“The trend of huge retail chains and mega-mergers is wiping out small business everywhere, and with it the distinctiveness of local cultures. Retail Chains benefits only a few groups pretty high up in the retail chain. Consider for example a fact that Wal-Mart's annual sales are larger than the entire Gross Domestic Product of 161 countries. They are bigger than most nations, yet they have no government that answers to the people it affects. They are unaccountable to anyone. Democracy must include the ability to control those who control us!
The proponents of FDI in retail claim that Walmart would boost exports and buy directly from farmers, bring in cold-storage technology and generally lead to low prices which is beneficial to the consumers. But they forget to understand that it would actually affect the livelihood of Farmers owing to depressed prices due to cut throat competition among the food retailers, delayed payments and lack of credit and insurance. Also what happens when the farmers are unable to supply according to the exact specifications and there is a problem of ‘rejected’ produce? To argue that cold-storage technology can only be brought in by Wal-Mart or any other MNCs is certainly a discredit to this country’s improvement in science and technology. Again the benefit to customer is certainly not at the cost of the Global player’s profits but at cost of the supplier. Democracy, human rights, and social justice are never cheap, and seldom convenient. If we shop conveniently while Rome burns, we'll have only ourselves to blame when they've reduced our workforce to workfare and our towns to malls, our culture to cookie-cutter sameness. Once a monopolistic situation is created the MNCs could turn into procuring low and selling high.”
China has opened up its retail sector after it has had a head start in terms of economic development. China has become the manufacturing hub of the world because of the retail giants have been sourcing all their garments, shoes, bags, belts from China. Would the MNCs do so in India? After all they are interested in making profits that appear in Indian market with its middle class of 150 million people.
The latest instant-research projection on Indian retail sector forecasts a grand green signal to FDI in retailing. But the projection is based on a projected 10 per cent GDP growth for the 10-year period and assumes a 20 per cent market share for the modern format retailers. In the case of a more realistic scenario of a lower GDP growth (current GDP growth is around 6 per cent) and a greater market share for the labour-displacing modern format retailers which is likely if FDI is permitted, total employment in the retail sector would actually shrink.
The advocates of FDI in the sector need to understand that the social commitment, which will come from local industry naturally, will be absent in foreign companies entering the market. To bring in FDI at this hour will be an error of judgment, as it will not bring any significant benefit to the country. The Western concept of efficiency that maximizes output and minimizes the number of workers is not going to be valid in India. It will only raise social tensions.”
The proponents of FDI in retail claim that Walmart would boost exports and buy directly from farmers, bring in cold-storage technology and generally lead to low prices which is beneficial to the consumers. But they forget to understand that it would actually affect the livelihood of Farmers owing to depressed prices due to cut throat competition among the food retailers, delayed payments and lack of credit and insurance. Also what happens when the farmers are unable to supply according to the exact specifications and there is a problem of ‘rejected’ produce? To argue that cold-storage technology can only be brought in by Wal-Mart or any other MNCs is certainly a discredit to this country’s improvement in science and technology. Again the benefit to customer is certainly not at the cost of the Global player’s profits but at cost of the supplier. Democracy, human rights, and social justice are never cheap, and seldom convenient. If we shop conveniently while Rome burns, we'll have only ourselves to blame when they've reduced our workforce to workfare and our towns to malls, our culture to cookie-cutter sameness. Once a monopolistic situation is created the MNCs could turn into procuring low and selling high.”
China has opened up its retail sector after it has had a head start in terms of economic development. China has become the manufacturing hub of the world because of the retail giants have been sourcing all their garments, shoes, bags, belts from China. Would the MNCs do so in India? After all they are interested in making profits that appear in Indian market with its middle class of 150 million people.
The latest instant-research projection on Indian retail sector forecasts a grand green signal to FDI in retailing. But the projection is based on a projected 10 per cent GDP growth for the 10-year period and assumes a 20 per cent market share for the modern format retailers. In the case of a more realistic scenario of a lower GDP growth (current GDP growth is around 6 per cent) and a greater market share for the labour-displacing modern format retailers which is likely if FDI is permitted, total employment in the retail sector would actually shrink.
The advocates of FDI in the sector need to understand that the social commitment, which will come from local industry naturally, will be absent in foreign companies entering the market. To bring in FDI at this hour will be an error of judgment, as it will not bring any significant benefit to the country. The Western concept of efficiency that maximizes output and minimizes the number of workers is not going to be valid in India. It will only raise social tensions.”
