Open Access Research Article
FROM WELFARE TO WEALTH: ANALYZING THE PROFIT-DRIVEN TRANSFORMATION OF INDIAN GOVERNMENT COMPANIES
Published Paper
Article Details
FROM WELFARE TO WEALTH: ANALYZING
THE PROFIT-DRIVEN TRANSFORMATION OF INDIAN GOVERNMENT COMPANIES
AUTHORED BY - SHRUTI SHENOY
ABSTRACT:
PSUs have played a
critical role in shaping the country's socio-economic development since the
independence of India in 1947. Initially, as tools for industrial and social
welfare, PSUs later became instruments of industrial development and social
welfare. However, because of liberalization and globalization policies
introduced in the early 1990s, they drastically changed into profit-driving
businesses. Examining the PSU development history, which spans from Jawaharlal
Nehru's time when the government-owned large industries in a mixed economy to
self-sufficiency to mitigate poverty, the Indian socialist period emphasized
state ownership in critical sectors such as steel and energy.
However, with the
License Raj and bureaucratic supervision, it had created inefficiencies which,
by the 1980s, had caught up as a negative impact on PSU performance.
Nationalization led by Indira Gandhi increased state power; however, in 1991,
economic reforms arrived when it was realized that PSUs were inefficient. The
objective of reforms in 1991 aimed at increasing PSU operational freedom along
with competition by introducing deregulation and liberalization.
Even with these
positive effects, the trend towards a profit-oriented approach has outweighed
traditional objectives for social welfare. Profit maximization leads to more
significant regional imbalance, erosion in employment opportunities, and
increased costs of staple necessities. National control over strategic sectors
is no longer an issue, but monopolistic practices are also dangerous.
Therefore, although
PSUs remain highly important for the Indian economy, sustainable development
based on equilibration between social responsibility and profit is required.
Policymakers must face the challenges of the essential mandate of PSUs
continuing to serve national purposes without infringing on their fundamental
social mandates. How PSUs will be integrated into India's quest for inclusive
growth and increased competitiveness in the global arena will depend entirely
on their future development.
Keywords: Public Sector
Undertakings (PSUs), Economic Reforms, Social Responsibility, Profitability,
Sustainable Development
ESTABLISHMENT OF PSUs IN INDIA:
When India became independent in
1947, the nation was primarily an agricultural economy with a poor industrial
base, low savings, poor investment ratios, and weak infrastructure[1]. The newly
independent country faced several socio-economic issues, such as geographical
disparities in economic development, a dearth of skilled workforce, and an
infrastructurally underdeveloped country. To encourage self-sustaining economic
growth and equitable allocation of resources, the government of India prepared
the ground for creating Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs). The Industrial
Policy Resolution 1956 was a milestone in this respect, which catered to
capital shortages and the absence of private sector initiative for undertaking
large-scale industrial ventures. Thus, the state assumed direct control over
industrial growth through Public Sector Enterprises (PSEs)[2].
Essentially, the main goals of PSEs,
as outlined in the 3rd Pay Revision Committee (PRC) Report, out of many others,
were:
To speed up economic growth and industrialization
and construct basic infrastructure;
To raise revenue and provide a return
on investment to fund additional development;
To promote equitable income and
wealth distribution;
To increase employment opportunities;
To foster balanced regional development;
To support small-scale and ancillary
industries and
To decrease dependence on imports and
increase foreign exchange reserves[3].
The development of public sector
units, specifically in India, can be roughly categorized into three phases,
each mirroring the current political ideology and economic concerns.
EARLY YEARS: NEHRUVIAN SOCIALISM
AND THE COMMANDING HEIGHTS:
Nehru's socialist ideology, which
strongly emphasized government control over vital sectors, has left its imprint
on his economic development policies. This was crucial in building the
industrial base to have an independently self-sustaining economy. The state,
therefore, became the owner and controller of those industries deemed
fundamental for the country's development and thus became the commanding height
of the economy. PSUs dominated production in energy, heavy machinery, coal
mines, and steel. Nehru believed these sectors would eventually contribute to
the long-term development of India's economic growth, poverty elimination, and employment
generation[4].
Massive industrial projects were
considered more than India's private sector capability and capital resources.
Therefore, PSUs were established to bridge this gap and ensure the state could
spearhead the economic development agenda. It was during this period that many
popular PSUs were established. The nation came to witness the Steel Authority
of India (SAIL) and Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) and their massive
impacts on the country's industrial development[5].
THE LICENSE RAJ AND BUREAUCRATIC CONTROL:
This was around the time when PSUs
were established, and the system of the Licence Raj, which began industrial
licensing to oversee and regulate the private sector's entry, began. Under such
a system, the government would have final discretion over what to produce, how
much to make, and who would deliver it. This led to an unworkable system of
rules that often encouraged inefficiency and suppressed private enterprise.
However, the State’s stand at the given time was that this represented an
essential mechanism to prevent monopolistic practices and ensure growth was
balanced.
PSUs were engaged in a wide range of
industries, including telecommunication and energy, transportation, and
infrastructural activities, and constituted a significant component of the
Indian economy till the 1970s[6]. Yet, when
India was looking for independence, bureaucratic interference and absence of
competition coupled with a lack of profit motive led to most PSUs getting
bloated and inefficient. The welfare-centric approach of PSUs in social goals
was often combined with suboptimal financial performance.
NATIONALIZATION AND EXPANSION IN
THE 1970S AND 1980S
Another wave of nationalization
occurred in the 1970s under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The state assumed
several private enterprises, such as banks and insurance companies, under its
fold and amalgamated them into one government-controlled entity. Today, the
role of PSUs in India is of great repute and must be considered an integral
part and pillar of the nation's overall social and economic objectives.
However, by the 1980s, it became
evident that PSUs were doing dismally in almost every industry. The inherent
inefficiencies of the system- inadequate state control, a lack of transparency,
and opposite modernization were strangling economic growth. Though PSUs were ineffective at galvanizing
growth and development, they perpetuated their stranglehold over the Indian
economy.
The most crucial stage was the third
stage, wherein the change of PSUs from welfare organizations to
profit-orientated businesses began in the early 1990s when India faced an
economic crisis and was compelled to introduce high-level economic reforms. An
evident change took place in the Indian economy, along with the PSUs, in 1991
with the implementation of liberalization, privatization, and globalization
policies.
LIBERALIZATION AND DEREGULATION:
The Indian government passed a new
industrial policy in 1991 with Finance Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and Prime
Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao at the helm. The motives of this policy were not
only for deregulation in many key sectors and curtailing governmental
intervention but also for foreign investment. This marked the beginning of the
Licence Raj's end, with a drastic reduction in the number of industries
hitherto reserved for the public sector and opening many previously monopolized
sectors to private competition. PSUs ushered in a new environment of
competition with liberalization. PSUs were no longer immune to competition; they
had to become more productive and achieve greater returns to flourish. Along
with this shift, PSUs were allowed to compete in the home and international
markets and granted increased operational independence as part of
reorganization moves.
POLICIES GOVERNING THE TRANSITION:
Before delving into the impact of
privatization of PSUs, it becomes crucial to understand why the shift took
place in the first place. What were the reasons behind the inefficiencies of
the PSUs? Why did the enterprises that were supposed to boost the nation’s
economic growth become the leading reasons for its downfall? The country's
economic, social, and political situations in various periods must be analyzed.
In the late 20th century, several
political and economic factors led to the privatization of Indian Public Sector
Enterprises (PSEs). By the early 1990s, the Indian economy was experiencing a
severe fiscal and balance of payments crisis, which was made worse by the
public sector's inefficiency. Due to PSEs' over-reliance on government support
and a bureaucratic structure that hindered their ability to compete and
develop, timely reform was required. Domestic business associations and foreign
financial institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund (IMF), had an opportunity to advocate for economic restructuring and
liberalization during this crisis.
The Indian government introduced a
New Industrial Policy (NIP) as part of economic reforms in 1991 (as described
previously in the third phase), significantly limiting PSE operations[7]. The
program liberalized the economy to foreign investment, allowed the private
sector to enter industries previously dominated by the public sector, and
encouraged mergers and acquisitions by removing regulatory barriers. To further
integrate the Indian economy with global financial markets, foreign
institutional investors (FIIs) were permitted to invest in Indian stock
markets.
By restricting PSEs to specific
strategic domains like defense, atomic energy, and railways, these reforms
weakened the PSEs' historical significance during India's industrialization.
The poor financial standing of most
PSEs was one of the primary drivers of privatization. Due to heavy subsidies
and price controls, profitability was challenging for government-owned
businesses in the 1970s and 1980s. PSEs were forced to offer goods at
below-cost pricing in sectors like power and petroleum, which led to
underinvestment and losses. Despite being essential forces behind economic
growth, they were viewed as ineffective due to their reliance on government
assistance and ability to generate income independently.
The government implemented
disinvestment programs that sold minority shares in PSEs while keeping majority
control as part of the liberalization goal. It was believed that partial privatization
would improve efficiency through market discipline. Later, financial
constraints forced several industries to privatize fully. Some loss-making PSEs
were closed down or sold to private companies in the late 1990s and early
2000s; some sales were controversial because of undervaluation claims.
As part of the PSEs' restructuring,
the staff was reduced through voluntary retirement plans, a tactic intended to
lower costs and boost the companies' competitiveness. However, insufficient
alternative employment possibilities for the thousands of people who lost their
jobs caused a significant social problem[8].
Despite these obstacles, the drive
for privatization continued since it was believed that competition and the
effectiveness of the private sector would drive economic expansion. State
control of industries was quickly becoming viewed as outdated, and the policy
reform was in step with the global trend toward market-based economies. Some
PSEs struggled in the absence of strategic direction and government support. In
contrast, others could adapt to the new climate and emerge as competitive
actors on the global stage.Therefore, privatization in India was a response to
changing political ideas that favored free markets as well as an economic need[9]. There are
still disagreements on whether the privatization process has improved
efficiency or benefited chiefly huge private companies at the expense of the
general welfare.
ANALYSIS OF AIR INDIA:
The Air India privatization was a
milestone moment in India's corporate and economic history, revealing the
difficulty of state-owned businesses and defining the changing role of private
capital in the airline industry. J.R.D founded it. Tata in 1932 as Tata
Airlines. It was nationalized in 1953 under the Air Corporation Act, marking
the state's decision to command central sectors that were considered vital to
the country's infrastructure[10]. Through
the years, Air India defaulted on financial efficiencies, ineffective
management decisions, and a lack of competitiveness against private carriers,
piling up losses of more than ?700 billion by 2020. Despite repeated attempts
at restructuring its finances and bailout by the government, the poor
performance of the airline and increasing debt made privatization an inevitable
policy choice. In 2021, the Indian government finally sold the ownership back
to the Tata Group for ?180 billion, ending Air India's days as a state-run
airline and bringing it back under private control[11].
The privatization of Air India was motivated by various reasons, including the
government's inability to carry on financial losses, inefficiencies in
bureaucratic decision-making, and the desire for a competitive air transport
sector capable of attracting investments and enhancing the quality of service.
The operational inefficiencies of the airline were compounded by its bloated
staff, political meddling, and a record of poorly managed mergers, including
the 2007 merger with Indian Airlines[12],
which did not yield expected synergies but instead increased financial woes.
Furthermore, competition from low-cost carriers such as IndiGo and SpiceJet
severely undercut Air India's market share, resulting in falling passenger
numbers and revenue shortfalls. The privatization of Air India has its pros and
cons. On the one hand, the shift to the private sector will likely introduce
operational efficiency, financial prudence, and strategic decision-making
unencumbered by bureaucratic red tape. The Tata Group's experience in corporate
governance and customer-driven management would likely revive Air India's image
and quality of service. Moreover, privatization does away with the requirement
of constant state-funded bailouts, releasing public resources for more
essential sectors like healthcare and infrastructure. The opportunities for
more excellent investment, fleet renewals, and extended route coverage under
Tata's management hold enormous promise for future growth in the airline. At
the same time, the choice is also surrounded by apprehension, especially
concerns about employee welfare, national strategic interests, and the broader
connotations of privatizing public assets of significant importance. The change
has resulted in insecurity among Air India's employees, who are worried about
job security and restructuring. Additionally, privatization of a national
carrier, usually viewed as a matter of market force non-interference in such
vital public services, has raised questions about whether key public utilities
should be handed over to market forces. There is also the possibility that
privatization could result in increased ticket fares or service monopolization
if competition is not maintained in the aviation industry[13].
Although the privatization of Air India is part of the broader trend of
narrowing the state's role in commercial ventures, its long-term success will
rely on the Tata Group's capacity to deliver financial and operational reforms.
If handled well, the process would be a model for subsequent privatization
attempts in India, showing that private sector efficiency can rejuvenate
loss-making state-owned businesses. However, if the process cannot tackle
essential issues like cost control, competition, and labor transition, it might
reinforce doubts about privatizing national resources. Finally, the Air India
case highlights the intricate nexus between government policy, market forces,
and company management in defining the destiny of public-sector business in
India[14].
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE TRANSITION
The transformation of PSUs from
welfare-oriented entities to profit-oriented enterprises has had positive and
negative implications. As far as the outcome is concerned, there is still scope
for improvement in efficiency and profitability. Nevertheless, the social and
financial consequences of such a transformation remain a cause of concern[15].
Overshadowing Social Welfare Objectives
PSUs have traditionally been set up
to achieve national objectives, including offering low-cost services to
low-income groups and regions. However, the philosophy of profitability has
withered away the role of PSUs. PSUs have increasingly turned out to be cost
recovery-oriented and profit margin-oriented rather than striving to offer
low-cost services to the deprived sections and rural communities in sectors
such as health, education, transport, and energy[16].
For instance, the thrust on profit
has resulted in higher tariffs and service charges for utilities and public
transport, making life more difficult for the weaker sections to access such
elementary services. It hurts more intensely for the marginalized sections of
society since PSUs remained a lifeline for service outreach to the regions
where private industries were unwilling to invest mainly due to low business
profitability. Aband abolishing subsidies and low-cost services negates the very
purpose of PSUs, from what they were established to serve society's important
objectives like social welfare and equity, which widens inequality.
Job Losses and Labour Unrest
Efficiency and profitability are
often compromised to ensure job security, characteristic of India's PSU sector.
PSUs undertook cost-cutting through RRs and privatization of specific
activities during reorganization to better adapt to market forces. This has
resulted in substantial employment losses in labor-intensive industries such as
coal, steel, and telecommunication.
Widespread labor unrest has been
another fallout of the shift to a profit-driven model[17].
Unions are protesting layoffs and the reduction of employee benefits, which
were once the defining characteristic of working at PSU. Once considered safe
havens with government-backed jobs, PSUs today axe posts to augment profits,
leading to increased unemployment, mainly in the industrial sectors. Privatizing
significant PSUs, such as Air India, also drives the growing job insecurity
concerns among the workforce.
Monopolistic Tendencies in Certain Sectors
In some circumstances, the policies
of privatization and disinvestment of the past few decades have resulted in
monopolistic practices by which very few powerful private companies carry on an
entire industry. These are noticed quite clearly in various sectors, such as
energy, aviation, and telecommunications, wherein the deployment of private
oligopolies or monopolies has been made possible by reduced state control.
It is offered at increased prices
since there are fewer choices for the consumers and few players in control of
the market, reducing competition. While private companies have come to dominate
much of the markets in industries such as telecommunications, which were
previously dominated by PSUs like BSNL, it clearly disadvantages state-owned
enterprises. This has led to greater market concentration, and some of these
firms are now using their power to fix prices and limit consumer benefits.
Regional Inequities and Neglect of Backward Regions
PSUs were formed to promote balanced
regional development by setting up infrastructure and industries in
underdeveloped and disadvantaged regions. This boosted local economic
activities and provided employment opportunities in such areas. The interest of
PSUs, however, started to lie in other more remunerative markets and regions,
primarily urban and economically developed areas, as the PSU organizations
started gaining more profit orientation.
PSUs ignored the development of
backward areas where they operated early and gave employment, services, and
economic activities. The regions have been kept with regional imbalances
between regions. PSUs change their investments from less profitable but
socially important areas to places of higher demand, profitability, and
infrastructure. This relocation increases regional disequilibrium in rural and
urban areas. It risks the initial aim of inclusive development by offering some
poor areas worse public services and fewer prospects[18].
Dilution of Social Responsibility in Strategic Areas
PSUs have always played a vital role
in protecting strategic national interests and satisfying public needs in
national defense, energy, and healthcare. In recent years, PSUs' social and
strategic responsibilities have been diluted with an emphasis on profit. For
instance, it was raised as an issue when the now-privatized defense
manufacturing industry, led to date by erstwhile PSUs like HAL, was opened for
private groups, and the question was whether national security was taken into
any priority system before profits.
Similarly, the retreat of PSUs from
public service missions in areas like energy and healthcare raises concerns
that those sectors cannot continue performing critical public functions. Energy
and healthcare public-sector utilities (PSUs) formerly guaranteed the
affordability of essential services for everyone; now, they often compete with
private firms, prioritizing shareholder returns over the more significant good[19].
Risk of asset stripping and loss of national control.
Disinvestment raises questions
regarding asset stripping. Asset stripping is the process whereby private
investors buy the state assets, and value is extracted from them, and they
leave without adequately investing in the business enough. Strategic
disinvestment happens when a majority stake in PSUs is sold to private entities[20]. The
whole process has the potential of decreasing both the public assets initially
bought through taxpayers' money and the long-term sustainability of these
businesses[21].
Further, when sold to foreign or
private firms, national control loss in essential industries such as energy,
defense, and telecommunications negatively affects PSUs. In this regard,
national security questions arise because of the consideration of losing
resources and industry control, which PSUs have traditionally operated in the
national interest[22].
CONCLUSION:
A significant shift in Indian
economic policy can be identified with changes in PSUs from welfare-oriented
organizations to profit-oriented business concerns. Increased efficiency,
global competitiveness, and fiscal discipline are some of the indicators of
improvement as bases for the transformation. However, restructuring and
privatization have escalated apprehensions concerning the social costs of
restructuring and privatization and disrespect for social welfare objectives.
PSUs continue to play a vital role as
India moves closer to becoming a major player in the world economy. For this
reason, policymakers will pursue the policy of achieving profitability and
social responsibility balance in the future. Issues such as profitability and
social responsibility delicately weighed between themselves will determine
whether India can keep using the potential of its PSUs for more inclusive and
sustainable development.
[1] Aggrawal, N.
(2022, Aug). Digital Roadmap for Corporate Governance. Chartered Secretary: The
Journal for Governance Professionals, Vol. 52(08). pp. 36-42
[2] 3rd PRC. (2016, Jun 06). Report of 3rd Pay Revision
Committee for Central Public Sector Enterprises effective from 01.01.2017.
Retrieved on 04.12.2022 from https://dpe.gov.in/report-3rd-pay-revision-committeecpses
[3] Id.
[4] N. Kundra, Politics of Political Representation:
Gandhian Nationalism vs. Nehruvian Socialism in Raja Rao’s Kanthapura,
(2021).
[5] Jayant Sinha, Ashutosh Varshney, India must harness
the profit motive in the spirit of Nehru , Financial Times, (August 6, 2012), https://www.ft.com.
[6] K. P.
Kalirajan & R. T. Shand, Public
Sector Enterprises in India: Is Privatisation the Only Answer?, 31 Econ. & Pol. Wkly. 2683, 2683-86
(1996), http://www.jstor.org/stable/4404630
[7] Joshi, V and I M D Little (1996): India's Economic
Reforms, 1991-2001 (New Delhi: OUP).
[8] Khanna, Sushil (2012): "State Owned Enterprises
in India: Restructuring and Growth", Copenhagen Journal of Asian Studies,
30(2), December.
[9] SUSHIL KHANNA,
The Transformation of India's Public Sector: Political Economy of Growth and,
Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 50, No. 5 (JANUARY 31, 2015), pp. 47-60
[10] CAPA. (2013, February 19). Air India: The time has
come to stop procrastinating and act. The final scene is
near.https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/reports/air-india-the-timehas-come-to-stop-procrastinating-and-act-the-final-scene-isnear-97853
[11] Chowdhury, A. (2017, April 20). IndiGo flies high in
the Gulf route.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/transportation/airlines-/-aviation/IndiGo-flies-high-in-the
gulfroute/articleshow/58269139.cms?from=mdr
[12] Correspondent, S. (2017, June 28). Union cabinet
gives in-principle nod for Air India disinvestment.
https://www.thehindu.
com/news/national/union-cabinet-gives-in-principle-nod-forair-india
disinvestment/article19164141.ece
[13] A. B. Mishra & Ruchi Karjodkar, A Case Study of Air India - Maharajah Back
to Home, Int’l J. Emerging Res. Eng'g, Sci., & Mgmt., Vol. 1, Issue 3,
at 19-21 (2022).
[14] Id.
[15] Prajapati Trivedi, “ Public Enterprises in India: If
not for profit Then for What?”, Vol. 21, no.48, Economic and Political Weekly,
pp. MI37-48, (1986).
[16] LIC of India v. Consumer Education and Research
Centre ,(1995) 5 SCC 482.
[17] Air India Statutory Cororation v. united Labor union,
(1997) 9 SCC 377.
[18] B.K. Rao v. State of Orissa, (1996) 9 OCR 439
[19] A.K.Bindal and Anr. V. Union of India and Ors. (2003)
5 SCC 163
[20] K. R. Narayanan v. Union of India, (1993) 2 SCC 573
[21] Manmayi Sharma, Kriti Pradhan, How can Companies
Blend Social Welfare and Profit Making?, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, ( May
12 2020), Https://vidhilegalpolicy.in
[22] Tata Consultancy Services v. State of Andhra Pradesh,
(2005) 1 SCC 308
Article Information
FROM WELFARE TO WEALTH: ANALYZING THE PROFIT-DRIVEN TRANSFORMATION OF INDIAN GOVERNMENT COMPANIES
Authors: SHRUTI SHENOY
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2025/03/21
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.