Under normal circumstances, Interim Budgets are supposed to be non-events, merely fulfilling a constitutional requirement for Parliamentary approval of expenditures by the government until the full budget is presented.

But, clearly, these are not normal circumstances. Both global and domestic forces are contributing to a significant slowdown in growth.

During 2008-09, the Indian economy will grow by its slowest rate since 2002-03. By most accounts, things don't look any better for 2009-10.

This had resulted in a huge build-up of expectations that the government would break with convention and utilise whatever means it had to boost expenditure, both public and private and, in the process, confidence as well.

These expectations were, as it turned out, dashed. Mr Mukherjee presented a text-book Interim Budget, adhering scrupulously to the spirit of the occasion.

Even in circumstances in which he would have been forgiven for making it an event, he took great pains to ensure that it wasn't one.

In keeping with the technicalities, provisions were made for all the existing government programmes.

Two relatively small welfare initiatives were launched with the aim of providing subsistence and employment-oriented support for young widows. Who can quibble over that?

A very significant move was made in setting up the Unique Identification Authority of India. The provision is a mere Rs 100 crore, but this is a long-overdue move, which had an aborted beginning during the NDA regime. Properly resourced and managed, it can provide a significant boost to the IT industry.

Of course, its real value lies in its ability to create an efficient targeting and monitoring mechanism for all welfare and subsidy programmes. I hope that the full budget picks this up and takes it to its logical conclusion.

Conditioned by Mr Jaswant Singh's Interim Budget speech in 2004, I expected Mr Mukherjee to spell out a set of initiatives that the UPA government would take were it given the opportunity to present the full budget.

Instead, presumably driven by caution, he confined himself to listing out a number of things which he believed his government had achieved over the past five years. The only forward-looking component of the speech was a set of 11 general medium-term objectives which, he believes, should drive the design of the full budget.

These are all very well but, given the fact that the economy is going through very tough times, something which Mr Mukherjee did not attempt to paper over, the complete absence of any direct measures to deal with immediate growth problems is obviously a matter of concern.

I accept the limitations on new initiatives imposed by convention but I believe there was room for more administrative measures focussed on mitigating risks to lending and so on, which would get credit flowing to specific sectors again.

Construction activity in particular, both residential and infrastructural, is in clear danger of grinding to a halt because of the lack of funds. Measures to keep projects going, even if it means significant conditionalities being imposed on stakeholders, are needed and the occasion could have been used to announce them.

Unfortunately, this did not happen.

There may well be some measures announced before the electoral code of conduct comes into effect, but the impact of the occasion will just not be there.
Speaking of stimulus measures, the December package had brought down CENVAT rates by 4 per cent until March 31, 2009. I assumed that the reduction would be extended, given the state of affairs in manufacturing.

However, there was no mention of the extension in the speech, although an extension of the interest subvention to exporters was announced.

If this means that CENVAT rates go back to their pre-December levels on April 1, the Interim Budget may deliver a jolt to already sluggish industrial production. This needs immediate clarification.

With respect to the overall fiscal situation, the speech was pretty blunt in describing the deterioration over the course of the year. The fiscal deficit-GDP ratio is estimated to be 6 per cent, compared to the original budget estimate of 2.5 per cent.

Some of the increase is probably due to an internalization of a proportion of the "off-budget" subsidy bill, incurred on petroleum products and fertilizers.

Although this burden will no longer have to be borne in 2009-10, slower growth will result in lower revenues. Expenditures may also have to be increased to boost demand.

Given these considerations, the relatively high deficit is likely to persist for some time and could rise higher than the 5.5 per cent of GDP that the government estimates for 2009-10.

This is, in and of itself, a fiscal stimulus, so it is not entirely accurate to say that the Interim Budget provided no stimulus at all.

The more appropriate concern is that the money that is available -- both this year and the next, as a result of the Interim Budget being passed -- be spent as quickly as possible.

If this doesn't happen, the stimulus remains only on paper.

In sum, the Interim Budget adhered to the restrictions that convention has imposed on it.

However, in taking the fiscal deficit to 6 per cent and 5.5 per cent of GDP in two successive years, it also managed to provide a text-book stimulus.

The composition of the spending and, consequently, its efficiency in providing a boost can certainly be debated. But, on the face of it, Mr Mukherjee seems to have walked the tightrope.

Subir Gokarn is the chief economist, Standard & Poor's Asia-Pacific. The views expressed are personal.