From MAI to MAS: Reform or Rebranding?

For more than two decades, The Market Access Initiative (MAI) functioned as the Government of India’s principal instrument for supporting participation in overseas exhibitions, buyer-seller meets and trade delegations. While MAI helped Indian exporters establish global presence, the scheme was often criticised within the exhibition industry for its short-termism, procedural opacity and uneven outcomes.

With the recent launch of the Market Access Support (MAS) Intervention under the Export Promotion Mission (EPM), the government claims a structural shift—from funding events to building market access pathways. The question the exhibition and association ecosystem must now ask is: does MAS truly correct MAI’s weaknesses, or does it merely repackage them under a new administrative framework?

What MAI Got Right and Where It Fell Short?

MAI succeeded in one critical area: scale. Thousands of Indian exporters, many of them MSMEs, entered global markets through government-supported exhibitions and delegations.

However, over time, several structural concerns became evident:

• Event approvals were with annual – prior registration and fragmented, limiting participation for a limited segments and repeated exhibitions.
• Success of the scheme was often measured by headcount rather than business outcomes
• Organisers faced uncertainty in approvals, budgets and timelines
• Market selection frequently followed precedent, not strategy

For organisers and associations, MAI often became a compliance-driven exercise rather than a market-building tool.

MAS in Mission Mode: A Conceptual Upgrade

MAS, positioned within the Export Promotion Mission, promises a different philosophy:

• Multi-ministry coordination
• Market prioritisation
• Outcome-based evaluation
• Digital transparency

On paper, this is a long-overdue shift. The inclusion of exhibitions, BSMs and delegations as structured interventions rather than eligible expenses is a welcome recognition of the exhibition industry’s role in export development.

However, mission mode execution is only as effective as its ground-level implementation.

Key Reforms and the Fine Print:

Multi-Year Planning: Vision vs Capacity

The introduction of a three-to-five-year forward calendar is arguably MAS’s most ambitious reform. For organisers, this offers long-term visibility. Yet critical questions remain:

• Will calendars be binding or indicative?
• How frequently will markets and sectors be revised?
• Do EPCs and ministries have the capacity to commit multi-year budgets?

Without clarity, the risk remains that multi-year planning exists on paper but collapses annually at the approval stage.

Mandatory MSME Participation: Inclusion or Tokenism?

Mandating 35% MSME participation addresses a long-standing imbalance under MAI. However:

• MSMEs often lack export readiness
• Buyer matching requires deeper curation
• Organisers may be pushed towards quantity over quality to meet quotas

Unless backed by capacity-building and buyer validation, the mandate risks becoming a compliance metric rather than a value creator.

Delegation Benchmarks: Standardisation vs Market Reality

Setting a minimum benchmark of 50 participants brings structure, but also raises concerns:

• Niche and high-value markets often require smaller, curated delegations
• Sector-specific exhibitions may not always justify scale

Flexibility is mentioned in guidelines—but its interpretation will define whether MAS empowers or constrains organisers.

Digitalisation & Feedback: Transparency with Teeth?

The shift to trade.gov.in for end-to-end processing improves transparency. Mandatory feedback on:

• Buyer quality
• Leads generated
• Market relevance

is a positive step. However, the industry will closely watch:

• Whether poor outcomes lead to course correction
• Or whether feedback becomes a formality without consequence

Data-driven policy must also mean data-driven accountability.

Financial Rationalisation: Adequate or Insufficient?

While cost-sharing ratios have been rationalised and small exporters offered partial airfare support, organisers point out:

• Rising international exhibition costs
• Higher compliance expenses
• Currency volatility

If financial ceilings are not periodically indexed to market realities, participation quality may suffer despite policy intent.

Beyond Exhibitions: An Incomplete Expansion

The inclusion of Proof-of-Concepts and product demonstrations is forward-looking, especially for technology sectors. Yet traditional sectors—engineering, textiles, construction, lifestyle—still rely heavily on physical exhibitions. MAS must avoid overcorrecting towards new formats while under-investing in proven platforms.

The Industry’s Real Test

MAS represents a clear improvement in intent over MAI. Yet its success will depend on:

• Consistency in approvals
• Flexibility in execution
• Willingness to drop underperforming events
• Genuine partnership with organisers and associations.

TradeFairTimes View:

For the exhibition and association ecosystem, MAS should be viewed neither as a panacea nor with cynicism—but as a policy opening. The industry must engage actively, demand clarity, share data and push for refinements.

Only then can MAS become what MAI never fully achieved – a true market access framework, not just an event support scheme.

“MAI enabled participation, but rarely ensured continuity. Market access was treated as an event, not a journey.”

“MAS has the architecture of reform. Whether it delivers reform will depend on how much trust, autonomy and accountability the system allows its executing partners.”