Disinvestment policies of PSU in India

Disinvestment of Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) has been an essential part of India’s economic policy, particularly since the liberalization reforms of the early 1990s. Disinvestment involves the sale or liquidation of government-owned assets to raise funds, improve the efficiency of PSUs, reduce fiscal deficits, and promote private sector participation in the economy.

Historical Context and Evolution of Disinvestment Policies:

After independence, India adopted a mixed economic model, where the public sector played a significant role in industrial development, infrastructure, and social welfare. The government established PSUs to drive economic growth, create employment, and promote self-reliance. By the 1980s, however, the public sector began facing significant challenges, such as inefficiencies, overstaffing, and financial losses.

In response to these challenges, economic reforms in the 1990s marked a turning point for PSUs in India. The 1991 liberalization policies aimed to open up the economy, promote competition, and reduce the government’s role in commercial enterprises. As part of this process, the government introduced disinvestment as a way to reduce the fiscal burden of inefficient PSUs, mobilize resources, and promote a market-oriented economy.

Rationale Behind Disinvestment:

The disinvestment policies of PSUs in India were driven by several key objectives:

• Fiscal Consolidation:

Government aimed to reduce its fiscal deficit by generating revenue through the sale of stakes in PSUs. By selling off shares, the government could raise funds without increasing taxes or cutting essential public expenditures.

• Enhancing Efficiency and Competitiveness:

Private Sector is generally seen as more efficient and dynamic than the public sector. By transferring ownership or management control to private entities, the government hoped to improve the operational efficiency and competitiveness of PSUs.

• Reducing Government Burden:

Several PSUs were financially non-viable and had become a financial burden on the government. Disinvestment allowed the government to reduce its liabilities and focus on more strategic sectors such as defense, health, and education.

• Encouraging Private Sector Participation:

By reducing its role in non-strategic sectors, the government aimed to create more space for private sector investment. This move was expected to foster a more competitive environment and attract foreign direct investment (FDI).

• Developing Capital Markets:

The sale of PSU shares helped deepen India’s capital markets by increasing the supply of quality stocks. Disinvestment in PSUs encouraged wider retail participation, improving transparency and corporate governance standards.

Types and Approaches to Disinvestment in India:

Disinvestment in India has taken several forms, depending on the objectives and market conditions.

• Minority Stake Sale:

In this method, the government sells a small portion of its shares in a PSU without giving up management control. This approach allows the government to raise funds while retaining ownership. Examples include selling a minority stake in major PSUs like Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) and NTPC Limited.

• Strategic Disinvestment:

In strategic disinvestment, the government sells a significant portion of its stake (usually more than 50%) and transfers management control to private investors. This approach is used for loss-making or non-core PSUs that require restructuring. Examples include the strategic sale of Air India to the Tata Group.

• Initial Public Offering (IPO) and Follow-on Public Offering (FPO):

In this method, the government offers shares of a PSU to the public through an IPO or FPO, making it publicly listed on the stock exchange. Examples include the listing of PSUs like Coal India Limited and IRCTC.

• Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs):

Government has also bundled shares of various PSUs into ETFs like the CPSE ETF (Central Public Sector Enterprises Exchange Traded Fund) and Bharat 22 ETF, allowing retail and institutional investors to invest in a diversified portfolio of PSU stocks.

• Buybacks:

In a buyback, a PSU buys its own shares from the government, effectively reducing the government’s stake while providing funds directly to the exchequer. This approach has been used by companies like NTPC and Coal India to achieve disinvestment targets.

Challenges of Disinvestment in India:

While disinvestment has several benefits, it has also faced a range of challenges:

• Political Opposition:

Disinvestment policies often face resistance from political groups, labor unions, and various stakeholders who view privatization as a threat to job security and social welfare. Opposition has sometimes delayed or hindered disinvestment processes.

• Market Conditions:

The success of disinvestment often depends on favorable market conditions. Economic downturns, stock market volatility, and global uncertainties can reduce investor interest, affecting the government’s ability to achieve its disinvestment targets.

• Valuation Issues:

Determining a fair valuation for PSUs has been a challenge, especially for strategic disinvestment. Undervaluation can result in losses for the government, while overvaluation may deter potential buyers.

• Regulatory and Legal Hurdles:

Disinvestment processes are subject to complex regulatory and legal requirements, which can lead to delays and increase transaction costs. Ensuring compliance with securities laws, labor laws, and environmental regulations is often challenging.

• Labor and Employment Concerns:

Disinvestment, particularly strategic sales, can lead to concerns over job security and employee benefits. Workers in PSUs are often apprehensive about the impact of privatization on their employment conditions, leading to strikes and protests.

Recent Trends in Disinvestment Policy:

In recent years, the Indian government has accelerated its disinvestment agenda with several notable developments and policy changes:

• Aggressive Disinvestment Targets:

The government has set ambitious disinvestment targets in recent budgets, aiming to raise substantial funds through PSU stake sales. For example, the Union Budget for 2021-22 announced a target of ₹1.75 lakh crore through disinvestment.

• Policy Shift to Strategic Sales:

The focus has shifted from minority stake sales to strategic disinvestment, particularly for non-strategic PSUs. Strategic sectors such as defense, atomic energy, and railways remain under government control, while non-core sectors are open to private participation.

• Air India Sale:

The successful sale of Air India to the Tata Group in 2021 marked a significant milestone in India’s disinvestment journey. This sale indicated the government’s commitment to strategic disinvestment and provided a roadmap for other PSU divestments.

• Introduction of New Public Sector Enterprise Policy:

In 2021, the government introduced a new policy to categorize PSUs into strategic and non-strategic sectors. PSUs in strategic sectors would have a limited presence, while all PSUs in non-strategic sectors would be considered for privatization.

• Push for Privatization in Banking and Insurance:

Government announced plans to privatize two public sector banks and one general insurance company, indicating an expansion of disinvestment efforts beyond traditional industries.

Impact of Disinvestment on the Indian Economy:

• Revenue Generation:

Disinvestment has provided significant revenue to the government, reducing the fiscal deficit and providing funds for social programs and infrastructure projects.

• Improved Efficiency:

By involving the private sector, disinvestment has improved the operational efficiency, competitiveness, and profitability of several PSUs, contributing to economic growth.

• Capital Market Development:

Disinvestment has expanded the Indian capital market by introducing PSU shares to retail and institutional investors, leading to greater transparency and better corporate governance.

• Challenges in Employment:

While disinvestment enhances efficiency, it may lead to job losses and restructuring, impacting employees’ job security and welfare.