Supporting arguments (source)

Opposing arguments (source)

• No evidence of impact on job losses (ICRIER).
• The rate of closure of unorganised retail shops (4.2%) is lower than international standards (ICRIER).
• Evidence from Indonesia and China show that traditional and modern retail can coexist and grow  (Reardon and Gulati).
• Majority of small retailers keen to remain in operation even after emergence of organised retail (ICRIER).

•  Unorganised retailers in the vicinity of organised retailers saw their volume of business and profit decline but this effect weakens over time (ICRIER).
• Other studies have estimated that traditional fruit and vegetable retailers experienced a 20-30% decline in incomes with the presence of supermarkets (Singh).
• There is potential for employment loss in the value chain. A supermarket may create fewer jobs for the volume of produce handled (Singh).
• Unemployment to increase as a result of retailers practicing product bundling (selling goods in combinations and bargains) and predatory pricing (Standing Committee).

• Significant positive impact on farmers as a result of direct sales to organised retailers.  For instance, cauliflower farmers receive a 25% higher price selling directly to organised retailers instead of government regulated markets (mandis).  Profits for farmers selling to organised retailers are about 60% higher than when selling to mandis (ICRIER).
• Organised retail could remove supply chain inefficiencies through direct purchase from farmers and investment in better storage, distribution and transport systems.  FDI, in particular, could bring in new technology and ideas (DIPP).

•  Current organised retail procures 60-70% from wholesale markets rather than farmers. There has been no significant impact on backend infrastructure investment (Singh).
• There are other issues like irrigation, technology and credit in agriculture which FDI may not address (Singh).
• Increased monopolistic strength could force farmers to sell at lower prices (Standing Committee).

• Organised retail lowers prices. Consumer spending increases with the entry of organised retail and lower income groups tend to save more (ICRIER).
• It will lead to better quality and safety standards of products (DIPP).

•  Evidence from some Latin American countries (Mexico, Nicaragua, Argentina), Africa (Kenya, Madagascar) and Asia (Thailand, Vietnam, India) reveal that supermarket prices for fruits and vegetables were higher than traditional retail prices (Singh).
• Even with lower prices at supermarkets, low income households may prefer traditional retailers because they live far from supermarkets, they can bargain with traditional retailers and buy loose items (Singh).
• Monopolistic power for retailers could result in high prices for consumers.