Marketing and Its Promotion In India In Different Spheres

The various studies and the various facts that come out by the various public and the private firms and the organizations of the world like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Trade Organization (WTO) and many more, reveal that the country like India who is found to be growing very fast on the development map of the world has started spending a lot more on the marketing and the promotion of the agriculture than before as Indian is mainly on the world map said to be an agrarian economy. But also with this it has also been observed that the spending required for the infra structure required for this purpose is declining day by day and fast and critical decisions need to be made in this regard other wise things that are being done in this regard will not be able to get the desired results. All these type of the observations that are made by the WTO and the IMF are based basically on the comparisons of a large no of the factors in the various types of the streams. In this regard, the clarifications given by the IMF and the WTO suggest that compared to the United States, the European union and the even the republic of china suggest that the agriculture of the India is very much weaker than these type of the developed countries.

It has been found in the studies made that about the 99 percent of the holdings of the farm are very low in generating the income accompanied by the poor resources that are available. But this type of the situation is very alarming for a developing nation like India because in the neighbour hood it self a nation like the republic of the china has common type of the agriculture interests to be protected but china is doing a very great job as like India it is also spending a lot on the marketing features but unlike India it is has been able to increase its infra structure spending in the past and is still doing a great job in this regard. For years and years now, India has been trying its best in different ways to have a good relation ship with the republic of India but it has ended up in a prolonged face off. But on the economic front, Indian and the republic of the china have been seen together at the various types of the for a like the IMF and the WTO and also have together expressed their solidarity against the developed countries stance, which is very unfavourable to the developing countries. Under the World Trade Organization, certain subsidy programmes have been taken in to the category of the minimal or the non trade distorting and now actually fall under the category of the green box. In this type of the scenario, the subsidies can be given in an unlimited manner. Another category is the amber box which shows the trade distorting type of the subsidies and can be product specific in the favour of the especial class or the type of the producers and the non product specific which provides for supporting the agriculture in the general view.

According to the rules of the WTO, amber box subsidies that are given by the developed countries should fall to 5 percent of the total value of the production made by the agriculture sector and In turn the developing countries, these subsidies have to be in any case limited to the 10 percent level of the total value of the agricultural production. In the recent past India and the republic of the china have been found to be opposing the huge amount of the subsidies that are being given by the united states and the European union to the farmers at the WTO, which have been observed to be giving birth to the increased export production and artificially low prices in turn, ultimately hurting the developing countries like that of the India, that are at a large competing against the se forces in the global markets. For a better under standing a recent case can be observed where the united states gave a subsidy to its cotton farmers but this grant deeply hurt the cotton exporting countries in the Africa, which at any cost can not compete with the prices of the cotton of the united states and all this happened because of the subsidy that was granted to the farmers. The grant of the large subsidies to a hand full of the farmers in the united states and the European union is one of the worst and bad practice that have affected the dominance of the developed countries in the agricultural trade irrespective of the objections being raised by the developing countries every time such incidences are observed and as a result of this, the developing countries are force to lag behind every time.

The advanced countries have been found to be very afraid of the fact that the emergence of the alliance between the various power full countries and the emerging important economies of the world and as a result of all this, the advanced countries have been found to be trying to water down the BRICS growing more and more importance, lest their own dominance should be threatened, for the many of the decades that have gone down the line since the world war II, the developed countries have called the shots in formulating the rules of the various international financial institutions and the various type of the trade negotiations between the developed and the developing countries. They have been found to be the architects of the existing global order in which their voice has prevailed. In trade and the finance, the north has always tried to subjugate the global south and in turn the republic of the china and the India have also fought a common battle at the WTO against the tilt in the global trade rules, always in the favour of the developed countries that ultimately at a large has been found to be hitting the exports of the developing countries of the world. If we go according to the joint statements of the India and the republic of the India paper circulated in the Geneva on July 17, 2017, the subsidies of the developed countries under the green box, which are more than the 90 percent of the total entitlements, have resulted in the major asymmetry in the WTO’s agreement on the agriculture. It has been demanded a lot of times in the past and even now by the India and the republic of the china for the reduction of the subsidies and also these should be capped because research has shown that they lead to the enhanced productivity and in turn also the prices are reduced up to a very great extent. In the United States, subsidies under the agreements of the WTO on the agriculture (AOA), billions of the dollars have been given to the farmers in form of the direct type of the subsidy, which in turn has helped them to reduce the prices of the products and are able to produce the products for the markets as the funds are available as a result of the subsidy that are given by the respective governments. In the various scenarios that have occurred from time to time in the world, the direct type of the subsidy have been paid regularly to the farmers who produce a particular designated crop and the payments are decoupled from the production, which means that the farmers can produce as much or as little as they want and still be eligible to get there part of the subsidy. Like in the United States, the European Union also plays a very important role in providing the help to sustain the unviable farming practices and they have flooded the markets globally with the cheap diary products and the sugar. Production support given by the developed countries to their agriculture has exceeded the value of their production in some of the years. According to the OCED, the agricultural support estimates statistics suggest that in the year of the 2016, the United States spent $38.7 billion on the subsidies that were given to the farmers directly in order to help them produce the products like the Soya, the rice, the wheat, the corn and at the last but not the least, the cotton. In such similar conditions and aiming to achieve similar results, the EU spends $89.9 billion and the Canada spends about $4.2 billion.

Since 1994, the United States and the European union have been transferring the all of there planned agricultural subsidies in to the green box, which according to the WTO agreement on the agriculture, are all the type of the subsidies that are not at all price distorting. These green box subsidies make up to about the 88 percent to the 90 percent of the European unions and the Americas total farm support and as a result of all this, the total amount of the subsidies that the United States gives to its farmers is found to be on the higher side as it has increased from $ 46.1 billion in 1995 to the $ 125.1 billion in the year 2011 and this data accounts to the most recent United States notification to the WTO of the domestic agricultural support. In the Asian countries like the India and the republic of the china, the number of the farmers is much higher; as a result of this, the per capita subsidy works out to be very less. If the reports of the research paper done by the south centre are to be believed, which is the WTO’S agriculture domestic support negotiation January 2017, says that the European Union spends $ 12384 a year per farmer whereas the United States, where there are fewer farmers spends $ 68910 per farmer a year. India spends $306 per farmer and on the other hand, the republic of china has been spending $ 348 per farmer a year (2010-2011). India’s fertiliser, irrigation and the power subsidy was at $ 22.8 in the year 2014, which was less than the subsidy given in the year 2011 at $ 21.1 billion. All the support that was provided by the India gives to the agriculture is under the green box category of the WTO and as a result of this is also exempted from the reduction commitments of the AOA. They are not in any way pricing distorting and also India is not under the obligation to reduce them. India at no time gives any type of the product specific price support and this type of the subsidy is very negative because of the reason that the domestic prices are very much lower than the prevailing global prices and the minimum support price does not cover the cost but on the other hand the non product specific support (power and the fertiliser subsidy) are very well below the level of the permission available of the 1 percent of the value of the total agricultural out put. But in comparison to the United States, the European Union and even the republic of the china, agriculture level in the India is much weaker and the facts show the same in the recent times. According to the 2005-2006 census, 99 percent of the farm holdings are low income and resource poor and this is because of the fact that the India has been spending more on the marketing parameter and also on the promotion parameter in the agriculture but as the other side of the coin, the spending required for the infra structure requirement has declined at a very fast pace. On the other hand china has made a very drastic progress in this field as compared to the past as the republic of the china has increased the spending to be made on the infra structure a lot as it has given a large amount of the subsidy to its agriculture but this has been given mainly for the purpose of the provision of the infra structural services (Green Box). The United States has criticised the republic of the china in the recent past mainly for increasing the farm support programme enormously. Thus the battle continues with the republic of the china on the one side and with the India on the other side and on the other front all the developed countries. Indian and the china now ought to think of how to resolve their own face off.