21-05-2013, 01:08 PM
Foreign Direct Investment in Indian Retail Sector – An Analysis
Foreign Direct Investment.docx (Size: 19.48 KB / Downloads: 19)
ABSTRACT
The Government of India was initially very apprehensive of the introduction of the Foreign Direct Investment in the Retail Sector in India. The unorganized retail sector as has been mentioned earlier occupies 98% of the retail sector and the rest 2% is contributed by the organized sector. Hence one reason why the government feared the surge of the Foreign Direct Investments in India was the displacement of labour.
The unorganized retail sector contributes about 14% to the GDP and absorbs about 7% of our labour force. Hence the issue of displacement of labour consequent to FDI is of primal importance.
There are different viewpoints on the impact of FDI in the retail sector in India, According to one viewpoint, the US evidence is empirical proof to the fact that FDI in the retail sector does not lead to any collapse in the existing employment opportunities. There are divergent views as well. According to the UK Competition Commission, there was mass scale job loss with entry of the hypermarkets brought about by FDI in the UK retail market.
This paper highlight is Introduction & Definition of Retail, Division of Retail Industry, FDI Policy in India, FDI Policy with Regard to Retailing in India, Foreign Investor’s Concern Regarding FDI in Single and Multi Brand Retail and Conclusions.
Introduction:
India being a signatory to World Trade Organization’s General Agreement on Trade in Services, which include wholesale and retailing services, had to open up the retail trade sector to foreign investment. There were initial reservations towards opening up of retail sector arising from fear of job losses, procurement from international market, competition and loss of entrepreneurial opportunities. However, the government in a series of moves has opened up the retail sector slowly to Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). In 1997, FDI in cash and carry (wholesale) with 100 percent ownership was allowed under the Government approval route. It was brought under the automatic route in 2006. 51 percent investment in a single brand retail outlet was also permitted in 2006. FDI in Multi-Brand retailing is prohibited in India.
FDI Policy in India:
FDI as defined in Dictionary of Economics (Graham Bannock et.al) is investment in a foreign country through the acquisition of a local company or the establishment there of an operation on a new (Greenfield) site. To put in simple words, FDI refers to capital inflows from abroad that is invested in or to enhance the production capacity of the economy.
Foreign Investment in India is governed by the FDI policy announced by the Government of India and the provision of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) 1999. The Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’) in this regard had issued a notification, which contains the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or issue of security by a person resident outside India) Regulations, 2000. This notification has been amended from time to time.
Foreign Investor’s Concern Regarding FDI Policy in India:
For those brands which adopt the franchising route as a matter of policy, the current FDI Policy will not make any difference. They would have preferred that the Government liberalize rules for maximizing their royalty and franchise fees. They must still rely on innovative structuring of franchise arrangements to maximize their returns. Consumer durable majors such as LG and Samsung, which have exclusive franchisee owned stores, are unlikely to shift from the preferred route righ away.
For those companies which choose to adopt the route of 51% partnership, they must tie up with a local partner. The key is finding a partner which is reliable and who can also teach a trick or two about the domestic market and the Indian consumer. Currently, the organized retail sector is dominated by the likes of large business groups which decided to diversify into retail to cash in on the boom in the sector – corporate such as Tata through its brand Westside, RPG Group through Food world, Pantaloon of the Raheja Group and Shopper’s Stop. Do foreign investors look to tie up with an existing retailer or look to others not necessarily in the business but looking to diversify, as many business groups are doing?
FDI in Multi Brand Retail :
The government has also not defined the term Multi Brand. FDI in Multi Brand retail implies that a retail store with a foreign investment can sell multiple brands under one roof.
In July 2010, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), Ministry of Commerce circulated a discussion paper on allowing FDI in multi-brand retail. The paper doesn’t suggest any upper limit on FDI in multi-brand retail. If implemented, it would open the doors for global retail giants to enter and establish their footprints on the retail landscape of India. Opening up FDI in multi-brand retail will mean that global retailers including Wal-Mart, Carrefour and Tesco can open stores offering a range of household items and grocery directly to consumers in the same way as the ubiquitous ’kirana’ store.
Conclusion:
The government has added an element of social benefit to its latest plan for calibrated opening of the multi-brand retail sector to foreign direct investment (FDI). Only those foreign retailers who first invest in the back-end supply chain and infrastructure would be allowed to set up multi brand retail outlets in the country. The idea is that the firms must have already created jobs for rural India before they venture into multi-brand retailing.
It can be said that the advantages of allowing unrestrained FDI in the retail sector evidently outweigh the disadvantages attached to it and the same can be deduced from the examples of successful experiments in countries like Thailand and China where too the issue of allowing FDI in the retail sector was first met with incessant protests, but later turned out to be one of the most promising political and economical decisions of their governments and led not only to the commendable rise in the level of employment but also led to the enormous development of their country’s GDP.