Abstract
The paper tries to assess whether the technological conditions of production can explain the sluggishness in growth in Indian manufacturing industries reflected in a stagnant share in aggregate GDP. For this purpose, the returns to scale and elasticity of factor substitution are estimated for various two-digit manufacturing industries of India for the years 1998–1999 to 2007–2008 using the translog production function specification. Most of the previous research of this kind was undertaken by using either aggregate level time-series or state-wise aggregate cross-section data. The recent availability of factory (plant) level panel data has motivated us to re-estimate the parameters of the production function for the Indian manufacturing using factory-level data. Our results clearly indicate presence of significant scale economies. We observe that the capital-labour elasticity of substitution varies across industries, being a little above one or less than one in nearly half of the cases. A multiple regression analysis has been undertaken with the help of industry-level panel data for the years 1998–1999 to 2007–2008 to find out if the manufacturing growth rate is conditioned by the parameters of the production function. Our results indicate that production function parameters do exert an important influence on the rate of growth.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Over the last two decades (1990–2013), the share of manufacturing in GDP has remained stagnant with a possible marginal decline. This prolonged and severe stagnation caused serious policy concern to arrest and reverse the slowdown. See Babu and Natarajan (2013).
The 5-yearly average GDP growth rate in India increased from 5.24 % in 1991–1995 to 8.7 % in 2006–2010 but since 2011 the growth rate had started declining. See Barua and Sawhney (2015).
See Babu and Natarajan (2013).
Internal economies are the gains (lowering of costs) taking place within a firm as its scale of production goes up. External economies are the gains (improved productivity and cost reduction) that occur in a firm as the size of the industry goes up. The industry size may go up as many firms become larger in size or new firms are established or both. The sources of external economies include knowledge spillover, labour-market pooling and specialized capital input (Krugman 2009). Evidently, if one does not use firm/plant level data and instead undertakes an analysis based on industry level data, one would not be able to assess the internal economies, but may be able to get an assessment of external economies.
Though we had access to data for later years, the change in industrial classification introduced in ASI data since 2008–2009 makes it difficult to combine the estimates of RTS and ES for years up to 2007–2008 and those for later years. Another concern is that the global economic crisis began from 2008/2009 and we considered it appropriate to confine our analysis to the period prior to the crisis.
Since data for each year is considered separately for the analysis, deflation of value added and capital stock in order to bring them at constant prices has not been done. However, for an alternate estimate based on panel data (discussed later), deflation of value added and capital stock has been done.
To apply the Olley–Pakes or Livinsohn–Petrin methodology, the sample will have to be drastically reduced to those plants that are repeated in consecutive years for a sufficient number of years. Since the models are estimated separately for each two-digit industry, this will be a serious disadvantage as the number of observations will go down considerably and the sample will get biased towards relatively larger factories (the reason is that the factories with 100 or more workers which are included in the census sector of ASI tend to get covered each year, whereas smaller factories will get covered only if they are chosen in the sample with the consequence that they get less frequently covered).
Information on the application of the delta method for computation of standard errors is available on the internet. See, for instance, Explanation of the Delta Method, STATA Data Analysis and Software, http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/statistics/delta-method/ (accessed on 6 September 2016).
The equation estimated is: ln(Y/L)=c+\(\upvarphi \) ln(w) +\(\uppsi \) ln(L)+\(\upvarepsilon \), where Y denotes value added (output), w wage rate and L labour input. \(\upvarepsilon \) is the error term. After obtaining estimates of \(\upvarphi \) and \(\uppsi \), estimates of returns to scale and elasticity of substitution can be derived by solving two equations.
These estimates are not presented in the paper to save space but can be obtained from the authors on request.
References
Aguirregabiria, Victor. 2009. Econometric issues and methods in the estimation of production function. MPRA Paper No. 15973, Munich Personal RePEc Archive, available at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.505.6326&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed on 10 Sept 2016.
Babu, Suresh M., and Rajesh Raj S. Natarajan. 2013. Growth and spread of manufacturing productivity across regions in India. Springer Plus. doi:10.1186/2193-1801-2-53.
Barua, Alokesh. 1985. Production function: a survey of the estimates for Indian manufacturing. Discussion Paper No. 66, October 1985, Development Economics Research Centre, University of Warwick, pp. 1–87.
Barua, Alokesh, and D. Leech. 1986. The returns to scale and elasticity of substitution in Indian manufacturing: a cross section analysis. CITD Discussion paper.
Barua, Alokesh, and Aparna Sawhney. 2015. Development policy implications for growth and regional inequality in a small open economy: the Indian case. Review of Development Economics 19(3): 695–709.
Blundell, Richard, Stephen Bond, and Franc Windmeijer. 2000. Estimation in dynamic panel data models: improving on the performance of the standard GMM estimator. Working Paper No. 00/12, Institute of Fiscal Studies, London. Available at http://www.ifs.org.uk/wps/wp0012.pdf. Accessed on 10 Sept 2016.
Debertin, David L. 2012. Agricultural Production Economics, 2nd Edition, N.J.: Pearson Education, available at: http://www.uky.edu/~deberti/prod/agprod5.pdf. Accessed on 6 Sept 2016.
Ferguson, C.E. 1965. Substitution, technical progress and returns to scale. American Economic Review 55(1/2): 296–305.
Fikkert, Brian, and Rana Hasan. 1998. Returns to scale in a highly regulated economy: evidence from Indian firms. Journal of Development Economics 56: 51–79.
Goldar, Bishwnath. 1997. Econometrics of Indian industry. In Econometric applications in India, ed. K.L. Krishna. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Goldar, Bishwanath. 2012. Input substitution and technical change in indian manufacturing, 1973–2007. Journal of Industrial Statistics 1(2): 169–181.
Goldar, Bishwanath, Basanta K. Pradhan, and Akhilesh K. Sharma. 2013. Elasticity of substitution between capital and labour inputs in manufacturing industries of the Indian economy. Journal of Industrial Statistics 2(2): 169–194.
Goldar, Bishwanath, Basanta K. Pradhan, and Akhilesh K. Sharma. 2014. Elasticity of substitution between capital and labour in major sectors of the Indian economy. IEG Working Paper No. 335.
Henderson, James M., and Richard E. Quandt. 1980. Microeconomic theor: a mathematical approach, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill.
Jha, R., M.N. Murty, Satya Paul, and B. Bhaskara Rao. 1993. An analysis of technological change, factor substitution and economies of scale in manufacturing industries in India. Applied Economics 25: 1337–1343.
Kumar, P. Surya, and V.B. Naidu. 2014. Production trends and factor substitutions in some selected Indian steel firms: a translog approach. Journal of International Academic Research for Multidisciplinary 2(Issue 2): 547–558.
Krugman, Paul R. 2009. The increasing returns revolution in trade and geography. American Economic Review 99(3): 561–571.
Levinsohn, J., and A. Petrin. 2003. Estimating production functions using inputs to control for unobservables. Review of Economic Studies 70: 317–342.
McFadden, Daniel. 1978. Estimation techniques for the elasticity of substitution and other production parameters. In Production economics: a dual approach to theory and applications, vol. II, ed. Melvyn Fuss, and Daniel McFadded, 73–123. North Holland: Amsterdam.
Nerlov, Marc. 1967. Recent empirical studies of the CES and related production functions. In The theory and empirical analysis of production, ed. Marry Brown. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Olley, G.S., and A. Pakes. 1996. The dynamics of productivity in the telecommunications equipment industry. Econometrica 64(6): 1263–1297.
Pattnayak, S.S., and S.M. Thangavelu. 2005. Economic reform and productivity growth in Indian manufacturing industries: an interaction of technical change and scale economies. Economic Modeling 22: 601–615.
Sahu, Santosh Kumar, and Himani Sharma. 2016. Productivity, energy intensity and output: a unit level analysis of Indian manufacturing sector. Journal of Quantitative Economics, 2016. doi:10.1007/s40953-016-0034-7.
Sato, R., and P.S. Calem. 1983. Lie groups methods and the theory of estimating total productivity. In Developments in econometric analysis of productivity: measurement and modeling issue, ed. A. Dogramachi, 145–168. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.
Stern, David I. 2011. Elasticities of substitution and complementarity. Journal of Productivity Analysis 36: 79–89.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Barua, A., Goldar, B., Sharma, H. et al. Do Technological Conditions of Production Explain Industrial Growth? The Indian Manufacturing, 1998–1999 to 2007–2008. J. Quant. Econ. 15, 509–541 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40953-016-0060-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40953-016-0060-5