http://www.karmayog.org/govtactsschemes/govtactsschemes_2676.

htmDisinvestment, sometimes referred to as divestment, refers to the use of a concerted economic boycott, with specific emphasis on liquidating stock, to pressure a government, industry, or company towards a change in policy, or in the case of governments, even regime change. The term was first used in the 1980s, most commonly in the United States, to refer to the use of a concerted economic boycott designed to pressure the government of South Africa into abolishing its policy of apartheid. The term has also been applied to actions targeting Iran, Sudan, Northern Ireland, Myanmar, and Israel.
What Does Disinvestment Mean? 1. The action of an organization or government selling or liquidating an asset or subsidiary. Also known as "divestiture". 2. A reduction in capital expenditure, or the decision of a company not to replenish depleted capital goods. Investopedia explains Disinvestment 1. A company or government organization will divest an asset or subsidiary as a strategic move for the company, planning to put the proceeds from the divestiture to better use that garners a higher return on investment. 2. A company will likely not replace capital goods or continue to invest in certain assets unless it feels it is receiving a return that justifies the investment. If there is a better place to invest, they may deplete certain capital goods and invest in other more profitable assets. Alternatively a company may have to divest unwillingly if it needs cash to sustain operations.
It is contended that the functioning of many public sector units (PSUs) has been characterized by low productivity, unsatisfactory quality of goods, excessive manpower utilization, inadequate human resource development and low rate of return on capital. For instance, between 1980 and 2002, the average rate of return on capital employed by PSUs was about 3.4% as against the average cost of borrowing, which was 8.66%. Disinvestment (or divestment) of the PSUs has therefore been offered as one of the solutions in this context. Disinvestment involves the sale of equity and bond capital invested by the government in PSUs. It also implies the sale of government s loan capital in PSUs through securitization. However, it is the government and not the PSUs who receive money from disinvestment. The fixation of share/bond price is an important aspect of disinvestment. Now, the Disinvestment Commission determines the share/bond price. Disinvested shares are listed, quoted and traded on the stock market. Indian and foreign financial institutions, banks, mutual funds, companies as well as individuals can buy disinvested shares / bonds Disinvestment is generally expected to achieve a greater inflow of private capital and the use of private management practices in PSUs, as well as enable more effective monitoring of management discipline by the private shareholders. Such changes would lead to an increase in the operational efficiency and the market value of the PSUs. This in turn would enable the much needed revenue generation by the government and help reduce deficit financing. However, to date the market experience has been otherwise. The large national budgetary deficit on revenue account has been increasing. The government has not used the disinvestment proceeds to finance expenditure on capital account; i.e. the disinvestment policy has resulted in capital consumption rather than generation. Administrative costs of the disinvestment process have also been unduly high. The actual receipts through disinvestment have often fallen far short of their target (see figure). During the period 1991-92 to 2002-2003, the government had targeted the mobilization of about Rs. 78,300 crores through disinvestment, but it could actually mobilize only Rs. 30,917 crores. Problems associated with Disinvestment A number of problems and issues have bedevilled the disinvestment process. The number of bidders for

equity has been small not only in the case of financially weak PSUs, but also in that of better-performing PSUs. Besides, the government has often compelled financial institutions, UTI and other mutual funds to purchase the equity which was being unloaded through disinvestment. These organizations have not been very enthusiastic in listing and trading of shares purchased by them as it would reduce their control over PSUs. Instances of insider trading of shares by them have also come to light. All this has led to low valuation or under pricing of equity. Further, in many cases, disinvestment has not really changed the ownership of PSUs, as the government has retained a majority stake in them. There has been some apprehension that disinvestment of PSUs might result in the crowding out of private corporates (through lowered subscription to their shares) from the primary capital market It is not clear if the rationale for divestment process is well-founded. The assumption of higher efficiency, better / ethical management practices and better monitoring by the private shareholders in the case of the private sector all of which supposedly underlie the disinvestment rationale is not always borne out by business trends and facts. Total disinvestment of PSUs would naturally concentrate economic and political power in the hands of the private corporate sector. The US economist Kenneth Galbraith had visualized a role of countervailing power for the PSUs. While the creation of PSUs originally had economic, social welfare and political objectives, their current restructuring through disinvestment is being undertaken primarily out of need of government finances and economic efficiency. Lastly, to the extent that the sale of government equity in PSUs is to the Indian private sector, there is no decline in national wealth. But the sale of such equity to foreign companies has far more serious implications relating to national wealth, control and power, particularly if the equity is sold below the correct price! If the disinvestment policy is to be in wider public interests, it is necessary to examine systematically, issues such as - the correct valuation of shares, the crowding out possibility, the appropriate use of disinvestment proceeds and the institutional and other prerequisites.

It was in August 1996 that Government established a Disinvestment Commission (DC) initially for a duration of three years to advise it on all aspects relating to public sector disinvestment. The main terms of reference were to draw a comprehensive overall long-term disinvestment programme within 5-10 years for the PSUs referred to it by the Core Group comprising Secretaries of selected Ministries; to determine the extent of disinvestment in each PSU; to prioritise the PSUs referred to it by the Core Group in terms of the overall disinvestment programme; to recommend the preferred mode(s) of disinvestment for each of the identified PSUs; to supervise the overall sale process and take decisions on instrument, pricing, timing etc., as appropriate; to select the financial advisors for specified PSUs to facilitate the disinvestment process; and to monitor the progress of disinvestment process and take necessary measures and to advise Government on possible capital restructuring of the enterprises by marginal investments, if required, so as to ensure enhanced realization through disinvestment. The Disinvestment Commission made recommendations with respect to 58 out of 72 PSUs were referred to it. The recommendations were for strategic sale in respect of 36 PSUs, which involved transfer of management, for offer of part of equity in 6 PSUs and closure/ sale of assets in respect of 4 PSUs. No disinvestment was recommended in the remaining 12 PSUs. 1.4 The Commission was an advisory body and the final decision on the

recommendations would vest with Government. The Commission was reconstituted in July 2001 after the expiry of the term of the first DC in 1999, submitted reports on 41 PSUs including four review cases and was wound up in October 2004.

FDI
Foreign direct investment (FDI) or foreign investment refers to long term participation by country A into country B. It usually involves participation in management, joint-venture, transfer of technology and expertise. There are two types of FDI: inward foreign direct investment and outward foreign direct investment, resulting in a net FDI inflow (positive or negative) and "stock of foreign direct investment", which is the cumulative number for a given period. Direct investment excludes investment through purchase of shares.[1]

History
FDI is a measure of foreign ownership of productive assets, such as factories, mines and land. Increasing foreign investment can be used as one measure of growing economic globalization. The figure below shows net inflows of foreign direct investment in the United States. The largest flows of foreign investment occur between the industrialized countries (North America, Western Europe and Japan). But flows to non-industrialized countries are increasing sharply.

Types
A foreign direct investor may be classified in any sector of the economy and could be any one of the following:[citation needed]
y y y y y y y y

an individual; a group of related individuals; an incorporated or unincorporated entity; a public company or private company; a group of related enterprises; a government body; an estate (law), trust or other social institution; or any combination of the above.

[edit] Methods

The foreign direct investor may acquire voting power of an enterprise in an economy through any of the following methods:
y y y y

by incorporating a wholly owned subsidiary or company by acquiring shares in an associated enterprise through a merger or an acquisition of an unrelated enterprise participating in an equity joint venture with another investor or enterprise

Foreign direct investment incentives may take the following forms:[citation needed]
y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y

low corporate tax and income tax rates tax holidays other types of tax concessions preferential tariffs special economic zones EPZ - Export Processing Zones Bonded Warehouses Maquiladoras investment financial subsidies soft loan or loan guarantees free land or land subsidies relocation & expatriation subsidies job training & employment subsidies infrastructure subsidies R&D support derogation from regulations (usually for very large projects)

Global Foreign Direct Investment

UNCTAD said that no significant growth of Global FDI. In 2010 was $1,122 billion and in 2009 was $1.114 billion. The figures was 25 percent below the pre-crisis average between 2005 to 2007.[3]

Foreign direct investment in India

A recent UNCTAD survey projected India as the second most important FDI destination (after China) for transnational corporations during 2010-2012. As per the data, the sectors which attracted higher inflows were services, telecommunication, construction activities and computer software and hardware. Mauritius, Singapore, the US and the UK were among the leading sources of FDI. FDI for 2009-10 at USD 25.88 billion was lower by five per cent from USD 27.33 billion in the previous fiscal. Foreign direct investment in August dipped by about 60 per cent to USD 1.33 billion, the lowest in 2010 fiscal, industry department data released showed. [7]

Foreign direct investment and the developing world

Foreign investment can be a significant driver of development in poor nations. It provides an inflow of foreign capital and funds, in addition to an increase in the transfer of skills, technology, and job opportunities. Many of the East Asian tigers such as China, South Korea, Malaysia, and Singapore benefited from investment abroad. The Commitment to Development Index ranks the "development-friendliness" of rich country investment policies.

FII