Home/News/Page 7

Qaskme Latest Questions

daniyasiddiquiEditor’s Choice
Asked: 10/10/2025In:

new digital trade tariffs threatening

cross-border data flowsdata localizationdigital trade tariffse-commerceglobal digital economyinternational tradetech industry
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Editor’s Choice

    What do we mean by “digital trade tariffs” and “threatening cross-border data flows”? “Digital trade tariffs” is a loose phrase that covers several related policies that raise the cost or restrict the free movement of digital services and data across borders: unilateral Digital Services Taxes (DSTs)Read more

    What do we mean by “digital trade tariffs” and “threatening cross-border data flows”?

    “Digital trade tariffs” is a loose phrase that covers several related policies that raise the cost or restrict the free movement of digital services and data across borders:

    • unilateral Digital Services Taxes (DSTs) or targeted levies on revenues of big tech firms;

    • VAT / sales-tax claims applied to digital platforms and the data-driven services they enable;

    • data-localization rules that require storage/processing inside a country; and

    • regulatory fragmentation — different national rules on privacy, security, and “sensitive data” that condition or block transfers.

    All of the above can act like a tax or tariff on cross-border data exchange — by increasing cost, creating compliance burdens, or outright blocking flows. Recent business and policy commentary show DSTs have come back into focus, while data-localization and transfer restrictions are multiplying.

    How these measures actually threaten cross-border data flows (the mechanics)

    1. Higher costs = lower volumes
      Taxes on digital revenues or new VAT claims add a cost to delivering digital services across borders. Firms pass these costs on, curbing demand for cross-border services and potentially leading firms to localize services instead of serving markets remotely. Recent tax disputes and revived DST discussions underscore this risk. 

    2. Data-localization fragments the cloud
      If governments force companies to keep data and computing inside their borders, multinational cloud architectures become more complex and more expensive. That raises costs for cross-border commerce (cloud services, e-payments, SaaS) and reduces the ability of small firms to serve global customers cheaply. The WTO and OECD have documented the trade costs of such regulations.

    3. Compliance and uncertainty slow innovation
      Differing privacy and security rules (no common standard for “sensitive” data) mean companies must build multiple versions of services or avoid certain markets. That’s an invisible tax: higher engineering, legal and audit costs that slow rollout and raise prices.

    4. Retaliation and geopolitical spillovers
      Digital taxes or rules targeted at foreign firms can trigger diplomatic or trade responses (tariffs, restrictions, or counter-regulation). That makes countries more cautious about relying on cross-border digital supply chains. Policy watchers are flagging this as a growing geopolitical risk.

    Who is hurt most?

    • Small and medium online businesses — they rely on cross-border cloud tools, marketplaces, and payments but lack the legal/tax teams big platforms have. Fragmentation raises their costs more than giants. (OECD: digital trade helps firms of all sizes but is sensitive to policy fragmentation.)

    • Developing countries and their consumers — while some countries seek data localization for development or security reasons, the net effect can be higher costs for digital services, slower entry of foreign investment in cloud infrastructure, and fewer export opportunities for digital services. The WTO’s work highlights how data regulation must balance trust and trade costs. 

    • Global cloud and platform operators — they face compliance complexity and potential double taxation (or legal claims), which can depress investment or shift where they locate services. Recent high-profile tax claims in Europe illustrate this pain.

    Evidence and signs to watch (recent, concrete signals)

    • DSTs and unilateral digital tax talk are resurging. Businesses now rank DSTs as a top tax risk, and some jurisdictions are moving away from earlier “standstills” in favor of new levies. That can reintroduce trade tensions and carve markets into different tax regimes. 

    • Regulatory patchwork is growing. OECD and WTO publications document rising numbers of national rules touching cross-border data and localization requirements — a sure sign of fragmentation risk.

    • Policy friction across major powers. National trade reports and policy alerts (e.g., USTR analysis, geopolitical briefings) show cross-border data flows are now a foreign-policy and national-security front, which makes cooperative solutions harder but more necessary.

    (Those five citations are the backbone of the evidence above: corporate tax risk, WTO/WTO-style evidence on data regulation, OECD work, USTR reporting, and reporting on tax disputes.)

    Trade-offs policymakers face (a human vignette)

    Policymakers understandably worry about privacy, security, and tax fairness. Imagine a health ministry demanding health data stay onshore to protect citizens; that’s legitimate. But imagine a sudden localization rule that forces every small fintech to re-architect into country-specific clouds overnight — costs skyrocket, user fees rise, and cross-border services dry up. That’s the tension: security and tax fairness vs. the low-cost, high-connectivity promise of digital trade.

    What can and should be done — practical fixes that preserve flows while addressing concerns

    1. Multilateral frameworks for data transfers
      Bilateral or plurilateral agreements (and revival of WTO e-commerce cooperation) can set baseline rules for safe transfers, recognized standards, and carve-outs for genuinely sensitive categories. OECD and WTO research highlights this path. 

    2. Mutual recognition of regulatory regimes
      Instead of duplicate compliance, countries can recognize each other’s privacy/security regimes (with audits and safeguards). That lowers costs while preserving trust.

    3. Targeted, transparent tax rules
      Replace ad-hoc DSTs with coordinated solutions (the OECD BEPS talks and multilateral negotiations are the right place to do that). Clear, predictable frameworks reduce retaliation risk and compliance burdens.

    4. Proportionate localization — limited to genuinely sensitive data
      If localization is necessary, make it narrowly targeted (e.g., certain health, defense data) and time-limited, with clear standards for when transfers are allowed under safeguards.

    5. Support for SMEs and developing countries
      Capacity building, low-cost compliance tools, and cloud access programs can prevent smaller firms and poorer countries from being priced out of global digital trade. OECD/WTO work emphasizes inclusion. 

    6. Fast, credible dispute-resolution paths
      When taxes and rules collide, countries need quick diplomatic and legal remedies to avoid tit-for-tat escalation (this is exactly the sort of issue USTR flags in national trade reports). 

    Bottom line — the human verdict

    Digital trade taxes and data localization rules do threaten cross-border data flows — but they are not an inevitable death sentence for the digital economy. The harm depends on choices governments make: whether they coordinate, target measures narrowly, and provide support for those who bear the costs. Left unmanaged, the result will be higher consumer prices, slower growth for small exporters, and a more fragmented internet. Handled collaboratively, countries can protect privacy and security, fairly tax digital activity, and keep the channels of global digital commerce open.

    If you’d like, I can:

    • Summarize the latest OECD/WTO numbers and pull out 3 concrete risks for a specific country (e.g., India), or

    • Draft a short explainer (1-page) for policymakers listing the 6 policy fixes above in ready-to-use language, or

    • Map recent unilateral digital tax proposals and data-localization laws (by country) into a small table so you can see where the biggest risks are

    See less
daniyasiddiquiEditor’s Choice
Asked: 10/10/2025In:

new tariff measures slow down the glo ...

2026 economic forecasteconomic slowdownglobal economic recoverysupply chainstariffstrade barriers
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Editor’s Choice

    Why tariffs matter for a fragile recovery (the mechanics, in plain English) Tariffs raise prices for businesses and consumers. When a government imposes a tariff on an imported input or finished product, importers and domestic purchasers generally end up paying higher — either because the tariff getRead more

    Why tariffs matter for a fragile recovery (the mechanics, in plain English)

    Tariffs raise prices for businesses and consumers.

    When a government imposes a tariff on an imported input or finished product, importers and domestic purchasers generally end up paying higher — either because the tariff gets translated into higher consumer prices, or because companies swallow reduced margins and reduce other expenses. That diminishes consumers’ buying power and companies’ investment capacity. (Consider it a new tax on the wheels of commerce.)

    They upend supply chains and inject uncertainty.

    Contemporary manufacturing is based on parts from numerous nations. Novel tariffs — particularly those imposed suddenly or asymmetrically — compel companies to redirect supply chains, create new inventory buffers, or source goods at greater cost. That slows down manufacturing, postpones investment and even leads factories to sit idle as substitutes are discovered.

    They squeeze investment and hiring.

    High policy risk causes companies to delay capital spending and recruitment. Even if demand is fine at the moment, companies won’t invest if they can’t forecast future trade prices or access to markets.

    They can fuel inflation and encourage tighter policy.

    Price increases due to tariffs fuel inflation. If central banks react by maintaining higher interest rates for longer, that will crimp demand and investment — a double blow for a recovery that relies on cheap credit.

    All of these channels push against one another and against the forces attempting to boost growth (fiscal stimulus, reopening post-pandemic, tech spending). The net impact hinges on how big and sustained the tariffs are. The IMF and OECD maintain the risk is real.

    What the numbers and forecasters are saying (summary of the latest views)

    • Higher tariffs and increased policy uncertainty have been warned by the OECD to lower global GDP growth significantly — forecasting a deceleration through to 2026 as front-loading effects dissipate and tariff pressures take hold. They openly attribute higher tariff levels to lower investment and trade volumes.
    • The WTO also forecasts world trade expansion to slow sharply in 2026 (merchandise trade expansion dropping to a soft pace), with tariff actions among the pressures bearing down on trade.
    • The IMF raised a warning that while growth remained resilient in 2025, a sustained rise in tariffs and policy uncertainty would “significantly slow world growth” if continued. Their World Economic Outlook identifies uncertainty and trade distortions as risks on the downside.

    In short: large institutions concur that the risk of tariffs hindering recovery is real — and newer analysis suggests a quantifiable downgrade in 2026 growth if tariffs are high and uncertainties are unresolved.

    Who suffers most — and who may escape relatively unharmed?

    Big losers:

    • Trade-dependent emerging economies (exporters of intermediate goods and commodity-linked producers) — since they experience lower demand and potential “green tariffs” or other restrictions from developed economies.
    • Global value-chain companies (autos, electronics, machinery) — since they depend on cross-border inputs and close timing.
    • Poor consumers in countries imposing tariffs — since consumer-goods tariffs are regressive (they increase prices for staples and products poorer households allocate a larger proportion of their budget towards).

    Less exposed:

    • Industrial sectors manufacturing domestic substitutes protected by protection (short term), even though that compromises on efficiency and increases economy-wide costs.
    • Countries or companies able to rapidly re-shore or diversify supply chains — but re-shoring requires time and money.
    • The distributional shock matters: even small overall GDP losses can mean more hurt to exposed regions and sectors. Historical experience in previous episodes of tariffs indicates that the gains for sheltered firms tend to be smaller and shorter-run than the economy-wide losses.

    Magnitude: how large could the impact be?

    Projections vary by scenario, but the consensus picture from the OECD/IMF/WTO group is the same:

    tariffs and trade tensions can trim tenths of a percentage point from world GDP growth — sufficient to turn a weak recovery into a significantly weaker year (OECD projections indicate stabilizing global growth from low-3% ranges to closer to 2.9% in 2026 assuming higher tariffs). Those tenths count — slower growth translates into fewer jobs, less investment, and more fiscal burden for most nations.

    (Practical implication: 0.3–0.5 percentage point loss worldwide isn’t an apocalypse — but it is significant, and it accumulates with other shocks such as energy or financial distress.)

    • Three realistic scenarios (simple, useful framing)
    • Soft-hit scenario (tariffs constrained, short-term):

    Tariff measures are transient, exporters and companies get used to it rapidly, supply-chain responses are moderate. Outcome:

    modest slowdown in trade expansion and mild restraint on GDP — recovery still occurs, but less strong than it might have been.

    Medium-hit scenario (extended, sector-targeted tariffs + uncertainty):

    Investment is postponed, tariffs are extended. Trade development comes to an end; some sectors retreat or regionalize. Recovery halts in 2026 and unemployment / under-employment persists above desired levels.

    Extreme scenario (large tit-for-tat tariffs + export controls):

    Large tariffs and export controls break up global supply chains (tech, strategic minerals, semiconductors). Investment and productivity suffer. Materially slower growth, persistent inflation pressures, and policymakers’ hard trade-off between supporting demand and resisting inflation. Recent action on export controls and trade measures makes this tail risk more realistic than it was last year.

    What do policymakers and companies do (adoption and mitigation)?

    Policy clarity and multilateral cooperation. Fast, open negotiation and application of WTO dispute-resolution or temporary exceptions can minimize uncertainty. Multilateral rules prevent mutually destructive tit-for-tat reprisals. The institutions (IMF/OECD/WTO) have been calling for clarity and cooperation.

    • Targeted fiscal support. If tariffs increase prices for poor households, targeted transfers or vouchers mute the welfare cost without extending protectionism.
    • Aid for diversifying supply chains. Government encouragement for diversifying inputs and constructing robust—but not excessively costly—regional networks can minimize exposure.
    • Private sector initiative. Companies can speed up diversification of procurement, enhance stock visibility, and re-train workforces for a marginally different manufacturing base.

    Bottom line — the people bit

    When individuals pose “will tariffs delay the recovery?

    “they’re essentially wondering whether the positive things we experienced coming back to after the pandemic — employment, regular paychecks, lower-cost smartphones and appliances — are in jeopardy.”. The facts and the largest global agencies agree, yes, it exists: tariffs increase costs, drain investment, and introduce uncertainty — all of which could convert a weak uplift into a flatter, more disappointing 2026 year for growth. How bad it is will depend on decisions:

    whether governments ratchet up or back off, whether companies respond quickly, and whether multilateral collaboration can be saved ahead of supply chains setting in permanent, less efficient forms. OECD

    If you’d like, I can:

    • Compile a brief, footnoted one-page summary with the exact OECD/IMF/WTO figures and dates; or
    • Run a targeted scenario projection for a specific country or industry (e.g., India manufacturing, EU steel, or world semiconductors) based on the latest tariff moves and trade ratios.
    See less
daniyasiddiquiEditor’s Choice
Asked: 08/10/2025In:

Bihar’s politics and identity debate ...

bihar elections 2025caste censuselectoral roll revision / siridentity politicsleadership credibilityvoter exclusion concerns
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Editor’s Choice

     1. The Return of Identity Politics Bihar has been famously referred to as the heartland of caste politics, and in the run-up to elections, the old power centers are making a comeback. The political parties are going back to the tactics that previously made them successful—trying to reach out to parRead more

     1. The Return of Identity Politics

    Bihar has been famously referred to as the heartland of caste politics, and in the run-up to elections, the old power centers are making a comeback. The political parties are going back to the tactics that previously made them successful—trying to reach out to particular communities like Yadavs, Dalits, Kurmis, and upper castes, and reworking the approach in terms of reaching out to Muslim and Extremely Backward Classes.

    Leaders are re-igniting caste census controversies, welfare programs linked with representation by community, and even symbolic acts to demonstrate harmony with specific social groups. The next polls have turned into a test of the administration rather than just a battle for “who speaks for Bihar’s identity.”

    2. The “Bangladeshi Infiltrator” Narrative in Seemanchal

    • One of the most charged developments is taking place in the Seemanchal belt of north-east Bihar, which shares boundaries with West Bengal and Nepal. This region with a high population of Bangla-speaking Muslims is now at the eye of a political storm.
    • Some groups of politicians have started terming parts of this population as “Bangladeshi infiltrators,” a line of argument that critics believe is an attempt to polarize voters along religious and linguistic lines.
    • This rhetoric has evoked intense concern from citizens, many of whom are Indian nationals who have resided in Bihar for generations.

    For them, the elections are not only about leadership—they are about identity, belonging, and dignity. The matter has also attracted national attention, with commentators warning that such narratives risk inflaming communal tensions within one of India’s most socio-economically vulnerable states.

     3. Development vs. Identity: The Old Debate Returns

    In the last decade, Bihar politics had started to turn towards development, infrastructure, and education, particularly under politicians who had vowed to transcend caste politics. But as elections approach, identity again takes center stage.

    This is partially due to the fact that development dividends have been uneven—unemployment, migration, and rural poverty continue to be common. Parties are able to mobilize people easily with emotional calls around representation and identity rather than with reform promises that bear fruit over years.

    The conflict between asmita (identity) and vikas (development) is now at the center of the election debate.

    4. Caste Census and Social Justice Revival

    • The recently held caste census by the Bihar government revived the social justice discourse. The figures revealed that most people in Bihar are from backward and very backward classes.
    • This has bolstered demands for more representation, expansion of quota, and special welfare policies.

    While the ruling party employs the census to project its commitment to equality and inclusion, opposition parties charge that it is playing the caste card in order to hold on to power. The argument has become one of the most powerful political issues of this election season.

     5. Religion and National Politics Spill Into Bihar

    • Bihar’s politics hardly ever operates in splendid isolation. National issues—like religious polarization, minority rights, and federal tensions—tend to percolate into local politics.
    • The communal subtext surrounding the Seemanchal question and growing hype over “national security” and “illegal immigration” reflect the same trend elsewhere in India.

    Both sides are attempting to reconcile these national narratives with local sentiments, particularly in mixed-population areas.

     6. The Stakes Are High

    Bihar remains politically symbolic in India—it has been the cradle of major political movements, from Jayaprakash Narayan’s “Total Revolution” to the rise of Lalu Prasad Yadav’s social justice era.

    Today, the stakes go beyond who wins the next election. The real contest is over what kind of politics will define Bihar’s future—one centered on inclusive growth or one dominated by identity-based divides.

     Final Thought

    The Bihar heating identity debate mirrors the deeper questions being posed by many Indian states:

    Can development and social justice coexist?
    Can a state transcend its historic cleavages and still have cultural diversity?

    As Bihar goes to the polls, its citizens are not merely voting in their next government—they are voting on whether to anticipate a more modern, development-oriented future, or to go back to the ease and turmoil of identity politics which have so dominated its history.

    See less
daniyasiddiquiEditor’s Choice
Asked: 08/10/2025In:

the key changes proposed by the RBI

banking regulationco‑lendingexpected credit loss (ecl)gold loansliquidity managementrbi reform
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Editor’s Choice

    1. Relaxing Credit Risk Guidelines to Spur Lending One of the most significant ones includes updated credit risk standards. Previously, Indian banks had to maintain high capital cushions while lending to specific industries like real estate, infrastructure, and small and medium enterprises. This tenRead more

    1. Relaxing Credit Risk Guidelines to Spur Lending

    One of the most significant ones includes updated credit risk standards. Previously, Indian banks had to maintain high capital cushions while lending to specific industries like real estate, infrastructure, and small and medium enterprises. This tended to increase the cost of borrowing and deter banks from lending to riskier industries.

    Under the new system, the RBI intends to reduce the “risk weights” for loans to these segments — banks will not need to hold as much capital for every rupee borrowed. This is likely to:

    • Make banks more aggressive in lending, particularly to MSMEs (Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises) and infrastructure projects.
    • Lower the cost of credit to businesses and individuals overall.
    • Support economic recovery by enhancing liquidity in the market.

    Simpler put, the RBI wishes to make lending cheaper and easier, but without making the system irresponsible.

     2. Implementing the “Expected Credit Loss” (ECL) Framework

    The RBI is moving Indian banks to an Expected Credit Loss (ECL) model — a more proactive approach to measuring risk. In contrast to the traditional system, where loan losses were only identified once they happened, the ECL model obliges banks to project and provision for possible losses ahead of time.

    It is internationally accepted (applied in advanced economies) and contributes toward building better financial resilience.
    But realizing Indian banks would take time to adjust, the RBI granted a protracted transition period — until April 2027 — for complete adoption.

    This phased introduction is designed to allow banks to update their risk assessment methods over time, without cutting into profitability in the short run.

    3. Easing Foreign Borrowing Rules (External Commercial Borrowings – ECBs)

    Another major reform focuses on making it easier for Indian companies to raise funds from abroad. The RBI plans to simplify and liberalize External Commercial Borrowing (ECB) norms, which will:

    • Allow companies to borrow more freely based on their financial strength, not rigid caps.
    • Loosen cost restrictions, giving businesses more flexibility to negotiate interest rates with foreign lenders.
    • Open the door to more entities — including restructuring entities or entities under investigation (up to some limits) — to access foreign capital.

    This opening indicates India’s willingness to become more integrated with world capital markets, facilitating easier access for companies to finance expansion, innovation, and infrastructure.

     4. Reducing Capital Requirements for Infrastructure Projects

    The reforms of RBI also address the infrastructure sector specifically, which is the pillar of India’s growth aspirations. By lowering the capital requirement for project loans of long tenures, more highways, energy facilities, and urban development projects will be financed by banks.

    This is being done at a pivotal moment when India is scaling up its “Viksit Bharat 2047” or Developed India mission and requires stable financing to fund huge outlays on infrastructure.

    5. Redefining Retail Exposure & Promoting Financial Inclusion

    RBI has also proposed reclassification of certain retail exposures like well-performing credit card users to enhance credit flow to individuals. This will enhance data-driven consumer lending and financial inclusion.

    Moreover, the reforms are consistent with the larger agenda of increasing access to financial services, opening formal banking and credit to more households, new start-ups, and small traders — the true motors of India’s domestic economy.

    6. Balancing Growth with Stability

    While these steps look liberal, the RBI is not going for a “free-for-all” here. It is accompanying these reforms with tighter oversight and phased-in timelines of implementation to keep the system stable. The plan is to encourage healthy credit growth — one that drives economic activity but does not precipitate the type of over-lending-driven crises that once ravaged global markets.

    7. Why These Changes Matter

    • For companies: Access to loans will be simpler and less expensive, backing growth and innovation.
    • For people: Lower interest rates on lending and greater availability of credit may translate into improved access to personal finance.
    • For the economy: More liquidity and investment could propel GDP growth and employment at a quicker pace.
    • For banks: Moving in the direction of sophisticated, risk-sensitive approaches makes them more competitive internationally.

    Last Word

    The RBI’s new liberal banking rules represent a new chapter in India’s financial evolution. They reflect confidence in the economy’s resilience and in the banking system’s ability to handle more freedom responsibly.

    In essence, India’s central bank is telling its lenders: “Take calculated risks, lend more, innovate — but stay prudent.”

    This balancing act between growth and safety could define how India’s financial system shapes its next decade of progress.

    See less
daniyasiddiquiEditor’s Choice
Asked: 08/10/2025In:

tariffs being used as tools of politi ...

energy securityexport controlsgeopoliticsoil and gas tradepolitical leverageresource nationalismsanctions
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Editor’s Choice

    1) Why energy is a political tool now Energy flows (oil, pipeline gas, LNG, electricity and even components for clean-energy tech) are both economically vital and geopolitically sensitive. When a supplier sells power or fuels to a buyer, it creates leverage: delay deliveries, restrict exports, or raRead more

    1) Why energy is a political tool now

    Energy flows (oil, pipeline gas, LNG, electricity and even components for clean-energy tech) are both economically vital and geopolitically sensitive. When a supplier sells power or fuels to a buyer, it creates leverage: delay deliveries, restrict exports, or raise the effective price and you can extract political concessions, punish behaviour, or shape strategic outcomes. In the current era — with war in Europe, U.S.–China rivalry, and a global push to decarbonize — governments treat energy trade as part of statecraft, not just commerce. 

    2) Real-world examples (2022–2025)

    • Russia and European gas: After 2022, Moscow significantly curtailed pipeline gas to Europe — flows fell and prices spiked — a move widely interpreted as political pressure that targeted reliant economies. Europe’s scramble for alternative supplies and the political unity it forged were direct responses. Analysts warn that a fragmented EU approach can leave it vulnerable to continued leverage. 

    • Oil embargo + G7 price cap on Russian crude: Western governments banned or restricted maritime purchases of many Russian crude grades and imposed a price cap to limit revenue to Moscow while keeping global markets functioning. That package combined trade restrictions and financial constraints to achieve political aims. Research shows these measures forced Russian crude to trade at wide discounts in some periods — a deliberate economic squeeze with geopolitical intent.

    • Tariffs and restrictions on clean-energy inputs: Democracies have placed tariffs and trade restrictions on solar panels, polysilicon and other components (often citing unfair subsidies or forced labor). While sometimes framed as industrial policy, these measures can have diplomatic overtones — they affect partners’ energy transitions and can be used to push on nontrade issues. Recent tariff actions in the U.S. on Chinese solar goods are a live example. 

    • Export approvals and LNG politics: Governments that control approvals and export infrastructure can delay or favour shipments to allies; domestic political decisions over export permits can therefore have geopolitical impact. In 2025 there were high-profile moves and legislative pushes affecting LNG export approvals and regulation — showing how export policy itself becomes leverage. 

    3) How these measures differ from plain tariffs

    A traditional tariff is a revenue/tariff tool. When used as political leverage, the policy set is broader and often combined: tariffs, embargoes, price caps, licensing rules, extra customs checks, pre-authorization for imports, or conditional approvals for exports (especially energy infrastructure and strategic minerals). The objective shifts from pure protectionism to coercion, signaling, or constraint — for example, limiting a rival’s hard-currency receipts or making a supplier’s trade uneconomic without breaking global markets outright. 

    4) Who benefits and who suffers

    • Short-term beneficiaries: Geopolitical allies who diversify away from a pressured supplier, and domestic industries that receive protection or investment (e.g., domestic solar manufacturers that benefit from import tariffs). Countries or firms that capture redirected trade flows (LNG exporters, alternative oil suppliers) can also gain. 

    • Harmed parties:

    • Import-dependent consumers (households and energy-intensive industries) pay higher prices and face volatile supplies;

    • Countries targeted by measures lose revenue and face economic pain;

    • Global supply chains—particularly those in clean-energy manufacturing that rely on cross-border inputs—face fragmentation. 

    • • Collateral damage: Third countries and developing economies can be hurt indirectly via higher commodity prices, redirected flows, or lost export markets — creating political backlash and new alignments.

    5) How this interacts with the energy transition

    There’s a paradox: geopolitical pressure can accelerate diversification away from a coercive supplier (pushing renewables and LNG deals), but trade measures on clean-energy components (tariffs, quotas) can slow the transition by raising costs and disrupting deployment. So policies meant to increase security can sometimes work at cross-purposes to climate goals unless carefully calibrated. 

    6) Risks and unintended consequences

    • Market circumvention and price distortions. Price caps or embargoes often lead to discounts, alternative trading channels, or circumvention — blunting intended effects while creating market inefficiencies. Studies of the oil price cap show it has worked imperfectly and needs tightening to fully cut revenue flows. 

    • Supply-chain fragmentation and higher long-term costs. Strategic decoupling raises the cost of duplicated capacity (multiple fabs, LNG terminals, green-tech factories). That increases capex needs and can slow global growth if widespread.

    • Escalation into broader trade conflicts. Use of tariffs and energy restrictions can provoke retaliation beyond energy, spilling into tariffs on other sectors and harming global trade and investment. Historical tariff spirals show how escalation magnifies harm.

    • Political blowback in energy-poor countries. Where energy is scarce or expensive, measures that constrict supply can spark domestic unrest and realign foreign policy choices.

    7) What policy makers and businesses can do (practical choices)

    • Diversify supplies — short-term (LNG purchases, alternative oil sources) and long-term (renewables + storage).

    • Strengthen market rules and enforcement — tighten price-cap enforcement, close loopholes, and coordinate allies to prevent circumvention.

    • Protect clean-tech supply chains through targeted assistance rather than blanket tariffs — fund capacity-building in trusted partners so domestic security and climate goals align.

    • Invest in resilience — buffer stocks, flexible contract terms, and domestic infrastructure to reduce single-supplier dependence.

    8) Bottom-line: a human takeaway

    Governments are using trade levers around energy more consciously as an element of geopolitical strategy. That can be effective at applying pressure (for example, the mix of embargoes and price caps aimed at Russian oil materially changed pricing and revenues), but it also raises real economic risks: higher energy costs, fragmented supply chains, and a slower — or more expensive — clean-energy transition in some places. The big challenge for democracies is balancing strategic goals (containment, deterrence, security) with economic and climate objectives — and doing so in ways that limit harm to vulnerable countries and avoid unnecessary protectionism.

    If you want, I can:

    • Turn this into a one-page briefing slide with the top 3 examples, 3 risks, and 3 policy recommendations (ready for a meeting), or

    • Pull the most recent timelines and data on EU gas phase-out, the G7 oil cap enforcement, and U.S. solar tariffs so you can cite them directly.

    See less
daniyasiddiquiEditor’s Choice
Asked: 08/10/2025In:

the global economic recovery in 2026

economic recoveryglobal tradeinflationsupply chain disruptionstariffstrade policy
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Editor’s Choice

    How tariffs slow an economy (the simple mechanics) Higher import prices → weaker demand. Tariffs raise the cost of imported inputs and final goods. Companies either pay more for raw materials and intermediate goods (squeezing margins) or pass costs to consumers (reducing purchasing power). That combRead more

    How tariffs slow an economy (the simple mechanics)

    • Higher import prices → weaker demand. Tariffs raise the cost of imported inputs and final goods. Companies either pay more for raw materials and intermediate goods (squeezing margins) or pass costs to consumers (reducing purchasing power). That combination cools consumption and industrial activity.
    • Supply-chain disruption & re-shoring costs. Firms respond by reconfiguring supply chains (finding new suppliers, on-shoring, or stockpiling). Those adjustments are expensive and slow to pay off — in the near term they reduce investment and efficiency.
    • Investment chill from uncertainty. The prospect of escalating or unpredictable tariffs raises policy uncertainty. Businesses delay or scale back capital projects until trade policy stabilizes.
    • Retaliation and cascading barriers. Tariffs often trigger retaliatory measures. When many countries raise barriers, global trade volumes fall, which hits export-dependent economies and global value chains.

    These channels are exactly why multilateral agencies and market analysts say tariffs and trade restrictions can lower growth even when headline GDP still looks “resilient.”

    What the major institutions say (quick reality check)

    • The IMF’s recent updates show modest global growth in 2025–26 but flag tariff-driven uncertainty as a downside risk. Their 2025 WEO update projects global growth near 3.0% for 2025 and 3.1% for 2026 while explicitly warning that higher tariffs and policy uncertainty are important risks.
    • The OECD and several analysts argue the full force of recent tariff shocks hasn’t been felt yet — and they project growth weakening in 2026 as front-loading of imports ahead of tariffs wears off and higher effective tariff rates bite. The OECD’s interim outlook expects a slowdown in 2026 tied to these effects.
    • The WTO and World Bank also report trade-volume weakness and flag trade barriers as a material drag on trade growth — which feeds into lower global GDP.
    • These institutions are not predicting a single global recession just from tariffs, but they do expect measurable downward pressure on trade and investment, which slows recovery momentum.

    How big could the hit be? (it depends — but here are the drivers)

    Magnitude depends on policy breadth and persistence. Small, narrow tariffs on a few goods will only nudge growth; widespread, high tariffs across major economies (or sustained tit-for-tat escalation) can shave sizable tenths of a percentage point off global growth. Analysts point out that front-loading (firms buying ahead of tariff implementation) can temporarily buoy trade, but once that fades the negative effects appear.

    Timing matters. If tariffs are announced and then held in place for years, businesses will invest in duplicative capacity and the re-allocation costs accumulate. That’s the scenario most likely to slow growth into 2026.
    Bloomberg

    Who loses most

    • Export-dependent emerging markets (small open economies and commodity exporters) suffer when demand falls in advanced markets or when their inputs become more expensive.
    • Complex-value-chain industries (autos, electronics, semiconductors) where components cross borders many times are particularly vulnerable to tariffs and retaliations.
    • Low-income countries feel second-round effects: slower global growth → weaker commodity prices → less fiscal space and elevated debt stress. The World Bank notes growth downgrades when trade restrictions rise.
      World Bank

    Knock-on effects for inflation and policy

    Tariffs can be inflationary (higher import prices), which puts central banks in a bind: tighten to fight inflation and risk choking off growth, or tolerate higher inflation and risk de-anchored expectations. Either choice complicates recovery and could reduce real incomes and investment. Several policymakers have voiced concern that the mix of tariffs plus high policy uncertainty creates a stagflation-like risk in vulnerable economies.

    Offsets and reasons the slowdown may be limited

    • Front-loading and substitution. Businesses sometimes build inventories or substitute suppliers — that mutes immediate trade declines. IMF and other agencies note that some front-loading actually supported 2024–2025 trade figures, but this effect runs out.
    • Fiscal and monetary support. Governments can cushion the blow with targeted fiscal spending, subsidies, or trade facilitation. But those measures have limits (fiscal space, political will) and can’t fully replace cross-border trade flows.
    • Near-term resilience in consumption. Private sectors in some major economies have remained resilient, which helps growth hold up even as trade cools. But resilience erodes if tariffs persist and investment dries up.
      Reuters

    Practical indicators to watch in 2025–26 (what will tell us the story)

    • Trade volumes (WTO merchandise trade stats): a sustained drop signals broad tariff damage.
    • Business investment and capex plans: continued delays or cancellations point to a deeper investment chill.
    • Manufacturing PMI and global supply-chain bottlenecks: weakening PMIs across manufacturing hubs show cascading effects.
    • Inflation vs. growth trade-offs and central bank minutes: whether monetary policy tightens in response to tariff-driven inflation.
    • Announcements of trade retaliation or new tariff rounds: escalation increases downside risk; diplomatic rollbacks reduce it.

    Bottom line — a human takeaway

    Tariffs won’t necessarily cause an immediate, synchronized global recession in 2026, but they are a clear and credible downside risk to the fragile recovery. They act like a slow-moving tax on trade: higher costs, muddled investment decisions, and weaker demand — combined effects that shave growth and worsen inequalities between export-dependent and more closed economies. Policymakers can limit the damage with diplomacy, targeted support for affected industries and countries, and clear timelines — but if protectionism persists or escalates, the global recovery will be noticeably weaker in 2026 than it might otherwise have been.

    If you want, I can:

    • Turn this into a one-page slide for a briefing (executive summary + 3 charts of trade volume, investment plans, and projected growth scenarios); or
    • Pull the most recent WTO/OECD/IMF bullets (with dates and one-sentence takeaways) to cite in a short memo.

    See less
daniyasiddiquiEditor’s Choice
Asked: 08/10/2025In:

l semiconductor export restrictions a ...

chip productionexport restrictionsglobal supply chaintariffstech geopoliticsus-china trade war
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Editor’s Choice

    1) What rules and measures are we talking about? Since 2022 a series of increasingly granular export controls (primarily from the U.S., coordinated with allies) have restricted the sale of advanced chips, high-end GPUs, and the most sensitive semiconductor manufacturing equipment to certain ChineseRead more

    1) What rules and measures are we talking about?

    Since 2022 a series of increasingly granular export controls (primarily from the U.S., coordinated with allies) have restricted the sale of advanced chips, high-end GPUs, and the most sensitive semiconductor manufacturing equipment to certain Chinese entities. Separately, tariffs, proposed Section-232 investigations, and country-specific trade measures have added further uncertainty and possible extra costs on chip flows. These are not a single law but a suite of restrictions and trade policies that target technology transfer and protect “critical” supply chains.

    2) Short-term effects: immediate slowdowns and frictions

    • Logistics and equipment delays. Restrictions on exporting advanced tools (lithography, etchers, deposition systems) to particular customers mean production ramps in those regions slow or are delayed — factories can’t install the gear they need on the original timetable. ASML and other toolmakers have publicly said export curbs have already affected customer investment and ordering patterns.

    • Revenue and investment hits for vendors. Chip-equipment companies that rely on large markets (notably China) have flagged meaningful near-term revenue impacts because licensing, approvals, or outright bans block sales. For example, Applied Materials warned of a significant revenue hit tied to broader export curbs. That reduces supplier cashflows and can slow downstream factory builds.

    • Reallocation, not disappearance, of production. When a supplier can’t sell certain tools into one market, demand tends to shift — either to allowed customers elsewhere or to less advanced (mature-node) production. That causes short-term supply squeezes for the sophisticates (leading nodes) and excess capacity for mature nodes. Studies of prior export controls show trade in restricted semiconductor inputs falls sharply to targeted destinations and is redirected elsewhere.

    3) Medium-term effects: supply-chain restructuring and regionalization

    • Regional buildouts accelerate. The combination of export controls and subsidy programs (e.g., CHIPS-era style incentives) pushes governments and companies to build fabs closer to “trusted” markets (U.S., EU, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan). That reduces some dependencies but takes years and huge capital. Analysts expect the industry to become more regionally clustered, increasing resilience in those regions but fragmenting the overall ecosystem.

    • Technology gaps widen. Advanced tooling and node expertise remain concentrated in a few firms/countries. If a market is cut off from the latest lithography or packaging tech, it can pivot to mature nodes or invest in indigenous alternatives — but catching up for the most advanced logic and packaging takes long lead times. Export controls make that catch-up harder and slower.

    • Cost inflation for some products. Tariffs and licensing costs raise the price of imported chips and equipment. Firms pass those costs to customers or absorb margins — both outcomes increase overall industry costs and can slow new fab projects that are margin-sensitive. Analyses of possible tariffs show that large levies would hurt both importing countries and domestic industries.

    4) Who is hit hardest — and who may benefit?

    • Hardest hit: firmies that depend on exports of advanced chips or on imports of the most advanced equipment but lack local suppliers or capital to substitute fast (certain Chinese firms in the short-/medium term). Also smaller equipment vendors that relied on large volumes to China.

    • Which benefit: regions getting investment (U.S., Korea, Taiwan, parts of Europe, Japan) may gain long-term manufacturing footprint and jobs. Domestic equipment suppliers in those regions also capture more share. But beneficiaries pay higher near-term costs for localized supply chains.

    5) Unintended and systemic consequences

    • Loopholes and circumvention. Investigations and journalism show gaps in enforcement — parts and subsections of toolchains can be rerouted or bought through third parties, which undermines controls and complicates global trade. That means restrictions slow production but don’t fully stop technology diffusion unless enforcement is airtight.

    • Innovation incentive shifts. Firms in restricted markets pour more resources into domestic R&D to circumvent limits, which can create an eventual parallel ecosystem. That raises the political stakes — long term tech decoupling becomes more likely, with higher geopolitical risk and duplication of capital investment.

    • Market volatility. Restrictions and tariff talk create policy uncertainty. Equipment makers delay purchases; chipmakers stagger capacity expansion. That leads to cycles of under- and over-supply in certain segments (e.g., HBM, GPUs for AI vs. mature-node commodity chips).

    6) Net effect on global chip production: slowed, reallocated, and more costly — but not uniformly shutdown

    Putting it all together: export controls and tariffs are slowing specific high-end flows, reducing near-term output in affected nodes/capacities tied to equipment access and investment delays. However, production doesn’t simply stop — it reallocates (to regions still able to import tools or to mature nodes), and market forces plus massive government subsidies mean the industry is also investing more to rebuild capacity in sanctioned/secure regions. This mix creates both supply-side drag and a major reorganization of where and how chips are made.

    7) What to watch next (practical signals)

    Equipment vendor guidance (quarterly reports from ASML, Applied Materials, Tokyo Electron) — they reveal how restrictions are changing orders and revenue.

    Fab-building announcements and subsidies (new CHIPS-style grants, EU IPCEI actions, Japan/Korea incentives) — fast increases point to regionalization.

    Wider allied coordination or WTO challenges — more coordination increases the policy’s bite; legal challenges or rollback reduce it.

    Evidence of circumvention (investigative reports, committee findings) — if persistent, they blunt the impact.

    8) Bottom line — a human takeaway

    If you’re a policymaker: expect tradeoffs. Controls can protect national security and slow adversary capability growth, but they raise costs and fragment markets — so pair them with diplomacy, targeted support for allies, and enforcement to avoid wholesale market disruption.

    If you’re a business leader in semiconductors or a related supply chain: plan for longer lead times, higher capital intensity, and more complex compliance. Consider diversifying suppliers, regionalizing critical inputs, and accelerating partnerships with trusted equipment vendors.

    If you’re a citizen or investor: don’t expect an immediate supply collapse of all chips, but do expect higher costs in specific high-end segments, more geopolitically driven investment, and an industrial landscape that looks markedly different in five years.

    If you want, I can:
    • Turn this into a one-page executive summary for a board deck; or
    • Pull the latest quarterly statements from ASML / Applied Materials / TSMC and summarize the most relevant lines about export-control impact (I can fetch and cite them).

    See less
daniyasiddiquiEditor’s Choice
Asked: 08/10/2025In:

nations facing unfair disadvantages

carbon leakageclimate justiceeconomic disadvantagesglobal tradegreen technologytrade barriers
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Editor’s Choice

     A Widening Gap Between Economic Reality and Climate Objectives At their essence, climate-related tariffs are designed to incentivize industries everywhere to reduce carbon emissions. Richer countries — especially in the EU and sections of North America — contend that the tariffs equalize the playinRead more

     A Widening Gap Between Economic Reality and Climate Objectives

    At their essence, climate-related tariffs are designed to incentivize industries everywhere to reduce carbon emissions. Richer countries — especially in the EU and sections of North America — contend that the tariffs equalize the playing field. Their industries already bear high carbon prices within local emission trading regimes or carbon taxes, so imports from less-regulated countries shouldn’t have a competitive edge.

    Yet, this strategy misses one fundamental fact: poor countries lack the same financial, technological, or infrastructural ability to go green rapidly. Much of their economy remains fossil fuel-dependent, not by design but by default. When tariffs punish their exports for being “too carbon intensive,” they essentially punish poverty, not pollution.

     How Climate Tariffs Punish Developing Economies

    Export Competitiveness Declines:

    These nations, including India, Indonesia, South Africa, and Vietnam, ship vast amounts of steel, cement, aluminum, and fertilizers — sectors now in the crosshairs of CBAM and other carbon-tied tariffs. When these tariffs are imposed, their products become pricier in European markets, lowering demand and damaging industrial exports.

    Limited Access to Green Technology:

    Richer countries have decades worth of investments in green technologies — from low-emission factories to renewable energy networks. Poor countries can’t often afford them or lack the infrastructure needed to utilize them. So when wealthy nations call for “cleaner exports,” it’s essentially asking someone to run a marathon barefoot.

    Increased Compliance Costs:

    Most small and medium-sized traders in the Global South are now confronted with sophisticated reporting requirements for computing and certifying their carbon profiles. This involves data systems, audits, and consultants — costs that are prohibitive and typically not available in less industrialized economies.

    Risk of “Green Protectionism”:

    Critics say that climate-related tariffs are partially a type of “green protectionism” — policies that seem green but do more to shelter native industries from global competition. For instance, European or American manufacturers gain when foreign goods attract additional tariffs, even if it is coming from poorer countries struggling to adopt new green standards.

     The Moral and Historical Argument

    There’s also profound ethical tension involved. Developing countries note that wealthy nations are to blame for most past greenhouse gas emissions. Europe and North America’s industrial revolutions fueled centuries of development — but generated most of the climate harm. Now that the globe is transitioning to decarbonization, developing countries are being asked to foot the bill for the cleanup while they’re still ascending the economic escalator.

    This creates a compelling question:

    Is it equitable for the Global North to ask for low-carbon products from the Global South if they constructed their own wealth on high-carbon development?

    Opportunities Secreted in the Challenge

    • In spite of the aggravations, there are some developing countries attempting to turn the challenge into an opportunity.
    • India and Brazil are heavily investing in green manufacturing and renewable energy, positioning themselves to be leaders in sustainable exports in the future.
    • Africa’s AfCFTA (African Continental Free Trade Area) seeks to establish regional green value chains, lessening reliance on high-carbon imports.
    • Certain countries are forging “green financing” agreements — receiving funding from wealthier nations or multilateral institutions to upgrade their industries in return for emissions cuts.

    If these collaborations expand, climate-related tariffs may even

    The Path Forward — Cooperation, Not Coercion

    • tually spur global green growth instead of increasing inequality.

    The answer, in the view of most commentators, isn’t to abandon climate tariffs altogether — it’s to make them more equitable. That involves:

    • Giving poorer economies financial and technological assistance to decarbonize.
    • Granting transition time or exemptions to poorer economies.
    • Providing that carbon pricing mechanisms aren’t used as instruments of economic imperialism.
    • Facilitating joint carbon standards through global organizations such as the WTO or the UNFCCC.

    It is only through collaboration that climate policy can be a instrument of mutual advancement, and not penalty.

     In Brief

    Yes — several developing countries are being disproportionately disadvantaged by climate-related tariffs today. The policies, as well-meaning as they are, threaten to expand the global disparity chasm unless accompanied by supporting mechanisms that value differentiated capacities and past obligations.

    Climate action can never be one-size-fits-all. For it to be really just, it has to enable all countries — developed and developing alike — to join the green transition without being left behind economically.

    See less
daniyasiddiquiEditor’s Choice
Asked: 08/10/2025In:

  31 the EU’s Carbon Bord ...

carbon leakagecarbon tariffsclimate policyglobal exportersglobal tradetrade barriers
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Editor’s Choice

    What CBAM Actually Does The CBAM puts a price on carbon for certain imported goods — steel, cement, aluminum, fertilizers, hydrogen, and electricity — based on how much CO₂ is emitted during production. Essentially, if their home country has less stringent carbon regulations, they will have to pay aRead more

    What CBAM Actually Does

    The CBAM puts a price on carbon for certain imported goods — steel, cement, aluminum, fertilizers, hydrogen, and electricity — based on how much CO₂ is emitted during production. Essentially, if their home country has less stringent carbon regulations, they will have to pay a tariff to send it into the EU, leveling the playing field for European producers who already bear the cost of theirs through the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS).

    For European policymakers, it’s a matter of preventing “carbon leakage” — the possibility that companies will relocate to sites with lower climate policies in order to maintain their cost of production. The EU doesn’t want to cause just a relocation of emissions on a global level but a shift towards greener production.

    Global Exporters’ Impact

    Global exporters, especially those from emerging and energy-dependent economies, have faced pressure and opportunity from CBAM.

    Increased Production Costs:

    Exporters from countries like China, India, Turkey, and Russia are finding that exporting carbon-intensive goods to the EU is now expensive. Companies producing steel or cement based on coal-fired electricity, for example, are facing cost hikes led by tariffs, reducing their competitiveness in the European market.

    Pressure To Go Green:

    On the negative side, CBAM is pushing industries around the world to rethink how they produce goods. Some exporters are already investing in cleaner technology — renewable energy, low-carbon furnaces, and carbon capture gear — not just to meet EU regulations but to stay competitive on the world market. It’s acting as an galvanizing force for greener industrial modernization.

    Administrative and Reporting Burden:

    Starting from the transition phase (2023–2025), the exporters need to submit emissions information regarding their product, even before they pay duties. This has been challenging for small companies that lack the technical expertise to correctly establish their carbon footprint. The EU’s requirements for transparency and verification are strict and typically costly to fulfill.

    Trade Tensions and Equity Concerns:

    Most developing countries respond that CBAM is a “green protectionist” instrument — a vehicle to shield European industries behind the guise of climate policy. They worry it would unfairly punish nations that are still relying on fossil fuels for growth, charging their exports and slowing economic progress. CBAM has sparked disputes over whether it violates the ethos of free trade at WTO and G20 meetings.

    Ripple Effects Around the World

    CBAM is not only affecting exports to Europe; it’s sending ripples around the world. Other big economies — the U.S., Canada, and Japan — are considering carbon border taxes of their own. The start of a new “carbon accountability era” in trade begins here, with sustainability no longer a virtue but a competitive advantage.

    For multi-national corporations, the shift is about redesigning supply chains, tracking emissions more vigorously, and linking up with more sustainable suppliers. Meanwhile, nations that commit to renewable energy infrastructure early will likely gain a strategic advantage in future trade agreements.

    The Balancing Act Ahead

    In the end, CBAM is a manifestation of the tension between economic fairness and environmental necessity. Though it is beneficial to the EU to accelerate beyond its Green Deal aspirations and push the world towards emission cuts, it also highlights the worldwide split on climate readiness. The coming years will answer whether developing economies can access funds and technology to green their industries, or whether CBAM widens the gap between the Global North and South.

     In Short

    The EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism is transforming the global business climate by linking carbon responsibility to market access. It’s not just a tariff — it’s a signal that the world’s biggest trading bloc is prepared to bring real economic heft to the climate cause. For exporters everywhere, transformation is no longer optional; it’s the new cost of doing business in a decarbonizing world.

    See less
mohdanasMost Helpful
Asked: 07/10/2025In:

UPI payments starting October 8

aadhaarbiometricauthenticationdigitalpaymentsindiafinancialinclusionpaymentsecurityupi
  1. mohdanas
    mohdanas Most Helpful

    What's Changing and Why It Matters The National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI), the institution running UPI, has collaborated with banks, fintechs, and the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to roll out Aadhaar-based biometrics in payment authentication. This implies that users wRead more

    What’s Changing and Why It Matters

    The National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI), the institution running UPI, has collaborated with banks, fintechs, and the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to roll out Aadhaar-based biometrics in payment authentication. This implies that users will no longer have to type in a 4- or 6-digit PIN once they input the amount but can simply authenticate payments by their fingerprint or face scan on supported devices.

    The objective is to simplify and make payments more secure, particularly in the wake of increasing digital frauds and phishing activities. By linking transactions with biometric identity directly, the system includes an additional layer of authentication that is far more difficult to forge or steal.

     How It Works

    • For Aadhaar-linked accounts: Biometrics (finger or face data) of users will be compared to Aadhaar records for authentication.
    • For smartphones with inbuilt biometric sensors: Face ID, fingerprint readers, or iris scanners can be employed for fast authentication.
    • For traders: Small traders and shopkeepers will be able to utilize fingerprint terminals or face recognition cameras to receive instant payments from consumers.

    This system will initially deploy in pilot mode for targeted users and banks before countrywide rollout.

    Advantages for Users and Businesses

    Quicker Transactions:

    No typing and recalling a PIN — just tap and leave. This will accelerate digital payments, particularly for small-ticket transactions.

    Increased Security:

    Because biometric information is specific to an individual, the risk of unauthorized transactions or fraud significantly decreases.

    Inclusion of Finance:

    Millions of new digital users, particularly in rural India, might find biometrics more convenient than memorizing lengthy PINs.

    UPI Support for Growth:

    As UPI has been crossing over 14 billion transactions a month, India’s payments system requires solutions that scale securely and at scale.

    Privacy and Security Issues

    While the shift is being hailed as a leap to the future, it has also generated controversy regarding data storage and privacy. The NPCI and UIDAI are being advised by experts to ensure:

    • Biometric information is never locally stored on devices or servers.
    • Transmissions are end-to-end encrypted.
    • Users have clear consent and control over opting in or out of biometric-based authentication.

    The government has stated that no biometric data will be stored by payment apps or banks, and all matching will be done securely through UIDAI’s Aadhaar system.

     A Step Toward a “Password-Free” Future

    This step fits India’s larger vision of a password-less, frictions-less payment system. With UPI now being sold overseas to nations such as Singapore, UAE, and France, biometric UPI may well become the global model for digital identity-linked payments.

    In brief, from October 8, your face or fingerprint may become your payment key — making India one of the first nations in the world to combine national biometric identity with a real-time payment system on this scale.

    See less
Load More Questions