Trump vs Powell puts spotlight on central banks' independence: How does RBI score?
This tension isn't new. Trump repeatedly criticised the Fed's rate hikes during his earlier term. European leaders were unsettled by the European Central Bank's aggressive tightening in 2022. And back in 2018, India witnessed its own showdown between the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the finance ministry. Still, the consensus among economists is clear: independent central banks are critical to maintaining macroeconomic stability.
To measure the independence of central banks across countries and time, researchers have created an index based on some core criteria. Each criterion is assigned a score, and then these scores (with or without weights) are used to arrive at an index value, ranging from 0 to 1, with 1 representing the highest level of independence.
Common central bank parameters assessed in these indices include rules of appointment of the governor and the monetary policy committee, freedom to formulate monetary policy, norms for conflict resolution, primary policy objective, rules for lending to government, financial independence, and reporting and disclosure norms.
A recent index assigns India's RBI a score of 0.59, indicating moderate independence.
RBI's report card
The RBI scores high on several key parameters of central bank autonomy. It has a clear inflation-targeting mandate, operates with an independent budget, and adheres to sound reporting and disclosure standards.
However, its overall independence is moderated by structural constraints, most of them stemming from its ownership and governance structure.
These can be grouped into three categories.
First, while the six-member Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) includes three external members and three RBI representatives, all are appointed by the government. The RBI governor, also a government appointee, holds the casting vote in case of a tie. Second, in the event of a policy disagreement, the government retains the final say. Both these rules are seen as a lack of independence in monetary policy.
Third, under the RBI Act, the central bank is required to transfer its surplus to the government after meeting expenses and provisioning. This is viewed as a lack of financial independence.
Despite these limitations, the RBI has largely delivered on its core mandate. Between August 2016 and June 2025, inflation exceeded the official upper tolerance band of 6% in just 28 of 107 months. Inflation volatility has also declined significantly since the adoption of flexible inflation targeting (FIT). Through the turbulence of the last five years, when RBI shifted from covid-era easing to post-pandemic tightening, inflation fluctuations were still lower than in the pre-FIT years.
Importantly, the RBI has built credibility as a steward of price stability. Its consistent emphasis on the 4% inflation target has helped anchor public expectations, even though households tend to overestimate inflation by 3-4 percentage points, their expectations remain stable over time.
Independence and co-operation
If India's central bank, despite being government-owned, manages to do its job well, should it still aspire to greater independence? Perhaps. Research shows that greater central bank independence is associated with lower inflation and more effective monetary policy in the long run, especially for developing economies. However, India's situation is different for two reasons.
One, the scope for conflict on monetary policy is slightly lower. Conflict is most likely when inflation is on its way down: the government would prefer lower rates to boost growth, while the RBI may want to wait until inflation is stamped out. But given that inflation is as much a political hot potato as a monetary headache—elections have been lost on the price of onions—the government is more sensitive to inflation, and less likely to demand rate cuts until inflation is under control.
Two, the present government is committed to reducing its fiscal deficit and debt. Therefore, it is unlikely to push for lower rates just to reduce debt servicing costs. When governments are fiscally profligate, monetary policy has to compensate by printing money or keeping interest rates at artificially low levels. In contrast, fiscal prudence frees monetary policy from the pressure of propping up budget deficits.
Central bank independence in itself does not guarantee effective policy. The US Fed has full independence in setting monetary policy, yet hasn't escaped criticism from the White House. Turkey has a high independence score of 0.8 out of 1, but President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's policy interference has led to runaway inflation.
The takeaway? Independence is necessary but not sufficient. What matters most is whether fiscal and monetary policy can work in sync. Price stability is best achieved when governments and central banks act as partners, not adversaries, in managing the economy.
The author is an independent writer in economics and finance.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Mint
24 minutes ago
- Mint
US tariff, India-UK deal: Trade unions, farmers call nationwide protest on August 13. Here are their demands
CTUs-SKM, a joint platform of 10 Central Trade Unions and Samyukt Kisan Morcha, has announced a nationwide protest on August 13, 2025 against US President Donald Trump's tariff threats and India-UK Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA). The statement released on Monday urged workers, farmers, students and patriotic citizens to show their dissent by participating in various mass actions including tractor and motorcycle rallies, protest demonstrations, public gatherings, and other forms of protest as decided by different platforms and partner organisations. According to the statement cited by PTI, the CTUs-SKM strongly condemned the recent threats by Trump to impose 25 per cent tariffs on India, along with a punitive tax for the oil trade deal with Russia. They characterised these measures as a 'blatant act of economic coercion aimed at dictating India, including its trade relations with Russia.' The organisations highlight what they perceive as hypocrisy in US trade policies, which demand open markets for American corporations while weaponising tariffs to bully sovereign nations, the news report said. The East India Company colonised India through trade; today, CETA and US trade deals are the new instruments of corporate imperialism, they alleged. Beyond the specific concerns, the protesting group has put forth several demands regarding India's trade policy: Rejection of US tariff threats: India must reject Trump's tariff threats and assert its sovereign right to trade with all nations, including Russia. Review of India-UK CETA: The trade agreement must be reviewed and altered immediately. Halt US-India trade deal negotiations: All ongoing negotiations for a US-India trade deal must be halted to prevent further corporate exploitation. Parliamentary scrutiny for future deals: No more secret trade agreements. All future deals must undergo full parliamentary scrutiny and public consultation. The CTUs-SKM criticised the government for the deal. 'Equally alarming is the Indian government's meek submission to these threats, reflecting its growing subservience to western imperialist interests,' PTI reported labour unions as saying. They further noted that this surrender is further evident in the recently signed India-UK CETA, a deal that sacrifices the interests of India's farmers, workers, and economic independence at the altar of foreign corporate profits. Instead of firmly rejecting this intimidation, the central government has responded with silence, signaling its willingness to compromise India's strategic autonomy in favour of the USA, it stated. The groups warned that this capitulation could pave the way for an even more exploitative India-US trade deal, potentially granting American agri-business corporations like Cargill unrestricted access to India's dairy sector and agriculture, leading to price collapses, destruction of the farming community and endangering food security of the nation, PTI reported.


Deccan Herald
24 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
What happens next in the US court battle over Trump's tariffs?
Washington: A federal appeals panel on Thursday appeared skeptical of US President Donald Trump's argument that a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets gave him the power to impose of how the court rules, the litigation is almost certainly headed to the US Supreme is what you need to know about the dispute, which Trump has called "America's big case," and how it is likely to play out in the months ahead. .The litigation challenges the tariffs Trump imposed on a broad range of US trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and centers around Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president the power to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during national emergencies. Trump has said that trade imbalances, declining manufacturing power and the cross-border flow of drugs justified the tariffs under IEEPA.A dozen Democratic-led states and five small U.S. businesses challenging the tariffs argue that IEEPA does not cover tariffs and that the US Constitution grants Congress, not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. .A loss for Trump would also undermine the latest round of sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries that he unveiled late has made tariffs a cornerstone of his economic plan, arguing they will promote domestic manufacturing and substitute for income US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on Thursday in the case. The panel of 11 judges sharply questioned the government about Trump's use of IEEPA, but did not rule from the Federal Circuit has not said when it will issue a decision, but its briefing schedule suggests it intends to move quickly. Meanwhile, the tariffs remain in effect after the Federal Circuit paused a lower court's ruling declaring them illegal. .A Federal Circuit ruling would almost certainly not end the litigation, as the losing party is expected to appeal to the Supreme the Federal Circuit rules against Trump, the court could put its own ruling on hold while the government appeals to the Supreme Court. This approach would maintain the status quo and allow the nine justices to consider the matter more thoroughly. The justices themselves could also issue an "administrative stay" that would temporarily pause the Federal Circuit's decision while it considers a request from the Justice Department for more permanent Supreme Court is not obligated to review every case appealed to it, but it is widely expected to weigh in on Trump's tariffs because of the weighty constitutional questions at the heart of the the Federal Circuit rules in the coming weeks, there is still time for the Supreme Court to add the case to its regular docket for the 2025-2026 term, which begins on October Supreme Court could rule before the end of the year, but that would require it to move is no consensus among court-watchers about what the Supreme Court will of Trump's tariffs are optimistic their side will win. They point to the Supreme Court's decision from 2023 that blocked President Joe Biden from forgiving student loan debt. In that ruling, the justices limited the authority of the executive branch to take action on issues of "vast economic and political significance" except where Congress has explicitly authorized the justices in other cases, however, have endorsed a broad view of presidential power, especially when it comes to foreign Trump loses at the Supreme Court, importers are likely to seek refunds of tariffs already paid. This would be a lengthy process given the large number of anticipated regulations dictate that such requests would be first heard by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. If that agency denies a refund request, the importer can appeal to the Court of International is precedent for tariff refund requests being May, CBP has been processing refunds to importers who inadvertently overpaid duties because of tariff "stacking" — where multiple overlapping tariffs are applied to the same in the 1990s, after the Court of International Trade struck down a tax on exporters that was being used to finance improvements to U.S. harbors, the court set up a process for issuing refunds. That decision was upheld by both the Federal Circuit and the Supreme has used the threat of emergency tariffs as leverage to secure concessions from trading partners. A loss at the Supreme Court would hamstring Trump in future White House, however, has other ways of imposing tariffs, like a 1962 law that allows the president to investigate imports that threaten national has already used that law to put tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, and those levies are not at issue in the case before the Federal legal experts say a loss for Trump at the Supreme Court would not impact bilateral trade agreements the US has already inked with other countries. Others say that the trade deals alone might not provide sufficient legal authority for taxes on imports and may need to be approved by Congress.


Fibre2Fashion
24 minutes ago
- Fibre2Fashion
Trump's order on low-value imports risks disrupting e-commerce: ITIF
US President Donald Trump's executive order (EO) ending the de minimis duty exemption for nearly all low-value global imports will slow cross-border e-commerce and raise costs for American consumers and businesses, warned the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF). The policy, aimed at curbing illicit drug trafficking and tariff evasion, eliminates duty-free treatment for most low-value shipments. ITIF policy analyst Eli Clemens said the change could overwhelm US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which is not operationally equipped to handle the influx of packages requiring formal processing. While noting the exemption has long been exploited by counterfeiters, traffickers, and foreign e-commerce platforms, ITIF cautioned that without swift CBP modernisation and AI-powered enforcement, the move risks merely shifting illicit activities rather than stopping them. ITIF has warned that Trump's executive order ending the de minimis duty exemption for low-value global imports will slow cross-border e-commerce and raise costs for Americans. Aimed at curbing illicit trade, it could overwhelm US Customs without rapid modernisation. ITIF cautioned that without AI-powered enforcement, the policy may merely shift rather than stop illicit activities. 'Like tariffs, this EO is part of a new phase in trade policy where the Trump administration is willing to impose costs on American consumers and businesses with changing and contradicting strategic goals,' added Clemens. Fibre2Fashion News Desk (SG)