After the 1990 crisis, the government of India introduced big changes to economic policies that affected government revenues, expenditures and foreign exchange.1 To lower spending, allowances were downsized, an example of this is that the cost of fertilizer was priced 30 percent more in value.1 An increase in taxes also occurred and the privatization of some public industries was declared.1 The last change that was enacted to cope with the crisis was to devalue the rupee by 18 percent and India asked for a loan from the International Monetary Fund to curb the damage done to their foreign exchange reserves.1 Within six months, their foreign exchange reserves expanded by 280 percent due to these changes.1 But, while these changes had a positive
…show more content…
Also, the way in which India headed towards globalization was not as a gradual of a pace as they tried to explain themselves as. 4 This is supported by the fact that the opponents of globalization were both small and large firms, and both had the same opinion that India 's industry will see lots of losers and only a few big winners in the future years ahead.5 In Jalal Alamgir 's review, he states that “Indal, the huge Indian Aluminium Company, faced considerable losses and the prospect of substantial layoffs after tariff liberalisation introduced foreign competition in the local aluminium market(Business India,14-27 July 1997)”.5 All in all, if big companies are having problems with foreign competition in a country, then this shows that the level of the field in which companies participate in globalization is not fair. Alongside this comes the risks of unemployment due to workers being laid off by these companies, and if lots of unemployment happens, then poverty would in fact increase over time. Also, poverty would be a result of smaller domestic businesses losing business because of international giant companies. In a book review of India 's Economic Reforms by Vijay Joshi, Tanweer Akram states that “The authors call for strengthening antipoverty programs because a rise in food grain prices after liberalization may hurt the poor. They suggest that the savings from input subsidies be used to finance
Also, the way in which India headed towards globalization was not as a gradual of a pace as they tried to explain themselves as. 4 This is supported by the fact that the opponents of globalization were both small and large firms, and both had the same opinion that India 's industry will see lots of losers and only a few big winners in the future years ahead.5 In Jalal Alamgir 's review, he states that “Indal, the huge Indian Aluminium Company, faced considerable losses and the prospect of substantial layoffs after tariff liberalisation introduced foreign competition in the local aluminium market(Business India,14-27 July 1997)”.5 All in all, if big companies are having problems with foreign competition in a country, then this shows that the level of the field in which companies participate in globalization is not fair. Alongside this comes the risks of unemployment due to workers being laid off by these companies, and if lots of unemployment happens, then poverty would in fact increase over time. Also, poverty would be a result of smaller domestic businesses losing business because of international giant companies. In a book review of India 's Economic Reforms by Vijay Joshi, Tanweer Akram states that “The authors call for strengthening antipoverty programs because a rise in food grain prices after liberalization may hurt the poor. They suggest that the savings from input subsidies be used to finance