Subscribe To The Perspectives

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Impacts of Economic Liberalisation in India on Different Sectors of The Economy (Class XII Economics Project Under WBCHSE Board)

Economics Project
Type : Secondary Data Based

Topic – Impacts of Economic Liberalisation in India on Different Sectors of The Economy

SESSION :- 2015-2016


I extend my warm regards and gratitude to the respected Principal and the insightful subject teacher to make it possible to work on this project. The project genre is interesting and has helped me to exercise my philosophical and writing skills.
I have enjoyed working on this topic and i am thankful to the subject teacher for allowing me to work on an otherwise unusual topic. I also thank the authority for providing the necessary time in order to complete this project.


This is to certify that this project has been made by Titas Biswas of class XII on the topic ‘Economic Growth Versus HDI in Context of The Indian Economy’,which is a secondary data based Economics project and has been completed  successfully.
Yours truly,
Titas Biswas
Class XII

Why Was The Topic On Which The Project Has Been Delivered Chosen?

The topic,according to me,was one of the most substantial choices among the array of choices available among the secondary data based Economics projects.
One reason for this being that there is no such example of a collectivised project on this topic on the world wide web. And that the collection of data required research and insight into the core of the subject,something that is investigative and thus appealing in nature.
This topic has not been mentioned among the examples of Economics textbooks/handbooks,either and this allowed me a chance to browse through original documents of the Planning Commissions of India,IMF and the World Bank.
Also,the project is not only on Economics (well,Economics is not based only on Economics) - but it deals with human psychology,foreign policy and International Relations as well.Some cognitive thinking will lead whoever is going through the project to how our perceptions are suited to what is existent and what seems to be.
Altogether,this project is going to be a genuine approach from the side of the doer and an exclusive experience for the reader ; at the same time serving to be a collection of analysed data not available very easily under general circumstances.



The Three Different Sectors of The Economy

  • Primary: Involves the retrieval and production of raw materials, such as corn, coal, wood and iron. (A coal miner and a fisherman would be workers in the primary sector.)
  • Secondary: Involves the transformation of raw or intermediate materials into goods e.g. manufacturing steel into cars, or textiles into clothing. (A builder and a dressmaker would be workers in the secondary sector.)
  • Tertiary: Involves the supplying of services to consumers and businesses, such as baby-sitting, cinema and banking. (A shopkeeper and an accountant would be workers in the tertiary sector.)

The Three Different Sectors of Economy in India 

  • India ranks second worldwide in farm output. Agriculture and allied sectors like forestry, logging and fishing accounted for 17% of the GDP and employed 49% of the total workforce in 2014.As the Indian economy has diversified and grown, agriculture's contribution to GDP has steadily declined from 1951 to 2011, yet it is still the largest employment source and a significant piece of the overall socio-economic development of India.Crop yield per unit area of all crops has grown since 1950, due to the special emphasis placed on agriculture in the five-year plans and steady improvements in irrigation, technology, application of modern agricultural practices and provision of agricultural credit and subsidies since the Green Revolution in India. However, international comparisons reveal the average yield in India is generally 30% to 50% of the highest average yield in the world. The states of Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Bihar, West Bengal, Gujarat and Maharashtra are key contributors to Indian agriculture.

India's foodgrains production remained stagnant at approximately 252 million tonnes (MT) during both the 2015-16 and 2014-15 crop years (July- June).

Percent labor employment in India by its economic sectors (2010).

  • Industry accounts for 26% of GDP and employs 22% of the total workforce.According to the World Bank, India's industrial manufacturing GDP output in 2015 was 6th largest in the world on current US dollar basis ($559 billion),and 9th largest on inflation adjusted constant 2005 US dollar basis ($197.1 billion).The Indian industrial sector underwent significant changes as a result of the economic liberalisation in India economic reforms of 1991, which removed import restrictions, brought in foreign competition, led to the privatisation of certain government owned public sector industries, liberalised the FDI regime, improved infrastructure and led to an expansion in the production of fast-moving consumer goods.Post-liberalisation, the Indian private sector was faced with increasing domestic as well as foreign competition, including the threat of cheaper Chinese imports. It has since handled the change by squeezing costs, revamping management, and relying on cheap labour and new technology. However, this has also reduced employment generation even by smaller manufacturers who earlier relied on relatively labour-intensive processes.

(Photograph Source)

  • India's services sector has the largest share in the GDP, accounting for 57% in 2012, up from 15% in 1950.It is the 7th largest in the world by nominal GDP, and third largest when purchasing power is taken into account. The services sector provides employment to 27% of the work force. Information technology and business process outsourcing are among the fastest-growing sectors, having a cumulative growth rate of revenue 33.6% between 1997 and 1998 and 2002–03 and contributing to 25% of the country's total exports in 2007–08.The growth in the IT sector is attributed to increased specialisation, and an availability of a large pool of low cost, highly skilled, educated and fluent English-speaking workers, on the supply side, matched on the demand side by increased demand from foreign consumers interested in India's service exports, or those looking to outsource their operations. The share of the Indian IT industry in the country's GDP increased from 4.8% in 2005–06 to 7% in 2008. In 2009, seven Indian firms were listed among the top 15 technology outsourcing companies in the world.

The Comparison of The Economy Before and After Liberalisation

Above : The change in per capita GDP of India from 1820 AD to 2015 AD. All GDP numbers are inflation adjusted to 1990 International Geary-Khamis dollars. Data Source: Tables of Prof. Angus Maddison (2010). 
Below : The GDP of India has risen rapidly since 1991.

What Had Happened?

Pre-liberalization India (Nehru's socialist growth rate): The Indian economy was in a deep hole by 1985. We suffered a Balance of Payment (payments for export and import of goods, services and capital) crisis. We were unable to pay off essential imports, ran a high deficit, borrowed from external sources to finance those deficits and inflation was on the rise.

 After the assassination of Rajeev Gandhi in 1991, India (still persisting with a Fixed Exchange rate) delved deeper into the crisis, when massive investor confidence decline caused India to be on the verge of economic bankruptcy. 
With just three weeks left to completely depleting the last loan from IMF, P V Narasimha Rao took over as India's Prime Minister and announced India's liberalization. The goal of his visionary policy was to remove unnecessary bureaucratic controls, take careful measures to integrate India with the world's economy, remove restrictions on foreign investments and crack down on public sector enterprises that yielded very low returns. 


While the credit rating of India was hit by its nuclear weapons tests in 1998, it has since been raised to investment level in 2003 by S&P and Moody's.India enjoyed high growth rates for a period from 2003 to 2007 with growth averaging 9% during this period.Growth then moderated due to the global financial crisis starting in 2008. 

Starting in 2012, India entered a period of more anaemic growth, with growth slowing down to 5.6%. Other economic problems also became apparent: a plunging Indian rupee, a persistent high current account deficit and slow industrial growth. Hit by the U.S. Federal Reserve's decision to taper quantitative easing, foreign investors had been rapidly pulling out money from India though this has now reversed with the stock market at near all-time high and the current account deficit narrowing substantially.

India started recovery in 2014-15 when the growth rate accelerated to 7.2%. In 2015, Indian went through a startup boom and manufacturing growth skyrocketing due to which the growth in 2015-16 accelerated to 7.6%, which means for the first time since 1990 India grew faster than China which registered 6.9% growth in 2015. The economic growth is expected to be 8.0%+ in 2016-17.In Mid 2015 during the global stock market rout, India also witnessed a sharp fall in stock markets and the rupee weakened. It was repeated again in January 2016.

India is ranked 130th out of 189 countries in the World Bank's 2015 ease of doing business index. In terms of dealing with construction permits and enforcing contracts, it is ranked among the 10 worst in the world, while it has a relatively favorable ranking when it comes to protecting minority investors or getting credit.

Assumptions Made

  • In 2003, Goldman Sachs predicted that India's GDP in current prices would overtake France and Italy by 2020, Germany, UK and Russia by 2025 and Japan by 2035, making it the third largest economy of the world, behind the US and China. India is often seen by most economists as a rising economic superpower and is believed to play a major role in the global economy in the 21st century.

  • Although the authors admit that “this ‘high protection-high cost-poor quality’ syndrome needed to be corrected by import liberalisation”, their assessment ofthe reform impact is rather pessimistic. Chauduri (2002)  reported that the “expectations of rapid and sustained growth of output and employment …have not materialized.” The author concluded that value added growth in the 1990s was inferior to that in the 1980s, that the industrial base had become shallower, that employment growth in the 1990s was negative in five out of nine years and that the labour productivity stagnated after 1995/96, after having increased in the early 1990s. Here again no attention is paid to the changes in protection, prices andcosts that resulted from the reforms.A much more positive picture was drawn by Panagariya (2004), who argued thatgrowth in the 1990s was more robust than that of the 1980s and that it was achievedthrough important policy changes. The main policy changes held responsible foraccelerated growth are the liberalization of foreign trade, the reduction in industriallicensing and opening to foreign direct investment.
    • Huge amount of increase in export was visualised at the time of adopting the liberalisation policies.In fact,India's contribution in world trade was supposed to increase by 1%.Beginning from agricultural produce to industrial - the volume of production and exports (which are directly proportional to each other were supposed to rise.But even though the volume of trade in India increased,none of that ever materialised.

    The Percentage of share that public sector owned in the economic space reduced ; and the ones that remained suffered from lack of ability to provide subsidy 

    The Impacts of Economic Liberalisation 

    • Impacts on the Primary Sector

    The biggest problem Indian agriculture faces today and the number one cause of farmer suicides is debt. Forcing farmers into a debt trap are soaring input costs, the plummeting price of produce and a lack of proper credit facilities, which makes farmers turn to private moneylenders who charge exorbitant rates of interest. In order to repay these debts, farmers borrow again and get caught in a debt trap. The researcher will examine each one these 3 causes which led to the crisis in Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Maharashtra, and analyse the role that liberalisation policies have played.

    Andra Pradesh’s experience is particularly relevant in this analysis because of its leadership.  Chandrababu Naidu, Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh from 1995-2004, was an IT savvy neo-liberal, and believed that the way to lead Andhra Pradesh into the future was through technology and an IT revolution. His zeal led to the first ever state level (as opposed to national level) agreement with the World Bank, which entailed a loan of USD 830 million (AUD 1 billion) in exchange to a series of reforms in AP’s industry and government. Naidu envisaged corporate style agriculture in AP, and implemented World Bank liberalisation policies with great enthusiasm and gusto. He drew severe criticism from opponents, saying he was using AP as a laboratory for extreme neo-liberal experiments. Hence, AP’s experience with liberalization is critical.

     The neo-liberal economic reform strategy involved the following measures which specifically affected the rural areas:
    • Actual declines in Central government revenue expenditure on rural development, cuts in particular subsidies such as on fertilizer in real terms, and  an the overall decline in per capita government expenditure on rural areas.
    • Reduction in public investment in agriculture, including in research and extension.
    • Very substantial declines in public infrastructure and energy investments that affect the rural areas, including in irrigation.
    • Reduced spread and rising prices of the public distribution system for food. This had a substantial adverse effect on rural household food consumption in most parts of the country.
    • Financial liberalization measures, including redefining priority sector lending by banks, which effectively reduced the availability of rural credit, and thus made farm investment more expensive and more difficult, especially for smaller farmers.
    • Liberalization and removal of restrictions on internal trade in agricultural commodities, across states within India.
    • Liberalization of external trade, first through lifting restrictions on exports of agricultural goods, and then by shifting from quantitative restrictions to tariffs on imports of agricultural commodities. A range of primary imports was decreases and thrown open to private agents. Import tariffs were very substantially lowered over the decade. Exports of important cultivated items, including wheat and rice, were freed from controls and subsequent measures were directed towards promoting the exports of raw and processed agricultural goods.
    In terms of fiscal policies, the reduced spending of central and state governments was the most significant feature. Due to tax reforms, the tax/GDP ratio declined at central level. Central transfers to state governments also declined.
    • Impacts on the Secondary Sector 
    The domestic and foreign markets have become highly competitive due to the process of liberalization and globalization. The consumers are becoming more and more quality conscious as well as demanding for different product categories. The small industry should realize the need of modification and diversification of their production as per international standards. Therefore, manufacturers need to improve the existing products and develop new products as per market trends. The small manufacturing units must obtain relevant quality certification as per international standards which would be beneficial to operate in foreign markets. Small entrepreneurs also have to explore the possibilities of collaborative manufacturing and marketing with other foreign units of their size and nature. In the modern business scenario, it is the technology which makes the industry competitive. There is urgent need to update the technology by the small manufacturers as the machinery they have been using is slow and outdated. This ultimately is affecting the quality of the product and delayed production schedule. Installation of new computerized machines, skilled supervisors to operate these machines is the need of the hour for more productivity in the SSIs. It is also important that small manufacturers should understand the importance and relevance of innovative and creative ideas right from manufacturing to sale of their products. Small industry should also understand that if liberalization has created competition then it has also opened new markets and business opportunities for them in the long run. It is also important that Government of India must focus on polices for infrastructure development such as power, roads, railways and modern technology up-gradation for the growth and survival of the small scale sector. The small entrepreneurs have to be more innovative and aggressive in identify their competitive advantage. The usage of latest technology and modern management techniques would help them to compete in the market and also to face the impact of new challenges in future.

    • Impacts on the Tertiary Sector

    The growth witnessed in India’s service sector is largely due to domestic liberalisation and growing linkages with external markets. A 2004 World Bank study12 shows a positive correlation between the extent of liberalisation and growth in different service subsectors in India. Although this study shows growth rates of selected service sectors during the 1990s, it is still useful in highlighting the positive impact of service sector liberalisation on growth and employment. The study finds that services that have been liberalised the most in terms of trade and FDI policies have typically experienced higher growth rates and employment creation opportunities. Figure 3 shows the liberalisation and growth linkages in India’s service sector for the 1990s. Figure 3: Liberalisation and growth linkages in India’s service sector (%), 1990s Source: World Bank, Sustaining India’s Services Revolution: Access to Foreign Markets, Domestic Reform and International Negotiations. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2004, p. 16, reproduced from Figure 6 The highest growth segments were business and communication services. This was followed by banking and life insurance services, which were also classified as significantly Significantly liberalised sector, Moderately liberalised sector, Non-liberalised sector. Storage, postal and railways services registered the lowest growth rates, and were classified as non-liberalised or more-restricted sectors. Several services that experienced moderate growth rates had generally undergone moderate liberalisation. Some segments, such as distribution services, registered reasonably high growth rates despite their limited liberalisation, which was mainly due to the overall buoyancy of the Indian economy and growing domestic demand. The growth dynamics of India’s service sector reflected domestic economic conditions and the outcome of liberalisation and reforms in the sector and in the wider economy.

    However,most of the people employed belong to the non-organised sector (only 10% of the total employed population works in the organised sector) and the rest are all prone to being submerged under poverty line,or marginally above the controversial poverty line (that has been found to measure only calorie requirements by several economists worldwide) and are absolutely excluded from the benefit of payment of gratuity,provident funds,health benefits,dearness allowances and the exclusion from the latter is a huge negative point,comparing it to the present situation of a constant rise in inflation.
    Claims From IMF vs Factual Proof
    • IMF says - "Policies that make an economy open to trade and investment with the rest of the world are needed for sustained economic growth. The evidence on this is clear. No country in recent decades has achieved economic success, in terms of substantial increases in living standards for its people, without being open to the rest of the world. In contrast, trade opening (along with opening to foreign direct investment) has been an important element in the economic success of East Asia, where the average import tariff has fallen from 30 percent to 10 percent over the past 20 years."

    What is ironic is that the fall of tariffs does not necessarily accelerate growth of indigenous industries.
    A study conducted at University of Crawford,Australia claims that the impact of liberalisation reform on export performance in India

    considering the determinants of India’s export, using annual time series data for the duration
    of 1975-2008. This paper has followed the standards of time series econometric analysis,
    conducting the unit root test applying DF, ADF, PP and KPSS method. The results showed
    that the variables are both I(0) and I(1), so the ARDL approach to cointegration with bound
    test method is applied to test the impact of the selected variables in manufacturing and total
    export demand and supply. The results revealed that the major determinant of manufactured
    export demand is the world demand, the proxy of world income; while manufacturing output
    is the major determinant of manufacturing export supply. 

    Despite our need of expanding manufacturing activities via indigenous industries (viable for export),our industries are constantly suffering from a number of problems,the solutions to which are very uncertain as long as the deregulation procedure continues in its full-fledged form.

  • IMF says - "The potential gains from eliminating remaining trade barriers are considerable. Estimates of the gains from eliminating all barriers to merchandise trade range from US$250 billion to US$680 billion per year. About two-thirds of these gains would accrue to industrial countries. But the amount accruing to developing countries would still be more than twice the level of aid they currently receive. Moreover, developing countries would gain more from global trade liberalization as a percentage of their GDP than industrial countries, because their economies are more highly protected and because they face higher barriers.

  • Although there are benefits from improved access to other countries' markets, countries benefit most from liberalizing their own markets. The main benefits for industrial countries would come from the liberalization of their agricultural markets. Developing countries would gain about equally from liberalization of manufacturing and agriculture. The group of low-income countries, however, would gain most from agricultural liberalization in industrial countries because of the greater relative importance of agriculture in their economies."

  • But these laws do not fit the same way for all the countries.For example,the US supplies huge subsidies to the population engaged in agriculture,though it accumulates to only around 1% of their total population.As a result,they are able to bring in Agricultural produce at very low rates in the International market.This is known as "dumping" and is against the measures and claims of the IMF.But the UN is pretty reluctant to judge these issues,given that US is one of the 5 superpowers that head the UN body.
  • Due to constant dumping,developing countries like India have suffered hard on agricultural grounds,especially in terms of export ; since on one hand the liberalisation has been choking the Indian government,preventing it to provide subsidies while those who control most of the liberalisation around the world have been supplying huge subsidies themselves,to seek their nationalistic benefit.
    • When looking at the potential effects of a trade policy, trade economists tend to insist on the real income effects, often dismissing its unemployment effects as of second-order importance, whereas policymakers and the public at large tend to voice concerns about jobs gained or lost.
    Consider the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (‘TTIP’) between the EU and the US. On 17 June 2013, Presidents Obama and Barroso jointly launched the EU-US trade agreement negotiation “for the sake of the jobs it creates”.1 Strong political oppositions to this trade deal are also expressed in terms of jobs. A spring 2014 Pew Research poll found that 50% of Americans, 49% of French and 38% of Japanese respondents saw trade as destructive of employment, even as more than half of Europeans and American citizens were in favour of such a free trade and investment agreement between the EU and the US.

    Impacts on Unemployment

    Now,Welfare = real economies – unemployment

    India's labour force is growing at a rate of 2.5% annually, but employment is growing at only 2.3%. Thus,the country is faced with the challenge of not only absorbing new entrants to the job market (estimated at seven million people every year), but also clearing the backlog (Eddy 2005). Sixty percent of India's workforce is self-employed,many of whom remain very poor. Nearly 30% are casual workers (that is they work only when they are able to get jobs and remain unpaid for the rest of the days they have no job). 
    Only about 10% are regular employees, of which two-fifths are employed by the public sector (Prachi and Utsav, 2008).More than 90% of the labour force is employed in the "unorganised sector", that is sectors which do not provide social security and other benefits of employment as in the "organised sector”. In the rural areas, agricultural workers form the bulk of the unorganised sector. In urban India, contract and sub-contract as well as migratory agricultural labourers make up most of the unorganized labour force. The ninth plan projects a decline in the population growth rate to 1.59% per annum by the end of the ninth plan, from over 2% in the last three decades. 
    However, it expects the growth rate of the labour force to reach a peak level of 2.54% per annum over this period; the highest it has ever been and is ever likely to attain. This is because of the change in age structure, with the highest growth occurring in the 15 - 19 years age group in the ninth plan period.The addition to the labour force during the plan period is estimated to be 53 millions on the "usual status" concept. The acceleration in the economy's growth rate to 7% per annum, with special emphasis on the agriculture sector, is expected to help in creating 54 million work opportunities over the period. This would lead to a reduction in the open unemployment rate from 1.9% in 1996 - 1997 to 1.47% in the plan's terminal year, that is, by about a million persons - from 7.5 to 6.63 million. In other words, if the economy maintains an annual growth of 7%, it would be just sufficient to absorb the new additions to the labour force. If the economy could grow at around 8% per annum during the plan period, the incidence of open unemployment could be brought down by two million persons, thus attaining near full employment by the end of the plan period, according to the plan.However, there appears to be some confusion about the figure of open unemployment. The unemployment figure given in the executive summary of the ninth plan,gives the figure of open unemployment at 7.5 million while the annual report of the Labour Ministry, for 1995 -1996, puts the figure for 1995 at 18.7 million. An internal government paper prepared in 1997 put the unemployment figure at the beginning of the eighth plan at 17 millions and at 18.7 million at the end of 1994 - 1995. Perhaps the Planning Commission referred to the  current figure while the Labour Ministry’s figure referred to the accumulated unemployment backlog.

    Labour welfare is both conceptually and operationally a part of social welfare (Bhattacharya, 2008; Madhumathi and Desai, 2003). The International Labour Organization (ILO) includes under the term ‘labour welfare’:
    Such services, facilities and amenities which may be established in the vicinity of undertakings to enable the  persons employed therein to perform their work in healthy and congenial surroundings and to provide them with amenities conducive to good health and good morals. (Kumar and Kruthiventi, 2003: 4)

     Management and Labour Studies, 38, 4 (2013): 373–398
    Chetan Agrawal 

    Labour welfare started in India in the pre-independence period but it was with the dawn of independence that the measures of labour welfare were intensified (Kumar and Kruthiventi, 2003; Srivastava, 2005).In the First Plan period, 1951–1955, the total expenditure on labour welfare programmes was 16 mil-lion Indian rupees (INR), which was increased to INR 333 million in the Seventh Plan period, 1985–1990 (Goyal, 1995). In the post-reform period (1991 onwards), the expenditure on labour welfare was further increased to INR 1,050 million in 2001–2002 and INR 1,220 million in 2004–2005. A similar momentum in the post-reform period has occurred in central government expenditure on social services, which increased from 5.57 per cent in 2006–2007 to 7.34 per cent in 2010–2011 as a proportion of GDP (Singh, 2012).


    India gained highly from the LPG model as its GDP increased to 9.7% in 2007-2008. In respect of market capitalization, India ranks fourth in the world. But even after globalization, condition of agriculture has not improved. The share of agriculture in the GDP is only 17%. The number of landless families has increased and farmers are still committing suicide. But seeing the positive effects of globalization, it can be said that very soon India will overcome these hurdles too and march strongly on its path of development. The lesson of recent experience is that a country must carefully choose a combination of policies that best enables it to take the opportunity - while avoiding the pitfalls.

    Demerits of Liberalisation include :
    • The outsourcing of jobs to developing countries has resulted in loss of jobs in developed countries.

    • There is a greater threat of spread of communicable diseases.

    • There is an underlying threat of multinational corporations with immense power ruling the globe.

    • For smaller developing nations at the receiving end, it could indirectly lead to a subtle form of colonization.

    · The number of rural landless families increased from 35 %in 1987 to 45 % in 1999, further to 55% in 2005. The farmers are destined to die of starvation or suicide.

    Summing it up,there are both stark positives and equally mentionworthy negatives caused by liberalisation.It has to be taken into consideration while accelerating forward that welfare doesn't come in separate strata and is an overall concept of the best that can be extracted from development.In order to sustain this notion,a few changes and adjustments are necessary.Nonetheless,we have benefitted substantially from liberalisation but the benefit,then again,has not been distributed maintaining the minimum possible levels of equity.
    As the notion goes,"Development is the process,the goal lies in achieving welfare for everyone.";the attempts must be taken for ensuring this.
    A few possible ways include :-

    • Ensuring proper conditions for work for the labour forces in order to cause uplift in their incentives to work and thus promote labour productivity.
    • Proper supply of electricity and availability of working machinery should be ensured in the industries.
    • Indigenous products could be promoted at large,as is being done these days with products like Jute.
    • Perishable produce can be processed to add value to them and quality must be ensured so that these products can compete in the international market.The surplus might be used for subsidising trades,or can be distributed equitably among the owners and workers.
    • In order to prevent farmer suicides,spreading agricultural knowledge and awareness in mass scale in very necessary.
    • Since the unorganised sector employs 90% of the emplyed population in India,the government should formulate at least some basic policies that protect them from the ultimate negative crises in the present days.


    Share this PostPin ThisShare on TumblrShare on Google PlusEmail This

    No comments:

    Post a Comment

    What are your perspectives?

    Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

    Got A Doubt? Or A Suggestion?Talk To Us!


    Email *

    Message *