Skip to main content

Foreign Direct Investment, FDI versus Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, FCRA: A brief

Foreign Direct Investment is cross-border investment made by a resident in one economy with the objective of establishing a ‘lasting interest’ in an enterprise that is resident in another economy, other than that of the direct investor. This is how IMF nails FDI’s definition. Government prefers the FDI, since it is non-volatile and non-debt creating over other mechanisms of foreign funding. FDI in India, as of now is routed through either the Government Approval Route, or Automatic Route that dispenses off the need for multiple approvals from regulatory and/or governmental bodies. 
Let us consider FDI in retailing, both organized and unorganized. The former, a mere 3-4% in India, is trade oriented under license, while the latter that forms the rest is low-cost retailing, and is ubiquitous. There is a socio-economic dimension to unorganized retailing, with uneducated, unemployed and educated unemployed taking refuge in retailing to negotiate poverty-related concerns. So, clearly, FDI in retailing will target the organized sector, with its so-called ‘corporate’ formulae and predatory pricing to iron out any competition from unorganized retailers. Agriculture, on the other hand, has been a source of livelihood for millions in this country, which in lean seasons, has to cope with rocketing unemployment. Unorganized retailing helps absorb agricultural labour and provides a sense of security. This equation would certainly be disturbed with FDI in retail, since it would have its own role in raising the number of unemployed with mechanized and skilled labour force at the helm of affairs. Why is this logic devoid of gravity for the policy makers? Instead, what is advocated is construction of a world-class back-end infrastructure with FDI rolling in retail, which would enable farmers direct access to the markets and thus even out deficiencies hitherto responsible for their depravation and poverty. 
It is generally considered that FDI is resilient in times of economic downturn, but the flip side is particularly overlooked, which is the adverse impact on the net capital inflow of the developing country during such times. Moreover, negative externalities in the labour market created by FDI cannot be taken lightly. Evidence shows that multinational companies do pay a slight premium over local-term wages, but does this really benefit the host economy? Paying a premium for the price of labour may improve the consumption power of workers, but it also has the detrimental ability of disrupting the local employment market. When prices rise, supply increases while demand falls. Similarly, when the price of labour increase, wage premiums in this case, this creates a distortion and creates a disequilibrium in the labour market. 
If the Government looks at FDI as an economically viable solution to socio-economic problems in the country, it is viewing FCRA in a light that is its own definition. FCRA is aid that is sought if the seeking entity is non-political, non-profit, even if it is socially responsible. Housed under the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Act is vulnerable to misappropriations by the officials in times when the Government feels politically threatened, and views the entity with FCRA h anti-people antics. FCRA is always caught in regulatory mechanisms with clearances from the MHA hard to attain, procedures too tedious and demanding, and transparency and accountability as dictated by the Government to be strictly adhered to. In short, organizations obtaining foreign aid are likely to feel their constitutional rights are violated. Why is this? 
FDI is obligated by the Government, and hence it becomes a brainchild of the Government. FCRA, on the other hand, is sought by organizations who form the civil society, who give credibility to participatory democracy, voices its concerns, issues and dissent with what the Government plans to do. This is taken to mean by the Government as challenging its powers as policy framers, which is an extremely narrow viewpoint. ‘For-Profit Sectors’, define democracy as the government understands it, whereas ‘For Non-Profit Sectors’ define it as people ought to understand it, and this is at cross-purposes. Authoritarian discretion is enough to put a freeze on FCRA, whereas, revoking it would necessarily mean paying compromises to be more transparent and accountable and in line with Government’s thought process. On the other hand, even majoritarian pressure is not sufficient to put brakes to Government’s flight for fancied FDI, thus in principle quashing the very essence of democracy. 

Such an ambivalent position and unbalancing act is anything but autocratic to the core. The time is ripe for a review... 


Popular posts from this blog

Why Should Modinomics Be Bestowed With An Ignoble Prize In Economics? Demonetization’s Spectacular Failure.

This lesson from history is quite well known: Muhammad bin Tughlaq thought that may be if he could find an alternative currency, he could save some money. So he replaced the Gold and Silver coins with copper currency. Local goldsmiths started manufacturing these coins and which led to a loss of a huge sum of money to the court. He had to take his orders back and reissue Gold/Silver coins against those copper coins. This counter decision was far more devastating as people exchanged all their fake currency and emptied royal treasure. And nothing seems to have changed ideatically even after close to 800 years since, when another bold and bald move or rather a balderdash move by the Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi launched his version of the lunacy. Throw in Demonetization and flush out black money. Well, that was the reason promulgated along with a host of other nationalistic-sounding derivatives like curbing terror funding, expanding the tax net, open to embracing digital economy an…

GST – Impact on Small Industry and the Informal Sector

The Goods and Services Tax (GST), that came into effect on 1st July, 2017, has been lauded as the most comprehensive contemporary reform of Indian indirect taxation. Aimed at creating a common, unified and integrated domestic market, allowing the free flow of goods and services across state lines, GST is supposed to deliver Indian industry and thereby the economy the competitive edge apparently lacking till now.
Reality is however a far cry from the picture painted by government. GST by creating platform a conducive to economies of scale and nullifying regional tariffs, is both conceptually and practically advantageous to big business and detrimental to the informal sector and small businesses.
These groupings, informal and small, though quite different have some degree of overlap. Informal business is overwhelmingly small but not all small businesses are informal. GST’s impact on these groups is quite different both with regard to extent of impact or in terms of results sought.
Small Bu…

India diverts Rs 56,700 crore from the fight against climate change to Goods and Service Tax regime

This news has been causing quite a few ripples, with the most daring allegation being that of siphoning of funds, thus standing in contrast to India's commitment to Paris Accords. Well, the reality goes a bit deeper than merely reductionist. In what way, this happens is eloquently dissected by Anirudh Rajan

In an effort to redistribute indirect tax revenues to industrially backward states, a conceptual change in the mode of taxation proposed by the Goods and Services Tax reform was to shift accretion of taxes to the place of consumption from the place where goods are produced or services rendered. Manufacturing states, primarily those unencumbered with ties to the central government, fearing reduced tax revenues inevitably opposed such plans. To achieve consensus, a compensation was agreed upon which would make good any fall in revenues arising from GST levy, for a period of 5 years. To fund such, an increased tax rate for certain commodities (luxury and demerit goods) was initia…