ISSN (Print) - 0012-9976 | ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

A+| A| A-

An Analysis Based on India KLEMS Database

Sources of India’s Post-reform Economic Growth

This paper analyses the sources of India’s economic growth in terms of industry origins, inputs, and productivity during 1994–2018, comparing the pre- and post-global financial crisis periods. Manufacturing was one of the main contributing sectors to aggregate growth of the total factor productivity and gross value added in the post-GFC period. The results stress the need for proactive policies to support agriculture, manufacturing, and market services sectors.

India’s economic growth during 1994–95 to 2018–19 (hereafter written as 1994–2018),1 that is, the period since the liberal market reforms began in the early 1990s, was on average about 6%. This paper presents a supply-side analysis of this observed economic growth in the post-reform period, comparing growth performance between the pre- and post-global financial crisis (GFC) periods. Using disaggregated industry-level data, the paper looks at the industry origins of growth—which industries are driving aggregate growth—with a focus on the roles of agriculture, manufacturing, and services sectors. Furthermore, the study also looks at the contribution of factor accumulation and productivity advance to growth, taking a growth accounting approach based on the five-input capital–labour–energy–materials–services (KLEMS) framework.

For the analysis, the paper uses the India KLEMS database, which is based on and is consistent with India’s national acc­ounts, and is available on the website of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).2 This data­base provides annual time series data on output, inputs, factor income shares, and productivity from 1980–81 to 2018–19 for 27 industries that constitute the total economy (Das et al 2020). The analysis in the paper is confined to the period from 1993–94 to 2018–19 (1993–2018). We consider the average growth from 1994 to 2018, divided into two sub-periods, 1994–2007 (the pre-crisis period) and 2008–18 (the post-crisis period), with the first sub-period sometimes being broken into 1994–2002 and 2003–07.

The paper has three main parts. The first part briefly outlines the India KLEMS database. The second part analyses sources of growth at the aggregate economy level and the ind­ustry origins of aggregate real gross value added (GVA) growth and total factor productivity (TFP). While tracing the industry origins of the aggregate GVA growth and TFP growth, we exa­mine the specific roles of the manufacturing, services, and agri­culture and allied activities sectors. The third part of the paper analyses the trends in investment rates and the rates of return. Since the rate of investment has played a pivotal role in influencing India’s economic growth, a disaggregated analysis of the trends in the investment rate and rate of return across industries of the manufacturing and services sectors is attempted. Finally, we summarise the main findings of the paper and end with a few concluding remarks.

India KLEMS Database

The basic approach used in this paper is to understand the sources of growth in a standard growth accounting framework using a KLEMS gross output production function for each of the 27 industries in the India KLEMS database. In this app­roach, gross output (Y) growth for any given industry j is decomposed into contributions from factor inputs, capital (K) and labour (L), and intermediate inputs, energy (E), materials (M), and services (S), as:

 

... (1)

where si is the income share of input i (i=K, L, E, M, and S) in the total nominal value of gross output, and ∆ln TFP is the TFP growth, measured as a residual after subtracting the observed input contributions from the observed output growth, all for industry j. Since the production function for the aggregate economy is a value added function, a similar growth accounting may be performed, but using only two-factor inputs, capital and labour, and aggregate value added, that is,

... (2)

where V is the aggregate economy real value added, vK and vare respectively the income share of capital and labour in aggregate nominal value added, K and L are respectively the aggregate capital and labour inputs, and TFPv is the TFP using the value added function.

For our analysis, we rely on the time-series data available from the India KLEMS database, version 2020 (hereafter abbreviated as IKD_v2020).3 The database provides information on 27 individual industries that consist of the aggregate economy. The database is primarily based on the National Accounts Statistics (NAS), published annually by the Central Statistics Office (CSO), Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India. The NAS is supplemented by input–output transactions tables (IOTTs), supply-use tables (SUTs), various rounds of the Annual Survey of Industries (ASI), the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) Employment and Unemployment Surveys (EUS), the Periodic Labour Force Surveys (PLFS), and surveys on the unorganised manufacturing sector.

The database provides two output measures, the gross value of output (GVO)—Y in equation (1)—and gross value added (GVA)—V in equation (2)—both in current and constant prices. The estimates of GVA at current and constant current prices are directly obtained from the NAS for certain sectors/industries of the economy.4 Since the NAS data are not available for all individual KLEMS industries belonging to manufacturing, it becomes necessary in some cases to split the aggregate into the KLEMS industry groups, which is done by using data from ASI and NSSO surveys on unorganised manufacturing. A similar approach is followed to derive the estimates of GVO, except for service industries. For the service industries, additional information on the ratio of output to value added is obtained from the IOTTs and is applied to estimates of GVA from the NAS. 

The database provides estimates of factor inputs labour and capital, including quantity (employment and capital stock) and composition measures (educational composition of wor­kers and asset composition of capital stock)—the combination of these quantities and composition are called the labour and capital inputs. Employment data for the 27 industries are deri­ved from the quinquennial rounds of EUS and, more recently, from PLFS, using the usual principal and subsidiary status (UPSS) concept. 

Capital stock estimates for three individual assets, construction, machinery, and transport equipment are constructed ­using real investment and asset-specific depreciation rates by app­lying a perpetual inventory method. Investment data for these assets are obtained from the NAS, supplemented by the ASI and NSSO unorganised manufacturing surveys. Capital input is then measured as a rental share weighted growth rate of asset-specific capital stock, assuming differences in rental prices ­reflect productivity differences across assets. The rental shares are calculated as each asset’s share in the total rental value, obtained ­using the rate of return and depreciation costs of each asset.

The database also provides information on three interme­diate input categories, namely energy, materials, and services, at current and constant prices. Following Jorgenson et al (2005) and Timmer et al (2010), these measures are developed using IOTTs.

Finally, the labour income is obtained from the NAS data on the net domestic product, comprising compensation of employees, gross operating surplus, and mixed-income for the self-employed. As in the case of GVA and GVO, appropriate indu­stry distributions are used to split the NAS data into 27 indu­stry groups. Moreover, the labour income component of the mixed-income category has been separated to estimate the income attributable to workers accurately.

Sources of India’s Economic Growth

 

Decomposition of the aggregate value added growth: The decomposition of growth rate in real GVA at the aggregate economy level into the contributions of labour and capital ­input growth, and TFP growth (equation 2) are provided in ­Table 1. The results are averages for 1994–2018, and the sub-periods of 1994–2002, 2003–07, 1994–2007, and 2008–18. The aggregate economy TFP growth is broken up into an agg­re­gation of industry-level TFP effect and the movement of res­ources from low-productivity to high-productivity industries—a factor reallocation effect, using a decomposition method suggested by Jorgenson et al (2005). This approach separates estimates of the productivity gains from the reallocation of capital and labour inputs across industries.

The average annual growth rate in real GVA during the ­entire period of 1994–2018 was about 6.5%.5 The most important contributor to this growth was capital input (mostly driven by capital stock rather than changes in the asset composition of capital—that is capital composition effect), accounting for about half of the GVA growth. The TFP growth was the second dominant contributor, contributing about a little less than one-third of the real GVA growth. About one half of the aggregate TFP growth came from industry-level productivity improvements. The reallocation of labour and capital inputs from low- to high-productivity industries constituted the other half. The contribution of the labour input growth to the aggregate GVA growth was about one-sixth, divided somewhat equally between the quantity (employment growth) and composition (improvements in the educational composition of workers) components.

Contrasting the two pre-GFC periods, 1994–2002 and 2003–07, it is found that in the later period, which is the high-growth phase of the Indian economy, the annual growth rate in GVA accelerated by about 3 percentage points. About 2 percentage points came from accelerated TFP growth, and the rem­aining from capital input.

The growth rates in real GVA in the post-GFC period (2008–18) and the pre-GFC period (1994–2007) are quite comparable. This occurred despite a marked slowdown in employment growth and a consequent fall in the contribution of labour ­input in the post-GFC period. The growth rates in TFP in the two periods were, by and large, the same. However, the roles of the two components, aggregated industry-level TFP and reall­ocation effects, changed, with the pace of improvement in the former declining and the role of factor reallocation imp­roving. The sustenance of India’s post-GFC GVA growth at a comparable rate as in the pre-GFC period is explained by an increase in the growth rate in capital input contribution, that is, an enhanced rate of investment. This makes a study of the trends in the investment rate important, which is done in the later part of the paper.

 

Industry-level disaggregated analysis: The contributions of individual industries to the aggregate economy GVA growth and TFP growth are presented in Table 2. Based on the results, the following points emerge:

(a) While aggregate GVA growth remained largely unaffected in the post-crisis period, there have been some important dyn­amics across industries. Three industries, namely (i) trade, (ii) agriculture and allied industries, and (iii) business services remained among the top contributing sectors to aggregate GVA growth in both periods. Together, these three industries contri­buted nearly one-third of the total GVA growth in both periods. Five other industries (i) construction, (ii) transport and storage, (iii) financial services, (iv) post and telecommunications, and (v) public administration and defence were relatively imp­ortant contributors in the pre-crisis period, each contributing about 5% to 8% of the total growth. However, all these sectors, except public administration and defence, lost their relative imp­ortance for aggregate growth in the post-crisis period. Three industries that joined the relatively bigger contributing group in the post-crisis period are (i) coke and petroleum products, (ii) education, and (iii) other services, contributing about one-fifth of the total GVA growth in the post-crisis period, compared to a mere 8% in the pre-crisis period.

(b) The industries that made the largest contribution to aggregate economy TFP growth in the pre-GFC period are: (i) public admi­nistration and defence, (ii) post and telecommunications, (iii) transport and storage, and (iv) agriculture and allied acti­vities.6 While public administration and defence and agriculture and allied activities made subsequent productivity gains in the post-crisis periods, the other two industries registered a significant setback with contracting TFP. Other industries that improved their relative contributions to aggregate productivity growth are prominently manufacturing industries, including coke and petroleum products, textiles, textile products, leather and footwear, and rubber and plastic products. Among the services industries, financial services and education improved their TFP growth in the post-GFC period. On the contrary, many other sectors, including post and telecommunications, transport and storage, utilities, trade, chemicals and chemical products, mining and quarrying, and construction, registered erosions in TFP. In particular, construction and mining and quarrying industries saw substantial deterioration in their ­already decreasing TFP.

One important feature of India’s economic growth over the last three decades is the role of agriculture and allied activities in supporting aggregate GVA and TFP growth in both pre- and post-GFC periods. The high TFP growth in agriculture observed in the India KLEMS data set has been confirmed by a recent study by Krishna and Meenakshi (2022) in their comparison of the KLEMS estimates with estimates from the United States Department of Agriculture data set. They have underscored the need for considering ­water input while computing productivity in the agricultural sector, and the possible role of changing composition of the agriculture sector in driving much of the observed productivity growth.7 We conclude that, although the share of agriculture in the aggregate GVA declined significantly over time, it still had a significant impact on the economy’s overall performance in the post-GFC period, suggesting the need for focusing on the sector. Chand (2021) has recently drawn attention to the imp­ortance of agriculture in formulating a strategy for India’s ­future economic growth. He notes that in the context of rising concerns over employment, sustainability, environmental services, poverty, nutrition, and health, agriculture ought to play a larger and different role in the process of development than merely serving to meet the requirements of industrialisation.

 

Sectoral contributions—Manufacturing and services: The growth in real GVA obtained by applying the double deflation procedure has been faster in the manufacturing sector (10.3% per annum) than in the services sector in the post-GFC period (7.1% per annum). However, the services sector continued to play a lead role in the economy because its contribution to aggregate economy real GVA growth was far greater than that of the manufacturing sector thanks to the relatively bigger size of the services sector vis-à-vis the manufacturing sector in terms of GVA. This is depicted in Figure 1. The figure distinguishes between non-market services, consisting of public administration and defence, education, health and social work, and other services (which includes real estate activities), and market services, consisting of all other service industries.

Figure 1 depicts three major trends: (i) the sustained role of market services in driving aggregate growth; (ii) the rising role of manufacturing—taking the two pre-crisis ­periods together and comparing them with the post-crisis ­period, the average contribution of manufacturing was higher in the post-crisis period, primarily due to better productivity growth; and (iii) a shift in the relative roles of market and ­non-market services, with a shift from market services to ­non-market services in the recent period. It is important to note that market services have remained the single largest contributor in all the three sub-periods.

At the aggregate economy level, the growth rates in TFP in 1994–2002, 2003–07, and 2008–18 were 1.35%, 3.11%, and 2.09% per annum, respectively (refer to Table 1). ­Figure 2 suggests that manufacturing drove the aggregate TFP growth to a considerable extent in the period since 2003. While the market services sector was the second largest contributor in the 2003–07 period, non-market services assumed that position in the post-crisis period. However, it is important to note that the non-market services’ contribution was mainly driven by public administration and defence (Table 2), without which its contribution was much smaller in the post-crisis ­periods, and negative in the pre-crisis period. The market services sector—which includes dynamic industries, such as financial services, business services, and information technology services—was the main contributor to the aggregate TFP growth during 1994–2002 and an important contri­butor during 2003–07 but contributed negatively in the post-crisis period.

To sum up the above discussion, India’s economic growth in the post-reform pre-crisis period was driven heavily by capital accumulation and productivity improvements, with the 2000s seeing more rapid productivity improvements than the 1990s. The sustenance of pre-crisis GVA growth rates in the post-crisis period was largely possible due to moderate improvements in capital contribution and stable TFP growth, even when the lab­our input contribution decelerated. In the following section, we further delve into the factors underlying the growth in capital input, namely investment rates and the rate of return in the agriculture, manufacturing, and services sectors of the economy.

Trends in Investment and Rate of Return

Now the paper will compare the trends in investment rate (inve­stment to GDP ratio) and internal rate of return in the pre- and post-crisis periods. First, it documents the trends in inve­stment rates in services (distinguishing between market and non-market services), manufacturing, and agriculture in comparison with the aggregate economy. These ratios are calculated in current prices, using total investment (that is, the sum of investments in three assets: machinery, transport equipment, and construction) and GVA. Subsequently, the paper analyses the trends in the average internal rate of return in these sectors. The internal rate of return is measured as the ratio of the sum of gross operating surplus and the total capital gain (aggregated over three asset types) net of the total depreciation costs, over total capital stock, all in nominal terms (Erumban 2008).

 

Investment rates: Now the paper documents three important observations from Figure 3, which depicts the investment rates. The first is a rising aggregate investment rate during the pre-crisis period, mostly consistent with the services sector and agricultural sector trends. The second is a consistently falling trend in the post-crisis years, except for a minor uptick in 2018, visible in all three sectors. However, the fall is more intense in manufacturing. The third is the high volatility of investment rates in the manufacturing sector than in services, especially in the pre-crisis years. Trends show episodes of rapid rise between 1994–97 and 2001–06 and rapid fall from 1997–2000 and after 2006. While the fall in the post-crisis years is a common phenomenon in both sectors, the same is not true in the case of the 1997–2000 period.

Although the 1997–2000 period coincides with the Asian fin­ancial crisis (AFC), it is argued that India was largely unaffe­cted as it was not directly linked with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations markets until recently (Chowdhury et al 2019; Ghosh and Chandra­sekhar 2009). However, external factors such as a fall in foreign direct investment inflow and domestic financial constraints during this period (Reserve Bank of India 2006) may have affected investment activity. Moreover, following the substantial liberal reforms in the early 1990s, many domestic firms were still restructuring and equipping themselves to operate in a competitive environment.

Figure 4 provides an asset break-up of the total investment rate. In general, while investment rates in machinery and transport equipment (hereafter equipment) dominate in the manufacturing sector, it is the investment in construction (hereafter non-equipment) that dominates in the services sector. The post-crisis falls in the total manufacturing investment rates resulted from the decline in both equipment and non-equipment assets, although the magnitude of the fall was higher in the latter. In contrast, in the post-GFC period, the rise in market services investment rates was more from the equipment than non-equipment assets. The investment rates in the agriculture sector are generally lower than than in agriculture and services and the agg­regate economy, with the non-equipment component dominating the investment composition. Despite the falling trend in the investment rate in the agricultural sector, the average investment ratio in the post-crisis period remains slightly higher than in the pre-crisis periods—thanks to slightly improving equipment investment.

Table 3 (p 41) provides the average investment rates in agriculture along with 13 manufacturing and 10 services industries. The investment rate improved in most industries in the 2003–07 period over 1994–2002, including in agriculture, where it generally remains lower than most manufacturing and services industries. A few exceptions to this rising trend include three manufacturing industries (coke and petroleum products, chemicals and chemical products, and pulp and paper products—with bigger falls in the first two) and two market services ind­ustries (post and telecommunications, and financial services).

In the post-GFC period, all manufacturing industries staged a retreat, except for coke and petroleum products. The investment rates remained largely unchanged from the previous period in agriculture, two market services industries—transport and storage, and business services—and two non-market service industries—health and social work and education, whereas it relapsed in the financial services industry and the remaining non-market services industries. Only three market services ­industries—post and telecommunication, hotels and restaurants, and trade—have seen a notable improvement in the post-crisis period.

Overall, the data suggest a rapid increase in the investment rate in the post-2000 years until the GFC, driven by both the manufacturing and services sectors. The investment rate fell in the post-crisis years, primarily due to a weakening in manufacturing and non-market services—the two key drivers of aggregate productivity growth in the post-crisis period.

Internal Rate of Return

Now this paper compares the estimates of the internal rate of return, which has a bearing on the decision of enterprises to invest in new capital assets. The internal rate of return on capital investment, which reflects realised marginal products of capital (Berndt 1990), is calculated using the neoclassical app­roach, setting pure profits to zero under the assumption of perfect competition (Hall and Jorgenson 1967). In this framework, the internal return, or the ex post rate of return, is a ratio of the compensation accrued to the capital assets after allowing for any depreciation costs over the nominal value of the capital stock. This approach accounts for the differences in the asset composition of capital stock. Figure 5 (p 48) provides the average internal rate of return for the manufacturing and services sectors, along with the total economy for the three time periods. The estimates are indexed to total economy rates in the 1994–2002 period.

Similar to aggregate investment rates, the rate of return also improved in the 2003–07 period over the 1994–2002 period, albeit marginally. However, both in the manufacturing and services sectors, 60% of industries had a fall in the rate of ­return during this period (Table 3). Capital-intensive manufacturing industries, such as basic metals and metal products, chemicals and chemical products, and electrical and optical equipment, were among the industries with improved rates of return. In the service sector, market services industries such as financial services, hotels and restaurants, and transport and storage showed a similar trend.

While the manufacturing sector has shown relatively little variance in the rate of return over the three time periods, a substantial difference is observed in the services sector, parti­cularly in the market services (Figure 5). The market services sector has shown a rapid rise—much higher than manufactu­ring and non-market services—in the rate of return in the 2003–07 period.

In the post-crisis years, the aggregate economy rate of return declined to a level below the 1994–2002 levels. The decline was more intense in the market services sector, but the trend was not unique to the sector. Although more than half of the manufacturing industries showed an improvement in the 2008–18 period compared to 2003–07 (Table 4, p 41), it was insufficient to offset the larger fall in other industries. Only three industries, chemicals and chemical products, electrical and optical equipment, and pulp and paper products, had a higher rate of return in the post-crisis period than in the 1994–2002 period. Of these, chemicals and chemical products and pulp and paper products had a retreat in investment rates, as we observed in the ­previous section.

The rate of return in agriculture improved in the post-GFC period from the 2003–07 period, although it still remained lower than the 1994–2002 average. Moreover, it is relatively higher than in manufacturing and services. It was lower than market services in the pre-crisis years, but the rapid fall in market services in the post-GFC period from the 2003–07 ­period and the rise in the agriculture sector keeps the latter above even market services.

Except for financial services, all services industries had a ­retreat in the rate of return in the post-crisis period. The financial services registered a boom, reaching far above its own rate of ­return in the 1994–2002 period. Other market services industries, primarily trade, hotels and restaurants, post and telecom, and business services, all had a falling rate of return. Among the non-market services, public administration and other services had a moderate fall, whereas education, health, and social work industries had larger declines. Moreover, except for trade, financial services, hotels and restaurants, education, and health and social work, all other service industries had a level below or similar to the aggregate economy rate of return.Thus, the story here is that of a moderate rise in the rate of return in the total economy in the pre-crisis years after 2002 and a fall in the post-crisis years, both driven mainly by the market services sector. On the contrary, this sector has seen a rise in investment rates in the post-crisis years. ­Although the agricultural sector sustained relatively higher rates of ­return, albeit a fall from the pre-crisis period, its relatively low investment rates ensure that their effect on the aggregate rate of return is minimal.

Concluding Remarks

Four points emerge from the analysis presented above. First, the manufacturing sector contributed significantly to India’s economic growth in the high-growth phase of 2003–07, and in the post-GFC period. It has been the main contributor to TFP growth in the Indian economy since 2003.

Second, despite its relatively better productivity performance in recent years, the manufacturing sector has substantial challenges. These are evidenced by a fall in employment and investment rate and a decline in the rate of return on inv­estment in the post-GFC period. Thus, it may be argued that while the manufacturing sector continues to contribute to ­India’s economic growth, to attain sustainable acceleration in future growth, it will have to play an even larger role, addre­ssing its structural challenges.

Third, the falling return on capital and the retreat in productivity and employment growth rates may challenge the outlook of the market services sector. One advantage of this sector is its relatively low capital–output ratio. It may be noted that, despite the fall in the rate of return in this sector in the post-GFC period, the rate of investment has been somewhat improved. Moreover, the market services sector has been the main contributor to the aggregate real GVA growth in the three sub-periods of 1994–2002 and 2003–07 and in the post-GFC period of 2008–18. It seems that to maintain and step up the growth momentum in the aggregate economy, the market services sector needs to grow fast. A part of the growth of this sector may come from the domestic economy. But attention needs to be paid to greater exploitation of the growth potential from exports.

The final point is about the role of agriculture. Because of the declining share of agriculture in aggregate GVA and the fall in the absolute size of its employment, reflecting the shift of workers from agriculture to other sectors of the economy, att­ention has shifted away from agriculture in discussions on the future potential for economic growth in India. Yet, the experience of the post-GFC period suggests that the sector is an important contributor to aggregate economy real GVA and TFP growth. While the sector possesses a relatively low investment rate compared to the manufacturing and services sectors, the rate of return is relatively high in the sector and has even imp­roved in the post-GFC period. It appears that policy actions for raising TFP growth in agriculture would help improve the agg­regate economy TFP growth, without which a step-up in India’s economic growth would be hard to attain. Moreover, existing evidence suggests that the acceleration in growth in the sector per se does not translate into farmer incomes (Krishna and Meenakshi 2022). This further reiterates the importance of enhancing productivity as an essential pathway to facilitate translating growth into welfare. The increases in productivity in agriculture need to be accompanied by the creation of ­ample productive employment opportunities in manufacturing and services to make the development process more rapid and, at the same time, more inclusive.

To recap, our analysis reiterates the need to strengthen the three main sectors of the economy—agriculture, manufacturing, and market services—realising their productivity and input (employment and investment) potential, along with facilitating growth-enhancing resource reallocation. This tends to support Dev’s (2021) suggestion to have a broader policy agenda to address a wide range of India’s developmental issues, such as reducing inequality, improving social indicators and human development, creating better quality jobs, improving health and education, and addressing sustainability issues. Many of the suggestions made by Dev (2021) for policy action for raising the growth rate of the Indian economy are predominantly directed at building up the supply side of the economy; for example, raising the rate of investment, ensuring sufficient credit supply, bringing in new technology, and enhancing the quality of lab­our through the betterment of health and education. These recommendations are in harmony with the analysis in the paper and policy suggestions emerging therefrom.

Notes

1 For analysing India’s economic growth performance in the post-reform period, the growth rates since 1994–95 are considered. This leaves out 1991, the year of severe balance of payments crisis in India and the initiation of reforms, as also the next two years during which the process of reforms continued, making 1991 to 1993 a period of turbulence and transition in the economy.

2 Some of the earlier studies based on the India KLEMS database (https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/KLEMS.aspx), include Das et al (2016), Erumban and Das (2016), Goldar et al (2017), Wu et al (2017), Das et al (2019), Erumban et al (2019), Abraham (2019), Krishna et al (2020), Bhadury et al (2021).

3 Further details on the methodology of construction of variables and the details of industrial classifications used in the database are available in the India KLEMS Data Manual (Das et al 2020) which can be accessed at the RBI website.

4 All values in the database are consistent with the NAS 2011–12 base series, making use of the series from 2011–12 onward, and the back series.

5 This figure exceeds the NAS estimate of 6% mentioned in the introduction, as Table 1 implicitly involves double deflation of GVA.

6 Note here that the contributions shown in the last two columns of Table 2 are obtained by using Domar aggregated industry-level TFP growth rates. It does not take into account the gains from inter-industry resources reallocation.

7 Hence, Krishna and Meenakshi (2022) further argue that devising appropriate strategies for agricultural productivity enhancement would require a more detailed sub-sectoral analysis of agricultural productivity, which is not yet part of the KLEMS data set.

References

Abraham, V (2019): The Dynamic Nature of Jobless Growth in India, in Globalisation, Labour Market Institutions, Processes and Policies in India, Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 443–70.

Bhadury, S, A Narayanan and B Pratap (2021): “Structural Transformation of Jobs from Manufacturing to Services: Will It Work for India?” Margin: Journal of Applied Economic Research, Vol 15, No 1, pp 22–49.

Berndt, E R (1990): “Comments on Hulten,” Fifty Years of Economic Measurement: The Jubilee of the Conference on Research in Income and Wealth, Ernst R Berndt and Jack Triplett (eds), National Bureau of Economic Research Studies in Income and Wealth.

Chand, R (2021): “Economic Growth and Inclusive Development: Is There a Need for New Growth Model,” Presidential Address, 104th Annual Conference of the Indian Economic Association, December, Hosted by Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Good Governance and Policy Analysis, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, pp 25–27.

Chowdhury, Biplob, Mardi Dungey, Moses Kangogo, Mohammad Abu Sayeed and Vladimir Volkov (2019): “The Changing Network of Financial Market Linkages: The Asian Experience,” International Review of Financial Analysis, Vol 64, pp 71–92.

Das, D K, A A Erumban, S C Aggarwal and S Sengupta (2016): “Productivity Growth in India under Different Policy Regimes,” The World Economy: Growth or Stagnation? D W Jorgenson, K Fukao and M Timmer (eds), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 234–80.

Das, D K, S C Aggarwal, A A Erumban and P C Das (2019): “What Is New about India’s Economic Growth? An Industry-Level Perspective,” Indian Growth and Development Review, Vol 13, No 1, pp 11–36.

— (2020): Measuring Productivity at the Industry Level, the India KLEMS Database—Data Manual 2020 (version 7), Reserve Bank of India, https://rbi.org.in/Scripts/PublicationReportDetails.aspx?UrlPage=&ID=1186#CP1.

Dev, S M (2021): “Beyond India @75: Growth, Inclusion and Sustainability,” Working Paper No WP–2021–026, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai.

Erumban, A A (2008): “Rental Prices, Rates of Return, Capital Aggregation and Productivity: Evidence from EU and US,” CESifo Economic Studies, Vol 54, No 3, pp 499–533.

Erumban, A A and D K Das (2016): “Information and Communication Technology and Economic Growth in India,” Telecommunications Policy, Vol 40, No 5, pp 412–31.

Erumban, A A, D K Das, S Aggarwal and P C Das (2019): “Structural Change and Economic Growth in India,” Structural Change and Economic Dyna­mics, Vol 51, pp 186–202.

Ghosh, J and C P Chandrasekhar (2009): “The Costs of ‘Coupling’: The Global Crisis and the Indian Economy,” Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol 33, No 4, pp 725–39.

Goldar, B, K L Krishna, S C Aggarwal, D K Das, A A Erumban and P C Das (2017): “Productivity Growth in India Since the 1980s: The KLEMS Approach,” Indian Economic Review, Vol 52, Nos 1–2, pp 37–71.

Hall, R and D W Jorgenson (1967): “Tax Policy and Investment Behavior,” American Economic Review, Vol 57, No 3, pp 391–414.

Jorgenson, D W, M S Ho and K J Stiroh (2005): Information Technology and the American Growth Resurgence, Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Krishna, K L and J V Meenakshi (2022): “Agricultural Productivity Growth and Structural Transformation in Rural India: Some Recent Evidence,” Special Volume in Honour of Professor C R Rao, Journal of Quantitative Economics.

Krishna, K L B Goldar, D K Das, S C Aggarwal, A A Erumban and P C Das (2020): “Manu­facturing Productivity in India: The Role of Foreign Sourcing of Inputs and Domestic Capa­city Building,” Measuring Economic Growth and Productivity: Foundations, KLEMS Production Models and Extensions, B M Fraumeni (ed), Academic Press, pp 95–116.

RBI (2006): Report on Currency and Finance, 2005–06, Mumbai: Reserve Bank of India. 

Timmer, M P, R Inklaar, M O’Mahony and van Ark B (2010): Economic Growth in Europe: A Compara­tive Industry Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wu, H X, K L Krishna, D K Das and P C Das (2017): “How Does the Productivity and Economic Growth Performance of China and India Compare in the Post-reform Era, 1981–2011?” International Productivity Monitor, Vol 33, pp 91–113.

 

Dear Reader,

To continue reading, become a subscriber.

Explore our attractive subscription offers.

Click here

Updated On : 1st Aug, 2022
Back to Top