Yes, we need to reduce dishonesty and corruption among our corporations, but we should look to our political class as well.

By delaying retail foreign direct investment, the Indian government has protected the intermediary status quo, and ignored the plight of 500 million desperately poor Indians living on farms who have publicly voiced their support of allowing retail giants to enter the Indian market.

When candidates flip-flop, their poll numbers suffer, but when countries flip-flop, entire economies suffer. This scenario is playing out in India after the government flip-flopped on its decision to allow retail giants such as Wal-Mart to own a majority 51% stake in joint operations with a local partner.

How can a country that aspires to be a global power be scared of a big-box store? It's a question worth pondering as New Delhi's long-delayed decision last week to open the retail business to foreign investors unleashes a predictable firestorm of protest.

The two most pro-consumer technological revolutions of the past generation have been the rise of big box stores such as Wal-Mart and the maturation of a global payment card system on which Wal-Mart depends. It's a pity that political progressives are on the wrong side of both these revolutions.

On the front page of this morning’s Metro section there was a story about Wal-Mart’s plan to open six stores in the District of Columbia. But in the box listing the locations there was an impossible address, “801 New Jersey Ave. NE”. 

The "green prism" through which Wal-Mart now views all of its products and operations is forcing critics to see the retail giant in a new light.

As the 2008 elections begin to heat up, concerns ranging from health care to wages and employment dominate the domestic political discourse. In these discussions, Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer, is often vilified as an evil corporate empire determined to place profits before its employees. Are such characterizations true or...