Abstract
Federal States, generally, have an intrinsic characteristic of providing fiscal autonomy to their federating or subnational units. India, although, not a purest form of federal state, reflects a federal structure where the constituent states do, to a certain extent, enjoy financial autonomy in terms of regulating trade and commerce. As an economy, India has come a long way from being a socialist style closed economy to a predominantly liberal and globalized one. India’s tryst with free trade, primarily, started with the major economic reforms of 1991—when it adopted the mantra of liberalization, privatization, and globalization. Like many other federal states, India is not immune to the inherent challenges that a federal system encounters while engaging in trade and commerce at a multilateral level. In times when India has evolved from a closed economy to a prominent global market, identifying and overcoming the inherent challenges to free flow of trade is essential to keep a check on the possible perils of provincialism and protectionism.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Bagchi (2000), p. 3025.
- 2.
Bagchi (2001), p. 2.
- 3.
Sarkar and Patrick (2015), p. 2.
- 4.
Ibid.
- 5.
Office of the United States Trade Representative (2017), p. 208.
- 6.
Ibid 209.
- 7.
Mikic and Wermelinger (2010), p. 8.
- 8.
Ibid.
- 9.
Singh (2016a), p. 451.
- 10.
Kuldeep Nayar v Union of India (2006) 7 SCC 1; Singh (2016a), p. 451.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
Singh (2016b), p. 523.
- 14.
Bagchi (2005), p. 1806.
- 15.
Singh (2016a), p. 453.
- 16.
Bagchi (2000), p. 3033.
- 17.
Singh (2016a), p. 454.
- 18.
Conceição-Heldt (2013), p. 437.
- 19.
- 20.
Jenkins (2003), p. 80.
- 21.
- 22.
Bagchi (2002), p. 2303.
- 23.
Ibid.
- 24.
Topalova and Khandelwal (2011), p. 999.
- 25.
Bagchi (2008), p. 42.
- 26.
Ibid.
- 27.
Topalova and Khandelwal (2011), p. 996.
- 28.
Goldar (2005), p. 2.
- 29.
Conceição-Heldt (2013), p. 436.
- 30.
- 31.
- 32.
Jenkins (2003), pp. 75–76.
- 33.
Conceição-Heldt (2013), p. 436.
- 34.
Pasha and Pasha (2012), pp. 13–14.
- 35.
Office of the United States Trade Representative (2017), p. 207.
- 36.
Pasha and Pasha (2012), p. 10.
- 37.
Secretariat WTO (2015) para 3.39.
- 38.
Bagchi (2005), p. 1806.
- 39.
Office of the United States Trade Representative (2017), p. 207.
- 40.
Das-Gupta (2006), p. 232.
- 41.
Bagchi (2002), p. 2305.
- 42.
Ibid.
- 43.
Singh (2016a), p. 456.
- 44.
Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd v State of Assam (1961) 232 SC AIR 9-11; Bagchi (2002), p. 2303.
- 45.
Datar (2016), p. 488.
- 46.
Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd v State of Assam (1961) 232 SC AIR 9-11; Datar (2016), p. 487.
- 47.
Bagchi (2001), p. 13.
- 48.
Basu (2011), p. 1828; Jindal Stainless Steel Ltd. (2) v State of Haryana (2006) 241 SCC 33-34.
- 49.
Secretariat WTO (2015) para 1.7.
- 50.
Singh (2016b), p. 525.
- 51.
Dani (2016), p. 1.
- 52.
Banik and Singh (2017), p. 10.
- 53.
Notani (2017).
- 54.
Melchior (2010), p. 16.
- 55.
- 56.
Section 5, IGST Act 2017.
- 57.
Sharma (2012), p. 66.
- 58.
Mikic and Wermelinger (2010), p. 27.
- 59.
Das-Gupta (2006), p. 232.
References
Bagchi A (2000) ‘Rethinking federalism’ overview of current debates with some reflections in Indian context. Econ Polit Wkly 35(34):3025–3026
Bagchi A (2001) Fifty years of fiscal federalism in India: an appraisal. Paper presented at the Kale Memorial Lecture, Gokhale Institute of Politics & Economics, Pune, 8 December 2001
Bagchi A (2002) Enforcing the Constitution’s common market mandate: time to invoke Article 307. Econ Polit Wkly 37(24):2303–2308
Bagchi A (2005) VAT and state autonomy. Econ Polit Wkly 40(18):1806–1807
Bagchi A (2008) Globalisation and federalism: uneasy partners? Econ Polit Wkly 43(38):41–48
Banik N, Singh S (2017) Demystifying the role of ‘Barriers at and behind the Borders’ in India: a case study of pharmaceutical products. http://www.cuts-citee.org/pdf/Discussion_Paper-Demystifying_the_Role_of_Barriers_at_and_behind_the_Borders_in_India.pdf. Accessed 05 Jan 2018
Basu DD (2011) Shorter constitution of India, vol 2, 14th edn. Lexis Nexis
Breton A (2003) Competitive federalism and incipient globalization. Paper presented at the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, New Delhi
Conceição-Heldt E (2013) Emerging powers in WTO negotiations: the domestic sources of trade policy preferences. Int Trade J 27:431–449
Dani S (2016) A research paper on an impact of Goods and Service Tax (GST) on Indian economy. J Bus Econ 7(4):1–2
Das-Gupta A (2006) Internal trade barriers in India: fiscal check-posts. South Asia Econ J 7(2):231–254
Datar A (2016) Inter-state trade, commerce, and intercourse. In: Sujit C, Madhav K, Pratab BM (eds) The Oxford handbook of the Indian Constitution. OUP, pp 487–501
Goldar B (2005) Impact on India of tariff and quantitative restrictions under WTO. Working Paper, Indian Council for Research in International Economic Relations, New Delhi. http://icrier.org/pdf/WP172.pdf. Accessed 03 Jan 2018
Jenkins R (2003) India’s states and the making of foreign economic policy: the limits of the constituent diplomacy paradigm. J Federalism 33(4):663–681
Melchior A (2010) Globalization, domestic market integration, and the regional disparities of India. https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/277887/WP-780-Melchior.pdf?sequence=3. Accessed 04 Jan 2018
Mikic M, Wermelinger M (eds) (2010) Rising non-tariff protectionism and crisis recovery: a study of Asia-Pacific Research and training network on trade. United Nations Publications
Notani S (2017) International trade in goods and services in India: overview. In International Trade and Commercial Transactions in Global Guide 2017. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-009-2204?navId=062F0E851FA14CC566DB6CD93261DDB1&comp=pluk&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default). Accessed 10 Jan 2018
Office of the United States Trade Representative (2017) National trade estimate report on foreign trade barrier. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/reports/2017/NTE/2017%20NTE.pdf. Accessed 13 Jan 2018
Pasha HA, Pasha AG (2012) Non-tariff barriers of India and Pakistan and their impact, Institute of Public Policy. Beaconhouse National University, Pakistan. http://www.sjbipp.org/publications/PR/projectreport/PR-25-16.pdf. Accessed 11 Jan 2018
Sarkar P, Patrick M (2015) India’s trade barriers: an analysis with reference to tariffs and customs. http://www.cppr.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Trade-Report.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2018
Secretariat WTO (2015) Trade policy review report by the Secretariat. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/s313_e.pdf. Accessed 07 Jan 2018
Sharma LM (2012) Vision 2020: transform, conform and perform. Paper presented at 40th National Convention of Company Secretaries, Pune, 4–6 October 2012
Singh MP (2016a) The federal scheme. In: Sujit C, Madhav K, Pratab BM (eds) The Oxford handbook of the Indian Constitution. OUP, pp 451–465
Singh N (2016b) Fiscal federalism. In: Chaudhary S, Khosla M, Mehta PB (eds) The Oxford handbook of the Indian Constitution. OUP, pp 521–539
Topalova P, Khandelwal A (2011) Trade liberalization and firm-productivity: the case of India. Rev Econ Stat 93(3):995–1009
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dar, W.A. (2020). India’s Tryst with Free Trade: Overcoming the Inherent Challenges of Federalism. In: Nagy, C. (eds) World Trade and Local Public Interest. Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 19. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41920-2_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41920-2_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-41919-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-41920-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)