Topic: Foreign Direct Investment in India's Retail Sector The case scenario in India & globalization spectrum

Dissertation Project report submitted to Indian Institute of Foreign Trade in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the MBA (IB) 2010-13/EPGDIB 2011-13 degree

Declaration Submitted By Amankshi Rawat This is to certify that I, a Roll Number 8 student of Masters in Business International Business (2010-13), at Indian Institute of Foreign Batch (MBA/EPGDIB/2011-13)

Administration in Trade, New Delhi, have submitted this research project Foreign Direct Investment in India's Retail Sector The case scenario in India & globalization spectrum to IIFT in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the MBA (IB) Degree. This is an original piece of Under the guidance other scholastic work nor is it work and is neither copied (partially/fully) from anyof submitted to any other institution for any other degree or diploma. I remain fully Guide Name responsible for any error and plagiarism.

Dr. Jaydeep Mukherjee

Student Signature:_________________ Date:___________________________ Guide Certification This is to inform you that Student name Amankshi Rwaat, student of MBA (IB)/EPGDIB 2011-13, has completed research project on the topic Foreign Direct Investment in India's Retail Sector The Foreign Trade Indian Institute of case scenario in India & globalization spectrum under my guidance. I am pleased to approve the same to be considered New Delhi-110016 as final submission and the viva.

Indian Institute of Foreign Trade Batch Guide Name:________________ Guide Research Project Signature:____________
Date:______________________

Contents
Executive Summary4 Introduction..5 Objectives..7 Methodology.8 Chapter 1 Overview..10 1.1 Post Independence & Pre-reform 1.2 Post-reform 1.3 FDI in Retail Chapter 2 Policy Environment and Growth in Organized Retailing 15 2.1 Policy and Regulatory Environment 2.2 Growth in 'Organized Retailing 2.3 Case study - Walmart Chapter 3 Arguments for and against FDI in Retailing.26

Chapter 4 Global scenario of FDI in Retail Sector..37 4.1 In China 4.2 In Chile 4.3 In Indonesia 4.4 In Brazil 4.5 In Thailand 4.6 In Russia Chapter 5 Detailed analysis of factors and conditions attached to FDI..42 Chapter 6 Conclusion50 Bibliography...58 Sources.59 Appendix I Coding Key (open ended question interpretation) Appendix I Survey Question

Executive Summary
Foreign direct investment (FDI) is direct investment into production or business in a country by a company in another country, either by buying a company in the target country or by expanding operations of an existing business in that country. Foreign direct investment is in contrast to portfolio investment which is a passive investment in the securities of another country such as stocks and bonds. Foreign direct investment can take on many forms and so sometimes the term is used to refer to different kinds of investment activity. "Commonly foreign direct investment includes "mergers and acquisitions, building new facilities, reinvesting profits earned from overseas operations and intra-company loans." However, foreign direct investment is often used to refer to just building new facilities or Greenfield investment, creating figures that although both labeled FDI, can't be side by side compared. Many policy makers and academics contend that foreign direct investment (FDI) can have important positive effects on a host countrys development effort. In addition to the direct capital financing it supplies, FDI can be a source of valuable technology and knowhow while fostering linkages with local firms, which can help jumpstart an economy. Based on these arguments, industrialized and developing countries have offered incentives to encourage foreign direct investments in their economies. This manuscript highlights the impact and future prospects of FDI in the Indian Market. The manuscript enlighten the spectrum and scintillation of the foreign direct investment in India Keywords - Foreign Direct Investment, FDI in Asian and World Market via Case Study, FDI scenario in India

Introduction
India is now the last major frontier for globalized retail. In the twenty years since the economic liberalization of 1991, Indias middle class has greatly expanded, and so has its purchasing power. But over the years, unlike other major emerging economies, India has been slow to open its retail sector to foreign investment. According to the annual study made among 30 countries based on their retail investment attractiveness of AT Kearneys Annual Global Retail Development Index for 2010, it is found that India is placed at third rank ahead of Brazil, Saudi Arabia. It is also learnt from the analysis of AT Kearney that the Indian retail market is worth $410 billion and only sales of 5% is from organized retail and the rest of sales is from the unorganized retail. Such a major informal segment of Indian retail has a great scope for potential opportunities for domestic and international companies. Moreover, it is estimated that the Indian retail will grow rapidly to become worth of $535 billion in 2013, with 10% from organized retail due to the effect of growing middle class income and lifestyle, which will demand better shopping environment, product variety and quality brands. Market Country Market Time GRDI Attractiveness Risk Saturation Pressure Score (25%) (25%) (25%) (25%) 1 China 50.6 85.8 86.6 64.0 2 Kuwait 75.4 94.3 24.5 62.6 3 India 35.4 51.3 97.8 61.7 4 Saudi Arabia 65.3 86.5 31.0 58.4 5 Brazil 63.5 4.3 36.4 57.6 Source: GRDI (Global Retal Development Index) 2010, AT Kerney Analysis This division of the retail sector, which has a very heavy weighting towards, unorganized, is just one of the issues contributing to the sensitive debate on FDI in India at the moment. What are the potential risks to the unorganized retail sector, and of course to the wider Indian economy? There are several groups who are strongly opposed to FDI in the Indian retail sector, but are their concerns unfounded? Equally, could FDI in retail be a disaster for the sector and the Indian economy? What reforms are necessary, if any, to protect the subcontinent's domestic retail sector and national interests? 2010 Rank

Rationale
From street/cart retailers working on pavements/roadsides and small family run businesses to international brands such as Rolex and Nike, the retail market in India is vibrant, colorful and highly fragmented. It is this lack of independent research that specifically focuses on the retail sector that has inspired to undertake this study so as to provide a balanced and

independent review of current opinions/thoughts on FDI in Retail policy, and to assess the potential costs and benefits for the sector and India as a whole. As retailing in India is attracting the attention of many global players, the Indian Government is paying increased attention to the country's retail environment. FDI in retailing remains a widely debated and heated issue in India's economic and political environment. However, the Government is gradually taking steps to open the sector. (KPMG 2009) Also wish to look at the issues which are currently under discussion by the domestic players about FDI in India's retail sector, to establish an understanding of the reasoning behind current policy and the controversial viewpoints that keep India divided on FDI Retail policy. This research also discusses global scenario. This research will provide recommendations for ways in which policy could be changed and improved to reduce the risks of FDI for India, and to benefit the domestic retailers and related industries as well as the economy as a whole. There is a desire to try to assist in facilitating the process of reform by providing a summary of the key issues and suggesting what regulatory reforms could be considered to help India resolve the issues that this report highlights. What reforms are necessary, if any, to protect the sub-continent's domestic retail sector and national interests?

Objectives
The aim of this report is:

1. To provide an analysis of the arguments for and against FDI in India's retail
sector, in order to provide recommendations on reforms to government policy that could reduce the risks of lifting restrictions on FDI in retail.

2. To investigate the Indian market place and review current policy and
regulations with regards to foreign investors so as to gain an understanding of the current position on FDI, as well as an overview of the Indian system. This to be followed by an examination of the arguments both for and against changing current policy and improving the regulatory

environment. This will enable us to assess the key factors to be considered in making policy changes in the future.

3. To discuss the global scenario via case studies. 4. To compare the thoughts and opinions of people working within or
alongside India's domestic retail sector, via a survey, to interpret the domestic market sentiment towards foreign investment, and to explore thoughts on the issues faced by the sector. It will then be possible to consider what solutions could potentially resolve the issues and are supported by the majority of domestic retail players.

Methodology
Study Approach
This study is based predominantly on qualitative research techniques, using primary as well as secondary methods, in order to allow for an in-depth and insightful exploration of current issues surrounding FDI in India's Retail market, and to assist in gaining an understanding of the 'sentiment' in India towards foreign retailers and their potential impact on the retail sector and wider economy. There is a certain amount of quantitative analysis undertaken with the data received from the research survey available on internet. The report hopes to establish if there is a genuine argument for government policy in favor of FDI in retail, to assess and make recommendations of changes to current policy, and to consider the risks to India's economy, society, and the unorganized retail sector, with a view to encouraging 'socially responsible investment'. To initiate this study, three questions were originally designed to help construct aims and objectives, and to provide some initial focus. The three questions were: 1. What methods of FDI in retail are currently permitted and what is the policy? 2. What are the key issues concerning FDI policy change in India's retail sector?

3. How FDI in retail sector in global scenario? 4. How can policy help to reduce the risk of FDI in retail for India and its domestic markets?

Study Techniques - Types of Research

Primary research in the form of an internet based survey is used to collect data of a qualitative open-ended nature, using a descriptive approach so that the report can analyze and interpret the Indian domestic retail market's sentiment towards FDI and how many people are in favour of various aspects, as well as ask what changes to policy and the sector they believe are necessary and why. The survey also includes quantitative 'closed ended' questions for gathering data that can be analyzed and interpreted alongside the follow up open-ended questions. Secondary research was carried out in the form of a literature review, to compare and contrast material and interpret the issues with a view to drawing conclusions and developing recommendations.

- Literature Review
There is a reasonable amount of literature available on FDI in India, although it is by no means abundant in the specific area of Retail. Current policy is in a state of flux; hence a review of literature on the latest policy proposals and arguments for and against changing policy will be the back-bone of this study. It will enable accurate and relevant questions to be formulated for the proposed survey questionnaire and provide a good background understanding of the likely causes of any patterns and trends that may be revealed by the survey. It is important with a review such as this to ensure that the sources of information are reliable and trustworthy as possible. A broad range of opinions from institutional and corporate material, to academic and business orientated literature as well as the newspapers/online media and internet resources will be reviewed and each source was considered for its reliability, and potential to misconstrue the truth.

- Survey Questionnaire
Qualitative survey questionnaires inherently have issues of interpretation of results, due to the open-ended questions and subjective nature. .1 Study Techniques

Chapter 1 - Overview
It has been said that India has one foot grounded in time-honoured traditions and the other fervently striding into the entrepreneurial e-age. India truly does embrace diversity with a passion like very few places in the world. This study is focused on the retail sector and the 'current' Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) position in India, and it therefore seems logical to start in reasonably recent times. The High Court of Delhi in 2004 defined the term retail, as a sale for final consumption in contrast to a sale for further sale or processing (i.e. wholesale). It is a sale to the ultimate consumer. Thus, retailing can be said to be the interface between the producer and the individual consumer buying for personal consumption. This excludes direct interface between the manufacturer and institutional buyers such as the government and other bulk customers. Retailing is the last link that connects the individual consumer with the manufacturing and distribution chain. A retailer is involved in the act of selling goods to the individual consumer at a margin of profit. Retailing is considered to be the largest private sector in India and moreover, it is second to agriculture in terms of provision of employment. Indian retailing provides employment to more than 4 crore people. The retail industry is divided into two sectors namely, organised or formal and unorganised or informal. In simple terms, it could be said that Organised retailing is one in which the trading or merchandising is carried out by licensed or authorized retailers who are registered for sales tax and other taxes. The companies owned super markets, hyper markets, retail chains and other privately owned retail stores or departmental stores come under this organised retailing. The revenue generated by these enterprises is accounted for by the Government. The Indian retail sector is highly fragmented with 96 per cent of its business being run by the unorganized retailers. The organized retail however is at a very nascent stage. Retail trade in India and south East Asia Countries Country
India China South Korea Indonesia Philippines Thailand Malaysia Source: Crisil

Organized (%)
4 20 15 25 35 40 50

Unorganized (%)
96 80 85 75 65 60 50

India is the most populous democracy in the world, and is the second most populated country. It has a largely young population with 35% of India's population being under 14 years of age and more than 60 per cent of the population is estimated to make up the working age group (15-60). The large working-age population will no doubt translate to an attractive consumer base

compared to other economies of the world, placing India as one of the main targets of the global retail players.

1.1 Post Independence & Pre-Reform

There were half-hearted attempts made by the Rajiv Gandhi government in the mid-1980s to selectively open the economy to foreign trade and relax import restrictions, which did not have the intended consequence of stimulating investment and eventually pushed the balance of payments out of gear. Export growth had turned negative and for the first time Indian industrial production recorded negative growth. In 1990-91 the current account deficit was 3.1% and inflation was 12%. Things began to get out of hand and the government went to foreign lenders pledging gold held at the Reserve Bank of India (India's central bank) for short term loans so as to help get through the financial crisis. In 1990, just as China was beginning to become a popular place for investors, India was in the middle of economic agony after many years of over-zealous government control over economic activity, isolation and poorly managed fiscal policy. By half way through 1991, the Indian government was about to default on its foreign currency loans; and its foreign exchange reserves were so low that India only had enough dollars for two weeks' worth of imports. Foreign finance had all but closed the door on India. The political problems that this position caused were immense and it was only the recognition of the fiscal problems that finally persuaded the politicians and bureaucrats to release their hold on the economy. The crisis brought around something totally unexpected; it brought around change from a completely uncompromising centralized system of control to a market-orientated system, where regulation in some of the key sectors of the economy was to be enforced independent of the government.

1.2 Post-Reform
Economic reform was now on the agenda after the financial disaster of 1991; and these reforms brought in three elements that India was never previously allowed to have: competition, entrepreneurship and the beginnings of world-class infrastructure. The government of the time, Congress (led by Narasimha Rao), revealed a new 'industrial policy' and the Finance Minister when sending a memorandum dated 27th August 1991 to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), said The thrust will be to increase the efficiency and international competitiveness of industrial production and to utilize foreign investment and technology to a much greater degree than in the past, to improve the performance and rationalize the scope of the public sector, and to reform and modernize the financial sector so that it can more efficiently serve the needs of the economy (Cited by Datt and Sundharam, 2001:231) Between 1991 and 1999 as India moved away from a state controlled economy and slowly developed into a liberalized economy, each successive government has supported the reform process and tried to hasten things. Due to the ever decreasing role of the government in the economy, resource allocation began to be influenced by the markets, and as a result, prices & availability across the economy became competitive rather than monopolistic. The post-reform performance of the economy had been good, and between 1994 and 1997 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew in real terms by over 7%, which placed India among the best-performing countries in the world. However, a study of the economic reforms and liberalisation of the Indian economy by Kalirajan and Sankar (2003) acknowledges this but highlights that whilst this economic growth is encouraging, there is no doubt that given the low per capita income the need

for an accelerated growth rate becomes urgent. The inflation rate was on average at a high of 10.7% per annum in the first five years of the reform period, but gradually came down to less than 5% in the last few years. The Indian National Congress with the support of the United Progressive Alliance have been in government since 2004 and were re-elected for a further term in May 2009. Although a more liberal approach to foreign investment in India has emerged in recent times, Kalirajan and Sankar (2003) argue that low overall productivity of investment, excessive fragmentation of markets, shortage of invertible funds, and the poor infrastructure may pose significant problems to sustained higher economic growth there is reason to believe that growth impulses from the first generation of reforms may have ebbed. The Indian government has clearly recognized this, and in the Finance Minister's Budget Speech for 1999-2000, it was stressed that there was a need to debate and make decisions in relation to the next wave of reforms to be put in place to ensure India's economic strengthand to make it fully capable of competing successfully in the evolving world order. (cited by Kalirajan and Sankar 2003) The liberalizations subsequently introduced by the Finance Minister (Manmohan Singh) have clearly been successful. Between 1991 and 2004, India's economy grew by an average of 6% a year. In 2005 and 2006 growth accelerated to over 8% and in 2007 it looked like it might be well over 9%. Farndon (2007) discusses how the development of the Indian economy has been quite unconventional. He highlights a 'normal' pattern of economic development starting with the emergence of cheap & low-cost manufacturing to provide a broad base of employment for the masses, which subsequently encourages urbanization, and as this continues to grow, he notes a shift whereby higher value products that are more sophisticated emerge. Finally, service and high tech industries start to emerge. Farndon (2007) highlights the issue of job insecurity in India, and how few people are employed in a recognized position. To explain, he uses the example that in 2006, India had a workforce of 470 million, but only 35 million of these (approx. 7%) were in formal, income tax paying positions and of this 35 million, the majority (21 million) are employed by the government. Essentially, a country with a population of over a billion has hardly more income tax payers than the UK. All the rest some 435 million people work in what Indians call the 'unorganized sector'. India has shot straight into the third stage, with an economic boom that has relied almost entirely on high-tech and service industries. It does have a range of manufacturing industries, but they are remarkably small for a country of India's size and prosperity. There is no doubt that India's success in the IT world has transformed the country. A milestone was passed in 2003 when the software sector alone earned more money than the entire cost of the country's oil imports the factor that had brought the country to its financial knees in 1991. This meant that when the invasion of Iraq pushed oil prices up again, India was able to ride out the difficulties almost with equanimity

1.3 FDI in Retail

60+ years after independence India's government is now starting to take a closer look at liberalising its foreign investment policies. In 2006 the Government has promoted limited FDI in single-brand retailing and has considered opening up further in a phased system with emphasis on joint ventures with domestic players,

10

evident with the highly controversial Wal-Mart joint venture with Bharti. Studying other countries such as China, where restrictions were initially imposed on the locations and formats in which foreign retailers could operate is also on the agenda of the Indian Government. The Indian media regularly discusses the issues of FDI in Retailing. The Hindu Business Line's opinion on the 'Great FDI in Indian Retail debate', is that organised retail as present accounts for a mere 2% per cent of the total market (2005) as against 20% in China and 40 % in Thailand and that there is a growing demand for modern retailing formats that offer a clean and hygienic environment to shop in. This has created significant debate for allowing FDI regulations to open up, although little has changed for multi-brand retailing restrictions to date. Knight Frank revealed in their Market Review (Q3 2006) that the move by the Indian Government to allow FDI in real estate had been an opportune move and although multibrand retailing is still not allowed, FDI in singlebrand retailing has elicited heightened interest. The government has created a specific Board to deal with promotion of FDI in India and to be the sole agency to handle matters related to FDI. The 'Foreign Investment Promotion Board' (FIPB) as it is known, is chaired by the Secretary Industry (Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion or DIPP) within the office of the Prime Minister. Its key objectives are to promote FDI in India with investment promotion activities both domestically and internationally by facilitating investment in the country via international companies, NRIs (non-resident Indians) and other forms of foreign investors. The FIPB should review policy and puts appropriate institutional arrangements in place with transparent rules, guidelines, and procedures for investment promotion and approval. The FIPB should meet every week, ensuring that the cases that are pending are dealt with quickly. It is there to ensure that the investors applying with FDI proposals receive a response on the Government's decision within six weeks. FDI proposals deposited with the board's secretariat should be put in front of the Board within 15 days. The Administrative Ministries must also make any comments either before and/or in the FIPB meeting. The overall aim is to provide a transparent effective and investor friendly single window providing clearance for investment proposals. When looking specifically at FDI in retail, India certainly has some 'political debates', particularly regarding the potential risk of displacing labour in the retail sector. Retail employs a huge number of people in the 'unorganised' sector, the majority of which does not have any skills. This has made retail a major political issue as there is pressure on the government to compensate the people who are displaced and provide alternative employment options.

11

Chapter 2 - Policy Environment and Growth of Organized Retail

2.1 Policy and Regulatory Environment
Alongside the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) previously mentioned, there is also the Investment Commission which was established in December 2004 as part of the Ministry of Finance so as to facilitate and enhance investment in India. They make recommendations on policy and procedure to the Government and recommend projects that should be fast tracked through the approval process. They also assist in promoting India as an investment destination. The Investment Commission (2009) believes the Foreign Investment regime in India as one of the most transparent and liberal among emerging and developing count r ies. Differential treatment is limited to a few entry rules, predominantly in some Services sectors. Later, an application made to to provide the proposed details of investment, the business plan, financial and foreign company information, etc. Currently, the present consolidation subsumes and supersedes all Press Notes/ Press Releases/ Clarifications/ Circulars issued by Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India, which were in force as on April 09, 2012, and reflects the FDI Policy as on April 10, 2012. This Circular accordingly will take effect from April 10, 2012. Foreign investment is approved via one of two different routes:

a. Automatic Approval route requires no prior approval, and filing of the

investment details to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) post-facto is literally for data records only. The automatic route is appropriate in any sector where there is no 'sector cap' i.e. sectors where 100% foreign ownership is allowed and some other specified sectors, for example <26% of an Insurance company.

b. FIPB Approval route is for proposals where the shareholding is intended to be

above a prescribed 'sector cap', or where the activity is one where FDI is currently not allowed, or where it is mandatory for the application to be approved by the FIPB (for example, sectors requiring an industrial licence.) Press Note 4 of 2006 issued by Department of Industrial Policy and romotion and consolidated FDI Policy issued in October 2010 provide the sector pecific guidelines for FDI with regard to the conduct of trading activities. FDI up to 100% for cash and carry wholesale trading and export trading allowed under the automatic route. FDI up to 51 % with prior Government approval (i.e. FIPB) for retail trade of Single Brand products. FDI is not permitted in Multi Brand Retailing in India.

12

Subject to these equity conditions, a foreign investor can set up a registered company and operate under the same rules and regulations as an Indian company. Foreign investments are freely repatriable, and are regulated under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (1999) (FEMA), administered by the Reserve Bank of India's Exchange Control Department. Ernst & Young (2007) in their report on behalf of the India Brand Equity Foundation said: The Government is progressively undertaking reforms and liberalising the retail sector; thereby attracting significant foreign investments. The regulatory and supervisory policies are being reshaped and reoriented to meet the new challenges and opportunities in this sector. To facilitate easier flow of Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) inflow, instead of having to seek Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) approval, FDI up to 100 per cent is allowed under the automatic route for cash and carry wholesale trading and export trading. FDI up to 51 per cent is allowed, with prior Government approval for retail trade in 'Single Brand' products with the objective of attracting investment, technology and global best practices and catering to the demand for such branded goods in India. This implies that foreign companies can now sell goods sold globally under a single brand, such as in the case of Reebok, Nokia and Adidas. However, retailing of multiple brands, even if the goods are produced by the same manufacturer, is presently not allowed. Relaxation of FDI restrictions are being vigorously pursued by the business and trade coalitions and are expected to fall in place over the next 3-5 years. In February 2009, the Department of Industry Policy & Promotion (DIPP) released a series of Press Notes on changes relating to foreign investment. Those of particular interest to this research are Press Note 2- 'Guidelines for calculation of total foreign investment Press Note 3 - 'Guidelines for transfer of ownership or control of Indian companies in sectors with caps from resident Indian citizens to non-resident entities. Press Note 4 Clarificatory guidelines on downstream investment by Indian Companies'. The Press Notes do not appear to have instigated amendments to the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), yet were supposed to come in to effect from the date of announcement, so this is clearly going to cause confusion. Press Note 2 (2009) introduces the concept of ownership and control for the first time. It allows foreign-invested Indian companies to create and invest in downstream companies or associated businesses without the original investment being counted. John Elliott (July 2009), South Asia correspondent for the Financial Times comments that this legitimises cascading investments which have been used to bring foreign capital into sectors such as telecoms that need heavy investment. FDI limits here are bypassed by progressively adding foreign investment through tiers of subsidiary joint ventures so that, though official limits are exceeded overall, the rules are not technically broken. The government in a number of statements has said that areas such as multibrand retailing (i.e. where FDI is totally banned) will not be affected by these Press Note changes. It is however questionable whether there is anything to stop a Joint Venture forming under a wholesale cash and carry operation, and then setting up sub-companies in, for example multi-brand retailing, but present this as an Indian owned and controlled business. As it stands today, there are a number of market entry methods available for retailers under current FDI policy, for which the most common methods are Strategic License Agreements (agreement with domestic player) Cash & Carry Wholesale trading (100% ownership)

13

Joint Ventures Franchising Distribution Manufacturing

Cash and carry is a particularly attractive option for foreign investors as complete ownership (100%) is allowed in this format. Several global players including WalMart and Metro have entered the Indian market through this method. The India Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF) in 2007 has also said that The Government is expected to take a calibrated approach in land and rent reforms to improve the real estate regulatory environment and facilitate easy access to retail space for international investors. The Government is releasing large tracts of unused land for retail development in the Mumbai and National Capital Regions (NCRs). This is soon to be followed by other state governments, with the Governments benefiting from the access to impressive revenues from land sales and tax collection from retail developments. Solutions to problems related to the lease rentals and protenancy laws, which significantly deter international investors, are being pursued by the Government, with initiatives like Special Economic Zones (SEZs), allotment of Government controlled land etc. To provide confidence to investors and show commitment to a SEZ policy regime that is stable and focused on increasing economic activity and employment through the setting up of SEZs, a comprehensive draft SEZ Bill was prepared after extensive debate with stakeholders. The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, was passed by Parliament in May 2005 and came into effect on the 10th February 2006, providing for a more streamline and simplified set of procedures and for 'one-stop' clearance on matters relating to central as well as state governments. The main objectives of the SEZ Act are: generation of additional economic activity promotion of exports of goods and services promotion of investment from domestic & foreign sources creation of employment opportunities development of infrastructure facilities Despite the current policy and regulatory environment not being 'perfect' for foreign investors, there are clearly moves towards improving the current position and facilitating FDI inflows without having a detrimental impact on various sectors of the economy. The current policy is trying to encourage Joint Ventures in multi-brand retailing so as to boost the domestic retailer's growth in this area. However, there is also the risk that some foreign retailers will not be interested in investing unless they have 100% ownership and that the current policy will prevent them from choosing India as an FDI in Retail destination. In reality, this may present itself as 'back-door' multi-brand retailing through the use of the aforementioned 'cascading' subcompanies of Joint Ventures. Prospected Changes in FDI Policy for Retail Sector in India The government (led by Dr.Manmohan Singh, announced following prospective reforms in Indian Retail Sector India will allow FDI of up to 51% in multi-brand sector. Single brand retailers such as Apple and Ikea, can own 100% of their Indian stores, up from previous cap of 51%. The retailers (both single and multi-brand) will have to source at least 30% of their goods from small and medium sized Indian suppliers.

14

All retail stores can open up their operations in population having over 1million. Out of approximately 7935 towns and cities in India, 55 suffice such criteria. Multi-brand retailers must bring minimum investment of US$ 100 million, half of this must be invested in back-end infrastructure facilities such as cold chains, refrigeration, transportation, packaging etc. to reduce postharvest losses and provide remunerative prices to farmers. The opening of retail competition (policy) will be within parameters of state laws and regulations.

2.2 Growth in 'Organized Retailing

Chaze (2006) looked at 'unorganized and organized sectors in India, in the context of retailing. He spoke of how the organized retailing sector was beginning to grow rapidly. Vietnam on the other hand is the only country in this figure with a higher GDP contribution at 55% (compared to India at 39%) as well as having a higher percentage of organized retail penetration at 22% (compared to 6% in India). Food and Beverages vertical constitutes the largest percentage share of the revenue at 74.41%, and yet only has 'organized' penetration of 0.98%, so is likely to be a target sector for foreign retailers. The Indian consumer behavior of preferring proximity to retail formats is also particularly pronounced in the food & beverages sector, with food, grocery and allied products largely sourced from the local stores or hand cart vendors very close to home. Ernst & Young (2007) have said that prevalence of traditional retailing is highly pronounced in small towns and cities with primary presence of neighborhood 'kirana' stores, push-cart vendors, 'melas' and 'mandis'. Organized formats are only in the initial stages of adoption in these regions. Leading retail players in the industry are beginning to explore these markets and the rural consumers are slowly beginning to embrace the newer organized retail formats. With such a high level of unorganized retail employment in the country, it is understandable that the rapid growth of organized retailing naturally causes some concern for smaller industry and traditional retailers. It does however seem inevitable that organized retail will continue to see strong growth in India as rural (and urban) consumers begin to accept and adapt to new and modern 41 retailing formats. Modern/Organised retailing is growing at an aggressive pace in urban India, fueled by bourgeoning economic activity. Organized retail revenues are expected to increase from an estimated US$ 12.9 billion per annum in 2005- 06 to more than US$ 43 billion by 2009-10. The sector is predicted to grow by 400 per cent, in value terms, by 2007-08. A large number of domestic and international players are setting up base and expanding their business with newer organized retail formats and intense competition driving innovation in formats. Reliance Industries Limited (RIL), one of the largest domestic organized retailers in India, has set up a subsidiary of RIL called Reliance Retail Limited (RRL) to drive forward the groups growth in the organized retail sector, with its 'vision' to generate inclusive growth and prosperity for farmers, vendor partners, small shopkeepers and consumers. According to RRL (2009) , 27% of global GDP is attributed to retail, and in various developing markets organized retail contributes typically anywhere between 20% and 55% of GDP. Placing the Indian retai l market at approximately $300 billion, with a growth rate of 13% per year, RRL point out that presently, although organized retai l ing is only approximately 5%, this is likely to grow to 10% by

15

2011. Therefore, RRL have begun an implementation plan to create a high spec state of the art retail infrastructure, to include a strategy for opening multi-format stores such as convenience, hypermarket, speciality and wholesale stores. Allowing FDI 100% in retailing would no doubt significantly accelerate this growth. In fact, Reliance in recognising that strategic alliances are going to be a key driver to its retail business, in financial year 2007-08, established key joint ventures with international partners in apparel (clothing), optical and office product businesses. Further, RRL will continue to seek synergist ic oppor tuni t ies wi th other international players as well. The growth of consumerism in India is one of the key drivers fuelling the organised retail growth. Pankaj Gupta (2006) highlights several demographic trends that are factors in the growth of organized retailing. India is for example, experiencing rapid income growth so consumers have a greater ability to spend. There is growing urbanization and this urban population has both a higher propensity to spend, and a desire for convenience. India also has a growing 'young' population which has both the willingness and attitude to spend. Gupta also states that there is a trend for Indian consumers tending to 'buy now, save later' i.e. consumers are prepared to borrow money for today's consumption. Management consultant Rama Bijapurkar says the poorest fifth live a hand-tomouth existence and are insignificant as consumers. The next fifth, aspirants, acquire the most basic consumer durables bicycles, fans and radios and learn to aspire for more. The third group, climbers, is hooked, but find that their desires far outrun their income, so they buy the cheapest goods. The fourth group, whom she calls the consuming class is of inveterate buyers; they weigh the price against what they get for it. The top fifth are the rich; they buy the best without looking at the price. The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM) are cited in a news-article at www.dare.co.in (an Indian platform for entrepreneurs and business owners), as supporting a proposal to give the retail sector formal 'industry status'. In a note by the Ministries of Commerce & Industry and Consumer Affairs, the Chamber President, Sajjan Jindal said that providing industry status is the first basic step needed for reforming the Indian retailing sector. ASSOCHAM believe that the advantages of having an industry status are that it will allow a better focus on retailing development, fiscal incentives, and availability of organized financing and establishment of insurance norms. They feel the development of the retail sector can take place at a faster pace if there is a comprehensive legislation enacted. The legislation should be simple and have a futuristic approach. It should take into consideration the developments that are taking place in this arena worldwide. The legislation should provide broad parameters within which the retail sector should operate and dayto-day functioning and other modalities should be prescribed in the Rules. The underlying idea is to have minimum modifications in the Act in the future. For retail operations under current Rules, need to apply for and obtain a series of licenses and permits. These range from basic trading licenses and product specific licenses, to pollution clearance, amongst others. Every retail outlet is required to obtain these, even if it is a part of a chain. These are irritants, [and] add time and cost to the process of establishing a retail chain

2.3 The case of Wal-Mart

16

The case of Wal-Marts model of retailing can be taken as the benchmark for the possible effects of allowing entry of large foreign retail firms into India. What are the advantages of Wal-Mart in the U.S., and other countries, whether these advantages can be translated into India and if so what are the possible effects in terms of net benefit or losses on different stakeholders? Wal-Mart is the largest retail corporation in the world with $ 400 million annual turnover and about 2 million employees. Wal-Mart discount store was first established in a small town Rogers in Arkansas by Sam Walton in 1962. The basic strategy was to enter small towns with population of 5000 to 25,000 which were not served by large retailers and derive scale advantage in relation to the size of small town markets and eliminate small players. This is similar to a natural monopoly where, given the size of the market, one large player with global economies of scale can serve the market more efficiently than large number of small players. From the beginning Wal-Mart focused on increasing the volume of customers visits to realize economies of scale (Walton, 1992). By keeping prices low, it increased sales so much more than just to compensate for the decrease in markup. When Wal-Mart enters a market, prices decrease by 8 percent in rural areas and 5 in urban areas (Ghemawat and Mark, 2006). Labor (wage) costs were treated as overheard costs for the retail business and were kept as low as possible. This meant employing as minimum workers as possible and paying wages as low as possible. Trade unions were totally discouraged. However, the company introduced a profit sharing plan for workers in 1971 in which they could purchase subsidized Wal-Mart stock with a percentage of their wages. Workers are treated as associates. Managers are given certain degree of autonomy to make decisions for increasing volume of sales. For example, department heads pick an item which they consider has the potential to sell large volumes and develop the associated promotion plan. Furthermore, it developed the concept of store within store in which each department is given the freedom to act as an independent merchant. Wal-Mart derived competitive advantage through adoption of highly efficient logistics and distribution system by leveraging new technologies. It adopted vertically integrated distribution system. It was one of the first retailers to adopt electronic scanners at the registers which were tied to an inventory control system such that it could know immediately which items were selling well. By 1988, Wal-Mart had the largest privately owned satellite communications network in the U.S. This helped the managers to have a complete picture of where goods were and how fast they were moving from the suppliers to frontend service and track all the costs involved (Lichtenstein, 2005). This made inventory management very efficient thereby reducing working capital costs. Wal-Mart procures goods directly from manufacturers bypassing all intermediaries and always drives hard bargain from suppliers. It spends a significant amount of time meeting vendors and understanding their cost structure. Once satisfied, it establishes long term relationship with vendors. It is in constant touch with suppliers through computer network (Chandran, 2003). The long term relationship of repeated interactions reduces transaction costs of exchange. Once goods procured, its warehouses supply 85 percent of the inventory as compared to 5060 percent for competitors. Consequently, it is able to provide replenishments within two days against at least five days for competitors and shipping costs on average turn out to be 3 percent as against 5 percent for competitors. This ruthless pursuit of cost and price cutting strategies of Wal-Mart made it to grow into a gigantic corporation. Fishman (2006) observes The Wal-Mart effect is the suburbanization of shopping; the downward pressure on wages at all kinds of stores trying to compete with Wal-Mart; the consolidation of consumer product companies trying to compete with Wal-Marts scale; the relentless scrutiny of unnecessary costs that allows companies to survive on thinner profits; the

17

success of a large business at the expense of its rivals and the way in which that succeeds builds on itself In the same decade that Wal-Mart has come to dominate the grocery business in the United States, 31 supermarket chains have sought bankruptcy protection; 27 of these chains cite competition from Wal-Mart as a factor. That too is the Wal-Mart effect. As far as employment effect of WalMart is concerned, Basker (2005) found that immediately after entry, retail employment in the country increases by approximately 100 jobs; this figure declines by half over the next five years as some small and medium size retail establishments close. Wholesale employment declines by approximately 20 jobs over five years. On the other hand, Ghemawat and Mark (2006) argue that Wal-Mart has grown the economic pie available to be divided among its various stakeholders instead of slicing up a fixed pie in a way that favors one group over another. They cite the McKinsey Global Institutes study of the U.S. labor productivity growth between 1995 and 2000 (by Robert Solow) which shows that Wal-Mart contributed significantly for its growth. Given that Wal-Marts prices are 8 percent lower than competitors, the U.S. consumers save on the order of $ 18 billion per year. For each job lost through Wal-Mart effect, consumers saved more than $ 7 million per year. This would imply that in terms of net effects more jobs were created through increase in incomes and expenditure than those of direct losses. The above discussion shows that Wal-Mart derived a sustainable advantage with respect to competitors in the U.S. with net positive effects on the economy as a whole. The following issue is whether it has been able to translate it to foreign country operations. The theory of multinational firms shows that a firm becomes a multinational if it has intangible asset advantage in technology, brand name and organization otherwise local firms can produce the product more efficiently than a foreign firm (Hymer, 1960). However, the intangible asset theory is only a partial explanation. Multinational firms have to take into account of diverse economic, political and social institutions of different countries in making their entry, governance and management decisions (Patibandla, 2007, Ghemawat, 2007). The institutional environment in terms of the constitution, the legal system, property rights, contract laws, regulatory institutions, embedded norms and customs and consumer behavior which determine transaction costs of business could be broadly similar across a group of countries and diverse across a group of other countries. For example, when Wal-Mart entered Canada and the U.K. it has been successful. However, it failed in South Korea and Germany and struggles in countries such as Japan and Russia. In case of Germany, Wal-Mart management at the top was not able to understand and deal with Germanys regulatory and institutional conditions and consumer preference for value rather than service and work culture of Germans. In case of South Korea, consumers prefer to buy small and fresh quantities and the Korean competitors attracted consumers away from Wal-Mart with marketing strategies based on nationalistic feelings. In the case of Mexico and other Latin American countries which are geographically close to the U.S., Wal-Mart has been successful. Wal-Mart entered Mexico in 1991 with a joint venture with the largest Mexican firm Aurrera which was bought out in 1997. Wal-Mart modernized warehousing, distribution and inventory management which reduced costs and prices significantly. It adapted to Mexican conditions like Bodega Aurrera stores austere versions of supermarkets designed to meet small town needs and high-end Superama in high-end neighborhoods. This allowed it to target different customers with different purchasing power. The operation of Wal-Mart in Mexico is shown to have resulted in $ 60,000 in savings to customers for each $ 10,000 in wages paid to employees (Das and Pramanik, 2011). WalMart grew very rapidly in Mexico. By 2012, it has become the largest private employer with 209,000 employees. Wal-Mart entered China in 1996 and now it operates 352 stores in 130 cities. WalMart has been able to cater to the rapidly growing Chinese market at around 18

18

percent annually. About 20,000 Chinese suppliers provide Wal-Mart with 70 percent of its global sales. Thirty percent of Chinese exports are accounted by Wal-Mart. Schell (2011) observes Just as China is providing Walmart with the lifeblood of its commercial growth, Walmart is helping the Chinese state not just to satisfy the escalating demands of its consumers but to extend Beijings regulatory writ. Together, they are engaging in a bold experiment in consumer behavior modification, market economies, and environmental stewardship. How Walmart and China interact with each other over the next decade will be critical to the fate of the planets environment.ii Over the years as the incomes of Chinese consumers have been growing, there has been greater demand for clean food and environmentally friendly products, Wal-Mart started to adopt environmentally friendly practices. In China, there are thousands of polluting factories and small-scale food producers who violate environmental regulations. As Schell notes through well-organized companies like Wal-Mart that operate nationally, the Chinese government has found auxiliary sources of public education, control, and regulation through effective supply chain with no extra cost to the public. Assuming Wal-Mart is allowed to enter India without policy restrictions, the first issue would be Wal-Marts ability to adapt its low cost and price model to Indias institutional and infrastructure conditions and overtime how its operations change the landscape of the retail industry in India. Wal-Mart has to modify the U.S model of establishing large stores outside the cities. India is more densely populated than the U.S and China and less densely populated than the countries like the U.K, the Netherlands and Japan. High density could be an advantage and also a disadvantage for large retailers. Once a large retailer occupies real estate in a high density area, it will be able to realize economies of scale of serving large number of customers and at the same time the real estate prices could be high. One of the strategies of the Indian firms such as the Reliance is to occupy real estate in large cities and towns to preempt the foreign players. Secondly, consumer preferences and consumption patterns (for example vegetarian and non-vegetarian food) are more diverse across different regions than in countries such as the U.S, the European countries and even China which means standardized supply chain across the country may not work. Furthermore, at present there are large barriers for trade within the country- different tax regime of the states and infrastructure conditions. Just to give an example, it is easier to bring apples from Australia to Bangalore than getting them from the Himachal Pradesh state. This means Wal-Mart has to adopt the supply chain for the different regions of the country than for the whole country. In other words, certain elements of the supply chain could be standardized at the national level and others have to be adapted to regional requirements. As mentioned earlier, Wal-Marts supply chain is highly efficient in terms of linking sales pattern at the front end to its warehouses and the producers. One of the important issues is creating linkages with large number of Indian manufacturers and farmers spread across the country which poses difficulties in inventory management if it faces problems of high transaction costs of contracts, delivery time, and quality control. Wal-Mart has to invest significant amount of resources in cultivating long term relationship with the suppliers and helping them in quality and delivery control mechanism. One of the criticisms of Wal-Marts practices is that it drives supplier firms to be cost-effective especially if the suppliers become dependent on the large buyer. On the other hand, if supplier firms in India learn from Wal-Mart in improving production and delivery practices, they could improve their bargaining by diversifying their sales to other large retailers or even by selling in the international markets. If Wal-Mart is able to adapt its supply chain to Indian conditions, it could benefit both large and relatively small Indian retailers by expanding the market through improving know-how of large number of vendors in the country. This was what happened in the auto-component industry

19

in India especially in regard to the first-tier producers as a result of entry of TNCs in the automobile industry (Patibandla, 2006, Okada, 2009). As mentioned earlier, close to 30 per cent of manufacturing exports of China are accounted by Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart is able to replicate its global supply chain practice in India it can source manufacturing exports from India which will generate employment. China is transforming into a middle-income country with a per capital income of about $ 5000. This will increase wage costs in the manufacturing. This is where India can take advantage by letting the manufacturing industry to move to India by improving infrastructure, literacy rates and reducing transaction costs of business. Critics of Wal-Mart or representatives of the Indian retailers special interests may make an argument that Wal-Mart should be kept out of retailing but their outsourcing and supply chain activities for exporting Indian manufacturers should be encouraged. However, it is essential to allow foreign players to operate in India to make markets contestable, for realization of externalities and benefit consumers and suppliers especially farmers which I show in the next section.

Chapter 3 - Arguments for and against FDI in Retailing

6.1 Arguments for FDI in Retailing
There are many who argue that FDI in retailing will be of benefit to India, and discussions are often seen in the Indian media. In fact, some even argue that if FDI in retail is not allowed, it could be harmful to India's retail sector. According to Crisil Research FDI of the total expected investments of USD 10 billion in the Indian retail industry over the next 5 years, if it is permitted across all states of the country. The likely FDI inflows in retail are modest in the context of overall FDI inflows of USD 190 billion over the past five years. In 2011-12, organized retail accounted for about 7 per cent of the USD 430 billion Indian retail industry. The food and grocery (F&G) segment -- which accounts for two-thirds of the Indian retail market but has organized retail sales of only around 2 per cent, the lowest among retail verticals -- is likely to attract a greater portion of the FDI inflows. This highly price sensitive segment will benefit the most from the scale, technology and investments in the back-end that would accompany foreign capital. To improve profitability in F&G, retailers need to control their supply chain

20

costs and build scale. Everypercentage point reduction in supply chain cost and resultant gain in EBITDA margin can improve equity IRR of an F&G store by 250300 basis points. Foreign retailers, with their access to capital and technology, are well placed to leverage this opportunity. CRISIL Research believes that organized retail penetration (ORP) will increase moderately from 9 per cent to 10 per cent in 2016-17, if all states permit FDI. The same has been arrived at taking into account the likely supply of quality retail space and the current ORP in large cities. Further, the lead time for organized retailers to identify appropriate store locations and address issues in rolling out back-end infrastructure will limit the pace of growth in ORP. Organized retail penetration in India 2011-12 2016-17 P 2016-17 P 2011-12 Total Retail USD Billion Organised USD Billion Retail ORP Percentage Pre Source: Crisil Research 430 29 17

2016 17 P Pre FDI Impact 850 72 9

2016 17 P Post FDI Impact 850 85 10

Tripathi (2009) the Director of Silk Hut (a midsized silk garment retailer in Hyderabad), has said "Industry experts believed that the technical edge offered by foreign companies is crucial for the survival of domestic retail companies in the [current] downturn. Tripathi (2009) feels that it is essential that FDI be allowed in the retail sector at 100% equity, because this is likely to encourage domestic investment into the sector too, and generate further employment opportunities. In addition to this, he commented that during the economic downturn that is currently being experienced, most of the retail industry players, both large and small, felt that it would be good to boost the economy by facilitating higher FDI inflows. These arguments for improvements in technology and increases in FDI inflows to boost economic growth are supported by other proponents of FDI in retailing. Singh & Banga (2008) undertook a research paper on the emergence & prospects of FDI in India's retailing, and highlighted that despite the developments in the industry in recent years and the large contribution to India's economy, "retailing continues to be the least evolved industries and the growth of organised retailing in India has been much slower as compared to the rest of the world. One important reason for this is that retailing is one of the few sectors where FDI is not allowed. Singh & Banga (2008) identify seven key reasons for opening up the retail sector to FDI. Firstly, they believe that the large global retail players have a far more advanced knowledge of management, particularly in inventory management and merchandising and are far more productive and efficient, utilizing new technologies to their advantage. Secondly, they argue that the foreign 'low-cost' big players will adopt an integrated supply chain management system which in turn should help to lower the price of products, benefitting consumers. Thirdly, Singh & Banga believe that FDI will ensure that products are good quality and that customer services improve, providing a better shopping 'experience'. Fourthly, it will encourage and promote the links between domestic/local suppliers, manufacturers and agricultural traders to global markets. Quality and safety standards of domestics will be improved by this as only those who meet strict standards are likely to be selected. It will also help in providing a profitable and reliable market for the domestic local players. Singh & Banga's fifth argument was that the foreign retailers would begin to spread their operations in India, and as this happened domestic players would

21

develop their supply chain, create new strategies and improve operations to counteract the competition from foreign players, and this would inevitably encourage investment and employment in supply chain and back-end sectors. Joint Ventures between domestic 'organized' retailers and foreign players (such as Wal-mart & Bharti) would also help to ease the capital constraints of the domestics. Finally, it was highlighted that the development of new retail formats and sector modernization in general would be brought around by FDI. Singh & Banga (2008) concluded from their research that it was evident that "ever growing urban and rural markets in India represent an unprecedented and vast unexplored opportunity for retailing to all types of formats. Initially there may be certain reservations and apprehensions in allowing global players in India's retailing, but if they are allowed in a phased manner on the basis of a well conceived and chalked out policy, they are likely to lead to more investment in organized retailing and allied sectors. With the above said, their research paper also advised that a number of points needed to be kept into consideration when opening up FDI:

1. The opening up of FDI should be phased, over a 5-10 year time frame so as
to allow time for domestic retailers to adjust.

2. FDI in multi-brand retailing should be kept restricted in the near future, as

Indian retailers would not be able to face this competition immediately.

3. It is not currently desirable for FDI to be above 51%, even in single brand
retailing. This will allow checking and control of foreign retailer's business operations, and will help to protect the interests of domestic retailers. However, the sector cap (equity limit) could be increased in due course as it has been in the telecom, banking and insurance markets. Certain products that are sensitive should not be allowed, for example, arms/ammunition and military equipment. The excluded products should be expressly stated in policy. There should be restricted zones imposed by the government for the purposes of city planning e.g. Supermarkets/Hypermarkets should be kept away from the city centers to protect the unorganized and small retailers who operate in these areas.

4. 5.

One of the most publicized and well known studies was produced by the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) in association with the Academic Foundation, who were asked by the Department of Consumer Affairs and the Government of India to undertake a research project in to this area of study, for which their findings were published in 2005 so as to encourage the debate of this important issue, and to enable the Government to begin drawing up key policy decisions. The ICRIER (2005) study revealed that many of those in favor of FDI believed that the opening up of the retail sector would be of benefit to India in terms of investment inflow, technical knowledge and skills. Those in favor argued that organized retailing requires heavy investment if it is to expand rapidly, and would require supply chain set-up and the introduction of information technology. FDI would ease the capital constraint and foreign players would bring in best management practices that can be replicated by the domestic players. They would invest in supply chain, source products from India and provide a platform to domestic manufacturers to export their products in international markets through these retailers. During the study by ICRIER (2005), groups of traders in the unorganized retail sector who had seen organized retailers locate in close proximity to them, were asked questions to find out if they had been adversely affected, and whether they

22

had been displaced by the organized retailers' presence. According to the results, 65% of unorganized players felt that the growth of organized retailing has no major impact on their business. Another 25% said that they initially suffered some losses but had changed their business strategies to face the competition. The remaining 10% faced losses but have not changed their business practices. None of the unorganized players had to close down their operations. The main findings of the ICRIER study revealed that FDI in retailing led to: 1. Increased speed of development in modern formats 2. Improved productivity and efficiency of the retail sector 3. Enhanced sourcing 4. Improved quality of employment no negative impact on employment if the economy is growing. 5. Encouraged investment in supply chain 6. Led to integration of suppliers, logistic service and retailers reduction in the number of intermediaries 7. Linked local suppliers, farmers, manufactures to global markets 8. Low cost global retailers likely to lower prices 9. Consumers are assured of product quality, better service & shopping experience. The ICRIER (2005) study also reported that those in favour of FDI argued that the reality of the situation is that foreign retailers are already operating in India due to the loop holes in current policy and regulation, and that if FDI was opened up, this would help to improve the transparency of the regulatory system. This argument is supported by Dey (2007) , of the Research Unit for Political Economy (RUPE). Although FDI is restricted, Dey points out that the Government of India has taken a much more liberal approach to wholesale, commission agent services and franchising and this has resulted in many foreign retailers having already set up operations through a number of different routes. For example, Pottery Barn, Ralph Lauren and Gap have all made India a key sourcing hub. WalMart, one of the world's largest retailers set up a global sourcing operation in Bangalore in 2002, and at the end of 2006, it entered a Joint Venture with the well known Indian corporation Bharti. "For the time being, Bharti is to own the chain of front-end retail stores, while the two firms will have an equal share in a firm that will engage in wholesale, logistics, supply chain and sourcing activities. This is seen as a preliminary step by Wal-Mart pending the removal of all restrictions on FDI in retail trade. Although some of the above arguments supports FDI being introduced more formally to increase transparency to the regulations, the debate becomes even more complex and relevant when you consider the recent changes by the Government in the series of Press Notes released in February 2009 (as discussed in Chapter 3.1 Policy & Regulatory Environment). The Press Notes from Elliott's (2009) point of view "legitimise cascading investments. It is important that regulations are made clear so that the possibility of foreign retailers using these grey areas or loop holes to set up cascading businesses dressed up as Indian controlled and owned companies is eliminated. In our opinion this defeats the whole object of having FDI restrictions in place in the retail sector, and makes the entry of foreign retailers harder to control and monitor. In respect of single-brand retailing which is allowed up to 51% equity, Khatore and Parekh (2009) point out that "several major foreign single-brand retailers have already established their presence in India through the permissible franchise route. Thus, the policy of not a l lowing 100% investment appe a r s desynchronised, as outflow of funds from India in the form of franchise payments is permitted but inflow of foreign investments is

23

restricted. Khatore and Parekh (2009) also argue that the growth projection that has been forecast for the Indian retail sector may not be achievable if the government does not act quickly in opening up single-brand and multi-brand retail sectors. Kumar (2006) argued that FDI in retail improves growth prospects. In an article in The Economic Times (August 2006) Kumar stated that there are predominantly 3 arguments against allowing FDI in the retail sector. The first was that it could hinder or prevent the domestic organized retailers from growing. Secondly, it would result in small retail stores closing and unemployment growing, and thirdly, that it would disrupt the social community and the given way of life. Kumar (2006) counters each of these arguments individually, retorting that the first argument is out-of-date, because domestic players such as Reliance, Tata and various other large organized retailers have already grown and matured and that "these corporates don't need protectionActually, if these infants are protected any longer they have good chances of becoming delinquent adults. Soon enough, monopoly rents will begin to accrue and bad habits will get entrenched and it will then be more difficult to open the sector. Domestic players have the best locations anyway and a clear head start. The second argument is also not substantiated, as Kumar argues that "liberalization of retail raises overall economic welfare and does not result in loss of employment. Some restructuring will take place but local markets will not close down. Both can coexist as they fulfil different needs and serve different clientele. The third argument on the disruption of social community and the given way of life has a stronger case. Kumar acknowledges that shopping centers & malls could potentially result in "greater urban anonymity and a complete breakdown of the bazaar culture and the disappearance of the 'down town' space that has its own charm. But, in France, Germany the Nordic countries and also other parts of Europe, experience has shown that local communities can thrive if they are empowered and involved in urban planning. Kumar (2006) concludes that FDI in retail will improve prospects of growth, will not harm equity and will ensure that monopoly rents are not encouraged, and therefore should be opened up immediately. Real estate consultant CB Richard Ellis also believe that the government needs to open up FDI in retail so as to bring in more investment and to help promote competition in the sector that has been hit hard by the current economic slowdown. The existing FDI rules are a constraint. There is need to open up the sector a bit more as it will facilitate fresh infusion of funds and also promote competition, said Chairman of CB Richard Ellis's South Asia office. Mehta (2007) of the Birla Institute of Management Technology in giving an overview of the Indian retail market implied that regardless of the risks to traditional retailers such as the 'mom and pop' stores, FDI would still bring significant benefits to the Indian consumer and give them value for money. "The standard of living of the people will increase and they will have a better lifestyle which will result in the development of the economy as a whole. When looking at FDI from a general point of view, removed from the constraints of the retail sector focus of this report, it could be argued that FDI, if 'effective', will develop human capital. Subbarao (2008) discusses this in a research paper on FDI and Human Capital Development, saying that "effective FDI indulges in enhancement of human capital of the country. By 'effective' FDI, Subbarao means investment that encourages the development of a country that fosters the development of each resident of the country.

24

Subbarao (2008) also talks of other potential benefits to host countries, including the generation of employment, raising of productivity, skills & technology transfer, improved infrastructure, increased incomes, enhanced exports, and contribution to the long-term development of developing economies. There is also the advantage to the Government of additional taxes. Taxes that are generated from the entry of foreign investors in a host country can be used by the Government to re-invest in human capital development. Even without taxes, a United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) report in 1994 (cited by Subbarao (2008)) reported that foreign multi-national investors' "demand for highly trained graduates manifests itself in the form of financial support, particularly to business schools. Therefore, it is likely that foreign retail investors will look to invest in human capital development as well as provide additional tax streams. With this said, Subbarao acknowledges that different countries have had different experiences with regards to whether FDI has lead to the enhancement of human capital. The Financial Express (anonymous author, 2005) when discussing the arguments of those who are against FDI, said that there are no restrictions for Indian large corporates to enter into retail. Many domestic players have huge expansion plans and the ability to invest billions of dollars themselves. What is the difference between these domestic players expanding, or foreign investors joining and expanding in the Indian market? The Financial Express (2005) believed it could also be argued that organised retailing would have little detrimental effect on retailers if comparison is drawn from the impact of stores like Wal-Mart on small US retailers. Retail sales increased substantially overall; and although retail sales were adversely affected in areas such as clothing & groceries, there was an increase in sales of general merchandise, home furnishing, and food and drink.

6.2 Arguments against FDI in Retailing

When researching the justifications 'against' FDI in India's retail sector, it should be recognised that there have been many studies that have looked at the strengths and weaknesses of allowing FDI in developing countries in general, of which several of these have focused on India. Amar Nayak (2008) in his literature on multinationals in India discussed some of these studies to try to understand the impact of FDI on host countries. It was evident that the literature revealed a heterogeneous (varied) effect on host countries, and whilst some studies show that FDI has benefited a host country, many other studies show that they have either had a negative impact or no impact on host countries. Nayak (2008) when discussing the literature that focused on India, pointed out that there were apparent positive and negative effects from FDI. For example, Johri (1983), by studying the business strategies of foreign multinational companies in the drug and pharmaceutical industry, showed that domestic companies benef i ted great ly by the investments of foreign pharmaceutical 67 companies in India. Other studies by N. Kumar (1990), S Kumar (1996), Myneni (2000) and Debroy (1996) were all identified by Nayak (2008) as showing positive benefits to the domestic companies and country as a whole. To the contrary, a number of highly compelling studies show that FDI has not been beneficial to host countries. Nair-Reichert and Weinhold (2001) studied the impact of FDI on over 24 countries in different stages of development and found that FDI had a heterogeneous impact. Country specific analyses of host countries show that FDI has not helped them in 68 meeting their national objectives. (Cited by Nayak (2008) Chakraborty and Basu (2002) had concluded from research that

25

the Indian Government's trade liberalization policy had initially made a positive impact, but as a whole had tended to cause labour displacement. In fact, Nayak (2002, 2004, 2005) had concluded FDI on the whole in India has neither been effective for India nor for the foreign companies in India. (Cited by Nayak (2008) Abrol (2005), the President of the Bombay Small Scale Industries Association is cited by the Financial Express website as having said various ministers of the present government are proposing FDI in retail. We believe multinational retail and World Bank- International Monetary Fund lobbies and some self-serving bureaucrats are supporting it. This proposal will create multiple East India Companies in our country and affect livelihoods of 1.2 crore (12 million) small retailers. Isn't the proposal anti- national? Abrol is not alone in this view. There have been several parties who have spoken out strongly against FDI in Retail. The organisation 'India FDI Watch' argues why India should be kept Independent, and the Center for Policy Alternatives Society (CPAS), a privately funded think tank focused on the study and review of public policy in India, have produced a series of reports on the problems with FDI in Retail. The first in 2003, then in 2006, and a third in 2007. All have compelling arguments that require further consideration. Mohan Guruswamy, Chairman of CPAS in New Delhi was the former Advisor to the Finance Minister, and a Harvard graduate. Along with several colleagues (K Sharma, J P Mohanty and Thomas J Korah) he produced a document titled 'FDI in India's Retail Sector, More Bad than Good?' Guruswamy et al (2003) highlighted that unorganised retai l ing accounted for approximately 98% (in 2003) of total trade, with organised retailing only having a share of 2% of the market. The size of the retail market is very hard to gauge, but estimates have placed it at around Rs 4,00,000 crores (US$ 86,021.50 million) which was forecast at the time to double by 2005. They acknowledged that domestic retail businesses that were 'corporate' owned, were only a small amount of the total market, but were growing at a rate of 40%. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) in 2003 estimated total retail business to be 44% of GDP, and food sales made up 63% of total retail sales. With food retail trade being a significantly large segment of India's GDP, and because of its huge employment potential, Guruswamy felt it deserved special attention. Guruswamy et al's (2003) first note was that even if FDI was not opened up, the growth of the domestic 'organised sector' alone would result in efficiency improvements and an increase in food retail sales activity, which would have a trickle down effect on employment and Guruswamy et al (2003) talked of retail as a 'Forced Employment' sector in India. They argued that one of the main reasons behind the growth of retail and its fragmented nature. This would explain why India is so highly fragmented with estimates at the time of the above report suggesting in the region of 11 million outlets with only 4% of them being larger than 500 square feet in size. But unemployment is high and many of the unemployed people turn to very informal retailing to try and make some kind of living, with limited alternative employment opportunities. Dey (2007) recognized this problem also, and stated that "the retail sector [in India] acts as an important shock absorber for the present social system. When for example, a factory closes, or a peasant gets evicted from their land, or the stagnant manufacturing industry fails to soak up new entrants to the job market, then the retail sector manages to absorb them all. Skilled laborers end up as street hawkers, and educated youth turn to selling newspapers. A better off

26

unemployed person might start telephone services and retail telecom cards. "Thus, after agriculture, the incidence of underemployment is probably highest in the Indian retail sector Those displaced as a result of FDI in retail may not show up as an increase in visible unemployment Interestingly, Guruswamy et al (2003) discussed a particular foreign retailer who has subsequently entered the Indian market in 'cash & carry' wholesale (Walmart) arguing that if they were to enter India, they could use predatory strategies to force out smaller competition and that this would create unemployment in the millions. It was calculated that on the basis that India had 35 towns with over 1 million people in each, and if Wal-mart opened an average store in each city and they performed as well as an average Wal-mart store employing just over 10,000 employees only, then by extrapolating the turnover and no. of employees alongside the average trend, it would be the equivalent of 432,000 people being displaced. The report expanded on this theory further arguing that if FDI retailers were to acquire say 20% of retail trade, this would equate to Rs. 800 billion of turnover, which would lead to the employment of just 43,540 people, but would displace approximately 8 million people employed in the unorganised retail sector. Centre for Policy Alternatives' (CPAS) first report by as detailed above, acknowledges that there are many good things that could come from FDI, and they have supported FDI in other areas where they feeldo not supportsuggests It is evident from the survey results that 28% of people the evidence the that it will benefit and grow the economy. For the retail sector, CPAS make a view that allowing FDI will cause labour displacement. This compares to number of recommendations for issues that should be addressed before 12% who believe opening up of the retail sector to foreigners. considering the labour displacement is inevitable and 11% who believe These recommendations are summarised below:India's domestic market is clearly there are no solutions to this problem.

divided on whether government should create suitable lending policies so as to 1. Bank Finance Thethere is even an issue of displacement. assist domestic organized and unorganized retailers to grow and improve their efficiency. These policies should encourage those in the unorganized sector to migrate to the organized sector. 2. National Commission A National Commission should be set up to carry out research in tothe retail sector to help create policies that will support the sector if and when FDI arrives. 3. Conditions Conditions with regards to sourcing of farm produce, domestically manufactured merchandise and imported goods should be applied to large foreign retail companies. The conditions should encourage the sourcing of goods from India's domestic market. 4. Timescale / Safeguards The opening up of the retail sector should be slow and gradual so as to allow for the displacement of labor to be analyzed and policies amended where appropriate, with social safeguards in place. Ensure high entry costs for foreign retailers and implement regulations so that the retailer cannot use predatory tactics with their pricing to gain market share aggressively. 5. Manufacturing Sector In order to cope with the labor displacement, CPAS strongly suggest that the manufacturing sector must be improved, in the belief that this will offer some compensation for the displaced labor from the retail industry. 6. Co-operative Stores They recommend that the government should encourage co-operative stores so as to source and stock consumer goods/commodities from the small producers, in order to address the two problems of limited promotion and marketing ability, as well as assisting market penetration. 7. Agricultural Perishable Produce Commission (APPC) A Commission to ensure that procurement costs are fair for farmers of perishable commodities. 8. Food Retail Sector a. Training to provide skills in transport, handling, storing, sorting, grading, hygiene, refrigeration equipment maintenance etc.

27

b. Improve Infrastructure for retailing with focus on logistics and hygiene c. Creation of certification and price administration bodies to oversee regulation of quality and to assist with the upgrading of technical & human interface in the 'rural-to-urban supply chain'. d. Credit availability e. Implement cross integration of India's existing long food supply chains such as dairy, fish, fruit and veg to provide new products in new markets and help to improve consumer choice, and increase employment and economic activity. By undertaking their recommendations, CPAS believe that it will help to ensure that the domestic and foreign retailers are on equal ground, and that domestic retailers are not especially disadvantaged. "The small retailers must be given ample opportunity to be able to provide a more personalized service, so that their higher costs are not duly nullified by the presence of big supermarket s and hypermarkets. The research study undertaken by ICRIER (2005) revealed that those against FDI in retail argue that the entry of large multi-national retailers could upset India's import balance, as a number of these prefer to source globally (for example, from China) and may prefer this to sourcing from India. This view is supported by CPAS. In a recent study, CPAS's Chairman Guruswamy, Sharma & Jos (2007) suggest the potential problem of a 'China Pipeline'. Those opposed also believe that foreign retail investors may use predatory pricing techniques, which are aggressive and can force out domestic players by selling at below cost until the domestics have been eliminated. Then the foreign retailers have a monopoly of the market and can increase prices and reap higher profits. This is not such an inconceivable concept, as it has happened elsewhere in the world which can be seen, for example in an article by the Institute for Local SelfReliance where Wal-mart were charged with predatory pricing in the United States in 2000. The trading associations have pointed to the fact that retail trade does not require large amounts of investment to operate because goods are bought on credit and sales are mainly cash, and therefore the foreign retail investors will not bring large inflows of foreign investment. To the contrary, they argue that "after making initial investment on basic infrastructure, the multinational retailers may remit the profits earned in India to their own country. India FDI Watch is a national coalition of labor unions, trade associations, environmentalists, NGOs and academics that have formed to block attempts by Prime Minister Singh's government to allow foreign direct investment in India's retail markets (www.indiafdiwatch.org). They have produced several reports that argue that India should say no to FDI in retail unless the foreign retailers "make satisfactory guarantees that would protect communities; insure the stability of existing small businesses and traders; guarantee fair wages and working conditions for their own employees and source employees along with union protection and agreements; and insure that a significant percentage of sourcing derives from the Indian market. One particular India FDI Watch campaign believed that there is pressure on the government from the IMF and World Bank to allow labour standards to be dictated by the demands of supply chain flexibility ie. 'hire and fire' policy. They argue that if the government is to change labour laws (as it has already proposed to do in 2005), then the safe guards that have been in place to protect India's labour force will be lost and the business environment will be far more conducive to FDI and global integration, as the model used by global retailers requires flexible labour markets to be present.

28

The same campaign report argued that Trans National Companies (TNCs) are trying to bring in changes through the World Trade Organisation's GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services) to "safeguard their vested interest The proposed GATS agreement would provide that an investor would not be subject to the introduction of new barriers to investment in a host country, would be provided with post investment protection, protection against all material and intellectual property, effective protection against direct expropriation as well as against indirect expropriat ion through discriminatory treatment, a mechanism for compensation in the case of expropriation, a mechanism for the settlement of disputes, and the right to determine its own ownership structure and provisions for legal, regulatory and administrative transparency. This protection could be detrimental if India decides to open FDI in retail, and then find that it is not successful. It will be too late for the government to go back on any decision, as the GATS agreement may prevent them.

Chapter 4 - Global scenario of FDI in Retail Sector

Policies on FDI and technology imports in developing nations have undergone rapid liberalization, to a greater extent than those on trade and domestic credit. Most liberalization has occurred over the past decade or so, particularly for FDI in the industrial sector, with the pace accelerating in the 1990s. Many of the latest changes are under international commitments under the Uruguay Round. However, the trend reflects a change of attitude on the part of host countries. There are practically no policy controls left on technology transfer, in contrast to the 1970s when there were extensive interventions by governments on licensing. Here, taken a few countries which have been recognised as emerging market economies (EMEs). The reason for taking these economies is that they have some similarity in one way or the other and have already had a head start in introducing the FDI. For simplicity of analysis I have taken FDI in the major sectors have been taken which receive bulk of FDI in these emerging market economies. The case studies aim at analysing the impact of FDI on competition in the major sectors of EMEs. The EMEs which have been taken into consideration are 1. China 2. Chile 3. Indonesia 4. Brazil 5. Thailand 6. Russia Except Chile all the economies in the list have opened up to 100% FDI in retail.

4.1 China
Paul Deng and Gary Jefferson (2010) find strong evidence that foreign entry increases the productivity growth of Chinese domestic firms on average, but the growth of individual domestic incumbents depends on their technological position relative to foreign competitors.(Productivity in domestic firms is taken as an indicator for measuring level of competition). They actually measure the effect of foreign entry on productivity growth of domestic incumbent firms. For domestic firms in the industries that are closer to technology frontier, a 1% increase of foreign entry leads to roughly 0.6% additional increase of TFP (total factor

29

productivity) growth. (Here the growth in Productivity is taken as a proxy to measure the level of competition among firms. In the face of foreign entry domestic firms in technologically more advanced industries enjoy much faster productivity growth than the firms that are in technologically more backward industries. The sectoral distribution of FDI and level of competition in China gives a similar picture. China receives a major portion of its FDI in manufacturing (60%) followed by retail (24.4%). China introduced 26% FDI in retail sector in 1992 and 51% twelve years later. The retail sector has seen rapid growth since then. The TNCs have increased market consolidation and production efficiency has been enabled by rising investment in rural infrastructure. According to Chinese analysts, the changes in the efficiency and productivity were made possible by entry of foreign retail giants like Wal-Mart and Carrefour who changed the way Chinese managed their businesses. From farm procurement to logistics, supply chain management techniques and technology spilled over to the local firms (the Hindu). 20 years since then, it is the Chinese local retailers who still dominate the market in retail industry. The largest retailers are the Chinese companies like- the Shanghai Bailian group, Suning, Gome and Dashang - all have managed to capture a market share higher than Wal-Mart in China. Wal-Mart entered the Chinese market in 1996 and has seen a fall in its market share from 8% to 5.5% since then. This means the introduction of FDI in retail does not provide advantages to the TNCs only and allow them to establish market power to reduce competition among firms. However what needs mention is that government facilitated the local uppliers to grow and adapt by liberalising the FDI through a gradual process. This gave time to the local suppliers to learn and take advantage of knowledge spill overs. This explains the crucial role that government has to play while introducing FDI in Indian retail industry. According to CEPII, after the introduction of FDI following phenomenon were observed Only six sectors fell into the category of non-competitive sectors: tobacco, timber, petroleum and gas extraction, petroleum processing, coal mining, ferrous metallurgy which are basically included in heavy industries. in four competitive sectors, FIEs overtook SOEs as well as collective enterprises as main producers and accounted for the largest share of output This easily demonstrates that FDI has certainly increased the competition in China. We have got ample learning opportunities from china. In the recent debate on introduction of FDI in retail sector in Indian retail industry, FDI may prove beneficial in the long run. The multinationals can help us by teaching us a better way of supply chain management. Apart from this they would invest in infrastructure development and warehouse construction which would prevent the perishable items from getting spoiled.

4.2 Chile
Chile is an interesting economy because in the last decade, services sector in Chile received the major bulk of FDI. This is similar to the case of our country which receives the maximum percentage of FDI in service sector.

30

According to a report by World Bank on the impact of liberalisation of FDI on Chile, The manufacturing in emerging market economies is constrained by cumbersome business environments; the service sector plays an important role in such nations. FDI plays an important role in enhancing the performance of service sector. FDI infuses competition in the sector and better quality services could be made available. The paper by World Bank addresses the following question: did the increased penetration of FDI into producer service sectors in Chile benefit total factor productivity (TFP) of manufacturing firms between 1995 and 2004? Electricity and water transport and telecommunications, and business services represent about 60% of net FDI inflows into Chile during the 1996-2001 periods. The evidence from Chile also implies an increased competition in the services sector. Since India also receives a bulk of FDI in services it would prove beneficial for the competition in the sector.

4.3 Thailand
The manufacturing sector has attracted the majority of FDI inflows into Thailand. It is, however, noticeablethat the share of the service sector in total FDI has increased significantly in recent years. Thailand witnessedmajor waves of foreign entry into the service sector, especially in banking and retail, following the 1997 financial crisis. (Sakulrat Montreevat, a Thai economist, a fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies) Banking The opening up of the banking sector has enhanced competition and benefited Thai consumers, because it has helped them obtain more convenient services at lower cost. These foreign banks have been among the 12 pioneers in new banking activities, such as consumer-banking and e-banking services. Also, foreign-bank entry has acted as a catalyst for change in domestic banks, as they attempt to maintain market share and profitability. In addition, acquisition by foreign banks has altered the corporate-governance structures of all banks. As the local banks faced new competition from international competitors, they revamped their corporate management. An analysis focused on the time period after the East Asian Crisis of 1997, when Thailand experienced a large increase in FDI inflows by Akinori Tomohara and Kazuhiko Yokota shows that, on average, FDI improves domestic companies productivity in the same sector as well as in upstream sectors, but does not affect the productivity of domestic companies the downstream sector. 100% foreign equity in retailing with no limits on the number of outlets was introduced in 1997 in Thailand. Since then FDI has helped its agro processing industries to grow at a tremendous pace. Competition increased once large foreign-owned discount-store chains broke onto the scene, their popularity spreading rapidly, due to their greater variety and lower prices. Out of profitability considerations, the foreign retailers expanded their operations by opening smaller stores in local neighbourhoods, directly competing with supermarkets and convenience stores, which forced local retailers to improve their management systems and marketing strategies. However, the number of family-run shop houses and department stores still operating has fallen.

4.4 Indonesia
Secondary and tertiary sectors have attracted bulk of FDI in Indonesia. {Manufacturing (close to 30%) and services (about 40% of total FDI)} FDI in manufacturing and services has increased competition in these sectors. Indonesia is another EME which has introduced liberalised policies and allows 100% FDI in its retail sector in 1990s. Even after several years of emergence of supermarkets 90% of the fresh food and 70% of all food is still in the hands of the

31

traditional retailers. There have been no complaints of abuse of dominance in the retail sector, the local retailer Mahatri being the leader in the industry. The TNCs need to fight for their share of market in a competitive environment. Blomstrom (1994) finds positive impact on industrial competitiveness.

4.5 Brazil
Gonalves (2003) proves that there is no evidence of faster productivity growth in the foreign companies rather their domestic counterparts show rise in productivity levels in Brazil based on a sample of 22,000 companies. Using data from 1997 to 2000, he points out that national companies actually exhibit greater productivity growth as a result of improved competition. In the same study, Gonalves sought to check empirically the existence of productivity spill overs from foreign to national companies. According to Gonalves (2003), these results show that, for the largest national companies in Brazil that compete directly with foreign companies in the domestic market, the positive spill overs associated with demonstration and competition effects were surpassed by the negative effects related to loss of scale and the shift to activities with a lower value added potential. Research on the impact of big players on small retailers in Brazil indicates that since its opening up to the foreign investment in 1994, the traditional small retailers managed to increase their market shares by 27 %.( according to a report by CUTS international) The rise in market shares came about when they were able to increase their productivity by adopting better technology and give a tough competition to the foreign firms.

4.6 Russia
In a paper by Eugenia Bessonova, he investigates the effect of the entry of foreign firms on the efficiency of Russian industrial enterprises using the panel firm level dataset for 1995-2004. The analysis of the competition structure of Russian industrial sectors reveals that domestic concentration ratios remain high at regional level. We find that foreign entry has positive effect on the productivity of most efficient domestic firms. The effect of foreign entry on productivity of inefficient firms is negative. Our findings show that positive effect from foreign competition appears to be restrained by barriers preventing exit of inefficient firms. The process of liberalisation of FDI in retail started in 2000s in Russia. Opening up to 100% of FDI registered a big growth since then. Competition in the industry has improved.

32

Chapter 5 - Detailed analysis of factors and conditions related to FDI

Survey Design & Sample
The survey sample consists of responses by people available on internet. The sample of people who are registered is made up of Retailers, Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) companies and manufacturers, franchisors and franchisees, retail service providers, real estate companies, software & IT companies, hardware and system manufacturers, consulting companies, headhunting firms, and educational institutions. It covers not only participants who are within the retail trade directly, but also others within retail-related sectors (as detailed above) and therefore should provide with a balanced view from various viewpoints. The questionnaire designed contains both open and closed ended questions for a number of reasons. Open ended questions allow further clarification of the closedended responses, as well as allow for thoughts and ideas to be discovered that perhaps have not been considered in the literature review and in earlier stages of this research. The justification for using closed-ended questions is to counter-balance any mis-interpretation / lack of response in the qualitative areas.

Questions
Please see Appendix II for Survey Questions.

Data Analysis
Below is a summary of the data results from the survey following analysis. The available sample included 243 respondents in total, and 'no response' rates are recorded for those who answered some of the survey questions, but not the specific question that is being analysed.

Results & findings

33

(Question 1) Are you aware of the current FDI in Retail Regulation & Policy? The first question revealed that 77.7% of respondents were aware of current FDI in retail policy, with 19.7% not being aware, and 2.6% of respondents giving 'no response'. This data shows that a significant amount of people within the domestic market place are paying an interest in the current policies and how these could influence their industry and country. The awareness was anticipated to be high, due to the very fact that the topic has been discussed in the Indian media many a time over the last decade. (Question 2) Do you think the Indian Government should open up Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) restrictions in the Retail Sector? It was evident from the responses that a significant number of respondents would like to see the opening up of FDI in the retail sector. 83.5% of respondents said 'Yes', India should open up the FDI policy, whilst only 15.6% said 'No'. A very small 'no response' rate was observed from this question at 0.9%. These results show a strong amount of support for the concept of opening up FDI, although the data analysis also highlights that there is still a small but significant (15.6%) group of people within the domestic industry who oppose the idea of opening up FDI. (Question 3) Please give reasons for your answer to Question 2 Question 3 was an open ended question asking why participants thought FDI policy should or should not be opened up. Responses were analysed and coded according to common themes. 11 themes or categories were identified and allocated a code (please see Code Key in Appendix I for identification of categories / themes.) 24.7% of respondents believed that opening up FDI in the retail sector would allow for improved skills, technology, innovation and best practices, as well as offer improvements to infrastructure, supply chain and logistics, an improved competitive environment which in turn would lead to consumer benefits. They also believe that it would increase employment and economic growth and bring investment to the domestic sector including related-sectors such as agricultural and manufacturing operations, This particular group of respondents (coded H) were 'particularly pro- FDI' and gave multiple reasons (as above) as to why the sector should be opened up. Even more revealing is that a further 45.3% of respondents mentioned either 1 or 2 of the above reasons for believing FDI should be opened up. Therefore, 70% of respondents believe that one or more of the above reasons are justification for opening up FDI in the retail sector. This reflects a strong sentiment towards FDI, and is a sign that the domestic market feels positively about the widening of FDI policy and the benefits it could bring to the countries industry and wider economy. A small number of respondents, 6.2%, made specific mention of the argument of allowing 'free market efficiency' to reign, and for there to be less 'protectionism' within the retail sector.

34

4.5% were against the idea of opening up FDI yet, because they felt that the domestic market was not developed enough yet. However, they also felt that in the future once the 'organized' retail had grown and reforms had taken place, it would be of benefit to the country to allow FDI in the sector. A further 4.5% of respondents felt strongly that FDI would be of no benefit and should not be allowed. The researcher anticipated the number of respondents in this group to be higher, given that 15.6% of respondents said 'no' to opening up FDI in Question 2. However, these figures could differentiate due to the fact that a 15.2% of participants did not respond or make any comments on Question 3. (Question 4) Are you happy with the current FDI Retail policy as it is? Question 4 was intended to obtain a view of whether the domestic market was happy with the current policies. 16.9% of people were satisfied with the policies as they are, while an overwhelming majority of 81.9% were dissatisfied with the policies as they stand today. Only 1.2% of people did not respond to this question which is an acceptable level. (Question 5) If FDI policy is to open up in the future, do you think any of the following conditions should be imposed on foreign retailers? Question 5 was a multiple-choice question, with a number of suggested conditions that could be imposed on foreign investors. Participants were asked to select a condition they felt should be imposed (if any). The most significant group of respondents (31%), were those who felt that foreign investors should have to source certain products from India. 17% thought that only branded products should be allowed through FDI, while 13% of respondents felt that there should be no conditions imposed on FDI at all. In terms of retail formats, 12% believed that foreign retailers should only be allowed to operate in specific formats, for example, malls, and a further 8% felt that a minimum investment amount should be specified in policy. A smaller group of respondents (4%) felt that Equity limits should be put (or kept) in place (as currently imposed on single-brand retail at 51% equity) 3% of respondents supported the idea of excluding certain products to protect domestic players, and 8% felt that 'other restrictions/conditions' would be more appropriate than the options available for selection in the multiple-choice box in Question 5. The 'no response' rate on this particular question was 4%. The data from question 5 reveals a strong support for conditions that involve sourcing Indian products, and thereby growing the manufacturing/agricultural industries and India's GDP. Branded products and format restrictions were also supported by a number of respondents, but more surprising was the 13% of people who supported 'no conditions' at all. (Question 6) Do you think that government reforms need to be made to support domestic retailers so that they can face the foreign investment competition? The data collected from Question 6 revealed that 70% of respondents felt that reforms should be made by the government to ensure that the domestic retailers

35

are supported. The other 28% of respondents felt that no reforms would be necessary to support the domestic retailers. The 'no response' rate was reasonably low at 2%. When interpreting this question alongside Chart S2 (Question 2), it is evident that although 83.5% of people felt that FDI should be opened up, 70% also felt that reforms were necessary to support domestic retailers. (Question 7) Following Question 6, what reforms do you think should / should not be made? Question 7 was open-ended, and aimed to discover what reforms the survey participants believed would, or would not, help to support domestic retailers. The data was analysed and coded according to common themes or specific recommendations for reform, which consisted of 25 different coded categories from the 243 responses (please see Coding Key in Appendix I). 10% of the survey respondents recommended that the government provide subsidy to domestic retailers, specifically in the form of low-rate loans/bank finance. In contrast to this, 12% felt that no reforms were necessary in order to protect the domestic retailers. This group (coded 'Y') who commented that no reforms were necessary, had a tendency to also mention that their preference was for a 'free market' and that healthy competition would be preferred. There was also a tendency with these respondents to commenting that the domestic players, particularly small 'kirana / mom & pop' stores, would be able to survive alongside the foreign investors with out any issues. For example, one respondent said they [small retailers] will continue to exist, the kind of personalised service, decision taking speed etc of small retailers can't be matched by big retailers. 7% of respondents (coded 'A') suggested the government invest in, and provide for equal access to an organised wholesale & supply chain infrastructure, so that domestic retailers can become more efficient, bring down their costs and offer better value so as to be able to compete with foreign investors in the market place. Tax relief and tax incentives for domestic retailers was a suggested recommendation by 6% of respondent, 3% felt that implementing educational retail training initiatives would be of benefit. A further 3% recommended improving real estate regulations to facilitate the provision of land to domestics and to provide for allocation of land and city planning. Bureaucracy was raised as a concern, with 3% believing that there is a need to reduce administration and formalities for domestic players to facilitate, for example, exporting or opening a new retail outlet (which can require up to 30 licences). (Question 8) Do you believe that lifting restrictions on FDI in retailing will allow more investment, technical skills and consumer choice? Question 8 specifically asked whether people agreed Yes or No to that lifting restrictions on FDI would allow more investment, technical skills and consumer choice in India. 7% answered 'No', and there was a 2% 'no response' rate on this question. By comparing these results to (Question 2) it reveals that although 83.5% of people believed FDI should be opened up, we can see that a higher proportion of

36

people (91%) believe it would bring increased investment, skills & consumer choice. This means that a number of respondents whilst having said 'no' they do not believe FDI should be opened up, clearly acknowledge that it would bring benefits to the economy/industry (in terms of investment & skills) and to society (in consumer choice). 91% of respondents answered 'Yes', believing that lifting restrictions would bring more investment, technical skills and consumer choices. (Question 9) It is argued by some who are against FDI, that foreign retailers will not 'own a stake' in India, and therefore will make little investment, but reap the profits all the same. How can you counter this argument? Question 9 was an open ended question, which asked participants to counter the argument that 'foreign retailers will not 'own a stake' in India, and therefore will make little investment, but reap the profits all the same'. The responses were analysed and coded according to whether they believed the statement to be 'false' and disagreed - these respondents were able to counter the argument with solutions to prevent this from happening, or believed the statement to be 'true' and agreed these respondents offered no counter argument and could provide no solutions to this potential problem. (please see Coding Key Question 9, Appendix I) 75% of respondents believed the statement to be false, and provided simple solutions to the problems, or argued that it was not an issue of concern. One particular respondent said that Unless the foreign retailers really invest in India, they would not be able to reap the profits. Only long haul players will really benefit from the Indian market. Another argued that It is not true. As such, retail needs heavy investments both front end and back end. It is unlikely that foreign investors can overlook this point and hence their financial involvement would be high. Yes, there is certainly a fear of 'flight of capital' after some time, which needs to [be] protected with proper regulations. An interesting thought was also considered; by constructing businesses and providing fair wages, isn't that a defacto investment? 10% believed the statement to be true. It is evident that the majority of people did not believe in the statement posed by Question 9. The responses analysed, conveyed strong support for the concept that foreign retailers will be looking to stay for the longer term in India (being that it has such huge retail market potential), and therefore will have to invest in improving infrastructure, supply chain, technology and skills for example, so as to make a success of their Indian operations. (Question 10) Can you think of any solutions to the potential problems of labor displacement in the unorganized retail sector if FDI regulations are opened up? Question 10 was an open ended question, where participants were asked to suggest ways in which they thought one of the key problems, labor displacement, could be resolved. The responses were analysed and interpreted, and coded according to general themes in response. Please see Coding Key, Question 10, Appendix I

37

The data analysis revealed that 28% of the respondents believed that labour displacement simply wouldn't happen. To the contrary, 11% of respondents believed that there were no solutions to labour displacement, and that displacement was inevitable if FDI in retail was opened up. This is not to say that the participants were either for or opposed to FDI, but merely that labour displacement was not something they believed could be 'solved'. Analysing this against the number of people that believed FDI should be opened up in India (203 respondents), 12% of these respondents also thought that labour displacement was inevitable. This could be interpreted to mean that this group has accepted labor displacement as one of the obvious risks of FDI, but that the benefits would outweigh the risks. 8% of respondents to question 10 argued that providing skills and comprehensive training to existing 'unorganized' retailers would allow them to upgrade their businesses and be innovative so as to continue employment in the retail sector without being displaced. A further 6% thought that foreign retailers should be asked to invest in retail related facilities first and foremost, to offer further employment in back-end services, manufacturing and farming, to compensate for the labor displacement. 5% believed of people believed the Government should be responsible for providing and controlling equal employment opportunities in both the growing 'organized' sector, and in back-end services. These respondents had a tendency to believe that labor laws were in need of upgrading to support . The final group of respondents consisted of 3% who believed that there should be compensation, rights and benefits provided to those that are displaced. No participant specified whether this should be from the Government, foreign retailers, or both. The analysis of Question 10 has revealed that the majority of people believe that either labor displacement will not happen at all against those who believe if labor displacement does happen, there is little that can be done to prevent it. (Question 11) Over how many years do you think FDI policy could be phased in to allow domestic industries/markets to adjust successfully? Question 11 was a closed ended multiple choice question, asking participants to say over how long a period they thought FDI should be opened up to allow domestic retailers to adjust successfully (if at all). 16% of respondents believed phasing in would not allow for any successful adjustment of domestic retailers. This particular group believed also that the retail sector should be opened up imminently. A further 19% thought 5-6 years would be more appropriate, 7% believed 7-10 years, and a small minority at 3% thought that the phasing should be over a period greater than 10 years.

38

Chapter 6 - Conclusion
So as to draw conclusions from this study, it is appropriate to review the objectives that were set out earlier in Chapter 1:1) To investigate the Indian retail market place and current policy & regulations with regards to foreign investors. 2) Examine the arguments for and against changing current policy and improving the regulatory environment 3) Compare the opinions of the Indian domestic retail sector so as to interpret market sentiment towards foreign investment, and to explore thoughts on the issues faced by the sector. 4) Consider what solutions could potentially resolve the issues and are supported by the majority of the domestic retail players.

Chapter 7 - Conclusion

6.1 Indian market place and FDI policy & regulations

Changing consumer patterns appear to be a large factor in the growth of the Indian 'organised' retail sector, with a burgeoning middle-class, and a growing young population with a willingness to spend. Consumer habits, desires and incomes are changing and demands for different retail formats are emerging. The retail sector in India does not have 'industry status' and that this causes difficulties for all concerned. Providing industry status would allow comprehensive legislation to be put in place to govern the running of the retail sector. This in turn would assist in accelerated growth of the retail sector and would remove a number of barriers that are currently slowing down growth, such as bureaucracy, formalities and lack of finance for retailers, for example. The literature review showed that current investment policy is already quite liberal towards FDI in many sectors, with only a few sectors (predominantly service sectors such as retailing) that are restricted. Retailing is allowed via a number of methods such as franchising/joint venture, but 100% equity is only allowed in Wholesale Cash & Carry, and 51% in single-brand retailing. No multibrand retailing is allowed by foreign investors. The recent changes brought about through a series of Press Notes in 2009 have caused confusion over the policy, as the changes allow Joint Ventures to effectively create subcompanies (cascading). We believe this may encourage foreign investors to use this 'loop hole' to create sub-companies so that they can exceed FDI caps, and potentially enter areas such as multi-brand retailing through the 'back-door' without technically breaking the rules. There needs to be more clarity in this area of policy. The literature review revealed that although there are hurdles to be overcome in the policy and regulatory environment, the government seems to be working on various solutions, for example, Special Economic Zones.

6.2 Arguments for & against changing improving the regulatory environment.
Those in favour of FDI in Retail argue the following reasons:-

policy

and

1. The technical edge offered by foreign investors is crucial to the survival of domestic retailers, particularly in the current downturn. 2. Knowledge & skills would be transferred. 3. Allowing 100% FDI will encourage domestic investment in the sector 4. Economic boost with increased FDI inflows 5. Improve the standard of living of the country as a whole (enhanced Human Capital)

39

6. Improve productivity and efficiency in management 7. Foreign 'low-cost' retailers will set-up/adopt integrated supply chain management, which in turn will lower prices for consumers and improve the infrastructure of the country. 8. Increased FDI in Retail will ensure quality products and customer services 9. Will promote links between domestic/local suppliers, manufacturers and agricultural traders with the global market 10. Sourcing / Exports from India would be enhanced. 11. Standards (quality, health & safety etc) & best practices would improve 12. Domestic players would develop new strategies to improve operations to counteract any competition from foreign players 13. Foreign retailers would encourage employment in back-end services 14. Improvements in quality of employment 15. Reduce the number of intermediaries 16. Joint Ventures would help to ease the capital constraints of domestic companies 17. Most acknowledged that phasing-in should be considered and that some restrictions would be required on equity limits, certain products, and certain 'zones' 18. Research suggests that 'unorganised' retailers have not been adversely affected by the location and growth of 'organised' retailers nearby. Those that were affected, tended to adopt new strategies to face competition 19. Improve transparency and prevent 'back-door' entry and 'loop holes'. 20. Not logical to have 51% restriction on single brand retailing when so many foreign single brand retailers have already entered through the franchise route. 21. Retail Growth forecasts may not be achievable without FDI stimulus 22. Additional taxes will be raised for the benefit of India 23. Contribution to the long-term development of the country (ie. investment in education, infrastructure etc) Those against the opening up of FDI in the retail sector argue the following reasons:1. FDI has a heterogeneous effect on countries, ie. the results vary. Some studies have shown success of FDI in India, others have shown initial positive results but with a tendency on the whole towards causing labour displacement. 2. The fast growth of domestic 'organised' retailing (40% per annum) would result in efficiency improvements and increased retail sales which would in turn create employment and economic growth, raising the question of whether FDI was required in this sector at all. 3. Retail as a 'Forced Employment' the sector is one of the primary forms of 'disguised employment / under employment' which acts as a shock absorber for the present social system, soaking up unemployed people who have little alternative but to try and make some kind of living. 4. Those displaced by FDI may not show up as a 'visible' increase in unemployment. 5. Foreign retailers may use predatory strategies to force out smaller competition 6. Various issues such as Bank Finance, conditions, safeguards, and improvements to manufacturing sector are required to be addressed before FDI in Retail should be considered. 7. Potential to upset the import balance, with the creation of a 'China Pipeline'. 8. After minimal initial investment in basic infrastructure, Foreign investors may re-patriate profits back home. 9. Foreign retailers should not be allowed until they make satisfactory guarantees to protect communities, support small businesses and traders, guarantee fair wages and working conditions, and ensure minimum sourcing from India. 10. Hire and Fire' Policy in labour law would be more conducive to an FDI environment, but would destroy the safeguards that are in place to protect the labour force.

40

11. Amendments to GATS Agreements could mean that any policy changes on FDI will be irreversible as investments will be protected and have immunity to new barriers to trade.

6.3 Market sentiment retailers' thoughts.

and

exploration

of

domestic

The survey revealed that there is a strong market sentiment towards opening up FDI, with 83.5% of people supporting the opening of the sector. The domestic retailers who responded believe that FDI in retail will bring the benefit of skills transfer, technology, innovation and best practises as well as supply chain, infrastructure and logistics improvements. They also thought that it would increase employment andeconomic growth and draw more investment in to the domestic sector and sub-sectors. Overall, 70% of people believe that it would have a positive impact. A small percentage of people feel that India isn't quite ready to open up its foreign retail policy yet, but that it would be ready in the near future and should begin planning a 'phased system'. A minority (4%) believed there would be no benefits at all of allowing FDI and were against opening up policy. This research has revealed that there is strong support for imposing a condition on foreign retailers to source certain products in India, as well as some interest in restricting FDI to branded products, and certain retail formats. Interestingly, it was found that 70% of people also felt that reforms should be made to support domestic retailers in the face of competition from FDI, whilst 28% felt that domestic retailers did not need reforms to support them. The data collated from the survey highlighted a number of recommended reforms to support domestic retailers. Interestingly, 7 Conclusion it was found that 70% of people also felt that reforms should be made to support domestic retailers in the face of competition from FDI, whilst 28% felt that domestic retailers did not need reforms to support them. However, 12% of respondents felt that no support was necessary and that domestic retailers would support themselves. It was also suggested that bureaucracy and formalities be reduced as this was currently hindering domestic/foreign retailers and was restricting the growth of the sector. Over 20 recommendations for reform to support domestic retailers were gathered from the data analysis of the survey, for which the complete list is detailed in Chapter 4 & Appendix II. This research has shown that an overwhelming majority (91%) believe that FDI in retail will bring benefits in the form of further investment, skills and consumer choice. The study also ascertained that 75% of people felt that foreign retailers would make a long term commitment to investment in India and would not simply make minimal investment then 'repatriate profits'. It is evident from the survey results that 28% of people do not support the view that allowing FDI will cause labour displacement. This compares to 12% who believe labour displacement is inevitable and 11% who believe there are no solutions to this problem. India's domestic market is clearly divided on whether there is even an issue of displacement.

41

We re-iterate that other countries have experienced varying results, and therefore there is no way of knowing whether labour displacement will be non-existent, mild or severe in Indian retail. One would imply that there is likely to be some displacement, but a well thought out plan and policy & regulatory system will minimize the risks here, and perhaps prevent it from happening all together. Survey respondents suggested the following ways in which labour displacement might be dealt with: Provide skills and comprehensive training to 'unorganised' retailers to allow them to evolve/innovate and remain employed in retail trade. Foreign retailers should invest in back-end services, manufacturing and farming initially to compensate for the labour displacement. Government should provide and control equal employment opportunities both in the organised' sector and in back-end services. Compensation, rights and benefits should be provided to those displaced. Nearly 50% of people believe a 1-4 year phasing in period would allow domestic players to successfully adjust to foreign players, whilst 16% thought a phased system would not allow domestic retailers to adjust anyway. 19% believed a 5-6 year phasing in period would be more successful, while only 10% believed 7+ years was necessary.

6.4 Recommendations
Based on the research carried out, we propose several recommendations for areas that have been highlighted as concerning for FDI in retail. These recommendations are by no means an exhaustive list but should serve as a framework for consideration of the various ways forward with policy change:1 The government should revoke the recent Press Notes that relate to permitting cascading subcompanies, as these are only serving to provide a loop-hole for back-door entry by foreign retailers and are not promoting transparency within the policy. We recommend that the retail sector is granted 'industry status' as soon as possible so that a legislative framework can be put in place for the control and management of the sector and its day to day operation. Begin recording detailed statistical data of the sector, both foreign, and domestic organised and unorganised so that the impact of FDI when introduced can be closely monitored and policy fine tuned accordingly. Labour Laws need to be reviewed to be more in line with the requirements of retail sector employment. Investment should be made by the government to improve the efficiency of the manufacturing sector so that this sector can grow and provide more employment opportunities going forward. City Planning needs to be addressed so that development is in such a way that it protects the traditional trader areas and does not clutter the already densely populated city centers. Real Estate Regulations need to be considered for reform so as to facilitate access to land and property for use by the retail sector, and to provide equal access to space for both foreign and domestic players.

4 5

42

Certain sensitive products should be restricted from foreign retailing, so as to protect the traditional craftsmen and unorganised traders. The products to be restricted needs to be given thought and researched before any decisions are made. The government should impose local employment quotas on foreign retailers, firstly to reduce the effects of any potential labour displacement, and secondly to encourage foreign retailers to provide training, skills and development to local people who without it would not be able to transfer to the 'organised' retail sector or back-end services.

10 Rules on re-patriation of foreign profits should be revised, to discourage (and restrict) 100% of profits from leaving India. Conditions imposed on requiring foreign retailers to invest a minimum amount in infrastructure and supply chain capabilities would be beneficial. 11 Consider providing Tax relief and/or subsidy by way of low rate loans to domestic retailers to provide support. 12 Implement a 'phased introduction' of FDI to the retail sector, say over 2-4 years, so as to provide gradual adjustment for the domestic players and to allow fine-tuning and adjustment of policy if issues arise. 13 The government should reform price control policies to ensure that foreign retailers cannot sell below a minimum price, rather than the current Maximum Retail Price (MRP). 14 Conditions of minimum sourcing from domestic agricultural and manufacturing sectors should be imposed, so as to prevent the creation of a 'China Pipeline'. 15 Bureaucracy and formalities should be reduced by updating related legislation, for example, reducing the number of licences required by businesses to open a store. This should assist the domestic players in expanding and will help to streamline the efficiency of the sector. 16 Geographical restrictions for foreign investors need to be considered so as to reduce the impact, or prevent the fast expansion of retailers in to rural areas. Special Economic Zones need to be assessed with further research, to review their advantages and disadvantages to both India as a country, and to the foreign players. 17 Other related regulations such as copyright law, need to be updated and brought in to line with the needs of the future Indian retail sector. It may be concluded that developing countries has make their presence felt in the economics of developed nations by receiving a descent amount of FDI in the last three decades. Although India is not the most preferred destination of global FDI, but there has been a generous flow of FDI in India since 1991. It has become the 2nd fastest growing economy of the world. India has substantially increased its list of source countries in the post liberalization era. India has signed a number of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements with developed and developing nations. India as the founding member of GATT, WTO, a signatory member of SAFTA and a member of MIGA is making its presence felt in the economic landscape of globalised economies. The economic reform process started in 1991 helps in creating a conducive and healthy atmosphere for foreign investors and thus, resulting in substantial amount of FDI inflows in the country. No doubt, FDI plays a crucial role

43

in enhancing the economic growth and development of the country. Moreover, FDI as a strategic component of investment is needed by India for achieving the objectives of its second generation of economic reforms and maintaining this pace of growth and development of the economy. Force to ensure irreversibility of opening up to FDI in retail It may be imagined that, if the entry of transnational in retail trade leads to harmful consequences, the government can restrict and regulate their activities, or even remove them altogether. However, TNCs in services are striving to bring in changes in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) to ensure that their entry is irreversible and ever-expanding. For example, major associations of global retailers like the FTA (Foreign Trade Association) and European Services Forum (ESF), of which global retail firms such as Metro, Spencer are members, have taken renewed initiatives to introduce a separate agreement under the World Trade Organization (WTO) on trade and investment to safeguard their overseas investments. In a position paper on trade and investment in April 2003, the European Services Forum demanded a comprehensive WTO agreement on rules for investment. According to that document (ESF, 2003), a WTO agreement on investment should be legally binding and based on the fundamental legal principles of most favored nation and of national treatment (i.e. nondiscrimination). It should contain the following: A system for compensation in the case of expropriation; A stand-still against the introduction of new barriers on investment; Effective protection against direct expropriation as well as against indirect expropriation through discriminatory treatment; Independent and binding disputes settlement mechanisms; Post-investment protection; Protection of all material and intellectual property of the company; The right of the company to determine its own ownership structure and provisions on legal, regulatory and administrative transparency; Scheduling of concrete and specific commitments by WTO members to further open their markets to foreign direct investment. Traditional traders controlled 74 per cent of the retail market in 1997 in Thailand, but by 2002, their share came down to 60 per cent. Faced with severe criticism from local retailers, the government announced that they would place controls on large retail establishments by imposing zoning policy regulations. In 2002, the Retail Business Act' was enacted to control the expansion of foreign retailers. However, the Thai government reversed its decision regarding zoning regulation, allegedly under pressure from the European Commission (EC), which had requested Thailand to open up their retail sector through GATS negotiations. As WTO lists zoning laws as trade barriers, it is feared that the Thai government would lose what tools remain to control the expansion of giant retail chains if they further open their retail sector through commitments under the GATS negotiation process.

44

Biblography
1. How Has FDI Induced Competition in China? (Paul Denga*, Gary Jefferson) 2. Chinese retailers give global giants run for money Ananth Krishnan, The Hindu 3. Basker, E (2005): Job Creation or Destruction? Labor Market Effects of WalMart Expansion, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 87 (1), 174-83. 4. Chandran, P M (2003): Wal-Marts Supply Chain Management Practices, ICFAI ICMR Case Collection. 5. AT Kearney (2010): Expanding Opportunities for Global retailers-2010 Global retail development Index, viewed on March 31, 2011 6. Indian retail to attract FDI of USD 2.5-3 billion Crisil Reseach 7. http://indlaw.com/FDI in retail: Govt policy committed to safeguarding interests of Indian industry and consumer

45

Sources
Appendix I Code Key for Open-ended Questions (3, 7, 9 & 10)
Question 3 A. Improve skills, technology, innovation and best practises B. Improve infrastructure, supply chain and logistics C. Both A & B (tendency to be more concerned with improvements in retail industry) D. Improved competition & consumer benefits E. Increase employment and economic growth F. Both D & E (tendency to be more concerned with consumers/society and the economy) G. Increase investment in the 'organised' retail sector (believe required for growth of domestic organised retail, including Agricultural/Manufacturing H. Commented on all of the above (A-G) (very pro-FDI, believe its "non-sense not to open FDI in retail") I. Believe in free market efficiency and less protectionism (respondents gave a sense of political disagreement and also had a tendency to agree with answer H i.e. Pro-FDI) J. FDI shouldn't be opened up 'yet', but should be in the future. (believes the domestic market is not ready/developed enough yet) K. FDI will not be of benefit. (Against FDI being opened up at all) X. No response / Uninterpretable response Question 7 A. Invest in and provide for equal access to an organised wholesale & supply chain infrastructure B. Protect Certain Products/formats from FDI and consider keeping 'sector caps' C. Provide 'knowledge' and skills to existing domestic retailers to innovate and modernise D. Remove intermediary middlemen in the supply chain E. Price control regulations F. Copyright/trademark regulations G. Real Estate Regulations (including allocation of land / city planning legal framework) H. Bureaucracy - reduce admin and formalities (inc. exports, legal, business formation) I. Restrict FDI profits allowed to leave India J. Provide subsidy to domestic retailers (including low-rate loans/bank finance) K. Provide Platform for domestic retailer marketing L. Implement procedures for data collection/monitoring of global/Indian retail & FDI data Question 7

46

M. Compulsory local sourcing for FDI (including policy to protect manufacturers/farmers) N. Regulation/Checking to ensure international standards within retail sector O. Restrictions geographically on FDI (e.g.: Special Economic Zones) P. Tax relief / incentives for domestic retailers Q. Implement Educational Retail Training initiatives R. Require a percentage of Foreigner Investment to go in to Indian development projects S. Friendlier Labour Laws and Goods & Services Tax (GST) introduction across India T. Provide retail business with lawful 'industry status' U. Any reforms necessary to protect the domestic retailers V. Systematic study of each sector required to address reforms required W. Ensure a 'phased' introduction of FDI X. No Response / Uninterpretable / Misinterpreted the question Y. No reforms necessary. Free Market / Healthy Competition preferred Question 9 A. Believed the statement to be 'false' and disagreed. Were able to counter the argument with solutions to prevent displacement from happening B. Believed the statement to be 'true' and agreed. Offered no counter argument, or were unable to provide solutions to prevent displacement happening X. No Response / Uninterpretable / Misinterpreted the question Question 10 A. Government should provide and control equal employment opportunities in organised and backend services, and upgrade labour laws to support this. B. Foreign investors should be asked to invest in retail related facilities first, to offer further employment in, for example, manufacturing and farming industries. Includes requiring a fixed quota of employment of Indians by the foreign investor C. No - there are no solutions to the labour displacement that FDI will cause. Question 10 D. No - Don't believe labour displacement will happen (or will be very limited). E. Provide compensation / rights / benefits to those who are displaced. Includes reform of remuneration policy F. Provide skills training to allow existing retailers to upgrade/innovate so as to continue employment in the retail sector X. No response / Uninterpretable response / Misinterpreted the question

Appendix II Survey Questions

1. Are you aware of the current FDI in Retail Regulation & Policy? a. Yes b. No 2. Do you think the Indian Government should open up Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) restrictions in the Retail Sector? a. Yes b. No 3. Please give reasons for your answer to Question 2.

47

4. Are you happy with the current FDI Retail policy as it is? a. Yes b. No 5. If FDI policy is to open up in the future, do you think any of the following conditions should be imposed on foreign retailers? a. None b. Equity limits c. Only allow FDI in specific cities/areas d. A minimum investment amount requirement e. An exclusion of specific products for the domestic retailer f. Certain products must be manufactured/sourced in India by the foreign investor g. Only allow certain retail formats (e.g. Malls) h. Only allow branded products I. Other restrictions? (please specify) 6. Do you think that government reforms need to be made to support domestic retailers so that they can face the foreign investment competition? a. Yes b. No 7. Following Question 6, what reforms do you think should / should not be made? 8. Do you believe that lifting restrictions on FDI in retailing will allow more investment, technical skills and consumer choice? a. Yes b. No 9. It is argued by some who are against FDI, that foreign retailers will not 'own a stake' in India, and therefore will make little investment, but reap the profits all the same. How can you counter this argument? 10. Can you think of any solutions to the potential problems of labour displacement in the unorganised retail sector if FDI regulations are opened up? 11. Over how many years do you think FDI policy could be phased in to allow domestic industries/markets to adjust successfully? Please select '0' if you don't think phasing in would allow successful adjustment for domestic players. a. 0 b. 1 c. 2 d. 3 e. 4 f. 5-6 g. 7-10 h. 10+ Preliminary, non-compulsory fields were as follows:Name Title

48

49