Clusters in IndiaInstitute for Competitiveness (IFC), India is an independent, international initiative centred in India, dedicated to enlarging and disseminating the body ofresearch and knowledge on competition and strategy, pioneered over the last 25 years by Professor M.E. Porter of the Institute for Strategy andCompetitiveness, Harvard Business School (ISC, HBS), USA. IFC, India works in affiliation with ISC, HBS, USA to offer academic & executive courses, conductindigenous research and provide advisory services to corporate and Government within the country. The institute studies competition and its implications forcompany strategy; the competitiveness of nations, regions & cities; suggests and provides solutions for social problems. IFC, India brings out India CityCompetitiveness Report, India State Competitiveness Report, India Economic Quarterly, Journal of Competitiveness and funds academic research in the areaof strategy & competitiveness. To know more about the institute write to us at firstname.lastname@example.org. 1
Macro Economic Trends in India – The Big Idea Factor Conditions The The rural Base of and the Indian the urban Demand Middle Conditions Pyramid India Class The Big Idea Opportunities in India India versus Bharat
Income Distribution Rich Destitutes Consumers Aspirants Climbers
Indian Auto Cluster – Driven by Auto Component Outsourcing
Indian Life Science Clusters •NIPER •PGI Chandigarh •IMTECH • DBT, DST, CSIR, DP, ICMR, ICAR •IISER • Translational Health Sciences Cluster • Proposed Agri Biotech Park •National Institute of Immunology •ICGEB • Institute of Genomics & Integrative Biology • National Brain Research Centre •JNU, Delhi University•PERD, NIPER•Savli Biotech Park• Proposed Biotech Park in • CDRI, IITR, CIMAP, NBRIAhmedabad • Lucknow Biotech Park• MS Univ Baroda • Indian Inst of Chemical Biology•TIFR • IIT Kharagpur•IIT Bombay, Univ of Mumbai • Bose Institute•National Chemical Laboratory • Dept. of Biotechnology, CU• National Centre for Cell Sciences • IISER, DBT Institute, Haringhata• Pune University, IISER• International Biotech Park •Indian Institute of Chemical Technology •Centre for Cellular & Molecular Biology• Indian Institute of Science •Centre for DNA Fingerprinting & Diag•National Centre for Biological Sciences •National Institute of Nutrition, ICRISAT•Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced • University of Hyd, Osmania UnivScientific Research •IKP Knowledge Park, SP Biotech Park• University of Agricultural Sciences• Stem Cell Institute•IBAB, ABLE • Anna University •IIT Madras • TICEL Biotech Park • Women’s Biotech Park
Cluster Development in India: MSME’s CDP in IndiaThe Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME), Government of India hasadopted the cluster development approach as a key strategy for enhancing the productivity andcompetitiveness as well as capacity building of Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs) and theircollectives in the country.Objectives of the Scheme:To support the sustainability and growth of MSEs by addressing common issues such asimprovement of technology, skills and quality, market access, access to capital, etc.To build capacity of MSEs for common supportive action through formation of self help groups,consortia, upgradation of associations, etc.To create/upgrade infrastructural facilities in the new/existing industrial areas/ clusters of MSEs.To set up common facility centres (for testing, training centre, raw material depot, effluenttreatment, complementing production processes, etc).
9 e 12 UK DL LICY GJ PO T E ONOMIC T HE C IMESON S UR AT DAYMUMBAI 27 NOVEMBE 2010 * R DE BURDE BT HR population to grow BR INDIA 10NL SK CG KR OR Statescan harnesstheir 6 MZ ARHP 8 GOTR MG KA RJ JH PJ TN AP WB MH UP Gross debt to GDPu n a ( population to grow 4 JK AS MP Gross debt l (USdollars in billions capita (USdollars) f Gross debt per MN 2 AN Gross debt per PD working-age mPOLICIES THAT MAKE PRODUCTIVE USE OF AVAILABLE RESOURCES AR 0 person (USdollars) 2 POLICIES THAT MAKE PRODUCTIVE USE OF AVAILABLE RESOURCES ARE CRITICAL 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Source: IMFFiscal Monitor, ILO Economically-Active Po P opulation size in lakhs u PE OPLEPOWER PEOPLEPOWER States contributing to India’s G growth DP Comparison of state population growth and G growth DP S b O States contributing to India’sDP growth higher than national average) (G G DP growth (G growth higher than national average) DP GDP Population growth rate 14 UK HR DL CH ind d S C tate handigarh (India avg 7.99) (India avg 1.55) Population 13.12 12 GJ BR THE EXPLOS GDP Delhi growth rate 11.86 5.05 3.11 10 AP S C K G NL SERIOUS LO B State (India avg 7.99) (India avg 1.55) 1.59 Uttarakhand 11.8 KR OR HP Haryana 11.69 1.98 Population TR KR AR MH GO u P Chandigarh 13.12 Gujarat Bihar 5.05 10.8 10.83 1.64 1.86 growth rates are HIGHER 8 MG R J MZ l g w Delhi 11.86 Chhattisgarh 3.11 than national TN WB JH G Sikkim 9.78 9.6 1.76 1.58 average 6 P J UP AN s d f Uttarakhand 11.8 Nagaland 1.59 9.54 4.89 AS JK MN PD Haryana 11.69 Himachal Pradesh 8.88 1.98 P 1.59 opulation 4 MP t m n growth rates h Gujarat 10.8 Andhra Pradesh1.64 Orissa 9.52 9.37 0.99 P are HIGHER rates 1.07 opulation 2 gatenet government de trillion —44% of world Bihar 10.83 Meghalaya 1.86 8.05 1.39 growth —in 2015. Advanced e Chhattisgarh 9.78 Tripura Pradesh 8.79 1.76 8.4 than national 0.99 are LOWER 0 P ad es ras timatesther Sikkim Arunachal 9.6 Kerala 1.58 9.55 average average 1.27 0.77 than national 0 1 2 3 4 vanced economieswill 5 ther to 85% in 2015. In ARINDAM better. Thecorres pondi R Nagaland 9.54 14Population size vs G growth rate 4.89 DP er chunk of working-age people, whocan among s opulation growthwhich are als corres P others, that is dragging force, (%) o pondingly far 26%srespectively. In 20 everal contribute to theG and generate high- down the economic growth of relatively moreproductive. DP gros domes product tic I Himachal Pradesh 8.88 12 1.59 CH UK DL NL S C KR K G HR GJ BR er output per capita. affluent s tates like Maharas In fact, theInternational Labour Orga- : nataka and T htra, Kar- G up 2: S ro tates with healthy G and DL: Delhi tated that India will such asBihar, Andhra Pradesh andtates Nadu growth:rates, suchP must fo- AS Assam amil Nadu. Yet, afew amil population HaryanaUttar asChandi- s TN: T Gu- garh, Delhi, UP and Biharradesh DP debt. By 2015, they are account for jus 14% o t d 10 nization (ILO) has s sharein worldG , thei DP radesh To put that moregrapho ARHP OR AP 8 TR MG KA RJ MH CH: C handigarh NL: Nagaland BR Bihar : account for thehighes working agepop- jarat with large populations are exhibit- cuson s t AP Andhra P : ectorswhere they are inherently Andhra Pradesh 9.52 6 0.99 GO MZ JH TN WB ulation in thenext 10 years in areport re- inghigh G growth. : In the , KR Keraladocument prepared Uttarakhand UK: DP R RJ: ajasthan resourcesoretraditional skillsP competitive becaus of the pres AR Arunachal and : ence of radesh nalThis has twoborrowe rather than majorw PJ UP Orissa 9.37 4 1.07 JK AS P opulation MP leas recently. ed natural MN for the G T S TR-20 ummit held earlier this :No burden on IndiahaveaGDPgrowth knowledge. Thesestatesof a large work- : eoul, theILOsaysthat theHRSHaryanain economicGO: Goa to turn the availability shouldfindways ripura growth HP Himachal P : radesh they will beablethan fom to us e 2 growth rates wo, g AN month in S G - ixteen s tates purpos rather es Meghalaya 8.05 0 1.39 PD 20nationswill s their workingagepop- higher than the national MZ: Mizoram in their favour ammu & Kashmir or repayment. T the MG: Meghalaya ee GJ: Gujarat average. Of force JK: Jby offering suitable 0 500 1000 1500 2000 are LOWER 2500 PD: Puducherry ulation between 15 and 64 yearsincreasC these, ten higher than thenational av- education policiesandopportunities. Set- G:growth rate states show a J: P e C hattisgarh Ppopulation ting the right MP: Madhya to en- unjab Pradesh wheresucceeding gene Tripura 8.4 0.99 Population size in lakhs by 212 million in the period 2010-2020. priorities is critical lier generationswill be than national KA: Karnataka S erage, whilesix other statesMN: popu- hancecompetitivenessfor thisbandof& Nicobar Islands K: S Over 64% of thisincreas will occur in In- e ikkim have a Manipur AN: Andaman In- advanced economies A . Arunachal Pradesh 8.79 Comparison of state population growth and G growth 1.27 DP Kerala 9.55 14 UK HR average DL CH diaalone! WB: West Bengal Thismonth’sIFCIndiaS D ve pm nt JH: lation growth ratelower than thenation- dian states.number of Maharashtra Javerage. harkhand OR OrissaGroup3: A MH: statessuch asKar- : pendency ratio —read group —and clearly, th s 12 0.77BR tate e lo e al 10 AP KR OR SK GJ HP C TR KR AR MH GO G NL Baro e r takesas m te harp look at what pop- Population growth, considered a bur- nataka, Wes Bengal, Rajas t than, T er chunk of working-age people,to economic growth, growthto have Nadu and Mizoram that is dragging with therisewhich ulation really means to the economic den who can among s slightlyothers are performing GDP seems everal below India’s average only , amil Thisisgraphically br force, in GDP EM . a Population size vs G growth rate DP 8 TN MG MZ R J growth of India’sstatesand analys how es littlecorrelation with GDP (corre- levelsfrom 2007 to 201 J 2015. In contrg AY produc EE A T 14 CH 6 WB JH PJ AN AS JK MN UP PD contribute to theG and generate high- statessuch asthe economic growth of relatively 2010 to s DP tatescan us their demographics e lation = 0.24). Large down Bihar, growth rate. Thes s ituation e tatescan quickly cat- more to improve their competitivenes , and s for instance, haves howed s tained G 4 MP er output per capita. affluent DP apult themselvesinto Group 2 with afo- us tates like productivity. htra, Kar- overro debt2: capita growth over the decade along with s cus effort on Maharas Gthesetwo periodsg up per S ta 12 UK DL HR GJ 2 hence, enhancetheir pros perity. a ed In fact, theInternational Labourunjaband Manipur with slower T up 4: ANadu. foret, a few s steadily ris population, whereassand Gamil roadmap Yenhancing com- Orga- nataka tates petitivenessiscritical for poorly perform- ing ro Average tates rose to $29,100 in 201 population 20 gr BR 0 nization acceptedthat growthamongIn- population increase areuch atGDP inge . Amongthese, statesh and G n-ve per person. T tated that India will sshowing Bihar,states o P po asUt- u- $48,000 us NDIAisasthec ntre f the such Andhra rades pulatio garh, Delhi, f rs - H 10NL SK CG KR OR 01 2 3 4 5 Rising stars among states s asP uch $41,000 in 2015. By ARHP AP P opulation growth (%) It iswidely (ILO) has s 8 GOTR MG KA RJ MH Delhi DL: AS Assam : WB CH: Chandigarh NL: Nagaland TN: Tamil Nadu BR Bihar : UP Uttar P : radesh AP Andhra P : radesh account for thewith sometgrowth, growth ratesthat arewthde na- large ithand Madhya rld’s eo $75,900,onhighest inr dian s ous s tatesisskewed, ro jarat the largeradesh thewoParehexhibit- becus the st highesprosper- tional average.g lower thanwith tarW growingpopulationsmust withc nd-larg s 2015. tates bearing the burden of working age pop- bate Pand . populations rades con- s e ector jus $1,200 in t TN