UNIT 10 INDUSTRIAL GROWTH AND PATTERN

Structure
10.0 Objectives 10.1 Introduction 10.2 Industrial Growth During 1950-65 . 10.2.1 Overall Growth Pattern 10.2.2 Diversification and Sectoral Growth 10.3 Deceleration During 1966-79 10.3.1 Industrial Stagnation After Mid- 1960s 10.3.2 Causes of Industrial Stagnation 10.4 Industrial Growth During Last Twenty Years 10.4.1 Industrial Recovery During 1980s 10.4.2 Growth in the Post Reform Period 10.5 Let Us Sum Up 10.6 Key Words 10.7 Some Usehl Books and References 10.8 Answers or Hints to Check Your Progress Exercises

10.0 OBJECTIVES
This unit gives an account of the pattern of industrial growth since independence. On going through it, you will be able to: a comprehend industrial growth till mid- 1960s;
a understand deceleration and stagnation thereafter; and

know pattern of industrial growth during the reform

10.1 INTRODUCTION
Rapid industrial growth of domestic industrieswith diversificationof industrial structure is essential for sustainable economic growth and prosperity. This was realised fi-om the very First Five Year Plan (195 1-55) and set the tone of the industrialpolicy in India since Independence. But after fifty years ofplanning, though India has achieved a very diversified industrial structure, its growth performance leaves much to be desired, both with regard to level of growth rate and its stability over time. During the period fi-omthe First Five Year Plan till the reforms and structural adjustment programmes in the early 1990s,three phases of growth can be distinguished :rapid growth till mid- 1960s; stagnation thereafter that continued till late 1970s; and, industrial recovery in the 1980s.In the last decade of this century, industrial growth has been rather cyclical particularly after 1996, despite the implementation of deregulation and liberalisationpolicies aimed at removing policy constraintson better industrialperformance.

10.2 INDUSTRIAL GROWTH DURING 1951 65

In this section the industrial growth pattern during 1951-65, has been discussed. This is the period that covers first three Five Year Plans in India, and features building up of strong industrial base in India. The industrial performance is discussed in the following two subsections,both in terms of overall growthpattern and diversification of industrial structure.

Industrial Growth and Pattern

10.2.1 Overall Growth Pattern

The overall industrial growth achieved during this period is shown in Table 10.1. The growth rates had been quite impressive during this period hovering around 7.6 per cent per annum. Growth rates during the last five-year of this period, the Third Plan period (1961-65) was remarkably high at 9 per cent per annum. But despite such a commendable performance, except in the First Five Year Plan, industrial growth rates actually achieved could not meet the target growth rate. This has in fact been the feature of industrialisation throughout the fiftyyears ofplanning in India.

Table 10.1: Growth Rates of Industrial Production Five Year Planl~eriod

I

Growth Rate Target Actual

7.0 7.3

1951-52 to 1955-56

Source: Economic Survey

Table 10.2 Shows the growth ofNet Value Addeg (NVA) and Net Value of Output (NVO) of industry groups. The growth rates in NVA are calculated with two beginning-periods : one in 1956-57 and the other in 1959-60.Regardless of such choice of the beginning-period, electricity recorded highest growth rate whereas mining and quarrying and the manufacturing sector had more or less similar growth rates. Within the manufacturing sector, the industries that experienced increasing growth rates both in NVA and in NVO., twice as much as the industry average, were footwear, basic metals, non-electrical and electrical machinery. Moreover, except basic metals, these industries had higher growth rates when 1959-60 is taken as the beginning period in place of 1956-57. This means that growth rates picked up in the 1960s. Metal products, transport equipments, chemical.products,beverages and paper & paper products also recorded high growth rates well above the overall industry growth rate. For industries like food, tobacco,.wood and cork, rubber products and leather, on the other hand, choiceof beginning period seems to be important. Comparison ofgrowth figures in Columns 2 and 3 indicates that their performances in 1960-65 were rather dismal. What emergesj s that the annual growth rates in these industries during 1956-59were much higher than the average annual growth rates during 1956-65.

10.2.2 Diversification and Sectoral Growth

At the beginning of the First Plan, the industrial development in India was confined 1 ,,:ely to the consumer goods sector. The important industries were cotton textiles, ; sc. Ir. v!t. soap, leather goods andpaier. Industries~rod~~cin~ intermediateproducts

Development in

Table 10.2: Growth Rates of Industry Groups: Net Value Added & Net Value of Output
Code Industry Group Net Value Added Net Value of Output

1956-7to 1965-6
1 5 2 Mining & Quarrying Electricity & Gas Manufacturing (Total) 7.3 9.6 6.9

1959-60 to 1959-60 to 1965-66 1965-6

7.3 9.3 7.6 8.4 7.8

20
21

Food, except beverages Beverages Tobacco Textiles Footwear Wood and cork Furniture and fvttures Paper and paper products Printing & publishing
,

2.0 5.1 3.2 2.3 10.0 10.4 8.9 12.3 7.0 2.0 7.9 12.6 -2.9 8.7 15.5

0.7 9.3 1.5 3.9 15.3 1.1 11.7 11.4 6.8 0.5 4.6 10.7 -5.9 7.0 15.0 12.0 17.9 14.7 10.3 14.2 7.6

4.6 9.2 1.8 6.0 17.3 5.7 12.6 12.5 7.5 0.4 8.6 13.6 6.2 9.2 , 12.8 12.4 18.9 15.7 10.8 10.9 8.4

22
23 24

25
26

27
28

29
30

Leather & fur products Rubber products Chemical & chemical products Petroleum products Non-metallic mineral products Basic metals Metal products
*

31 32 33
34

35 36 37

12.0 15.9 13.1 7.2 10.2 7.1

Non-electrical machinery Electrical machinery Transport equipment Miscellaneous Industry

38
39

Source : I.J. Ahluwalia, 1985.

like coal, steel, power, non-ferrous metals and chemicals had very small productive capacity, whereas capital goods production had only made a start. From the Second Plan, under the influence of P.C. Mahalanobis, self-reliancethrough development ofheavy industries was emphasisedupon. Major steps were taken to establish machine tools industries, heavy electricals, machine building and other heavy engineeringindustries. With a substatial increase in output of chemicals coupled with the introduction of new chemical products, the chemical industry grew quite rapidly. Metal-based and tramport equipment industries grew rapidly as well, whereas the chemical-based industries grew at a stable rate of around 9 per cent per annum during 1956-60.As a consequence,there was a sharp'decline in relative importance ofconsumer goods sector. Its share in industrial value added camedown from 48.4 per cent in 1956 to 37.2 per cent in 1960.

Table 10.3: SectoralAnnual Growth Rates of Industrial Output (%)

Industrial Growth and Pattern

Use-based Classification
Bgsic goods * Capital goods Intermediate goods Consumer goods Non-durable
.

I
3.8 15.1 6.4 3.7
12.3
I

1
12.0 13.7 6.2 3.8

1
10.5 19.7 7.0

1
I

3.8 10.8
I

Durable
,

(
I

25.5

Input-based Classification
Agriculture-based Metal-based Chemical-based Transport equipment Electricity and allied

'

3.6 10.9 8.1 11.1 8.5

3.6 14 9.7 10.5 16.0

3.8 18.3 9.0 14.7 14.7

*Includes minerals, cement, heavy chemicals, metals and electricity

Source :CSO;RBI Bulletin You have already learnt about classificationin industries inunit-3, Block-1. Table 10.3gives sectral annual growth rates of industrial output on the basis of use-based and input-based classification for the period. The lower half of Table 10.3 shows sectoril growth according to input-based classificationsof industries. Agriculturebased industries grew at a more or less constant rate. Average growth rates of metal-based industries during the three Plan periods and that of electricity during the first two Plan periods, on the other hand, increased steadily. Consequently, structure of industries changed much towards these industriesduring 1951-65. Check Your Progress 1

1 L
t

1) What had been the general pattern of industrial growth during the first three Five Year Plans?

2) How diversified the industrial growthwas during 1951-65 ?

3) Tick mark ( J ) the correct answer : a) By the input-based classification,industries that showed more or less constant rate of growth were,
i) a&culture-based

ii) metal-based

Industrial Development in India

iiii transport equipment

iv) chemical-based b) Target level of industrial growth could be achieved during, i) first Five Year Plan i) second Five Year Plan i i i third Five Year Plan iv) both second and third Five Year Plans

10.3 DECELERATION DURING 1966-1979

From mid-1960s, Indian industries experienced considerable slowdown in growth rates, both overall and sectoral. Whereas heavy industries such as machinery, transport equipment and basic metals, suffered a major slowdown, light industries like food manufacturing and textiles never experienced a take-off. There had been thus a dual phenomenon of deceleration and slow growth. The mid- 1960switnessedtwo severe droughts that had a telling effect on the economy as a whole, accompanied by a major decline of fAreign aid. With the outbreak of war with Pakistan, there had also been budgetary crunch. All these contributed to the deceleration in the growth process. In this section let us diwtiss the patterns of industrial stagnation and its possible causes.

10.3.1 Industrial Stagnation After Mid-1960

The period 1965-76 was marked by a sharp fall in rate of industrial growth to a mere 4.1 per cent per annum from 9 per cent per annum during the Third Plan (1961- 1965). The rate of annual growth during this period turned out to be even smaller, 3.7 per cent per annum, if 1976-77that registered suddenjumps in growth rate to 10.6 per cent, is left out. Table 10.4 shows the extent of the deceleration process across the industries that suffered. The worse performers were paper and paper products, rubber products, non-metallic mineral products, basic metals and metal products. The part of manufacture that did not share in the deceleration experience included textiles and food manufacturing. These industries experienced neither a take-off in the earlier period nor a slowdown in the period after the mid- 1960s.The growth rate of textilesthat accounted for 20 per cent ofthe total value added in manufacturing, actually picked up fiom a modest rate of 2.3 per cent per annum during 1956-65 to 4.4 per cent per annum during 1966-79. However, this rate was still much lower than the average growth of the industrial sector for that period. Food manufacturing industry was characterised by year-to-year fluctuations.But on the whole, it recorded a very slow growth. Mining and quarrying and electricity, on the other hand, behaved quite differently from each other as well from the manufacturing sector. Mining that accounting for about 9 per cent of the value added in the industry, experienced a sharp decline in its growth rate from 7.3 per cent per annum during 1956-65 to 3 per cent per annum during the latter period. Electricity & gas, with a similar share in value added as that ofmining &auanving. showed a negligible decline in average annual m w t h rate.

Table 10.4: Industrial Stagnation: Net Value Added

Code Industry Group 1956-7 to 1965-6 1 5 2 Mining & Quarrying Electricity & Gas Manufacturing (Total) 7.3 9.6 6.9 Net Value of Output 1966-7 to 1979-0 3.0 8.9 5.5 1966-7 to 1981-2 3.3 8.7 5.3

Industrial Growth and Pattern

25

Wood and cork Fumitures and fixtures Paper and paper praducts

10.4 8.9 12.3 7.0 7.9 12.6 8.7 15.5 12.0 15.9 13.1 7.2 7.1

5$ 6.3 7.2 1.7 4.2 9.1 3.0 5.1 2.5 7.5 9.8 4.6 5.5

3.8 5.2 6.2 1.8 4.1 79 3.0 5.0 2.6 7.0 9.4 4.6 5.4

26
27

28 Printing & publishing 30

Rubber products Chemical & chemical products Non-metallic mineral products Basic metals Metal products Non-electrical machinery Electrical machinery Trailsport equipment Industry

31 33
34

35
36

37 38

Source: I.J. Ahluwalia, 1985.

There had alsobeen a structural retrogression that plagued the industry. Capital goods industries grew only at an annual rate ofjust 2.6 per cent during this period compared to 13.1per cent and 19.6per cent per annum respectively during Second and Third Plans. Similar is the case of basic industries. In fact, this has been the story for most of the industries of crucial importance for long run industrial development. Among the basic goods, mining and basic metals showed sharp declines in their growth rates. Cement, on the other hand, experienced a fluctuating growthpattern. Consumer durables were the only category, which, while having grown very fast, did not experience any slowdown, except its fiuniture & fixtures sector (Table 10.4). At the same time, consurnernondurables like textile weaving and food manufacturing continued to grow at their respective slow rates without evidence ofany take-off or slowdown.

10.3.2 Causes of Industrial Stagnation

A number of hypotheses have been put forward to explain this slowdown in industrial growth. The demand-sidehypotheses include drag on industry by agriculture through its various forward linkages,worsening of income distribution,slowdown of import substitution and that ofpublic investment. The supply-side conjecture, on the other hand, focuses on the lack of competition,both h m within and outside the economy. Agricultureaffects industrial growth in three principal ways: i) as a supplier of wage

n d u s t r i a l Development n India

goods such as food; ii) as a provider of raw materials for ago-based industries; and iii) as a generator of agricultural income creating final demand for industrial goods. The hypothesis $at industry operated under wage-good constraint during 1960s,is not a plausible explanation because that would mean slowdown of labour-intensive light industries. But instead, heavy industries experienced the deceleration.The agriculturalmaterials constrainton industrial growth relates only to the ago-based industries, which grew at 5 to 6 per cent per annum in terms of value of output. Though there is evidence of sigmficant slowdown in growth of output of commercial crops, this was not associated with a slowdown in the growth of the ago-based industries. The third linkage might be a plausible explanation, though it is to be kept in mind that industrial grgwth fell short of even the growth rate that could have been achieved with slow growth of agricultural income. The hypothesis of adverse effect of worsening of income distribution rests on its effect on: i) pattern of demand, ii) level of demand. However, as argued by Isher Ahluwalia (1985), there has been little evidence that suggests either an increase in inequality in consynption or incomes in rural and urban areas or an increase in rural poverty over time. Moreover, if it was the cause, then growth of consumer goods would have been most affected, which in fact was not the case. Public investment affects industrial growth in two ways. It creates demand for capital goods and removes infrastructure bottleneck that promotes growth of industrial sectors across the board. There is however the crowding out effect whereby an increase in public investment adversely affects industrial growth as it means less loan able funds available for private investment. There is no doubt that public investment did decline and that it had a major impact on growth of industries dependent on such investment for their demand. What is more important, however, was not overall increase in public investment,but higher investment in inhstructure. This certainly held back the industrial growth after the mid-1960s. There has been a fairly general agreement between economists regarding the policy constraint on industrial growth. Both the industrial licensing policy and the trade olicy were not conducive to faster growth. The failure of Indian policies lay in arrying out the process of import substitutioninefficiently and for too long a period. Often, setting up of indigenous capacity was regarded as sufficient ground for import substitution,regardless of cost and quality considerations. The result was development of high-cost industrial structurebehind the protective wall. The overall . impact ofvarious elements of industrial policy was to impair growth ofproductivity or efficiency in the use of factors. The contribution of the "total factor productivity" was negligible or even negative inmost industry groups.
Check Your Progress 2

1) Do you think that industrial growth slowed down after the mid 1960s ?

2) Identify the different possible causes for industrial stagnation.

....................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................,...................*...-*...3) Tick mark ( J ) the correct answer :

Industrial Growth and Pattern

a) Manufacturing sectors that did not experience decelerationin growth rates were :
i) food and textiles

ii rubber products and paper products i

iii) wood and cork iv) basic metals and metal products
b) Agriculture affects industrial growth as :
i) supplier of wage good

iii supplier of input to agro-based industries

jiii

generator of income that creates demand for industrial goods

iv) all ofthem

10.4 INDUSTRIAL GROWTH IN LAST TWENTY YEARS

From the early 1980s, growth rates started rising once again and the industry recovered to some extent throughout that decade. In the early 1990s,policy conStra.int on industrial growth was removed to a large extent through reforms programmes including trade liberalisation.This stimulated growthrates phenomenally, albeit for a very short period during 1992-96.This section analyses growth pattern during the (1 period of ~ecovery 98 1-90) and in the post-reform period. *

10.4.1 Industrial Recovery During the 1980s

During the first half of the 1980s,the SixthPlan period, industrial growthwas 6.4 per cent per annum and during the latter half it shot up to 8.5 per cent per annum, approximatelythe same that was achieved duringthe last five year immediately before the decelerationphase. It-marked the beginning of anew industrial era in the country.
There had been significant acceleration in the growth of value added in the manufacturingsectorand in all its use-based sectors. The value added in manufacturing grew at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum in the first half of the 1980sas against only 4.7 to 5 per cent per annum in the period 1966-67to 1979-80. Basic goods grew at 8.7 per cent per annum whereas both capital goods and intermediate goods sectors grew at around 6 per cent per annum during 1981-85. In the latter half of the 1980s,except basic goods registered marginal decrease in growth rate, all other sectors grew at a faster rate. One of the main causes of industrial recovery was the restructuring of domestic industrialpoljcies, simplifjmgthe procedures and providing easier access to better technology and intermediatematerial imports as well as more flexibility in the use of installed capacity. Consequently productivity of factors increased substantially. In fact, as noted by Ahluwalia, the important aspect of revival growth rates during 1980swas not that it was associated with an acceleration of growth of inputs, but was based on better productivity, performance. This is evident from the fact that total factor productivity, which registered anegative growth rateof - 0.2 to -0.3 per cent per annum during 1966-67 to 1979-80, showed a marked improvement as its growth rate shot up to 3.4 per cent per annum during 1981-85. ?
J -

Industrial Development in India

There was also amarked resurgence in public investment in infi-astnlcture.Its increase was 9.7 per cent per annum during 1979-80 to 1984-85,followedby 16 per cent increase in 1985-86,as against only 4.2 per cent per annum increase during 196566 to 1975-76. There was also significant increase in government expenditureon servicesraising thereby the demand for consumer durables. This had been reflected in phenomenal growth in production of consumer durables to 14.3 per cent per annum during 1981-85and 11.6per cent per annum during 1985-90.

10.4.2 Growth in the Post-Reform Period (1991-2000)

At the begiming of the 1990s)some major policy changes were initiated in the industrial sector as integral part of the reform programmes aimed at restructuring of the Indian economy. These included, removal of entry barriers, disinvestmentsand privatisation of public sector units, liberalisation of foreign direct investment policy, liberalisationof import policy with regard to capital and intermediategoods. In the initial two years ofreforrns, 1991-92 and 1992-93, growth rates were very low. But in the next three years, growth rates increased substantially. Industry, as a whole, recorded annual growth rate of 8.4 and 12.7per cent in 1994-95and 199596 respectively (Table 10.5). Manufacturing sector grew at similar rates whereas electricity sector experienced growth rates around 8 per cent per annum during this period. Basic and intermediate goods sectors had mixed experiences, but capital goods and consumer goods sectors grew phenomenally. Among the basic goods, growth of cement industry had been quite impressive particularly after its growth rate falling to 1 per cent in 1992-93 from 9.8 per cent in 1991-92.

In the latter halfofthe nineties, however, growth rates had been rather fluctuating. At both aggregate and sectoral levels, growth rates slumped first during 1996-97 and then again during 1998-99.Mining & quanyingregistered a negative growth rates in both these years. On the other hand, for the manufacturing sector, there had been a distinct downward trend in growth of output till it picked itself up somewhat in 19992000. However, still its growth rate has remained far below the peak of 1995-96.

Table 10.5: Annual Growth :Post Reform Period

(Percentage change)

Capital goods Consumer goods Intennediategoods

Industry

-12.1 -2.2 -1.4 0.6

4.0 5.1 4.6 2.3

4.2
3.9

24.8 8.7 3.7 8.4

17.9 13.3 10.9 12.7

5.9

4.0 4.6 6.9 6.6

10.2 2.2 6.0 4.5

4.1 9.8 5.6

11.8 6.0

6.7

, .

Source :Centre for Monitorine Indian Economv. Monthlv Bulletin.

m the use-based classification, growth rates ofbasic and intermediate goods declined steadily kom 8.3 per cent and 10.9 per cent respectively in 1995-96 to 1.6 per cent and 6 per cent respectively in 1998-99. For consumer goods and capital goods sectors, growth rates were rather fluctuating. What is interesting to note is that capital goods sector registered 10.2 per cent growth rate that is much higher than the industiy average of4.5 per cent. The slowdown of industrial growth may be attributed to a slowdown in growth of aggregate demand including falling export growth due to an overall slump in world trade. Loss of competitive advantage of Indian exports on account of steep depreciation of the East Asian countries also played a major role. On the supplyside, there are the factors like little investment by the corporate sector because of surge in capacity in the mid-1990s and the consequent build-up of iiiventory; and drying Up filnds due to cqtinuous sluggishness in capital markets, both primary and secondary.

Industrial Growth and P a t t e r n

Check Your Progress 3

1) IdentifLthe causes of industrial recovery in the 1980s. (Answer in one sentence)

2) Do you agree with the view that econonlic refoms at the beginning of the 1990s caused only a temporary boost in industrial growth?

3) Tick mark ( J ) the correct answer : a) During the Seventh Plan period, industrial growth was

6.4 per cent per annum

ii) 7.4 per cent per annum

iii) 6 per cent per annum
iv) none of the above b) Slowdown of industrial growth after 1996-97 inay be attributed to :

lower productivity of input

ii) slowdown in growth of aggregate demand

iii decline in public investment

iv) all of the above

10.5

LET US SUM UP

The first three Plan periods (195 1-65)were the buoyant years of industrial growth in India. However, despite quite impressive growth rates, except in the First Five Year Plan, industrial growth rates actually achieved invariably could not meet the target growth rate. This has in fact been the feature of industrialisationthroughout the fifty years ofplanning.

lndusirial Develol~ment in India

The industrial structure during that periid was reasonably diversified. $om the Second Plan period, there was a sharp decline in import of consumer gobds. On the other hand, with a substantial increase in output of chemicals coupled with the introductionof new chemical products, the chemical industry grew quite rapidly. Metal-based and transport equipment industries grew rapidly as well. From the mid- 1960s,Indian industries experienced considerableslowdown in growth rates, both overall and sectoral. There had also been a structural retrogression in the industry. Whereas heavy industries such as machinery,transport equipment and basic metals, suffered a major slowdown, light industries like food manufacturing and textiles never experienced a take-OKThere had been thus a dual phenomenon of deceleration and slow growth. But textiles and food manufacturing experienced neither a take-off nor a slowdown in this period. Among the number of hypotheses put forward, fall in agriculturalincome, lack of public investment in infrastructure and lack of competition due to protective trade and industrial licensing policies, appear to be most plausible and empirically supportableexplanations. From the early 1980s, growth rates started rising once again and the industry recovered to some extent throughout that decade. In the early 1990s,policy constraint on industrial growth was removed to a large extent through reforms programmes includingtrade liberalization. This stimulated growth rates phenomenally, albeit for a very short period during 1992-96. In the latter half of the 1990s,however, growth rates had been rather fluctuating. At both aggregate and sectoral levels, growth rates slumped first during 1996-97 and then again during 1998-99.

10.6 KEY WORDS

Crowding Out: Increase in government spendingor investment raises interest rate and consequently discouragesprivate investment as the cost ofborrowing goes up. Thus, public investment crowds out (reduces)private investment. Import Substitution: Substituting irnpoits through domestic produciion of the import-competing good.

Loanable Fund: Supply of hnd for borrowing and investment. Public Investment: Investment by the government. Total Factor Productivity: Economic theory of production suggeststhat total factor productivity is essentiallythe differencebetween the rate of growth of value added and that oftotal factor input. Value Added: Value of production less the value of used-up raw materials and other single-use inputs.

10.7 .SOME USEFUL BOOKS AND REFERENCES

Ahluwalia, I. J., (1985). Industrial Growth in India: Stagnation Since Mid Sixties, Oxford University Press, New Delhi. Kapila, Uma, (2000). Understanding the Problems of Indian Economy, Academic Foundation, Ghaziabad.

Nayyar, D., (1 994). Industrial Growth and Stagnation: The Debate in Iridia, Oxford University Press ,Murnbai.

Industrial G r o w t h and Pattern

10.8 ANSWERS OR HINTS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS EXERCISES -.

..

Check Your Progress 1

1) Read Sub-section 10.2.1 2) Read Sub-section 10.2.2 3) a) i b) i

Check Your Progress 2

1) Yes. Read Sub-section 10.3.1 2) Read Sub-section 10.3.2. Three most plausible explanationsare :fall in agricultural income; decline in public investment in infrastructure;industrial licensing policy and trade policy limiting scope of competition. 3) a) i b) iv
CheckYbur Progress 3

1) Read Sub-section 10.4.1 2) Yes. Read Sub-section 10.4.2 3) a) i b) ii

51