The latest addition to the list of sane voices is the excellent piece of analytical thinking by Messrs Rama Bijapurkar, S Raghunandan and R Sriram – writing for Forbes Magazine.
While earlier opinions have been largely based on qualitative assessments and “gut feel”, this article is a sharp, quantitative study of the proclaimed benefits and imagined fall out of allowing FDI in Indian Retail.
The authors have examined the issue from six broad perspectives –
1) The impact of FDI – how and which consumers will benefit ?
2) Who will the likely players be
3) What is the estimated market size, and hence, the number of stores required
4) Where will these stores be made ?
5) What will happen to the small farmers ?
6) What kind of jobs would be created ?
The essence of this analysis is similar to what Mr Rajan B Mittal had said in his interview (see previous post).
(Luckily enough, I have had the good fortune to be on similar wavelength as these illustrious people 🙂 )
India’s retail model will evolve differently from the way it did in the US / UK. It will require different thinking, deep consumer understanding, lots of guts and deep pockets. It will not be the broad spectrum antibiotic, but it will definitely change this ages old occupation for good.
I quite like the way the authors end their piece – to quote – “So let’s reality-check the wild hopes and discount the alarmism, and get on with the job of building one more good thing for the future. It will not be the cure for all ills, but it certainly is one more remedy that needs to be given its best shot.”
Meanwhile, Gaurav Chaudhury and Dipankar Bhattacharya, writing in The Hindustan Times mention that Delhi might be one of the first states to allow FDI. CM Shiela Dixit has already started the process of dismantling the APMC Act, and is likely to fast track the process. They also examine the issue from various lenses, and quote a few examples of the impact of modern retail. They contend that direct sourcing will not improve the lot of the farmer by a large extent, since the number of farmers benefiting from this would not be large – this strangely echoes the earlier article as well. They conclude by saying that there are enough supporters on both sides of the argument.