Entry of the corporate houses in the retail market or for that matter into any sector is popularly perceived to be a part of economic growth. The increasing participation of the private sector is considered as one of the instruments of economic growth and job creation. Economic growth by itself creates jobs says Lord Desai a professor of economics at the London school of economics. But this I reiterate is a popular perception, whether the entry of corporate houses into every market and field is justified or not is a different matter. In my view it is incorrect to make general statements about economic growth and job creation, one has to be very precise when dealing with this subject. Economic growth I agree does create jobs; it does push the economy to a more productive stage. As the economist Rosenstein Rodan has said in his theory the “Big push” that for a plane to take off it requires a certain minimum ground speed, anything less than that and the plane wont take off, similarly to pursue economic growth we need to mobilize a certain minimum amount of investment, anything less than that is inadequate. And investment mobilization happens through the corporate houses or the private sector. So Im not against the private sector per se, but for the government and people to jump to a conclusion that the corporate houses no matter what they do and where they go will bring beneficial results certainly comes under a cloud of suspicion. To prove that the entry of the corporate houses into the retail market is beneficial we would have to rely on the theory of trickle down effect, but the trickle down effect is simply another way of saying that what is good for the business houses is good for the country, which is obviously not true. Trickle down effect has been named the horse and sparrow theory by JK Galbraith “if you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows.” Unfortunately today the horse is the corporate sector and the sparrow is the working class.
When we speak of the retail market we are primarily dealing with a section of society where the people are not economically privileged. Retailers at the lower end, like the vegetable sellers, the fruit sellers basically are the underprivileged section of the society, and when the government permits the corporate houses to enter this field with their attractive pricing strategies the government is practically wiping these 4 crore middle men out. And the justification given is “growth will create jobs for them as well”. For people who say my question is can you give a guarantee that those very 4 crore people will get their jobs back. And they are 4 crore human beings not ants who can be trampled under the feet of men.
Entry of the corporate houses into the retail market is a part of the de licensing policy which was started in 70s. Before the 70s most of the industrial production was handled by the public sector. In the 70s it was realized that the participation of the corporate houses is also very essential if we have to be on par with the rest of the world in terms of technology and capital. For this reason the license policy was scrapped out. Only industries of national importance like defense, railways, atomic energy were to be kept in the control of the public sector. So the purpose of the de licensing policy was to increase productivity. Today in 2007 if we analyze the repercussions of this policy we find that the corporate houses have increased productivity no doubt, but have also increased the divide between rural areas and the urban areas, between the bourgeois and the proletariat. This divide has very unfavorable social consequences which need to be settled first than increasing productivity for only a certain class of society.