construction, real estate and fi nance. This allows us to explore whether wealth had its origins in domains with extensive “economic rents” and links with government.

By economic rent we mean a return to a factor of production in excess of what could be obtained from an alternative use in a fully competitive activity. Economic rents often fl ow from monopolistic eco-nomic power or from the need to get licences from government. Natural re-sources, land, and the spectrum have intrinsic economic rents, and typically high levels of state control, as do a range of activities involving government contracts. There are also “Schumpeterian” economic rents associated with discovery and cre-ation of new products. India’s information

technology revolution is often put in this category. The broader debate over whether India’s capitalism is heading towards oligarchic or competitive struc-tures is closely linked to what kind of economic rents are driving business activity.4 In the rest of this article we use rents to refer to the former category, associated with market power, infl uence or preferential access to licensing.

As a highly tentative exploration of patterns, we draw a distinction between activities in “rent-thick” sectors and “others” – even if they involve some inter-action with the state. The classifi cation should be considered as a cautious fi rst step. This draws on a survey of business views on corruption by KPGM (2011), an-ecdotal evidence on regulatory intensity, and reports of alleged scams.‘Rent-thick’: Sectors such as real estate, infrastructure, construction, mining, tele-com, cement and media have been clas-sifi ed as “rent-thick”, because of the per-vasive role of the state in giving licences, reputations of illegality, or information on monopolistic practices. The real estate sector is well known for the large number of “black” transactions, and the nexus between politicians and realtors has been documented in recent scams (e g, the Adarsh housing scam). Accord-ing to the KPMG study, the real estate sector is perceived to be the most corrupt in India.5

Infrastructure projects, mining and spectrum licence allocations are typically granted through invitation of bids by the government. Decisions have often been disputed on grounds of transgressions, such as the award of tenders for building airports at Mumbai and Delhi6 or the fa-mous 2G telecom spectrum allocation, now the subject of trial over bribes.

Cement manufacturers have allegedly been involved in a cartel for almost two decades. In 2007 the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission initiated an investigation and a fi ne was eventually imposed in 2012.7 Indian print media is deeply embroiled in the paid news scandal, and the Press Commission of India launched an investigation after the 2009 elections. It is alleged that the released version of the report omitted the names of the implicated companies.8

‘Others’: This category covers sectors where the interaction with the state is more limited, the regulator has a good reputation and there is little anecdotal evidence of scams. Sectors include IT/soft-ware, engineering sector fi rms, pharma-ceuticals, fi nance and banking. Many corporations in this category do have some form of agreement with the government. For example, technology fi rms (Wipro, HCL and Infosys) have been involved in various state and central government projects under the National e-Governance Plan. Engineering fi rms often provide equipment to government departments or public sector units. Two fi rms, Torrent Group and RPG Group, have diversifi ed business activities into power and have supply agreements with government. Another company, Serum Institute has a vaccine supply agreement with govern-ment (and is also involved in liquor). Yet the core business of these fi rms is not driven by government contracts.

Also included in “others” are pharma-ceuticals, chemicals, light engineering and fi nance and banking fi rms. Pharma-ceutical companies are often in legal battles with one another, but interac-tions with government are more infre-quent. Despite cases of accounting or trading violations, the fi nancial sector is generally thought to be tightly regulated by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) or the Reserve Bank of India. Other manufacturing fi rms also now require fewer permissions from the state; we include in this category automobiles, the leading paints manufacturer Asian Paints and the conglomerate Spice group with operations in various sectors includ-ing mobile, retail, etc.

Proportion of wealthProportion of wealth

Number of Billionaires (RHS)Number of Billionaires (RHS)

50

40

30

20

10

0

25

20

15

10

5

0Inherited Inherited and Growing Self-made

Figure 4: The Distribution of the Number and Wealth of Billionaires in Terms of ‘Inherited’, ‘Inherited and Growing’ and ‘Self-made’(in %)

Proportion of wealthNumber of Billionaires (RHS)

Source: Author’s estimates from Forbes.com

Permission for Reproduction of Articles Published in EPW

No article published in EPW or part thereof should be reproduced in any form without prior permission of the author(s).

A soft/hard copy of the author(s)’s approval should be sent to EPW.

In cases where the email address of the author has not been published along with the articles, EPW can be contacted for help.

COMMENTARY

Economic & Political Weekly EPW october 6, 2012 vol xlviI no 40 13

Patterns The above, preliminary and tentative, categorisation generates the following pattern in 2012 (details available from the authors on request):● Twenty billionaires had their primary source of wealth (at least originally) from sectors classifi ed as “rent-thick”: seven from the real estate, construction, infra-structure or ports sectors, three from media and the rest from cement and mining. ● Twenty-six billionaires had their primary source of wealth from “other” sectors: six from IT/software industry, eight from pharmaceuticals and biotech, two from fi nance or banking, one from liquor and nine from manufacturing (automotives, FMCG, mobiles, electronics, paints, etc).

Overall, 43% of the total number of billionaires, accounting for 60% of billion-aire wealth, had their primary sources of wealth from rent-thick sectors (Figure 5).

We also looked at changes over time: in the early 2000s, the proportion of wealth from the sectors classifi ed as “others” rose, while wealth from billionaires in “rent-thick” sectors shifted back to dominance in the second half of the 2000s (Figure 6).

There are many caveats around this exercise, both in the allocation of sectors and of billionaires to sectors. Classifi ca-tion in a rent-thick sector does not nec-essarily mean that wealth was acquired through the (legal or illegal) exercise of infl uence. However, it is notable that impressive wealth creation occurred in sectors with substantial potential for rent-extraction and rent-sharing between private and government players.

Business Dynamism or Oligarchy?

Does the rise in the billionaire class herald enhanced business dynamism or a business oligarchy? Do these results

have a larger signifi cance? In particular, did the opening of the economy contribute to the entrenchment of incumbents in the Indian business sector or unleash dynamic, competitive forces? There is a case for both.

The corporate sector has clearly played a critical role in India’s economic growth. The share of investment in GDP rose from around 25% in 2000 to around 35% in 2010, with a substantial rise in the share of the private corporate sector. Mody, Nath and Walton (2011) provide empirical evidence to support the view that profi t behaviour of listed fi rms in the corporate sector – including the large business houses – is more typical of competitive behaviour than of the ex-ercise of market power.

On the other hand, the recent string of scams points to widespread existence of corruption, with anecdotal evidence sug-gesting that the links between the govern-ment and the business sector remain strong. Indian capitalism seems to have two faces. Does international experience provide a guide?

We saw above that east Asian miracle countries also experienced a combination of corporate dynamism, accusations of cronyism and concentrations of extreme wealth. This mix was viable for a while – though these countries did a much better job than India in channelling the gains from growth into broad-based service provision and employment growth. How-ever, the cronyism was a rising source of distortion and contributed to the east Asian crisis.

Mexico, amongst Latin American countries, is a classic case of tight state-corporate links creating extreme business

wealth. The Mexican business sector is much more oligopolistic than India’s, but the infl uence of big business over the Mexican state is a salutary lesson. It, in particular, shows how high domestic rents and market power can be consistent with internationally competitive compa-nies: Mexican fi rms in telecoms and cement are also effi cient global players, pushing for competition abroad and resisting it at home.

The Robber Barons of the US gilded age were eventually brought under a degree of economic control via the anti-trust movement – though not before they had become enormously wealthy. This movement involved an effective alliance between a populist political movement and a strong executive, supported by action of the judiciary. India certainly has popular mobilisation against corrup-tion, but it is not at all clear that the state has the capacity to manage the econom-ic power of a rising corporate sector.

Conclusions

The interaction between the corporate sector and the state is an unavoidable feature of capitalism. In the past two to three decades this has bred both impressive business dynamism and even

Figure 5: Proportion of Billionaires and Total Billionaire Wealth by ‘Rent-Thick’ or Otherwise in 2012

Number of Billionaires Wealth of Billionaires

Source: Forbes.com and author’s calculations.

Rent thick43% Rent thick

60%

Others40%Others

57%

Figure 6: Distribution of Wealth of Billionaires by Sources of Wealth between 1996 and 2012

100

80

60

40

20

0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

OthersRent thick

Source: Author’s estimates from Forbes.com

available at

Delhi Magazine Distributors Pvt Ltd

110, Bangla Sahib Marg New Delhi 110 001

Ph: 41561062/63

COMMENTARY

october 6, 2012 vol xlviI no 40 EPW Economic & Political Weekly14

more impressive accumulation of extreme wealth in India. There is a real question as to whether an oligarchic business structure and a corruptible state will lead to the propagation of inequality and create distortions that hurt the growth process. This is not necessary, as illus-trated by the US reform experience in the fi rst part of the last century – though the more recent US experience with the fi nancial crisis shows that the effective regulation of capitalism continues to be a major issue. The rise of India’s businesses on the global stage can be consistent with a murky domestic scene. Which path India follows will have a powerful infl uence on growth, inequality and the nature of the state.

Notes

1 This is a ratio of a stock (of wealth) to a fl ow (of national income). Changes in this ratio will move with the underlying ratio of the share of billionaire to total Indian wealth, to the extent

that aggregate income to wealth ratio remains constant, or changes slowly.

2 Measures of income or expenditure inequality from household surveys are generally higher in these Latin American countries than in the Asian counterparts.

3 The classifi cation is taken from the latest avail-able list. For example, if a billionaire featured in the 2008 list prior to the 2012 list, 2008 clas-sifi cation has been used. Classifi cation for two billionaires was not available. The classifi cation has been done subjectively based on trends.

4 See Walton (2012).5 http://www.kpmg.com/IN/en/IssuesAndInsights/

ArticlesPublications/Documents/KPMG_Brib-ery_Survey_Report_new.pdf

6 http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx? 230152

7 http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx? 235287

8 http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx? 266542

References

Bombay Stock Exchange (2011): BSE database (http://www.bseindia.com/stockinfo/indices.aspx).

Damodaran, Harish (2008): India’s New Capitalists – Caste, Business and Industry in a Modern Nation (New Delhi: Permanent Black).

Forbes (2012): “The World’s Billionaires”, downloaded

on April 2012 (http://www.forbes.com/billion-aires/list/).

KPMG (2011): Corruption and Bribery Survey 2011: Impact on Economy and Business Environment, KPMG.

Mody, Ashoka, Anusha Nath and Michael Walton (2011): “Sources of Corporate Profi ts in India: Business Dynamism or Advantages of Entrench-ment?” in Suman Bery, Barry Bosworth and Arvind Panagariya (ed.), India Policy Forum 2010-11 Volume 7 (New Delhi: Sage).

Morck, Randall, Daniel Wolfenzon and Bernard Yeung (2005): “Corporate Governance, Eco-nomic Entrenchment and Growth”, Journal of Economic Literature, 43: 657-722

Roy, Saumya (2006): “The Tarmac Is Grey”, Out-lookindia.com (13 February), viewed on 2 Sep-tember 2011 (http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?230152).

Srivastava, Shuchi (2007): “Shots or Mortar”, Out-lookindia.com (13 August), viewed on 5 Sep-tember 2011 (http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?235287).

Thakurta, Paranjoy Guha and K Sreenivas Reddy (2010): “ ‘Paid News’: The Buried Report”, Outlookindia.com (6 August), viewed on 5 Sept-ember 2011 (http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?266542).

Walton, Michael (2012): Inequality, Rents and the Long-run Transformation of India (Bangalore: Institute for Social and Economic Change).

World Bank (1993): The East Asian Miracle, World Bank, Washington DC.

EPW Research FoundationExplore EPWRF’s Online Database on Indian Economy: Experience the Difference!

AVAILABLE IN FULL AT NOMINAL RATES FOR ONE MONTH

We are offering full access to our website, www.epwrfi ts.in, for a limited period of one month at a very moderate and uniform retention fee of Rs. 2,500 per individual/institutional user in India (against the current annual subscription ranging from Rs. 24,000 for students to Rs.1,26,000 for institutions with multiple users).

At present, only the demo version is accessible freely for the registered users.

Our objective is to provide potential subscribers hands-on experience with all data modules. The subscription to this facility will be open from 20th September to 20th November 2012.

(i) Financial Markets (v) Agricultural Statistics (ix) Combined Government Finances(ii) Banking Statistics (vi) Power Sector (x) National Accounts Statistics(iii) Domestic Product of States of India (vii) Industrial Production (xi) Annual Survey of Industries(iv) Price Indices (viii) Finances of State Governments (xii) External Sector (xiii) Finances of Government of India

Key Online Database Features

Salient Features Compilation and disseminating data in time-series format. Covers various periodicities and trends.

Interactive and Ease in identifying the variables.User-friendly Versatility in selecting data variable/series as per requirement and download at ease as designed to

facilitate electronic processing. Convenience of exporting the required data-set to Excel fi les. Instantly compare and analyze different data in relation to each other and if required can print the data.

Enhancing Research Enabling instant comparison, plotting in a graphical format using charts in different styles like line, point, range, column etc. & analysing different data variable/series in relation to each other.

Availability of ‘Meta Data’ at a click providing information on the sources of data, concepts, coverage and changes therein.

Periodic updating of the database depending upon the availability and frequency of data.

For any further details or clarifi cations, please contact:

The Director, EPW Research Foundation, C-212, Akurli Industrial Estate, Akurli Road, Kandivli (East), Mumbai - 400 101.(Phone: +91-22-2885 4995/4996) or mail to: epwrf@vsnl.com www.epwrfi ts.in