Abstract
Using a panel dataset on Indian manufacturing firms from 1994 to 2010, the present study examines the export spillover effects from FDI on Indian manufacturing firms. FDI and its impact on Indian firms have drawn considerable attention during last two decades due to the surge of FDI in India since 2000s. Previous studies have shown that India did not seem to draw any positive benefit from FDI in terms of productivity. However, the impact of FDI spillovers on export performance is relatively less explored. Theory says that export performance of firms is highly influenced by the diffusion of information, knowledge and technology brought by the foreign firms. These above-mentioned channels are referred as information spillovers, competition spillovers, imitation spillovers and skill spillovers which are various channels of horizontal spillovers that influence export performance. Competition, imitation and skill spillovers are called induced export spillover effects as they promote export performance of the domestic firms by improving productivity. A study by Antras and Helpman (2004) argues that the highest productive firms are firms which serve the international market, while the lowest productive firms stay in the domestic market. On the other hand, information spillover induces export performance by reducing the sunk cost associated export activities keeping productivity intact. In this paper, we specifically focus on the horizontal export spillover channels. A very early study by Kumar and Siddharthan (1994) did not find any significant difference in export activities of domestic and foreign firms during the restrictive policy regime. However, recent studies, for example, Joseph and Reddy (2009), Franco and Sasidharan (2010) have shown a significant positive impact of FDI on export performance of the Indian firms. While Joseph and Reddy (2009) took into account both horizontal and vertical export spillover channels, Franco and Sasidharan (2010) is a detailed study of horizontal export spillover channels and their impact on export performance of Indian manufacturing firms. The study showed that the firms with higher R&D capability are in general more benefitted from FDI spillovers as compared to non-R&D firms. The present study is divided into two parts: in the first part, we focus on the FDI spillover effects on the export performance of the domestic firms. While we mention “export performance” of the firms, we refer to two activities: first, whether the decision of the non-exporter firms change and second, how export propensity of the self-selected exporting firms gets influenced by foreign activities. Thus, for the econometric analysis, we use Heckman selection (2 Step) method where the firms self-select themselves as exporters. Our study brings out interesting results. The study does not find any significant positive impact from foreign firms’ domestic activities or export activities unlike previous studies (Franco and Sasidharan 2010). The “export-platform” theory mentioned in Ruane and Sutherland (2005) seems to be prevalent in the case of Indian manufacturing sector. Export activity of the foreign firms not only reduces the export propensity of the domestic firms, it also hinders the decision of the non-export domestic firms to become exporters. Competition spillovers from foreign firms, measured in terms of their domestic sales, show a significant negative impact on the export propensity of the domestic firms. In fact, we find negative impact of skill spillovers on the domestic export activities. Domestic R&D activities by foreign firms remain insignificant throughout. With these results one question followed, is this outcome mainly driven by the initial periods of liberalisation? As spillover theory says, domestic firms take few years to adjust to the new environment and during that period, domestic firms evolve themselves to take advantages from foreign activities. Therefore, the study looked into FDI spillover effects during these sub-periods. Thus, in the second part of the study, we separate the period into two sub-periods: 1994–2001 and 2002–2010 since, in the second period, the Indian manufacturing sector showed huge FDI inflows. We find that export performances of the domestic firms are significantly hurt by the foreign activities during 2002–2010. The FDI spillover results in the first half of the study period mostly remain insignificant due to low foreign presence. Except R&D spillovers, all other spillover variables show significant negative effect on export propensity of the domestic firms during 2002–2010. It seems that exporting foreign firms were reluctant to share their knowledge about international markets with their domestic competitors. Along with the spillover variables, we have taken into consideration various firm-specific characteristics, for example, capital–labour ratio, R&D activity, import of technology, import of raw material and size of the firms as major indicators which influence export performance of the domestic firms. Among the firm variables, import of raw materials and internal R&D activities showed a significant influence on domestic export performance. It is interesting to mention that internal R&D activities influence export decisions of the domestic firms but not their export propensity. Export performance of the Indian manufacturing firms is significantly hindered by use of imported technology or higher capital–labour ratio. It can be argued that domestic export basket is dominated by the low-technology-intensive products, and therefore use of technology does not help these firms.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In the Heckman two-step procedure, the inverse mills ratio is included as the independent variable in the second step of the regression analysis. Often, the inclusion of inverse mills ratio results in multicollinearity, which can have adverse effect on the model estimates. Therefore, we prefer the Heckman maximum likelihood method.
- 2.
Ratios are calculated using PROWESS CMIE database. Technology sectors are separated according to the OECD (2011) definition.
References
Aggarwal, A. (2002). Liberalisation, multinational enterprises and export performance: evidence from Indian manufacturing. Journal of Development Studies, 38(3), 119–137.
Aitken, B., Hanson, G. H., & Harrison, A. E. (1997). Spillovers, foreign investment, and export behavior. Journal of International Economics, 43(1), 103–132.
Aitken, B. J., & Harrison, A. E. (1999). Do domestic firms benefit from direct foreign investment? Evidence from Venezuela. American Economic Review, 605–618.
Antras, P., & Helpman, E. (2004). Global sourcing. Journal of political economy, 112(3), 552–580.
Anwar, S., & Nguyen, L. P. (2011). Foreign direct investment and export spillovers: Evidence from Vietnam. International Business Review, 20(2), 177–193.
Banga, R. (2003). The differential impact of Japanese and US foreign direct investments on exports of Indian manufacturing. New Delhi, India: Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations.
Bhat, S., & Narayanan, K. (2009). Technological efforts, firm size and exports in the basic chemical industry in India. Oxford Development Studies, 37(2), 145–169.
Buck, T., Liu, X., Wei, Y., & Liu, X. (2007). The trade development path and export spillovers in China: A missing link? Management International Review, 47(5), 683–706.
Chen, C., Sheng, Y., & Findlay, C. (2013). Export spillovers of FDI on China’s domestic firms. Review of International Economics, 21(5), 841–856.
Dunning, J. H. (1993). Internationalizing Porter’s diamond. Management International Review, 33(2), 7.
Franco, C., & Sasidharan, S. (2010). MNEs, technological efforts and channels of export spillover: An analysis of Indian manufacturing industries. Economic Systems, 34(3), 270–288.
Franco, C. (2013). Exports and FDI motivations: Empirical evidence from US foreign subsidiaries. International Business Review, 22(1), 47–62.
Greenaway, D., Sousa, N., & Wakelin, K. (2004). Do domestic firms learn to export from multinationals? European Journal of Political Economy, 20(4), 1027–1043.
Globerman, S. (1979). Foreign direct investment and’spillover’efficiency benefits in Canadian manufacturing industries. Canadian Journal of Economics, 42–56.
Haddad, M., & Harrison, A. (1993). Are there positive spillovers from direct foreign investment?: Evidence from panel data for Morocco. Journal of Development Economics, 42(1), 51–74.
Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153–161.
Honglin Zhang, K. (2005). Why does so much FDI from Hong Kong and Taiwan go to Mainland China? China Economic Review, 16(3), 293–307.
Hymer, S. H. (1976). International operations of national firms. MIT Press.
Johnson, A. (2006). FDI and exports: The case of the high performing East Asian Economies. The Royal Institute of Technology Centre of Excellence for Studies in Science and Innovation Working Paper, (57).
Joseph, T. J., & Reddy, V. N. (2009). FDI spillovers and export performance of Indian manufacturing firms after liberalisation. Economic and Political Weekly, 97–105.
Karpaty, P., & Kneller, R. (2011). Demonstration or congestion? Export spillovers in Sweden. Review of World Economics, 147(1), 109–130.
Kneller, R., & Pisu, M. (2007). Industrial linkages and export spillovers from FDI. The World Economy, 30(1), 105–134.
Kumar, N., & Pradhan, J. P. (2003). Export competitiveness in the knowledge-based industries: A firm-level analysis of Indian manufacturing. Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS), New Delhi.
Kumar, N., & Siddharthan, N. S. (1994). Technology, firm size and export behaviour in developing countries: the case of Indian enterprises. The Journal of Development Studies, 31(2), 289–309.
OECD (2011). ISIC Rev. 3 technology intensity definition: Classification of manufacturing industries into categories based on R&D intensities. https://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/48350231.pdf.
Pant, M. (1995). FDI in India: The issues involved. New Delhi: Lancer Books.
Power, L. (1998). The missing link: Technology, investment, and productivity. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(2), 300–313.
Prasanna, N. (2010). Impact of foreign direct investment on export performance in India. Journal of Social Science, 24(1), 65–71.
Rao, K. S., & Dhar, B. (2011). India’s FDI inflows: Trends and concepts. Biswajit, India’s FDI Inflows: Trends and Concepts (February 24, 2011).
Roberts, M. J., & Tybout, J. R. (1997). The decision to export in Colombia: An empirical model of entry with sunk costs. The American Economic Review, 545–564.
Ruane, F., & Sutherland, J. (2005). Foreign direct investment and export spillovers: How do export platforms fare? (No. iiisdp058). IIIS.
Saggi, K. (2002). Trade, foreign direct investment, and international technology transfer: A survey. The World Bank Research Observer, 17(2), 191–235.
Sun, H. (2001). Foreign direct investment and regional export performance in China. Journal of regional science, 41(2), 317–336.
Sun, S. (2012). The role of FDI in domestic exporting: Evidence from China. Journal of Asian Economics, 23(4), 434–441.
UNCTAD. (1999). World investment report 1999: FOREIGN direct investment and the challenge of development. United Nations: New York and Geneva.
Wang, C., Buckley, P. J., Clegg, J., & Kafouros, M. (2007). The impact of inward foreign direct investment on the nature and intensity of Chinese manufacturing exports. Transnational Corporations, 16(2), 123.
Willmore, L. (1992). Tansnationals and foreign trade: Evidence from Brazil. The Journal of Development Studies, 28(2), 314–335.
Xuan, N. T., & Xing, Y. (2008). Foreign direct investment and exports, The experiences of Vietnam. Economics of Transition, 16(2), 183–197.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mondal, S., Pant, M. (2020). FDI and Export Spillovers: A Case Study of India. In: Aggarwal, S., Das, D., Banga, R. (eds) Accelerators of India's Growth—Industry, Trade and Employment. India Studies in Business and Economics. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9397-7_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9397-7_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-32-9396-0
Online ISBN: 978-981-32-9397-7
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)