Comments on: The Better, Faster Road to Development

By: Rich Poor Average

Rich Poor Average — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:04:53 +0000

There have alwys been rich and poor people alike. now there is a middle class.

http://img250.imageshack.us/my.php?image=richaveragepoorcs3.png

By: The Indian Economy Blog » India’s Retail Revolution: Question 1

The Indian Economy Blog » India’s Retail Revolution: Question 1 — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 03:07:12 +0000

[…] retail industry – Protect The Chain But At What Cost – Kirana Will Still Rule – The Better, Faster Road To Development – The Wrong Behind – A Nation Of Self-Employed – More Bang For the Government […]

By: kayd

kayd — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 08:31:00 +0000

The Ambani plan sounds like a grand Walmart-ization for India. I don’t know about all of India, but at least in most smaller cities of UP, the lifeblood of the local economies is the little family run stores. What happens to these when the mega-corporations take over?

By: Sharad

Sharad — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 04:03:01 +0000

Dear Atanu,

To my knowledge Indian agricurltural productivity on per acre basis is half that of China and lower than most countries. We also need to alter the steep imbalance between urban and rural population through RISC-like new cities. Hopefully Ambani’s retail drive (and SEZs) will become one of the positive drivers in both these vital areas.

You generally rail on corruption and use terms like economic rent. You have also written about why monopolies are bad for same reason. You do write about the Ambani’s getting land at lower price. But the word corruption or economic rent does not come in. This looks like a lapse of objectivity on your part. There may be problems with alternatives (land auction, property rights to farmers, government’s non-use of land etc.) but that does not justify a subsidy to a private enterprise.

Reliance group has achieved amazing growth starting with petrochemicals then refineing and exploration and more recently with telecom. But their ethics specially getting favors from government has been partly responsible for it (besides their risk appetite, management ability and style and more recently their growing wealth).

Sharad

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 00:14:28 +0000

I think that the following artice on Answers.com is very good. I would think that the definition of India in year 1000 is different than the India of today.

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-countries-by-past-gdp-ppp

By: Aravind Nair

Aravind Nair — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 00:47:35 +0000

One factor that nobody seems to have noticed is the impact of declining availability of cheap transportation fuel (a hard geological fact that most economists are in denial of) on unsustainable practices of industrial farming. The last thing India wants is an emulation of the US industrial agriculture that destroys topsoil and increases dependence on fossil fuel for agriculture and transportation of products. I have nothing against the likes of Ambani, but if he is trying to do a “Monsanto”, that would spell disaster for the Indian population, compared to which today’s farmer suicide rate (however tragic it is) would seem like a minor irritant.
We need to get the average city guy also to grow stuff and not expect supermarkets to supply everything in a post-fossil-fuel world. I guess Ambani knows this only too well and maybe that explains his interest in getting into the most basic of man’s needs in a big way.

By: Chandra

Chandra — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 06:39:02 +0000

Ila Patnaik of IE has a good column on the issues with land acquisition for infrastructure development. She endorses auction of land proposed by Shubhashis Gangopadhyay, director, India Development Foundation, for transparency. The auction idea seems workable and fair to farmers who are forced to sell their land under eminent domain.

Here is the column:

http://www.indianexpress.com/story/9715.html

By: S K Modi

S K Modi — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 18:28:48 +0000

Mukesh Ambani has forgotten the cardinal principle set by his father - never get into a business that involves too many people.
If he thinks he would be able to control hundreds of thousands working in his proosed retail empire, well, good luck to him!

By: NSP

NSP — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 00:08:15 +0000

I am tempted to think about the use of the BOT (Build Operate Transfer) or BOOT (Build Own Operate Transfer) model in such a case. Such mechanisms have been used in the highways/roadways sector with some success. Thinking of it on a macro level, say the land is sold to a private enterprise at low or market rates (debatable); it should then be developed by the private player and owned/operated by it for a predetermined period of time. The eventual transfer of the SEZ or township to the public sector will ensure that in the long run matters involving trust are democratically managed.
A major concern with this approach is the uncertainty that will surround private participation as profit motives will be curbed to some extent. This can be taken care of by establishing Special Purpose Vehicles or using existing ones to assist the private sector in financing such projects. This significantly reduces debt burdens. The Annuity model which is a variation of the BOT model could also be a viable alternative. If case such an approach is considered, the government would pay a certain amount, which it feels is the cost of development, to the private player on a continuous basis. This approach also gets rid off the risk factor which would otherwise be handled by the private player.
Considering all arguments made previously, this is some sort of a compromise formula. What say?

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:07:24 +0000

Well, i am worried about what is going to happen to the displaced people. At one look, Ambani has brought out a wonderful plaan to save rural India. i find it extremely hard to digest that.
Ask them to take over existing stores and companies that are in losses. Let them build on that. A limit should be placed on the real estate these big corporations hold too.