• GGI

Investments an Opportunity: Make in India for the World


Introduction


As India embarked on the path of Atmanirbharta (self-reliance) in the pandemic-stricken 2020, PM Modi’s Make in India program was further accelerated, thereby motivating efforts to make India an attractive destination for FDI in manufacturing. Foreign Direct Investment, that is defined as an investment reflecting a lasting interest and control by a foreign investor that is resident in one economy, in an enterprise that is resident in another economy, has a positive relationship with a country’s GDP and opens various avenues for a country’s growth.


India’s FDI inflows comprised 3%[1] of the total FDI inflows globally and stood at a growth rate[2] of 16% year-in-year (YoY) in 2019[3]. Globally, over the last decade, a growing number of foreign companies began shifting their business operations to India or Southeast Asian countries in response to increased labor costs in China. Additionally, the US-China trade war rendered a shift in the U.S. supply chain towards other countries due to a substantial increase in the cost of imported Chinese goods. Thereafter, there has been a focus on shifting supply chains. With the COVID-19 pandemic, countries that diversified their international supplies in response to the US-China trade war were comparatively less negatively impacted. With the global movement in manufacturing, India poses as a lucrative destination for global players.


This paper has been written with the objective the interventions that can be taken to attract more FDI in manufacturing. For this purpose, this paper covers India’s capabilities as a seeker of FDI, at the same time lists down existing resources and possible areas for improvement. Starting with a regional overview, the paper goes through investment policies, flows and market trends of countries that are major getters and givers of FDI in the global scenario as well as with respect to India. The paper then places focus on a sectoral overview, outlining the contributions, impact and relevance of 10 sectors in the Indian market with respect to FDI in manufacturing. Finally, the paper undertakes a deep-dive into the various aspects of FDI in manufacturing including raw material availability, investment promotion, industrial infrastructure among others and the trends and impact thereof.


With some sectors and FDI components performing better than others, a detailed analysis of India’s sectoral, regional and procedural nuances can help in finding a strategic response to India’s growing need for FDI in manufacturing.


Global Outlook

This section of the paper aims to explore the spread of FDI across geographies and identify the broad trends influencing and dictating the world FDI flows. Taking into consideration the top destinations, top contributors & industrialization competitiveness worldwide as well as within Asia and further regional overview on Southeast Asia, US, Europe, Japan, Taiwan, Korea and China has been undertaken. Study on the share of FDI in these regions, major investment sectors, key factors, recent trends and initiatives affecting FDI have been outlined under the respective region overview.


Global FDI flows stood at US$1.54 trillion in 2019 with around 52% invested in developed countries and 45% in developing countries[1]. In 2019, Top 5 destinations for FDI were the U.S., China, Singapore, Netherlands and Ireland while the largest contributors to FDI were Japan, US, Netherlands, China & Germany.


The global disruption caused by COVID-19 in 2020 has led to a dramatic fall in FDI with Global FDI flows forecasted to go down by up to 40% in 2020, from their 2019 value. By 2021 FDIs are projected to further decrease by 5-10% and an initiation in recovery is anticipated in 2022[2]. Overall, developed economies saw the biggest fall (75%) due to significant negative inflows in European economies (mainly Switzerland & Netherlands) and the US. Decrease in FDI flows to developing economies (16%) was less than anticipated, mainly due to resilient investment.


Industries that are global value chain (GVC) intensive, under manufacturing sector, such as automotive and textiles, were hit early on by supply chain disruptions i.e., less fragmented production processes across geographies; their revised earnings stand at half their original forecast. Withdrawal of US$83 billion by investors from developing countries (largest capital outflow ever recorded), 40% decrease in earnings of 5,000 Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) (which account for most of global FDI), 50% drop in greenfield investment projects & cross-border M&As are also some of the severe impacts of COVID-19 on Global FDI[3].


The impact of the pandemic on FDI is threefold as it has proved to be a shock on the supply, demand and policy side. Investors viewing to diversify supply bases, shorter value chains attracting more investment in distributed manufacturing and final-goods production and digital infrastructure and platforms to improve bottom-up access to GVCs could be the possible opportunities arising from this global crisis. A slow recovery is expected, as in many instances, cross-border business ties need to be re-established since investors are more risk averse investing abroad than at home and also due to a number of complicated operations and logistics challenges involved in restarting production in a foreign country.

The countries selected in the above graph are the top 15 global FDI investors, making up 74% of world FDI outflow and 71% of Indian FDI inflow.


Through this graph, countries that have invested lower proportions of their global outflow into India have been identified.


A few countries: Germany, China, Netherlands, Japan and the U.S., are significant contributors of FDI globally, but only contribute a small percentage to India. This presents as an opportunity to target more investments from these countries.


United States

The FDI inflow into the United States increased by US$331.2 billion to US$4.46 trillion at the end of 2019[1], mainly as a result of increase in the position from Asia-Pacific (primarily Japan). The top five contributors were Japan, United Kingdom, Canada, Netherlands and Germany. By industry, manufacturing, finance and insurance accounted for the largest increases.[2] FDI outflow increased to US$5.96 trillion at the end of 2019[3], led by an increase in the position in Europe (primarily the United Kingdom and Netherlands) led by manufacturing affiliates.


The U.S. - China trade war began in 2016, with retaliatory tariff impositions from both sides between July 2018 and August 2019. This led to bankruptcies for many farmers, recession in manufacturing and transport sectors, reduced profit margins for U.S. companies and also widening trade deficits with the EU, Mexico, Japan, South Korea etc. as a result of diverted trade - increased exports of motor vehicles, computer and electronic devices from Mexico, transport equipment and machinery from the EU and electrical equipment and machinery from Taiwan. Yet, there is no evidence of a large-scale relocation of U.S. business away from China (as per the 2020 China Business Report from the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai), notably due to unmatched advantages in infrastructure, logistics and skilled labor.


With a move towards “economic decoupling” with China initiated by the U.S., a growing post-pandemic anti-China sentiment and a diversification of global supply chains beyond China due to cost advantages, India presents itself as an attractive alternative in investors’ ‘China + 1’ strategy. The FDI from the U.S. to India has crossed the US$40 billion mark in 2020 so far[4], reflecting the growing confidence of American companies like Google, Facebook and Walmart in the country.


Europe

FDI flows into EU countries increased by 14% to US$ 473 billion in 2019.[5] Between 2015 and 2019, 52% of investment in Europe came from within Europe itself. Before the pandemic, investment was strong in France and Spain but global tensions, Brexit uncertainty and subdued economic growth caused it to increase only a decent amount. [6]


In 2019, investment in France rocketed 17% doing the best out of all countries, that gathered pace in 2017 as a direct result of President Macaron’s reforms - relaxed labor laws, and deferral of corporate and payroll taxation, which were well received by domestic and international investors alike[7]. Indian companies significantly increased their investment/reinvestment in France in 2018-19.[8] FDI inflows in Germany, Europe’s largest economy, decreased by almost 50% in 2019 mainly due to uncertainty caused by Brexit, US tax reforms, a tight labor market, high tax rates, and stagnation in the automotive industry.[9] German FDI outflows chiefly include Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Italy.[10] Despite Brexit related uncertainties, UK FDI in 2019 experienced a 5% increase depicting that long term investment projects in the country will not suffer and FDI will continue to boost.


Over the years, Eastern European countries have come to be considered as ‘getters’ of FDI while the western counties are considered ‘givers. But FDI in Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs) have also been attracting FDI especially, Hungary, Poland and Czech Republic because of proximity to Western Europe and EU enlargement with its institutional unification in many economic areas.[11] In 2019, almost US$13.6 billion FDI came into Poland and some Polish cities ranked high in the entire EU in terms of FDI performance, accessibility to technology, business friendliness and ecological viability. Poland also has the reputation of the ‘Silicon Valley of Europe’ with investments coming in from Google and Microsoft. Inexpensive labor costs and the new silk route in Silesia are added advantages of the region.[12]


Japan

Japan is the largest investor in the world with an FDI outflow of US$227 billion[13], accounting for 17.25% of the world’s total FDI outflow, in 2019. Europe (Switzerland, Germany), Asia (Singapore, China, Indonesia, Thailand) & North America (U.S.) are the top destinations and have received 80% of Japan’s FDI since 1996. On an average 40-45% of the investments are being made in the manufacturing sector and 60% in the Non-manufacturing sector with chemicals & pharmaceutical, transport equipment and electrical machinery emerging as the top 3 sectors under manufacturing[14].


In 2019, investment by Japanese multinationals grew by 58%, due to an increase in cross-border mergers and acquisitions from US$36 billion to US$104 billion and as investments in Europe and North America doubled[15]. Increased investment in these two regions can be attributed to the EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) enforced in 2019 and favorable bilateral US-Japan relations.


There are an estimated 30,000 Japanese companies that have production bases in China, making China a major production hub[16]. The near total shutdown of China's factories in February 2020 exposed the over dependence of Japan on China. As a measure to diversify and build a stable supply chain, Japan's Ministry of Economy has allocated US$221 million in 2020 as a subsidy to encourage companies to disperse their manufacturing sites across ASEAN region, Indian and Bangladesh[17]. A shift in Japanese investment from the developed countries to newly emerging economies will thus be witnessed in the coming years. Japan’s FDI in India is predominantly in the manufacturing sector (60-70%) and particularly in transport equipment manufacturing[18]


Southeast Asia

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) inflows into ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) increased for the third consecutive year in 2019, reaching an all-time high level of US$161 billion[19] (Singapore - 57%, Indonesia - 15%, Vietnam - 10%, Malaysia - 5%, The Philippines - 5%). ASEAN as a whole receives three times the FDI that flows into India.


Countries such as Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia have introduced tax breaks and initiatives to improve the ease of doing business whereas Vietnam, Singapore, and Cambodia have accelerated business reforms, such as executing free trade agreements (FTAs), and double taxation agreements (DTAs). China and ASEAN enacted an updated free trade agreement in October 2020. The revised deal "lowered the hurdle on rules of origin, currency, services, investments and other fields, doubling down on the advantages of a free trade agreement"


China is rapidly building a new supply chain in Southeast Asia as the conflict with Washington shuts access to U.S. technology. American tariffs on Chinese-made goods have sped the shift of contract manufacturing to ASEAN countries, such as Vietnam and Thailand. A recent survey by AmCham Shanghai revealed that more than one-third of the 430[20]United States companies in China have moved or are considering moving production bases elsewhere to mitigate the effects of the higher tariffs with 18.5% planning to move to Southeast Asia and only 6.3% to Indian Subcontinent.

FDI into ASEAN is expected to continue its upward trend, driven by progress in regional integration, dynamic industrial development with new growth opportunities from production links with and shifts in production from China.


Taiwan

FDI inflows to Taiwan totaled US$8 billion in 2019, an increase from US$7 billion in 2018[21]. The most prominent investors excluding Mainland China (27.2 %) are the Netherlands (15%), the British Virgin Islands (20%), Japan (8%) and Germany (3%) with the electronics, renewable energy, technology and manufacturing being the key domains for investments[22].The Taiwanese government's efforts at controlling the virus and stimulating consumption, complemented by factors such as a skilled and affordable workforce, robust R&D capabilities and its location in the global supply chain and as a convenient link to the ASEAN markets have been established.


Economic prosperity from industrial gains enabled Taiwan to outsource manufacturing offshore, with prime destinations, as of 2018, being China (44%), followed British Overseas Territories in the Caribbean (28.433), Singapore (4.3%), U.S. (4%) and Vietnam (3.3%). IT/electronic manufacturing accounted for 29.6% of Taiwan’s non-financial outward FDI flows in 2017, far higher than the wholesale and retail industry, which in second place accounted for 16.2%.[23]


South Korea

The South Korean economy, despite being the 11th largest economy in the world, is characterized by the influence of domestic conglomerates or chaebols. The Republic of Korea has witnessed diminishing FDI inflows in the last three years, with US$10.5 billion recorded in 2019, a 13% decline from US$12.2 billion in 2018.[24] Investments from primary investors (the U.S. and Japan) fell in the first quarter of 2020. The decrease can be attributed to the end of tax privileges for foreign investors in 2018, the high costs of labor and operations and the South Korea-Japan trade disputes over export control regulations.


In 2019, South Korea invested US$49.33 billion in net FDI outflows, an increase of 18.4% from US$41.65 billion the previous year, in net FDI outflows with major destinations being US (23.9%), the Cayman Islands (13.1%), China (9.4%), Vietnam (7.2%) and Singapore (4.9%). Top sectors receiving the FDI outflows were finance and insurance (40.5%), manufacturing (29.7%), real estate & renting (11.2%), mining (4.1%), and wholesale and retail (3.3%)[25]. Due to the decline in exports caused by the US-China trade war, South Korea has invested significantly in electronics and manufacturing in emerging markets like Vietnam, accounting for 20% of Vietnam’s FDI in 2018.[26] However, South Korean FDI to India in FY20 was estimated to drop down to US$777 million from about US$982 million in FY19.[27]


China

Looking at the Jan-Oct period in 2020,FDI inflows to China has seen an YoY growth of 6.4 percent36 and it currently amounts to US$115 billion. The year started off on a negative note with a sharp month on month decline in inflows between Dec’19 and Jan’20. However, starting from Jan till Oct, China has seen a steady rise in FDI inflows. There’s strong interest from BRI countries into China, whereby investment from BRI countries went up by 7.9[28] per cent in the first four months of 2020, and steady investment growth from ASEAN countries into China which also rose by 13% in the first quarter of 2020, following amendments of the China-ASEAN free trade agreement. In the face of growing anti-China sentiment owing to the US China trade war and Covid-19, China is introducing friendlier FDI policies in order to retain its FDI attractivity.


China, with close to 2 billion potential customers, is the largest internal market in the world. It also has a well-developed manufacturing and heavy industry sector. A number of policy reforms such as tax cuts, reduced trade tariffs, streamlined customer clearance and overall ease in FDI approval have further accelerated the growth of FDI space in China over the years. However, on the other hand, an ever-changing regulatory environment, poor intellectual property rights protection and production overcapacity in a number of sectors have weakened China’s FDI attractivity time and again. The Chinese government has discretionary policies in place when it comes to FDI regulations. For a lot of sectors, China wishes to achieve global competitiveness through its domestic companies and thus discourages FDI in those sectors. It also is hesitant towards FDI inflows in industries that are resource intensive and heavy contributors in pollution. On the other hand, the Chinese government encourages FDI inflows in the high-tech sector, service sector, recycling and renewable energy space.


FDI Trends in India


Regional Trends

In 2019, India was the ninth largest recipient of FDI with US$50.55 billion worth of inflows[29], capturing 2.3% of the total world FDI inflows. Despite the detrimental global impact of COVID-19, FDI into India rose by 11.34% during April-September 2020 as against that in the same period in 2019. Relaxation in FDI policy reforms, investment facilitation and ease of doing business are some of the factors causing this upward trend. Over the years Mauritius, Singapore, Netherlands, the U.S., Japan have emerged as the top 5 investors in India contributing more than 70% to India’s total FDI inflows[30].


Since 2018, Singapore has surpassed Mauritius as the top source of FDI contributing 30% to the total FDI into India because of its ease of doing business policies, simplified tax regime and a large number of private investors[31]. While Mauritius’s contribution has fallen from 35% to 17% over this period. Netherland’s investment into India has been stable over the years (a trend which is likely to continue in the coming years as well) as it considers India as its key strategic partner both economically and geopolitically. It emerged as the third largest FDI source in India during 2019 and contributed 13% to the total FDI into India. Till 2019, the United States remained at 4th position contributing around 8% to the total India FDI inflow. However, FDI into India crossed US$40 billion from January 2020 to July 2020 alone, reflecting growing confidence of American corporations in the country[32]. Japanese FDI into India is also expected to observe an upswing as Japanese companies are looking to disperse their manufacturing sites and as India has emerged as one of the most attractive investment destinations in recent surveys conducted by the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC).


However, these figures might not represent the most accurate bilateral FDI between these countries and India as two-thirds of the FDI flowing into India is through third-party countries[33]. This is due to incentives like Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) between India and countries like Mauritius and Singapore. In fact, Cayman Islands being a preferred jurisdiction for routing investments due to the absence of direct tax costs has emerged as one of the top investors in India in 2019-20[34] (contributing 7% in 2019).


State Trends


States receiving the highest share of FDI inflow are Maharashtra, Delhi, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. These states attract more than 80% of the country's FDI. In Oct’19 - Mar’20, Maharashtra garnered the highest share of FDI at 30% with investments amounting to US$7.26 billion followed by Karnataka and Delhi with 18% and 17% of the share, respectively[35].


Industrialization, urbanization, better infrastructure facilities, connectivity to major transport hubs, ease of doing business, higher economic growth & employment opportunities and importantly, presence of existing base of foreign firms are some of the factors due to which FDI continues to be the highest in these states.


Karnataka and Gujarat have seen a significant rise in FDI and grew by 34% and 240% respectively in 2019-20[36]. In the COVID-19 affected months these states have surpassed Maharashtra as the top receiver of FDI. This significant rise can be attributed to reforms initiated in the areas of labor, power and land approval by the State Governments.


Investment in other states has also seen a positive trend; West Bengal, Sikkim and Andaman & Nicobar recorded a combined FDI of US$1.2 billion in 2018-19, against US$218 million a year ago, a near six-time jump. FDI in Punjab, Chandigarh, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh together rose exponentially from a mere US$6 million in 2016-17 to US$108 million in 2017-18 and US$618 million in 2018-19[37].


Sectoral Trends


According to the Quarterly FDI fact sheet released by RBI, for the time period between Apr 2019 to Mar 2020, the FDI inflow into India is US$34.5 billion[38]. Of this, the services sector (including tech, outsourcing, financial, banking, insurance, non-financial business etc.) forms the major chunk at 17%, followed by computer software and hardware at 10%. Telecommunications, trading, construction development (includes townships, housing, construction development projects etc.), automobile, chemical fertilizers stand at 8%, 6%, 5%, 5% and 4% respectively. Other sectors such as infrastructure activities, drugs and pharmaceuticals and tourism at 3% each[39].


Through this whitepaper we are studying the major trends in the 10 major manufacturing sectors in India (Electronics, Telecommunication, Capital Goods, Textiles, Food Processing, Pharmaceuticals, Medical Devices, Auto Components, Chemicals, Oil & Gas and IT BPM). As part of the research for each of the sectors, FDI inflows potential, central and state government efforts, proposed steps for sector’s growth etc. has been covered. Through our study we intend to find major priority sectors where the government can intervene and put efforts to attract foreign investments for better FDI inflows.

Sectoral Overview*


Suggested Interventions to attract more FDI in Manufacturing


Through detailed analysis on top manufacturing sectors in India, global best practices and major areas that directly impact investments, the whitepaper has chalked out 39 suggestions which the Government of India could consider to make India an even more attractive investment destination of India.


The broad areas under which the suggestions are listed are: Industrial Infrastructure, Regulatory Environment, Ease of Doing Business, Incentives and Schemes, Free Trade Agreements, Raw material/ Supply Chain availability and Investor Support Mechanisms.


Industrial Infrastructure


Industrial Infrastructure is developed by establishing industrial - zones, parks, clusters & corridors. Land plots developed in these zones provide common integrated infrastructure such as transportation, power/energy, communications, water supply, waste management etc. in combination with unique tariff & tax reliefs, land & labor regulations, EXIM subsidies etc.


Better Infrastructure to attract FDI has witnessed a growing importance in developing countries as any advantage offered by cheap labor could be offset by poor infrastructure.

Key industrial infrastructure initiatives in India -


● Special Economic Zones (SEZ) – 262 no.

● National Investment & Manufacturing zones (NIMZ) – 3 no.

● Modified Electronics Manufacturing Clusters (EMC) – 20 no.

● Mega Food Park – 37 no.

● Bulk Drug Parks, Medical Device Parks

● Chemical industrial clusters & Plastic Parks

● Integrated Textile Parks – 59 no.

● Bonded Warehouse scheme

● Japanese Industrial Townships – 12 no.

● Industrial/Freight Corridor


India plans to spend $ 1.4 trillion during 2019-23 on infrastructure[1]. India has been able to plug $ 100-110 billion annually into infrastructure development but faces a gap of $ 90 billion annually[2]. To achieve the target set for 2019-23 and to close the yearly gap, adequate private and foreign investment will be crucial.


As an initiative towards providing insight and clarity to investors, Invest India in collaboration with JLL India has identified 10 thematic mega clusters covering 100 industrial parks, 600 Indian and foreign multinational firms across 9 states (Maharashtra, Chennai, Hyderabad, UP, Delhi, Bangalore, Gujarat, Rajasthan)[3]. Focus on upgradation of common facilities, connectivity of existing industrial infrastructure & provision of Industrial Information System with GIS mapping outlining land bank details & ranking are also some of the recent initiatives announced by the government of India to attract both foreign & domestic investments[4].


As part of the National Industrial Corridor Programme, 11 industrial corridors have been taken up for development across India & are expected to be developed by 2040[5]. The programme is aimed to position India as one of the best manufacturing destinations by providing multi-modal connectivity, plug-and-play infrastructure, building smart cities and connecting major industrial & logistic hubs. Bharatmala, Sagarmala Pariyojna & Dedicated Freight Corridor are also planned to further enhance connectivity in India.


Though there is no one-size-fits-all method for industrial development, India can learn from countries which have transformed from agrarian economies to industrialized economies e.g., South Korea, China, Taiwan etc. Considering the fierce competition between emerging countries for FDI, it is important to study industrial development across the ASEAN region. Few of the best practices in industrial development are:


Like South Korea, India could also set up a central specialized agency for management of Industrial parks or enhance the role of existing State Industrial/ Infrastructural Development Corporations. Korea Industrial Complex Corporation manages and supervises industrial complexes across the country. As assistance to investors, they provide support for moving into industrial complexes & help in mapping job seekers to relevant companies and industry sites[6]. The primary role of the existing agencies in India is currently restricted to land allocation, acquisition, provision of infrastructure facilities etc. Offering comprehensive support services (e.g.- mapping job seekers to companies in industrial complexes, developing an energy management system to support resident firms in meeting international environmental standards) would help keep planned sites attractive to investors and fully occupied.


China, Taiwan and Thailand’s plug-and-play model provide ‘rental factories’ supported by ready-built infrastructure facilities and regulatory approvals already in place (eg- Plug & play model for power project – existing coal and gas linkages along with approved regulatory clearances). With countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan looking to shift bases from China to India, it is important that India develops such competitive facilities. It would considerably reduce start-up investment costs, financial risk & enable investors to get their business up and running within no time.


● India could plan Industrial Cities rather than industrial zones in strategic locations i.e., in proximity to port facilities and coastal areas, as developed in China and South Korea. SEZs in China (e.g.- Shenzhen SEZ) are built as Mega cities as compared to much smaller and closed enclaves-like SEZs in India. Larger zones gain from spillover effect as they attract clusters of businesses, encourage knowledge transfers from foreign to domestic companies, and spread employment, infrastructure and development to neighboring regions. Exclusive foreign industrial complexes and foreign investment zones have also been introduced in South Korea to attract FDI.


Eco-Industrial Parks: India can include elements of eco-industrial parks in its industrial planning. In addition to the environmental benefits, efficient allocation of resources, increased productivity, transfer of technology, increased collaboration are some of the benefits. E.g.- Ethiopia’s Hawassa Eco-Industrial park provides state-of-the-art zero liquid-discharge common-effluent treatment plant, which enables the cleaning and recycling of 90% of the water in the park and minimizes its impact on surrounding soil salinity, groundwater and river bodies. Development of environmentally sustainable zone attracted multitude of international investors & now accounts for 50% of the total exports from industrial parks in Ethiopia.

Investor Support Mechanisms

Successful promotion and retention of investment requires a well-planned, effective institutional set-up in line with national priorities. Support mechanisms like creation of focal points/contacts for guiding investors and resolving disputes or softer measures to engage with investors and build a positive image are becoming increasingly important. These activities can be carried out by a single institutional body or distributed between different arms of the government. In recent years, Investment Promotion Agencies (IPAs) have become popular for bridging the gap between the government and investors.


Invest India, India’s National IPA was mandated in 2015 to act as the single point of contact for international investors. By mid-2019, it had responded to 193,000 business requests (92% answered within 72 hours) and generated a project pipeline of US$138 billion, of which an estimated US$22.7 billion had been executed by 2019[7]. It won the United Nations’ Investment Promotion Award for best-practice IPA in 2016, sustainable development investments in 2019 and for post-pandemic support in 2020. Invest India recently won the UN Investment Promotion Award in recognition of the host of services and information offered to investors since the onset of the pandemic, notably the Business Immunity Platform[8] which offers services such as a COVID-19 help desk, information on central and state advisories and government support measures in light of the pandemic


India already has strong investor support mechanisms in play. However, there is scope for diversification of initiatives to compete with other top investment destinations.


· Facilitating investment by offering investors a red-carpet service and business matchmaking by mediating between domestic and foreign enterprises can create a more favorable investment environment. Korean IPA KOTRA offers a red-carpet service for foreign investors that includes immigration support and arranging transport, translation services, site visits and consultations. The Foreign Investment Ombudsman Office housing the Investment Aftercare Division responsible for grievance redressal has been highly beneficial in building investor confidence and long-term relationships. Japanese IPA JETRO’s Personal Advisor System and ‘Invest in Japan’ hotline for foreign companies assigns staff to identify their needs and respond to them, including providing market information, advice on business models, recruitment, office space etc. from experts. In Vietnam, investors are supported throughout the licensing and establishment process by various measures - pre-investment consultancy, representative office and branch registration, work permit registration and temporary resident card applications for workers. Their IPA also facilitates business matchmaking by arranging one-on-one meetings between buyers and sellers, drafting legal documents and verifying demands.


· A single window clearance system or a one-stop shop service via delegated authorities that provides certificates or clearances to foreign investors can help India match up to competitor emerging economies like Vietnam and Korea. KOTRA’s one-stop shop provides a host of services, notably issuance of foreign investment certificates and foreign-invested enterprise registration through a delegated authority.


· Post-establishment services can also be expanded to provide visa application and relocation support (searching for housing, schools etc.) and holding joint job fairs to help investors in domestic recruitment, as provided by KOTRA.


· Providing a navigable list of ready-built factories with details of leasable area, leasing price and period and infrastructure like water, electricity, roads and post and telecommunications can be helpful for investors scoping investment locations. The Invest Vietnam website provides a navigable list of ready-built factories with all such details.[9]


· Manufacturing, especially SMEs, can also benefit from more awareness and market creation initiatives like an e-marketplace to connect international buyers with domestic producers. Korean IPA KOTRA has set up a B2B e-market[10] to connect international buyers and Korean sellers and conduct business matchmaking activities. They also organize overseas exhibitions to spread awareness about Korean products and suppliers. This can be complemented by social media campaigns on the IPA profiles.


· Specific skill-building campaigns to encourage investment in priority sectors can also be another way to expand FDI. E.g., IDA Ireland, Ireland’s national IPA, partnered to develop courses for leadership and management training which provide an opportunity to upskill senior staff and develop an attractive workforce. The Rwanda Development Board has also entered into a public private partnership to provide language and other relevant training to the tourism and hospitality sectors.[11]


Incentives and Schemes

The Government of India offers multiple incentives and schemes at Federal and State level to boost FDI.

Further, a few schemes are also provided by the Central Government to boost sectors:

India wants to attract “mega investments” in manufacturing with tax incentives, but it will need more than that to compete with other emerging economies to gain from a shift in global supply chains While there is no one size fits all, India can take cues from global best practices.

  • Preferential tax rates such as offered by Vietnam for specific periods of time (For example - Rate of 10% within 15 years for new investment projects or Exemption of 100% of the tax payable in the first 4 years after their taxable income, 50% of the tax payable in the next 9 years). Special incentives on top can be offered to increase the tax exemption period for investment in targeted sectors. In China, tax concessions and special privileges are given for foreign investors in the form of reduced enterprise income tax rates and tax holidays. Additional benefits are available for export-oriented and advanced-technology FFEs, including tax exemptions on profit remittances, additional tax benefits for reinvested profits, and larger reductions in land use fees [1].Singapore also offers a number of tax incentives for companies active in target sectors including shipping, commodities trading, fund management and biotechnology. Belgium has generous tax breaks for R&D and investment in capital goods, as well as fiscal incentives for hiring employees [2]

  • India can also consider having a Relocation package as offered by Thailand to attract countries to quickly switch their new businesses from China to India. The package to offer - investment acceleration incentives, tax incentives, special economic zones, fiscal measures, manpower development, and deregulation.

  • In 2019, the government reduced the corporate tax rates and increased the supply side but failed to address the weakening demand. To address the issue of weak demand, the government could consider reduce income tax rates for individuals/ certain commodities.


Free Trade Agreements

India's merchandise trade stood at a trade deficit of $161.348 Bn in 2019-20, and a deficit of $42.624 Bn 20-21 April-November. The exports growth declined from -5% in 2019-20 to -18% in FY 2020-21 April-November [3], implying the underwhelming gains from over a dozen of in-effect FTAs. The services exports fared more beneficial generating surplus of US$55.62 billion in FY20-21 April-November.


India’s major FTAs include South Asia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA, 2006), India-ASEAN Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA,2010), India-Korea Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA,2010) and India-Japan CEPA (2011). With the exception of SAFTA where India experienced a trade surplus increase from US$4 billion in 2005-06 to US$21 billion in 2018-19, the other FTAs have largely resulted in continual trade deficit. With ASEAN, India’s trade deficit rose from less than $8 billion in 2009-10 to about $22 billion in 2018-19 while ASEAN’s share in India’s total trade deficit rose from about 7% to 12%[4] during the same period. In the case of the Indo-Korea CECA, from its inception to 2019, India’s imports increased at a CAGR of around 8%, the exports to Korea rose at a CAGR of less than 4%, while the trade deficit rose from US$5 billion to US$12 billion, resulting in Korea's share in India’s overall trade deficit to amount to about 6.5% [5]. The trend extends to Indo-Japan trade, where the bilateral trade deficit has grown from US$5.90 billion in 2016-17 to US$7.91 billion[6] in 2018-19. In November 2020, India pulled out of The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) over concerns like the trade imbalance with most RCEP nations, increased Chinese hegemony in the Asian Supply Chain, the Most Favored Nation policy and lack of consensus over the rules of origin and inclusion of the service sector.


India’s inability to optimize FTA benefits results from factors such as faulty rules of origin, higher compliance costs of availing export benefits, poorly negotiated bilateral terms, redundant agreements, and the inability of the manufacturing and agriculture to compete globally. While India’s exports to FTA partner nations remain similar to non-FTA nations, the imports however have been substantially higher owing to FTA relaxations.


The performance at exports closely affects the FDI inflow in developing economies like India, through factors such as capabilities development, production costs and market access. Vietnam, for instance, has leveraged the trade diversion caused by the US-China tensions optimally to expand its export and production abilities. The National Development Strategy for sustainable imports and exports has enabled Vietnam to generate US$500 billion [7] turnover from import-export activities, and achieve better trade balance. Vietnam has 12 in-effect FTAs such as ASEAN (AFTA), Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), EU-Vietnam FTA (EVFTA) alongside bilateral agreements with countries like Japan, Republic of Korea and Canada. The relaxed tariffs and lower to negligible import duties on raw materials has enabled greater competitive advantage on production and export of items such as wooden goods, electronics, textiles and footwear. In the most recent EVFTA, Vietnam has managed to secure free trade with its second largest export market and a pivotal investor, leading to greater investments in the manufacturing and industrial processing sector from EU, facilitated by easier trade of goods and the investor-state dispute settlement provisions under the EU- Vietnam Investment Protection Agreement (EUVIPA). Another example of strategic utilization of FTAs is Mexico, which in 2018 recorded trade growth is 4.77% compared to a world growth of 3.50%[8]. Mexico, with 14 in effect FTAs, has access to about 50 countries, including the U.S., Canada, EU, UK, Japan, Israel, Chile, Colombia and El Salvador. Access to markets like the US and EU has also brought significant investments from Germany, Japan, Spain and Belgium, primarily in the manufacturing sector. Low-cost trade across extended geographies has brought multinationals like IBM, Motorola and P&G into Mexico. Reviewing and revising trade norms has played a key role in Mexico’s continued gains from FTAs, exemplified in the EU-Mexico FTA revision which nearly eliminated all duties on trade or the new UK-Mexico trade agreement following the Brexit. A similar prolific trade network cost effective imports, upscaling of manufacturing and agriculture sector and well calculated and up-to-date free trade norms are areas for India to focus upon, to emerge significant in the global supply chain.

India can best station itself in the new global supply chains by leveraging free trade to play to its export strengths and import requirements.

India’s major free trade agreements currently leave out the top trade partners such as U.S., Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia and UAE. India could gain significantly from extending FTAs to its top markets and exporters in the form of reduced import duties for raw materials in manufacturing, alongside easier low-tariff market access to divert manufactured goods into. Like Vietnam and Mexico, which have recently signed FTAs with EU and UK respectively, India should negotiate FTAs with markets like the EU and the U.S., that establish India as a gateway to these markets and draw in further investments into the manufacturing sector.


· Weighing parameters of Trade Complementarity and readiness of domestic capabilities before opening markets can help India perform better Impact Assessment of potential FTAs, eventually preventing import surges and steep deficits. The lack of readiness of agriculture and manufacturing sector, and the competition for trade of similar goods has prevented India from harnessing export concessions awarded in the FTAs, as demonstrated in the ASEAN-India FTA in sectors such Plastics, Mineral products and auto components.

· Re-strategizing of upcoming FTAs, and renegotiation and revision of existing FTAs should carefully consider:

- Rules of Origin: Stricter regulations and scrutinization of rules of origin that do not allow fraudulent claims or under invoicing of production materials.

- Exit Clauses: Pre-formulated exit clauses, which are non-existent with India’s FTAs with ASEAN and Japan, can provide advantage in re-negotiations in non-strategic agreements.

· India's Non-Tariff Measures (NTMs) import coverage ratio (extent of NTM impact on imports) is 45.52% which is way lesser than the world’s average coverage ratio for imports of 71.98% [9]. India should actively take into dialogue the unequal non-tariff barriers that add to costs of exporters and prevent utilization of FTAs for itself in free trade negotiations.

· India should push for greater inclusion and firmer concessions in free trade for the Services sector that can enable Indian IT-BPM/BFSI personnel to qualify for projects in partner markets.


Regulatory Framework

The regulatory framework for investments in India can essentially be divided into Central and State-level regulations wherein processes from registration to record-keeping may differ from state-to-state especially in cases of state subjects like land and labour. The Centre covers business licenses, up to 27 different kinds of inspections, reporting requirements and environmental clearances for petrochemical complexes, dyes, cement fertilizers etc. that render maximum delays in the country.


There are two types of FDI routes laid out by the government: one is the Automatic Route that requires no prior approval from government entities, and the second is the Approval Route wherein approvals are needed from the RBI and the government. Foreign Investment Facilitation Portal (FIFP) facilitates single window clearance of applications through the approval route.


In terms of procedures in India, there are several different clearances and licenses required for different parts of setting up a business. For instance, in case of small businesses, one needs to get a trade license from the local municipal authority, followed by a Udyog Aadhar - a 12-digit Unique Identification Number provided by the Ministry of MSME, MSME registration and then respective state licenses. In case of a food and packaging related business such as spices, one also needs to acquire the following in addition to the aforementioned - a Food Business License/FSSAI, a Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) Certification, Agriculture Marketing (Agmark) Certification, Information Education Communication awareness (IEC) and compliance with the Fruit Products Order (FPO) regulation. Then, in the case of the environment, several different regulations apply. If approved, by the State Pollution and Control Boards (SPCB) a No Objection Certificate is issued to the investor which is valid for 15 years. This process can also involve a public hearing in some cases. In case of water related matters, along with SPCB, the Ground Water Authority (CGNA) are also involved that check the rainwater to groundwater levels. Additionally, for plastic waste, there is a uniform waste management framework the set-up of which is still underworks. This framework will eventually include a web portal to monitor the implementation of Extended Producers Responsibility (EPR) and compliance of registration related activities.


Despite the presence of several digital platforms such as FIFP for easy procedural investor journeys a one-stop digital national portal was still needed that integrates the existing clearance systems. For this purpose, a single window clearance system is underway, prepared to be launched in March 2021 that aims to provide investors easy access to policy makers at the central and state level with an objective of improving ease of doing business. This system would allow importers and exporters to lodge their clearance documents at one single point.


India still poses numerable hurdles to foreign investors and the country can take some steps to improve on its current position in the global market, in the following ways:

· Less Procedures/Licenses and Delays: There are growing concerns over environment, security, safety, public health, and other issues, which make the regulatory framework in India more complex with multiple clearances from multiple or a single authority along with delays and corruption. The current 50 or so licenses required for almost each business can be reduced to 10 and an agreement or contract covering the remaining can be drafted for the businessperson to read and sign. Additionally, a single organization can be assigned the task to approve, provide licenses and certifications in a certain field like pollution or food. Much like the United States Food & Drug Association (FDA) that covers all types of foods, drugs, medicinal devices, biological products and cosmetics etc. under one organization. FDA conducts ‘stability tests’ and provides approvals to investors thereby reducing the time and effort spent on seeking clearances from various authorities. India can also take inspiration from Singapore in ease of procedures such as facilitation of construction permits and fast payment of cheap taxes.

· The State-Centre Conflict - Although the Central government plays no direct role in determining the state to which FDI goes, the State-Centre relations in a federal structure play a role in creating perceptions about the relative political risk involved in different investment destinations. If an FDI destination is a state other than Centre’s affiliated states, the regulation procedures should be as seamless as they are on the Central level. As some subjects are state matters, including pollution, land, and labour, several states enact their own legislation besides major cities that come under the Centre. This difference in authority can often lead to social unrest especially in environmental concerns, giving all the more reason for careful handling. Additionally, Centre is often known to encroach upon states’ powers with the impetus of the ambiguity around Article 131. Strong business leaders as political participants can help state and centre be motivated to work in unison for the purpose of providing ease to the investor.

· Clearer communication - Concerned ministries and the DPIIT release press notes and declarations in light of amendments, interventions and guidelines towards FDI. These documents have been noted to be ambiguous, containing unclear wording, leading to wrongful interpretation. The government can choose to have parallel channels to explain regulations better. The UK government adopted a strategic communication model based on the principle of transparency called ‘open by default’ to make citizens and officials communicate better. The country also runs a government centric blog called GDS - Government Digital Service and has a Government Communications Service Evaluation Framework. the government can train staff, inculcate digital communication practices and work with sectoral specialists to make jargon-free, less complex communication easily accessible.

· Development/Automation of compliance processes - With the setup of digital portals like FIFP and the upcoming single window clearance, processes are working in a quicker manner. But there are new regulations declared that remain underworks for long periods of time such as the single window clearance system or the plastic waste management processes. Australia, one of the countries that successfully moved digital, fully implemented the following measures under the CrossBorder Paperless Trade categories: (i) Laws and regulations for electronic transactions; (ii) Recognized certification authority; and (iii) Traders apply for letters of credit electronically from banks or insurers without lodging paper-based documents. Taking adequate steps to set up systems and get them up and running well in time can help the government attract investors.

· Reduce Costs: Delayed and overlapping procedures lay a ready platform for increased transaction costs. For e.g. costs incurred during shipment and in acquiring licenses add to manufacturing costs. Additionally, a shipment to the United States costs about $2 in Taiwan, Philippines, Singapore and Vietnam while in India it can go up to $10 with several inspections before post clearance and transactional costs. If reducing the costs is not feasible, the number of procedures and authorities involved can be reduced in order to make the process cheaper for the investor.


Raw Material and Supply Chain Availability

India boasts of a strong domestic supply of food, iron ore, coal and skilled population, particularly in the IT sector. Yet, overall analysis revealed India’s average price spread in manufacturing was 50% due to half being spent on raw materials (RM)[10]. Near seamless integration has been seen in supply chains of pharmaceuticals and IT BPM. Presence of BIT strongholds in the U.S., Europe and Southeast Asia has ensured a consistent supply chain with these regions. Over 15,000 textile products in India add to one of the most diverse pools of raw material in the world. Diverse food production, with 46 new processing clusters[11] having been inaugurated by the government, add to the diversity of the supply chain. Uttar Pradesh has come out with the ‘One District One Product’ scheme – greatly adding to its depth of raw material and chain presence. Upstream product presence, especially in petroleum products, gems and jewelry and automobiles ensures that India remains a net exporter of high value finished goods in these supply chains.


Issues of extraction (coal and oil sector), quality of material (in the textile and coal sector, AI in electronics manufacturing), poor market access due to WTO compliance (dairy and food industry), downstream presence with absence of upstream supply chain linkages (IT BPM, pharma, capital goods sectors) and transport and distribution issues (cement, food sector) are apparent in some sectors. Variability of cost is another problem; the BSE RM cost index shows that raw material costs vary from 40% (aluminum) to 77% of net sales in many sectors of manufacturing[12]. Interlinking raw materials are not available in some cases, like coal for the cement industry and APIs in the pharma sector. Absence of domestic raw material consumption (e.g., cement exports to SE Asia) leads to poor depth of supply chain within the country. There is poor penetration in the global supply chain due to costly produce in the food processing, capital goods and textile sectors. Longer lead times in transport, logistics and distribution in the supply chains are evidenced by the fact that Indian supply chain to the U.S. takes 40 to 45 days port-to-port whereas Malaysia achieves the same in 28 days[13]. India ranks 120/141 in the Global Competitiveness Index where adoption of ICT in the supply chain is our weakest area.

Below are a few suggestions through which India can leverage the global best practices for improvement.

· Inter-modal mix of railways in freight transport: In India, it stands at 35% which is very low compared to other countries (60% in China, 55% in Thailand). This in turn raises raw material cost if supplied by road and also hampers supply chain speeds. A boost to railway last mile connectivity with competitive subsidization of freight segment can work wonders for boosting raw material and supply chain availability[14].

· Reducing raw material access and supply chain time throughout the country with focus on last mile access, digitization of raw material and supply chain: e.g., procedure of online registration without interface with a customs officer at ports alone brought down clearance time of cargo by over five times (10 to 1.4 days)[15] at JNPT port

· Creation of a digital supply chain simulation to increase visibility in the supply chain and gauge future supply chain issues without having to go through the entire physical process itself. Taiwan’s Ministry of Economic Affairs began a project to establish 6 Free Economic Pilot Zones (FEPZs) with features like logistic digitalization, cloud based computing provision for the firm and was able to bring in US$300 million investment into the country in the very first year.[16] American multinational tire manufacturing company Goodyear ran a ‘Digital Twin’ supply chain simulation and was able to reduce its raw material and supply chain cost by 35%[17] by troubleshooting problems that could have arisen before the actual run in the market. China has also started offering digital supply chain simulation under its ‘Made in China 2025’ project.

· Targeting low-regulation markets for Indian supply chain as India remains a preferred destination for investing in chains where the regulation overall is less stringent; this is true for all developing countries in the world market (e.g., higher export of inedible items like linen to the U.S. vis-à-vis edible items like jam).

· Signing of more open access bilateral FTAs and BITs to bring raw material from a more diverse supply basket, especially in the pharmaceutical manufacturing sector and oil and gas where majority raw materials come from less than 4 countries. Most ASEAN countries have also benefited from Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) providing increased market access and now the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) which grants them higher access to each other’s’ supply chains with the least amount of trade barriers.

· Parallel market targeting by the states based on local strengths to enter supply chains: rather than highlighting the entire country as a single block for attracting supply chain, India can focus on regions and states which have a better potential of engagement and vice versa: e.g., India Trade Development Centre by Alabama; Agreement with Maryland in 2011 on trade partnerships; only 6 Indian states have over US$1billion trade with the U.S.


Ease of Doing Business

Ease of doing Business ranking by the World Bank judges an economy based on 10 parameters to determine the regulatory environment which basically helps in concluding how easy or difficult it is for firms to conduct business in the economy. The government’s Ease of Doing Business (EoDB) agenda, launched in 2015, focused on transformative reforms in four dimensions—the Doing Business for country-level ranking, state-level reforms, reforms at the district level and measures to reduce the cost of doing business. Out of these, the government is yet to take considerable measures on the last one. In the recent World Bank’s ‘Ease of Doing Business’ Report, India jumped to the 63rd position. For the third consecutive years in a row, India featured among the top 10 performers. According to the Doing Business 2020 report, India along with other top improvers implemented 59 regulatory reforms in 2018/19. Other names among the top 10 are Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, China etc.

India fared well in the following parameters with its reforms:

● Starting a business by abolishing the filing fees for SPIC incorporation form.

● Obtaining construction permit by streamlining the application process and introducing the need for professional certifications for improved quality control

● Trading across borders by integrating all stakeholders on a single electronic platform and enabling post clearance audits

● Handling bankruptcy through efficient introduction of reorganization procedure

● In one of its recent reforms, the Government amended patent rules to streamline the submission pertaining to the working of a patented invention

● Make in India initiative has been instrumental in enhancing the country’s overall competitiveness by attracting foreign investments and by boosting the private sector

The EoDB scenario at a state level has been streamlined to a great extent through the Business Reform Action Plan (BRAP). As part of the Business Reform Action Plan (BRAP), most states have brought transparency in land records and automated systems to a significant level. The state level online single window system has resulted in automation of various concerned departments that provide approval related to labor, factories, construction permits etc. On a more recent note, the government is now planning out a roadmap to introduce business reforms at a district level with more involvement from the local government bodies in the process.


China, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain have been introducing a number of reforms in the area of enforcing contracts such as publication of court performance measurement report, a parameter that India still lags behind when compared to its global peers. The real estate sector in India still remains as one of the most rigid ones with ample opportunities of corruption and delays- Pakistan, Bahrain and Togo are among few of the economies that have streamlined this process to a large extent through reforms such as delegating the application review process to licensed engineering firms and improving the quality of the land administration system. Even with the online tax filing system, there still remains a lot that the government can do to streamline this process and also to boost the MSME sector through reformed tax plans – China, Jordan and Pakistan have made paying taxes easier through reforms such as preferential corporate income tax rate for small enterprises and enhancing the e-filing system.


Indian companies still face a number of obstacles in terms of delayed payments for public procurement. There’s a lot of inefficiency that lies in how court proceedings are taken care of in India – this has implications on a number of areas like delayed obtaining of construction permits, delayed resolution of disputes in areas like land reforms and contract enforcement. Delayed court orders also make it difficult for the effects of reduced input tariffs to reflect in levels of productivity. The electricity sector still needs to adapt to greater levels of digitization and state electric facilities need to be brought to optimum utilization levels. There are not many reforms that are favorable to the MSME or the informal sector – additionally the existing tax reforms and rigidity around fixed employment and minimum wages push a greater percentage of the population to an informal sector employment. While the National Infrastructure Pipeline is a step in the right direction to reduce logistics costs and improve infrastructure, reducing the cost of land, power, and capital can significantly ease the burden for businesses. Below are a few other suggestions.

Enforcing Contracts: Inefficiencies in court procedures have far reaching implications on a number of EoDB parameters. Publishing court performance reports on a quarterly or half yearly basis to streamline the court proceedings might be a good idea, like it is done in Jamaica currently.

Obtaining electricity, property transfer, land reform: Introduction of separate fast track civic court bodies to handle small disputes in specific domains – for example a separate fast track civic body for resolving disputes in obtaining electricity and a separate one for resolving disputes in land reforms

Property Transfer: Introduce reforms to improve land tenure security on demarcations - which basically refers to the certainty that a person's rights to land will be recognized by others and protected in cases of specific challenges. This will have a direct impact on investments in demarcated lands – targeting female headed households for this for increased response rate

Paying taxes: Boost the tax paying electronic system through effective communication through registered and licensed social media channels and introducing mobile applications for various steps in the tax filing process

Obtaining electricity: Reviewing and granting connection requests can be streamlined through efficient usage of geographic information. Have dedicated localized bodies for reviewing the connection requests received in any particular area. Localizing the process beyond the current ownership by state electricity boards might reduce the time taken for the same

Building permit: Segregate construction projects into low-risk and high-risk ones – have a separate simplified requirement for granting building permits to low-risk construction projects. For the high-risk construction projects, the process of reviewing applications can be delegated to licensed engineering firms

Public procurement: At the budgeting stage of public procurement, mandate the need of providing documents certifying available funds. This might reduce the chances of disputes and amendments at a later stage of contract

Public procurement: For the contract amendment procedure, have separate fast track resolution bodies for smaller disputes and minor modifications (example change in the raw material specified in the initial contract) Generally a lot of time is taken at the contract amendment phase and this also provides the scope for a lot of corruption. Streamlining this phase with fast-track court proceedings and separate windows based on the nature and extent of modification required will be an impactful change

Cost of doing business: Overall regulatory costs faced by a private sector firm is significant. A welcome first step can be to abolish or reduce the cost of digital certifications in all regulatory applications


Conclusion

The forthcoming years present immense scope for attracting FDI in India’s manufacturing sector if coupled with the right policies and institutions. The topic-wise suggestions have been prioritized basis the approximate timeline for implementation.

MEET THE THOUGHT LEADERS


Shatakshi Sharma is a management consultant with BCG and Co- Founder of Global Governance Initiative with feature publication on Yourstory.

Prior to graduate school at ISB, she was Strategic Advisor with the Government of India where she drove good governance initiatives and her work was featured by the Economic Times. She was also felicitated with a National Young Achiever Award for Nation Building. She is a part time blogger on her famous series-MBA in 2 minutes.


Naman Shrivastava is the Co-Founder of Global Governance Initiative. He has previously worked as a Strategy Consultant in the Government of India and is working at the United Nations - Office of Internal Oversight Services. Naman is also a recipient of the prestigious Harry Ratliffe Memorial Prize - awarded by

the Fletcher Alumni of Color Executive Board. He has been part of speaking engagements at International forums such as the World Economic Forum, UN South-South Cooperation etc. His experience has been at the intersection of Management Consulting, Political Consulting, and Social entrepreneurship.


Harshita Madan has been a Mentor at GGI and is a Manager at Invest India





MEET THE AUTHORS (GGI FELLOWS)


Aishwarya Chakravarty is a trained economist and a Delhi School of Economics and Shri Ram College of Commerce graduate. She has worked closely with the NITI Aayog and the Centre for Regional Trade on data-driven policymaking. She is passionate about development economics and seeks to work at the intersection of academia and governance, developing innovative and effective policies and platforms in order to combat issues of intergenerational poverty and inequality


Aishwarya Mulay is a Business Administration graduate from Symbiosis International University. She has more than 2 years of work experience in Strategy and Transactions services for Government and Public Sector practice of Ernst and Young.






Averi Chakraborty is an MBA graduate from SBM, NMIMS Mumbai. She is currently working with Goldman Sachs in their Global Markets Management & Strategy team. She has worked at the intersection of finance, strategy and technology and holds keen interest in the social impact sector. In her free time, you’ll find her either with her violin or a book.




Maanya Charu Kalra is a Columbia University and Delhi University alumna, where she graduated with a Master of Science degree in Strategic Communication and a Bachelor of Commerce with Honors degree respectively. She is currently working with the International Finance Corporation (World Bank Group) as a Consultant in the Global Upstream department in Washington DC. She has over 3 years of professional experience in creative strategy, communications, and market research. Maanya also runs a content portal of her own called Hasrat that aims to influence social behavioural change.

Prachi Agarwal is a B.Tech graduate from NIT Raipur. She also holds a PG Diploma in Data Science from IIIT Bangalore. She is currently working with Sattva Consulting as a Social Impact Consultant in the CSR Advisory domain. At Sattva she has worked on diverse projects on CSR funds strategy, grantee management, monitoring and evaluation across education, healthcare, environment and sustainability sectors.


Prachi Mishra is Computer Science Engineer from Vellore Institute of Technology. She works as a Technology and Innovation Analyst at Standard Chartered Bank. She aims to direct her work in the intersection of technology and impact, towards causes like greater financial inclusion and livelihood generation



Shashwat Shukla is currently pursuing a double masters in Development Studies from the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, and in Mahatma Gandhi and Peace Studies. He has been studying public policy since his graduation, through courses on solid waste management and as an intern in the tribal areas of Thane district. Having recently interviewed for the civil service examination, he aims to build a career in the social sector





If you are interested to apply to GGI Impact Fellowship, you can access our application link here .


SOURCES

[1]https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/IMF071/01242-9781589061781/01242-9781589061781/ch05.xml?language=es&redirect=true [2] https://www.uhy.com/singapore-and-irelands-tax-regimes-attract-world-beating-levels-of-fdi/ [3] https://dashboard.commerce.gov.in/commercedashboard.aspx [4] India's trade with its FTA partners: experiences, challenges and way forward [5] India's trade with its FTA partners: experiences, challenges and way forward [6] Welcome to Embassy of India, Tokyo (Japan) [7] Impressive US$500 billion in Vietnam's foreign trade - Web Portal Ministry of Industry and Trade [8] Mexico Trade Summary 2018 | WITS Data [9] https://www.tpci.in/indiabusinesstrade/blogs/non-tariff-measures-the-arch-nemesis-of-free-trade/ [10] Shurveer Bhanwat An Analysis of Raw Material Cost in Indian Manufacturing Industry [11] https://pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1685141 [12] Top Companies In India: Top Companies in India by Raw Material Cost, Top BSE Companies by Raw Material Cost, Top BSE Companies [13] Freight Shipping from India by Air & Ocean; Shipping From Malaysia to United States [Updated January 2021] [14] http://mofapp.nic.in:8080/economicsurvey/pdf/120-150_Chapter_08_Economic_Survey_2017-18.pdf [15] JNPT eases norms for container movement [16] 2014 Investment Climate Statement - Taiwan [17] https://supplychainconsulting.in/how-we-helped-goodyear-save-supply-chain-costs/


[1] Infrastructure Sector in India | IBE [2] Budget 2019: India must spend $200 billion on infra annually; harnessing private investment a challenge, says Economic Survey [3] 'Great Places for Manufacturing in India: World-class destinations for Multinationals' by Invest India [4] Upgradation of industrial infra to help attract investors, says experts [5] https://www.nicdc.in/about-DMICDC [6] Lessons for South Asia from Industrial Cluster Development Expense of Republic of Korea [7] World Bank Global Investment Competitiveness Report 2019/2020 [8] Business Immunity Platform - India's Response to COVID-19 [9] https://investvietnam.vn/ready-built-factory [10] buyKOREA for Buyers [11] Public-Private Partnership to boost Rwanda's Tourism & Hospitality Industry | Official Rwanda Development Board (RDB) Website

[1] Direct Investment by Country and Industry, 2019 | US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) [2] New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States, 2019 | US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) [3] Direct Investment by Country and Industry, 2019 | US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) [4] US FDI to India crosses $40 billion: Business advocacy group [5] http://www.oecd.org/investment/FDI-in-Figures-April-2020.pdf [6] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d387bf44-45dd-4dd9-862a-e1c0dc90d295 [7] Brookings: France at war against the coronavirus: Politics under anesthesia? [8] France Tops Foreign Investments in Europe [9] Nordea Trade: Foreign direct investment (FDI) in Germany. [10] Stock of direct investment: Germany’s links with foreign countries increase further in 2018 [11] Foreign Direct Investment in Central and Eastern Europe [12] Poland a European leader when it comes to FDI, says new rankings report [13] World Investment Report 2020 by UNCTAD [14] https://www.boj.or.jp/en/statistics/br/bop_06/index.htm/ [15] World Investment Report 2020 by UNCTAD [16] Japan to offer aid to 2 companies moving manufacturing base from China to India, Nov 2020 [17] Japan to offer incentives to compan