Search

This paper empirically examines the difference in productivity existing between the public and private sector of the mining industry in India. The literature on the effect of firm ownership on productive efficiency stands highly divided; hence, in this context, our study adds to the literature by attempting to study the effect of firm ownership on total factor productivity (TFP) in the four sectors of the Indian mining industry from 2000 to 2016. Here, we have sought to compare the productivity difference between the public and private mining firms in the four sectors, namely metallic, non-metallic, coal and petroleum. This paper uses the Levinson and Petrin (LP) method for estimating the TFP of each firm. The results indicate the superiority of private firms in three sectors—metallic, non-metallic, and coal—whereas the petroleum sector reports quite the opposite result. The results raise questions about the stability of the public sector firms over time. Overall, the paper suggests measures like provision of incentives, improvement in infrastructural facilities, upgradation of manpower and so on to improve the productivity performance of public sector firms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.