Walmart Lobbying for FDI retail in India

FROM AMBASSADOR GAJENDRA SINGH

> When foreign direct investment is allowed in a developing or emerging
> country ,unless strict controls are exercised then certainly the consumers
> and producers gains the most , to begin with .Then the retailers take over .
> ****
> ** **
> I can say so from my experience of two stays with long time gaps in Romania
> and Turkey.
>
> But even in USA , the home of capitalism now degenerated into unbridled
> neo-liberalism aka take over of the country by thr financiers/bankers ,
> military-industry , energy and other corporate monopolies and interests
> ,the consumer has benefited in the retail sector ,in the short term, by
> transferring the production of almost all consumer goods to countries from
> where the US retailing interests can garner the maximum profits .A
> retailing outsourcer who may pay $4 for shirt manufactured in swaet shops
> ,will retail it in US for anything from 10 to 15 $ or even more ..In the
> process the US economy has shrunk , imports most of its daily use
> requirements from China , which is forced to but US debt for low paying
> securities (If China thought its dollar wealth will give it immense clout ,
> it needs to rethink ) In India , manufacturers have stopped making blowers,
> fans, heaters and such simple products , out sourcing them from China where
> even the Indian name is embossed on the product.****
> ** **
> Our 'Singh brothers' educated in the West and beholden to them are copying
> US economic system , till recently pointing out to 8% growth ( most of this
> is cornered by rich fat cats , who buy politicians )We have no media , just
> big and small business houses promoting their interests and leveraging
> their position to get into parliament and assemblies to further strengthen
> their clouts and riches .****
> ** **
> Yes , this is also the BJP viewpoint since their followers and financial
> contributors would be put out of business. Of course if all parties and
> state CM's get contributions they will get the laws passed .****
>
>
> *Bharat Kalyan97 *
> *Exposing the sleaze, lies and perfidy. Walmart spent a fortune lobbying
> for India entry. -- Gopal Agarwal*
> *3/12/2011*
> http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2011/12/exposing-sleaze-lies-and-perfidy.html
> **
> * *The Walmart has spent a whopping sum of $11 million dollar for lobbying
> its entry into India. The US-based Walmart Stores, one of the world's top
> revenue grosser with over $400 billion of total annual sales and present in
> 15 countries, is lobbying hard with lawmakers here to help it expand into
> India, possibly through bilateral talks between the related authorities of
> the two countries.
> As per the lobbying disclosure reports filed by the company with the US
> Senate, Walmart has since then spent a staggering amount of over $11
> million (more than Rs 52 crore) on issues related to India, as also other
> matters, in over two years now. In 2010 itself, the company spent $1.37
> million (over Rs six crore) on lobbying in the first quarter. [COMMENT :
> These will be 'DISCLOSED' OUTSIDE INDIA !! In India, the likes of "Rs.1.76
> lacs crores = 0",
> would like it kept 'UNDER WRAPS' !! ]
>
> This report gels well with the reaction from the US, supporting the UPA
> decision to allow FDI in retail. It also exposes the fair and unfair means
> employed by the MNC to expand its business.
>
>
> There are also ethical issues involved in the way the government went about
> introducing the proposal to allow FDI in retail. The discussion paper by
> the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) quotes extensively
> from working paper and policy paper – August 2011, of Indian Council for
> Research on International Economic Relation (ICRIER) whose chairperson is
> Dr Isher Judge Ahluwalia, wife of Dr Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Chairman
> Planning Commission.
>
> This organisation has in its report recommended opening of this sector to
> FDI, basically focusing on the benefits to the consumer giving them
> preference of choice and playing down of its adverse impact on agriculture
> and small and medium sector manufacturing and unorganised retail. Though,
> this report also mentions in its opening remarks that unorganised retailers
> experience a decline in the sales and profit initially but says that the
> adverse impact weakens over time, the government has ignored this. Further,
> there are several documents and reports available in India and abroad which
> bring out the ill effects of FDI in this sector but these reports are not
> finding favours with the government.
>
> If we go deeply into the matter, allowing 51 per cent foreign direct
> investment (FDI) in Multi Brand Retail in India is not a good move, because
> the companies that we are inviting are known to monopolise the market
> wherever they go. There are several reports from across the world to prove
> that the major companies, like Walmart and Carrefour, use a monopolistic
> approach to kill local markets. Indonesia and other countries are good
> examples of the result of such monopolistic policies.
>
>
> India, with its weak manufacturing base and weak supply-side
> infrastructure, is not in a position to compete with many global brands.
> But at the same time, our country provides such a large market that all big
> names want a piece of the pie. The Indian retail market is estimated to be
> around $ 400 billion with more than 120 million retailers and employing
> over 400 million people. On the contrary, the US-based giant Walmart, a
> global leader in big retail, also has a turnover of US $400 billion and
> employs only 2.1 million people. Which one of these retail systems provides
> employment is crystal clear. If we think Walmart is here to create
> employment opportunities we must be living in a fool's paradise. Simply
> put, they are investing in India to make money. Thus, the onus of
> protecting our market and promoting the locals lies with us.
>
>
> When we can build our domestic infrastructure so well (a case in point is
> the metro rail system and golden quadrilateral project), why do we need
> outsiders to come here to build supply chain infrastructure, there is no
> big technology in involved. Even our standing committee of the
> parliamentary had rejected FDI in retail.
>
> Besides, when foreign organisations enter the multi brand retail market in
> India, they will look to procure goods globally. Agriculture sector in US
> and Europe is highly subsidised even our pressure under WTO could not get
> us any results. It is the massive farm subsidy that supports agriculture in
> the US. If this subsidy, classified under Green Box for WTO calculations,
> is withdrawn (as analysed by UNCTAD-India), US agriculture collapses.
>
> A latest 2010 report by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
> Development (OECD), a group comprising the richest 30 countries in the
> world, states explicitly that farm subsidies rose by 22 per cent in 2009,
> up from 21 per cent in 2008. In just one year in 2009, these industrialised
> countries provided a subsidy of Rs 12.60 lakh crore to agriculture.
> Therefore how can our agriculture sector will compete internationally. In
> India, it is markets that sustain the farmers and not subsidies. More than
> 60 per cent of our population is engaged in this sector and they will lose
> heavily. Secondly our manufacturing sector has to cope with high interest
> rate, our real estate prices are sky rocketing and in this context can they
> compete with Chinese manufacturing sector. These MNC's will procure
> internationally then, they will flood our markets with foreign goods, and
> pocket fat profits, further weakening our hold on our own market. It is
> important to look within and improve the nation's lot by focussing on
> agriculture and the manufacturing sector, rather than depending on others
> to come and help us out.
>
> There is also the possibility that dealing with these foreign organisations
> may actually reduce our foreign exchange coffers, which may go in the
> negative. Domestic report in the manufacturing sectors points out that the
> net foreign exchange flow of existing multinational manufacturing sector
> (MNC) is negative at present. When the rupee is hovering at around 53 to a
> dollar which is strong at the time any inflow is beneficial to the
> international investor.
>
> Inviting foreign direct investment is not simple issue; we need to look at
> the context of the entire move. FDI at this juncture does not fit the bill,
> as India has a number of domestic issues to tackle. We need to look deeper
> to understand how and when the investments can really prove fruitful for
> agriculture and the manufacturing sector. The political and economic
> conditions of our country in the current scenario also need to be taken
> into consideration.
>
> Economics is a complex issue, which demands that a balance be struck
> between the positive and the negative and all decisions have to be taken in
> the present context. Unfortunately this bill gets weighed down by its
> shortcomings.
>
> The government has launched a campaign to show us the merits of their move,
> but that's not enough because it requires proof, which they are yet to
> provide. When they talk about quality assurance in terms of consumer
> satisfaction, they also need to project the cost-benefit analysis. For us,
> isolated product availability is not sufficient. At the end of it, people
> want to know how many products really benefit them
>
> There are many more such questions, which have raised doubts in the minds
> of all. How many companies does India open its market to because if it is
> just the major ones, then it is surely going to kill the market by shutting
> all doors to competition? And it would be significant to point out that the
> Competition Commission of India is a new organisation which needs more
> teeth and experience to deal with complicated situations. That's the
> context being spoken about.
>
> (The author is Convener, Economic Cell, Bharatiya Janata Party)
>
> http://organiser.org/Encyc/2011/12/3/COVER-STORY.aspx?NB=&lang=4&m1=&m2=&p1=&p2=&p3=&p4=
>