A Project Report of Under Graduate in Economics Submitted by

A STUDY ON INDO US TRADE RELATIONS WITH REFERENCE TO
MANUFACTURING SECTOR
A Project report of under graduate in economics

Submitted
By
V.ASHWIN KUMAR
(REG. NO. 2013271018034)
Dr. T. RAGHU, MA, M. PHIL, PH.D

Assistant Professor in Economics
P.G. AND RESEARCH DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

RAMAKRISHNA MISSION VIVEKANANDA COLLEGE
MYLAPORE, CHENNAI-600 004
2022 - 2023
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the project report entitled “A STUDY ON INDO US TRADE
RELATIONS WITH REFERENCE MANUFACTURING SECTOR” is a bonafied work
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
fulfillment of the award of the Bachelor of Arts.
Signature of the Guide Signature of the HOD
Date:
Place:
DECLARATION
I V. ASHWIN KUMAR , Register No: 20131271018034 final year under Graduate
student of the Department of Economics, Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda College, Chennai,
hereby declare that this project report entitled “A STUDY ON INDO US TRADE
RELATIONS WITH REFERENCE MANUFACTURING SECTOR” is an original work
done in partial fulfillment 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 degree,
diploma, associate fellowship or other similar titles.
PLACE: Chennai
DATE: V.ASHWIN KUMAR

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I take this opportunity to thanks to express my gratitude and indebtedness
to Dr. T.JAGADEESHAN, Principal and Head Dr. A.Selvaraju, Head of the Department,
P.G, and research Department of Economics, Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda College, for
his sincere guidance and valuable suggestions for the completion of my project.
I express my gratitude to Dr.T.RAGHU, Assistant Professor, P.G. and
Research Department of Economics, Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda College, for his
valuable guidance which helped me in complete the report.
I take this grand opportunity to express my everlasting thanks to the Professors
Dr. X. Vincent Jayakumar, Dr. T.Chandramouli, DR. V. Raju, Dr. K.Chandrasekaran,
Dr. K, SURESH, and Dr.S.K.Prakash, and Dr. A.Kasirajan for their valuable teaching and
continuous encouragement in my subject as well as for my career 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 blessings to
accomplish this project.
PLACE: Chennai
DATE: V.ASHWIN KUMAR

TABLE OF THE CONTENT
CHAPTER PAGE
DESCRIPTION NO
1. 1-14
INTRODUCTION
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 15-28
3. 29-80
DATA ANALYSIS
CONCLUSION AND 81-85

4.
SUGGESTIONS
5. BIBLIOGRAPHY 86-89
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 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.
Importance of Manufacturing Sector
Manufacturing has historically played a major role in countries' economic

growth and development. The importance of production has declined in developed
countries over the last 20-25 years, resulting in de-industrialization. Industrialization or
an increase in the share of output in the gross domestic product (GDP) is, therefore, an
important aspect of modern economic growth.
Manufacturing has traditionally been the backbone of both developed and

emerging countries. This is where R&D starts, where innovative ideas are born, where
new and developed systems, products and technologies are challenged by scientists and
engineers and others to create.
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.
At all stages, manufacturing creates multiple workers. It is critical as the

generation of a job. Manufacturing distributes income evenly among the population
among all industries (service, agricultural, social, and manufacturing); pulling people
above the poverty line is a significant factor. Manufacturing has contributed 30 to 50
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.
The Make in India project is planned to provide up to 25% of GDP for

development. For India to understand that our manufacturing sector not only has to play
a significant but prominent part in these predictions. Under this programme, the
Government of India has taken many measures to increase the productivity of Indian
manufacturing organisations. As a consequence, in the 2018 Global Competitiveness
Ranking, India ranked 58 out of 140 nations.
Before the Government of India undertook significant reform measures, the

unified manufacturing sector in India sets its mission together and made considerable
efforts to enforce it. Indian manufacturing firms have made a lot of efforts to minimize
manufacturing costs, increase efficiency, sweat assets and improve productivity.
Production plants today are not isolated from the end-to-end supply chain, which
consists of schedules, suppliers, production and distribution. Therefore, design practices
should not be constructed in isolation within the four walls of manufacturing. There are
many examples of firms investing a lot of cash on ERP with little effect on output
efficiency modules such as PP and MM that are not accompanied by a comprehensive
initiative to increase production that changes over time, cycle time, shift over time,
improvements in MTBF and MTTR. In terms of the unique supply chain problem
encountered by the supply chain of the organization, the goals of a manufacturing
excellence program need to be established.
With the fall of the Soviet Union, world politics and foreign relations entered a
new era. Most of the early twentieth century was Eurocentric, and these countries were
impacted by wars. The key participants were mainly Europeans after the Second World
War, but countries like Japan and the United States had a major impact. Ideology has
started to play an increasingly significant role after the war when it was used as an
instrument to support the national and geopolitical interests of the two nations, the
Soviet Union and the United States. An inseparable correlation between security and
ideology had grown, and in this struggle, several newly independent nations became
caught up. In this dispute, India was no exception, but all its attempts to be independent
of the superpower rivalry have been unsuccessful. Initially, Pakistan's biggest foe had
aligned itself with the United States by declaring its anti-Communist views (although it
later maintained close military relations with the Communist USA). Moreover, through
its policy of promoting Third World freedom struggles, the Soviet Union appeared to
be more sympathetic to India's worries regarding territorial dignity and economic
freedom than the United States. On the Indian Ocean, nuclear proliferation and missile
proliferation and economic strategy and successive Indian regimes have had to follow
a separate line from Pakistan. Unfortunately, the application of the theory of
nonalignment to which they reportedly adhered has not always been consistent. As it
was uncritical of the Soviet Union and did not help the Afghan resistance, the Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 led not only to the renewal of America's military ties
with Pakistan but also to aggressive relations with India. Yet pragmatism prevailed in
1983, and both India and the U.S. attempted to develop a working relationship. Things
were booming socially and politically by the end of the 1980s. The American economy
was attracted by the liberalization process and there was a little divergence in regions
such as the Indian Ocean. But the 1990s saw significant gaps again on security issues.
Notwithstanding defence cooperation1 and the joint execution of military drills at the
time, the bottom line remains that India is unlikely to enable the United States to
determine its policies on internal security issues or the stationing of nuclear weapons
and missiles or on the economy.
Under the leadership of Congress, headed by then Prime Minister Narasimha

Rao and his finance minister, Manmohan Singh, economic reforms introduced in 1991
brought a wave of growth and foreign investment to India in the mid-1990s. From
US$100 million in 1990 to US$2.4 billion by 1996, annual foreign direct investment
soared. American firms such as IBM, Motorola, Enron, Coca Cola, Pepsico, Merrill
Lynch, AT&T, Raytheon, Kellogg, Procter & Gamble, and Ford have made more than
a third of these acquisitions. However, with unstable majority administrations in the
mid-1990s, attempts at progress have failed. As a result of the nuclear test in May 1998,
the Asian financial crisis and trade sanctions against India further deteriorated economic
prospects. Following the 1999 parliamentary elections, the Vajpayee government
initiated a second generation of economic reforms with the goal of raising US$10 billion
a year in foreign direct investment, including the elimination of foreign exchange
restrictions, the opening of the insurance sector to foreign investment, the privatization
of internet facilities and tariff cuts. The government seems to be increasingly welcoming
globalization and seeking to convince international investors with assurances of a
consistent and non-discriminatory approach while it is thought to support domestic
industry and to be insecure regarding foreign involvement. The United States, as India's
main trade and investment ally, firmly supports the economic reform agenda of New
Delhi. In 2000, U.S. exports to India amounted to $3.7 billion, and in 2000, U.S. imports
from India were $10.7 billion. According to a 2000 study by the US, pending substantial
tariff cuts and other steps taken by India to boost market access, many international
trade barriers remain unchanged. Fertilizers, wood, machines, medical devices, scrap
metal and agricultural products were among the US exports stated to benefit from India's
tariff reductions. Imports of manufactured products were regulated and only
government trading monopolies could import other goods, such as, agricultural and
petroleum goods. The long awaited Insurance Regulatory and Growth Authority Bill
was passed by Parliament in December 1999 to open up the Indian insurance market to
domestic and international private insurers (participation in joint ventures was limited
to 26 percent). State-owned banks accounted for 85% of the banking industry and their
inefficiency and poor quality of service have been highly criticized. International banks
have been approved to open 12 new branches annually since 1999.
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.
Furthermore, product licensing limits have been reduced or eliminated for a wide
variety of manufacturing inputs, although the overall limit of import duty has been
lowered. Further, it was reflected in Naharbandi system. International funding has now
been liberalised. As a result, up to 51 percent of high-priority FDIs were automatically
approved sectors. It has liberalized or eliminated industrial licenses. Furthermore, the
Act on Monopolies and Restrictive Trading Policies and staggered development
programs have been completely abolished. The number of reserved public sector
enterprises (PSE) for companies was also limited. Markets in general became more open
liberalization policies when they were adopted. In the first instance, the separate
domestic promotion of regulations (i.e. industrial licenses, MRTP, etc.) encouraged
small market competitiveness. Secondly, in order to maximize international investment,
competition between local and foreign firms is limited. In addition, new strategies have
typically been adopted with programs of liberalization. Second, local R&D spending
companies have grown due to domestic competition. Second, emerging innovations
have been adopted explicitly by international corporations as a result of FDI. Fourth,
the manufactured products adopted by trade liberalization also implemented modern
technologies.
Picture of Indian Economy
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
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
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 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%.
The seventh five-year plan, India's government implemented a two-year annual

plan (1990-92). During that time, the country was dealing with political unrest in the
centre, and prices rose not just in the domestic but also in the foreign economy.
With many problems such as weakening balance of payments, growing debt

load, the budget deficit, business contraction, and inflation, the Eighth Five Year Plan
(1992-97) targeted growth of 5.6 percent. As a result of this economic situation, Prime
Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao introduced new fiscal and economic reforms, including
liberalisation. This initiative was one of the most promising in Indian history because it
produced not only real growth of 6.8%, but also strong growth in the agriculture and
allied industry, industrial sector, export and import sector, as well as improvements in
trade and current account deficit. One of the most important aspects of this strategy was
that high growth was attained despite the fact that the public sector's share of overall
spending had decreased.
The Ninth Five-Year Plan (1997-2002) set a goal of 6.5 percent growth with the
goal of "Growth of Social Justice and Equality." Indian states served as facilitators,
increasing their participation in social sectors such as, health and education, while
focusing on development projects where private interest was minimal. Agriculture and
rural growth were given top priority, with the goal of generating jobs and reducing
poverty. This strategy failed to meet the development targets, with just a 5.4 percent
growth rate.
The tenth Five-Year Plan (2002-07) aimed at 8% growth with ‘monitorable

goals' for a few sustainability matrices. The strategy included core indicators such as
closing the gender gap in literacy and pay rates, decreasing child and maternal mortality
rates, improving literacy, improving access to drinking water, and cleaning
contaminated waterways, among others. The government has been designated as a
growth factor, and agriculture has been designated as the economy's main driving
power. With the involvement of Panchayati Raj institutions, the role of states in
planning has expanded. To achieve a sustainable development, each state set its own
growth and social development goals. In this plan, an actual growth rate of 7.6% was
reached.
With the goal of “Towards Faster and More Inclusive Growth,” the Eleventh
Five Year Plan (2007-12) targeted a growth rate of 9%. Since the tenth plan achieved
higher growth rates, but growth was not inclusive, particularly for SCs, STs, and
minorities, this plan focused specifically on Aam Aadmi (common man). This plan's
main goals were economic development, poverty reduction, job creation, improved
health and education programmes, and reduced gender discrimination, among other
things. This strategy started out well, with a growth rate of 9.3 percent in the first year
of operation, but due to the global financial crisis, the growth rate dropped to 6.7 percent
in 2008-09. The economy recovered in the following two years, with growth rates of
8.6% and 9.3% respectively. However, the second round of global recession in 2011
caused by Europe's sovereign debt crisis resulted in a 6.2 percent growth rate in 201112.
As a result, the overall annual growth rate of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) during the
Eleventh Plan was just 8%, which was lower than the target but higher than the tenth
plan's achievement.
The Twelfth Five-Year Plan (2012-17) set an 8.0 percent growth target with the
goal of "faster, more sustainable, and more equitable growth." This strategy began as
the world economy was in the midst of a second financial crisis. All countries, including
India, were affected by the crisis. India's growth slowed to 6.2 percent in the final year
of the Eleventh Plan and the first year of the Twelfth Plan, after the economy grew at a
rate of 5%. This plan emphasised inclusiveness, which includes poverty reduction,
promoting group equality and regional balance, reducing inequality, and empowering
people, among other things, whereas sustainability encompasses the environment,
human and capital development through health, education, skill development, nutrition,
information technology, and institutional capability development, as well as
infrastructure such as power and telecommunications. Agriculture had a growth target
of 4%, Manufacturing had a target of 9%, and Services had a target of 9.5 percent.
NITI (National Institution For Transforming India) Aayog: The Planning

Commission, which was established on March 15, 1950, by Cabinet Resolution, was
replaced on January 1, 2015, by NITI Ayog, which was established by another Cabinet
Resolution. Previously, the Planning Commission was in charge of evaluating Annual
Proposals and distributing Programme funds to state governments, a duty currently
performed by the Ministry of Finance. All of that is expected to change with the
establishment of NITI Aayog, which has been charged with promoting cooperative
federalism by ongoing support programmes and processes with the States, realising that
strong states make a strong nation. A significant evolutionary shift from the past would
be the replacement of a one-way policy flow from the centre to the states with a real and
ongoing relationship with the states. In this way, India's planning process is about to
undergo a transformation. The Chief Minister's Sub-Group on Centrally Sponsored
Schemes (CSS) Rationalization has recommended that the number of CSS be decreased,
that states be granted more flexibility in executing the schemes, that CSS be segregated
into core and optional schemes, and that several other recommendations related to fund
release, clarity about fund availability under these schemes be made.
Economic scenario of the United States
The United States has the world's most technologically strong economy with a
per capita GDP of $59,500. The US economy is at or near the forefront in technological
advances, especially in computers, pharmaceuticals, medical, aerospace, and military
equipment; however, their advantage has narrowed after the end of World War II. Based
on a comparison of GDP measured at purchasing power parity conversion rates, the US
economy in 2014, after standing as the world's largest for more than a century, slipped
to second place in 2014. The U.S. economy addresses about 20% of absolute worldwide
yield, is as yet bigger than that of China. Besides, as per the IMF, the U.S. has the 6th
most elevated per capita Gross domestic product (PPP). The U.S. economy includes a
profoundly created and mechanically progressed administrations area, which represents
about 80% of its yield. The U.S. economy is overwhelmed by administrations arranged
organizations in territories like innovation, monetary administrations, medical care and
retail. Enormous U.S. organizations likewise assume a significant part on the worldwide
stage, with in excess of a fifth of organizations on the Fortune Worldwide 500 coming
from the US.
Despite the fact that the administrations area is the fundamental motor of the
economy, the U.S. likewise has a significant assembling base, which addresses
generally 15% of yield. The U.S. is the second biggest maker on the planet and an
innovator in higher-esteem enterprises like vehicles, aviation, apparatus, media
communications and synthetics. In the interim, farming addresses under 2% of yield.
Notwithstanding, a lot of arable land, progressed cultivating innovation and liberal
government endowments make the U.S. a net exporter of food and the biggest farming
trading country on the planet.
The U.S. economy keeps up its stalwart status through a mix of attributes. The
nation approaches plentiful common assets and a refined actual foundation. It likewise
has an enormous, accomplished and profitable labour force. Additionally, the physical
and human resources are completely utilized in an unregulated economy and
businesssituated climate. The public authority and individuals of the US both add to this
extraordinary monetary climate. The public authority gives political strength, a useful
overall set of laws, and an administrative design that permit the economy to prosper.
Everyone, including a variety of migrants, brings a strong hard working attitude, just as
a feeling of business and danger taking to the blend. Financial development in the US
is continually being driven forward by continuous advancement, innovative work just
as capital venture.
The U.S. economy is presently rising up out of a time of significant strife. A

blend of components, including low loan costs, far reaching contract loaning,
unreasonable danger taking in the monetary area, high customer obligation and remiss
unofficial law, prompted a significant downturn that started in 2008. The real estate
market and a few significant banks fell and the U.S. economy continued to contract until
the second from last quarter of 2009 in what was the most profound and longest decline
since the Economic crisis of the early 20s. The U.S. government interceded by utilizing
USD 700 billion to buy grieved contract related resources and propping up huge
fumbling organizations to balance out the monetary framework. It likewise presented
an improvement bundle worth USD 831 billion to be spent across the accompanying 10
years to help the economy.
The economy has been recuperating gradually yet unevenly since the
profundities of the downturn in 2009. The economy has gotten further help through
expansionary money related arrangements. This incorporates not just holding loan costs
at the lower bound, yet additionally the unpredictable act of the public authority
purchasing a lot of monetary resources for increment the cash supply and hold down
long haul loan costs—a training known as "quantitative facilitating".
While the work market has recuperated essentially and business has gotten back
to pre-emergency levels, there is as yet broad discussion with respect to the soundness
of the U.S. economy. Moreover, despite the fact that the most noticeably awful impacts
of the downturn are currently blurring, the economy actually faces an assortment of
huge difficulties going ahead. Disintegrating foundation, wage stagnation, rising pay
disparity, raised annuity and clinical expenses, just as huge current record and
government spending shortfalls, are for the most part gives confronting the US
economy.
U.S. Economic History
The end of World War II represented the beginning of a time of relative

prosperity for the United States. This time was characterised by a wave of financial
migration and profitability, a growing and more wealthy middle class, and the ascension
of the post-World War II generation. The United States' Gross Domestic Product rose
at a steady average rate of nearly 4% from the late 1940s to the mid-1970s. The economy
had turned away from manufacturing assembly into administrations by the 1970s.
Nonetheless, following a very long while of phenomenal development, the economy
started to give indications of easing back and a progression of occasions, including the
breakdown of the Bretton Woods framework, the 1973 oil emergency and expanded
worldwide rivalry, hastened significant monetary changes. The 1970s were set apart by
a time of deteriorating development and swelling alluded to as "stagflation".
The 1980s offered ascend to Reaganomics, a progression of monetary strategies

advanced by President Ronald Reagan. The fundamental goals were decreased
government spending and guideline, just as lower charges and a more tight cash supply.
Reagan was exceptionally effective in upgrading the assessment code and pushing
ahead with liberation in a few significant areas of the economy; and keeping in mind
that development and profitability expanded, the public authority's obligation increased
altogether. From a more extensive perspective, Reaganomics denoted a move in the
direction of unregulated economy supply-side financial aspects and away from the
Keynesian-enlivened financial matters that had been supported since the Economic
crisis of the early 20s.
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.
Current position of Indo-US trade
India is USA’s ninth largest goods trading partner.
➢US goods export to India $33.5 billion

➢US goods import from India $54.3 billion in 2018 ➢ $54.8 billion total US-India
trade in services.
➢U.S services exports $25.2 billion,
➢services imports from India $29.6 billion in 2018
➢U.S. buys from India
➢pharmaceuticals $6.3 billion
➢machinery $3.3 billion
➢minerals fuels $3.2 billion
➢vehicles $2.8 billion
➢what India buy from precious metal and Stone( diamonds) $ 7.9 billion
➢mineral fuels $6.7 billion
➢aircraft $2.9 billion
➢machinery $2.2 billion
➢organic Chemicals $1.6 billion
Limitations of the Study
The present study aims to analyse the growth of India's manufacturing sector with the
US in the post-reform periods, as well as to assess the manufacturing trade pattern. In
this analysis, over a period of 27 years, only 18 selected 2-digit manufacturing sectors
were considered (1991-2018). The present study aims to present the course of India's
industrial trade with the USA since 1991 in the light of the current debate. The study
is focused on secondary data from the manufacturing sector.
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.
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.
Absolute and comparative advantage theory of international trade
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
specialis
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.
Hechsher-Ohlin theory of trade
Hecksher-Olin trade is the modern theory of trade. The model predicts

“countries export products that use their abundant factor intensively and import the
products using scarce factors intensively. The theory of Hecksher-Ohlin is contradicted
by an economist Leontief with the help of input-output hypothesis. His test showed that
US was actually exporting labour goods and importing capital goods, known as Leontief
paradox. Therefore Hecksher-Ohlin theory is unable to explain huge proportion of trade
between nations with similar factor endowments, which led to the emergence of new
trade theories in early 1980s.
New trade theories:

This theory is associated with an economist Pal Krugman, Markusen, Helpman,
Lancaster and many others. The theory explains world trade based on the economies of
scale, product differentiation and imperfect competition by easing strict assumption of
classical theory. Based on imperfect competition, even if there is no difference in factor
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.
Gravity Model
Gravity model of trade was first given by Tinbergen in 1962 which explained
bilateral trade flows through physical law of gravity in which trade depends upon mass
of the country and distance. The classical and new trade theories did not explain the size
of the trade flow. It is gravity model which explained the bilateral trade size between
the two countries. In his model, he used GDP as a measure of size of the economy and
distance between the two countries to analyze the international trade flows. According
to this model, export from country i to j is determined by their economic size (GNP),
geographical distance and populations. The gravity model can be shown as:
Xij = MiMj/Dij
Where
Xi j is the gravitational force Mi

Mj is the masses of two objectives
Di j is the measurement of distance.
This is the basic gravity model which has only two explanatory variables, first,
size of the economy which is positively related to trade whereas distance is inversely
related to trade. Later it was reformulated and incorporated other variables such as
common culture, common border, regional trade agreements, etc. There is huge
literature in international trade based on gravity model. However, the purpose of review
is to observe how the gravity model is applied in real world. The model is now applied
by many economists to trace the pattern and performance of the trade in world economy
and model gives best fit and explain larger part of bilateral trade.
Literature Review
T N Kaul (1974), is of the view that relations between sovereign independent

countries and nations, especially between two of the world's largest democracies, India
and the United States, should not be judged solely on the basis of the current or recent
past, but rather on the basis of past history and future prospects. Passing periods of
sentimentality or frustration arising from the fact that the two democracies are prone to
believe that they can and must compromise on anything should not be taken too
seriously. .
Phiroze B. Medhora, (1980), in his paper - "Trade and aid:

approach to fourth plan", presented the economic ties between 1969 and
1974. At the time, India was a net exporter of conventional products, such
as, jute, cashew, cotton, fish, and other seafood, and a net importer of
capital goods such as machinery and transportation equipment. Fertilizer
imports were estimated to have risen significantly in recent years.
Financial assistance for agricultural imports should be phased out in three
years, and dependence on aid, including food aid, should be reduced by
half during the fourth plan duration, according to the approach to the fourth
plan.
* T.N Kaul - 1974 ( T.N. Kaul materials in the South Asian American Digital Archive (SAADA)
* Phiroze B. Medhora - 1980(Trade and aid: approach to fourth plan)

Devis, K.R. (1982), Wrote a paper, titled, "India's Trade with
American Countries," focusing on India's export and import volumes in
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.
H.K. Lahauri, (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), 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.
* Devis K.R - 1982 (India's Trade With American Counties)
* H.K Lahauri - 1984 (India's Trade with the United States Challenges and Solutions)
* Love, J. - 1986 (The Impact of export volatility on economic growth)

B.M. Jain (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 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 Singh, 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
regulated commerce as a replacement for general agreement to remove obstacles, such
as the GATT, but only for specific countries.
Rahman, 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. He has
urged the government to re-evaluate its agreements in light of the current
developing climate, and only then can mutual trade ties improve.
* B.M. Jain - 1988 ( INDO - US Relations : Obstacles and Opportunities)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41950322
* Man Singh, Mr - 1992 ( Close and Robust Indo-US links )
* Rahman, P. - 1992 ( India's Trade with America since 1950 )

J. P. Sarine (1993), reveals in his paper "Determinants of International Trade"
that the United States will continue to be the largest trading partner in the medium and
long run. The researcher also noted that the cost effectiveness of Indian products would
be a major driving factor in increasing the amount of Indian exports and the 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 Cherunilam, (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 Roy (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.
P.N. Agarwala's (1999), in his paper "indo-US Trade and Economic

Cooperation" addressed the changing investment situation, including funds available
from advanced countries, such as, the United States and Germany. The interest rate
differential between developed and developing countries provides investors in India
with a guaranteed return. A concerted campaign effort is the only way to fight it.
Furthermore, the author contends that MNC strategic partnerships in the areas of R&D
*J.P. Sarine - 1993 ( Determinants of International Trade )
* Dr. Francis Cherunilam - 1993 ( USA and it's Trading partners )
* Subroto Roy - 1997 ( INDO-US Trade and Economic Cooperation )
* P.N Agarwala's - 1999 ( INDO-US Trade and economic cooperation )

Bishnu priya Gupta (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
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 Rajan (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 Khor (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.
* Biahnu Priya Gupta - 2000 ( Indo-US Trade; A Profile)
* C. Ranga Rajan - 2001 ( Saga of Paradigm Shifts )
*Chia Boon Khor - 2001 ( Bi-directional Causation Between the Two Variables)
Somasri Mukhopadhyaya (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.
Rahman (2003), used the gravity model to assess I n d i a '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. Alfora (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.
* Somasri Mukhopadhyaya - 2001 ( Uruguay Round and India's Export Response)
* Rahman - 2003 ( India's Trade with its major trading partners)
* L. Alfora - 2003 ( The Influence of Foreign Direct Investment on Growth)

Aradhana Aggrawal (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 I n d i a .
L .Ganesh (2005), in his article, “Free Trade Agreement –Growth

or Distortion?” has emphasized that Free Trade Agreements are
essentially bilateral agreements or multilateral agreements among a
group of countries as against universal agreements envisagesed by
WTO among all members. Free Trade Agreements championed by the US
and Europe through the WTO have been facing a number of obstacles.
Boughanmi (2008), looked into the Gulf Cooperation countries'

trade prospects. To estimate bilateral trade between Middle East and
North Africa countries and their trading partners,he used a gravity
modelbasedon pooledtimeseries and cross sectional data. His findings
show that the recently concluded trade agreements have opened up
new trade prospects in the Gulf Cooperation Council.
* Aradhana Aggrawal - 2004 ( Economic Liberalisation and more objective assessment)
* L. Ganesh - 2005 ( Free Trade Agreement- Growth or Distortion)
* Boughanmi - 2008 ( The Gulf Cooperation Countries Trade Prospects)

R. Banga (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 Do (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.
Using a survey of 146 countries, Batra (2006) used an augmented gravity model
to study India's global trade traffic. He discovered that all three standard gravity effects
are statistically important, with t figures often reaching 50 in absolute value, and that
various measurements of GNP dollar value and PPP had little impact on the sign or
importance of different explanatory variables. His further research shows that India and
China have enormous potential, with trade potential more than doubling, if trade barriers
and constraints are eliminated.
* R. Banga - 2006 ( The export-diversifying impact of Japanese and

US foreign direct investments in the India manufacturing sector.
*Tri Do - 2006 ( A Gravity Model Analysis for Trade between Cameroon and
Twenty-Eight European Union Countries
* Batra - 2006 ( India’s Global Trade Potential: The Gravity Model Approach.
Global Economic) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/12265080600888090
Santos Silva (2006),providednoexplanationfortheirfindings and even
failedto recognisethattheywerevery unusual. Whenzerotradeflows occuroften,
Martin and Pham (2008) suggest that applying PPML on gravity substantially distorts
results. Santos Silva and Tenreyro (2011), on the other hand, contended that
Martin and Pham’s (2008) simulation results are based on misspecified models and
demonstrated that the PPML estimator works well even when the percentage of zeros
are quite big. The model is frequently modified in applied work to account for linguistic
connections, tariffs, contiguity, access to the sea, colonial history, and exchange rate
regimes by incorporating variables.
H. M. Sanjeev Kumar (2008), discussesed 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
has turned from strident unilateralism to acute multilateralism, the Bush administration's
post-9/11 defence and foreign policy represent this pattern.
Francis Cherunilam (2008), considering the emerging trends

towards global liberalization as well as reform process in India have
drastically altered the business environment of domestic firm. By
referring to cases and text in the Indian context, the book has addressed
different aspects, such as, globalisation, foreign exchange, and foreign
trade policy; dimensions and developments in international market.
* Santos Silva - 2006 ( The Log of Gravity ; The review of Economics and Statistics)
* H.M. Sanjeev Kumar - 2008 ( DYNAMICS OF POST-COLD WAR U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AND THE SHAPING OF
INDO-U.S. RELATIONS) https://www.jstor.org/stable/41856454
* Francis Cherunilam - 2008 (International Economic) article.

B.N. Tripathy (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.
The industrial sector's performance in recent years, notably during the

postreform period, has been contentious, attracting the attention of numerous scholars.
According to Kaliappa (2004), the manufacturing sector's production growth in the post-
reform 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.
The impact of India's trade liberalisation on the productivity of registered and

unregistered manufacturing businesses is estimated by Nataraj (2011). He calculates
total factor productivity from 1989-90 to 1998-99 using the Index number technique of
Aw, In addition, he utilised quantile regression techniques to see if there were any
variations in the productivity and company size distributions as a result of the
businesses' arrival and leave. He discovers that the unregistered sector drives the
negative link between final products tariffs and productivity, whereas the
relationship between final goods tariffs and registered sector productivity is statistically
negligible.
* B.N.Tripathy - 2009 ( Exports of Trade and Economic Growth)
* Kaliappa - 2004 ( The Manufacturing Sector"s Production )
* Nataraj - 2011 ( The Impact of India's Trade Liberalisation on Production)

Parameswaran (2014) investigates the post-liberalization productivity
development of India's manufacturing industry. The research focuses on two potential
drivers of productivity development in a liberalising economy: resource reallocation
and catching up. Using firm-level panel data from 1992-93 to 2005-06, the study finds
that in the majority of industries, the percentage of productivity increase accounted for
by resource reallocation to more productive businesses is not only substantial but also
growing with time.
In her work, Datta (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.
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
technologyintensive industrial sub-groups, such as High-technology (HT),
MediumHigh Technology (MHT), Medium-Low Technology (MLT), and Low-
technology (LT), according to the OECD classification. The findings from the panel
* Parameswaran - 2014 ( The Productivity Development of India's Manufacturing Industry)
*Datta - 2014 ( TFP Growth for the Indian registered Manufacturing Sector )
* Mehta - 2014 ( The Stochastic Frontier Model)

dataset reveal that most industries in India's manufacturing sector have a greater level
of inefficiency.
Dr. Debasish Nandy (2014), is of the view that Indo-U.S relations have
undergone a very productive period since 1991-1999. While bilateral relations were set
back with respect to CTBT and Pokhran II, it was normalised due to the national
interests of both. In order to promote its economic development, India requested US
assistance; on the other hand, the US wanted India for its business strategy. India desired
to retain close relations with the United States in order to secure a low-interest loan from
the IMF, World Bank, and the United States.
Literature Gap
Many works have been done on Indo-USA relations, especially in area of

international relation and international trade of manufacturing export and import, but
very few research works are available related with the objective to examine the growth
and direction of India’s trade with USA, intensity of commodity composition and future
prospects of Indo-US foreign trade relations since 1991.
Pradhan J. P. (2004), wrote a paper on “The Determinants of

Outward Foreign
Direct Investment: a Firm Level Analysis of Indian Manufacturing”,
in which he discovered that many firm-specific characteristics,
such as, age, height, R&D intensity,
skill rate, and export orientation, are significant explanatory factors in Indian
firms' outward foreign direct investment operation. The relationship between age
and size and OFDI has been shown to be nonlinear. Brand differentiation
practises and company competitiveness are also important considerations in
expanding overseas activity in some sectors. According to the findings, the
output of these firm-specific variables is influenced by sectoral dynamics.
Chapter 3
Data Analysis
Commodity Composition and Direction of India’s Foreign

Trade with USA
India US trade relation is also considered as inter-dependence in terms of

financial markets. United States’ investors are investing more and more in India. Indian
multinational corporations are also establishing corporations in the United States.
IndiaUS economic cooperation agreed that they will concentrate on promoting
teaching, research, service and commercial linkages. Areas like infrastructure, IT,
Telecom sector, energy and other knowledge industries such as pharmaceuticals and
biotechnology are the favourite areas for economic cooperation between India and the
United States. India-US trade relations are the significant phase of the global and
strategic partnership existing between these two countries. They will have long lasting
and positive effect on the international system, promoting stability, democracy and
success across the world. Indo-US trade relations had further boosted with the
conclusion of an open sky, which is supposed to increase the air connectivity between
these two countries, in that way improving the commercial and trade relations.
After adopting LPG programme in 1991, manufacturing sector had become an

important sector for the economic development. New Industrial policy of 1991 had
given first priority to attract foreign investment in India and increase exports to abroad.
Now Government had started opening up of domestic sectors for both private and
foreign participation, which were earlier reserved for only public sector.
India’s export performance since 1991 has fluctuated. The liberalization of the
Indian economy following the balance of payment crisis resulted in major policy and
exchange rate changes, which had a favourable impact on India’s trade.
Commodity Composition, Direction and Prospects of India’s Trade with USA
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. The terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre caused a net loss of
0.25 percent of US GDP and also had an impact on India’s exports, which grew only at
5 percent in that year. But again in next year, it increased in 2002. AGR was of 23.62%
in 2002. This increasing trend was till 2008, but in 2009, again declined due to world
economic crisis of 2008, export reduced in 2009, AGR became negative by -10.64%
negative in comparison to AGR being 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 being 5.55%. In the year 2016 AGR
was 4.16, indicating positive value, in the next year 2017 and 2018 AGR was recorded
as 9.5% & 12.1 %, respectively.
We can better understand the fluctuation of export with the help of

Graph -1. In between 1991 to 2016 there were three times, when our exports had
gone negative i.e., in 2002 AGR was -9.68%, in 2009 AGR was -10.64% and in 2015
AGR accounted to -5.55%.
50
AGR Export
40
30
20
10
-10
-20
Graph 1
Figure 1 shows the average growth rate of export, indicating a fluctuating trend.
Among India’s imports of around 6000 commodities from 140 countries, USA
is the 4th largest trading partner of India. India’s main imports are mineral fuels, oils
and waxes and bituminous substances (27 percent of total imports); pearls, precious and
semi-precious stones and jewelry (14 percent); electrical machinery and equipment (10
percent); nuclear reactors, boilers, machinery and mechanical appliances (8 percent);
and organic chemicals (4 percent). India’s major import partners are: China (16 percent
of total imports), the United States (6 percent), United Arab Emirates (6 percent), Saudi
Arabia (5 percent) and Switzerland (5 percent).
Thus we can better understand the fluctuation of imports with the help of Graph
2 Between 1991 to 2018.
AGR Import
80
60
40
20
-20
-40
-60
Graph 2
Figure 2 shows the average growth rate of import, indicating a fluctuating trend
between1991-2018.
Graph 3 indicates combined scenario of imports and exports through AGR For
better understanding of India-US growth performance in trade. There has been tendency
of imports exceeding exports causing a deficit in India’s balance of trade.
Graph 3
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive analysis is used to describe the basic features of the data in the study.
They provide simple summaries about the sample and the measures. Together with
simple graphical analysis, they form the basic virtual of any quantitative analysis of
data. With descriptive analysis, one simply describes what is or what the data shows.
Descriptive of data is needed to determine the normality of the distribution.
Descriptive of the data is necessary as the nature of the techniques to be applied

for inferential analysis of the data depends on the characteristics of the data.
Descriptive Statistics of Export & Import
Table 2 shows the Descriptive Statistics of India’s Export & Import with USA
Table 2: Descriptive statistics analysis of India Exports and import. Year

(199192 to 2018-19)
India export to USA India Imports from USA
Mean 19889008.56 Mean 12003094.76
Standard Error 2914501.36 Standard Error 1896531.18
Median 14823860.97 Median 7125165.164
Standard Deviation 15422091.59 Standard Deviation 10035499.71
Sample Variance 2.37841E+14 Sample Variance 1.00711E+14
Kurtosis -0.933110975 Kurtosis -0.11318177
Skewness 0.730462968 Skewness 0.811531432
Range 48701823.38 Range 37013304.62
Minimum 2926764.032 Minimum 1891170.176
Maximum 51628587.41 Maximum 38904474.79
Sum 556892239.7 Sum 336086653.3
Count 28 Count 28
Source: Author’s calculation, Figure in US Dollars
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
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.
The Commodity Composition of India’s trade with USA

Descriptive of the data is necessary as the nature of the techniques to be applied
for inferential analysis of the data depends on the characteristics of the data.
Table 3 & 4 Present descriptive statistical analysis of export and import of

manufacturing goods for the period from 1991-92 to 2018-19.
Descriptive Statistics of Import of Manufacturing Goods
Table Number 3 show that the descriptive analysis of components of

manufacturing goods of import for the period 1991 to 2018, facts show that the mean
of component of manufacturing goods of import found maximum for NUCLEAR
REACTORS BOILERS MACHINERY ETC.($ 1.83E+09) while minimum was noted
for TOBACCO AND MANUFACTURED TOBACCO SUBSTITUTES ($577042.1).
Similarly, maximum variation in terms of Standard Deviation was observed in case of
FERTILIZERS ($6.50E+08),while minimum variation was noted for SPECIAL
WOVEN OR TUFTED FABRIC LACE TAPESTRY ETC ($656132),Maximum
Kurtosis was listed for Fertilizers($15.53761) while minimum was observed for
RUBBER AND ARTICLES THEREOF ($1.442037).
Descriptive Statistics of Export of Manufacturing Goods
Table Number 4 show that the descriptive analysis of components of

manufacturing goods of export for the period 1991 to 2018, facts show that the mean
of component of manufacturing goods of export found maximum for Pearls, precious
stones, metals, coins, etc. ($4.74E+09) while minimum was noted for fertilizer
($2531783).Similarly, maximum variation in terms of Standard Deviation was
observed in case of Pearls, precious stones, metals, coins, etc, ($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%.
The fluctuation in all components of manufacturing export goods has happened

due to new economic reforms of 1991.We can conclude that the 11 component of export
of manufacturing goods have been showing more than or equal to 10% of annual growth
rate which are the symbol of strengthen of manufacturing sector and remaining 7
components of manufacturing export goods are found less than 10% that is not good
sign of manufacturing reliance.
Table 5: Annual Growth Rate of Export of Manufacturing Goods. (Year 1991-92

to 2018-19)
S.N. HS Variable α Β Average Annual
CODE Growth (in %)
1. 24 Tobacco and manufactured 14.7439121 0.106449423 10.6%

tobacco substitutes
2. 29 Organic chemicals 17.64351 0.146894 14.6%
3. 30 Pharmaceutical products 16.22684 0.234646 23.4%
4. 31 Fertilizers 10.21782 0.183706 18.3%
5. 39 Plastics and articles thereof 16.5046041 0.155237011 15.5%
6. 40 Rubber and articles thereof 17.47423707 0.081962557 8.1%

7. 44 Wood and articles of wood, 13.95118852 0.182572984 18.2%

wood charcoal
8. 48 Paper & paperboard, articles 14.51046672 0.16240917 16.2%

of pulp, paper and board
9. 52 Cotton 18.87937062 -0.026741756 -2.6%
10. 58 Special woven or tufted 16.04640109 0.05663498 5.6%

fabric, lace, tapestry etc.
11. 63 Other made textile articles, 18.17522529 0.137774813 13.7%

sets, worn clothing etc.
12. 71 Pearls, precious stones, 20.83250403 0.081902431 8.1%

metals, coins, etc.
13. 72 Iron and steel 18.09192652 0.078644435 7.8%
14. 74 Copper and articles thereof 15.59947917 0.124567524 12.4%
15. 75 Nickel and articles thereof 11.74078551 0.155744866 15.5%
16. 82 Tools, implements, cutlery, 15.40846286 0.051781004 5.1%

etc. of base metal
17. 28 16.49544286 0.069385121 6.9%

Inorganic chemicals, precious
metal compound, isotope
18. 85 Electrical, electronic 17.34130505 0.137761541 13.7%

equipment
Table 6 represents the average annual growth of import for the period 1991 to
2018.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 stood at 2.4%,
8.4%, 16.6%, 2.7%, 11.8%, 11.8%, 16.3%, 13.1 %, 18.8%, 4.1 %, 9.8%, 17.9 %, 8.1
%, 4.5%, 12.8%, 9.8%, 10.0%, 12.9% and 9.2% respectively.
The fluctuation in all components of manufacturing import goods has happened

due to new economic reforms of 1991.We can conclude that the 10 component of import
of manufacturing goods have shown more than or equal to 10% of annual growth rate,
that are the symbols of dependency on partner country and remaining 9 components of
manufacturing import goods are found less than 10% that is good sign of manufacturing
self-dependency.
Table 6: Annual Growth Rate of Import of Manufacturing Goods. (Year 199192

to 2018-19)
S.N. HS Variable α β Average Annual
CODE Growth (in %)
1. 24 Tobacco and manufactured 12.61052593 0.024145404 2.4%

tobacco substitutes
2. 29 Organic chemicals 18.6203306 0.08460478 8.4%
3. 30 Pharmaceutical products 15.2506494 0.166356332 16.6%
4. 31 Fertilizers 18.9424337 0.02711092 2.7%
5. 39 Plastics and articles thereof 17.65097578 0.118919194 11.8%
6. 40 Rubber and articles thereof 16.21157821 0.118885357 11.8%
7. 44 Wood and articles of wood, 13.2642254 0.163744952 16.3%

wood charcoal
8. 48 Paper & paperboard, articles 16.00236808 0.131667736 13.1%

of pulp, paper and board
9. 52 Cotton 14.6589597 0.18884842 18.8%
10. 58 Special woven or tufted 13.52312855 0.041599258 4.1%

fabric, lace, tapestry etc
11. 63 Other made textile articles, 15.35007548 0.098425127 9.8%

sets, worn clothing etc
12. 71 Pearls, precious stones, 17.50810481 0.179001001 17.9%

metals, coins, etc
13. 72 Iron and steel 18.03715076 0.081324753 8.1%
14. 74 Copper and articles thereof 17.12114 0.045476 4.5%
15. 75 Nickel and articles thereof 13.96399728 0.128609982 12.8%
16. 82 Tools, implements, cutlery, 15.58936996 0.098910183 9.8%

etc of base metal
17. 84 Nuclear reactors, boilers, 19.49764496 0.100097693 10.0%

machinery, etc
18. 87 Vehicles other than railway, 15.84089361 0.129837644 12.9%

tramway
19. 85 Electrical, electronic 19.03808 0.092952 9.2%

equipment

Table 7 shows that Acceleration and Deacceleration in the average annual

growth rate of components of export manufacturing goods are estimated in the the slope
and Intercept dummy variable semi log model for the period 1991 to 2018. Empirical
result indicate that average annual growth 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.
Table 9: Composition of Export Manufacturing Goods

Year 1991 2000 2010 2018
Tobacco and 2324694 10924123 22012558 29353565

manufactured tobacco
substitutes
Inorganic chemicals, 27028648 30634401 47781523 112326852

precious metal
compound, isotope
Organic chemicals 45569232 193920910 1304830374 1800549831
Pharmaceutical products 25311998 45919343 1674884701 5033400343
Fertilizers 7399 134994 131612 4355123
Plastics and articles 5461197 64110729 354569209 800185134

thereof
Rubber and articles 31752288 64800721 167890254 482839821

thereof
Wood and articles of 1478266 5348197 39158985 154513459

wood, wood charcoal
Paper & paperboard, 714779 16370676 56322462 132171082

articles of pulp, paper
and board
Cotton 117962800 124974118 65126784 99063473
Special woven or tufted 6193165 37056021 28559734 30406593

Other made textile 57998888 389755338 1363392799 2467048484

articles, sets, worn
clothing etc.
Pearls, precious stones, 889653504 2935847378 5106371998 10494892385

metals, coins, etc.
Iron and steel 27037040 312855115 427000667 293173491
Copper and articles 5014489 21943454 53339674 148486680

thereof
Nickel and articles 8014 393395 4976998 7815790

thereof
Tools, implements, 10161480 37819670 109246505 154619744

cutlery, etc. of base
metal
Electrical, electronic 20430310 179383825 1289589723 1671457365

equipment
Commodity composition of export manufacturing goods represented through

the table 9. The table shows the changes in all selected commodities in 1991 to 2000,
2000 to 2010 and 2010 to 2018. This table is also presented with the help of bar diagram
and line graph in Graph 4, Graph 5 and Graph 6.
Graph 4: Composition of Export Manufacturing Goods


Table 10: Composition of Import Manufacturing Goods

Year 1991 2000 2010 2018
Tobacco and manufactured 56828 249116 993389 735490

tobacco substitutes
Organic chemicals 100417352 193808539 710958200 1744009482
Pharmaceutical products 15020972 8155192 162762749 313323536
Fertilizers 265698976 69060106 828210729 59695045
Plastics and articles thereof 96711416 92755893 821879058 1076613682
Rubber and articles thereof 13674506 25174599 181314438 229619138
Wood and articles of 2147248 2635983 15487704 54506889

wood, wood charcoal
Paper & paperboard, 4900634 21933382 216402435 246762878
articles of pulp, paper and
board
Cotton 99561 26344516 66680458 352183990
Special woven or tufted 308218 1217585 1788678 1757661

Other made textile articles, 4071625 10519966 44259750 71512407
sets, worn clothing etc.
Pearls, precious stones, 37033992 190015976 2238016333 7024827918
metals, coins, etc.
Iron and steel 142572912 63060157 603359257 505477384
Copper and articles thereof 28645824 26992566 48827553 182178505
Nickel and articles thereof 1165712 2718551 24978854 48285250
Tools, implements, cutlery, 4545116 13661927 62937913 57433850

etc. of base metal
Nuclear reactors, boilers, 284695936 615932254 2621527625 3931138170
machinery, etc.
Electrical, electronic 135091792 448131375 1246994821 1794727338
equipment
Commodity composition of export manufacturing goods represented through

the table 9. The table shows the changes in all selected commodities in 1991 to 2000,
2000 to 2010 and 2010 to 2018. This table is also presented with the help of bar diagram
and line graph in Graph 7, Graph 8 and Graph 9.
Graph 7: Composition of Import Manufacturing Goods


Commodity Concentration Index
Commodity concentration index has been adopted in this thesis to show the
directional changes in imports and Exports of manufacturing goods. The value of index
may be less than one or more than one. If the index value is less than one, means less
concentration of commodities and more than one represents high concentration of
commodities
This index value may be less than one and more than one. With a larger value
denoting a higher concentration of exports. For example, a value of Hj equal to one
indicates that all exports of country j come from a single commodity, while a value of
less than one means that the country’s exports are homogeneously distributed among
all products. The analysis in this thesis contains eighteen manufacturing commodity for
the period 1991-2018. Commodity concentration is measured by the
HerfindahlHirschman-Index.
Commodity Concentration
In the table 10A and 10B export of manufacturing commodity concentration

index has been shown. As per table 10A & 10B the export commodity concentration
index of Tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes accounted to -0.138467326 in
1991 where Eyes in 2018, its index became -0.189225459. In 2018 over 1991 the export
commodity concentration index became more negative showing decline in
concentration index of the concerned product. It means there is no radical change in the
direction of Tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes substitute during 1991 to
2018.
The declining trend of export commodity concentration of Inorganic Chemicals

is observed between 1991 to 2018. In 1991 Inorganic chemicals, precious metal
compound, isotope constitutes export commodity concentration index as 1.667266008,
which declining and fluctuating become 0.147616959 in 2018. It shows negative
directional change. A positive directional change is observed in case of Organic
chemical its export commodity concentration index was 3.02248 8357 in 1991, which
increased to 7.001209609 in 2018. In between years of 1991 to 2018. It showed
increasing and fluctuating trends. It is clear that the direction of this export commodity
has shifted to USA.
Rapid change is observed regarding directional change of India's

Pharmaceutical products. India's export commodity concentration index is regard to
Pharmaceutical products accounted to 1.541787628 in 1991, which became 20.1254781
in 2018. Rapid increase took place from 2012 onwards. Export of this particular product
is directed more to USA. In case of Fertilizer export commodity concentration index
shows that export to USA from India has declined and has always possessed negative
value from 1991 to 2018. It indicates that India's export of fertilizers has shifted from
USA to other countries.
In case of plastic and articles thereof, it is observed that it's export commodities
concentration index has been positive showing increasing trends during the entire study
period. In 1991 its export commodity concentration index was 0.090795083 which
increased to 22.940080114 in 2018, showing a positive trend in India's export to USA.
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.
Focusing on export commodity concentration index of cotton it is revealed that

exports of Indian Cotton to USA has declined considerably during 1991 to 2018. In
1991 commodity concentration index was 8.314089813 which subsequently declined
to 0.093772296 in 2018, it can be concluded that USA as a market for cotton has
shrunked. Similar Trends is observed in case of Special woven or tufted fabric lace
tapestry etc, during 1991 to 2018 export commodity concentration index of this group
of products accounted for 0.14429822 in 1991, which fluctuating and declining became
-0.184950535 in 2018. It shows a shift of export of this product from USA to other
markets.
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.
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.
The export commodity concentration index of Nickel and articles thereof,

accounted to -0.307804846 in 1991 where Eyes in 2018, its index became 0.276661265.
In 2018 over 1991 the export commodity concentration index became more negative
showing decline in concentration index of the concerned product. It means there is no
radical change in the direction of Nickel and articles thereof, during 1991 to 2018.
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.
Rapid change is observed regarding directional change of India's Electrical,

electronic equipment. India's export commodity concentration index is regard to
Electrical, electronic equipment, accounted to 1.184961075 in 1991, which became
6.477139515 in 2018. Rapid increase took place from 2012 onwards. Export of this
particular product is directed more to USA.
Results of the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index confirm the tendency for higher

manufacturing goods export concentration to be inversely related to total export.
Manufacturing goods export concentration also seems to be related to economic
development, with the indices of both countries.
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).
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.
Granger Causality Test
A common problem in Economics is to determine whether changes in one

variable cause changes in another. There are a approaches discussed in literature to test
the causality between the time series:
In the present study, the Granger Causality test is applied to whether changes in
manufacturing export are the cause of changes in total export and vice a versa. The test
involves measuring the following pair of regression equations:
m m
EXt = α0 + Σ αi Mfgt –i + Σ βj EXt-j + Ut ………………… (1)
i=1 j=1
m m
Mfgt = α0 + Σ αi Mfgt-i + Σ βj EXt-j + Ut ………………… (2)
i=1 j=1
Similarly, the Granger Causality test is applied to whether changes in

manufacturing import are the cause of changes in total import and vice-versa. The test
involves measuring the following pair of regression equations:
m m
IMt = α0 + Σ αi Mfgt –i + Σ βj IMt-j + Ut ………………… (3)
i=1 j=1
m m
Mfgt = α0 + Σ αi Mfgt-i + Σ βj IMt-j + Ut ………………… (4)

i=1 j=1
The number of lags ‘m’ in the above regressions is arbitrary and boils down to
a question of judgment. Generally, it is best to run the test for a few different values of
‘m’ (See Pindyek, R.S. and Rubin field, D.L. 1976). Equation (1) postulates that Export
is related to past values of itself as well as that of manufacturing export and equation
(2) postulates a similar behaviour for mfg. If the calculated F-value exceeds the critical
F-value at the chosen level of significance, the null hypothesis is rejected. The following
table 13 presents the results of Granger Causality test.
Granger Causality Test Export
Table 11A: Results of Granger Causality Test

Lag Null Hypothesis Observations F- Prob. Decision
Length Statistics
1. mfg. does not 27 2.81131 0.1066 Did not

Granger Cause 1.50560 0.2317 reject null
Export Did not
Export does not reject null
Granger Cause mfg.

Granger Cause
1.55830 0.2339 reject null
Export Did not
Granger Cause mfg.

Export Did not
Granger Cause mfg.

4. mfg. does not Granger 24 1.90776 0.1615 Did not

Cause Export reject null
1.60495 0.2245
Export does not Did not
Granger Cause mfg. reject null

Cause Export reject null
1.24331 0.3486

Cause Export
1.38605 0.3165 reject null

Cause Export 0.94758 0.5344 reject null
Source: Author’s Computation (2018) using E-Views 11

* Indicates significant at 1% level
Above table 11A and table 11B contains the results of Granger Causality test
and direction of Causality. In case of Total Export Mfg., it is clear from the table that
at time lag 1, the F-value is not significant and therefore null hypothesis is accepted for
lag 1. Similarly, in case of time lag 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, the computed F value is not
significant, less than the critical value of F at 1 per cent level of significance. Therefore,
at time lag 2,3,4,5,6 and 7, the null hypothesis is accepted which implies that Total
export does not change as per granger causes manufacturing export.
Manufacturing Export different lag lengths
Table 11B: Direction of Causality between Mfg. & Export

Lag Length Results Direction of Causality
1, 1 Mfg.⇏Export, Export ⇏ Mfg No- directional
2, 2 Mfg ⇏ Export , Export ⇏ Mfg No- directional
3, 3 Mfg ⇒ Export, Export ⇏ Mfg No- directional
7,7 Mfg ⇒ Export, Export ⇏ Mfg No- directional
The results indicate that there exists no-directional causality between Total
export and manufacturing export. The causality runs from manufacturing export to total
export as well as from total export to manufacturing export. It can also be said that the
past values of manufacturing export significantly contribute to the forecast of present
value of total export even in the presence of past values of total export. In the same way,
the past values of total export significantly contribute to the forecast of present value of
manufacturing export even in the presence of past values of manufacturing export.
Granger Causality tells ways to know correlation between the current value of
one variable and past value of others. It does not imply that movement of one variable
causes movement of other variables.
Granger Causality Test Import
Table 12A: Results of Granger Causality Test

Lag Null Hypothesis Observations F- Prob. Decision
Length Statistics

Granger Cause reject null
0.08793 0.7694
Import Did not
Import does not reject null
Granger Cause mfg.

Import Did not
Granger Cause mfg.

Granger Cause
2.48196 0.0939 reject null
Import Did not
Granger Cause mfg.

Granger Cause reject null
1.79057 0.1833
Import Did not
Granger Cause mfg.

Import Did not
reject null
Import does not

Granger Cause mfg.

Cause Import reject null
1.23584 0.3719
Import does not Did not

Cause Import 0.85895 0.5819 reject null
Import does not Did not
Source: Author’s Computation (2018) using E-Views 10

* Indicates significant at 1% level
Above table 12A and table 12B contains the results of Granger Causality test
and direction of Causality. In case of Total Import Mfg., it is clear from the table that
at time lag 1, the F-value is not significant and therefore null hypothesis is accepted for
lag 1. Similarly, in case of time lag 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, the computed F value is not
significant, less than the critical value of F at 1 per cent level of significance. Therefore,
at time lag 2,3,4, 5,6 and 7, the null hypothesis is accepted which implies that Total
Import does not granger causes manufacturing import.
Manufacturing Import different lag lengths
Table 12B: Direction of Causality between Mfg. & Import

Lag Length Results Direction of Causality
1, 1 Mfg.⇏Import, Import ⇏ Mfg No- directional
2, 2 Mfg ⇏ Import, Import ⇏ Mfg No- directional
3, 3 Mfg ⇒ Import, Import⇏ Mfg No- directional
4, 4 Mfg ⇒ Import, Import⇏ Mfg No- directional
5, 5 Mfg ⇒ Import, Import ⇏ Mfg No- directional

6, 6 Mfg ⇒ Import, Import ⇏ Mfg No- directional
7,7 Mfg ⇒ Import, Import ⇏ Mfg No- directional
The results indicate that there exists no-directional causality between Total
import and manufacturing import. The causality runs from manufacturing import to
total import as well as from total import to manufacturing import. It can also be said
that the past values of manufacturing import significantly contribute to the forecast of
present value of total import even in the presence of past values of total import. In the
same way, the past values of total import significantly contribute to the forecast of
present value of manufacturing import even in the presence of past values of
manufacturing import.
Granger Causality tells ways to know correlation between the current value of
one variable and past value of others. It does not imply that movement of one variable
causes movement of other variables.
Prospects of Indo-US Trade Relations

Prospects of Indo-US trade relations are shown through Trade intensity index,
Reveal comparative advantage and Gravity Model.
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.
Table 13: 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)
1991 0.626642775 0.436859203 0.971849243
1992 0.838348283 0.518104417 1.193093769
1993 0.847911436 0.695995663 1.040910843
1994 1.047008235 0.735145128 1.177004017
1995 1.059397455 0.835041712 1.178716976
1996 1.208441138 0.736675796 1.312761583
1997 1.15451796 0.685961151 1.231596859
1998 1.21747411 0.660935298 1.306079699
1999 1.201119576 0.561992458 1.281046224
2000 1.151995667 0.486035925 1.141189669
2001 1.035883322 0.594252305 1.027817907
2002 1.117454975 0.690284535 1.131453543
2003 1.091611855 0.809796423 1.109995398
2004 1.041306555 0.747838641 1.064677813
2005 0.982177506 0.745809318 1.033618004
2006 0.96135673 0.811123918 1.000809308
2007 0.93804205 0.849027735 0.987194266
2008 0.857158185 1.042895504 0.918103813
2009 0.818000493 0.775693811 0.876753914
2010 0.805288218 0.70947149 0.872654332

2011 0.849497775 0.655179765 0.935835644
2012 0.992186401 0.633978357 1.063851163
2013 0.992286411 0.635849157 1.06840761
2014 1.008621549 0.563602821 1.085783822
2015 1.040444431 0.621416097 1.102573539
2016 1.106884658 0.686015564 1.169044502
2017 1.116375247 0.672563031 1.165015476
2018 1.119948997 0.775483414 1.197223564
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. 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.
Revealed Comparative Advantage
The idea of revealed comparative advantage (RCA) is based on Ricardian trade

theory, which states that trade patterns are driven by relative productivity differences
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.
Table 14: India’s Trade (Export - Import) Revealed Comparative Advantage

(RCA) with USA: (Year 1991-2018)
Year Revealed Comparative Advantage(RCA)
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
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

The RCA measures for India’s trade in export and import manufacturing items
are presented in Table 14. The RCA index takes values for export and import of
manufacturing items, namely, Tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes, Organic
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,
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.
The RCA of selected manufacturing trade commodities can be used to forecast

India-US trade prospects. If the RCA index is larger than one, commerce between India
and the United States will have more opportunities, and vice versa. Balassa (1965)
devised a method for calculating comparative advantage. He believed that a country's
comparative advantage is represented or disclosed in the exports it makes to the global
market. The comparative advantage trade pattern may be approximated by ranking
sectors based on their relative export success using post-trade data. It is a widely used
approach for evaluating trade data in practise.
The percentage of a given product in a country's overall exports relative to the

product's share in world exports is generally used to assess a country's revealed
comparative advantage in exports transactions of a particular product. If the ratio is less
than one, the country is at a competitive disadvantage in the product's export market. If
the RCA index is greater than one, the country has a clear comparative advantage in
product exports. Imports are in the same condition. According to the theory of
international commerce, countries with diverse comparative advantages have more
trade possibilities than countries with a high degree of similarity of factor endowments.
In other words, countries with different RCA have more opportunities to trade with
other countries than countries with comparable RCA. As a result, intraregional trade
growth is substantial if trading partners within the area have various competitive
advantages in terms of products.
Theoretical Justifications and Research of Gravity Model
The model has been empirically successful in that it properly forecasts trade
flows between nations for a variety of commodities and services, but some experts have
long felt that the gravity equation has no theoretical validity. A gravity connection, on
the other hand, may appear in nearly any trade model that incorporates increasing trade
costs as distance increases.
The gravity model is used to forecast international trade patterns. The gravity
model has been used to test hypotheses based in purer economic theories of trade as
well. While the model's fundamental form comprises of elements that have more to do
with geography and spatiality, it has also been used to test hypotheses rooted in purer
economic theories of trade. Trade, according to one idea, will be based on relative factor
abundances. The Heckscher–Ohlinmodel is a popular relative factor abundance model.
According to this hypothesis, trade patterns are determined by relative factor
abundance. Countries with a relative abundance of one component are likely to create
items that need a substantial amount of that factor in their manufacturing.
Econometric Estimation of Gravity Equations
Since the gravity model for trade does not hold exactly,
in econometric applications it is customary to specify
……………… (1)
Where 𝑋𝑖𝑗represents volume of trade from country i to country j, and 𝑀𝑖 and

𝑀𝑗typically represent the GDPs for countries i and j, 𝐷𝑖𝑗denotes the distance between
the two countries, and η represents an error term with expectation equal to 1.
The traditional approach to estimating this equation consists in taking logs of

both sides, leading to a log-log model of the form (constant G becomes part of 𝛽0):
ln(𝑋𝑖𝑗) = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 ln(𝑀𝑖) + 𝛽2 ln(𝑀𝑗) − 𝛽3 ln(𝐷𝑖𝑗) + 𝜀𝑖𝑗 … … … … … (2)
However, this approach has two major problems. First, it obviously cannot be
used when there are observations for which 𝐹𝑖𝑗 is equal to zero. Second, it has been
argued by Santos Silva and Tenreyro (2006) that estimating the log-linearized equation
by least squares (OLS) can lead to significant biases. As an alternative, these authors
have suggested that the model should be estimated in its multiplicative form, i.e.:
𝑋𝑖𝑗 = exp⁡[𝛽0 + 𝛽1 ln(𝑀𝑖) + 𝛽2 ln(𝑀𝑗) − 𝛽3 ln(𝐷𝑖𝑗)]𝜂𝑖𝑗 … … … … … … . (3)
Empirical Results
The present section deals with bilateral trade flows of India with USA nations
for the period 1991-2018 with the help of gravity model of international trade. For this
purpose, double-log regression model has been estimated which is given below: ln(𝑋𝑖𝑗)
= 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 ln(𝑀𝑖) + 𝛽2 ln(𝑀𝑗) − 𝛽3 ln(𝐷𝑖𝑗) + 𝜀𝑖𝑗 … … … … … … … … … (4)
Where,
𝑋𝑖𝑗: Represents the volume of trade from the country i(let India)to country j(let USA),
𝑀𝑖: GDP of India
𝑀𝑗: GDP of USA
𝐷𝑖𝑗: Denote distance between India to USA

𝜀𝑖𝑗: Error term
Where,
E (𝜀𝑖𝑗)=0, Cov(𝜀𝑖𝑗)=0; i≠j, and Var(𝜀𝑖𝑗)= σ2𝜀𝑖𝑗
In order to accomplish the task, time series data pertaining to GDP(ij) , Xij and
Dij have been taken for the period 1991-2018 and regression results have been
represented in the Table-15.
Table 15: Gravity Trade Model of India with USA (1991-2018):

Estimated Regression Results Dependent Variable-: Volume of Trade
Intercept Slope of India`s Slope of USA Distance
GDP GDP
−40.5558*** 1.59056*** 0.233601 -4.261199
(12.1121) (0.256539) (0.656618) (1.272619)
R-squared 0.971608
Adjusted R-squared 0.969337
Durbin-Watson 0.709067
Statistics
F-statistics 427.7648 (4.62e-

(Probability) 20)
Source: Author’s calculation.
Note 1: *** Significant at 1% level of significance; ** Significant at 5% level of significance; *

Significant at 10% level of significance.
Note 2: Regression Results have been estimated with the help of Gravity Model of Trade as:
𝑙𝑛⁡(𝑋𝑖𝑗) = 𝛼0 + 𝛼1𝑙𝑛(𝐺𝐷𝑃𝑖) + 𝛼2𝑙𝑛(⁡ 𝐺𝐷𝑃𝑗) − 𝛼3𝑙𝑛⁡(𝐷𝑖𝑗) + 𝑈𝑖𝑗
Table 15 presents gravity regression results for India and USA with respect to
GDP of India stood at 1.59. While elasticity of volume to trade from between India and
USA with respect to GDP of USA stood at 0.23. It shows that Rs.100 Enhancement in
the GDP of India has resulted in enhancement of Rs.1.59 in the volume of trade between
these countries, at the same time, Rs.100 enhancement in the GDP of USA has resulted
in reduction into volume of trade by Rs.23 between these two countries during the
period 1991-2018. Distance factor has been found insignificant so far as trade between
India and USA is concerned during the period 1991-2018.
The overall gravity model dealings with volume of trade in India and USA
during the period 1991-2018 reveal good fit which is shown by high R2(R2=0.971608)
followed by significant F- statistics. The value of D-W statistics (0.709067) also

indicates non-existence of autocorrelation in the time series data.
Chapter 4
Conclusion and Suggestions
The international economic picture has been subjected to periodic significant

upheavals in the twenty-first century, notably since the new economic reforms of 1991.
In recent years, there have been significant developments in economic connections and
bilateral trade with other nations across the world. In the last three decades, India has
become one of the world's fastest-growing economies among emerging economies.
India's economy is currently the world's second fastest expanding emerging economy,
after China.
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 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.
Similarly India’s import performance of manufacturing goods that is Tobacco

and manufactured tobacco substitutes 2.4%, Organic chemicals8.4%, Pharmaceutical
products16.6%, Fertilizers 2.7%,, Plastics and articles thereof 11.8%, Rubber and
articles thereof 11.8%, Wood and articles of wood, wood charcoal 16.3%, Paper &
paperboard, articles of pulp, paper and board13.1 %, Cotton 18.8%, Special woven or
tufted fabric, lace, tapestry etc 4.1 %, Other made textile articles, sets, worn clothing
etc 9.8%, Pearls, precious stones, metals, coins, etc 17.9 %, Iron and steel 8.1 %, Copper
and articles thereof 4.5%, Nickel and articles thereof 12.8%, Tools, implements,
cutlery, etc of base metal 9.8%, Nuclear reactors, boilers machinery etc 10.0%,
Vehicles other than railway, tramway 12.9%, and Electrical, electronic equipment stood
at 9.2% respectively. The fluctuation in all components of manufacturing export goods
due to new economic reforms in 1991.we can conclude that the 11 component of export
of manufacturing goods have been showing more than or equal 10% of annual growth
rate of which are the symbols of strengthen of manufacturing sector and remaining 7
components of manufacturing export goods are found less than 10% that is not good
sign of manufacturing reliance.
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
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,
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.
Results of the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index confirm the tendency for higher

manufacturing goods export concentration to be inversely related to total export.
Manufacturing goods export concentration also seems to be related to economic
development, with the indices of both countries.
The proportions of each commodity in total exports, and the relationship

between the export commodities' variations from their trends. If the major and minor
commodity's deviations from their respective trends are in opposite directions. The total
export and the commodity concentration index, exhibit comparatively lower swings.
The overall export profits would be subject to substantial swings.
As a result, 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. But also, among other factors, on
the insecurity of the primary exports trend. If a country's primary export is generally
steady, it might have a greater commodity concentration (as assessed by the
HerfindahlHirschman Index) and a lower instability index than another.
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 non-
tariff barriers. No doubt, Indian’s exports of agricultural goods to USA can
increase, if USA removes subsidies and other restrictions imposed on
agricultural products.
3. A Study Team of Experts to explore the potentiality of trade between India and
USA needs to be constituted and study report submitted by the team of experts
should be implemented properly.
4. To enhance trade between two the countries demand should be generated

through demonstration effect. It is possible by organising trade fairies, stalls and
exhibitions, etc.
5. Market surveys should be conducted to identify demand for goods in either

country. Consequent changes in production and consumption patterns should be
made.
6. Emphasis should be given on the conclusion of bilateral trade agreements in the

products which are untouched and required by both countries
7. The payment mechanism should be liberalised by introducing payment system

in domestic currencies, etc.
8. Switch trading and smuggling practices should be prohibited between these two
trading partners. It will lead to an increase in volume of trade between India and
USA.

Chapter 5
Bibliography
Aggrawal, Aradhana (2004) ‘IMPACT OF TARIFF REDUCTION ON EXPORTS: A

QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF INDIAN EXPORTS TO THE US’
ICRIER Working Paper 120, January 2004.
Anderson, J. E. (1979), “A Theoretical Foundation for the Gravity Equation,” American

Economic Review, 69(1), 106-16.
Anderson, J. E. and E. van Wincoop (2003), “Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the
Border Puzzle,” American Economic Review, 93, 170-192.
Anderson, J. E. and Y. V. Yotov. (2010). “The Changing Incidence of Geography,”

American Economic Review, 100, 2157-2186.
Anderson, J.E. (2011), “The Gravity Model”, Annual Review of Economics, 3, 133-160.
Balassa, B. (1965), “Trade Liberalisation and ‘Revealed’ Comparative Advantage”,

The Manchester School, 33, 99-123.
Balassa, B. (1965): Trade Liberalization and Revealed Comparative Advantage, The

Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, Vol. 33, Issue 2, pp. 99123.
Balassa, B. (1974): Revealed Comparative Advantage Revisited: An Analysis of

Relative Export Shares of the Industrial Countries, 1953-1971, The Manchester
School of Economic and Social Studies, Vol.45, Issue 4, pp. 327-344.
Banga R. (2006), “The export-diversifying impact of Japanese and US foreign direct

investments in the Indian manufacturing sector” ICRIER WORKING PAPER
NO. 110.
Batra, A. (2006). India's global trade potential: The gravity model approach. Global
Economic Review, 35(3), 327-361.
Boughanmi, H. (2008). The trade potential of the Arab Gulf Cooperation Countries
(GCC): a gravity model approach. Journal of Economic Integration, 42-56.
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.
Brown, A. J. 1949.Applied Economics: Aspects of World Economy in War and Peace.

London: George Allen and Unwin.
C. Ranga Rajan (2001): Saga of Paradigm Shifts – Survey of Indian Industry. The
Hindu, pp. 15-20.
Christie, E. (2003). Potential trade in South-East Europe: a gravity model approach.

SEER: Journal for Labour and Social Affairs in Eastern Europe, 5(4), 81-101.
Debroy, Vivek and Bishnupriya Gupta, "Indo-US Trade: A profile," (1999-2000).
Franchis Cherunilam,"USA and Its Trading Partners,"(1993).Prasad, "Merchandise

Imports from the US : Some obigue perspectives," ( 1994).
Francis Cherunilam., International Business (Text and Cases), Prentice Hall of India
Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, (2005).
H.K. Lahauri, "India's Trade with USA : Problems and Remmedies," A Nabhi
Publication, New Delhi, 1984.
HANNAH, L. and KAY, J. (1977) Concentration in Modern Industry. London:

MacMillan Press.
Head, K. and T. Mayer (2014), “Gravity Equations: Workhorse, Toolkit, and

Cookbook.” Chapter 3 in the Handbook of International Economics, Vol. 4, eds.
Gita Gopinath,Elhanan Helpman, and Kenneth S. Rogoff, Elsevier Ltd., Oxford.
Helpman, E., M. J. Melitz and Y. Rubinstein (2008), “Estimating Trade Flows: Trading
Partners and Trading Volumes”, Harvard University, Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 123: 441-487.
Jain, B.M. ‘INDO-US RELATIONS: Obstacles and Opportunities’ Indian Journal of
Asian Affairs, Vol. 1, No. 1 (SUMMER 1988), pp. 1-27.
K.R. Devis, "India's trade with American Countries,"Eastern Economic Eddition,

Prentice-Hall of India · Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi, 1982.
Kaul, T. N. ‘Indo-US Relations: An Assessment’ India International Centre Quarterly,

Vol. 1, No. 1 (October 1974), pp. 5-11.
Khor, Chia Boon (2001), http://etd.uum.edu.my/331/1/Marwan_bin_Hj._

Hashim_%40_Hassim%2C_2001.pdf
Kojima, K. 1964. ‘The Pattern of International Trade among Advanced Countries’,

Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, Vol. 5, No. 1, 16–36.
Kumar, H. M. Sanjeev ‘DYNAMICS OF POST-COLD WAR U.S. FOREIGN

POLICY AND THE SHAPING OF INDO-U.S. RELATIONS’ The Indian
Journal of Political Science, Vol. 69, No. 3 (JULY - SEPT., 2008), pp.673-680.
L. Ganesh (2005): Free Trade Agreements – Growth or Distortion? The Hindu – Survey
of Indian Industry, pp. 36-37.
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.
Love, J. Trade Concentration and Export Instability. Journal of Development Studies.

1979. 60-69.
MacBean, A.I. Export Instability and Economic Development Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1966.
Man Singh, "Indo - US Ties strong and robust,"Himalaya Publicating House, Bombay,
1992.
Massel, B. F. "Export Concentration and Fluctuations in Export Earnings: A

CrossSection Analysis," American Economic Review. 54, 1964. p. 47-63.
Meilak, C. (2008). Measuring export concentration: the implications for small states.
Bank of Valletta Review, 37(37), 35–48.
Mukhopadhyaya, Somasri (2001): “Uruguay Round and India’s Export Response”

P. Rahman, "India's trade with America since 1950,"The Economic Times, Dec 1, 1992.
P.N. Agarwala, "Indo-US Trade and Economic Cooperation," (2003).
Phiroze B. Medhora, "Trade and aid: approach to fourth plan," SAGE publications, New
Delhi, 1980.
R.K. Rana and Kuldeep Singh (2001): India’s Trade under the WTO – An Empirical
Analysis. In WTO and the Indian Economy, G.K. Chadha (ed.) Deep and Deep
Publications, New Delhi.
Ramesh Babu, B. ‘American Private Investment in India: Present and Future’ American
Studies International, Vol. 23, No. 1 (April 1985), pp. 78-82.
Subroto Roy," Indo- US Trade and economic cooperation," (1997).
Thai Tri Do (2006), A gravity model for trade between Vietnam and twenty-three
European countries. Department of Economics and Society, Dalarna University,
Sweden.
Tripathi, S., & Leitão, N. C. (2013). India’s trade and gravity model: A static and
dynamic panel data.
Tripathi. B.N., Export and Economic Growth, Mittal Publications, Delhi, (1985).
“U.S. to Press India for Tighter Export Controls to Facilitate VEU Program,” World
Trade Online, February 21, 2007.
“U.S., India to Haggle over Export Controls Changes at HTCG Meeting,” World Trade
Online, February 23, 2007.

A Project Report of Under Graduate in Economics Submitted by

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Project Report of Under Graduate in Economics Submitted by

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A STUDY ON INDO US TRADE RELATIONS WITH REFERENCE TO

A Project report of under graduate in economics

Dr. T. RAGHU, MA, M. PHIL, PH.D

P.G. AND RESEARCH DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

RELATIONS WITH REFERENCE MANUFACTURING SECTOR” is a bonafied work

fulfillment of the award of the Bachelor of Arts.

Signature of the Guide Signature of the HOD

I V. ASHWIN KUMAR , Register No: 20131271018034 final year under Graduate

student of the Department of Economics, Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda College, Chennai,

RELATIONS WITH REFERENCE MANUFACTURING SECTOR” is an original work

diploma, associate fellowship or other similar titles.

DATE: V.ASHWIN KUMAR

I take this opportunity to thanks to express my gratitude and indebtedness

I express my gratitude to Dr.T.RAGHU, Assistant Professor, P.G. and

Research Department of Economics, Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda College, for his

valuable guidance which helped me in complete the report.

I take this grand opportunity to express my everlasting thanks to the Professors

Dr. X. Vincent Jayakumar, Dr. T.Chandramouli, DR. V. Raju, Dr. K.Chandrasekaran,

continuous encouragement in my subject as well as for my career growth.

accomplish this project.

DATE: V.ASHWIN KUMAR

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 15-28

CONCLUSION AND 81-85

Importance of Manufacturing Sector

Manufacturing has historically played a major role in countries' economic

Manufacturing has traditionally been the backbone of both developed and

At all stages, manufacturing creates multiple workers. It is critical as the

The Make in India project is planned to provide up to 25% of GDP for

Before the Government of India undertook significant reform measures, the

Under the leadership of Congress, headed by then Prime Minister Narasimha

Picture of Indian Economy

The seventh five-year plan, India's government implemented a two-year annual

With many problems such as weakening balance of payments, growing debt

The tenth Five-Year Plan (2002-07) aimed at 8% growth with ‘monitorable

NITI (National Institution For Transforming India) Aayog: The Planning

Economic scenario of the United States

The U.S. economy is presently rising up out of a time of significant strife. A

U.S. Economic History

The end of World War II represented the beginning of a time of relative

The 1980s offered ascend to Reaganomics, a progression of monetary strategies

India is USA’s ninth largest goods trading partner.

➢US goods export to India $33.5 billion

Limitations of the Study

Absolute and comparative advantage theory of international trade

Hechsher-Ohlin theory of trade

Hecksher-Olin trade is the modern theory of trade. The model predicts

New trade theories:

Xi j is the gravitational force Mi

T N Kaul (1974), is of the view that relations between sovereign independent

Phiroze B. Medhora, (1980), in his paper - "Trade and aid:

* Phiroze B. Medhora - 1980(Trade and aid: approach to fourth plan)

Love, J. (1986), this work is the first effort to use modern

* Devis K.R - 1982 (India's Trade With American Counties)

* Love, J. - 1986 (The Impact of export volatility on economic growth)

Rahman, P. (1992), in his study on "India's trade with America since

* B.M. Jain - 1988 ( INDO - US Relations : Obstacles and Opportunities)

* Man Singh, Mr - 1992 ( Close and Robust Indo-US links )

* Rahman, P. - 1992 ( India's Trade with America since 1950 )

P.N. Agarwala's (1999), in his paper "indo-US Trade and Economic

*J.P. Sarine - 1993 ( Determinants of International Trade )

* Dr. Francis Cherunilam - 1993 ( USA and it's Trading partners )

* Subroto Roy - 1997 ( INDO-US Trade and Economic Cooperation )