Foreign direct investment in Retail in India.
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.
FDI can be defined as a cross border investment, where foreign assets are invested into the organizations of the domestic market excluding the investment in stock. It brings private funds from overseas into products or services. The domestic company in which foreign currency is invested is usually being controlled by the investing foreign company. Eg. An American company taking major stake in a company in India. Their ROI is based on the performance of the project.
An investment made by a company or entity based in one country, into a company or entity based in another country. Foreign direct investments differ substantially from indirect investments such as portfolio flows, wherein overseas institutions invest in equities listed on a nation's stock exchange. Entities making direct investments typically have a significant degree of influence and control over the company into which the investment is made. Open economies with skilled workforces and good growth prospects tend to attract larger amounts of foreign direct investment than closed, highly regulated economies.
FDI stands for Foreign Direct Investment, a component of a country's national financial accounts. Foreign direct investment is investment of foreign assets into domestic structures, equipment, and organizations. It does not include foreign investment into the stock markets. FDI is thought to be more useful to a country than investments in the equity of its companies because equity investments are potentially "hot money" which can leave at the first sign of trouble, whereas FDI is durable and generally useful whether things go well or badly.
Foreign direct investment and the developing world
In the past decades, FDI was concerned only with highly industrialized countries. US was the world’s largest recipient of FDI during 2006 with an investment of 184 million from OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries. France, Greece, Iceland, Poland, Slovak Republic, Switzerland and Turkey also have a positive record in FDI investments. Now, during the course of time, FDI has become a vital part in every country more particularly with the developing countries.
This is because of the following reasons:
§ Availability of cheap labor.
§ Uninterrupted availability of raw material.
§ Less production cost compared with other developed countries.
§ Quick and easy market penetration.
The rapid growth of world population since 1950 has occurred mostly in developing countries. This growth has not been matched by similar increases in per-capita income and access to the basics of modern life, like education, health care, or - for too many - even sanitary water and waste disposal.FDI has proven when skillfully applied to be one of the fastest means of, with the highest impact on, development.
A recent meta-analysis of the effects of foreign direct investment on local firms in developing and transition countries suggests that foreign investment robustly increases local productivity growth. The Commitment to Development Index ranks the "development-friendliness" of rich country investment policies.
Some development economists believe that a sizeable part of Western Europe has now fallen behind the most dynamic amongst Asia’s emerging nations, notably because the latter adopted policies more propitious to long-term investments: “Successful countries such as Singapore, Indonesia and South Korea still remember the harsh adjustment mechanisms imposed abruptly upon them by the IMF and World Bank during the 1997-1998 ‘Asian Crisis’ . What they have achieved in the past 10 years is all the more remarkable: they have quietly abandoned the “Washington consensus” [the dominant Neoclassical perspective] by investing massively in infrastructure projects, this pragmatic approach proved to be very successful.”
Foreign direct investment
The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development said that there was no significant growth of global FDI in 2010. In 2011 was $1,524 billion, in 2010 was $1,309 billion and in 2009 was $1,114 billion. The figure was 25 percent below the pre-crisis average between 2005 and 2007
Foreign direct investment by Country
Broadly speaking, the U.S. has a fundamentally open economy and very small barriers to foreign direct investment. The United States is the world’s largest recipient of FDI. U.S. FDI totaled $194 billion in 2010. 84% of FDI in the U.S. in 2010 came from or through eight countries: Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and
FDI in China, also known as RFDI (renminbi foreign direct investment), has increased considerably in the last decade, reaching $59.1 billion in the first six months of 2012, making China the largest recipient of foreign direct investment and topping the United States which had $57.4 billion of FDI. During the global financial crisis FDI fell by over one-third in 2009 but rebounded in 2010.
Starting from a baseline of less than $1 billion in 1990, a recent UNCTAD survey projected India as the second most important FDI destination (after China) for transnational corporations during 2010–2012. As per the data, the sectors that attracted higher inflows were services, telecommunication, construction activities and computer software and hardware. Mauritius, Singapore, US and UK were among the leading sources of FDI. Based on UNCTAD data FDI flows were $10.4 billion, a drop of 43% from the first half of the last year. India disallowed overseas corporate bodies (OCB) to invest in India
2012 FDI reforms in India
On 14 September 2012, Government of India allowed FDI in aviation up to 49%, in the broadcast sector up to 74%, in multi-brand retail up to 51% and in single-brand retail up to 100%. The choice of allowing FDI in multi-brand retail up to 51% has been left to each state.
In its supply chain sector, the government of India had already approved 100% FDI for developing cold chain. This allows non-Indians to now invest with full ownership in India's burgeoning demand for efficient food supply systems. The need to reduce waste in fresh food and to feed the aspiring demand of India's fast developing population has made the cold supply chain a very exciting investment proposition.
Foreign investment was introduced by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh when he was finance minister (1991) by the government of India as FEMA (Foreign Exchange Management Act).
FDI in the Retail sector:
Retailing refers to the transaction of goods from the fixed location, between the sellers and end users (consumers). These transactions generally satisfy the needs of the individuals or households for direct consumption, thus are small in quantity. The kirana stores, departmental stores, shopping malls etc are examples of retail outlets.
Retailing is one of the world’s largest private industry. Liberalizations in FDI have caused a massive restructuring in retail industry. The benefit of FDI in retail industry superimposes its cost factors. Opening the retail industry to FDI will bring forth benefits in terms of advance employment, organized retail stores, availability of quality products at a better and cheaper price. It enables a country’s product or service to enter into the global market.
Few facts about Indian Retail sector
· The Retail sector of India is vast, and has huge potential for growth and development, as the majority of its constituents are un-organized.
· The retail sector of India handles about $250 billion every year, and is expected by veteran economists to reach to $660 billion by the year 2015.
· The business in the organized retail sector of India, is to grow most and faster at the rate of 15-20% every year, and can reach the level of $100 billion by the year 2015.
· India's growing economy with a rate of approximately 8% per year makes its retail sector highly fertile and profitable to the foreign investors of all sectors of commerce and economy, of all over the world.
· Retail trade is the second largest employer in India after agriculture; it comprises food and non-food sectors.
· The food sector accounts for 70% of the total retail trade in terms of value.
· 95% of the retail trade takes place in the unorganized sector.
· The retail sector has witnessed 15% growth rate with indigenous capital. There is no policy or framework which focuses on retail sector
· Retailing in India is one of the pillars of its economy and accounts for 14 to 15 percent of its GDP.
· The Indian retail market is estimated to be US$ 450 billion and one of the top five retail markets in the world by economic value.
· India is one of the fastest growing retail markets in the world, with 1.2 billion people.
· India's retailing industry is essentially owner manned small shops.
· In 2010, larger format convenience stores and supermarkets accounted for about 4 percent of the industry, and these were present only in large urban centers.
· India's retail and logistics industry employs about 40 million Indians (3.3% of Indian population).
Until 2011, Indian central government denied foreign direct investment (FDI) in multi-brand retail, forbidding foreign groups from any ownership in supermarkets, convenience stores or any retail outlets. Even single-brand retail was limited to 51% ownership and a bureaucratic process
In November 2011, India's central government announced retail reforms for both multi-brand stores and single-brand stores. These market reforms paved the way for retail innovation and competition with multi-brand retailers such as Walmart, Carrefour and Tesco, as well single brand majors such as IKEA, Nike, and Apple.
AT Kearney (a globally famous international management consultancy) recognized India as the second most alluring and thriving retail destination of the world, among other thirty growing and emerging markets. At present, other profitable retail destinations of the world are China and Dubai of Asia.
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.
· 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 post-harvest losses and provide remunerative prices to farmers.
· The opening of retail competition (policy) will be within parameters of state laws and regulations.
The recent cabinet decision on FDI in retail has triggered protests by opposition and key allies of the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA), who are demanding a roll back of the policy. Opposition parties, led by BJP and the Left, stuck to their stand and demanded rollback of the Cabinet decision to allow 51 per cent FDI in multi-brand retail. In December 2011, under pressure from the opposition, Indian government placed the retail reforms on hold till it reaches a consensus.
Though at present only 53 cities with population not less than 10 lakh in the country have been identified for FDI As the fourth-largest economy in the world in PPP terms, India is a preferred destination for FDI. During 2000â€“10, the country attracted $178 billion as FDI.
In January 2012, India approved reforms for single-brand stores welcoming anyone in the world to innovate in Indian retail market with 100% ownership, but imposed the requirement that the single brand retailer source 30 percent of its goods from India. Indian government continues the hold on retail reforms for multi-brand stores.
In June 2012, IKEA announced it has applied for permission to invest $1.9 billion in India and set up 25 retail stores. Fitch believes that the 30 percent requirement is likely to significantly delay if not prevent most single brand majors from Europe, USA and Japan from opening stores and creating associated jobs in India.
On 14 September 2012, the government of India announced the opening of FDI in multi-brand retail, subject to approvals by individual states. This decision has been welcomed by economists and the markets, however has caused protests and an upheaval in India's central government's political coalition structure. On 20 September 2012, the Government of India formally notified the FDI reforms for single and multi brand retail, thereby making it effective under Indian law.
Diverse foreign direct investment in Indian retail is greatly cherished by most of the major and leading retailers of USA and European countries, including Walmart (USA), Tesco (UK), Metro (Germany), and Carrefour (France). Liberalization of trade policy and loosening of barriers and restrictions to the foreign investment in the retail sector of India, have collectively made the fdi in retail sector quite easy and smooth
The present status of FDI in retail sector
· In September 2012, the UPA II has allowed 51% FDI in the retail sector.
· Since 1997, 100 per cent FDI is permitted in cold chain infrastructure and wholesale (cash and carry). The big giants like Wal-Mart and Carrefour are presently operating in India in wholesale (cash and carry).
· From January 2012 100% FDI is permitted in single brand retail. Prior to this from 2006, 51% FDI in single-brand retail is permitted. It implies that foreign companies would be allowed to sell goods sold internationally under a ‘single brand’, viz., Reebok, Nokia, and Adidas. In the past five years in single-brand retail only $44.45 million (Rs 231 crore) came to India, constituting barely 0.03% of total FDI inflows.
· FDI is not permitted in Multi Brand Retailing in India. FDI in Multi Brand retail implies that a retail store with a foreign investment can sell multiple brands under one roof
· On 7 December 2012, the Federal Government of India allowed 51% FDI in multi-brand retail in India. The Feds managed to get the approval of multi-brand retail in the parliament despite heavy uproar from the opposition.
· Some states will allow foreign supermarkets like Walmart, Tesco and Carrefour to open while other states will not.
hasaken faith. FewIndia, andruling.
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF FDI’s IN RETAIL.
§ Cheaper production facilities:
§ Availability of new and modern technology to the country.
§ Long term cash liquidity:
§ Lead driver for the country’s economic growth:
§ FDI opens new doors for Franchising:
§ FDIwould facilitate huge investments in the retail sector. This would result in creation of gainful employment opportunities in agro-processing, sorting, marketing and front-end retail business.
§ The protagonists of FDI also put forward the point that opening up of multi-brand retail for foreign investors would have a beneficial effect on food inflation by improving the supply chain and logistics
§ infrastructure. It
§ Those favoring FDI in multi brand retail are also of the view that permission of FDI would lead to investments in the procurement infrastructure and post harvest management. Post harvest wastage and lack of procurement infrastructure like cold chain and warehouses results in damage of substantial amount of farm products. Precisely, the marketing of perishable agricultural produce needs a modern distribution system, FDI in multi brand retailing could fill this gap.
§ Enable our farmers to get better prices for their crops.
§ Permission of FDI in multi brand retail would enable a procurement system, wherein the retail companies could directly procure from the farmers and producers. This would result into disintermediation of the agents and middlemen, thus producers can accrue the larger share in value addition and profits.
§ Government too stands to gain by this move through more transparent and accountable monitoring of goods and supply chain management systems. It can expect to receive an additional US$ 25-30 billion by way of taxes
FDI Success story China:
China is the world’s largest FDI recipient, and has used it deftly to increase its exports. It started off with an FDI investment of $19 billion in 1990, and reached $300 billion in 1999. 40 retailers now have a secured approval in the Chinese market. FDI has created an encouraging effect in both traditional as well as modern formats of retail business in China.
Carrefour from France, Tesco from England, Metro from Germany, and Wal-Mart from US have entered the Chinese retail sector and has uplifted the country’s economy. Initially during 1992, China allowed FDI only in a few selected cities and also restricted the ownership by 26 percent. Later on as the exports of the country progressively increased, by 2002, the Government increased the FDI cap to 49 percent. China continues to hit new records. More than 28 million people and approximately 10 percent of Chinas total population are working in companies funded with FDI.
With the advent of FDI, retail sector is likely to make massive strides, and catalyze the growth of the country’s economy. As far as developing nations are concerned, it is the life blood of economy.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST FDI’S IN RETAIL.
§ When our interest rates are high (14-16) how do we compete with the economies which have lesser (4) interest rate.
§ The vehement opposition of FDI has come from the groups and organization of the small traders and kirana stores. According to these groups and organization the permission of FDI in multi brand retail would give a death blow to the livelihood of small traders and especially the kirana stores. In India more than 10 crore small shopkeepers and more than 40 crore people depend on retail. The permission of FDI in retail is foreseen as a threat to livelihood of these.
§ According to the critics FDI may prove beneficial only in the short run, however in the long run small farmers and producers would be forced to sell their produce at a lower rate. It is also held that permission of FDI would reduce the negotiating power of the producers and end consumers as the transactions would take place between asymmetrical actors, i.e. small producers and individual consumer with big multinational giants like Wal-mart.
§ There is an apprehension that multinational retailers would start selling food products sourced from abroad at a lower price and which could be of better quality. There are many rich countries which provide huge farm subsidies in their agriculture sector. It’s very natural that indigenous farm products could not compete with products from those countries which are heavily subsidized. This could demolish the farm sector in India which accounts for dependence of more than 50% of population.
§ It is also held that permission of FDI on the account of investment in procurement infrastructure is a vague argument. Although FDI in wholesale trade was permitted in 1997, but no significant investment has happened at the back-end of the supply chain.
§ The permission of FDI in multi brand retail could also result into the monopoly of few big giants in this sector by crowding out the others through systematic predatory pricing. Predatory pricing refers to a situation where new players come with initially lower the prices for the consumers, with the intention of creating a monopoly and raising prices later.
§ The domestic companies who have entered into modern trade are in the nascent stage. Opening up of multi-brand retail to foreign players could also prove detrimental for these domestic players.
§ It is also argued that there was no dearth of domestic capital and materials in the Indian retail market because of the supply chain established by unorganized players. Even in the absence of any policy framework retail sector in India showing an annual growth of 1
§ Please remember domestic retail normally sources domestically, international retail sources internationally because they source from the cheapest sources.
§ Even if big retail companies help the farmers in resurrecting their economy, what plan does the government has for millions of middlemen who are part of the business process chain that ensures manufactured products reach end users.
§ We engage millions of uneducated and semi-educated people at various stages of retail business spread across towns and cities but we are afraid that Tesco and Wal-Mart will only engage smart and educated workforce in small strength, comparatively.
Sooner or later the permission of FDI in various sectors would be a reality and multi brand retail is no exception. The vehement opposition by various groups could only delay the process but cannot prevent it. But since the issue is related with the livelihood of millions in retail and farm sector, it must be dealt with utmost caution. Certain policy frame work and arrangements are required so that a win-win situation is designed.
Thus the arrangements should be such that the country not only accrue the financial and economic benefits but could also align the foreign capital in such a manner that it facilitates the socio-economic development. This can be done by integrating into the rules and regulations for FDI in multi-brand retailing certain inbuilt safety valves.
The following are recommendations to deal with FDI in multi-brand:
· FDI in multi –brand retailing should be allowed in a manner that the effect of possible loss of livelihood can be analyzed and policy fine tuned accordingly. The alternative livelihood opportunities should be generated or recognized for those who would be displaced.
· To ensure that the FDI make an authentic contribution to the infrastructure development and supply chain efficiencies, it can be predetermined that a certain fixed percentage of investment should go in the back end infrastructure, logistics or agro processing units.
· Government strong (like TRAI) to protect the interest of small retailers so that the retailing giants do not resort to predatory pricing or acquire monopolistic tendencies through unfair means. At the same time it should be ensured that the rights of consumers be safeguarded
· Extension of institutional credit, at lower rates, by financial institutions, to help improve efficiencies of small retailers; undertaking of proactive program for supporting small retailers to improve themselves
§ FDI in retail sector of India –Pulkit Agarwal, Esha Tyagi.
§ FDI in Indian Retail Sector- - RUPALI GUPTA
§ Retail Sector in India and FDI-Digital Mantar
- FDI in multi-brand retail- Jones Lang LaSall
- · www.globaljurix.com/