DMK against FDI but ‘very strongly’ backs government


Government ally DMK Thursday said it was against foreign investment in multi-brand retail but “very strongly” supports the ruling UPA and wants it to complete its full term.

DMK’s Tiruchi Siva told the Rajya Sabha that his party “finds it essential that the government should go for its full term for the progressive measures it has been taking.. and we want to keep away communal forces”.

The DMK spoke against allowing foreign investment in retail in the Lok Sabha but voted for the government Wednesday. It has 18 MPs in the lower house and seven in the upper house.

In a repeat of its stand, Siva said in the upper house: “DMK very strongly supports the government, but opposes the motion for FDI.

“The DMK has never let its friends down midway.. We started with a mission and the DMK will always be with the UPA.”

Terming FDI a “foreign invasion” by multinationals, Siva said: “FDI giants will eat the small farmers and shopkeepers.”

He urged the government to start a farmers market instead of bringing in FDI. “Through such a market, farmers can bring their produce directly to the market, such things can be done.”

Siva said the government should have gone in for consensus “to assuage the fears in the minds of the people” about FDI.

IANS

Will Wal-Mart do the job we don’t want to do ourselves?


The debate over foreign direct investment (FDI) in multi-brand retail is getting surreal. Witness the statements made by Sushma Swaraj, and the equally doubtful replies of Kapil Sibal in yesterday’s debate

Neither the opposition, nor the government is speaking the truth for the simple reason that nobody can really predict whether the entry of Wal-Mart and other such global retailers will be beneficial or harmful.

The government says it will benefit farmers and create jobs, the opposition says it will destroy kiranas, and both of them could be right in a small way, but wrong in a big way. Nobody can really say how Indian farmers and kirana stores will adapt to competition, and how Wal-Mart will adapt to India. We will know only after a few years.

FDI in retail is thus really a shot in the dark, and even though there is ample evidence that Wal-Mart has indeed destroyed mom-and-pop shops in the west, the situation is so different here that it is impossible to presume that it will do the same damage here.

So it’s worth debunking the specious arguments put forth both by those who want Wal-Mart and those who don’t. At the very least, they should junk bogus arguments and start discussing how to help our kiranas to compete, and how to help our farmers to gain from Wal-Mart.

The first argument for allowing FDI in multi-brand retailing is that it will help farmers obtain a better price. Plus, it will create jobs. The truth is jobs can be created even by Indian big retailers, and not particularly by Wal-Mart. Jobs depend on local labour and employment creating policies, not foreign investment.

The second argument is that Wal-Mart will help improve the supply chain from farm to fork. This is true, but the fact is 100 percent FDI is already allowed in food processing, cold chains and logistics. Wholesale cash-and-carry trading is already open to Wal-Mart. What the government is not telling us is this: Wal-Mart won’t make these investments till it is allowed to set up its own shopfront – which is where the real margins are.

Instead of being truthful on the real issue, the government is telling us how Wal-Mart will help farmers when our policies already allow foreign retailers to do so. This help is not forthcoming without the rider of being allowed to open their own shops.

Third, the government fails to tell us that its own policies are not helpful to farmers. Farmers can get higher prices if they are allowed to develop export markets. But we place curbs on free trade in order to keep domestic prices down. We allow exports only when prices crash in the home market due to temporary over-production, whether it is in rice or vegetables.

Fourth, farmers can get better prices even in domestic markets. But we don’t have a free domestic market. The problem with “middlemen” is a self-created problem, with state governments forcing farmers to sell their produce at mandis – where middlemen dominate. Chandrabhan Prasad and Milind Kamble, writing in The Times of India today, point out that middlemen, called adhatiyas, preside over mandis and the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee markets.

Adhatiyas preside over mandis (marts) and regulate trading in foodgrains, vegetables and fruits. From farms to kirana stores, they call the shots. The Mandi Parishad rules make it mandatory for farmers to bring their products to adhatiyas. Kisans who bring their trucks full of apples from Shimla or vegetables from Meerut don’t have the freedom to sell their produce to whosoever they want. It is some adhatiya who sells their produce for a commission.”

If this is the case, it is obviously our domestic anti-market policies that prevent farmers from getting a better price. Wal-Mart is merely an additional battering ram to break this nexus between politicians and middlemen. Apparently, we need a Wal-Mart to fix our own problems. We can’t honestly battle our own vested interests unless we give it a more esoteric justification.

Fifth, those opposed to FDI always trot out the China argument. If Wal-Mart comes here, Chinese good will overrun the Indian markets. Quite apart from the fact that Chinese goods are already taking over the world due to their extremely low prices, the truth is everybody – from Apple to Nike to our own makers of white and brown goods – uses Chinese costs to expand the market.

Many Indian small manufacturers have given up manufacturing and have taken to imports to improve their turnover and profits. In short, Indian manufacturing – which began from trading – is now going back to trading because we are simply not competitive.

The only way to become competitive is by removing regulations, lowering corruption and creating enabling conditions for people to produce at low costs. But our policies are headed in the other direction.

Land, an important element of overhead costs, will become more and more expensive once the Land Acquisition Bill – which wants farmers to be compensated at four times the market price, not to speak of rehabilitation costs – is passed by the UPA government. Our manufacturing will thus become even more uncompetitive once this happens.

Labour laws do not allow our manufacturers to hire and reduce jobs depending on demand conditions. As a result, Indian manufacturing is becoming more and more capital-intensive, and organised labour is becoming more expensive. Thanks to make-work schemes like NREGA, labour costs are rising faster than capital costs.

Carmakers Hyundai, Honda and Maruti are at the forefront of the drive to use more robots for many operations in their Indian plants, reports The Economic Times. After its recent factory violence, Maruti has decided to accelerate automation of many more of its operations in Manesar, and this trend is evident in other factory floors as well.

Clearly, the China argument is important, but the real reason for India losing it competitive advantage in manufacturing vis-à-vis China is our land, capital and labour policies, and not FDI in retail.

If the UPA needs to be attacked, it should be for failing to reform our land, labour and agricultural produce markets, which are killing the India growth story.

Our businessmen know this, and this is one reason why they use crony links to get favourable deals on land and related policies to make money.

FDI in retail will succeed or fail in India the same way Indian business succeeds or fails – by making compromises with the political system and through corruption.

And that’s the real tragedy about FDI in retail, not the mere fact of Wal-Mart’s threat to kiranas.

UPA-II’s Forgotten Promises


 

UPA Government started its second term three years ago by promising some key reforms. People kept high expectations on the government under the Manmohan Singh when they elected him for the second time. Since then the government took charge of the state but unfortunately some of the key reforms are still pending in the market. Below are those reforms that the market has been eagerly waiting for.

Organized Retail:

India has allowed 100 percent foreign direct investment in cash-and-carry and wholesale stores but FDI in multi-brand through 49 percent ownership has been blocked by allies and opposition parties. Players like WalMart, Carrefour and Tesco could directly enter market and provide more options for the consumers if this was allowed.

Indian market consists of 98 percent of unorganized retail sector. The unorganized sector is dominated by counter-stores and street venders who regard this as a career to survive. Unfortunately many of these retailers are uneducated, unskilled and they never have the means to improve or expand business and to develop the retail sector. Most of these retailers hardly have the support of consumers.

Looking at the long term and short term growth of retail in India, many business giants like Pantaloon Retail, Shopper’s Stop, and Reliance Retail etc. have entered the industry for almost a decade introducing organized retail markets. These giants supply products and services from small, medium and large entrepreneurs and manufacturers from all over India. They have also promoted many international brands in the markets. Many modern retail formats like malls, hypermarkets and supermarkets are common in all major cities now.

Organized retailing has been successful in foreign countries beside this the telecom industry of India has also witnessed profit with the introduction of multiple technologies, removal of market regulations and influx of capital. The penetration in telecom industry has risen from 1 percent to 10 percent now.

FDI in Insurance and Pension: 

The government was expected to make amendments to the Insurance Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2008 and Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority Bill (PFRDA), 2011. But it has been pending for a quite long time now.

The implementation of FDI insurance can bring a good amount of foreign capital and better performances in the industry as FDI in pension promises an expanded fund management. The Foreign investment in both has been limited to 26 percent for long and the government has failed to make it to up to 49 percent.

The long pending insurance and pension fund reform initiative seems to have dropped by government due to the pressure from government allies and opposition parties. This has distanced the dream of easier foreign direct investment (FDI) norms in insurance and pension funds.

“Except the whole issue of FDI, there is no other major problem with the insurance Bill. Given the political compulsions, FDI will be 26 percent. There is no other choice. It is a political call, “said, a top finance ministry official, who refused to be identified, as reported by live mint .com.

Fuel subsidies: 

The increasing petrol prices have been a major issue in our country. In order to make a radical change in its price a deregulation is much needed. Petrol has officially been deregulated but the government has not shown courage to deregulate the diesel, kerosene and LPG prices because of political issues. The deregulation of petroleum products will be beneficial in the long run since it provides the possibility of competition and a price decrease.

The governments bar on members of Parliament, legislative assemblies and gazetted officers from buying LPG at subsidized prices has been the move that the government has made recently.

New Tax regulations:

Finally the government has passed new Goods & service Tax and the Direct Tax Code bill. This will replace the 48 year old tax law in India. Though this reform has got implementation by date, the controversies followed seem to compress this before the next fiscal. Many states have already opposed to the GST.

If this reform can be implemented proper, there will be significant cut for the tax rates for individuals and companies and it can also attract many foreign investors. Since the present bill has got mixed responses we still have to wait and see this government promise’s practical application.

FDI in Aviation:

The government has already given proposals to reform the aviation sector but this has also been pending. The reform looks at 49 percent FDI investment in aviation sector. The present proposals for FDI seem to have ended again by the political reasons.

When Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, Commerce Minister Anand Sharma and Aviation Minister Ajit Singh are in support of FDI the problems are within UPA itself. Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress is at the top in opposing the proposal. The reform will be very much helpful to domestic airlines to access funds easily. Presently five of six main operators in the aviation market are losing money due to high fuel costs, high taxes and fierce competition.

 

25 of 53 Cities Doubtful to Allow Foreign Retailers


As many states including UP and Tamil Nadu raise the red flag against Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in multi-brand retail, its speculated that nearly half of 53 cities may bang door on global chains.  Going by the 2011 data on Census of India website, 25 out of 46 cities with around 10 lakh population, are doubtful to allow like of Walmart, Carrefour and Tesco to open stores.  However, the government in a statement said 53 cities will benefit from the new policy.

25 of 53 Cities Doubtful to Allow Foreign Retailers

Mayawati, Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal CM, Mamta Banerjee, Bihar’s CM Nitish Kumar, all stood up against the latest FDI liberalization move from the UPA. Gujrat’s CM Narendra Modi, is happy and welcomed the opening up.

Congress ruled states like Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh and Haryana will welcome foreign retailers, but in Punjab, Shiromani Akali Dal has supported the move.

Anand Sharma, Commerce and Industry Minister, said, states like Punjab, Maharashtra and Rajasthan are supporting UPA’s reform move.

Cities like Bangalore, Chennai, Ahmedabad and Vadodara will put up the closed sign as the retail trade is state’s subject and in order to open the stores, it requires clearances from municipal bodies, registration under the Shops & Establishments Act and the Sales Department apart from support from the district administration.

Chennai, Madurai and Coimbatore will have to the face the impact of Jayalalitha’s opposition to multi-brand retails. She said in a statement, “The purported intention of the government of India seems to be to bring more foreign investment into the country to improve market efficiency and bring down double-digit inflation prevailing in the country, mainly due to the series of policy blunders made by the Congress-led UPA government at the Centre. Does our nation lack such resources or the technology to deal with such problems? The central government should realize that constraints on farm products, on the supply side, which is one of the contributory factors to food inflation, cannot be addressed through the FDI route, but only by squarely addressing the infrastructural constraints through appropriate policy support.”

Uttar Pradesh is likely to face the biggest impact as it has seven listed cities like Meerut, Ghaziabad, Agra, Lucknow, Kanpur, Allahabad and Varanasi and the state has already made it clear that it will stay out of bounds. Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh have four states each. Despite the huge prospective that middle class India offers to international chains dealing with decreasing demand in their home markets, the global giants are still going to stay interested. Maharashtra will emerge out as the most attractive destination given the fact that it is a middle class dominated area with cities like Mumbai and Pune. The foreign retailers are likely to open up their stores in 8 towns and cities. The government feels, sooner or later, the states would recognize the huge opportunity that the modern retail format offers with foreign participation.