Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MANUFACTURING SECTOR
2022 - 2023
1
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the project report entitled “A STUDY ON INDO US TRADE
of V. ASHWIN KUMAR , Register No: 2013271018034 , who carried out the internship
project work under my supervision during December 2022 to March 2023 for the partial
Date:
Place:
2
DECLARATION
Chennai, hereby declare that this project report entitled “A STUDY ON INDO US TRADE
work
done in partial fulfilment for the award of degree in Bachelor of Arts in Economics by the
University of Madras.
I further declare that it had not been previously submitted for any reward of any
PLACE: Chennai
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
to Dr. T.JAGADEESHAN, Principal and Head Dr. A.Selvaraju, Head of the Department,
for his sincere guidance and valuable suggestions for the completion of my project.
K.Chandrasekaran, Dr. K, SURESH, and Dr.S.K.Prakash, and Dr. A.Kasirajan for their
growth.
This project report is an output of valuable contribution from certain people and I
take this opportunity to specially thank to all the people concerned who made my project
work reality. Above all I thank the ALMIGHTY GOD who showered me with all his
PLACE: Chennai
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. 1-7
Introduction
2. 1-7
Review of literature
1-7
3. Data Analysis
1-7
1-7
5.
5
Bibliography
6
Chapter 1
Introduction
India and America are the primary examples of democracy in the world. In
1949, diplomatic relations between modern India and America started during the
tenure of US President Henry Truman. But at this point, the philosophy of Nehru was
communist and the ideology of liberalism was taken out by America. The Indo-US
friendship, as a result, was just a formality. Together with Pakistan, the United States
created a Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO) in 1954 that did not suit India.
Because of this, India strengthened relations with Soviet Russia. India became part of
the nonaligned movement in 1961, taking itself away from the Cold War. After this,
America helped Pakistan directly with the assistance of China in the Indo-Pakistan
War of 1971, but when India won the war, the US found India a great force in South
Asia and sought to improve relations with India.
After this, in 1991, Soviet Russia divided, after which relations between India
and America improved. Since then, the relationship between India and America has
seen several ups and downs. The US did not like it in the 90s when India was rising as
a developing market. Because of this, the US publicly opposed it when India
conducted a nuclear test in 1998. Bill Clinton, the then US President, threatened to
bring an end to all ties with India. Yet they recognize the meaning of India in the
militant movement since the attack on the World Trade Centre in America on 11th
September 2001.
In 2002, the joint session was addressed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee and laid the
framework for new ties between India and America. Relations between India and
America changed considerably during the tenure of former Prime Minister Atal Bihari
Vajpayee. The 2008 Indian-US Civil Nuclear Agreement further enhanced ties
between India and the United States. The relationship between India and the US was
significantly enhanced by Barack Obama and international cooperation between the
two nations improved and trade increased. U.S. President Barack Obama visited India
7
in 2010 and met Indian businesses and dedicated himself to various issues, such as
investment in India and technology transfer.
The second visit of Barack Obama to India in 2015 brought India and
America's relationship to new heights as India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi, along
with the US, entered into multiple deals on global terrorism to eradicate and establish
peaceful coexistence as well as expressing a commitment to work together on
international problems, such as, climate change, terrorism, hunger, malnutrition,
human rights. On several topics, this brought the two countries closer. Donald Trump
became America's first president in 2017. The friendship between India and America
further enhanced during this period. From the outset, the stance of Donald Trump
towards India has been very special. After Donald Trump became president, Prime
Minister Modi was the first foreign minister to visit the White House. During his US
visit, Narendra Modi made multiple agreements between the two nations.
In the last decade, India has emerged as one of the fastest-growing economies.
Our services sector contributes to 54.13%, while the industrial sector contributes
18.32%. Agriculture accounts for 14.39%. The need for "products" to absorb such a
low manufacturing contribution is not a healthy indication, considering our wide
domestic market.
8
per cent to GDP in rapidly emerging Asian countries such as, Thailand, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Taiwan, the Philippines, Korea, and China, and thereby helped to alleviate
poverty. In comparison, in the last 10 years, the Indian manufacturing sector's
contribution to GDP has grown from 16 percent to 18.32 percent.
Policy reforms have been implemented by the Government of India since 1980,
but they were the most drastic reforms since 1991, followed by a serious economic
recession in the 1990-91 financial year. These reforms were intended largely to
improve the productivity of the industrial industry and to increase foreign
competitiveness. The rupee refused to boost exports. Around the same time, several
capital goods, items where imports do not have to be authorized by government
officials, were added to the list.
On August 15, 1947, India was granted independence. The Indian government
has announced five-year proposals for the country's growth. India's first five-year
programme began on April 1, 1951. The trajectory of India's development has seen
multiple ups and downs from the first to the twelfth five-year plans. The history of
9
India's progress can be split into two stages. The first phase is referred to as the
preliberalized phase, and the second phase is referred to as the post-liberalized phase.
Before the liberalisation of the Indian economy, the country's economy was split into
two distinct sectors: private and public. Under the protection of the government, the
commercial sector was owned and run by private entrepreneurs in small and
mediumsized companies. The government's key function was to include transportation
and correspondence, which included mail, telephone, telegraph, radio, and television
broadcasting, among other items. The public sector offered social services, such as,
health and education. The government's primary target was to deliver these
programmes at an affordable cost. India implemented five-year growth strategies to
strengthen housing, irrigation, health care, and schooling. However, due to domestic
causes, construction progress has been incredibly slow. To achieve the targeted growth
in various five-year plans, the Indian government changed policies from time to time.
The Harrod-Domer model was used in the first five-year plan (1951-56). This
five-year plan's growth goal was 2.5 percent. The nation faced a variety of issues
under this programme, including refugee challenges, food shortages, and price hikes,
among others. The government concentrated on agriculture, price stability, and power
and transportation facilities to settle the problems. In terms of achieving real progress,
this strategy was a success (i.e.3.6 percent). Strong harvesting in the last two years of
the plan was the key explanation for this real development. Other goals, such as
refugee settlement, food self-sufficiency, and market stability, were more or less met.
The Nehru-Mahalanobis model was used in the Second Five Year Plan
(195661). The plan's goal was to reach a growth rate of 4.5 percent. To accomplish
this goal, a strategy of economic stability and rapid industrialization was implemented.
However, this industrialization was only possible with international loans. The
socialistic pattern of society was also used to develop the second industrial policy
(1956). Since real growth was only 4.3 percent and foreign exchange reserves were in
short supply, this strategy was only marginally successful. There was also a 30 percent
price increase.
The economy has reached the "take-off era" in the Third Five-Year Plan
(196166). This plan's target was 5.6 percent. The plan's main aim was to make India a
selfsufficient and self-generating country. This strategy was built based on the lessons
gained from the previous two plans, and agriculture was given top priority in order to
10
promote exports and industries. Just 2.8 percent of the plan's actual development was
accomplished. The Indo-China War (1962), the Indo-Pak War (1965), and the 1965-66
drought all conspired to derail this strategy.
The Third Five-year programme, the Indian government initiated three annual
schemes (1966-69), called "Plan Holiday." Because of the crisis in agriculture and the
food deficit in the Indian economy, this year's annual strategy centred on agriculture.
The modern agriculture policy, popularly known as the green revolution, was adopted
as part of this programme. High-yielding crops, widespread fertiliser use, irrigation
capacity utilisation, and soil restoration were all part of the green movement. As a
result, agriculture production, especially wheat and rice, increased dramatically during
this annual plan.
The Fourth Five-Year Plan (1969-74) was initiated with the goal of "stable
development and progressive self-sufficiency." This strategy emphasised the
expansion of agriculture in order to enable other sectors to progress. Agriculture
output reached new heights in the first two five-year plans, but then fell due to
unfavourable monsoon conditions. This plan's main goal was to get the Family
Planning Programs up and running. Due to Bangladeshi refugees before and after
1971, as well as price rises, the plan did not achieve its target expansion. This
initiative just grew at a rate of 3.3 percent.
D.P. Dhar drafted and implemented the Fifth Five-Year Plan (1974-79). He
drafted this proposal to keep the economy from crashing due to inflation triggered by
rising oil prices. The aim of this strategy was to reach a 4.4 percent growth rate by
greater income allocation. For the first time, India included poverty as a major social
issue in this programme. As a result, the Indian government proposed two goals: one
was to eliminate hunger, and the other was to achieve self-sufficiency. The actual
growth rate reached in this plan was 4.85 percent, but high inflation, incorrect cost
calculations for the plan duration, the 1975 emergency, and the delay in implementing
Prime Minister Harold Wilson's 20-point policy all hampered the fifth plan's progress.
When the Janta Party came to power in 1978, the five-year programme was cancelled.
The Janta Party government ended the fifth plan a year before, it was replaced
with rolling plan as the sixth year plan (1978-83), but the government did not
complete its term. During the rolling programme, the Janta government did not
complete its term, and it was blamed for consolidating power, growing inequality, and
11
poverty. When the Congress assumed control, it re-adopted the sixth year of the five-
year programme.
The Sixth Five-Year Plan (1983-85) aimed for 5.2 percent growth with the
goal of increasing national income, modernising infrastructure, ensuring sustained
poverty reduction through programmes like Training Rural Youth for Self
Employment (TRYSEM) and the IRDP, and managing population growth. Aside from
a serious drought in the plan's final year (1984-85), real growth was 5.7 percent, which
was higher than the plan's target growth.
With an emphasis on ‘meal, jobs, and competitiveness,' the Seventh Five Year
Plan (1985-90) aimed for a 5.0 percent growth rate with the goal of accelerating food
grain production, growing job prospects, and raising productivity. The strategy was a
major achievement, as the economy expanded at a rate of 6% instead of the planned
5%.
Expanding worldwide joining and the ascent of new innovation, including the
reception of efficiency improving IT in the working environment and the flood of
cutting edge organizations, helped fuel a period of prosperity during the 1990s. The
time frame somewhere in the range of 1993 and 2001 denoted the longest supported
development in U.S monetary history, and fueled a lofty ascent in work, pay and
customer interest.
In addition, the solid development and low joblessness during this time were
especially striking on the grounds that the public authority spending plan was reigned
in at the same time and really accomplished an excess for a very long time somewhere
in the range of 1998 and 2001. The monetary improvement was made conceivable to
some degree by charge increments presented by President Bill Clinton, yet
additionally because of the flourishing economy and flooding financial exchange.
authority on capital additions charges and rising pay rates. In any case, the
overvaluation of website stocks at last became obvious and the air pocket burst in
2000.
The primary long stretches of the 2000s saw a sharp drop in economy
movement following the website burst. The fear based oppressor assaults on
September 11, 2001, and a few corporate outrages put down financial action and
business certainty. The Central bank (the Fed), under Alan Greenspan, stepped in to
neutralize the striving economy by presenting low financing costs. We have selected
eighteen 2-digit manufacturing item of Export and Import only in our study. Tobacco
and manufactured tobacco substitutes, Inorganic chemicals, precious metal compound,
isotope Organic chemicals, Pharmaceutical products, Fertilizers, Plastics and articles
thereof, Rubber and articles thereof, Wood and articles of wood & wood charcoal,
Paper & paperboard, articles of pulp, paper and board, Cotton, Special woven or tufted
fabric lace tapestry etc, Other made textile articles sets, worn clothing, etc, Pearls,
precious stones, metals, coins, etc, Iron and steel, Copper and articles thereof, Nickel
and articles thereof, Tools implements cutlery etc of base metal, Electrical, electronic
equipment, Vehicles other than railway.
13
Current position of Indo-US trade
Chapter2
Review of Literature
This section of the study is devoted to a literature review. The aim of reviewing
previous researches is not only to study the economics of the historical perspective of
the current work, but also studies that have taken into account the manufacturing
sector, direction of trade and export-import performance. These studies may assist the
investigator in designing the present study in such a way that recurrence of flaws and
pitfalls observed in any previous study is avoided. Alternatively, their findings may be
used to aid in the analysis of the current study's findings where appropriate.
14
Trade has been an important operation for any nation's growth in recent years.
Countries all over the world want to extend their markets through bilateral and
multilateral trade agreements, and the exchange of goods and services increases as
barriers are reduced. Why does a country want to trade? To address both of these
questions, what is the basis for exchange and what do they reap from trade? Various
foreign trade theories have been identified, including classical theories (absolute
advantage, competitive advantage), modern theory - Hecksher-Ohlin theory, new trade
theory, and the Gravity model, all of which are important to understand the pattern and
performance of trade flows between countries.
In his book “the wealth of Nation” published 1776 Adam smith postulated the
Absolute advantage theory. According to him trade between the nations is based on
absolute advantage, both the country will gain if a country specialize in the production
of goods
in which he can produce more efficiently than others, at the same time other country
produces with less efficient in which he has an absolute disadvantage in line of
production. This way both the nations will gain, that is a country export goods in
which he has absolute advantage and import in which he has absolute disadvantage.
However there is little evidence of trade happening on the basis of absolute advantage
theory.
David Ricardo tried to answer Smith’s theory of absolute advantage in which he stated that,
even if one nation is less efficient than others in the production of both goods, international
trade would be beneficial bringing gain from trade to all the participating countries. In his
model of comparative advantage a country will specialize in the line of production in which
its efficiency is the maximum and the other country will specialise
first will produce and export the first good and import the the second good. It is based
on different cost of production of a commodity across countries. In the present world
large part of trade is explained by comparative advantage theory.
15
endowment, taste and preference and technology, economies of scale
will lead to trade between two countries. This theory explains intra-industry trade at
different stages of production or same stage of production due to varieties of product
demanded.
Literature Review
relation to American countries. In terms of trade with India, the United States holds
the top spot. Mr. Devis explained that conventional and agricultural products
accounted for the majority of India's overall export volume, while industrial goods
accounted for the majority of imports, causing the import volume to surpass. The
study recommended several steps to improve India's trading system with the United
States.
1
T.N Kaul - 1974 ( T.N. Kaul materials in the South Asian American Digital Archive (SAADA)
2
Phiroze B. Medhora - 1980(Trade and aid: approach to fourth plan)
3
Devis K.R - 1982 (India's Trade With American Counties)
16
H.K. Lahauri4, (1984), in his study, "India's Trade with the United States:
Challenges and Solutions," identified some issues, such as, organisational issues,
environmental issues, and marketing issues, that impacted Indian trade. Making a
thorough examination of the different issues, the author concluded that the Indian
international trade system needs not only liberalisation or structural improvements,
but also certain fundamental changes. The researcher has also made
recommendations for improving India's trade efficiency with the United States.
Love, J. (1986)5, this work is the first effort to use modern time series
econometric tools to investigate the impact of export volatility
on economic growth. In this work, we examine the connection between export and
import using time series data.
B.M. Jain6 (1988) in his paper indicated that the current political disparities on
a number of global and regional problems will continue to influence Indo-US
relations. There is no probability that their inherent gaps in approaches to global and
international policy can be dissipated by both nations. This is due to the fact that a
superpower is interacting with India, a regional power. It is also inconceivable that
India uses strong strength within a power system model to control the critical
4
H.K Lahauri - 1984 (India's Trade with the United States Challenges and Solutions)
5
Love, J. - 1986 (The Impact of export volatility on economic growth)
6
B.M.Jain – 1998 (Indo US realtions)
17
decisions of the US on global issues. It has made it all the more difficult for
intermediary forces like India to play a mediating role as both superpowers have
proven their willingness and political will to settle problems bilaterally, which is clear
from the ratification of the recent INF treaty.
Man Singh7, Mr. (1992), made a study on "Close and robust Indo-US links" stated
that political connections have an effect on the two countries' trade relations. Despite
substantial economic liberalisation in India, the US was dissatisfied with what it saw
as "unjust" and "inequitable" trade barriers. India's tariffs were considered to be
excessive. The second point of contention in trade ties was quantitative limits enforced
by a licencing system, which led the US to regard India's economy as strongly
protectionist.
He proposes controlled markets as a better alternative to free trade. He did not advocate
Rahman8, P. (1992), in his study on "India's trade with America since 1950"
explained various fields such as, trade, investment, technology cooperation, and
assistance from the United States. This researcher has argued that India has enormous
investment opportunities in a variety of fields. There were even greater potential
opportunities for service trading.
7
Man Singh, Mr - 1992 ( Close and Robust Indo-US links )
8
Rahman, P. - 19 9 2 ( India's Trade w ith America since 19 5 0 )
9
J.P.Sarine – 1993 (Determinants of International Trade)
18
consumer penetration in the United States. According to the analyst, India's exports to
the United States account for a very limited percentage of the country's imports. As a
result, the fear that the Indo-US trade surplus was detrimental to the United States,
which was not well established on economic grounds, was unfounded.
Dr. Francis Cherunilam10, (1993), in his research on the topic -"USA and its
trading partners," said that the United States is the world's most strong economy. In
the research, it is briefly mentioned that India is the most powerful economy in
Southeast Asia. India and the United States have a healthy trading relationship and
India has a large market for American capital goods. The study also recommended
liberal approaches that could lead to improved future prospects for both nations. It is
also said that while India did not contribute much to total US exports, there were still
more opportunities to expand India's trade with the US.
Subroto Roy11 (1997), found in his study on "Indo-US Trade and Economic
Cooperation", that the United States is India's single most significant source of
imports, with Germany and Japan trailing far behind. According to the report, India's
export basket to the United States is far more diverse than India's import basket. Mr
Roy outlined the overall story of Indian trade with the United States by stating that,
while the long-term trade composition has improved over thirty years, it is still
insufficient.
Bishnu priya Gupta12 (1999-2000), clarified the trade mechanism and FDI
movement of the United States into India in their paper "Indo-US Trade: A Profile."
According to their views, there is a huge opportunity for increasing technology flow
10
Dr. Francis Cherunilam – 1993 (USA and its Trading Partners
11
Suburoto Roy – 1997 (INDO-US Trade and Economic Cooperation)
12
Biahnu Priya Gupta – 2000 (Indo – US Trade; A Profile)
19
between India and the United States in order to fulfil the technology needs of Indian
industry. However, there are certain restrictions on both sides that restrict those flows,
but there is enormous potential for better trade in the current economic
climate.
C. Ranga Rajan13 (2001), in his paper to his paper, "Saga of Paradigm Shifts,"
indicatedthat import substitution was a main plank of India's foreign trade agenda, and
the planners almost wanted to disregard foreign trade as a source of economic
development. This was mostly due to a negative assessment of export earnings
prospects. The emergence of a large domestic market gave additional fuel to the
inward focus. In retrospect, the author believes that policymakers underestimated not
only the export potential, but also the import speed of the import substitution
mechanism itself.
Chia Boon Khor14 (2001), looked at the relationship between FDI and Malaysian
economic development. The researchers discovered bidirectional causation between the
two variables. It implies that rising GDP attracts FDI, and that FDI also helps to rising
output. It was also discovered that FDI had a significant influence in the
diversification of the Malaysian economy, resulting in the manufacturing sector being
a development engine.
13
C. Ranga Rajan – 2001 (Saga of Paradigm Shifts)
14
Chia Boon Khor – 2001 (Bi-Directional Causation between the two variables
20
Somasri Mukhopadhyaya15 (2001), in his paper on “Uruguay Round and
India’s Export Response” has tried to analyze whether Uruguay Round has been a
success story for international trade with particular reference to India. He mentioned
that there has been a significant decrease in global trade growth since 1997. He cited
two geopolitical events: the 1997 currency crisis in Southeast Asian countries and the
adoption of the Euro currency. He brings up the non-materialization of the
commitments that developing countries have agreed, especially in the agricultural
sector. Another element mentioned by the author in the sense of MFA phase-out is the
textile industry.
Rahman16 (2003), used the gravity model to assess India's trade with its major
trading partners. He came to the conclusion that the scale of markets, per capita GNP,
and trade transparency all have a positive impact on Bangladesh trade. Furthermore,
he discovered that transportation costs are a major factor adversely affecting
Bangladesh's trade, and that country-specific results suggest that Bangladesh will
benefit from trading with its neighbours.
L. Alfora17 (2003), used cross-country data from 1981 to 1999 to examine the
influence of foreign direct investment on growth in the primary, secondary, and
tertiary sectors. Total FDI has an unclear influence on growth, according to the
research, but it does play a substantial role in supporting growth in the primary,
manufacturing, and service sectors by transferring technology and managerial know-
how, educating employees, and introducing new procedures. The study also
discovered that FDI flows into different sectors had varied effects on economic
growth; FDI has a negative influence on growth in the primary sector, a positive
benefit in the manufacturing sector, and an unclear impact in the service sector.
15
Somasri Mukhopadyaya – 2001 (Uruguay Round and India’s Export Response)
16
Rahman – 2003 (India Trade with its major trading partners)
17
L.Alfora – 2003 (The Influence of Foreign Direct Investment on Growth)
21
Aradhana Aggrawal18 (2004), in her article deals with economic liberalisation
and more objective assessment. It is important to rigorously evaluate the local
situation, or the policies that give rise to undesirable outcomes. Therefore, in order to
facilitate assessment of policy suitability in the local environment, input from these
policy results needs to be obtained. This analysis of the effect of tariff reductions on
Indian exports to the United States is a step in the right direction. At the 4-digit stage
of disaggregation, the study of the Post Uruguay Round experience indicates that
India's exports were price elastic in 44 of 81 goods. These products include items that
are labour-intensive, resource-intensive, and technologically advanced. With more
tariff reductions arising from the Doha Round negotiations on non-agricultural goods,
there appears to be potential for India to extend its exports to US markets for these
goods. This suggests that reducing tariffs may be a significant contributor to the export
output India.
18
Aradhana Aggrawal – 2004 (Economic Liberalisatioon and more objective assessement)
19
L.Ganesh – 2005 (Free Trade Agreement – Growth or Distortion)
20
Boughanmi – 2008 (The Gulf Cooperation Countries Trade Prospects)
22
R. Banga21 (2006), in his paper focused on the effect of foreign direct investment
(FDI) on export diversification in a developing world. If FDI has a positive impact on
the export
strength of industries with a low share of world exports, it can contribute to export
diversification in the host country. Indirectly, FDI may promote export diversification
by spillover effects: the involvement of FDI in a sector may increase the export
strength of domestic firms. The empirical findings for the Indian economy in the post-
liberalization context suggest that FDI from the United States has resulted in both over
and indirect diversification of India's exports. FDI from Japan, on the other hand, has
had no discernible effect on India's exports.
Tri Do22 (2006), looked at the bilateral trade between Vietnam and the
twentythree European countries using the gravity model and panel data from 1993 to
2004. According to his calculations, the business size, economic size, and actual
exchange rate of Vietnam and the twenty-three European countries played a significant
role in bilateral trade. The findings showed that Vietnam's trade was increasing in a
positive direction.
21
R.Banga – 2006 (The Export – Diversifying impact of Japanese and US FDI)
22
Tri DO – 2006 (A Gravity Model Analysis for Trade between Cameroon and 28 EU countries)
23
Batra – 2006 (India’s Global Trade Potential: The Gravity Model Approach)
23
H. M. Sanjeev Kumar 24 (2008), discussed different facets of Indo-US relations
in the context of US foreign policy formulations since the Cold War. The author finds
that the 123 agreement's operationalization holds the secret to determine the potential
direction of Indo-US relations. In his book on Diplomacy in 1994, Kissinger
contemplated the' imminent loss of American influence in the 21st century.' A new
balance of power, he said, would need the United States to share its dominance with
Europe, the United States, Japan, Russia, and possibly India. The Bush administration
turne
d from strident unilateralism to acute multilateralism, the Bush administration's post-
9/11 defence and foreign policy represent this pattern.
B.N. Tripathy26 (2009), has state that exports are engines of economic growth.
The thesis traced Adam Smith's ideas on export, historical perspective and an attempt
to analyse the position of the Indian economy. India's economy has always been
driven by exports and an export-led development strategy. Mr. B.N. Tripathy has
found out that small countries with scarce natural resources are more likely to find that
export specialisation will help them expand faster.
24
H.M. Sanjeev Kumar – 2008 (Dynamics of Post – Cold War US Foreign Policy and the shaping of INDO US)
25
Francis Cherunilam – 2008 (International Economic) Article
26
B.N.Tripathy – 2009 (Exports of Trade and Economic Growth)
24
The industrial sector's performance in recent years, notably during the
postreform period, has been contentious, attracting the attention of numerous scholars.
According to Kaliappa27 (2004), the manufacturing sector's production growth in the
postreform period is "input driven" rather than "efficiency driven." Manufacturing was
a major driver of growth in India during the 1970s and 1980s. The speed of the engine
appears to have slowed after the 1991 economic reform. According to the findings,
boosting company efficiency can result in a 15% increase in production without
needing to increase inputs on average.
In her work, Datta29 (2014) calculates TFP growth for the Indian registered
manufacturing sector from 1980-81 to 2003-04. The study covers the whole era as
well as two sub-periods: 1980-81 to 1990-91 and 1990-91 to 2003-04. The registered
manufacturing sector in India appears to have performed significantly better in terms
of TFPG in the decade previous to liberalisation in 1991 than in the post-liberalization
period, according to the study. The largest rate of increase in labour productivity, the
lowest rate of decrease in capital productivity, and therefore a relatively high rate of
TFPG occurred during the pre-liberalization period.
27
Kaliappa – 2004 (The Manfacturing Sector’s Production)
28
Nataraj – 2011 (The Impact of India’s Trade Liberalisation on Production)
29
Datta – 2014 (The Productivity Development of India’s Manufacturing Industry)
25
Mehta (2014) estimates the stochastic frontier model with the time-varying
inefficiency model for the organised manufacturing industries in India from 1980-81
to 2005-06. The research also looked at the impact of reforms on several technology
intensive industrial sub-groups, such as High-technology (HT), Medium High
Technology (MHT), Medium-Low Technology (MLT), and Low-
technology (LT), according to the OECD classification. The findings from the panel
26
Chapter 3
Data Analysis
During the initial Phase of post-liberalization era i.e. from 1991 to 2000, there was a
continuous increase in Export with USA. The total amount of Export value in 1992, was
US$ 3928927013, in 1992 and AGR was 34.24. But in 2001, it declined to US$
8404055.704 from US$ 9304913.801 in 2000. AGR was 10.29% in 2000 and it became
negative (i.e. -9.68%) in 2001, In 2001-02 India faced another setback in its exports, at large,
due to the semi-recession faced by the US; one of India’s biggest trading partners.
27
Descriptive Statistics of Export & Import
Table 1: Descriptive statistics analysis of India Exports and import. Year (199192
to 2018-19)
The table 2 show the descriptive analysis of export for the period from 1991 to
2018. Facts show that the mean of export was found $19889008.56 and mean of
import
28
was $12003094.76, variation in terms of Standard Deviation was observed in case
of export, it was $15422091.59 and import was $10035499.71 Kurtosis listed for
export was -0.933110975 and for import -0.11318177. Thus it is obvious that the
nature of data is reliable for statistical analysis.
29
($2.98E+09),while minimum variation was noted for Nickel and articles thereof
($3564495),Maximum Kurtosis was listed for Fertilizers(21.95876) while minimum
was observed for Rubber and articles thereof ($0.062765).
The table 5 represents the average annual growth of export for the period
1991 to 2018.Tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes 14.6%, Organic
chemicals 23.4%, Pharmaceutical products 18.3%, Fertilizers, Plastics and articles
thereof 15.5%, Rubber and articles thereof 8.1%, Wood and articles of wood, wood
charcoal 18.2%, Paper & paperboard, articles of pulp, paper and board 16.2%,
Cotton 2.6%, Special woven or tufted fabric, lace, tapestry etc 5.6%, Other made
textile articles, sets, worn clothing etc 13.7%, Pearls, precious stones, metals, coins,
etc 8.1%, Iron and Stee l7.8%, Copper and articles thereof 12.4%, Nickel and
articles thereof 15.5%, Tools, implements, cutlery, etc of base metal ,5.1%,
Inorganic chemicals precious metal compound, isotope 6.9% Electrical, electronic
equipment stood at 13.7%.
30
Table 2 : Annual Growth Rate of Export of Manufacturing Goods. (Year 1991-
2018)
S.N.
Variable A Β
HS Average Annual
CODE Growth (in %)
1. 24 14.7439121 0.106449423 10.6%
Tobacco and manufactured
tobacco substitutes
31
16. 82 15.40846286 0.051781004 5.1%
Tools, implements, cutlery,
etc. of base metal
Source :https://www.ibef.org › industry
Table 6 represents the average annual growth of import for the period 1991 to
32
Table 3 : Annual Growth Rate of Import of Manufacturing Goods. (Year
1991-2018)
S.N. Variable
HS Average Annual
CODE A B Growth (in %)
1. 24 12.61052593 0.024145404 2.4%
Tobacco and manufactured
tobacco substitutes
33
14. 74 Copper and articles thereof 17.12114 0.045476 4.5%
Table 7 show s that Acceleration and Deacceleration in the average annual grow
th rate of components of export manufacturing goods are estimated in the the
slope and Intercept dummy variable semi log model for the period 19 9 1 to 2 0 18
. Empirical result indicate that average annual grow th rates in components of
export manufacturing goods have accelerated or deaccelerated although
marginally (less than 1%).
Average annual growth rate represents through the acceleration and the
Deacceleration of components of manufacturing export goods is not volatile. The
fluctuation of export components is marginally 1% or less than 1%, which shows
that it is significant for exporter country in the import market.
Table 8 shows that Acceleration and Deacceleration in the average annual
growth rate of components of import manufacturing goods are estimated in the slope
and intercept dummy variable semi log model for the period 1991 to 2018.
Empirical result indicate that average annual growth rate in components of import
manufacturing goods have accelerated or deaccelerated marginally (less than 1%).
Average annual growth rate represented through the acceleration and the
Deacceleration of components of manufacturing import goods is not volatile. The
fluctuation of import components is marginal by 1% or less than 1%. Which shows
that it is significant for importer country in the export market.
34
Table 4 : Composition of Export Manufacturing Goods
Year 1991 2000 2010 2018
35
Paper & paperboard, 714779 16370676 56322462 132171082
articles of pulp, paper
and board
36
Graph 4: Composition of Export Manufacturing Goods
37
Graph 6: Composition of Export Manufacturing Goods
38
Table 5 : Composition of Import Manufacturing Goods
Year 1991 2000 2010 2018
39
Graph 8: Composition of Import Manufacturing Goods
40
Commodity Concentration
41
In case of Rubber and article thereof, the export concentration index was
2.012540057 in 1991, which declined to 1.651769546 in 2018. Thus it is clear that
though concentration index has been positive, but it declining trend shows deduction
in its export to USA.
In regard to Wood and articles of wood & wood charcoal, export commodity
concentration index remained negative till 2011, but in subsequent year it became
positive slowly. Its shows that as per its commodity concentration index its export to
USA has shifted. Export commodity concentration index of Paper & paperboard,
articles of pulp, paper and board, accounted for -0.256143921 in 1991, which
increased to 0.228177566 in 2018. It shows that its export has shifted to USA market
gradually during entire period of study.
Though, the USA as a export market for the group of Other made textile
articles sets, worn clothing, etc, is Still very bright but it so increasing fluctuating
trends. Its export commodity concentration index to USA was 3.931032964 in 1991,
which reached its zenith in 2002(13.17820815) but declined to 9.706960169 in 2018.
With respect to Pearls, precious stones, metals, coins, etc, India's export
commodity concentration index reveals that USA remained a major market till 2003
but in subsequent year its share gradually declined. In 1991 concentration index was
64.72075363which reached its zenith in 2005(81.91075608), but in subsequent years
it decline and reached to 42.29718826 in 2018. It is a matter of great concern that
USA as a market for India's Pearls, precious stones, metals, coins, etc, is shrinking.
42
Similar trends is shown by export commodity concentration of Iron and Steel
in 1991, index was 1.667879421, which slowly declined to 0.881790827 in 2018,
having the highest index of 10.55173979 in 2004 it not a good sign for Indian export
of this product. Similar trends is shown by export commodity concentration of Copper
and articles thereof, in 1991, index was 0.058143002, which slowly increased to
0.294413166 in 2018, it not a good sign for Indian export of this product.
In case of Tools implements cutlery etc of base metal, during 1991 to 2018
export commodity concentration index of this group of products accounted for
0.434361854 in 1991, which fluctuating and declining became -0.319311253 in 2018.
It shows a shift of export of this product from USA to other markets.
The commodity concentration index for total export earnings is determined not
only by the proportion of the major export item in total exports, but also by the share
of the major export item in total exports. If a country's primary export is generally
steady, it might have a greater commodity concentration (as assessed by the
HerfindahlHirschman Index).
43
The demand-and-supply circumstances impact the major commodity varied per
commodity. The performance of trade agreements that influence the major export's
stability, the degree to which the major and minor export items fluctuate around their
trends, and the relationship between these variations because of these distinctions,
greater concentration does not always imply greater instability. If these differences
aren't taken into account in a cross-country regression model, the results may indicate
no link between instability and concentration.
In this section, actual performance of India and USA trade over the period
1991- 2018 has been analysed. The export and import and trade intensity indexes
reflect the ratio of the share of India’s trade with USA relative to the share of world
trade destined for USA. An index of greater than unity is explained as an indication of
larger than expected trade flow between the two countries. Whereas, an index of less
than unity reflects an indication of smaller than expected trade flow between the two
countries.
India’s export and import intensities with USA have been computed during the period
1991-92 to 2018-19 and presented in table 13.
44
Table 10: India’s Trade (Export - Import) Intensity Index with USA: (Year
1991-2018)
Year Export Intensity Import Intensity Trade Intensity Index
Index (Xii) Index (Mii) (TII)
45
2011 0.849497775 0.655179765 0.935835644
The table 13 shows the index value of India’s export intensity with USA
constitutes 0.626642775 in 1991, 0.838348283 in 1992 and 0.847911436 in 1993. But
the value of export intensity increased to greater than one (1.047008235 in 1994). The
value of the export intensity index recorded greater than one for the period 1994 to
2004. The value of the export intensity index further continuously declined for the
period 2005 to 2013.The value of the export intensity index further improved greater
than one from 2014 to 2018. Thus the index value of India’s export intensity with
USA maintained more than unity value only for Sixteen years and did not maintain in
twelve years throughout the period. This implies that India’s exports to the USA are
one of the larger than would be expected, given USA’s share of world export trade.
Similarly index value of India’s import intensity maintained less than unity
value matchless throughout the periods except only 2008. This implies that India’s
imports from the USA are less than would be expected given India’s share in world
import trade. The trade intensity analysis for India with the USA is larger with a trade
intensity index value greater than 1 for the whole period except for 6 years 1991,
2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011.
46
between nations. Although such variations in productivity are difficult to see, an RCA
metric may be easily derived using trade data to "expose" them. While the metric can
be used to get a general idea and first approximation of a country's competitive export
strengths, it should be noted that the RCA metric does not take into account applied
national measures that affect competitiveness, such as tariffs, non-tariff measures,
subsidies, and others.
The Ricardian theory and the Heckscher-Ohlin (H-O) theory are the two most
popular theories of trade based on comparative advantage. The Ricardian theory posits
that comparative advantage emerges from technological disparities across nations,
whereas the H-O hypothesis implies that technologies are uniform between countries.
The H-O hypothesis, on the other hand, relates comparative advantage to cost
disparities caused by changes in factor prices between nations. In a nutshell, orthodox
(classical) trade theories anticipate outcomes based on the concept of comparative
advantage, which is derived from differences in pre-trade relative pricing between
nations.
1991 0.110027066
1992 0.149123618
1993 0.161129969
1994 0.197831997
1995 0.188222207
1996 0.213695107
1997 0.213366161
1998 0.233805425
1999 0.24471695
47
2000 0.250782513
2001 0.217419922
2002 0.232692455
2003 0.222484466
2004 0.205546651
2005 0.198875352
2006 0.198026221
2007 0.172259779
2008 0.154995063
2009 0.141727284
2010 0.142460353
2011 0.146673166
2012 0.17484773
2013 0.157730782
2014 0.160474469
2015 0.180620453
2016 0.191179506
2017 0.180795804
2018 0.186631877
48
articles of pulp, paper and board, Cotton, Special woven or tufted fabric, lace, tapestry
etc, Other made textile articles, sets, worn clothing etc, Pearls, precious stones, metals,
coins, etc, Iron and steel, Copper and articles thereof, Nickel and articles thereof,
Tools, implements, cutlery, etc of base metal, Nuclear reactors, boilers machinery etc,
Vehicles other than railway, tramway, Electrical, electronic equipment for the entire
sample period, For these 18 items, the RCA index takes values between 0 and 1.India
was in a comparatively advantageous position until 2007 and then India lost her
advantage to the rest of the world. This also happens to be the period of global
financial and economic crisis. Nevertheless, further investigation is needed to establish
whether there is a connection between India’s loss of advantageous position in
manufacturing products and global financial and economic crisis.
49
Chapter 4
Increased bilateral trade, investments, and economic cooperation with the rest
of the world play a vital role in the growth and development of rising economies like
ours. Since 1991, an examination of Indo-US trade relations has been conducted: With
a focus on the manufacturing sector, it was discovered that India's commerce with the
United States and other countries has grown more liberalised and diverse. This chapter
deals with the prospects and offers some general conclusions regarding the success of
Indo-US trade ties in particular, as well as policy implications in this area. Because
trade is the foundation of a country's external trade ties, the importance of trade in the
growth and development of emerging countries cannot be overstated. India's trade
connections with the United States, on the other hand, play an important role in the
country's growth. This research focuses on India's commercial connections with the
United States.
An analysis of India’s foreign trade with USA since 1991 to 2018 shows that
India’s Export value was US$ 3928927013 in 1992 and AGR was 34.24. But in 2001,
it declined to US$ 8404055704 from US$ 9304913801 in 2000. AGR was 10.29% in
2000 and it became negative (i.e. -9.68%) in 2001, In 2001-02 India faced another
setback in its exports, at large, due to the semi-recession faced by the US; one of
50
India’s biggest trading partners. again in next year, it increased in 2002. AGR was of
23.62% in 2002. Again this increasing trend was till 2008, but in 2009, again declined
due to world economic crisis 2008, export reduced in 2009, AGR -10.64% negative in
comparison to AGR 6.32% in 2008. After the negative annual growth of 2009 the
performance of export increased in 2010 with AGR 23.31% and it continued till 2014.
Once again it was negative in 2015, AGR -5.55%. In next year 2016 AGR was 4.16 it
means positive. In the next year 2017 and 2018 AGR was recorded as 9.5% & 12.1 %
respectively. Showing a CAGR of 0.107944351 per cent over the period. India exports
major commodity of manufacturing goods, that are Tobacco and manufactured
tobacco substitutes, Organic chemicals, Pharmaceutical products, Fertilizers, Plastics
and articles thereof, Rubber and articles thereof, Wood and articles of wood, wood
charcoal, Paper & paperboard, articles of pulp, paper and board, Cotton, Special
woven or tufted fabric, lace, tapestry etc, Other made textile articles, sets, worn
clothing etc, Pearls, precious stones, metals, coins, etc, Iron and steel, Copper and
articles thereof, Nickel and articles thereof, Tools, implements, cutlery, etc of base
metal, Nuclear reactors, boilers machinery etc, Vehicles other than railway, tramway,
Electrical, electronic equipment.
51
The export and import and trade intensity indexes reflect the ratio of the share
of India’s trade with USA relative to the share of world trade destined for USA. An
index of greater than unity is explained as an indication of larger than expected trade
flow between the two countries. Whereas, an index of less than unity reflects an
indication of smaller than expected trade flow between the two countries. India’s
export and import intensities with USA have been computed during the period 1991-
92 to 2018-19.
The index value of India’s export intensity with USA constitutes 0.626642775
in 1991, 0.838348283 in 1992 and 0.847911436 in 1993. But the value of export
intensity increased to greater than one (1.047008235 in 1994). The value of the export
intensity index recorded greater than one for the period 1994 to 2004. The value of the
export intensity index further continuously declined for the period 2005 to 2013.The
value of the export intensity index further improved greater than one from 2014 to
2018.
Thus the index value of India’s export intensity with USA maintained more than unity
value only for Sixteen years and the remains not maintained in twelve years
throughout the period. This implies that India’s exports to the USA are one of the
larger than would be expected, given USA’s share of world export trade.
Similarly index value of India’s import intensity maintained less than unity
value matchless throughout the periods, except only 2008. This implies that India’s
imports from the USA are less than would be expected given India’s share in world
import trade. The trade intensity analysis for India with the USA is larger with a trade
intensity index value greater than 1 for the whole period except for 6 years 1991,
2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. As far as the trade intensity of India with the USA
is concerned the result suggested that entire trade relations are strengthening because
of more export intensity during more than half of the period.
The RCA measures for India’s trade in export and imports manufacturing
items are presented in Table 10. The RCA index takes values for export and import of
manufacturing items, namely, Tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes, Organic
chemicals, Pharmaceutical products, Fertilizers, Plastics and articles thereof, Rubber
and articles thereof, Wood and articles of wood, wood charcoal, Paper & paperboard,
articles of pulp, paper and board, Cotton, Special woven or tufted fabric, lace, tapestry
etc, Other made textile articles, sets, worn clothing etc, Pearls, precious stones, metals,
52
coins, etc, Iron and steel, Copper and articles thereof, Nickel and articles thereof,
Tools, implements, cutlery, etc of base metal, Nuclear reactors, boilers machinery etc,
Vehicles other than railway, tramway, Electrical, electronic equipment for the entire
trade period, For these 18 items, the RCA index takes values between 0 and 1.India
was in a comparatively advantageous position till 2007 and then India lost her
advantage to the rest of the world. This also happens to be the period of global
financial and economic crisis. Nevertheless, further investigation is needed to
establish whether there is a connection between India’s loss of advantageous position
in manufacturing products and global financial and economic crisis.
The gravity model has been used by scholars/ academics to investigate the
influence of GDP, distance, population, and other factors on trade flow across nations
through time. The gravity model, which was tested for the United States from 1991 to
2018. With trading partner India and the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the USA
has affected trade flow positively and significantly with some exceptions. It means
enhancement in GDP has raised the volume of trade over the period 1991-2018.
However, in the case of India’s trade with the USA (in terms of GDP), enhancement in
the GDP of India has resulted in an increased in the trade flow of India with the USA.
53
Suggestions
1. To increase the pattern of foreign trade between India and USA, the
competitiveness of the products is to be enhanced by reduction in cost and
improvement in quality of products. This is possible by advancement of
Technology and improvement in the skill-ness of workforce.
2. Trade between the two countries can be enhanced by removal of tariffs and
nontariff barriers. No doubt, Indian’s exports of agricultural goods to USA
can increase, if USA removes subsidies and other restrictions imposed on
agricultural products.
54
Chapter 5
Bibliography
55
12. Boughanmi, H. (2008). The trade potential of the Arab Gulf Cooperation
Countries (GCC): a gravity model approach. Journal of Economic Integration,
42-56.
13. BRIGUGLIO, L., CORDINA, G., FARRUGIA, N. and VELLA, S. (2006)
Conceptualising and Measuring Economic Resilience.Ó In Briguglio, L.,
Cordina, G. and Kisanga, E.J. (eds) Building the Economic Resilience in
Small States. Malta: Islands and Small States Institute, and London:
Commonwealth Secretariat: 265-287.
14. Brown, A. J. 1949.Applied Economics: Aspects of World Economy in War and
Peace. London: George Allen and Unwin.
15. C. Ranga Rajan (2001): Saga of Paradigm Shifts – Survey of Indian Industry.
The Hindu, pp. 15-20.
16. Christie, E. (2003). Potential trade in South-East Europe: a gravity model
approach.
17. SEER: Journal for Labour and Social Affairs in Eastern Europe, 5(4), 81-101.
2000).
56
24. Jain, B.M. ‘INDO-US RELATIONS: Obstacles and Opportunities’ Indian
Journal of Asian Affairs, Vol. 1, No. 1 (SUMMER 1988), pp. 1-27.
25. K.R. Devis, "India's trade with American Countries,"Eastern Economic
Eddition, Prentice-Hall of India · Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi, 1982.
26. Kaul, T. N. ‘Indo-US Relations: An Assessment’ India International Centre
Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 1 (October 1974), pp. 5-11.
27. Khor, Chia Boon (2001), http://etd.uum.edu.my/331/1/Marwan_bin_Hj._
a. Hashim_%40_Hassim%2C_2001.pdf
28. Kojima, K. 1964. ‘The Pattern of International Trade among Advanced
Countries’, Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, Vol. 5, No. 1, 16–36.
29. Kumar, H. M. Sanjeev ‘DYNAMICS OF POST-COLD WAR U.S. FOREIGN
30. POLICY AND THE SHAPING OF INDO-U.S. RELATIONS’ The Indian
31. Journal of Political Science, Vol. 69, No. 3 (JULY - SEPT., 2008), pp.673-
680.
32. L. Ganesh (2005): Free Trade Agreements – Growth or Distortion? The Hindu
– Survey of Indian Industry, pp. 36-37.
33. LOVE, J. (1986), Commodity Concentration and Export Earnings Instability: a
Shift from Cross-section to Time Series Analysis,Ó Journal of Development
Economics, Vol. 24: 239-248.
34. Love, J. Trade Concentration and Export Instability. Journal of Development
Studies. 1979. 60-69.
35. MacBean, A.I. Export Instability and Economic Development Cambridge:
Harvard
36. Man Singh, "Indo - US Ties strong and robust,"Himalaya Publicating House,
Bombay
37. Massel, B. F. "Export Concentration and Fluctuations in Export Earnings: A
CrossSection Analysis," American Economic Review. 54, 1964. p. 47-63.
38. Meilak, C. (2008). Measuring export concentration: the implications for small
states.
39. Mukhopadhyaya, Somasri (2001): “Uruguay Round and India’s Export
Response”
40. Rahman, "India's trade with America since 1950,"The Economic Times, Dec
1, 1992.
41. P.N. Agarwala, "Indo-US Trade and Economic Cooperation," (2003).
42. Phiroze B. Medhora, "Trade and aid: approach to fourth plan," SAGE
publications, New Delhi, 1980.
57