印度制造业转型

R. Ramakrishnan
{"title":"印度制造业转型","authors":"R. Ramakrishnan","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2873159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Industrialization has historically been one of the biggest drivers of Economic Growth ever since the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century. India followed a path of planned self-reliant development after her Independence in 1947 like most countries in the developing world. India’s post-independence development plans emphasized industrialization as a very important instrument for sustained growth. \nThe manufacturing activity has been considered to be the main engine of economic growth. Industrial sector plays a vital role in the development of Indian economy because they can solve the problems of general poverty, unemployment, backwardness, low production, low productivity and low standard of living etc. \nBefore 1980, based on the perception of Soviet Union success, it was thought that the key strategy for development was to focus on large and heavy industries under state control and central planning. The strategy also involved import substitution, rigid price controls and severe restrictions on private initiatives. \nFor a variety of reasons, lack of industrial demand, especially for investment goods, was widely accepted to be the principal reason for the relative stagnation since the 1960s. Reportedly, controls led to widespread inefficiency in resource use, as reflected in poor total factor productivity growth, or rise in incremental capital output ratios in the 1970s. The Indian Government had undertaken policy reforms since 1980, but the most radical reforms have occurred since 1991, after the severe economic crisis in fiscal year 1990-91. \nThe Indian growth story has been unique. Unlike the transformation stories of many of the other developed economies, India's growth story was dominated by the service sector. In contrast manufacturing has been less robust; Manufacturing production recovered rapidly from negative growth of -0.8% in the crisis year of 1991-92 to a peak of around 14.1% in 1995-96. It has since declined rapidly to 2.9% in 2001-02 and remained around that level for the next 25 years except for a sporadic increase in 2010-11. The share of the manufacturing sector in the country’s GDP has remained stagnant, for almost three decades. Services alone are not sufficient to create growth to drive mass prosperity for a country the size of India. \nIndia's reform programme has emphasized gradualism and evolutionary transition rather than rapid restructuring or \"shock therapy\" and its growth has not been based on using cheap labor for labor-intensive exports, the development path taken by other Asian tigers including China. China’s has grown at a CAGR of 10% over the last three decades reaching per capita GDP (US$7,000) while India’s, growing at half that pace, is currently at ($1,500) In spite of similar population sizes and low-cost profiles with a per capita GDP of US$300 in 1981. China’s industrial sector at US$4 trillion (and still growing), now dwarfs India’s which is estimated at US$300 billion. But China is now trying to re-balance the economy towards the services sector and consumption rather than manufacturing and investment; its competitive advantage has eroded and is likely to continue to do so. That gives manufacturing India the potential to create a cost advantage, with its far more favorable demographics, a huge untapped labor pool. \nThis calls for rapid expansion of the manufacturing sector on a priority basis like creating local supply chains. Scaling the Domestic Supply of Human Capital by revamping the education, R&D and skills development, Attracting Foreign Intellectual Property, Picking the Right Industries, Making it easier to do business etc. It need to focus around (i) streamlining administration, (ii) creating rapid infrastructure development (roads, ports, power), and (iii) mobilizing significant domestic and foreign capital. The paper would discuss these things in detail.","PeriodicalId":169556,"journal":{"name":"Culture Area Studies eJournal","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Transforming India's Manufacturing Sector\",\"authors\":\"R. Ramakrishnan\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2873159\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Industrialization has historically been one of the biggest drivers of Economic Growth ever since the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century. India followed a path of planned self-reliant development after her Independence in 1947 like most countries in the developing world. India’s post-independence development plans emphasized industrialization as a very important instrument for sustained growth. \\nThe manufacturing activity has been considered to be the main engine of economic growth. Industrial sector plays a vital role in the development of Indian economy because they can solve the problems of general poverty, unemployment, backwardness, low production, low productivity and low standard of living etc. \\nBefore 1980, based on the perception of Soviet Union success, it was thought that the key strategy for development was to focus on large and heavy industries under state control and central planning. The strategy also involved import substitution, rigid price controls and severe restrictions on private initiatives. \\nFor a variety of reasons, lack of industrial demand, especially for investment goods, was widely accepted to be the principal reason for the relative stagnation since the 1960s. Reportedly, controls led to widespread inefficiency in resource use, as reflected in poor total factor productivity growth, or rise in incremental capital output ratios in the 1970s. The Indian Government had undertaken policy reforms since 1980, but the most radical reforms have occurred since 1991, after the severe economic crisis in fiscal year 1990-91. \\nThe Indian growth story has been unique. Unlike the transformation stories of many of the other developed economies, India's growth story was dominated by the service sector. In contrast manufacturing has been less robust; Manufacturing production recovered rapidly from negative growth of -0.8% in the crisis year of 1991-92 to a peak of around 14.1% in 1995-96. It has since declined rapidly to 2.9% in 2001-02 and remained around that level for the next 25 years except for a sporadic increase in 2010-11. The share of the manufacturing sector in the country’s GDP has remained stagnant, for almost three decades. Services alone are not sufficient to create growth to drive mass prosperity for a country the size of India. \\nIndia's reform programme has emphasized gradualism and evolutionary transition rather than rapid restructuring or \\\"shock therapy\\\" and its growth has not been based on using cheap labor for labor-intensive exports, the development path taken by other Asian tigers including China. China’s has grown at a CAGR of 10% over the last three decades reaching per capita GDP (US$7,000) while India’s, growing at half that pace, is currently at ($1,500) In spite of similar population sizes and low-cost profiles with a per capita GDP of US$300 in 1981. China’s industrial sector at US$4 trillion (and still growing), now dwarfs India’s which is estimated at US$300 billion. But China is now trying to re-balance the economy towards the services sector and consumption rather than manufacturing and investment; its competitive advantage has eroded and is likely to continue to do so. That gives manufacturing India the potential to create a cost advantage, with its far more favorable demographics, a huge untapped labor pool. \\nThis calls for rapid expansion of the manufacturing sector on a priority basis like creating local supply chains. Scaling the Domestic Supply of Human Capital by revamping the education, R&D and skills development, Attracting Foreign Intellectual Property, Picking the Right Industries, Making it easier to do business etc. It need to focus around (i) streamlining administration, (ii) creating rapid infrastructure development (roads, ports, power), and (iii) mobilizing significant domestic and foreign capital. The paper would discuss these things in detail.\",\"PeriodicalId\":169556,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Culture Area Studies eJournal\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Culture Area Studies eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2873159\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Culture Area Studies eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2873159","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自18世纪工业革命以来,工业化一直是经济增长的最大推动力之一。印度在1947年独立后,像大多数发展中国家一样,走了一条有计划的自力更生的发展道路。印度独立后的发展计划强调工业化是持续增长的一个非常重要的工具。制造业活动一直被认为是经济增长的主要引擎。工业部门在印度经济的发展中起着至关重要的作用,因为它们可以解决普遍贫困、失业、落后、低生产、低生产率和低生活水平等问题。1980年以前,基于对苏联成功的认识,人们认为发展的关键战略是把重点放在国家控制和中央计划的大型和重工业上。该战略还涉及进口替代、严格的价格控制和对私人主动行动的严格限制。由于种种原因,缺乏工业需求,特别是对投资品的需求,被广泛认为是1960年代以来经济相对停滞的主要原因。据报道,管制导致资源利用普遍效率低下,反映在全要素生产率增长不佳,或1970年代增加资本产出比率上升。印度政府自1980年以来进行了政策改革,但最激进的改革是在1990-91财政年度发生严重经济危机之后的1991年之后进行的。印度的增长故事是独一无二的。与其他许多发达经济体的转型故事不同,印度的增长故事是由服务业主导的。相比之下,制造业一直不那么强劲;制造业生产从1991-92年危机年的-0.8%的负增长迅速恢复到1995-96年约14.1%的峰值。自那以后,失业率迅速下降到2001- 2002年的2.9%,并在接下来的25年里一直保持在这个水平附近,除了2010-11年有零星的上升。近三十年来,制造业在该国GDP中所占的份额一直停滞不前。对于印度这样规模的国家来说,仅靠服务业不足以创造增长,推动大规模繁荣。印度的改革方案强调渐进主义和进化转型,而不是快速重组或“休克疗法”,印度的增长也不是建立在使用廉价劳动力进行劳动密集型出口的基础上的,这是包括中国在内的其他亚洲四小龙采取的发展道路。中国在过去三十年中以10%的复合年增长率增长,达到人均GDP(7000美元),而印度的增长速度只有中国的一半,目前为1500美元,尽管人口规模和低成本特征与1981年人均GDP为300美元相似。中国的工业部门规模为4万亿美元(还在增长),现在印度的工业部门规模估计为3000亿美元。但中国目前正努力实现经济再平衡,向服务业和消费转型,而非制造业和投资;它的竞争优势已经被削弱,而且很可能会持续下去。这使得印度制造业有可能创造成本优势,因为它的人口结构远比印度有利,拥有大量未开发的劳动力。这就要求在建立本地供应链等优先基础上迅速扩大制造业。通过改革教育、研发和技能开发、吸引外国知识产权、选择合适的产业、使商业更容易等方式扩大国内人力资本的供应。它需要把重点放在以下几个方面:(1)精简行政管理;(2)创造快速的基础设施发展(道路、港口、电力);(3)调动大量的国内外资本。本文将详细讨论这些问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Transforming India's Manufacturing Sector
Industrialization has historically been one of the biggest drivers of Economic Growth ever since the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century. India followed a path of planned self-reliant development after her Independence in 1947 like most countries in the developing world. India’s post-independence development plans emphasized industrialization as a very important instrument for sustained growth. The manufacturing activity has been considered to be the main engine of economic growth. Industrial sector plays a vital role in the development of Indian economy because they can solve the problems of general poverty, unemployment, backwardness, low production, low productivity and low standard of living etc. Before 1980, based on the perception of Soviet Union success, it was thought that the key strategy for development was to focus on large and heavy industries under state control and central planning. The strategy also involved import substitution, rigid price controls and severe restrictions on private initiatives. For a variety of reasons, lack of industrial demand, especially for investment goods, was widely accepted to be the principal reason for the relative stagnation since the 1960s. Reportedly, controls led to widespread inefficiency in resource use, as reflected in poor total factor productivity growth, or rise in incremental capital output ratios in the 1970s. The Indian Government had undertaken policy reforms since 1980, but the most radical reforms have occurred since 1991, after the severe economic crisis in fiscal year 1990-91. The Indian growth story has been unique. Unlike the transformation stories of many of the other developed economies, India's growth story was dominated by the service sector. In contrast manufacturing has been less robust; Manufacturing production recovered rapidly from negative growth of -0.8% in the crisis year of 1991-92 to a peak of around 14.1% in 1995-96. It has since declined rapidly to 2.9% in 2001-02 and remained around that level for the next 25 years except for a sporadic increase in 2010-11. The share of the manufacturing sector in the country’s GDP has remained stagnant, for almost three decades. Services alone are not sufficient to create growth to drive mass prosperity for a country the size of India. India's reform programme has emphasized gradualism and evolutionary transition rather than rapid restructuring or "shock therapy" and its growth has not been based on using cheap labor for labor-intensive exports, the development path taken by other Asian tigers including China. China’s has grown at a CAGR of 10% over the last three decades reaching per capita GDP (US$7,000) while India’s, growing at half that pace, is currently at ($1,500) In spite of similar population sizes and low-cost profiles with a per capita GDP of US$300 in 1981. China’s industrial sector at US$4 trillion (and still growing), now dwarfs India’s which is estimated at US$300 billion. But China is now trying to re-balance the economy towards the services sector and consumption rather than manufacturing and investment; its competitive advantage has eroded and is likely to continue to do so. That gives manufacturing India the potential to create a cost advantage, with its far more favorable demographics, a huge untapped labor pool. This calls for rapid expansion of the manufacturing sector on a priority basis like creating local supply chains. Scaling the Domestic Supply of Human Capital by revamping the education, R&D and skills development, Attracting Foreign Intellectual Property, Picking the Right Industries, Making it easier to do business etc. It need to focus around (i) streamlining administration, (ii) creating rapid infrastructure development (roads, ports, power), and (iii) mobilizing significant domestic and foreign capital. The paper would discuss these things in detail.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信