Protectionism - An Anachronistic diktat
I developed this habit of noticing things on road, in an 'economics' sense, when I get my cherished ride with my dad. This was an inspiration derived from my economics professor in college. And as with many professors in economics, his views were not as pro-liberalism.
It was at my age 15. I had this urge of getting the best value for the money whenever I purchased something. Or I must say I enjoyed the articulation & evaluation of goods. This however, was in stark contrast to my dad's ages, when he had to choose among two brands (maximum) and many industries had a virtual monopoly market. Coming back, and so, I was evaluating my options for my dad's new bike. I did this, by literally counting out the bikes on road and striking it out on paper. But after two or three such counting, I felt that there was no necessity for such an exercise. TVS-Suzuki's Max R 100 was the maximum running, on road. Next came Splendor. This was about a decade ago.
And today, coming back to my habit of noticing things on road, in an 'economics' sense, when I get a ride with my dad. I had read earlier that Maruthi sells every second car in India. Honda & Hyundai sales are growing exponentially. Luxury car makers are finding bookings equal to their expected annual sales on day one. It kept me wondering about foreign brands that set up shop or JVs in India.
Way back, post-independence, we followed import substitution. This was necessary then, because Indian industries were in a pathetic condition, considering the long gone freedom. It worked, or so, many professed. I am in no way competent to contest that. But this far, are we still following protectionist policies? By import substitution, we meant to put a cap on imports of goods so that Indian firms had the time to recover to produce competitive goods. This should ideally had given many Indian firms the much needed breather time for getting on par with foreign brands. But thinking of my father's era, I feel that this has actually led to a virtual monopoly of Indian firms. The other extreme.
After the liberalization in '91, Indian firms started fumbling, but then on, JVs did very well. But by way of JV, is it the foreign brands that were actually competent and is the Indian firm giving the necessary technical inputs? The relevance of the earlier question is in the light of the fact that TVS products lost their value post their decoupling with Suzuki, in 2001. What started as a venture in 1980 and tied with Suzuki in 1987, became a pure Indian entity in 2001. To quote an incident, I was looking through old used vehicles, when I wished to choose a MAX R 100, a tribute to my endeavor of finding out the best bike to buy for my dad, a decade ago. I was told to select a vehicle that’s at least 8 yrs old. This was exactly when TVS came off the Suzuki JV. This went as easy proof that vehicles produced by our Indian entity, TVS Motors, was not technically competent enough, considering that its a simple repurchase from junkyard. However, as time went by, TVS has adapted to the change and is now a competent brand, whatsoever.
This brings us to the question, should we still continue to protect native products? When are we going to allow native industries to face competition? Though liberalization has happened, we still have FDI caps in many sectors, telecom & commodities to quote a few. The import substitution era hadn't created firms like TVS. Only liberalization has done the needful. When we continue to protect, we might make them even more incompetent.
Allow the child to grow. Keep carrying it, it will never even crawl.
Absolute flawless perspective of what import substitution has done to India.When forming global playing field,the more competent the players are, the more the quality of the products and hence the customer satisfaction.But there are other reasons why liberlisation was not correct to be followed post independence - Inflation rate considerations,Annihilation of domestic industries etc. Now these reasons dont matter a lot as local players have comparitively elevated to a level to compete globally.
ReplyDeleteVery well said... And I agree to your point. But, I guess not all industries have got the right platform to compete with global players as of now and thats the reason why there are caps on certain sectors. In the longer run, this would also be removed.
ReplyDeleteAnother point to be considered while talking about FDI caps is the problem of taking back profits to the country of the Foreign entity that needs to be considered. And this is exactly why the government still restricts the amount that can be invested.
All whilst comparing sectors, we need to look into other things such as natural resources available, skilled manpower, and technology that are required for indian firms to compete with global players. For example, if a firm enters India and uses a resource which is not available in India or is expensive but because of its wider network brings it at a cheaper price, it would literally wipe out that industry. That is where the government steps up to put caps that limit the Foreign Investment either in terms of money or Technology input, to allow time for the Indian Entities to develop and then allow them to compete with bigger global players.
A good example might be China, which did not exactly need globalisation to make its industries competitive.
A good summary of the economic condition and its impact on the Indian competency. Well I agree with you on many points but still as Melchis pointed out our Indian players need some market incentives to fight the global competition be it a small business or big one. Allowing big players without restriction has seen the total loss of some national players. For ex take in the case of cool drinks only International players r dominating the whole market.
ReplyDeleteBefore competency survivability holds relevance for that some fringe benefits and incentives to local players must be provided. This is not only existing in India even foreign countries provide these benefits to their well developed global companies. In that case why cant we also provide those. But the sad side to this issue, as u hav stated, the development of complacency in Indian Players. But we got to bite it out at this time hoping that the things will even out in the future.
This artocle seems to be a good review and I should say more precisely that this is a good start for the review on this topic. I would term the title of this topic as a "Need and means to Indian Economic Gorwth" rather than "Indian Economic liberalization". As one of the above commented, liberalization and international competition should be well planned and yes there are industries and business that can and should compete with International brands but there are some which can or should be protected until it is immune to international competition.
ReplyDeleteThe ultimate objective of liberalization and competition should be to provide a better standard of living for people together with the economic growth of the country. As a quote, I could say, Reliance can compete or JV with Wal mart but can our street Annachi (Local grocery seller) compete with Wal mart?. Is this a reasonable expectation from Anachi?. We should first provide the right immunity for our Anachi before we take him to the price war field. Because of Reliance opening retail outlets in almost all the corners of streets, all our Anachis are out of business. Is this a good change?. May look good at the moment but this may be considered or realised as illusion very soon. There are so many to discuss.
yes liberalisation is good but has to be planned and moved in the right direction. Before giving it a try, please also think of giving the local a good immunity system. After all, I grow with the groceries of my neigbourhood Anachi shop and I am still fine with good brains I guess. Keep thinking gues and keep growing, I see India in the right direction.
Thanks all for your views on the topic. I, to some extent agree, considering the human nature of being greedy leading to corruption, that public investment would be required in select fields (maybe education, Mass transit & other possibly non-profitable ventures). This would ensure a possible inclusive growth.
ReplyDelete