NEWS
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
CHAT
ARCHIVES

The key thing is to have a clear and transparent framework of rules for the contracting and bidding process

From 1992, Turner focused on the building of McKinsey's practice in eastern Europe, with responsibility for all banking work. Prior to that, he worked with the British Petroleum planning department and the Chase Manhattan Bank.

In a conversation with Savera R Someshwar, he focuses his attention on the rapidly developing Indian industrial and economic scenarios. Excerpts:

What are the decisions needed to be taken at the central level to make things better?
Well, India really needs more of the same. Obviously, there are some vitally important things that need to be focused on. The development of infrastructure, for example, is absolutely necessary. Foreign investment and foreign capital could certainly be utilised/solicited to help finance that infrastructure through investment in power, gas, electricity, roads, etc.

The key thing, in order to facilitate this process, is to have a clear and transparent framework of rules for the contracting and bidding process. Which is why, of course, the resolving of the Enron issue is a major step towards clearing the path in that respect.

As far as British investment is concerned, is British industry looking at any particular state keeping in mind the infrastructure that is available?
All the states, I think. I would not want to cause trouble by mentioning any individual state. At the same time, there is no doubt that people are very aware of the major developments taking place. Bangalore is a major centre. Maharashtra, obviously, is a very important state but I think people will look across the board.

Which, according to you, are the sectors Britain is most interested in?
Britain is particularly interested in things to do with infrastructure, particularly the power sector and the telecom sector. The fact that we have been undergoing a privatisation process over the last 15 years has meant that we have some of the most efficient and capable power and telecom companies in the world.

Do you feel there is a groundswell of public opinion against multinationals? Or is it engineered by politicians for their own ends?
I personally don't know that. I mean, the multinational issue has obviously changed in political significance over the last few years. But I hope that, whatever the attitude, people will increasingly realise that the involvement of multinationals can help the development of the economy.

As far as the entrance of multinationals is concerned, I am sure there is a reticence on the part of some of the Indian population. But let us look at the British example where we had very large flows of inward investment over the last 15 years. There were, of course, initial worries that the Japanese industry was going to 'hollow' out, as the phrase was, the British industry. But it did not happen. In fact, the inward investment phase in Britain has been absolutely beneficial to the British economy and I'm sure the same will be true in India.

The performance of our stock market and our currency has not been exemplary in the recent past. Will that affect international investment in India?
I don't think so. I think people recognise that the stock market itself is fairly volatile and that the Sensex falls from some levels but perhaps those levels were pretty high or over-high to start with. There is also an acceptance that, with the stock market system like the Indian one, there will be a lot of opportunity. Most investors are looking more at the fundamentals or whether the economic prospects are attractive and whether they will proceed the way they are.

In India, at least, the prospects will remain attractive provided the liberalisation process continues.

To what extent does political stability affect foreign investment in India?
I think the important thing is for foreign investors to believe that the key elements of the liberalisation policy remain unchanged, whatever the political result. The key situation foreign investors look for in a country is a situation where the result of an election does not produce a wrench of economic policy in one direction or the other. That, I think, is what foreign investors hope will be the case whatever be the result of the Indian election.

Do you feel that the government should disinvolve itself from the business scene?
Obviously, one does not want policies that inhibit business growth. The government needs to go ahead with further steps of liberalisation as far as trade is concerned. There is a strong need for a particular emphasis on the infrastructure side, establishing clear and transparent rules about infrastructure investments and, in general, to create a framework of stable monetary policies, low inflation, low interest rate and a stable, clear legal framework within which business then operates.

The government has a very important role to play in creating a successful economy. But it is a facilitating role, not a role in terms of intervening themselves or trying to pick winners or making the sort of decisions that business people are better at making.

Where do you see India five years from now?
What I hope to see is that India achieves a continuation of the present rate of growth of 6 to 7 per cent, maybe even higher, per year. If it does that, what one will have is a steadily radiating economy and an increasing Indian middle class. Then, one also has the very real possibilities of the economic growth process eventually capturing the entire mass of the Indian population. Which, of course, will take several decades -- but I hope that, in five years time, there has been continued significant progress on that road.