Indonesia | Economics

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Restricting modern retailers: Winners and losers

▪ ▪ ▪
From last week's Jakarta Post:
The government has issued a regulation to restrict the expansion of modern retailers including supermarkets, hypermarkets and convenience stores, which have been widely criticized for edging out traditional retailers.

Widely criticized for edging out and causing the decline of traditional retailers? Sure -- but are they really the culprit? Not according to this study.

The law apparently will focus on zoning issues. Take Jakarta, for instance. According to one of the ministry's general, in Jakarta, (I presume, new?) hypermarkets can only be opened at the outskirts. This is, indeed, a victory... for Carrefour, Giants, and all others that have managed to establish themselves in Jakarta prior to the regulation (I presume, the local government isn't going to revoke the licenses for existing hypermarkets). Unfortunately, it's bad news for the rest of us, which is very likely to include the very small retailers that the regulation was supposed to protect.

Why? Hypermarkets operate in an oligopoly market. By removing the threat of new entrants, the regulation makes the environment in which the hypermarkets operate more "stable". This has an effect of "softening" the competition amongst existing oligopolies. This softened competition allows oligopolists to increase their profit margins. Hence, I suspect that this regulation will increase the real profits of hypermarkets located in Jakarta.

And, if I am correct, guess from whose pockets will these increased profits come from? The rest of us, obviously. Since many owners of warungs -- street-side vendors -- also purchase their goods from these hypermarkets, they are likely to have to pay more that before. They would pass some of those costs to the consumers, but since goods offered by these small vendors tend to be elastic, this will reduce their overall revenue.

Herein lies the irony: A regulation that is supposed to "protect" smaller retailers (despite evidence showing that the hypermarkets are not the most important culprit in their decline) might end up accelerating their demise. On the other hand, the supposedly "big-and-evil" hypermarkets might actually gain from the whole enterprise. And consumers, which is clearly the largest constituents, will lose out from all this.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, December 09, 2007

Do supermarkets harm traditional markets?

▪ ▪ ▪
Not according to this not-so-new report by SMERU:
This study measures the impact of supermarkets on traditional markets in urban centers in Indonesia quantitatively using difference-in-difference and econometric methods as well as qualitatively using in-depth interviews. The quantitative methods find no statistically significant impact on earnings and profit but a statistically significant impact of supermarkets on the number of employees in traditional markets. The qualitative findings suggest that the decline in traditional markets is mostly caused by internal problems from which supermarkets benefit. Therefore, ensuring the sustainability of traditional markets would require an overhaul of the traditional market management system, enabling them to compete with and survive alongside supermarkets.

Note that the one statistically significant negative impact of supermarkets was to reduce employment in the traditional markets. However, since supermarkets create employment, I wonder whether the net employment impact is positive or negative.

The report looks comprehensive and I think it deserves a wider coverage in the conventional media. I sure wish SMERU has an Indonesian version of it. Who knows, Indonesian journalists might actually take a look at and investigate the (absence of) empirical evidence behind the case against modern markets, instead of just parroting the anecdotal arguments of the traditional-market lobbies.

Labels: , ,