The present study attempts to test the assumption of homogeneity of the sub-sectors in an industry with particular reference to the Indian chemical industry. The impact of economic reforms on the productivity levels of an industry at the aggregate and sub-sectors level do vary significantly. While the net impact of the reform process on total factor productivity growth was found to be poor at the aggregate level, the sub-sectors – drugs and pharmaceuticals and paints and varnishes, basic chemicals and dyes and dye stuff industries – greatly benefited from the liberalisation process. Within the sub-sectors, the worst affected was the fertiliser industry as the TFPG declined significantly in the post-reform period. In the same way, the productivity differentials are found at the firm level as well. While small firms experienced a fall in productivity levels during the post-reform period, the large firms could raise productivity. The differences in the productivity levels of small and large firms and among the sub-sectors within an industry reveal the heterogeneity of the industry.

T SAMPATH KUMAR

T

here are increasing number of studies on factor productivity growth in both developed and developing countries. It was Abramovitz (1956) who first observed the growth of output occurring due to factors other than an increase in inputs. Solow (1957) measured total factor productivity (TFP) as a shift in the production function. Since then there has been increasing number of studies on TFP. Productivity growth is a crucial factor in determining growth of an economy. The study of productivity becomes imperative in view of the limited availability of factors of production, particularly capital. Productivity is the marginal contribution of a factor to the output growth of a product. The proportion of factors of inputs will be different in different industries. In the labour-intensive industries, the emphasis is on the capital productivity. On the other hand, for the capital-intensive industries, the concern is to increase labour productivity. If productivity is increasing in an economy it means that its factors of production and commodity inputs are manifesting an increase in their output efficiency. The productivity improvements along with the increase in the quantities of factors will also be contributing an additional source of output increase [Brahmananda 1982]. Productivity growth is necessary not only to increase output, but also to enhance the competitiveness of an industry both in the domestic and international markets. Besides, productivity growth enhances the export competitiveness of a country. The estimation of factor productivity will be very useful to evaluate the variations in the performance of an industry over a period of time. The prosperity of new developed nations has been attributed mainly to the sustained growth of their total factor productivity [Prescott 1997].

The process of liberalisation can be linked to the manufacturing productivity. The Indian government started to implement a wide range of economic reforms on various fronts to make domestic industries more efficient and internationally competitive. Indian firms were expected to respond positively to these measures. The liberalisation process was to expose firms to international competition and force them to introduce new methods of production, import quality inputs, capital equipment or technology and compel them to improve their efficiency.

Indian firms experienced the reform process since 1991 and we now have enough data to estimate the impact of globalisation and liberalisation policies on Indian industry. There are mixed results revealed by earlier studies. Majumdar (1996) and Sharma (1999) estimated positive impact of liberalisation policies on the factor productivity. But Balakrishnan et al (2000) and Das (2004) found that trade liberalisation did not yield to the productivity growth in the Indian manufacturing sector. The earlier studies were conducted for the aggregates of an industry with an assumption that all the firms in an industry behave alike and therefore industry level characteristics could be attributed to all the firms operating in that industry. But Siddharthan (2004) argues that during the period of liberalisation, new firms with more advanced technologies are likely to enter into industry and the existing firms are expected to develop a strategy to meet the challenges from the new entrants, in particular multinational enterprises (MNEs). Under such a situation, the assumption of homogeneity becomes invalid.

It is found from the earlier studies that all the firms belonging to one industry do not behave in a similar pattern. In an industry consisting of a variety of firms with significant differences in their size, ownership, knowledge and access to technology, the liberalisation process would result in gainers and losers and there will be a productivity gap among firms in an industry. It is in this context that the present study attempts to estimate the trends in the growth of total factor productivity of Indian chemical industries at the sub-sectoral level. The Indian chemical industry consists of five major sectors, namely, (a) fertiliser,

(b) drugs and pharmaceuticals, (c) basic chemicals, (d) paints and varnishes, and (e) dyes and dyestuffs. The study proceeds to estimate the productivity variations in these sub-sectors at the sectoral and firm level caused by the liberalisation process.Thispaper is divided into the following sections: Section I

Economic and Political Weekly September 30, 2006

provides the data and methodology, Section II estimates factor productivity growth at the sectoral level, Section III deals with productivity differentials at firm level and Section IV presents summary and conclusion.

This paper covers a period of 22 years from 1980-81 to 2001-02. The entire period is divided into two phases as prereform period (1980-81 to 1990-91) and post-reform period (1991-92 to 2001-02). Such a classification of the study period is essential to find the impact of economic reforms on the improvements of factor productivity. This paper attempts to estimate the total factor productivity of chemical industries in India at the sub-sectoral level. The estimation of productivity at the aggregate, sub-sectoral and firm level will reveal the performance of this industry and the homogeneity of the subsectors in relation to the liberalisation process.

The total factor productivity growth (TFPG) is estimated using Translog model with three inputs, viz, labour (L), capital (K) and the intermediate inputs (R) (raw materials consumed).

The Translog model of productivity used in the estimation of TFPG is obtained as below; TFPG = ΔP(t)/P(t) – [(½ * (SL (t-1) + SL (t)) * (ΔL(t)/L(t)) + (½ *(SK (t-1) + SK (t)) *(ΔK(t)/K(t)) +

(½ * (SR (t-1) + SR (t)) *(ΔR(t)/R(t)) ] where, ΔP (t)/P (t), ΔL (t)/L (t), ΔK (t)/K (t) and ΔR (t)/R (t) are approximated by corresponding logarithms of ratios of variables over successive year.

ΔP(t)/P(t) ~ LN [ΔP(t)/P(t-1)] = LN P(t) – LN P(t-1) = ΔLNP(t) ΔL(t)/L(t) ~ LN [ΔL(t)/L(t-1)] = LN L(t) – LN L(t-1) = ΔLNL(t) ΔK(t)/K(t) ~ LN [ΔK(t)/K(t-1)] = LN K(t) – LNK (t-1) = ΔLNK(t) ΔR(t)/R(t) ~ LN [ΔR(t)/R(t-1)] = LN R(t) – LNR (t-1) = ΔLNR(t)

Factor productivity growth rates are computed for the five major sub-sectors of Indian chemical industries. Theoretically there appears to be a relationship between policy measures and productivity growth, although the empirical findings for some developing countries are ambivated. Ahluwalia (1985, 1991) and Parades (1994) found a significant improvement in the productivity growth while Kajiwara (1994) for Philippines and Urata and Yokota for Thailand (1994) estimated a fall in the manufacturing productivity following liberalisation. The estimated annual and mean growth rates of TFP are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Wide variations in the magnitude of TFPG are found in the estimation. The estimated TFPG of the Indian chemical sector at the aggregate and sub-sectoral level reveals contradictory rates of productivity growth. The fertiliser industry recorded positive rates of TFP throughout the study period except during 1991-92 (-1.327) and 1997-98 (-0-022). As against this, the drugs and pharmaceutical industry recorded negative productivity growth rates except in 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02. During these periods there were positive growth rates of total factor productivity. The basic chemical industry registered positive and negative productivity growth rates both in the pre- and post-reform periods. Paints and varnishes industry have positive TFPG in 1986-87 (1.084), 1997-98 (0.156) and in 2001-02 (0.005). But the dyes and dye stuff industries have experienced positive TFPG mostly in the post-reform period. At the aggregate level also the negative trend in the TFPG is observed during the period of study. Pradhan and Barik (1999) are of the view that the low and negative trend in the TFPG is a common feature in most of the developing countries. They also estimated a negative TFPG for the Indian chemical sector in their study. From this analysis, it could be observed that the impact of the reform process is mixed even within a particular sector.

Economic and Political Weekly September 30, 2006

labourers might outstrip its cost advantage, reducing the small firms’ productiveness.

The underlying facts of the extent of productivity differentials of small and large firms in an industry have become a measure of homogeneity of the industry concerned. Within this purview, the study has made an attempt to estimate the TFP growth of the different sub-sectors of the Indian chemical industry at the firm level during the period of study.

Table 3 presents the estimated mean TFP growth rates of small and large firms in each sub-sector of the Indian chemical industry. The obtained mean TFPG estimates show that the small firms have lower productivity growth than the large firms. Further, small firms in all the sub-sectors are found to have a lower productivity level than their sectoral mean levels of productivity estimated for the entire period of study (shown in Table 2) except the paints and varnishes sector in which the TFPG of small firms is marginally higher at -0.111 than its sectoral mean rate of -0.490. On the contrary, the large firms in each sub-sector have higher rates of TFP except in the fertiliser sector where there is a marginal fall in the mean rate of TFPG of large firms at 0.775, when compared to the sectoral mean rate of 0.847.

From Tables 1 and 2, it can be noticed that when the chemical sector as a whole witnessed a decline in the productivity level during the post-reform period, the sub-sectors, other than fertilisers, marked an improvement. But the picture was different at the firm level. Invariably, the small firms in all the sub-sectors experienced a significant decline in productivity growth rates during the post-reform period except in the drugs and pharmaceutical sector in which they recorded a marginal improvement to -0.399 from -0.432 estimated for the pre-reform period. Urata and Kawai (2001) found that larger firms normally have higher total factor productivity levels and growth than smaller firms. There are, however, some exceptions to this pattern where small firms tend to have an edge due to two distinctive features of small firms, viz, the practice of sub-contracting and the use of external patents. Whereas in the case of large firms, there was a significant improvement in the TFPG of all the sub-sectors except fertilisers in which both small and large firms experienced a decline in the productivity growth during the post-reform period. It is perhaps due to the increase in the factor inputs. Schumachar and Jayant (1999) noted that following liberalisation, output declined considerably and thereby decreased the productivity of the fertiliser industry in the country. They also found that increase in the material input was the driving factor for productivity losses in the Indian fertiliser sector.

A simple comparison of the productivity differentials between small and large firms at the sub-sectoral level reveals that both in the pre- and post-reform period, the small firms are found to have lower productivity levels than the larger ones. The higher productivity levels of large firms compared to the small firms may be due to the better exploitation of economies of scale by them. Further, the large firms are able to use high quality inputs, better technologies and make huge investment on R&D activities. As a result, they could get greater returns from their increased innovative measures. Similarly, one more argument can be put forth for the comparatively better productivity performance of large firms. The liberalisation measures have made the market environment more competitive. Under highly competitive market conditions, the small firms failed to compete while large firms could manage with the adoption of advanced technologies of production. Tybout (2000) points out a fact that there exists a discrimination of small and large firms in the financial market also. Especially in a country where private sector credit is scarce and rationed, financial institutions discriminate against small and large firms thereby increasing the cost conditions of small firms and thus decreased their productivity levels.

The simple analysis made to estimate the intra-industry productivity variations in the Indian chemical sector during the period 1980-81 to 2001-02 reveals contradictory results at the aggregate, sectoral and firm level. On the whole the impact of economic reforms on total factor productivity at the aggregate level was poor as the negative mean rate of TFPG estimated in the pre-reform period further increased in the post-reform period. But this declining trend is not applicable to all the sub-sectors. The estimated measures of TFPG at the sectoral level show that the TFPG of drugs and pharmaceuticals, paints and varnishes, basic chemical and dyes and dye stuff industries are better in the post-reform period as there is a change in the sign or a decline in the extent of negative productivity growth. But in the case of the fertiliser industry, the liberalisation process is found to have its adverse impact as there is a fall in the total factor productivity growth during the post-reform period. At the firm level, though the small firms are less productive than the large firms, the small firms in the drugs and pharmaceutical and paints and varnishes sector experienced a marginal increase in the productivity growth while large firms in the fertiliser sector marked a decline during the post-reform period.

Thus, the pattern of total productivity growth showed mixed trends in the Indian chemical sector at the intra-sectoral level. To sum up, TFPG itself witnessed a better performance in the post-reform period at the sub-sectoral level which is different from the industry average. When firm size is considered, in both the periods, the small firms have lower levels of productivity growth than the larger firms. Irrespective of the sectors, the large firms, due to the better exploitation of economies of scale and the ability to adopt new methods of production, are more productive than the small ones. Tybout (2000) suggested that small firms should adopt more innovative measures to make them more efficient and productive. That is, the innovation initiated either to survive or to create their own market niches appears to be effective in increasing efficiency. With the present economic environment, these results cannot be finalised. There

Firms Period Fertiliser Drugs and Basic Paints Dyes and Pharma-Chemicals and Dye Stuffs ceuticals Varnishes

Small Pre-reform 0.340 -0.432 -0.168 -0.286 -0.058 firms Post-reform 0.266 -0.399 -0.204 0.065 -0.112 Overall 0.303 -0.416 -0.186 -0.111 -0.085 Large Pre-reform 0.986 0.133 0.29 -0.102 0.093 firms Post-reform 0.563 0.545 0.486 0.39 0.645 Overall 0.775 0.339 0.388 0.144 0.369

Economic and Political Weekly September 30, 2006 are time lags in the realisation of the final result of the reform measures like foreign capital inflows, R&D, technology transfers and the other spillover effects exerted by the foreign entrants. One important conclusion that can be drawn from this analysis is that this study confirms the results of Liu (1993), Liu and Tybout (1996) and Bartelsman and Doms (2000) that the assumption of homogeneity, that is all the firms in an industry are alike, might not be valid. The variations in the growth rates and the signs prove that the heterogeneity conditions prevail in the industry and under such conditions, liberalisation would result in gainers and losers in an industry. It is suggested that while making policy decisions on the basis of aggregates, the consideration of intra-sectoral variations will provide more valuable decisions.

EPW

Email: tsampath_136@yahoo.com

[I am grateful to my guide S Jayaraj, who proffered me with valuable suggestions and corrections for the improvement of this work. I sincerely also acknowledge the assistance rendered by K Pushpangadan, who cleared my doubts in the estimation of productivity. I am also grateful to the anonymous referee for his comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this paper.]

References

Abramovitz, Moses (1956): ‘Resources and Output Trends in United States since 1870’, American Economic Review, Vol 46, No 2, pp 5-23. Ahulawalia, I J (1985): ‘Industrial Growth in India: Stagnation since the Mid-

Sixties’, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

– (1991): ‘Productivity and Growth in Indian Manufacturing’, Oxford University Press, Delhi.

Balakrishnan, P, K Pushpangadan and M Suresh Babu (2000): ‘Trade Liberalisation and Productivity Growth in Manufacturing: Evidence from Firm Level Panel Data’, Economic and Political Weekly, October, 7, pp 3679-82.

Bartelsman, Eric J and Mark Doms (2000): ‘Understanding Productivity: Lessons from Longitudinal Micro Data’, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol 38, pp 569-94.

Brahmananda, P R (1982): ‘Productivity in Indian Economy: Rising Inputs for Falling Outputs’, Himalaya Publishing House, Delhi.

Das, Deb Kusum (2004): ‘Manufacturing Productivity under Varying Trade Regimes, 1980-2000’, Economic and Political Weekly, January 31, pp 423-33.

Feinberg, Susan and Sumit K Majumdar (2001): ‘Technology Spillovers from Foreign Direct Investment in the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry’, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol 32, pp 139-55.

Goldar, B N, V S Renganathan, Rashmi Banga (2004): ‘Ownership and Efficiency in Engineering Firms in India, 1990-91 to 1999-2000’,Economic and Political Weekly, January, 31, pp 441-47.

Gulbiten, Onsel and Erol Taymaz (2000): ‘Are Small Firms Inefficient? A Schumpeterian Analysis of Productivity Differentials’, Department of Economics, Middle East Technical University, Ankara 06531, Turkey, May. (www.druid.dk/conferences/nw/paper1/guelbiten_taymaz.pdf)

Kajiwara, H (1994): ‘The Effect of Trade and Foreign Investment and Liberalisation Policy on Productivity in Philippines’, The Developing Economies, Vol 32, pp 492-508.

Levinsohn, James and Amil Petrin (1999): ‘When Industries Become More Productive, Do Firms?’, NBER Working Paper No 6893, Cambridge MA, January.

Liu, Lilli (1993): ‘Entry-Exit, Learning and Productivity Change: Evidence from Chile’, Journal of Development of Economics, Vol 42, pp 217-42.

Liu,Lilli and James R Tybout (1996): ‘Productivity Growth in Chile and Columbia: The Role of Entry, Exit and Learning’ in Mark J Roberts and James R Tybout (eds), Industrial Evolution in Developing Countries: Micro Patterns of Turnover, Productivity and Market Structure, Oxford University Press, New York.

Majumdar, Sumit K (1996): ‘Fall and Rise of Productivity in Indian Industries: Has Economic Liberalisation Had an Impact?’, Economic and Political Weekly, November 30, pp M46-M53.

Parades, C E (1994): ‘Trade Policy, Industrialisation and Productivity Growth in Peru: An Overview of the 1970s and 1980s’ in G K Helleiner (ed), Trade and Industrialisation in Turbulent Times, New York, Routledge, pp 217-55.

Pradhan, Gopinath and Kaustuva Barik (1999): ‘Total Factor Productivity Growth in Developing Economies: A Study of Select Industries in India’, Economic and Political Weekly, August 6.

Prescott, Edward C (1997): ‘Needed: A Theory of Total Factor Productivity’, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Research Department Staff Report No 242, Minnesota, US.

Sak, Guven and Erol Taymaz (2004): ‘How Flexible Are Small Firms? An Analysis on the Determinants of Flexibility’, 5th Version, ERF Eleventh Annual Conference, Beirut, Lebanon, December. (www. erf.org.eg/11 conf_Lebanon/Sectoral/SakandTaymaz.pdf)

Schumachar, Katja and Jayant Sathaye (1999): ‘India’s Fertiliser Industry: Productivity and Energy Efficiency’, Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, US, July. (www. eetd.lbl.gov/EA/IES/iespubs/41846.pdf)

Sharma, Kishore (1999): ‘Productivity Growth in Developing Countries: An International Comparison’,The Current State of Economic Science, Vol 3, International Economics, Financial Economics, edited by Shri Bhagwan Dahiya, Spell Bound Publications, Rohtak, India.

Solow, R M (1957): ‘Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function’, Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol 39, August, pp 312-20.

Siddharthan, N S (2004): ‘Globalisation, Productivity, Efficiency and Growth: An Overview’, Economic and Political Weekly, January 31, pp 420-22.

Srivastava, Vivek (1996): ‘Liberalisation, Productivity and Competition: A Panel Study on Indian Manufacturing’, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

Taymaz, Erol (2004): ‘Are Small Firms Really Less Productive? An Analysis of Productivity Differentials and Firm Dynamics’, Department of Economics, Middle East Technical University, Ankara 06531, Turkey, April. (www.metu.edu.tr/~etaymaz/papers/taymaz_sbe_2005.pdf)

Tybout, J R (2000): ‘Manufacturing Firms in Developing Countries: How Well Do They Do, and Why?’, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol 28, March, pp 11-44.

Urata, Shujiro and K Yokota (1994): ‘Trade Liberalisation and Productivity Growth in Thailand’, The Developing Economies, Vol 32, pp 444-59.

Urata, Shujiro and Hiroki Kawai (2001): ‘Technological Progress by Small and Medium Firms in Japan’, Stock No 37193, World Bank, June.

You, J I (1995): ‘Critical Survey: Small Firms in Economic Theory’,Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol 19, pp 441-62.