Citizens' Issues
Maharashtra mulls policy to make slum dwellers pay housing cost

The new policy will be in line with that for mill workers, according to which, housing was provided to them at affordable rates on a no-profit-no-loss basis

 
Mumbai: Concerned over the loss the state exchequer may suffer due to allocating free houses to slum dwellers till 2000, the Maharashtra government is mulling over framing a policy whereby the slum dwellers will have to pay for the cost of housing, reports PTI.
 
"We had taken an unfortunate decision of giving free houses to slum dwellers. It is now difficult to uphold that plan. We are planning to bring some policy that will make these people (slum dwellers) pay for it (the housing)," Maharashtra Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan said at an event.
 
The policy will be in line with that for mill workers, according to which, housing was provided to them at affordable rates on a no-profit-no-loss basis.
 
The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) in June allotted low-cost houses to 6,925 mill workers at a subsidised price of Rs4.81 lakh to Rs9.35 lakh.
 
In January, the government had decided to provide free housing to all slum dwellers up to 2000.
 
"There are nearly 14.6 lakh slum dwellers in Mumbai. If we take the case of (slums in) Bandra-Kurla Complex (area), the cost of each slum is around Rs1 crore. It is this kind of value of the area and it is very unfortunate that we took a decision to provide free houses to them," he said.
 

User

Economy & Nation Exclusive
FDI hike in insurance - I: Who benefits?

Certainly, not the common man, unless it is accompanied by stringent regulations to protect the “aam aadmi” from exploitation

The central government has proposed to enhance foreign direct investment (FDI) in insurance to 49% in its second wave of reforms announced recently. At present foreign investment in private insurance companies is restricted to 26% of their capital, which is now proposed to be increased to 49% by passing an amendment to the Insurance Act in the ensuing session of Parliament.
 

Announcing this decision, finance minister P Chidambaram said “the benefits of this amendment to the insurance act will go to the private sector insurance companies, which require huge amounts of capital and that capital will be facilitated with the increase in foreign investment to 49%.”  He also clarified that this will not apply to public sector insurers like Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) and the five general insurance companies.
 

At present there are 44 private insurance companies authorized by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) operating in the country. These comprise of 23 life insurance, 17 general insurance and four health insurance companies, since the insurance sector was opened for private sector in the year 2000. These are all joint ventures between the Indian promoters who hold up to 76% and foreign insurance companies who hold up to 26% as mandated by the law.
 

The insurance business requires additional capital as it grows and this has to come from the promoters. If the Indian promoters are unable to contribute their share of the capital, they will not be able to grow. Foreign companies with deep pockets will be able to fill this gap, if they are allowed to invest up to 49% of the capital. It is estimated that the private insurers need about Rs60,000 crore of additional capital during the next five years. Therefore, the raising of FDI cap to 49% will come handy for the foreign partner to increase their stake in the company, without the local partner having to put matching capital in to the company. The foreign partner will be more than happy to increase its stake, as it will help it get a bigger share of the pie, and will also give it a larger role in running the company according to its ways, by virtue of a higher shareholding in the company. This will, therefore, be a boon to the foreign insurers to come to India in a big way.
 

Does this benefit the common man?
 

This change does not benefit the common man, as he is the target for all insurance companies, whether Indian or foreign, who try to extract maximum business from the gullible public, who are carried away by the sweet talk and tall promises made by the insurance salesmen. In fact they are concerned more about their own commission rather than the welfare of the insured. Insurance business is one where there is rampant mis-selling and the insurance companies go scot free because of a number of conditions included in the policy in small print, but never communicated in advance.
 

Our country has a low insurance density and every company selling the insurance feels that there is abundant scope to expand its operations and hence this proposal to increase FDI in insurance has been received with great applause by the industry. Only time alone will tell whether this irrational exuberance is justified considering the fact that there is political opposition to this move and this change requires approval of the Parliament.
 

If and when this proposal becomes a law there is bound to be a great demand from foreign companies to enter our country because of the abundant opportunity provided by the large population and the growing per capita income of our people. During the last twelve years, if over 40 foreign companies have entered our country as joint venture partners, with the increased FDI cap, we may expect another 100 companies to come within the next twelve years. Unfortunately, some of our people are carried away by the foreign names and brands, and that there is a perception among our people that foreign companies are better than the home-grown companies. But the fact is that foreign companies are as bad as or as good as local companies, and insurance business, whether run by Indians or by foreigners has the same objective, as in all business, of maximizing returns to the owners even at the cost of the insured.
 

How to protect “aam aadmi” from exploitation by the insurance companies?  
                

It is abundantly clear that mere hiking the FDI cap to 49% does not in any way benefit the common man, unless it is accompanied by stringent regulations to protect the “aam aadmi” from exploitation.  
 

 (The author is a financial analyst and writes for Moneylife under the pen-name ‘Gurpur’)

User

COMMENTS

RV

4 years ago

Insurance is a very PROFITABLE industry. For example, if you provide car insurance for 10,000 cars, how many of them will have serious accidents over one year? 100 cars? 200 cars? Just pocket the premiums and pay off the occassional accident payments. THE REAL REASON foreigners want to get into indian insurance industry is to pocket the profits and invest in their own country. Indians provide the premiums, foreigners cover the occassional accident (with fast service to make them look good), and loot the country.

FDI in retail - 1: A View from the Farmgate

FDI in retail will really benefit us, if it helps the farmers. Today, farmers are starved of infrastructure, logistics and investment. Even the investment schemes are hard to implement. A first-hand view of the reality on the ground

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in retail has become a hit topic of debate and discussion. It is interesting to note that all the noises are coming from people who have no stake in either side. People are more worried about which perceived lobby they can incite and whip up passions. And of course, our media is all for it. But what is the reality on the ground?
 

Over the last three years, I have been fortunate enough to be a part of a horticulture venture (vegetables and fruits) that has brought me in touch with the farmer as well as the consumer. Let me first give you my first-hand views on the issues. Farmers want a better share of the price that the customer can pay. Today, the price difference between what a farmer gets at the wholesale mandi and what the customer pays is approximately 100% or so, on a good day. The big issue we have seen is one of wastages in the output from the harvest to reaching the shelf due to time lapse, improper storage, primitive packing and total absence of post-harvest management. Moreover, the farmer also does not have any infrastructure and has to sell off his produce immediately. When there is oversupply in one locality, the price at the mandi drops disproportionately. The farmer has no flexibility to hold on or even to transport the produce back to his field. Apart from this, farmers suffer from tiny land holdings. This means higher costs of production, transportation and very low financial flexibility. The present format of retail supermarkets does nothing to make the farmer any better off.
 

To solve the plight of the farmer, infrastructure is required, which includes processing centres, refrigerated trucks, cold storage at the destination and proper storage at the retail outlets.  As one of the first players in this field, we have been trying to address the issues, one by one. We buy from the farmer and sell to the supermarket—directly. We pay top mandi price without charging any commission. Since we pick up the produce, the farmer also saves on transport.
 

Ideally, we should form a farmer cooperative and do something like Amul. That is perhaps the best way. And if a cooperative is well funded, there could be a retail chain that will sell directly to the customer. This would be real reform.
 

Today, most department stores or supermarkets keep a mark up of around 30% in order to provide for ‘dump’ or unsold stock. Obviously, customers do not want to pick up ‘broken’ vegetables. Proper packaging would help to virtually eliminate store losses and they can reduce the mark ups. Proper handling and infrastructure will not add much to the final prices prevailing today. The farmer will get a higher price and the customer will get better quality, perhaps at the same price.
 

There is room to drop prices further, if we can succeed in investing in secondary processing. This means that we invest in making concentrates out of broken or mis-shapen vegetables or fruits that do not get sold—make jams, dehydrated produce, etc. Of course, all of this calls for high investment.
 

It is heartening to see that the government has announced so many schemes for subsidies in this sector. However, obtaining them is a nightmare. The funny thing is that, to get hold of these subsidies, one needs a bank loan sanction first. Forms and project reports are required to be given to the agency doling out the subsidy. In about three to six months a Letter of Intent is issued. Before this is obtained, one cannot start any work on the project.  

Banks are shy to lend to the farmer and prefer ‘personal’ guarantees and/or ‘urban’ collateral. Farm land is not considered to be an ‘enforceable’ security. Banks have lost a lot of money lending to the farmer at the behest of the government and have been continually writing off loans. More importantly, the agricultural loans department in public sector banks have never seen a balance sheet. They have merely lent against land, gold or real estate.
 

Tomorrow: The impact of FDI in retail at the other end of the supply chain—the actual retailers—will be discussed.
 

(The author can be reached at [email protected].)

User

COMMENTS

Dr Anantha K Ramdas

4 years ago

Thank you mr Balakrishnan for your first hand report on the subject. Like you, my experience is practical in a metropolis like Bangalore.

When I go to main market, kind of secondary whole sale market, I get the best rates in town; for weekly purchases I have tried Big bazaar, tatas, reliance and Hopcoms besides Spar, all of which are supermarkets, not in the same size as not in the same league as Wallmart, Shoppers, Grand Supermarket or the Korean market in Washington, which was last posting before I came back.

Yet, what I find is that today's rates (wednesday) of Big bazaar are cheaper than the rest; Spencers (goenkas) sold tomatoes at Rs 7.50 a kg on 7th whereas I paid Rs 9.50 to Reliance today (10/10). Like this, price varies widely, while the veg cart vendor still sells at Rs 19/20 per kg when he knocks our door at home.

The point is that the farmer does not even get Rs 3 per kg which is where I feel bad and sad, but I am helplessly placed liked 1000s who want a fair deal for the farmer.

What we need, as a start, apart from what you have mentioned, is the starting of a "Farmers weekly market" when we must encourage the farmers to bring the produce and sell, so that they can get good return.

If FDI-Retail can ensure a direct and better payment to farmer, and, as a starting point for the goodwill, they must actually buy the produce at the production point, pay a better price than the blood sucking intermediaries and bring the goods to the cities.

They must also build large warehouses, have cold storage facilities and truck materials down to cities. Besides, as a service to the farmer, they must also stock fertilizers, seeds and agricultural implements and give them on credit to farmers, or even arrange for a sort of barter for settlement by buying their produce. These may look Utopian, but this sort of thing is bound to happen soon.

Please do write on the subject
in greater detail of your first hand experience.

REPLY

R Balakrishnan

In Reply to Dr Anantha K Ramdas 4 years ago

Dear Dr Ramdas,
Many thanks for your observations.
Price difference between malls is a normal phenomenon. Some malls sell quality and some focus on price. When they focus on quality, they pay a higher price. Higher price because from what the farmer gives to the wholesaler, a portion is not accepted by the mall. This can be 20 to 30 percent. This rejects are sold in bulk at ridiculous rates to caterers or left to rot. The other issue is one of what the stores call as “dump”. Each customer picks and chooses and some part of it is unsalable or ‘dump’. The store has to price this in also.
The solution to this is retail packaging (half to one kg packs) and cold storage at every leg, right from harvest to the shop shelves. This is the big gap in infrastructure that I am talking about. All of this costs big money. A refrigerated truck can cost between Rs. 40 and Rs.50 per km of transport. Then there is the question of rejects that cannot go in to the package. A kg of vegetables from, say Kodai or Ooty would cost upwards of five to eight rupees a kg merely to get it in good shape to the customer.
For use of wastage or rejects, there are only two solutions. One is to set up downstream units for producing juices, concentrates or jams etc. Again a very high investment is called for. The second is to sell cut vegetables. However, the average Indian will not buy cut vegetables. The other thing is that if a vegetable is broken or mis-shapen, the customer does not buy. Same vegetable, same quality but no buyer will buy it.
As regards the farmer, his problem is one of the uneconomic size of his land holding. On half to one acre, a single harvest failure will kill him. Also, he does not know what he will get till he actually sells the harvest. The way forward is that large organised processors come in and engage them in contract farming and move to a uniform pricing through the year. That will give some stability of revenue to the farmer. In a community farming enterprise, the farmer will be given inputs the price of which could be adjusted from his harvest. The other issue with small farmers is their reluctance to adapt to new methods of farming. It is a long process and not easy. Also, the land holding of many farmers is as low as a tenth of an acre!
However, it is still possible that on an acre of land in horticulture, a farmer could earn around twenty to thirty thousand rupees per month.
The major reform needed is in land. Consolidation of land holdings could happen either through a cooperative movement or by giving the land on contract farming. Contract farming does not mean that the farmer will have no work. He will continue as before, with inputs coming his way and a selling price assurance.
Buying produce at production point is a massive task. The buyer needs his infrastructure near the farmer. Harvest has to be loaded directly to cold vans, taken for cleaning, sorting, grading and packing. A full cold chain is required to ensure that the shelf life is better and quality is not spoilt.
The key to farmers getting better price is to avoid the present system of the mandi operator, who manipulates prices, takes commissions from buyer and seller and has no storage or transport infrastructure. The APMC Act is another monster. State governments use it only to collect a fee on the produce sold through their yards, which do not provide any infrastructure. This system has not worked and there is no point in keeping this law.
FDI with foreign names will help in bringing in the infrastructure. More than the money part, they are needed to ensure that they bring in the processes.
More important, the government has to give the infrastructure. A cold chain needs uninterrupted power. We need good roads and no stoppages in movement of goods between borders. So, unless the government gets its act together, we cannot really bank on the hope of FDI bailing out the farmer and the customer.
Regards
Balakrishnan

MOHAN

In Reply to Dr Anantha K Ramdas 4 years ago

Marketing produce through self help groups

http://www.agriculturesnetwork.org/magaz...

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)