Modeling for the Growth of Unorganized Retailing in the Presence of Organized and E-Retailing in Indian Pharmaceutical Industry

Balagopal G Menon; Koushik Mondal; Sunil Sahadev

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 12 references

Modeling for the Growth of Unorganized Retailing in the Presence of Organized and E-Retailing in Indian Pharmaceutical Industry

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that in Indian pharmaceutical retail, an unorganized pharmacy's own price discounting can become self-defeating: raising discounts first attracts customers, but beyond a tipping point the thinner margins stop covering…

desk verdict The discount tipping point is an arithmetic consequence of the fixed 25% margin, but the conjoint analysis and GIS-ABM framework deserve peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17023 v1 pith:3S3QCNFQ submitted 2025-07-22 econ.GN q-fin.ECq-fin.TR

Koushik Mondal , Balagopal G Menon , Sunil Sahadev This is my paper · ORCID

classification econ.GNq-fin.ECq-fin.TR

keywords unorganizedretailpharmaceuticalagent-basedmodelpricediscounttippingpointconjointanalysisemergingmarketsnanostorese-pharmacy

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a small unorganized pharmacy's own discounting can drive it out of business, independent of chain or online competition. Using an agent-based simulation calibrated with field data and consumer conjoint analysis, it finds that raising discounts from low to medium increases a shop's customer footprint, but raising them beyond roughly 20% collapses footprint and sharply increases closures. This matters because it gives unorganized retailers a concrete reason to cap discounts and compete instead on quality, proximity, and emergency service. The claim is developed specifically for rural pharmaceutical retail in India, where unorganized shops still hold the largest market share but are losing ground to organized chains and e-pharmacies.

What carries the argument

The engine is an agent-based simulation in which each household and each pharmacy is an agent placed at real surveyed locations, with demand generated from local disease data and customer utility computed as a linear additive sum of conjoint part-worths for store attributes and customer attributes, with distance weighted by a degree of mobility. An unorganized pharmacy exits when its six-month net profit, computed from average order size, customer footprint, gross margin minus price discount, and total costs, falls below a fixed weekly minimum. The tipping point result comes from running a full-factorial set of 27 experiments varying discounts and quality levels and analyzing the outputs by analysis of variance.

What would settle it

Run the same six-year experiment in a comparable rural block and compare predicted closures to actual pharmacy survival records, especially for shops offering more than 20% discounts; observing that such shops persist by renegotiating distributor margins or absorbing losses for more than six months would falsify the fixed-cost tipping point as a general rule.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a non-monotonic relationship between an unorganized retailer's discount and its survival. In the calibrated agent-based model, moving unorganized discount from less than 10% to the 10-20% band raises average weekly customer footprint and market share; moving beyond 20% lowers footprint, lowers market share, and sharply increases the number of stores shut down, because profit from sales (gross margin minus discount) no longer covers rent, salaries, and overhead. The same experiments show that e-pharmacy discounts have no statistically significant effect on unorganized outcomes, while organized discounts matter almost as much as the unorganized shop's own. A second reported counterintuitive result is that high-emergency customers give less weight to variety of assortment than low-emergency customers, preferring a nearby substitute product over traveling to a distant larger store.

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes every unorganized shop has the same 25% gross margin, Rs 12,098 monthly total cost, and Rs 10,000 minimum weekly profit, and that organized and online retailers never exit; if real shops renegotiate margins or tolerate losses longer, the tipping point shifts or vanishes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

An unorganized pharmacy that raises its discount from under 10% to the 10-20% band gains footprint and market share; pushing beyond 20% reverses those gains and sharply raises closures.
E-pharmacy discount levels do not significantly change unorganized pharmacies' footprint, market share, or closures, so matching online discounts is not the right competitive response.
Product quality dominates all other attributes for customers; unorganized quality is the single largest lever, but its benefit shrinks when organized retailers also raise quality.
High-emergency customers value distance and quality over variety, so stores can retain them with a small emergency shelf of high-turnover items rather than a broad assortment.
Model closures concentrate near organized retailers, consistent with earlier evidence that catchment-area proximity drives small-shop exit.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the mechanism generalizes, any low-margin independent retailer facing chain entry should treat discount depth as a survival variable, not just a demand lever.
Because the model freezes organized and online retailers in the market, a symmetric price war in which chains also retreat might produce fewer unorganized closures than the simulation shows; relaxing that assumption is a natural test.
The emergency-variety result suggests an inventory rule: high-emergency neighborhoods can be served with a narrow, high-turnover emergency shelf rather than broad assortment.
A direct empirical test would use pharmacy scanner or claims data to estimate closure hazard as a function of discount depth and distance to the nearest chain, matching the simulation's tipping point.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The headline claim—that unorganized retailers hit a counterintuitive discount tipping point beyond which they shut down—is not an emergent simulation result. It is mechanically forced by Equation (4), where profit per customer is order size times (gross margin minus discount), with gross margin fixed at 25%. Any discount above 25% makes each sale a loss, and the closure rule in Equations (3)–(5) then guarantees shutdown regardless of customer preferences. The ANOVA design's "high" discount level is "more than 20%," so the model is simply comparing a profitable range (10–20%) with a loss-making range (>20%). The non-monotonicity is the arithmetic of negative margins, not a discovered tipping point. The paper itself basically admits this in the discussion: higher discounts lead to profit margins that "do not tally with operational costs."

What is genuinely new and good: the conjoint analysis by emergency level is real field data, and the finding that high-emergency customers care less about assortment than low-emergency customers comes from that data, not from the simulation. The integration of GIS-mapped households with an agent-based model in NetLogo is also a serious effort, more transparent than many ABM papers. The authors document their parameter choices, run a full factorial DOE, and include extensive appendices. That is reproducible work in the best sense.

Soft spots beyond the tipping point: the model assumes organized and e-retailers never exit, unorganized retailers cannot renegotiate margins, and all unorganized retailers share the same cost and margin numbers. Those assumptions remove the main competitive responses and make the shutdown result almost inevitable. The conjoint sample is narrow—138 respondents, 87% male, online recruitment—and the simulation is never compared with observed closure rates, even though the paper cites 5–10% annual closures in the field. The robustness check is only best-case versus worst-case, not a systematic sensitivity sweep.

Who is this for? Researchers and policymakers working on nanostore retail competition, especially in pharmaceutical supply chains in emerging markets. The framework is a useful hypothesis generator, and the emergency-based conjoint utilities could be cited. But the managerial advice "don't discount beyond 20%" should not be sold as an empirical finding; it is a model property under specific cost assumptions.

I would send this to peer review, not desk reject. The field data and modeling effort are real, the authors are transparent about limitations, and the conjoint portion has independent value. I would require a major revision: either reframe the tipping point as a sensitivity result with varying margins and costs, or validate the shutdown pattern against actual store data. With that change, the paper could be a solid niche contribution.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper develops an agent-based model of pharmaceutical retail competition in a rural Indian block, combining a choice-based conjoint analysis with GIS-based spatial data. The authors simulate interactions among unorganized, organized, and e-pharmacy retailers and report that increasing unorganized retailers' price discount initially raises their customer footprint but, beyond a tipping point, causes closures. They also report that high-emergency customers value variety of assortment less than low-emergency customers. The paper concludes that unorganized retailers should not increase discounts beyond a threshold and offers managerial and policy implications based on these findings.

Significance. If the headline results were valid, the paper would provide a useful, spatially explicit account of retail competition in a developing-economy context. The GIS-based household mapping, the field data collection, and the conjoint analysis with 138 respondents are genuine strengths. However, the central 'counterintuitive' tipping-point result is not an emergent property of the simulation; it is hard-wired into the profit and closure equations. The main policy claim therefore collapses into a restatement of the accounting rule, which severely limits the contribution. The conjoint and spatial-mapping components could support a more modest descriptive study, but in its current form the paper's central claim is not supported.

major comments (4)

[Section 2.3.2, Eqs. (3)-(5), Table 5] The central 'counterintuitive' result is predetermined by the accounting identity. Equation (4) defines profit from sales as order size × customer footprint × (gross margin − price discount)/100, and Table 5 fixes the unorganized gross margin at 25%. Thus any discount above 25% makes every sale loss-making at the unit level. The closure rule in Eqs. (3) and (5) then guarantees that stores with sufficiently high discount will report negative profits and shut down, regardless of consumer preferences or competitive dynamics. The sharp drop in footprint and surge in shutdowns in Figure 12 and Figure D3 occur exactly when the unorganized discount moves from the medium level (10–20%) to the high level (>20%), i.e., when the discount crosses the gross margin. This is an algebraic necessity, not an emergent behavioral finding. To support the claimed tipping point, the paper would need to show the result under varying gross margins or allow retailers to renegotiate margins; otherwise the claim is circular.
[Section 2.3.1, Eq. (2)] Distance appears twice in the utility model. The conjoint part-worths already include a distance attribute with levels '≤2 km', '2–10 km', and '>10 km' (Table 4 and Tables C1–C2), and the utility in Eq. (2) additionally divides the entire attribute sum by d^n. This double-counts distance and has no empirical justification. Since distance is the highest-importance attribute for high-emergency customers (30.74% relative importance), this modeling choice can materially distort channel choices and the resulting footprint dynamics. The authors should either justify the functional form or test sensitivity to the exponent n and to removal of one of the two distance terms.
[Section 2.3.2] The model assumes unorganized retailers close when six-month profit falls below total cost plus a minimum profit, while organized and e-retailers never shut down. This asymmetry is plausible for financially constrained nanostores, but it is not tested. The sensitivity analysis in Section 3.2.2 varies only attribute levels, not the closure threshold, the gross margin, or the no-exit assumption for chains. Given that the central policy recommendation depends on shutdown behavior, the absence of any robustness check on these parameters means the tipping point cannot be distinguished from an artifact of the closure rule.
[Table D2] The ANOVA for the number of unorganized retailers shut down reports R² = 99.97% with unorganized discount contributing 99.33% of the total sum of squares. This extremely high explanatory power is a symptom that the response is determined by the closure rule rather than by competitive interaction. Presenting this as evidence of a competitive mechanism is misleading; it simply reflects that the shutdown condition is nearly deterministic once the discount exceeds the fixed gross margin.

minor comments (6)

[Figure 4] Several figure captions contain a stray 'I' where subfigure labels such as '(d)', '(e)', '(f)' should appear; this likely stems from a text-rendering artifact and should be corrected.
[Abstract and Section 2.2] The abstract lists 'degree of emergency' as a customer attribute, but in the conjoint design emergency is used as a segmentation variable rather than an attribute within the choice tasks; this distinction should be clarified.
[Eq. (2)] Equation (2) would benefit from an explicit statement of the summation indices and a clear explanation of how the distance divisor is applied; as written, it is ambiguous whether the divisor multiplies the entire summed utility or only part of it.
[Section 2.3.3] The text describes the experimental design as a 'full factorial L27(33) Orthogonal Array'; a full factorial with three factors at three levels has 27 runs, but calling it an orthogonal array is confusing, and the notation L27(33) is more typically associated with Taguchi designs.
[Table D1] Several discount experiments report an e-pharmacy footprint of exactly 0 (e.g., experiments 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 22, 25). The authors should explain whether this is a simulation artifact or reflects a complete absence of e-pharmacy choice under those conditions.
[Throughout] There are minor language issues, including '7pprox..' in Section 1.3, inconsistent use of 'retails' for 'retailers' in the appendix, and some incomplete sentences in the captions of Appendix E figures.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The discount-tipping prediction is forced by the fixed 25% gross margin in Eq. (4) and the closure rule (Eqs. 3-5); the conjoint-based findings are independent, but the headline is by-construction.

fitted input called prediction [Section 2.3.2 (Eqs. 3-5) and Table 5; Section 3.2.3.1 / Appendix D1.3]
"𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑖𝑡 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑠𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑠 = 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑐𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒 × 𝐶𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑟 𝑓𝑜𝑜𝑡𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑡 × (𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑖𝑛 − 𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡)/100 ... Unorganized pharmaceutical retailers’ parameters are gross margin of 25%, total cost of Rs. 12,098 per month ... If an unorganized retailer finds that his/her last six months’ profit is less than the last six months’ total cost and minimum profit to survive, then they will shut down."

With gross margin fixed at 25% in Table 5, Eq. (4) makes per-sale profit non-positive for any discount at or above 25%. The closure rule then converts the resulting six-month loss into store shutdown. The DOE high discount level is 'more than 20% off', so the sharp rise in shutdowns at that level is predetermined by the margin-minus-discount term in Eq. (4), not learned from customer behavior. The model does not allow margin renegotiation or sustained loss absorption, so the 'counterintuitive' exit result is an algebraic consequence of the fitted gross-margin parameter and the shutdown rule, not an emergent property of the retail competition.
self definitional [Section 6, Conclusion point 3; Figures 12 and D3]
"The present study identifies a tipping point in the price discount strategy (beyond 20% price discounts as evidenced from Figures 12, and D3 in appendix), from which the unorganized retailers begin shutting down at a fast pace."

The 'tipping point' is not an independently estimated or externally validated quantity; it is the discount level at which Eq. (4)'s margin-minus-discount term crosses the survival threshold encoded in Eqs. (3) and (5). The figures cited as evidence are outputs generated by these same equations, so the conclusion restates the model's closure rule as if it were a discovered empirical phenomenon. The claimed prediction is therefore equivalent, by construction, to the input assumption of a fixed 25% gross margin.

full rationale

The paper's conjoint analysis provides genuinely independent preference data, and several findings (emergency versus variety preferences, distance sensitivity) follow from those data. The central 'counterintuitive' claim about unorganized discount tipping, however, is not an emergent property of the agent-based competition. Eq. (4) sets per-sale profit to footprint times (gross margin minus discount), and Table 5 fixes gross margin at 25%; the shutdown rule then forces exit whenever six-month profit falls below total cost plus minimum survival profit. Thus, as discounts approach or exceed the 25% margin, the accounting identity itself produces the sharp decline in footprint and the surge in shutdowns seen in the main-effect plots. The DOE high discount level 'more than 20% off' straddles this breakeven, so the reported tipping point is a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The conjoint and GIS contributions remain independent, which is why the circularity is partial rather than total. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present: the citations supporting the 18-25% margin are supplemented by independent industry data, and the methodological self-citations are not central to the result. Score 6 reflects the fact that the headline result reduces by construction to the model's profit and closure equations, while other empirical findings in the paper stand on their own.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model does not introduce new physical or conceptual entities. Its load-bearing inputs are a set of fixed cost, margin, distance, and preference parameters, plus an asymmetric closure rule. The discount-tipping result follows directly from these assumptions.

free parameters (6)

Unorganized retailer gross margin = 25%
Used in Equation (4) to convert customer footprint into profit; the tipping point depends on this number. Field sources give 18-25%, and the model fixes 25% for all unorganized stores.
Total monthly cost for unorganized retailer = Rs 12,098
Base-case setting in Table 5; used in the closure rule. No store-to-store variation or uncertainty is reported.
Weekly minimum profit to survive = Rs 10,000
Base-case setting in Table 5; part of the closure condition that determines when unorganized retailers shut down.
Average customer order size = Rs 1,500
Field-estimated constant used in Equation (4); direct multiplier for profit and closure.
Degree of mobility (n) = 0.5
Included in the utility equation as an exponent on distance. The paper states it is an environmental factor but gives no empirical calibration; 0.5 appears only in the base-case config.
E-pharmacy distance assumption = At least 10 km from all customers
The paper assumes e-pharmacies are at least 10 km away in the study area, making distance a constant for that channel and materially affecting its utility.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Customers are rational utility maximizers who always purchase from the retailer with the highest computed utility.
Section 2.3.1 states customers compare utilities and select the retailer with maximum utility; negative utility is allowed but relative comparison still forces a purchase.
domain assumption Retailers always have sufficient inventory to satisfy all demand.
Section 2.3.2 states retailers are assumed to have sufficient inventory; this removes stockout dynamics from the model.
ad hoc to paper Unorganized retailers close when six-month profit is below cost plus minimum profit; organized and e-retailers never close.
Section 2.3.2 introduces this asymmetric closure rule, citing the 'growth first, profit later' model for chains. This rule drives most of the shutdown results.
ad hoc to paper Distance enters utility twice: once through conjoint part-worths and again as a power-law divisor d^n in Equation (2).
Equation (2) as rendered divides the attribute sum by distance raised to the mobility parameter, while distance is also a conjoint attribute. The paper provides no justification for this double counting.
domain assumption Consumer preferences estimated by conjoint analysis remain fixed for the entire 6-year simulation.
Section 2.3.2 fixes retailer attributes and customer preferences over all iterations; the authors acknowledge the absence of adaptive learning in the limitations.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling for the Growth of Unorganized Retailing in the Presence of Organized and E-Retailing in Indian Pharmaceutical Industry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3S3QCNFQ

@misc{pith2026250717023,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling for the Growth of Unorganized Retailing in the Presence of Organized and E-Retailing in Indian Pharmaceutical Industry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3S3QCNFQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17023}
}

read the original abstract

The present study considers the rural pharmaceutical retail sector in India, where the arrival of organized retailers and e-retailers is testing the survival strategies of unorganized retailers. Grounded in a field investigation of the Indian pharmaceutical retail sector, this study integrates primary data collection, consumer conjoint analysis and design of experiments to develop an empirically grounded agent-based simulation of multi-channel competition among unorganized, organized and e-pharmaceutical retailers. The results of the conjoint analysis reveal that store attributes of price discount, quality of products offered, variety of assortment, and degree of personalized service, and customer attributes of distance, degree of mobility, and degree of emergency are key determinants of optimal store choice strategies. The primary insight obtained from the agent-based modeling is that the attribute levels of each individual retailer have some effect on other retailers performance. The field-calibrated simulation also evidenced counterintuitive behavior that an increase in unorganized price discounts initially leads to an increase in average footprint at unorganized retailers, but eventually leads to these retailers moving out of the market. Hence, the unorganized retailers should not increase the price discount offered beyond a tipping point or it will be detrimental to them. Another counterintuitive behavior found was that high emergency customers give less importance to variety of assortment than low emergency customers. This study aids in understanding the levers for policy design towards improving the competition dynamics among retail channels in the pharmaceutical retail sector in India.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

12 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

[4]

Changing Dynamics of Indian Pharma Supply Chain

“Changing Dynamics of Indian Pharma Supply Chain.” The Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance. https://www.ipa- india.org/resources/ipa-publications. (Accessed on March 12, 2025). Jerath, K., S. Sajeesh, and Z. J. Zhang

work page 2025
[8]

E -Pharmacies Under Radar; Uni on Health Ministry to Initiate Stern Action

“E -Pharmacies Under Radar; Uni on Health Ministry to Initiate Stern Action.” The Print. https://theprint.in/india/e-pharmacies-under-radar-union-health-ministry-to-initiate-stern-action/1377473/ (Accessed on February 16, 2025). U.S. Census Bureau

work page arXiv 2025
[9]

U.S. Retail Sales Top $6,523 Bil lion

“U.S. Retail Sales Top $6,523 Bil lion.” The Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/retail-sales.html (Accessed on January 11, 2025). White House

work page 2022
[11]

Continental -Scale Building Detection from High Resolution S atellite Imagery

“Continental -Scale Building Detection from High Resolution S atellite Imagery.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.12283. Yadav, P

arXiv
[2011]

Villages & Towns in Bishnupur - II Block South Twenty-Four Parganas, West Bengal - Census 2011

“Villages & Towns in Bishnupur - II Block South Twenty-Four Parganas, West Bengal - Census 2011.” Census India.https://www.censusindia.co.in/villagestowns/bishnupur-ii-block-south-twenty-four-parganas-west-bengal-2416. (Accessed on January 27, 2025). Chen, Y. S., M. T. Chuang, Y. H. Liu, S. C. Wang, and Z. Z. Yang

work page 2011
[2015]

Modern Grocery and The Emerging-Market Consumer: A Complicated Courtship

“Modern Grocery and The Emerging-Market Consumer: A Complicated Courtship.” McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our -insights/modern-grocery-and-the-emerging-market- consumer-a-complicated-courtship. (Accessed on January 31, 2025). Dugar, A., and P. Chamola

work page 2025
[2017]

Replenishment strategies for micro‐retailers in developing countries

“Replenishment strategies for micro‐retailers in developing countries.” Production and Operations Management 26, no. 12: 2207-2225. 42 Online Appendix Appendix A: Disease Data TABLE A1 Distribution of communicable diseases in the study area. Category of morbidity Diseases (ICD-11 Code) Type of occurrence Cases per year in India Total cases per year Season...

work page
[2020]

Impact of Indian Retail on Employment & Taxation

“Impact of Indian Retail on Employment & Taxation.” Technopak. https://www.technopak.com/impact-of- indian-retail-on-employment-taxation/ (Accessed on February 7, 2025). The print

work page 2025

Show all 12 references

[2021]

Building Resilient Supply Chains, Revitalizing American Manufacturing, And Fostering Broad -Based Growth

“Building Resilient Supply Chains, Revitalizing American Manufacturing, And Fostering Broad -Based Growth”. ht tps://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/100-day-supply-chain-review-report.pdf (Accessed on February 7, 2025). Wilensky, U

2021
[2022]

Pharmacy Retail Market in India 2022

“Pharmacy Retail Market in India 2022.” Market Research. https://www.marketresearch.com/Netscribes-India-Pvt-Ltd-v3676/Pharmacy-Retail-India-31153192/ (Accessed on March 12, 2025). Menon, B. G., and B. Mahanty

2022
[2023]

E -Pharmacies Under Radar; Centrel Likely to Initiate Stern Action

“E -Pharmacies Under Radar; Centrel Likely to Initiate Stern Action.” Mint. https://www.livemint.com/news/india/epharmacies-under-radar-centre-likely-to-initiate-stern-action-11676587508512.html (Accessed on March 14, 2025). Market Research

2025
[2024]

(Accessed on January 22, 2025)

An initiative of the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Governm ent of India, www.ibef.org. (Accessed on January 22, 2025). IPA

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [4]

Changing Dynamics of Indian Pharma Supply Chain

“Changing Dynamics of Indian Pharma Supply Chain.” The Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance. https://www.ipa- india.org/resources/ipa-publications. (Accessed on March 12, 2025). Jerath, K., S. Sajeesh, and Z. J. Zhang

work page 2025

[2] [8]

E -Pharmacies Under Radar; Uni on Health Ministry to Initiate Stern Action

“E -Pharmacies Under Radar; Uni on Health Ministry to Initiate Stern Action.” The Print. https://theprint.in/india/e-pharmacies-under-radar-union-health-ministry-to-initiate-stern-action/1377473/ (Accessed on February 16, 2025). U.S. Census Bureau

work page arXiv 2025

[3] [9]

U.S. Retail Sales Top $6,523 Bil lion

“U.S. Retail Sales Top $6,523 Bil lion.” The Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/retail-sales.html (Accessed on January 11, 2025). White House

work page 2022

[4] [11]

Continental -Scale Building Detection from High Resolution S atellite Imagery

“Continental -Scale Building Detection from High Resolution S atellite Imagery.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.12283. Yadav, P

arXiv

[5] [2011]

Villages & Towns in Bishnupur - II Block South Twenty-Four Parganas, West Bengal - Census 2011

“Villages & Towns in Bishnupur - II Block South Twenty-Four Parganas, West Bengal - Census 2011.” Census India.https://www.censusindia.co.in/villagestowns/bishnupur-ii-block-south-twenty-four-parganas-west-bengal-2416. (Accessed on January 27, 2025). Chen, Y. S., M. T. Chuang, Y. H. Liu, S. C. Wang, and Z. Z. Yang

work page 2011

[6] [2015]

Modern Grocery and The Emerging-Market Consumer: A Complicated Courtship

“Modern Grocery and The Emerging-Market Consumer: A Complicated Courtship.” McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our -insights/modern-grocery-and-the-emerging-market- consumer-a-complicated-courtship. (Accessed on January 31, 2025). Dugar, A., and P. Chamola

work page 2025

[7] [2017]

Replenishment strategies for micro‐retailers in developing countries

“Replenishment strategies for micro‐retailers in developing countries.” Production and Operations Management 26, no. 12: 2207-2225. 42 Online Appendix Appendix A: Disease Data TABLE A1 Distribution of communicable diseases in the study area. Category of morbidity Diseases (ICD-11 Code) Type of occurrence Cases per year in India Total cases per year Season...

work page

[8] [2020]

Impact of Indian Retail on Employment & Taxation

“Impact of Indian Retail on Employment & Taxation.” Technopak. https://www.technopak.com/impact-of- indian-retail-on-employment-taxation/ (Accessed on February 7, 2025). The print

work page 2025