Friday, 19 May 2017

Ceramic Tiles Industry 2017

       Global ceramic tiles industry reached USD 76Bln in 2016. It is expected to grow at CAGR 9% between 2014-2020 to reach USD 120Bln by 2020. Demand is primarily driven by the growing construction and infrastructure industry. China is the largest industry contributor with construction spending more than USD 1.7 trillion. Increasing industrialization, urbanization, technological advancement in the manufacturing of ceramic tiles and availability of abundant raw materials is also contributed in growth of ceramic tiles market. Wall tiles, floor tiles, and others such as ceiling and roofing tiles are the main products available in this market. Floor tiles alone has highest more than 50% market share and also expected to grow at faster rate than other in future. High durability and good thermal & shock resistance compared to hardwood are said to have positive impact on industry growth of floor tiles. Furthermore, installation and replacement ease are some of the other properties due to which they are extensively used.
       Total production volume reached 12,355 Sq.m.Mill in 2015. Asia is the largest manufacturing zone having more than 69% production. Europe is the 2nd largest area having 9.9% share followed by Central and South America. Country wise, China is the largest production hub contributing 48.3% of the global production in this category. Asia Pacific is projected to witness highest growth of around 10% by 2024. Increasing construction spending in Japan, India and South Korea , China will drive ceramic tiles market share in the region. In addition, drift toward marble floors, replacing paints, metal slabs and other home decorative products with ceramic tiles will further boost regional growth by 2024.
       Total consumption reached 12,175 Sq.m.Mill in 2015. Asia is the largest consumption area having consumption share of 67%. Central and South America is the 2nd largest zone having 10.5% share followed by EU 28 with 7.5% share. China is the largest consumer market contributing 40% of the global consumption in this category followed by Brazil 6.7% share and India 6.3% share. Ceramic tiles are a important materials that are consumed in bulk by construction industry. Hence, positive growth outlook for the construction market in Asia Pacific is estimated to propel the ceramic tiles market in the next few years. Other Key factors driving product demand in Asia Pacific include rise in disposable income of consumers, dense population, increase in government initiatives for infrastructure development and collaboration with foreign investors.
       World exports of ceramic tiles reached 2,735 Sq.m.Mill in 2015. It stand at 21.5% of total production and 22.5% of global consumption. More than half of this volume consist of export to same geographical region. Ex- 87 % of South American export remains in South American nations, 67% of the Asian exports are to other Asian countries. Asia is the largest exporting region exported total 1514 Sq.m.Mill in 2015. Asia is the leader in export with market share of 55.4% followed by EU 28 with 31.3% share, Central and South America having 10.5% share in exports. China ,Spain, Italy, India ,Iran are top 5 exporting countries together contributing around 70% exports. China has the highest share of 39.8 % in global export which 18.2% of the national production in this category. Italy and Spain maintain the highest share of exports as a percentage of production which is 80 % and 86 % respectively. USA, Saudi, Iraq, Germany ,France are the top 5 importing nations. Top 10 importing countries imported 989 Sq.m.Mill which is 36.2 % of global import in this category.
        Indian ceramic tiles industry reached USD 3.7Bln in 2016. It is expected to grow at CAGR 8% between 2012-2019 to reach USD 4.8Bln. It ranks 2nd in the world produces 12.9% of global output also it is the 3rd largest tiles market and among the top 5 fastest growing markets in the world. Ceramic tiles account for 60% of the total tiles demand in India. The key drivers for the ceramic tiles in India are the boom in real estate, retail IT &BPO sectors. Real estate accounts for nearly 70% of the total demand. Per capita consumption has is at 0.59 square meters. Huge potential in Indian tiles market owing to high population and low per capita consumption. Industry is dominated by unorganized sector accounting 60% share. Over 5,50,000 people are employed in the sector. Out of this, 50,000 people are directly employed and 5,00,000 are indirectly associated. ‘Morbi’ in Gujurat
is a major hub for unorganized tiles manufacturer.  Main product segments are the Wall tile, Floor tile, Vitrified tile and Industrial tile segments. Vitrified tiles accounts more than 45% share. Branded players (organized players) are mostly involved in manufacturing of this product.Tiles are available in a wide variety of designs, textures and surface effects among these segment.
       India is World’s 3rd largest producer after China and Brazil. Production in India reached 1600 Sq.m.Mill in 2016 which is highest since last 5 years. Out of total production in 2015, 1.22 Sq.m.Mill (approx) was exported during 2015. It ranks 4th in terms of export in tis category. There are around 14 national players contributing 40 % share in total production with Kajaria, Somany and Johnson tiles among the top 5 players and there are approximately 200 small units (regional players) contributing 60%.
   Domestic consumption increased by just 7 Sq.m.Mill to 763 Sq.m.Mill (+0.9%) compared to pervious increase of +5% . India is also the 3rd largest consumer after China and Brazil.  It Contributes 6.3% (approx.) share in consumption globally. The key catalyst for rising consumption are 2nd largest and young population, rising disposable income and increasing urbanization.
(See Below for detail power point presentation)






Don't forget to share your remarks in comment box

Floriculture Industry In India 2016

       Indian floriculture industry is worth INR9000crore. It has been growing at CAGR 25% since last 5 years. Over 300 million people with middle and higher income, It is the world's 2nd largest consumer base and fastest growing retail destination. The steady demand for traditional flowers comes from the use for religious purposes, decoration of homes and for making garlands and wreaths. This demand is particularly strong in Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Odisha and West Bengal. Seasonal demand is driven by festivals and marriages for specific flowers. Hotels ,guest houses are also emerging as a major markets for flower industry. It is also important for bee keeping industry which too provides alternative source of income for Indian farmers. Indian floriculture industry comprises of flowers such as Rose, Orchid, Tuberose, Glads, Anthurium, Carnations, Marigold, Jasmine etc.Total cropped area under floriculture is 70581 ha. Cultivation is undertaken in both open farm conditions as well as state-of-the-art poly and greenhouses.
       Total production volume reached 2236000 tonnes in 2016. Share of floriculture production in total horticulture is very i.e, just 1.2%. It contributes 1.4 % in total agriculture production. Production has increased by 4.4 % in 2016 compare to previous year. Production of Rose and Gladiolus among cut flowers and marigold among loose flowers has been growing at higher rates than other. The larger percentage of the area in many states is used for growing scented rose.
       Loose flower has almost 69% share in total production. However loose flower production is showing declining trend.it's Production stood at 1754000MT in 2014. It declined by 5% in 2015 and reached 1659000MT. It declined further by 7% during 2015-2016 having production volume 1545000MT. On the other hand ,production of cut flower initially declined in 2015 by 12% compare to 2014 but increased by almost 42% in 2016 as compare to 2015. Total area under production was 243000Ha. in 2016 is also declining. Tamil Nadu is the leading flower producing state that produced 358000MT in 2016 contributing 16% to total production.  Karnataka is the 2nd largest flower producing state having 14% share. Andhra Pradesh ,West Bengal, Gujurat are other key states where flower production take place in huge quantity.
       Govt. has identified floriculture as a ‘sunrise industry’ and accorded it ‘100% export oriented’ status. Total exported flowers was worth 479 crore in 2015. Major importing countries for India were United States, Germany, United Kingdom, Netherlands and United Arab Emirates. US alone imported 23% of India’s floriculture export. More than 300 export-oriented units are operational in India. More than 50% of it are based in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. India’s share in global floriculture trade is very low around 0.16% .India is trying to increase its share in world trade by doing technical collaborations with foreign companies.
(See Below for detail power point presentation)






Don't forget to share your remarks in comment box

Thursday, 18 May 2017

Contesting Views On Globalization.

     Globalization is a Process fueled by, and resulting in, increasing cross-border flows of goods, services, money, people, information, and culture.(David Held: 1999) Robert Gilpin defines globalization as the "increasing interdependence of national economies in trade, finance, and macroeconomic policy." Globalization is the free movement of goods, services and people across the world in a seamless and integrated manner. Main features of globalization are liberalization, means the freedom of the industrialist/businessman to establish industry, trade or commerce either in his country or abroad; free exchange of capital, goods, service and technologies between countries and free trade. Globalization of economic activities is another major feature which means Control of economic activities by domestic market and international market; coordination of national economy with world economy. Connectivity is another characteristic. Localities are now being connected with the world by breaking national boundaries; forging of links between one society and another, and between one country and another through international transmission of knowledge, literature, technology, culture and information.
     Globalization is a composite process in which integration of nation-states across the world by common economic, commercial, political, cultural and technological ties takes place. It is a multi-dimensional process. Economically, it means opening up of national market, free trade and commerce among nations, and integration of national economies with the world economy. Politically, it means limited powers and functions of state, more rights and freedoms granted to the individual and empowerment of private sector; culturally, it means exchange of cultural values between societies and between nations; and ideologically, it means the spread of liberalism and capitalism.
     A key factor behind the rise of the idea of globalization is its frequent linkage to particular (neoliberal) social and economic policies. By constructing a particular vision of global space and the 'place' of individuals, national economies and polities, the idea of globalization forms part of rhetoric to legitimize certain political strategies.

Contesting Views on globalization:
1)      A Top-Down approach-
1.      Globalization originates from developed countries and the MNCs (multinational corporations) based in them.
2.      Technologies, capital, products and services come from them to developing countries.
3.      It is for developing countries to accept these things, adapt themselves to them and to be influenced by them.
4.       As a result, the values and norms of developed countries are gradually rooted in developing countries. This leads to the growth of a monoculture i.e. the culture of the north (developed countries) being imposed on the South (developing countries).
5.       This involves the erosion and loss of the identity and the cultures of developing countries. Globalization is thus a one-way traffic: it flows from the North to the South.
6.      But this view of globalization has been contested. Some scholars have argued that globalization tends to provoke backlash at the community, local, regional and ethnic levels when the national government fails to resist or counter the invasion of globalization.
7.       In the face of aggression of globalization, the people, in protest against the failure of the national government to defend them, develop or strengthen their allegiance to their community, locality, region or ethnic group
8.      In this process, local identity, regional identity and ethnic identity take root and get strengthened. Thus globalization goes hand in hand with localization, regionalization and multiculturalism.
2)      Hyper-globalists view:
1.      Hold that autonomy and sovereignty of nation-states have been eclipsed by contemporary processes of economic globalization.
2.       Economies are becoming “denationalized.”
3.      World economy is controlled more by the current marketplace than by governments. It is believed that industry, trading, and the global financial marketplace drives the economy, with governance having little to no control over the marketplace.
4.      Believe that the power of individual governments is weakening as a whole, and that globalization has weakened the ability of individual governments to regulate the economy.
5.      Transnational governance organizations are becoming increasingly important. Many governments will have to merge together, and some may have to obey rules that they do not establish.
6.      Democratic social models implemented and protected by nation-states will become increasingly insupportable. The fundamental reconfiguration of the global economy will spell the demise of the nation-state and the irrelevance of the welfare state.
7.      While hyper globalist scholars may agree on the general factors behind globalization and the likely outcome of this process, they disagree sharply over whether these forces are good or bad. They can be distinguish between neo-liberal versus neo-Marxist orientations, and describe their different assessments of the outcomes of globalization.
8.      In terms of the “winners” and “losers” of the new global order, both orientations agree that the lines and cleavages of economic benefit are changing. On one hand, neo-Marxist scholars view the neo-liberal optimism with deep suspicion. Global capitalism, they believe, will only create and reinforce inequalities within and between countries.
9.      One the one hand, neo-liberals views this as largely a good thing. Dissemination of a "consumerist ideology" They say that nearly all countries have a comparative advantage in one way or another within the global economy. There will be groups who will be worse off, but on the whole, the benefits are greater than in the past.
10.  As liberal democracy spreads the world will develop more universal principles of economic and political organization. After these things take place a truly global civilization will become possible (Held. Et al.,1999).
11.  Increased communication due to technological advances has created more of a mass culture, than existed in the past. The Hyper globalist perspective sees the world economy as one single unit, more so than any other perspective does.
3)      Sceptic View:
1.      Hold that intensity of contemporary global interdependence is considerably exaggerated and that the hyper-globalists ignore the continued primacy of national power and sovereignty.
2.      Views current international processes as more by fragmented and regionalized than globalized.
3.      In fact, according to skeptical authors, the “golden age” of globalization occurred at the end of the 19th century. Current processes show, at best, a regionalization.
4.      They point out that, actually, the volume of trade as a percentage of national income was higher in most European countries during the pre-WWI era than it is now.
5.      They further add that trade and FDI activity has largely been concentrated in North America, Europe, and East Asia--hence, what is called globalization is in reality just regionalization.
6.      Strong-nation state is needed to facilitate trade between countries and regulate the running of the global economy. These "power countries" will regulate the trading between developing nations who do not have a strong government system. Many scholars view this perspective as more believable because those countries with a strong nation-state are more active in international commerce.
7.      Sceptics also disagree whether old cleavages are becoming increasingly irrelevant. The third world is not being drawn into a global economy that destroys old lives of benefit and exploitation. Quite the contrary, the third world, say skeptical authors, is becoming increasingly marginalized.
8.      Sceptical perspective view global capitalism as a myth. The growth of multinational corporations does not mean that nation-states are no longer relevant for governing the flows of economic benefits. Multinational corporations are still tied primarily to their home states or regions, and these ties produce benefits for these states or regions.
9.      Reject the notions of the development of a global culture or a global governance structure. What is really going on, they argue, is that global governance structures and culture exist as a disguised version of neo-liberal economic strategies that benefit the West.
4)      Transformationalist view:
1.      Emphasize the way in which globalization has brought about the spatial re-organization and re-articulation of economic, political, military and cultural power.
2.      Perspective differs fundamentally from the other two perspectives in that there is no single cause (that is, the market or economic logic) behind globalization and the outcome of processes of globalization is not determined.
3.      Globalization is considered a phenomenon that just slowly progressed over the years
4.      View the nature of national governments as changing (being reconstituted and restructured) but a description of this change as merely nation state growing or waning is oversimplified.
5.      Does not define any historical events or factors that define globalization. Globalization is just something that has been happening with no defined past or future.
6.      Understand that new world order architecture is developing, though the exact nature of the emerging patterns of stratification is not yet clear.

-------------------------------------**************-------------------------------------


Don't forget to share your remarks in comment box

Wednesday, 17 May 2017

Influence Of Private Think Tanks On Indian Policy Making.

                              India’s involvement in global and regional policy debates on issues of peace and security, environment, regional cooperation, international trade and its preference for equity in international political and economic spheres has increased in recent years. While there is a long history often agreement with and analyses of think tanks in the Western world, the focus on private sponsored think tanks in India and their influence on foreign policy is an area that has received limited attention. India ranks 4th on the list of nations with the most number of think tanks, with nearly 100 new ones taking the country's total to 280 in 2015.( GGTTI report, 2015)
                              However before going into details of the involvement of private think tanks in India’s contemporary foreign policy making environment, it is important to look at the history and traditions with regards to foreign policy formulation in India. Nehru dominated thinking on Indian foreign policy and thereby institutions providing advice and expertise on foreign policy were not encouraged or strengthened.(Bhatnagar S, 2013) In the post Nehruvian era, the government did encourage some state funding for research on foreign policy issues, however the focus remained limited to area studies without espousing for a viable Indian foreign policy strategy. An interest in providing funding and support to independent research organizations was sparked by the economic liberalisation project launched by the Indian government in the early 1990s. The growing interest in India’s economic model, and India’s economic and political engagement with regional and international players, stimulated a demand for expertise on issues of foreign and security policy.
                              India has witnessed an increase in think tanks in recent years. The private sector has taken lead in funding some of these research organizations. Prominent think tanks which have received private sector support are the Observer Research Foundation, Gateway House, and the Ananta Aspen Center and many more. The foreign ministry is the biggest consumer of these ideas from 'outside'. In the last year, foreign secretary S Jaishankar has placed additional responsibility on a virtually defunct Policy Planning division. The ministry has broken new ground by hiring consultants not employed by the government. But in the new atmosphere of the state interacting with think tanks, the experience for government has not been one of unalloyed satisfaction.
                                 Privately sponsored think-tanks which bear influence on Indian Foreign policy can be classified in 2ways. One, there is a rise of private think-tanks with close political party affiliations. When PM Narendra Modi took office, he appointed AK Doval as National Security Advisor and Nripendra Misra as Principal Secretary. Both were closely associated with the Vivekananda International Foundation (VIF). VIF is an Indian think-tank specialised in International Relations and Diplomacy, is affiliated to the Vivekananda Kendra, which is in turn a charitable organisation affiliated to the Hindu nationalist volunteer organisation Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Former IB director Ajit Doval was steering the ship at VIF as founder-director before he was appointed as Modi’s National Security Adviser. In fact, it was Doval who came up with the idea of inviting South Asian leaders to Modi’s oath-taking ceremony. (Tehelka, 2 August2014) After his stint as the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) chairman was over, Nripendra Misra became a member of the VIF’s executive council. Now, he is Modi’s principal secretary. There was a legal hitch in his appointment as TRAI law bars former chairmen from holding government positions. But Modi wanted him so bad that he tabled an ordinance to amend the law. (Mint, 9 Jun 2014) Former Union agriculture secretary PK Mishra was associated with the VIF as a Senior Fellow. Now, he is the additional principal secretary to the prime minister. Other VIF members whom the Modi regime has tapped for inputs include former RAW chief CD Sahay, former urban development secretary Anil Baijal, former ambassador to Russia Prabhat Shukla, former IAF chief SG Inamdar and former BSF chief Prakash Singh. The India Foundation (IF) has also gained prominence. IF's driving force is Ram Madhav, a former RSS spokesperson , a powerful BJP leader who has been laying the groundwork for the PM's foreign visits and engaging with foreign interlocutors. Key cabinet ministers are among its members. Ram Madhav wrote editorials on Pakistan and China in a national daily as a precursor to his joining the BJP later in the year. Madhav has emerged as Modi’s ‘ambassador at large’. (Business Standard, 29 November, 2014) He is credited with playing a key role in organising Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to India in mid-September in 2014, Modi’s speeches at Madison Square Garden in New York in end-September and the November 17 speech at the Allphones Arena in Sydney. He was also involved in addressing diaspora issue in United States & Australia. Such type of private think tanks derives its basic principles from close common shared political philosophy and promotes interest based on party ideology.
                                   Two, Indian businesses have begun investing in creating policy research institutes and think-tanks, and the government has been engaging with such outfits. Big corporates have now started investing in research & analysis. They recruit intellectuals & academicians, conduct area specific research, organize discussion with ministers, give them presentations on research done, and recommend policy change if needed. Etc. Here, the question of who fund the think tank is very important. There is a possibility of bias reports, or undue importance given to one area of study in which funding party’s commercial interests are hidden rather than addressing the issues concerning nation as a whole, this may reflect while recommending government about polices which may result in giving bias solution which would only serve funding corporates’ interest rather than serving national interest.  Although traditional players such as UN agencies, international foundations and the government continue to be influential in the think tank space, new entrants include private research consultancies and indigenous corporate houses, which partner as well as fund think tanks, often motivated by commercial concerns and partisan interests. These include Tata Sons, Maruti Udyog Ltd., Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, HDFC Bank, ACC Ltd., Reliance, Kotak Mahindra and Infosys, to name a few. Many private grants are meant for project-specific research, which very often borders on being ‘sponsored’ research.
                                     The Observer Research Foundation is funded by Reliance; the Ananta Aspen Centre has a group of business leaders funding their operations. Foreign think-tanks too have begun setting up their India operations. Brookings now has an India office, which again is supported by wealthy Indian business leaders. Carnegie Endowment is expected to set up a local office by next year. The Observer Research Foundation (ORF) one of the leading think tanks has been closely involved with BRICS since its formation. As the designated Indian Track II coordinator for BRICS and member of the BRICS Think Tanks Council, ORF has provided knowledge inputs and helped to strengthen research collaboration with the other nodal BRICS coordinating institutions in the member countries.(ORF website data) ORF hosted the BRICS Academic Forums in 2009 and 2012 and helped in the drafting of a Long Term Vision for BRICS along with several relevant research publications. It coordinates with the other Track II partners to inform the wider research community and key stakeholders on the relevance, significance and expected output from BRICS. It must be noted that Reliance Industries has its business spread all over BRICS nations. It has defence manufacturing deals with Russia , joint venture with China’s Shandong Ruyi Science and Technology Group, It has merged with petrochemical company in Brazil called petro bras, Reliance communication business(Jio) in South Africa. ORF has been rated as a ‘Highly Opaque’ think tank by Transparif group based on how transparent is the think tanks and who funds them. (Transparify Group Rport, 2015)
                                  Gatway House, another prominent think tank funded by corp orates such as Mahindra Group, Suzlon energy, TVS Motor Company etc.  It is a foreign policy think-tank established in 2009, to engage India’s leading corporations and individuals in debate and scholars on India’s foreign policy and its role in global affairs. It targeted companies which has over 40% exports, thinking they would be more interested in foreign policy and undertakes research based on interest of business group targeted. (Gateway House Website) Gateway House Meetings, a forum through which members, global leaders, prominent thinkers, corporations, diplomats, scholars and state administrators can debate India’s foreign policy are a regular occurrence. Gateway House has hosted several meetings with influential foreign policy opinion makers and leaders from around the world. 
                                  Another example of corporate think tank tanks having influence on India’s foreign policy is of Ananta Aspen Centre led by its co-patrons Dr. Henry Kissinger and Mr. Ratan Tata. It is also financed by corporates such as Gautam Thapar (Avantha Group), CK Birla (CKBirla group), Sanjiv Goenka (RP-Sanjiv Goenka Group), Naina Lal Kidwai(CEO and Country Head of HSBC India). Its chair is Jamshyd Godrej (Godrej & Boyce). The Centre was initially a result of collaboration between CII and Aspen - but over the years, while it has relationships with both, it has evolved into an autonomous entity. Ananta has a good relationship with the government. Business leaders with country specific interests invest in these dialogues and also participate in them.  It convenes over ten strategic dialogues with countries like China, Japan, Singapore, Israel, Turkey, and Bhutan. Some have become Track 1.5 in nature, because of the presence of a relevant Joint Secretary from the MEA or the Indian ambassador when it is happening outside the country. Visiting delegations also get to meet the local government, including senior ministers and events hosted by the centre have seen high level government participation including of NSA Doval and cabinet ministers.(16 Aug 2015)           
                                 Another example is that issues like the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar (BCIM) Corridor, Yunnan Academy in China has played a positive role in promoting dialogue with Indian think tanks. The Centre for Studies in International Relations and Development, based in Kolkata, these two organizations, in China and India, has in fact strengthened the Kunming-Kolkata (K2K) dialogue. This way is influence government on international issues related to China. (
                                    When Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar took over office; he made it clear that a key priority for him would be reviving the policy planning division of the Ministry of External Affairs. He brought in a new Joint Secretary, and indicated that the division would have more resources. It could hire experts from outside the government; and it was tasked to enhance engagement with the city's think-tanks. The government has also appointed a new head for the MEA-supported think-tank, with a brief to ramp up its operations. The state in India has historically been more open to outside expertise in the realm of the economy. From Manmohan Singh and Montek Singh Ahluwalia to Arvind Panagriya and Arvind Subramanian, the executive has brought in experts at the highest levels. The Niti Ayog itself has been envisaged as a think-tank. While slowly this has extended to the strategic affairs space, influence of private sponsored think tanks on foreign policy formulation will gradually be increasing. 
                                    Influencing through think tank has become a popular way of participating in foreign policy decision making. Although all think tanks promote themselves as being non-partisan, but that doesn't mean that they are non-biased. Most research from think tanks is ideologically driven in accordance with the interests of its funders. Many are non-profit organizations funded by major foundations, businesses and private donations, some are funded directly by governments and special interest groups, and some are funded to do work on a specific particular mandate. Since they work as per the needs of the funders, seeking advice from such think tanks may prove to be harmful for government as think tanks  may try to push agenda of those who fund them rather than working on issues which are really important and urgent and of national interest. They have become part of a political competition between interests and ideological groups because ideas about policy are weapons in that battle. This makes think tanks inherently political and non-independent.  
                               Understanding the power of think tanks, it is very much important to be become as independent as possible. As thinks tanks are actively and closely involved in policy formation with government, researcher or analyst should be bold enough to generate true opinions without any pressure which would cater to national interest rather than serving just a handful people.

Government when hiring external expertise there is a possibility of being consulted by biased or interest specific groups. It is possible that those policymakers are given the highly skewed knowledge & it may be possible to manoeuvre public opinion, especially if the media is not alert or is biased. Therefore, while decision making it has to be as independent as possible and should not only hear agency views but also opponent or criticism before reaching to the conclusion of policy formation.  
-------------------------------------**************-------------------------------------



Don't forget to share your remarks in comment box

Saturday, 13 May 2017

Declining Europe In Multipolar world

  The turn of the 21st century has brought with it an emerging multi-polarity in the international system whereby multiple centers of power, or ‘poles’ axis, Debate prevails over the EU’s particular classification as a ‘pole’ in today’s multi-polar system. Power of EU can be understood by analyzing its ability to exert influence, shape, set global policies across various dimensions such as political, economic, security, regulatory etc. The EU’s multidimensional power in the wake of other emerging markets such as China, India have been analysed below.
1) Security and defense power:
a) EU’s capacity to supply “hard” security beyond the borders of its member states has barely increased. Except in the mission to combat marine piracy off the Horn of Africa, where pirates’ attacks dropped by 95 % in the two years to 2013.
b) The refugee crisis, which saw 1.2 million people coming to Europe in 2015, has led to a contentious debate among the Member States and fueled a broader questioning of the future of border management and free movement within Europe.
c) The EU seldom had a decisive and positive influence on the outcome of security crises in its neighborhood. It was side-lined when an Anglo French-led, US-backed “coalition of the willing” overthrew the Gaddafi regime in Libya and had “little political influence” there afterwards.
d) In Egypt it tried but failed to broker a deal between the military and a Muslim Brotherhood president, as it found itself out manoeuvre diplomatically by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
e) In the Syrian civil war, it was but a “fringe player” and not a mainstream decision maker or action taker.
f) EU heavily relies on West for its security and avoids any international decision making which would hurt interest of the US.
g) Real European defence spending fell by 10 % between 2005 and 2010 and was declined a further 10 % by 2013. It further decline in 2015 by 0.4% compare to previous year.
h) Its capacity to provide hard security was also undermined by the deep divisions that security crises provoked among the member states, whether over Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2012 or Syria.
i) The EU’s capacity to affect the outcomes of defense and security conflicts may not depend entirely, of course, on its military strike power. It used “accession card” while mediating in Kosovo and Serbia conflict by understanding Serbian government’s EU membership aspirations. However, E U cannot wield the “accession card”everywhere, its power is much more limited in security and defence arena.
j) EU proved impotent in the face of Russia’s annexation of Crimea by military force.
k) In its relations with North African and Middle Eastern states, it has prioritized stability over democracy. Its response to the Arab Spring was “weak”. It has been criticized on the grounds that €1bn in development aid to Egypt had “done little to achieve its aims of improving democracy and human rights”
l) EU’s campaign to ban death penalty has been opposed by many nations including US and India. EU may have contributed to this process of Human rights; its role was not decisive.
m) Over the last 20 years, it has been unable to establish a coherent policy for Turkey, and its migration policy is highly controversial.
n) European integration is said to have been a prerequisite for peace and stability in Europe itself, and for its own development and prosperity. inward gaze makes them substantially less appealing in the eyes of their neighbors (the Mediterranean states) and also less appealing for those African states strongly connected to Europe and are in search of new partners (those new partners now including China, India, Brazil, etc.) In even more distant countries, Europe has an economic presence (for example, Germany as an investor and exporter) but has no significant political influence due to its inability to take on a “non-European perspective.”
 2) Regulatory Power: 
Despite its economic and political struggles, the European Union exerts considerable influence over worldwide markets through its regulatory and legal framework.
a) Is an area in which the EU has expressed its objective to be a world power. The ‘single market’ according to EU gives it “potential to shape global norms”. Encouraging other countries to adopt European standards and norms in multi- and bilateral negotiations.
b) Regulatory policies relating to chemical safety, vehicle safety, pollution are being shaped by EU and followed globally. Many scholars described this as a process of “unilateral regulatory globalization.”
c) It is an area in which the EU’s power has been growing and it could be rated as the world’s dominant power. The EU’s regulatory leadership is a function primarily of the size of its market (500million citizens), the world’s largest, which is underpinned by its relative per capita wealth. It has been bolstered by closer political integration notably on regulatory issues which has facilitated the adoption of common EU standards, and its gradual enlargement -from 12 member states in the mid-1980s to 27 giving it better bargaining power to formulate global norms.
3) Environmental politics:
a) EU has played a central role in climate change politics. It played a dominant role in 1997 in formation. Kyoto Protocol treaty designed to curb worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. This was now adopted by more than 160 states.
b) Since then, however, the EU’s role as a world “green power” has diminished. Copenhagen Summit (2009) Failed to produce an agreement binding its signatories while China, India, Brazil had impacted the conference more than Europe.
c) Preoccupation with the post-2008 financial and economic crisis, having lowered its environmental policy objectives. The diffusion of EU climate change policy norms to large countries such as China and India is limited and conditional upon their congruency with domestic political priorities.
4) External trade power:
a) Despite its market size, multilateral international trade negotiations over the last 25 years points to a diminution of the EU’s world power.
b) Uruguay Round (1986-1993) that resulted in the formation of WTO had EU and US influence. But since 21st Century in Doha Round has exhibited a very different pattern of trade policy cleavage. It was clearly fight between developed and developing world. Developing countries led by Brazil, India, China and South Africa, were “conscious of their growing power and unhappy with the deal on offer by Developed EU and US and started bargaining better than EU for incentives and specifically in the area of agriculture industry protection. The old bipolar distribution of power in international trade politics has been replaced by a multi-polar one in which the EU’s role and power are more limited.
5) Monetary and fiscal power: 
a) The euro, however, has so far failed to pose a serious challenge to the primacy of the dollar. And as a ‘world currency’. It remain a “second-tier, regional currency”, important for Europe and its immediate neighborhood but not wider a field.
b) Due to economic crisis Many EU countries seek IMF loans as part of larger rescue packages. Due to indebtness and incapacity of repay states turned to IMF for bailout package. Up to 2013, the IMF had contributed about 1/3rd of the aid provided to bail out Greece, Portugal and Ireland. In April 15, 2013, some 62% of the IMF’s financial commitments were to European countries. Its ability to bargain within EU is also fading. It could not stop UK from exit.
c) The EU’s partial dependence on the IMF to bail out some of its crisis-stricken member states created hitherto non-existent scope for external states to influence Eurozone monetary and fiscal policies. This dependence, despite its being moderated by the EU member states’ strong representation in the IMF’s decision-making organs, threatened to give non-European governments increasing power over economic policy choices in the Eurozone, reducing power of EU to take monetary actions within its own zone.
Emerging regional powers:
 a) Europe remains the world’s largest economic area with an approximate 22% share of the global GDP. However share has decline from 26% in 2004 also its share to world population has reduced from 11% in 1960 to 6% in 2015. EU’s growth rates are on average lower than those of the regional powers 
b) Per capita income and average productivity are far higher than those of China, India, Brazil or Russia. However, Europeans will be the oldest in the world by 2030. This population ageing problem may affect productivity in future.
c) Nowadays, declining productivity, weak growth, structural unemployment, lack of flexibility in the employment market, demographic decline and insufficient immigration are characteristic of the EU. Supplemented by a very high deficit and political crises within several countries (e.g. Ireland, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Belgium, UK).
d) Power is predominantly shifting towards Asia and generating a significant increase of South–South cooperation. Many governments are turning away from the US and the EU toward the regional powers, new centers with global influence, in particular China, India and Brazil; other states such as Turkey, South Africa, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia also play a role.
e) By 2030, Asia will overtake the United States and Europe in terms of GDP, population size, military spending and technological investment. China alone is expected to reach 19.8% of global GDP by then, in contrast to Europe which will sink to 14.6% .
f) Above-average growth characteristically prevails in these states. China and India have been growing at an average of 10% for the last 30 years while the EU and the US at less than 6%. The average growth of the GNP of most regional powers is significantly higher than that of the EU. ex-China 10%, India 6%, EU-3%. In China and India, industrial value added is growing at above-average rates China 11%, India 7.5% EU 1.8%. The world economy is no longer led by the OECD but by regional powers.
g) Brazil, China and India exert influence not only on a regional but also on a global level, owing to the fact that the G20’s importance. Regional actors are increasingly playing a role in shaping global governance (e.g. climate, energy, world currency, WTO, IMF). An increase of intra-regional trade and direct investments on their part contributes to more profound exchange and integration. Their institutional alliances such as AIIB, NDB add up to their strength.
h) At the same time, however, the aforementioned nations are too weak because they – despite strong economic growth – are unable to eradicate poverty in their own countries, and an extremely imbalanced distribution of income and wealth prevails, resulting in massive social problems. The weak infrastructure, technological underdevelopment, and low levels of education of the majority of the population are characteristic of their economic and social situations. It is obvious what the new regional powers lack: the ability to lead globally. The regional powers have emerged as the new poles in the multipolar economic systems; they are hubs, but predominantly lack soft power.
i) Europe is increasingly marginal to the strategic calculations of both the US and the rising Asian powers. As China and India continue to rise, they will be competing with each other for regional influence and with the US – not with the EU – for international standing. Europe is seldom taken into consideration by Asian powers.
          To conclude, A regional leadership gap, along with global and regional governance gaps, is already spreading.EU is a major economic power. It is an effective trade power but slowly losing its ability to shape the international environment. At the same time it is successful in setting the global agenda for regulatory policies. EU was never a major global defence power. It relies more on US to address global political /defence related concerns. It is apparent that regional powers are catching up and that this process will also galvanise due to American and European investors wanting to participate in the growing markets with trade and investments. EU is relatively weak in the areas of military, diplomacy and foreign policy, as well as business-network policies and civil society activities, and is even unable to bring its political and economic weight to bear in the neighboring countries. EU will have to learn to act and solve global problems with the regional powers in the context of a mutual (not a unilateral, one-sided) discourse on global obligations. This is absolutely essential for the successful reduction of the looming global and regional governance gaps.



Sources:
 https://www.giga-hamburg.de/en/system/files/publications/gf_international_1101.pdf
https://www.aspeninstitute.it/aspenia-online/article/whose-rise-and-decline-g20-and-post-european-era
http://intpolicydigest.org/2014/02/09/europe-in-a-globalized-world/
http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/wp-content/arts-files/europecentre/Working%20Papers%202014%2001.pdf
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11949038/Europes-glory-days-at-an-end-warns-Juncker.html
https://www.socialeurope.eu/2015/02/declining-power
https://www.theglobalist.com/the-global-rise-of-a-regulatory-superstate-in-europe/
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10308-017-0469-2






-------------------------------------**************-------------------------------------


Don't forget to share your remarks in comment box