# data[].attributes.body
(TZ01)
Team Members:
1. Zaqia Alyya
2. Trisha Tan
3. Shermyn Tan
4. Angelina Low
5. Ramyasrii

# data[].attributes.body
1.2 Intended Consequences
1.2.1 Boosting Local Production
With current tax structures causing smartphone imports to be 11.5% more expensive than that of locally manufactured phones, global companies now strategize to conduct local production to capture the growing market with more competitive prices. China’s big players such as Xiaomi already has 3 manufacturing facilities in India, with the third dedicated to the production of Xiaomi’s portable banks; Korea’s giant Samsung also expressed their interest to invest a further Rs 4,915 crore in expanding its Noida manufacturing plant to double the production capacity of both mobile phones and consumer electronics (IANS, 2017).

As a result of growing number of production facilities being set up by companies such as that of Samsung, Xiaomi and Oppo, 107 new units have been set up by locals to make and supply various components to support these companies.

In addition to new units being set up, imports in 2017 have also declined by 60%; the domestic contribution in terms of mobile handsets sold has jumped by 47% in value terms and reached 225 million in absolute numbers (Devan, 2017). That is equivalent to 80% of the phones sold in India being locally manufactured.

Keeping up with the current levels of production, the industry has estimated that the annual value of production could raise up to Rs 3.5 lakh crore by 2019 (from Rs 2.5 lark crore). Not only are these figures in line with the “Made in India” campaign, this could also open up the export market for India as they are expecting to export a total of 120 million units by 2019 with a total value of Rs 100,000 crore.

1.3 Unintended Consequences
1.3.1 Consumer Market Dominated by Foreign Players

As global companies begin to change their strategy and switch to local production, the increase of tariffs and taxes no longer have an impact on them - this gives them the advantage of keeping prices competitive with that of local brands. With over 650 million users in India (of which half owns an smartphone), Chinese brands are the most preferred by them. This is because these Chinese players are able to offer phones with more compelling features, thus dominating the mid-range price segment in the country.

The collective market share of China-based vendors — especially Xiaomi, Vivo, Lenovo, OPPO and Huawei (Honor) — in India stands at 53 per cent in 2017, says International Data Corporation (IDC). According to Counterpoint Research, the combined market share of four top Indian brands — Micromax, Lava, Intex and Karbonn — was a mere 12.5 per cent last year.

1.3.2 Reducing Local Companies’ Competitiveness (in the long run)

The move to impose tariffs on the imports has helped to buy time for homegrown industries to expand without hindrance from international competition; however in the long run, it could end up building an inefficient industrial system as local companies fail to keep up with rapidly changing business environment.

Local players are already showing signs of increased reliance on the government to protect them from foreign competition. Upon realising the Chinese players have a strong footing in India’s smartphone consumer market, local players are pressing the government to implement more measures to assist them - they feel that the local government has failed to provide a level-playing field due to a lack of capital and logistics. According to Nidhi Markanday, the Director of Intex Technologies, have stated that the local manufacturing sector are still not given enough incentives to achieve economies of scale and exports of electronics (IANS, 2018); it is said that the Chinese players owe their success to heavy support from the individual states as well as the budget allocated by the central government and hence, local players are expecting the same from their government.

With India’s government continuously giving in to their demands (the government is intending to implement a phased manufacturing plan consisting of further tax reliefs and incentives on smartphone components and accessories), it will promote inefficiency and hence, weaken the industry in the future.

1.3.3 Trigger for Trade War

In the first four years in office, Modi had encouraged foreign investments and such investments hit a record high in March 2017 as many investors had been attracted by India’s rapid economic growth. However, a sudden turn towards protectionism this year had shaken investors’ confidence as they remain uncertain if India is still pursuing market friendly reforms.

Recently, on February 1, 2018, India’s government had raised tariffs on imported smartphones to 20% in its budget and hence, resulting in the increase in prices of Apple smartphones in India to $1,700 (Iyengar, 2018). In turn, it has prompted President Trump to suggest reciprocal tax on India as motorcycle companies such Harley Davidson are required to pay import tax to India while India enjoys exporting large quantities of motorcycles to U.S. for free. Tensions between U.S and India could potentially escalate into a tit-for-tat announcements of tariff on key imports and exports (similar to that of U.S and China), hurting both economies.

Additional Links:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/government-imposes-10-per-cent-customs-duty-on-imported-mobile-phones-parts/articleshow/59394238.cms

https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/technology/2017-chinese-smartphone-players-dominated-indian-market-xiaomi-witnesses-biggest-growth/982345/

https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/technology/indian-smartphone-vendors-suffer-as-chinese-players-gobble-up-share/1075256/

http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/14/news/economy/india-modi-tariffs-protectionism/index.html

http://www.newindianexpress.com/world/2017/apr/18/china-wont-sit-idle-if-india-takes-protectionist-measures-against-smartphone-makers-media-1594958.html

# data[].attributes.body
2.1 Article B: Summary

Article B states that India plans to increase the subsidies given to the farmers, going against the rules-based international trading system. India proposes that the WTO reverse position and allow an increase in farm subsidies. This would be a huge impact to the world as India has the second largest area of arable land.

Farm subsidies cause more harm than good to the economy, as it would result in food wastage, inefficient production, higher prices, risk of food supply shocks and several other adverse effects.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
India's trade-distorting farm subsidies are already far in excess of the limits agreed to in their World Trade Organization commitments. Now India wants WTO members to look the other way while it increases subsidies further. With global commodity prices weakening, those subsidies are likely to damage farmers in other countries, tempt tit-for-tat reactions from their governments, and threaten the rules-based international trading system. To staunch that threat, agricultural trading nations should bring a WTO dispute-settlement case seeking an end to India's abusive practices.

India purchases basic crops from farmers at artificially high prices, and then sells a portion in 500,000 "fair price" stores to some 800 million poor people at low prices. An estimated 40 percent of the food never reaches its intended consumers. Much of it escapes from government control due to graft and corruption. The remainder of the wastage is due to inadequate storage and transportation facilities. The Food Corporation of India (FCI), a government agency, held 68.7 million metric tons (MMT) of grain in storage on July 1. Three MMT of that supply (equivalent to the annual wheat consumption of the Philippines) were kept in sacks on the ground covered only with plastic sheeting. Government-induced loss of food seems particularly cruel in a country where many people remain hungry. Yet India continues to exacerbate this inefficient system.

India's farm subsidies harm its own economy. Farmers are incentivized to devote more land and water to subsidized crops (wheat, rice, sugar, etc.) desired by the government. This leads to less production and higher prices for other items (fruits, vegetables, etc.) that consumers also want to buy. India justifies these policies under the guise of achieving "food security" by encouraging domestic production of basic crops. The same excuse is given to justify commodity prices being held above world levels through the use of high tariffs and other import restraints. Most economists would agree, however, that security of supply is hurt rather than helped by import restrictions. A failure of India's annual monsoon rains can lead to drought and reduced crop output. By relying so heavily on its own production, India is more vulnerable to food supply shocks than would be the case if its agricultural economy was integrated fully into the large and resilient global market.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

WTO rules on agricultural subsidies came into effect in 1995 at the conclusion of the Uruguay Round negotiations. WTO members strongly supported limits on trade-distorting subsidies because the global marketplace had been wracked by rampant subsidy competition among wealthy nations, most prominently the European Community and the United States. Farmers in non-subsidizing countries suffered with low prices. The Agreement on Agriculture addressed this problem by placing limits on trade-distorting subsidies, while allowing a wide range of non-distorting government services and payments to be provided to farmers. It also permitted governments to spend as much as they wish to provide food to low-income people. An insightful (and conservative) 2011 study by DTB Associates calculated that India was then exceeding its allowed domestic support levels by a minimum of $37 billion. That much subsidization can do serious damage to world commodity markets and the farmers who depend on them.

India is now proposing that the WTO should reverse position and endorse an increase in distorting farm subsidies. Keep in mind that India is not a small player in global agriculture. It not only boasts the world's second largest population, it also has the second largest area of arable land. Recently India ignored the WTO's prohibition on new export subsidies and began to use them on sugar, thus undercutting sugar exporters such as Thailand and Brazil. If India won't follow the rules to which it has agreed, other countries are likely soon to follow suit.

Last December, when India was resisting conclusion of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA), it received assurances that there would be a "peace clause" under which other countries would agree not to challenge its agricultural subsidy programs. When India finally blew up the TFA in July, the peace clause was blown up along with it. That's just as well, because the WTO Agreement on Agriculture is genuinely worth defending. WTO members should do India and the world a favor and file a dispute-settlement case against India's agricultural policies. The goal would be to encourage India to shift toward using farm support measures that the Agreement on Agriculture specifically allows. Such an outcome would be far more constructive than pushing the global agricultural economy back into a subsidy war in which the clear losers would be taxpayers, farmers in other developing countries, and the rules-based international trading system.
Dan Pearson is a Senior Fellow for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. Before Cato, he served 10 years on the U.S. International Trade Commission.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
India's trade-distorting farm subsidies are already far in excess of the limits agreed to in their World Trade Organization commitments. Now India wants WTO members to look the other way while it increases subsidies further. With global commodity prices weakening, those subsidies are likely to damage farmers in other countries, tempt tit-for-tat reactions from their governments, and threaten the rules-based international trading system.

# data[].attributes.body
3.1 Article C: Summary
The import amounts of pulses skyrocketed way above the 2.2 lakh tonnes cap and pressurised local farmers to reduce their prices. The government has now imposed a quota on import amounts and has implemented some measures to ensure that domestic prices do not fall below the minimum support price (Sally, 2018).

New regulations:

Only millers and refiners are allowed to import within the quota amount and they would have to submit their applications within a stipulated time period

Importers would also have to report to the government weekly regarding their import

Tur has an import quota of 2 million tonnes, while moong and urad have a quota of 3 million tonnes together.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NEW DELHI: The government has tightened norms for the import of pulses to ensure that its domestic prices don't fall below the minimum support price. The prices of most pulses have been below the minimum support price levels, leading to farmer unrest in the main pulses-growing areas.

The government has also introduced a quota system only for millers and refiners for the import of tur, moong and urad, according to a notification by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). To avail this quota, dal millers have to submit applications between May 15 and 25. The allocation of quota for each beneficiary will be notified on June 1 and millers have to complete their imports by August 31, the DGFT said.

Suresh Aggarwal, president of the All India Dal Mill Association based out of Indore, said the move will benefit Indian farmers as the import quota has been reduced compared to the previous year and only millers and refiners have been allowed to import.

"Earlier, trading companies and wholesalers were also importing leading to increased imports and pressure on prices," he said.

Importers and traders imported tur as it was much cheaper in the global market compared to the domestic market, traders said. Over 4.04 lakh tonnes of tur were imported during April-November 2017 as against the cap of 2 lakh tonnes imposed by the government for financial year 2017-18, government data showed. To check imports, the government has asked dal millers to inform them of the import of pulses on a weekly basis. Last week, the government had imposed import cap on split and milled dal as well. It had also fixed the quantity -- 1.5 lakh tonnes each of urad and moong along with 2 lakh tonne of tur including split and other forms this financial year.

The government set restrictions on pulses imports in August 2017. The free import of tur, moong and urad has been restricted by imposing a quota of 2 million tonnes import on tur and 3 million tonnes on moong and urad together.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Government tightens norms for import of pulses

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NEW DELHI: The government has tightened norms for the import of pulses to ensure that its domestic prices don't fall below the minimum support price. The prices of most pulses have been below the minimum support price levels, leading to farmer unrest in the main pulses-growing areas.

# data[].attributes.body
3.2  Intended consequences of quota imposition

3.2.1 Reduced pressure on Indian farmers

Severe droughts in 2015 and 2016 brought about conditions that made it impossible to grow pulses eventually causing pulse numbers to plunge while its prices skyrocketed. Indian farmers responded to the increasing price situation by increasing land area used for pulse production and good rainfall helped overall pulse production to increase by 33%. Local production coupled with high amounts of imports led to an abundant amount of pulses in India. Due to high supply, prices fell rapidly causing local farmers to reduce their prices well below the minimum support price where they did not earn much profit. In addition, farmers were banned from exporting pulses while there were no such limitations on imports (Gulati, 2017).

With the import quota in place, farmers have a chance of being able to sell their produce at higher prices as they face lesser competition from the importers. However, the profits will only stream in once India has managed to clear its excessive amounts of pulses that even government procurement does not help the situation.

3.3  Unintended consequences of quota imposition

3.2.1 Myanmar pulse exports take a hit

The imposition of quota on pulses has caused Myanmar to run out of business. Myanmar exports about 1.5 million tons of pulses to foreign countries and India had been its largest market where it exported about 70% of its pulses to (Ko, 2018). The quota has now caused pulse prices to decrease rapidly in Myanmar.

In addition, Myanmar now has to fight with Africa as they both compete to fulfil the 200,000-ton quota for tur, as India imports from both countries. Myanmar now faces pressure as its prices have to remain competitive in comparison to Africa but also has to ensure that the bean market is still profitable overall as it was before the quota (Htwe, 2018). Overall, the problem of pulse farming being unprofitable has been transferred from Indian farmers to Myanmar farmers.

3.3.2 Protests from Indian farmers to ban imports

Even though the import quota gives a glimmer of hope to Indian pulse farmers, profits are still a distant away. The minimum support price (MSP) has been said to be unattainable unless the government bans pulse imports totally. Due to free trade, the stocked-up amounts of imported pulses are more than enough to cause pressure on domestic farmers. But as imports are still allowed, the hopes of selling pulses at MSP are reduced significantly (Bhosale, 2018). Thus, farmers are demanding that imports are banned and that India rely on domestic production solely, until it has a need to import.

3.4 Potential solutions to curb the problem

3.4.1 Encourage exports of domestically produced pulses

As the government is unable to guarantee that farmers will be able to earn at MSP, farmers should be allowed to export their pulses as it would allow them to dispose of their products at prices higher than MSP. Thus, the government had lifted the 10-year trade ban in 2017. However, not having been engaged in exports for the past ten years, traders are still slowly establishing trade links (Government removes restrictions on export of all types of pulses , 2017). By providing support to these traders and farmers who export, India will be able to clear its pulse stocks faster and could still continue to import from other nations such as Myanmar and Africa. This would also allow them to continue to build their political ties with these nations as opposed to these nations blaming India for affecting their farmers’ livelihood.

Additional Links:
https://www.financialexpress.com/market/commodities/save-the-pulse-farmer-heres-how/586300/

https://www.mmtimes.com/news/confusion-ensues-after-india-announces-new-bean-import-quotas.html

https://www.mmtimes.com/news/myanmar-india-continue-pulse-and-bean-price-negotiations.html

http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/pulses-prices-crashed-production-government-policy-4837585/

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/agriculture/pulses-traders-demand-ban-on-import-quota-in-2018-19/articleshow/63284043.cms

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/foreign-trade/government-removes-restrictions-on-export-of-all-types-of-pulses/articleshow/61673095.cms

# data[].attributes.body
1.1 Article A: Summary
As an effort to accelerate the progress of the “Make In India” campaign, India’s government had imposed a 10% tariff on imported mobile handsets to encourage foreign companies to conduct local production.

Such tariff measure was well-received among the local manufacturing sector as they are now demanding for an increase in customs tax to further ensure a level playing field - from the previous 10% to 15% and eventually, 20%. The industry is also asking for a 10-year tax holiday for units setup is special economic zones, export-oriented units and domestic tariff areas for a period of up to 20 years.

It is expected that India is able to emerge as a global manufacturing hub with continuous efforts to protect the local industry through protectionist policies such as anti-dumping duties, prevent cheap imports from entering the country

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The NDA government at the center may feel quite pleased that its Make in India campaign is at last having a good effect with the mobile phone companies having manufacturing arrangements in the country are now demanding that the customs duty on imported handsets be increased and the imported components also taxed to ensure a level playing field for the domestic manufacturers. Interestingly, those demanding this imposition include the big names like Apple and Samsung, apart from the homegrown Micromax.

The Indian Cellular Association has put forward these proposals to the Finance Ministry, which is in the process of collecting the views of the different industry segments ahead of the Union Budget to be presented in February. The industry body has also asked for a 10-year tax holiday within a block of 15 to 20 years for the units setup in special economic zones, export-oriented units and domestic tariff areas.

It may be recalled that the government had increased the customs duty on imported mobile handsets from 10% to 15% recently. The Indian Cellular Association has now demanded that this be increased to 20%. They have demanded that the duty on components is also suitably calibrated and levied.

In addition to these, the industry body has represented to the Finance Ministry that all measures, like anti-dumping duty may also have to be taken to protect the manufacturers in India from any threat to them from cheap imports. They feel with such measures, India can emerge as a manufacturing hub like China and Vietnam for making mobile handsets contributing handsomely to exports even. The industry is prepared to accept reasonable conditions that the government may impose, with regard to factors like value addition etc., so that genuine players in the industry alone are the recipients of the benefits.

In the three years since the current government launched the Make in India scheme, 107 units have sprung up, which support companies like Apple, Samsung, Vivo and Oppo in making and supplying various components for them.

The statistics emerging from the industry are also pointing in the same direction. While imports in 2017 have declined 60% from the previous year, the domestic contribution, in terms of mobile handsets sold has jumped by 47% in value terms and reached 225 million in absolute numbers.

Looking ahead, the industry estimates that the annual value of production of mobile phones could touch Rs 3.5 lakh crore by 2019 from the current levels of Rs 2.5 lakh crore. This represents 500 million units made in India. This will also open up the avenue to export 120 million units by 2019 valued at Rs 100,000 crore. When looked at this year's figure of Rs 6000 crore as exports income, this might sound quite ambitious.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Indian phone makers seek higher tax on imports to boost local manufacturing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The NDA government at the center may feel quite pleased that its Make in India campaign is at last having a good effect with the mobile phone companies having manufacturing arrangements in the country are now demanding that the customs duty on imported handsets be increased and the imported components also taxed to ensure a level playing field for the domestic manufacturers.

# data[].attributes.body
2.2 Intended Consequences of Subsidies

2.2.1 Encourage greater exports in the short run

India has emerged as a major agricultural exporter, with exports increasing from around $5 billion in 2003 to more than $39 billion in 2013. India is now the seventh-largest exporter of agricultural products as of 2013 (USDA, N.A.). The use of subsidies by the government help revive the country’s export sector. Free electricity and water for farmers, as well as subsidised seed, chemical inputs and transport are examples of how the government try to incentivise and help these farmers. In the short term, productivity increases and food prices have fallen (Flake, 2014). The tremendous export growth in India has been the highest in any country, and one of the drivers would be the growth in government support provided for agriculture.

2.2.2 Support locally produced products

Government subsidies for locally produced goods coupled with import tariffs for foreign goods make local products more price competitive. In India, the government has been supporting the growth of its tech and telecom industry through initiatives “Made in India” and “Digital India”. These schemes provide capital subsidies to electronic manufacturing and design firms. India has since seen an increase in the production of smartphones from 45 million in 2015 to 100 million in 2016 (Bagchi, 2016).

Such subsidies help to generate more jobs (e.g. 20 000 more people hired within a span of 10 months in the smartphone manufacturing industry in 2015) and also retain and circulate money in the local economy, generating growth.

2.3 Unintended Consequences of Subsidies

2.3.1 Fosters inefficient practices in the long run

With subsidies being handed out to farmers easily, it discourages them from innovating, cutting costs and diversifying land use (Edwards, 2018).  Farmers may be more induced to maximise these subsidies instead of taking risks to improve their practices. They become dependent on these subsidies to sustain their livelihoods, resulting in a less competitive agricultural sector. This would not benefit India’s economy in the long run.

In addition, subsidies may result in loss of harvested crops. This happens as the economy only focuses on increasing total output for international trade but not pay attention to other important aspects such as infrastructural development that is integral for sustained economic growth. In India, harvest are lost annually due to improper storage. The Food Corporation of India (FCI), a government agency, held 68.7 million metric tons (MMT) of grain in storage on July 1 2014. 3 MMT of that supply (equivalent to the annual wheat consumption of the Philippines) were kept in sacks on the ground covered only with plastic sheeting (Pearson, 2014). This is an example of how India lacks proper infrastructures to manage its food storage. This is a serious issue for India which is already facing a starvation crisis.

Rather than focusing on export and input subsidies, the government should focus more on providing subsidies to improve permanent useful infrastructure such as irrigation systems, electricity and storage. Food scarcity would be a long term effect of giving heavy subsidies to farmers without focusing on building proper infrastructures.

2.3.2 Environmental degradation

Agriculture plays a huge role in India’s economy as two-third of the population depends on it for their livelihood. It is estimated that about 44% of India’s land area has degraded due to cultivation of marginal lands, improper crop rotations or deforestation as a consequence of shifting cultivation. Intensive farming, which has been promoted as a result of subsidies, has depleted soil of its nutrients (Gurumurthy & Goedecke, 2015).

Resource overuse is also a critical issue as farmers are not motivated to use resources efficiently. For example, groundwater extraction results in water sources being depleted. Overuse of fertilisers and pesticides lead to soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, and losses in ecosystem services and biodiversity (FDI Team, 2013). These leads to serious environmental degradation that would adversely affect the country’s agriculture sector.

2.3.3 Hurting Political Relationships and Provoking Possible Retaliations

From Article B, we see that India went against the WTO’s prohibition on new export subsidies in 2014 and began using export subsidies to make their produce more price competitive in importing countries. This protectionism action has disadvantaged producers from other nations as Indian farmers undercut them. This could spur a tit-for-tat reaction and eventually lead to a trade war, hurting political relationships.

For example, US has launched a dispute at the WTO to challenge India’s export subsidies. This dispute is happening at the same time as the trade dispute between US and China. US imposed 25% tariff on certain Chinese products as a way of expressing its unhappiness with Chinese companies demanding for technological intellectual property from US companies in exchange for access into the Chinese market. China reciprocated the same level of tariff on some of US products. As a result, US has threatened to impose an additional $100 billion tariff on their products. Experts fear that US may impose punitive actions on India for its unfair export subsidies practices (Duggal & Warrier, 2018).

2.3.4 Export Subsidies May Instead Harm Domestic Producers and Local Economy

India’s export subsidies scheme is aimed at helping local producers to make a better income, however it may instead harm the farmers as well the local economy. Export subsidies cause the world supply to swell, causing equilibrium market price to fall.

In the 2017/2018 season of sugar production, both Pakistan and India find themselves having a greater harvest, on top of the leftover surplus from the previous season. Pakistan thus increased the volume of sugar eligible for export subsidies, driving down the world price to US$340/tonne, which is way more competitive than India’s domestic price of US$460/tonne (due to high cost of production). To aid local farmers in reducing excess supplies, India has already reduced its 20% export tax on sugar. However, this is not enough and the government plans to tax local sugar sale and use the fund to provide export subsidies (Bhardwaj, 2018).

Thus, when countries provide export subsidies and world supply increases, world price falls, reducing the countries’ trade revenue as a result. Moreover, subsidies are obtained from taxpayers. Government subsidies protect inefficient producers who are not incentivised to reduce production cost. This would not improve the country’s competitiveness in the long run and would not promote sustainable economic growth.

2.3.5 Subsidies Reduce Crop Diversification

Government subsidies may not apply to all crops, hene farmers tend to switch to producing crops that receive the subsidies. In the case of India, with globalisation and free trade, subsidised crops (namely wheat, rice and sugar) has been allocated more land for farming while vegetables and fruits have seen a decline in production.

This reduced diversification of crops (putting many eggs in one basket) makes India more susceptible to the negative effects of price fluctuations. When the price of an important crop falls, the other variety of crops may not be able to counter the negative effects of the falling price (O’Neal, 2017).

In this globalised world, trading is integral for countries to obtain the things they need. This narrowing of product portfolio due to subsidies could also impact international trade by distorting the volumes of trading goods. For example, as India turn to produce more subsidised crops (e.g. sugar), they cause a surge in the supply available in the international market, causing prices to fall drastically, affecting the revenue of other nations that produce sugar as well. When India reduces the production of vegetables, its volume in the international trade market is reduced, causing an increase in world price of vegetables, making consumers from other countries to have to pay more. India is a huge agricultural player in the world, a change in their commodities production output would cause a change in the total volume in the world, impacting international trade (Mittal, 2007).

Additional Links:
https://cfo.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/insight-us-challenge-to-indias-export-subsidies/63693613

https://www.reuters.com/article/india-sugar/update-1-india-scraps-sugar-export-tax-to-boost-exports-cut-inventory-idUSL3N1R23GS

https://kb.gcsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1460&context=src

http://www.icrier.org/pdf/WorkingPaperNo195.pdf

https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies

http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/Economics%20of%20Land%20Degradation.pdf

http://www.futuredirections.org.au/publication/subsidies-in-the-global-food-system-i-india-s-subsidised-farm-inputs/

https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/india-s-agricultural-exports-climb-record-high

http://www.cxotoday.com/story/make-in-india-mobile-phone-production/