Trade, Labor Share, and Productivity in India’s Industries
This paper explores whether trade can explain a part of the sharp decline in the labor share of Indian formal industries from around 30% in 1980 to less than 10% in 2014. Decline in strikes and lockouts, reduced labor time lost from disputes per factory and increased use of contract workers in all major states in India are signs of reduced bargaining power. In order to estimate the influence of trade, the mark-up and bargaining power affecting the labor share and resultant productivity is derived. A semi-parametric approach is applied on a 3-digit level of industrial data over major states during 1998–2014 to regress Solow residual (the proxy for productivity) on trade share along with its interaction terms capturing market imperfections. The results confirm that trade, by dampening the bargaining power of labor, reduces labor share and hence raises productivity. It is argued that the joint effects of market size and competition arising out of trade cannot dominate the adverse effect of specialization in the presence of unions. The degree of specialization or comparative advantage that appears due to the increased market share of the most productive firms, who require fewer workers, thereby reducing the demand for workers with the trade. The drop in demand weakens bargaining power and shifts away distributive share from workers. But the competitive policy encouraging entry can negate such adverse effects of trade, to a large extent.
KeywordsTrade Market imperfections Labor share and productivity growth JEL classification D24 F16 L11
- Acemoglu, D. & Restrepo, P. (2018). Artificial Intelligence, Automation and Work, NBER Working Paper No. 24196. https://www.nber.org/papers/w24196.
- Ahluwalia, I. J. (1991). Productivity and growth in indian manufacturing. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Arbache, J. S. (2004). Does trade liberalization always decrease union bargaining power? Economia, 5(1), 99–121.Google Scholar
- Arkolakis, C., Costinot, A., Donaldson, D. & Rodrguez-Clare, A. (2015). The Elusive Pro-Competitive Effects of Trade, NBER Working Paper w21370, National Bureau of Economic Research. www.nber.org.
- Balakrishnan, P. & Pushpangadan, K. (1994). Total factor productivity growth in manufacturing industry: a fresh look. Economic and Political Weekly, 29(30).Google Scholar
- Balakrishnan, P., Parameswaran, M., Pushpangadan, K., & Babu, S. M. (2006). Liberalization, market power, and productivity growth in Indian industry. Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 9(1), 5573.Google Scholar
- Bhagwati, J. & Srinivasan, T. N. (1975). Foreign Trade Regimes and Economic Development, India. XF2006172468.Google Scholar
- Bhattacharjea, A. (2009). The effects of employment protection legislation on indian manufacturing. Economic and Political Weekly, 44(22), 55–62.Google Scholar
- Bhattacharjea, A. (2019). Labour market flexibility in Indian industry: a critical survey of the literature, CDE Working Paper No. 296, Delhi School of Economics, http://www.cdedse.org/pdf/work296.pdf
- Dao, M. C., Das, M., Koczan, Z. & Weicheng, L. (2017). Why is labour receiving a smaller share of global income? theory and empirical evidence. In International Monetary Fund, Stock No. WPIEA2017169 www.imf.org.
- Das, D. K. (2004). Manufacturing productivity growth under varying trade regimes, 1980–2000. Economic and Political Weekly, 39(05), 423–433.Google Scholar
- De Loecker, J. & Eeckhout, J. (2018). Global Market Power. National Bureau of Economics Research, Working Paper Series, 24768, NBER.Google Scholar
- Dixit, A. K., & Stiglitz, J. E. (1977). Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity. American Economic Review, 67(3), 297–308.Google Scholar
- Eichengreen, B. & Gupta, P. (2011). The service sector as India’s road to economic growth. NBER Working paper No. w16757, National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
- Elsby, M., Hobijn, B. & Sahin, A. (2013). The Decline of the U.S. Labor Share. Working Paper Series 2013–27, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.Google Scholar
- Feenstra, R. C., & Hanson G. H. (1997). Productivity measurement and the impact of trade and technology on wages: estimates for the U.S., 1972–1990. NBER Working Papers 6052, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.Google Scholar
- Goldar, B. (2013). Wages and wage share in india during the post-reform period. The Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 56(1), 75–94.Google Scholar
- Gupta, P. & Helble, M. (2018). Adjustment to Trade Opening: The Case of Labor Share in India’s Manufacturing Industry. ADBI Working Paper 845. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute. Available: https://www.adb.org/publications/adjustment-trade-opening-labor-share-india-manufacturing-industry
- Helpman, E. & Krugman, P. R. (1985). Market Structure and Foreign Trade, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
- ILO (2017). The World Employment and Social Outlook 2017, Trends, Labour Market Trends and Policy Evaluation Unit of the ILO Research Department.Google Scholar
- Isaksson, A. (2007). Determinants of Total Factor Productivity: A Literature Review. Staff Working Paper 2/2007, www.unido.org
- Kehrig, M. & Vincent, N. (2017). Growing productivity without growing wages: The micro-level anatomy of the aggregate labor share decline. Economic Research Initiatives at Duke (ERID) Working Paper No. 244.Google Scholar
- Krugman, P. (1980). Scale Economies, product differentiation, and the pattern of trade. The American Economic Review, 70(5), 950–959.Google Scholar
- Kumar, S. (2006). A decomposition of total productivity growth: a regional analysis of indian industrial manufacturing growth. International Journal of Product Perform Management, 55(3/4), 3113–3131.Google Scholar
- Li, J. & Treichel, V. (2012). Applying the growth identification and facilitation framework: The Case of Nigeria. In Li, J. (ed) New Structural Economics, The World Bank, Washington DC, pp. 215–258.Google Scholar
- Lin, J. Y. & Treichel, V. (2012). Learning from China’s rise to escape the middle-income trap: A new structural economics approach to latin America. In Policy Research Working Paper 6165. World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Maiti, D. (2009). Institution, network and industrialisation: Field evidence on flexibility and fragmentation from India. In IPPG Discussion Paper 26, Consortium of Institutions for Pro-Poor Growth, University of Manchester, http://www.ippg.org.uk/papers/dp26.pdf.
- Maiti, D. (2014). Reform, productivity growth and formal labour market in India. London: Routledge Publisher.Google Scholar
- Maiti, D. (2018). Trade, Market Imperfection and Labour Share’ CDE Working Paper No. 292, http://www.cdedse.org/pdf/work292.pdf.
- Melitz, M. J. & Redding, S. J. (2014). Heterogeneous firms and trade. In Gopinath, G., Helpman, E. & Rogoff, K. (eds.). Handbook of International Economics, Vol 4, pp. 1–55.Google Scholar
- Sweeney, P. (2017). IMF Study of Downward Share of Labour Income is Recognition of the Major Economic Issue of our Time, https://www.tasc.ie/blog/2017/05/15/imfstudy-of-downward-share-of-labour-income-is-re/.
- Topalova, P. (2007). Trade Liberalization, Poverty and Inequality: Evidence from Indian Districts. NBER Working Paper, www.nber.org/chapters/c0110.
- Unel, M. B. (2003). Productivity trends in India’s manufacturing sectors in the last two decades. IMF Working Paper No. 03/22, International Monetary Fund; www.imf.org.