How greedy can they get?.

rikko

I was in Delhi a couple of weeks ago on a Sunday. The line to buy tickets was a couple of hundred metres long. So I asked the security guard if there was a shorter line for paying Rs250 (foreigners) (locals Rs10), the answer was sameline for everyone. It was hot and humid - (BTW has anyone used the subway to get across the main road in front of Red Fort? , does no one make any effort for tourists in Delhi?) So had to give the Red Fort a miss. To maintain the monuments the extra charge is OK but does it make any difference to tourist sites? does not seem like it.

__________________
Amrik

Haylo

Haven't been there yet so don't understand what you mean about the subway and people not making efforts for tourists. Can you explain what you mean by this?

By the way, having seen on previous threads vsitors to India getting irate about locals jumping queues, I find it highly amusing* that someone is complaining that they have to queue along with everyone else.

Mickey S

Rikko's question was a reasonable one, as many tourist sites in India that operate dual pricing have a separate window (and queue) for those paying foreigner rates. I don't think he was suggesting that foreigners should be permitted to jump the queue.

Haylo

Didn't realise that, thanks for the tip. (Still find it amusing but that's just me being odd)

kmalik

While one can continue to debate dual/differential pricing, India is hardly the only place where you find them.

As far as the official dual pricing/discount for citizens/residents go - in the United States, most state universities offer significant in-state tuition discounts to the residents of the state, for instance, in-state tuition $1,454; Out-of-state about $8,500. I do not see why this is not parallel to the Indian government asking different citizen and non-citizen fees to enter the national monuments, etc.

Here are some links discussing dual prices in Thailand (link 1, link 2) Vietnam (link), Bulgaria (link), Malaysia (link) , Sri Lanka (link), Brunei (link), Czech Republic (link), Japan (link), Baltics (link), Egypt (link).

I haven't read each one of the links in detail, but there is enough to show that India is hardly the only place where this type of pricing takes place.

While not a supporter of this type of pricing (although I'd support such pricing in India if it were actually ploughing the money into the monuments), I think it goes with the territory. Those who are too worked up about it ought to stay home - for the sake of their own mental health.

Nick-H

You may well be able to find other places that do it; that just means there are other places to complain about!

I do think the educational fees analogy is stretching it a bit far. It doesn't strike me as being anything like visiting a monument or a museum!

__________________
.


Just one member of the IndiaMike Mod Team

goangoangone

I thought maybe I had, I wasn't sure. Getting old.....the brain's gone.

__________________
GoanGoan......here

Mickey S

Maybe you should.

The link for Japan, for example, concerns only allegations that one single travel agency was quoting higher prices to foreigners and makes it clear that this is against Japanese law. (If you read the article it is also made clear why the travel agency charges foreigners more). I have travelled in Japan extensively and can say with confidence that there is no dual pricing in Japan. Everything is priced clearly and everyone pays the same.

Similarly, your link to the Baltic States is a story about real estate purchase in the Baltic. It points out that, for various reasons, many foreigners paid more for property in the early 1990s than local people did but that is no longer the case. In fact, one of the questions on that page specifically asks "Will I pay more because I’m a foreigner?", to which the answer is "Probably not."

Discriminatory pricing is generally a feature of developing economies.

capt_mahajan

Umm, not really. But we have done that before

kmalik

Good luck with the complaints.
Really? Why is that? In both cases, the fact that citizens pay taxes that already contribute to the state's maintenance of the university/museum, and that is acknowledged in the fees charged through state subsidy for the citizens. As I have said, I am not a defender of this system, but logically the situations are quite analogous - your dismissal notwithstanding.

kmalik

Mickey -

On this thread - there are, at a minimum, two different types of complaints being made:

1. About the legally established discriminatory price. Several of the links offer instances of that in other nations. I also believe that the in-state tuition discounts in the US state universities are an instance of that.
2. About the non-legally sanctioned discriminatory pricing charged by rogue vendors. The instances you object to fall in that category. In India too, if an auto-driver or vegetable vendor tries to fleece the foreigners (the starting point of this thread), that is not something that is legally valid, just the enforcement is lacking.

So, the list was quickly put together on the basis of a google search - and I included instances that fell into either of the above categories.

You are right that the legally sanctioned discriminatory pricing is generally a feature of the developing economies. Typically, there is a significant section of the populations of these countries that would not be able to visit their own national monuments if a fair market price were charged. So, these countries use citizenship as the discriminator to segment the visitors and subsidize the price charged to their citizens. Like all mechanisms to segment demand - this too has its false positives and negatives. [A number of countries, including India, subsidize the price of gasoline using their tax revenue. Several of them do not feel they need to subsidize that for the foreigners visiting them - and I fail to see the logic foreigners would have to argue for such subsidies. That said, I do not see foreigners in India refusing the subsidy or crediting it for being non-discriminatory in this area.]

The developed countries often already charge high prices for the same - and do not need to subsidize the citizens as most are able to afford it. So, to an extent - a greater need for such pricing exists in the developing countries. And, my in-state tuition example confirms, when there is a need (e.g. high education costs), the developed countries do not hesitate this type of pricing. Unfortunately, the complainers who are so conditioned to pick faults in developing countries accept it without complaints when such things happen in developed countries.

rish

I think there is a dual pricing policy even in UK universities. A british student might have to pay £ 5000 while it will be £ 11 000 or similar for overseas non EU students. I don't have the exact figures,though.

capt_mahajan

Like I said, I have had this conversation elsewhere on IM. Just one post, though, and I will stop.

- My professional course fee was quoted at ten times that of a local UK student a long time ago. Even today, it is similar.

- Overseas students in the US pay at least twice as much tuition fee (in some cases, and I am talking from personal experience here) what a local pays. There are some similar structures for out of state students too within the US, but I am talking about well known private colleges in certain disciplines which dont have those policies


Arguments against my opinion then, that this was dual pricing, centered around the assumption that Indians will get jobs there, so its ok.

However

-there is no such chance of that after the professional exams I mention above.

-The assumption that all Indians want to migrate is incorrect. Again, personal experience.

- Whatever, if the argument is jobs post graduation, what happens if a work visa is not granted, or if foreigners graduate and return home for whatever reason? Is the dual pricing differential refunded?


Of course, my other point then (and now) was on the money involved. A trip to Indian monuments may set back a foreigner a few hundred dollars in dual (or discriminatory) pricing. An Indian student is set back thousands of dollars, even tens of thousands, over a few years in education.


Does one justify the other? Nope. But the perspective (that people pay according to nationality only in India) is flawed.

And it is Nationality that determines pricing in both cases, not race, so excited people calling these policies racist is not correct, IMHO.


Finally, agree with Nicks earlier post, we have to get terminology right. Fleecing is not dual pricing.

crvlvr

I completely agree with Capt's post above. And want to add that it is the govt's job to take care of its citizens, not those from other countries. In the case of college tuition, typically private colleges do not price discriminate. But, govt institutions do offer subsidized tuitions. If the college is state run, then the "discounts" are made available to just residents of that state. Out of staters pay higher tuition. Along the same lines, monuments in India are govt owned and run. Why shouldn't they be able to provide a discount to their citizens? If other countries choose to do it (for monuments), they are fully justified in doing so.

karuna

Having worked with Universities (and on a University campus, although not for the University) I also know that they bend over backwards to encourage and support international students simply because they are such a great source of income. Student services departments are now bulging with "international" teams dedicated to arranging, smoothing, primping and preening life in the UK for foreign students, while the marketing departments roll out clever ads and slick multilingual brochures.
Greater and greater numbers of cash-bringing foreign students is pretty much considered the future for UK higher ed. They are relying on it.

__________________
Indiamike mod squad's odd bod.
Coexist.

[Indian Mona Lisa by Dinesh; can't find original uploader to credit in full.]