Even as the issue of 100 per cent foreign direct investment in retail has set off a major controversy in India, the Chinese experience offers a refreshingly positive tale to tell.
Almost two decades after China opened up retail fully, starting with allowing 26 per cent FDI in 1992, the sector has seen rapid growth, against the backdrop of increased market consolidation, higher production efficiency enabled by rising investments in rural infrastructure, and booming exports made possible by the setting up of new supply chains.
Many of these changes, according to Chinese analysts, were made possible by the entry of foreign retail giants such as Walmart and Carrefour, who changed the way Chinese companies managed their businesses, from farm procurement to logistics. Yet, 20 years on, it is Chinese local retailers — and not their foreign competitors — who dominate the retail market, with initial fears of a foreign invasion ultimately appearing unfounded as local companies learned quickly to out-compete their foreign rivals.
The country's biggest retail firms today are all Chinese companies — the Shanghai Bailian group, Suning, Gome and Dashang — all have bigger sales than Walmart in China, according to several research studies.
Walmart, which came to China in 1996 and has since opened more than 350 stores, has seen its market share fall from 8 per cent to 5.5 per cent in the past three years, according to the China Market Research Group.
Shi Yongheng, a professor from the School of Economics and Management at Tsinghua University who has studied China's retail sector, told The Hindu in an interview that the success of China's local retailers was enabled by the government controlling the speed of the ‘gradual' opening up process, which gave local retailers enough time to adapt.
Foreign companies were allowed to hold 51 per cent majority ownership (which India has now decided to grant them) only 12 years after the sector was opened, first allowing 26 per cent foreign equity. Initially, China also only allowed foreign retailers to open in select metropolises, such as Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen, and, moreover, only in certain districts in those cities. In Beijing and Shanghai, foreign retailers like Walmart were only allowed to operate in districts where there were no local competitors. Through these ‘ invisible barriers', China succeeded in giving local retailers protection, while, at the same time, they learnt from the ‘more efficient' business models of foreign companies, said Professor Shi.
“In terms of logistics, procurement and management, we have clearly seen the benefits,” he said. “Prices have fallen, and efficiency has increased. Initially, we had fears of the coming of foreign companies, but now we are no longer concerned as local companies have been able to learn from them, and compete with them.”
The lessons for India from China's FDI experience are, however, both limited and mixed, considering the differences in how retail operates in both countries.
For one, it is unclear if India can pose the barriers that challenged foreign retailers in China, starting right from land — foreign retailers here have complained of not being given land by local governments, who control all land transactions, in prime locations. The unorganised retail sector is also far larger in India, with organised retail accounting for less than 5 per cent, compared with 20 per cent in China. In China, unorganised retail, represented by street vendors and neighbourhood ‘community retailers', has continued to thrive, offering cheaper prices than supermarkets and retail chains.
For farmers like Zhang Wei (named changed) from Hebei, who grows vegetables on a 10 mu (0.67 hectare) plot of land, the coming of retail has increased — not reduced — his client base, he said. Mr. Zhang has direct sales in a Beijing neighbourhood every evening, while also supplying a supermarket chain, which, he says, pays less for his produce. “My vegetables are cheaper than in the supermarket, so I will always have my customers,” he said.
Consolidation of the retail sector in China, as a result of the government-supported rise of local retail giants like Bailian, has put many small farmers, who, unlike Mr. Zhang, could not cope with lower prices, out of work.
It has, however, also improved productivity by increasing the size of landholdings. In Mr. Zhang's village, for instance, each household had between 1 and 2 mu, but as more farmers moved to the cities for work, they rented out their land to those, like Mr. Zhang, who stayed behind.
“The job losses have not been felt because of the pace of urbanisation and the growth of cities,” Professor Shi said. “Yes, some small retailers have lost their jobs, but the question is, have the benefits outweighed the costs? I would certainly say yes.”
Keywords: FDI in retail, China retail sector, China economy





In china any of the systems they can change as quick as possible according to the countrys growth.In india we cannot change any of the the system that much quickly.By the way In china FDI allowed(only shanghai and beijing) in 1989 and they did the trial how the system works. Then only they allowed fluently many of the cities.By the way In india not necessary to develope our current infrastructures by other foreign investements.
It is very unfortunate to see the readers comments here we have to have alook at countries of similiar economy and similiar people involved in small scale business .Why there is no comparison with countries like THailand and Brazil were FDI in retail has miserably failed people like to have the cream part of the pie but the problem will be FDI in India specific to FDI will have more burnt part.What can the uneducated shop owners and labors do when there source of income is cut.To plainly say these people will involve in robbery,theft ,prostitution.Let the readers understand that people in retail business does not have the capability and capacity to read THE HINDU.First you develop these kirana shopkeepers and employees to read Hindu and I shall welcome in bringing FDI later.You people want to go to 25th floor without basement.
I don't understand why people shout that FDI in retail be rolled back. We already have single brand retail FDI and that has not killed the local single brand business. Has it now? Rather, it has helped increase the efficiency of local businesses. Same would translate to the Multibrand sector too. It is simple logic. For a country that houses about 20% of the world population, four-five foreign retail giants are not enough. The entry of Wlmart, Carrefour, TESCO, etc. can only help India. I was afraid of the Nuclear deal, but not of the FDI in retail because at the most, a few greedy middlemen would be put out of business and that is well deserved, I would say.
Yes, In china, FDI in retail was a success but this was due to local government body and government vision to take advantage out of this. Our MLAs, MPs, local bodies and central government are highly inefficient and corrupt. We should not expect miracle like what happened in china. In case of India it could be a disaster. I think BJP and other parties understand this that's why they are opposing :).
With a burgeoning corporate-politics nexus, be it in Monsanto-Mahyco combine in agrarian sector or Swan-DMK et al combine in spectrum allocation or POSCO-BJD/Congress unison in Odhisa or mining lobby-BJP nexus in Karnataka and Chattisgarh, it will be unlikely that the government will try and protect local retailers, street vendors or farmers. On the contrary, the chances of the right wing parties like BJP-Congress or regional parties like DMK/AIDMK/TMC/JDS/BJD (and people like Montek-Manmohan-Chidambaram at the helm of the business) getting lured by these corporations are very easy. At this point the priority is pretty clear. UPA is very aggressive in pursuing policy changes on FDI or nuclear power plants but reluctant to contain inflation or addressing the country's worst agrarian crisis. When governments are serving the corporates, it's essential for the people to resist moves like FDI in retail.
In China , the government is working for there people. In India, the government is working for themselves and most of there policies are there , so that they can park all there money in the business. Why do you want money from outside, when there is enough activity and wealth getting generated inside waiting to be invested again back in India. The homegrown retail Giants like pantaloon are doing a wonderful job, integrating the global retail concepts and adapting it the Indian way. The technology can always be borrowed and local people can be employed. Just my opinion.
in china they have Government to back the locals, but in India corrupt peoples helps the foreign companies,so that they will get their money in foreign account easily than getting from locals. China module will not work for India
India is its worst enemy. If we remain so scared of change and competition we will remain the miserable third world country with a majority poor people. India ought to learn from Chinese experience in opening up their economy even when China is a communist party ruled nation (at least in theory). FDI in retail would not only help lower prices it will also improve India's manufacturing industries as the foreign retailers would be more open to source from India and they would work with the manufacturers and vendors to improve efficiency. Alas, beaten down by opportunistic opposition and a section of people who who are misinformed by scaremongering propaganda by vested interests the UPA govt has backed down on entry of foreign retailers. At the end of the day India would be the loser while middlemen and vested interests would profit at the expense of high inflation and general public.
This is Vote Banks game, nothing to do with FDI or Retail. All political parties go with the loudest voice - MOBOCRACY.
Even if China's model of allowing foreign retail companies a foothold in their economy does not appear to work in India's context in its entirety certain things can certainly be done like allowing 26 percent in the first phase and then gradual increase and controlling their locations.
The reasons are many.In USA it is well known that as soon as Walmart opens shop in a locality all the small shops close.In Germany Walmart was forced to wind up after a year when people deliberately refused to buy!It is said that the Germans did not want a Jewish co in their >soil!Everything depends on people.It is not enough if they have voted but must take strong action in a peaceful way to achieve justice.
There seems to be a polarisation when it comes to FDI in retail. When formulating FDI policy, both the potential "upsides" and "downsides" need to be acknowledged to the extent of they being real for "actors" in India (format-retailers, kirana-shops, traders, farmers et al). India - with all its demographics - is far too irresistible a proposition for "market-seeking" FDI players, and policy makers should keep that in mind while making policy provisions that emphasise on contributions expected from FDI players, which are above and beyond those that they would any way make to succeed in their business. A quid pro quo approach is nothing to be shy of.
While it is encouraging to look eastward for wisdom let's not forget that China has proven to be better at execution of FDI plans than India, not just in retail but all sectors from advanced technology to agriculture. If the government's plan for the retail sector is, as claimed, favorable for all stakeholders then all that remains is the execution challenge. Can the government ensure that the claimed benefits will be achieved? Farmers are at the bottom of the value chain and any plan that is detrimental to them should not be allowed.
In the present global scenario, the growth pattern varies from country to country. The growth in the different sectors also vary. Developed countries can learn from the experience in developing economies as well. In the banking and housing sector, America can learn from india. Similarly, india can watch the developments in the retail sector growth from china as well. Since 1992, there was phenomenal growth in the retail sector in china, due to globalization there. Retail giants like walmart opened several outlets there, and this resulted in the growth of the local retail sector there at a very fast pace .The growth of walmart helped china in the export front. The growth of the local retailers helped the local Consumers in china as well. Thus, there was all round growth for chinas betterment. We can evolve an Indian model, with the guidance of developmental economists like Dr amartya sen. To reject, indias present proposal on FDI, is not prudent.
Please come to our wholesale markets controlled by our own 'Indian brothers'. They never allow the farmers/producers to move from the 'clutches'of them;advancing sometimes 30% to 60% in cash or kind for the farmers they have been squeezing out better margin. They simply sit in the shade and earn and they never allowed the direct marketing to become a success in India. Allow the FDI in total 100% and let the farmers/producers go and negotiate the prices with the Major Super Markets without any intermediaries. we the ordinary consumers would be benefitted positively. We daily watch the prices of vegetables and fruits in major supermarkets in Chennai. No haggling and good quality.
yes , we have grown up and we can challenge any competition. our politicians are not grown up . it was thought that our desi companies like ,bajaj, Mahendra, TVS , hero , will perish because of the entry of multinational automobile giants. but it has been proved wrong. So FDI in retail trade will not affect our small traders . but it will create a healthy competition , and both the farmers and consumers will benefit .
The Chinese experience should be an eye opener to the BJP and other parties blindly opposing FDI in retail. Of course,leftists will persist in resisting any reforms on ideological grounds and hence their opposition is more emotional than rational.Consumer should have a choice to purchase whereever the price is cheaper and the producer should have the choice to sell to whosoever pays higher price. We have nothing to lose except greedy exploitative 'mandi' merchants who bleed primary producers and fleece the farmers. We thank the author for the timely write up which throws light on the issue by detailing the Chinese experience at a time when virulent and blind opposition to the move is going on.
China managed to out-compete the foreign rivals by initially observing and learning. Most important they modify and not fully copy (as alleged by the compatitors) what they learned in order to suit its local market. With the newly acquired and modified expertise, the foreign rivals just have to give in. Issues involving security, land and other restrictions are the same everywhere just that China don't pretend like the western countries to say that their economics are fully opened.
Please Email the Editor