Assessing structural coherence with factor proportions of tradable sectors in Indian economy

Tandon, Anjali (2022): Assessing structural coherence with factor proportions of tradable sectors in Indian economy. Published in: The Journal of Income and Wealth , Vol. 42, No. 1&2 (2022)

Abstract

Structural transformation supports higher output growth if it reflects the endowment fundamentals of the economy. Since the industrial structure is expected to align with factor-intensive sectors, structural coherence with factor proportions becomes an important consideration for industrial policy design. In the past, measurement of factor proportion (intensity) has been restricted to direct use within the sector ignoring the crucial fact that factors are also embedded in upstream supplies. Therefore, an underestimation of the factor proportions across sectors of the economy cannot be ruled out if evaluated using direct factor contents only. It is important to account for the indirect requirement for factors of production. Capital, in particular, is expected to be used intensely in the tradable sectors due to their relative importance in output, exports and investment. However, tradables are often studied in isolation of their interaction with the non-tradables. The use of Semi Input-Output (SIO) model permits to address both the above mentioned shortcomings. This paper has two objectives for studying the tradables using an SIO approach using the KLEMS data from the RBI. First, to provide an improved estimate of factor proportions from the additional accounting for interlinkages with the non-tradables. Second, to study the structural coherence with factor proportions. The absence of a clear pattern between the structure of output and factor proportions points to market failures preventing movement of labour and capital to the most desirable sectors, thus constraining growth. Major exporting tradables are not the most labour-intensive sectors, indicating a mis-match vis-a-vis the proportions. The output and exports are not concentrated among the most capital-intensive tradables. The concentration of FDI into sectors with high relative use of capital, in a labour rich economy, leaves not a very encouraging situation for employment generation. From a policy perspective, the results suggest that under the present orientation of factor proportions, FDI is unlikely to be the solution to employment generation problems with the existing skill set. With increased capital proportion of even the labour-intensive sectors, a different type of labour supply is needed which is better trained and also mobile across sectors.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Factor proportions; Tradables; Capital-to-Labour ratio; Semi-Input-Output; Linkages; India.
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C6 - Mathematical Methods ; Programming Models ; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling > C67 - Input-Output Models; D - Microeconomics > D2 - Production and Organizations > D24 - Production ; Cost ; Capital ; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity ; Capacity; D - Microeconomics > D5 - General Equilibrium and Disequilibrium > D57 - Input-Output Tables and Analysis

References

Alauddin M and Tisdell C, 1988. The Use of Input-Output Analysis to determine the Appropriateness of Technology and Industries: Evidence from Bangladesh, Economic Development and Cultural Change, The University of Chicago Press, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 369-391.

Athukorala PC and Rajapatirana S, 2003. Capital Inflows and the Real Exchange Rate: A Comparative Study of Asia and Latin America, World Economy, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp 613–637.

Bahal G, Raissi M and Tulin V, 2018. Crowding-out or Crowding-in? Public and Private Investment in India, World Development, Vol 109, No. 2, p. 23

Balasubramanyam VN and Sapsford D. 2007, Does India Need a Lot More FDI?, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 1549–1555.

Baldwin RE, 1971. Determinants of the Commodity Structure of U.S. Trade, The American Economic Review, American Economic Association, Vol. 61, No. 2, pp. 126–146.

Bruton HJ, 1963. Growth Models and Under developed Economies, Journal of Political Economy, Reprinted in The Economics of Underdevelopment, Agarwala and Singh (eds.) Oxford University Press Central Statistics Office 2012, National Accounts Statistics, Sources and Methods, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation Government of India Che NX, 2012. Factor Endowment, Structural Coherence, and Economic Growth, IMF Working Paper, WP/12/165.

Cobbold T 2003, A Comparison of Gross Output and Value-Added Methods of Productivity Estimation, Productivity Commission Research Memorandum, Canberra.

Coondoo D, Neogi C and Ghosh B, 1993. Technology-intensive Industrialisation in LDCs: Experience of Indian Industries, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 28, No. 8/9, pp. 43-52.

Cuadrado FA, Long NV and Poschke M, 2017. Capital–labor substitution, structural change, and growth, Theoretical Economics, Vol 12, No. 2, pp. 1229–1266.

Daron A and Guerrieri V, 2008. Capital deepening and nonbalanced economic growth. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 116, No. 2, pp. 467–498.

Das DK, Erumban AA, Aggarwal S and Das PC, 2015, Measuring Productivity at the Industry Level The INDIA KLEMS Database, Data Manual 2015

Das DK, Erumban AA, Aggarwal S and Das PC, 2018. Measuring Productivity at the Industry Level, The India KLEMS Database, Data Manual 2017, https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/.PDF

Gulhane S and Turukmane R, 2017. Effect of Make in India on Textile Sector”, Journal of Textile Engineering & Fashion Technology, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 551–555.

Gupta P, Hasan R and Kumar U, 2008. What Constrains Indian Manufacturing?, ERD Working Paper Series No. 119, Asian Development Bank.

Hamilton C and Svensson LEO, 1983. Should Direct or Total Factor Intensities Be Used in Tests of the Factor Proportions Hypothesis?”, WeltwirtschaftlichesArchiv, Vol. 119, No. 2, pp. 453–463.

Harrigan J, Zakrajšek E. Factor supplies and specialization in the world economy.https://www.nber.org/papers/w7848

Horiba Y and Kirkpatrick RC, 1981. Factor Endowments, Factor Proportions, and the Allocative Efficiency of U.S. Interregional Trade, The Review of Economics and Statistics , Vol. 63, No. 2, pp. 178–187.

International Labour Organisation 2018, Emerging Technologies and the Future of Work in India, Tandem Research, ILO Asia-Pacific Working Paper Series, June.

Karunaratne ND, 1996. A Semi Input-Output Analysis of Australian Comparative Advantage”, Chapter 12 in Puttaswamaiah (ed.), Tinbergen and Modern Economics, Indus publishing company, pp 193–210.

Kathuria V, Raj SNR and Sen K, 2010. Organised versus Unorganised Manufacturing Performance in The Post-Reform Period, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 55–64.

Keesing DB, 1966. Labor Skills and Comparative Advantage. American Economic Review, May (Papers and Proceedings), Vol. 56, No. 2, pp. 249–58.

Leamer EE, 1984. Sources of International Comparative Advantage: Theory and Evidence, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.

Leontief W, 1953. Domestic Production and Foreign Trade; The American Capital Position Re-Examined, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 97, No. 4, pp. 332–349.

Luis S, 1999. Does Public Capital Crowd Out Private Capital? Evidence from India, Policy Research Working Paper, World Bank. Accessed at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/652401468771639280/Does-public-capital-crowd-out-private-capital-evidence-from-India

Mano RC and Castillo M, 2015. The Level of Productivity in Traded and Non Traded Sectors for a Large Panel of Countries, IMF Working Paper WP/15/48.

Mason R H and Sakong Il, 1971. Level of Economic Development and Capital-Labor Ratios in Manufacturing, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 176–178.

Ngai LR and Pissarides CA, 2007. Structural change in a multi-sector model of growth. American Economic Review, Vol. 97, No. 2, pp. 429–443.

Panagariya A, 2017. Indian Industry Not Investing in Job-Intensive Sectors, The Economic Times, 25 August.

Rashid ZA and Bashir MS, 2000. Factor Intensity of Trade: Malaysia’s Labour Skills in Manufacturing Trade Flows, Paper presented at 14th International Conference on Input-Output Techniques, Montreal, 10-15 October.

Rathee H, 2016. Textile Sector in India & Scope for International Technology Transfer and Cooperation, Presentation Arvind Limited (India), 28 September. Accessed at http://knowledgeplatform.in/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Textile_presentation.pdf

Reeve TA, 2002. Factor Endowments and Industrial Structure, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, International Finance Discussion Papers, Number 731.

Riedel J, 1974. Factor Proportions, Linkages and the Open Developing Economy, ECONSTOR/Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IFW), Kiel Working Paper No. 20.

Romalis J, 2004. Factor Proportions and the Structure of Commodity Trade, The American Economic Review, March.

Sen K, 1956. Capital Output Ratios in Indian Industry, The Economic Weekly, March 3.

Sen K, 2008. Trade, FDI and Industrial Transformation in India, Paper prepared for Research Workshop ‘Emerging trends and patterns of trade and investment in Asia’, Ninth Global Development Network Conference, Brisbane, Australia.

Singh K and Saluja MR, 2016. Input-Output Table of India: 2013-14, NCAER Working Paper 111.

Singh K and Saluja MR, 2018. Input–Output Table for India 2013–2014: Based on the New Series of National Accounts Statistics and Supply and the Use Table. Margin—The Journal of Applied Economic Research, Vol 12, No. 2, pp. 197–223 .

Srivastava A, 2012. Heckscher Ohlin Vanek Theorem: An excess supply approach, MPRA Paper No. 38279.

Tinbergen J (1967), Development Planning, World University Library, Weidenfeld and nicolson, London.

Vanek J, 1968. The Factor Proportions Theory: The N-Factor Case. Kyklos, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 749–756.

Wei Y and Balasubramanyam VN, 2015. A Comparative Analysis of China and India’s Manufacturing Sectors, Economics Working Paper Series 2015/003, Lancaster University Management School.