Search

Comments on the article "From Hindu Growth to Productivity Surge: The Mystery of the Indian Growth Transition," by Dani Rodrik and Arvind Subramanian, published in the periodical "International Monetary Fund Staff Papers". Failure of the article's authors to provide a convincing analysis of the reasons behind the productivity growth of India during the 1980s; Argument against the article's basic claim that it is not the systemic reforms of the 1990s that changed the growth process of the country's economy but a mysterious shift in the 1980s.

This paper explores the causes of India's productivity surge around 1980, more than a decade before serious economic reforms were initiated. Trade liberalization, expansionary demand, a favorable external environment, and improved agricultural performance did not play a role. We find evidence that the trigger may have been an attitudinal shift by the government in the early 1980s that, unlike the reforms of the 1990s, was probusiness rather than promarket in character, favoring the interests of existing businesses rather than new entrants or consumers. A relatively small shift elicited a large productivity response, because India was far away from its income- possibility frontier Registered manufacturing, which had been built up in previous decades, played an important role in determining which states took advantage of the changed environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Replies to comments made on the article "From Hindu Growth to Productivity Surge: The Mystery of the Indian Growth Transition," published in the periodical "International Monetary Fund Staff Papers". Argument against the commentator's claim that the reason behind the productivity growth of India during the 1980s was caused by fiscal expansion and hence is unsustainable; Authors' claim that they do not consider India's 1991 balance of payments crisis to constitute compelling evidence that the growth of the 1980s was unsustainable.