Best of BS Opinion: Competitiveness is built by openness and clarity

Competitiveness is not built by protecting old arrangements forever. It comes from letting markets evolve, allowing talent and capital to move, forcing firms to innovate, and making public systems transparent enough to be judged. Closed, opaque or outdated systems may offer temporary comfort, but they lose ground over time to those that are more open, better governed and quicker to adapt.

 

Our first editorial today, “Retail rulebook”, applies this lesson to India’s retail market. Quick commerce, foreign-owned marketplaces, dark stores, traditional kirana stores and large offline retailers are all competing in a sector that is changing faster than its rules. The All India Consumer Products Distribution Federation has raised questions on regulatory arbitrage, but the editorial argues that the answer is not to hold back one format in favour of another. India needs a coherent policy framework that recognises the new structure of retail, enforces transparency, prevents predatory practices, and allows fair competition. A modern retail economy cannot be governed through fragmented rules designed for an older marketplace.

 

 

The second editorial, “Divergent fortunes”, makes the argument through sport. European football’s recent controversies over migration, race and national identity sit uneasily with the fact that migrant-origin players have strengthened some of the continent’s most successful teams. France, England and other major footballing nations have gained from players whose families came from Africa, the Caribbean or elsewhere. The lesson goes beyond football. Societies that are open to talent often build deeper benches, more resilient teams and greater competitive strength. Those that turn inwards risk weakening the very institutions they claim to defend.

 

Akash Prakash’s column, “Can India innovate?”, turns to business. India has many large companies, but too few of them are producing world-class innovation. The problem is not simply lack of capital. It lies in promoter control, weak R&D culture, limited professional management, short-term earnings pressure and, in some sectors, insufficient competitive pressure. The largest Indian companies have scale, cash flows and market access, but many have not converted these advantages into deep technological capability. If India wants to compete globally, its largest firms must move from managing incumbency to creating the future.

 

Rajeswari Sengupta’s “Making India attractive to foreign capital” makes a similar point about investment. Temporary borrowing measures can ease pressure on the rupee, but they cannot solve India’s deeper capital-account problem. FDI has weakened, and investors are looking at India’s track record on tariffs, retrospective taxation, investment treaties and policy predictability. To attract durable capital, India must lower import barriers, integrate better with global value chains, restore confidence in bilateral investment treaties, and create a more predictable investment climate. Capital follows credibility, not slogans.

 

“What public finance documents don't tell you”, A K Bhattacharya’s review of Anoop Singh’s Managing Public Finances in a New Global Era brings the theme to government accounts. Public finance documents should not merely record fiscal numbers; they should reveal risks, off-Budget liabilities, subsidies, contingent commitments and Centre-state pressures. Without transparency, citizens and markets cannot properly assess the quality of fiscal management.

 

Whether in retail, football, industry, capital flows or public finance, the systems that win are those willing to open up, disclose more, compete harder and adapt faster.