India’s Industrial Sector: Faltering Growth?

  • 479 views
Uploaded on

Sectorial analysis and impacts on growth

Sectorial analysis and impacts on growth

More in: Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
479
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2

Actions

Shares
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. India’s Industrial Sector:Faltering Growth? Barry Bosworth
  • 2. Composition of India’s GDP, 1990-2011% GDP 60 60 50 Services 50 40 40 Agriculture 30 30 20 20 Industry 10 10 0 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
  • 3. Composition of China’s GDP, 1990-2011,%GDP 60 60 Industry 50 50 40 40 Services 30 30 20 20 Agriculture 10 10 0 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
  • 4. Merchandize Trade Share of GDP,1990-2011 30 25 20 ImportsPercent 15 10 Exports 5 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
  • 5. Multilateral Exchange Rates for India300250200150100 50 0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 India Real India nominal
  • 6. China Growth Model A typical East Asian developmental process. A growth-oriented autocratic pro-business regime targets  Investment & export-driven growth  Suppress labor regime  financial repression, and  industrial policies. Added feature of control over land acquisition and utilization.
  • 7. India Cannot Just Mimic China The opposite of an authoritarian regime  Chaotic democracy  Much greater focus on social equity  Promotion of labor-proletariat  Private ownership of land Comparable in ability to increase rates of saving and investment. Will need to develop and refine its own India model
  • 8. Suppression of Industrial Sector The weak performance of the industrial sector has long been associated with the restrictive regulatory regime of industrial licensing, labor regulations, and limitations on India’s economic relations with the rest of world. Past shortage of research on the economic effects of regulatory reform has been offset by a flood of recent research.
  • 9. Evaluating Economic Reforms In theIndustrial Sector. Major Reforms  Industrial licensing  Labor regulation  Trade and FDI  Analyses largely based on ASI panel data Aghion & others (2008)  State specific panel data for manufacturing 1980-97  De-licensing had strong differential effects shifting production toward states with less employment protection.
  • 10. Effects of Economic Reform(2) Harrison, Martin, and Nataraj (2011)  Emphasize role of trade and FDI liberalization  Small role for de-licensing  Distinguish between within and among firm productivity gains. Bollard, Klenow, and Sharma (2012)  Large acceleration of TFP growth in 1990s  Unrelated to trade, FDI or de-licensing  Concentrated in within-firm gains
  • 11. Effects of Economic Reform (3) AV Chari (2011)  Reductions in barriers to entry and size restrictions in mid-1980s both had significant positive effects on total factor productivity in 1985-1991.  Overall gain in TFP of 22 percent Laura Alfaro and Anusha Chari (2012)  Use Prowess database (publically-listed companies)  1991 reforms led to substantial new entry of small firms, and continuing domination by large firms.
  • 12. Effects of Economic Reform (4) Dougherty, Robles, and Krishna (2011)  Focused on labor market rigidities  New measure of Employment Protection (EPL)  Evidence that lower state values of EPL promoted output and productivity gains in labor-intensive volatile industries.  Addresses some criticisms of Besley & Burgess
  • 13. Effects of Economic Reform (5) Topalova and Khandelwa (2011)  Positive effects of trade liberalization on manufacturing productivity.  Traced to gains from increased competition and  better quality purchased inputs.  The effect was strongest in import-competing industries and industries not subject to excessive domestic regulation.  Research based on Prowess database.
  • 14. Overview of Effects of Economic Reform Most studies find statistically-significant effects of regulation  Exception of Bollard, Klenow, and Sharma But magnitudes of effects are too small to account for lack of growth. Perhaps, the problem can be traced to cumulative effects of the various parts of the regulator regime. Answers seem unsatisfactory.
  • 15. Overview of Effects of Economic Reform (2) Significant differences in construction of data.  Bollard, Klenow, and Sharma show much larger acceleration of output and thus productivity after 1992–2-3 times the acceleration in the national accounts–due to different price indexes.  Alfaro and Chari appear not to adjust for prices. Macroeconomic evidence of benefits of de- regulation more evident after revisions of national account  Virmani&Hashim (2011) argues for lags in response to reforms.
  • 16. Growth Potential India faces no population constraint on growth  Huge reserve of under-employed persons  Low female participation rate  Demographic acceleration in proportion of young adults Limits arise from shortage of capital, skill levels, and development of markets. Saving rate of 30-35 percent of GDP would enable a growth rate near 10 percent.
  • 17. Saving and Investment Balance of India, 1970-2008 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000-04 2005-09Gross national saving 17.2 19.1 23.3 27.5 34.3 Household sector 11.5 13.6 17.9 23.2 23.0 Private corporate sector 1.5 1.8 3.8 4.4 8.2 Public sector 4.2 3.7 1.6 -0.2 3.1External Investment (S-I) -0.1 -1.4 -1.4 0.5 -1.5Total capital formation 17.4 20.9 24.7 27.0 35.8 Public sector 8.6 10.6 8.5 7.0 8.7 Private corporate sector 2.6 4.5 7.5 6.6 14.3 Household sector 6.9 6.8 7.8 12.7 11.9
  • 18. Growth Potential (2) Virmani (2012) suggests a potential growth rate of 9-10% Barriers  Weak global economy  Economic growth is not a priority of Indian leadership  Most policy and the attention of researchers is focused on problems of poverty and inequity, not growth.  Large contrast with China.  Land