Globalization & Indian jute industry: competitiveness & performance.
Economic globalisation is a historical process of first liberalisation and then progressive integration of economies around the world, particularly through flow of trade and finance. It sometimes also refers to the movement of knowledge across international borders. It is a historic and hence long-lasting process; initially, it manifests itself through liberalisation; and then, through integration (Kolodko 2001).
Since 1990s the Indian economy is experiencing a series of reforms leading to an integration of the domestic economy with the world economy. A number of industries were not able to meet external competition due to a variety of reasons, the important one being their historical background (GOI 1997). The Indian traditional industry sectors operated in a protectionist environment. The quantitative restrictions and steep customs duties ensured them a captive market. These industries tend to be slow to adapt themselves to fast changing scenario in international/domestic markets as they are path dependent. Indian jute industry can be considered as a case in point. The industry has a global significance and enjoys a 'major-industry' status since the colonial period.
The Jute sector was one of the important manufacturing sectors, mainly concentrated in the Eastern region of the country due to its favourable agro-climatic condition for raw Juteproduction. History reveals that since mid sixties the industry started loosing its world market to its synthetic substitutes. But the globalisation wave led to more environmental concerns. As real income increases, the demand for environmental quality also rises. Hence the global market of eco-friendly goods and services is expanding rapidly. The demand for jute products is a derived one. Thus it seems that jute has a strong potential to regain its position in the world packaging market where it was gradually loosing to its synthetic counterpart in the pre-globalisation era (1).
As in the case of most traditional industries, partly due to unfavourable trading conditions and partly due to traditional policies followed over a number of years, such industries tend to be slow to adapt themselves to fast changing scenario in international market. But for the long term survival of an industry, "being competitive" is crucial to position themselves in the world market with the less controlled and free market global trading environment. India, being the major player and largest producer of jute in the world market (2) enjoys a comparative advantage in the production of jute goods.
Data & Methodology
We have used three data sources:
i. FAO Statistics: country and region wise trade data for the period 1996-2005. The four major developing regions under consideration are Africa, Latin America, Near East and Far East (3). The major developed regions are: North America, Europe, former USSR, Oceania (Australia) and other Developed (4).
ii. Indian Jute Mills Association (IJMA) and Jute Manufacturing Development Council (JMDC) Statistics: aggregate data of various jute goods for the period 1991-92 to 2004-05.
iii. UN Trade Statistics (HS Code 1996 and 2002): aggregate data of the following six jute products for the period of 1991 to 2005 (5).
Codes: Jute Products: 530710 (A): Yarn of Jute or of other textile bast fibres, single. 530720 (B): Yarn of Jute or of other textile bast fibres, multiple (folded) or cabled. 531010 (C): Woven fabrics of Jute or of other textile bast fibres, unbleached. 531090 (D): Woven fabrics of Jute or of other textile bast fibres, other than un bleached. 560710 (E): Twine, cordage, ropes and cables of Jute and other textile bast fibres. 630510 (F): Sacks and bags for packaging of goods of Jute or of other textile bast fibres.
To gauge the trend and the growth rate of jute products' trade from different regions of world, we fit the standard linear and log linear trend equations for the variable concerned for ith country or product.
Revealed Comparative Advantage Analysis
In the empirical trade research, one common measure of comparative advantage is "Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) Index as pioneered by Balassa (1965)". In our present study we have used Normalised Revealed Comparative Advantage Index (NRCA) developed by Run Yu et al. (2008). The NRCA index is capable of systematically revealing changes in the comparative advantage of a particular product over time.
The key to the derivation of the NRCA index is the comparative-advantage-neutral situation/point. Under this neutral situation, country i's export of commodity j is [[??].sub.ij] = [E.sub.i][E.sub.j]/E. (1)
Where, [E.sub.i] = [[SIGMA].sub.i] [E.sub.ij] = country i's export of all commodities i.e. country i's export market.
[E.sub.j] = [[SIGMA].sub.j] [E.sub.ij] = export of commodity / by all countries i.e. commodity j's export market.
E = [[SIGMA].sub.i][[SIGMA].sub.j][E.sub.ij] = export of all commodities by all countries i.e. the world export market.
And [E.sub.ij] = country i's actual export of commodity j in the real world.
Now, [E.sub.ij] would normally differ from [[??].sub.ij]. and the difference can be stated as:
[DELTA][E.sub.ij] = [E.sub.ij] - [[??].sub.ij] = [E.sub.ij] -([E.sub.i] [E.sub.j]/E). (2)
Or, [NRCA.sub.ij] = [E.sub.ij]/E - ([E.sub.i][E.sub.j]/E.E) = [E.sub.j] - ([E.sub.i]/E) ([E.sub.j]/E). (3)
It measures the degree of deviation of a country's actual export from its comparative-advantage-neutral level in terms of its relative scale with respect to the world export market.
[NRCA.sub.ij] > 0 implies country i has comparative advantage in commodity j and [NRCA.sub.ij] < 0 implies country i has comparative disadvantage in commodity j.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
World Trade Situation
The world trade of jute products shows a falling trend up to 2001 and then it has started increasing (fig. 1). The trade of developing countries shows a mild upward trend whereas the trade of developed countries shows a downward movement throughout the period.
During the last ten years, the total world trade shows an insignificant negative overall growth rate of 0.6 percent per annum (Table 1), i.e a stagnant world market situation. The trade from the developing region shows a marginal growth of 0.5 percent. The average share of total trade from this region during 1996-2000 was 64.8 percent which increased to 73.3 percent during 2001-05. The total trade of Near East (NE) has increased significantly at 1.6 percent per annum during 1996-2005. The average trade share of NE increased from 14.8 percent in 1996-2000 to 19.2 percent in 2001-05. The NE countries are basically importers whose import share in the total trade has increased from 13.5 percent in 1996 to 20.6 percent in 2005 which signifies 52.3 percent growth during the period. The Far East (FE) countries are basically major exporters of jute goods. The share of India and Bangladesh in total export was about 44.4 percent during 1999-2005. The export share of these two countries shows 19.5 percent growth during the period. The export share of the FE region (6) shows a growth of 18.4 percent during the period. On the contrary, that the growth rate of import share of this region is -44.3 percent signifies that these countries become net exporters. The total trade volume of NE and FE to world trade had increased from 61.2 percent in 1996-2000 to 70 percent in 2001-05.
The total trade from the developed region had declined significantly at 3 percent per annum. The share of European and North American regions had increased from 75.5 percent during 1996-2000 to 80.2 percent during 2001-05. The share of the developed region in total world trade had reduced from 35.2 percent during 1996-2000 to 26.7 percent in 2001-05.
The export and import share of developing region had increased from 63.6 percent in 1996 to 76 percent in 2005. This implies a 19.5 percent growth during the period (Table 1). On the contrary, the trade volume in developed region had reduced from 36.7 percent to 24.1 percent during 1996- 2005 (Table 2). This reveals that the jute sector is gradually concentrating mainly in the developing region.
The increasing global concern for the environmental friendly eco-products since the early part of this century has shown a positive signal towards the environmental products like jute (Tables 1 & 2).
The year 2001 witnessed a slowdown of world economy due to a series of fluctuations in oil prices--reflecting both demand and supply factors that dominated the developments in commodity markets. The terrorist attacks in September also had an added impact over this sluggishness of world market which in turn affected the world demand of jute products as the primary exportable jute goods are in the vertical chain of other industries. The African region, the Near East and Far East show a significant positive growth rate of 3,4.6 and 2 percent per annum respectively (Table 1). The total world trade shows a significant growth rate of 1.5 percent per annum. The growth rate of the developed region has also been improved from -3 percent to -1 percent per annum during the last five years compared to the entire period (Table 2). This picture indicates a world market turnaround for Jute products.
The market share of India has increased from 23 percent to 27 percent during the period 2001-05 where as the share of Bangladesh has declined from 63 percent to 58 percent (7). India's export of jute products in the international market has increased at a compound rate 6.62 percent per annum where as Bangladesh's export has increased by 1.46 percent per annum. This signifies that in the external market India's performance has started improving.
The market environment or the structure is an important factor behind the market performance. The structure of the world jute goods' market reveals that India and Bangladesh are two major exporters of jute goods in the world market which indicates a state of oligopoly. In oligopoly, the conscious recognition of mutual interdependence on the part of rival exporting country/countries is also a basic fact. Here the producers enjoy control over the pricing policies but they can't use it freely as an active instrument to increase their market share. As described by Singh (1964), this can be well explained by the familiar kinky demand curve associated with oligopolistic situation--the lower part below the kink being less elastic signifies that a price cut policy by one producer may invite retaliation from rival producers which leads to the shares of the competitors remain unchanged in the market but will upset the existing equilibrium although the demand in the market increases. In practical terms it may be difficult for any single oligopolist to improve greatly upon his existing relative share of the total market. In such a situation "peaceful coexistence" then becomes the safest as well as the most practicable strategy to adopt. The nearly stagnant market share of India and Bangladesh over the last 10 years reveals the fact that Bangladesh enjoys a price advantage for jute goods in the world market (8). This emphasizes that Bangladesh cannot be a major threat for India in the case of her external market performance. Further in the case of jute industry, as there is no such insuperable barriers particularly in the line of technology--the conditions are ripe for new firms to enter into the market. The new small entrants are liable to take a chance on the unwillingness of the large sellers to upset the entire market merely to punish a new intruder of negligible size. For any disciplinary move on the part of any single large seller may be misconstrued by his rivals as 'aggressive competition', as being directed at them rather than at the new small entrant. Thus for fear of being misunderstood by one another the oligopolists may be forced into inaction and the new entrant may successfully encroach their relative shares. May be due to this reason the small importer countries can successfully be able to establish their own jute mills to meet their domestic demand which cause stagnancy in the world demand.
Performance of Indian Jute Goods
Looking at the overall performance of the Indian jute sector, we find an insignificant growth of all jute goods of 1.0 percent during 1991-2005 (fig. 2). Hessian and sacking show insignificant growth of -0.5 percent. The CBC viewed a significant negative growth of 7.9 percent. Only yarn & twine and other JDPs export follow a significant positive growth rate of 4.3 percent and 8.8 percent respectively. It reveals a stagnant export performance of Indian jute goods in the entire period under consideration (Table 3). In actual practice, in private-enterprise economies the export trade is normally in the private sector, and there are often many export traders for any single commodity, competing with one another. Jute industry also reveals the same. The industry got policy protection which encouraged distortions and imperfect market structure. On the eve of Independence, the industry was dominated by a few big trading houses revealing an oligopolistic structure. The existing asymmetry within the industry is being strengthened again by globalisation as it became a structural shock to the industry. Globalisation opens the advantages of economies of scale which creates further scope of reorganisation of the market in favour of the efficient units. As there is no entry barrier particularly due to technology, small new entrants find the situation ripe to enter. For the existing large firms the 'peaceful coexistence' is the safest strategy adopted by them as by doing so they can extract the maximum benefit from the state support. Thus the transition leads to a coexistence of inefficient hither to protected firms along with new efficient firms entering the market.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
The export performance of the last six year period i.e. from 1999-2000 to 2004-05 has shown an improvement in the situation. The total export of jute goods had increased significantly at a rate of 6 percent per annum during the last six years. The hessian, sacking exports had also significantly increased by 9 and 27.2 percent respectively. The exports of other JDPs and yarn & twine are increased insignificantly by 4.5 and 1.4 percent respectively. CBC also shows an insignificant negative export growth rate of -5.7 percent per annum.
During the 8th Plan period we found that jute sector did not perform well in the export market, though India's overall export performance was quite satisfactory (Acharya 2002). This brings us to the question of comparative advantage strait away. Of course, this may be partially due to the industry's traditional pattern and its slow adaptive capacity with the fast changing scenario in the Indian economy. Some external factors like the Mexican financial crisis in the mid nineties affected the Latin American economies. Imports declined in the western hemisphere in response to adjustment policies in the wake of the crisis. Further, in Asia, current account deficit widened substantially in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand (9). As these economies are importers of Indian jute products, the financial crisis hampered the Indian jute goods export to a great extent.
Ninth Plan period showed a further worsening of the situation for jute. From the mid 1997 i.e. the beginning year of 9th Five Year Plan the Asian financial crisis began. Spill over effects were soon felt in other countries in the region, especially Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines, exposing underlying structural weaknesses in these economies. It also began to have a dampening impact on global growth rate in the year and in early 1998. In 1997 as a whole, world output growth continued at about 4 percent, with slower growth in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East offset by faster expansion in the industrial countries, the developing countries of the Western Hemisphere, and the countries in transition (10).This can be a major cause of the sluggishness of external demand of jute goods too as Asia is a big emerging market for jute goods (11) during 1998-99. In 2000, the global economy grew at its fastest pace in over a decade and a half, bolstered by the continuing strong performance of most advanced countries and a substantial pickup in growth in other regions of the world, particularly in the Western Hemisphere, Middle East, and countries in transition. Financial flows to emerging market economies continued to recover and buoyant world demand supported strong growth in the volume of trade, both in advanced economies and, especially, in developing and transition economies (IMF Annual Report 2001). This reflected in the export data of our jute sector also. The export rose to 254.7 thousand tonnes in 2000-01 from 159.2 thousand tonnes in the previous year. But in 2001, the world economy experienced a synchronised, widespread slowdown after the unusually strong expansion of the previous year (IMF Annual Report 2002). This had a worsening effect on Indian trade and also reflected in the jute sector as the export reduced to 163 thousand tonnes in 2001-02. From 2002-03 the export of jute goods has again started improving.
Revealed Comparative Advantage Analysis for Indian Jute Products
The NRCA scores of six selected jute products signify that their comparative advantages experienced substantial changes during the globalisation era. All except 560710 enjoyed a comparative advantage, the NRCA scores for all these commodities are positive (Table 4). All six product lines reveal that India has enjoyed a comparative advantage in the traditional Jute goods. The cross-commodity comparison shows 531310 i.e. the hessian cloth has the highest comparative advantage almost throughout the period. The second highest competitive jute product is 630510. The negative NRCA scores of 560710 reveals its comparative disadvantage during the initial few years of globalisation. Since 1996 it is gradually becoming competitive.
The trend of NRCA indices (Table 4) reveals that 530710 is loosing significantly its comparative advantage as shown in fig. 3. The trend of 530720 shows that during 1992-1995 its comparative advantage has increased in the world market. It was picking up in 1997. Fig. 4 shows a path of wide fluctuations of NRCA index of this product during the globalisation era. The path reveals an insignificant trend in loosing comparative advantage over time. As evident from fig. 5,531010 i.e. the hessian cloth also significantly loosing its comparative advantage over time in the world market although this product enjoys the highest comparative advantage among all in the export markets. 531090 shows an insignificant falling trend in its competitiveness over time. The comparative advantage of this product was slightly improved in the period 1995-98 (fig. 6). At the initial years of globalisation, 560710 showed comparative disadvantage as the NRCA value reveals. This commodity is the least competitive product among all from the beginning of the globalisation era. Since mid '90s it has started gaining its competitiveness (fig. 7). 630510 have been significantly loosing comparative advantage in the world market.
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]
Thus, the above analysis shows that although all the Jute products are enjoying comparative advantage in the world market (as the positive NRCA index reveals), overtime, except 560710, all other products are gradually loosing their comparative advantage. This reveals that over time the comparative advantages of traditional products are diminishing thus indicating the need towards more product diversification.
In the era of globalisation, the world market situation seems to reflect a demand reversal for jute goods since the last 5 years due mainly to the environmental sanction of the product. The demand for jute goods, especially the new varieties, has been growing fast. The world trade in jute has increased by 1.5 percent per annum. The trade in developing countries has increased by 2.4 percent where as in the developed countries it has reduced by 1.1 percent. This signifies that the jute market has recently been concentrating in developing regions. For India the world market share has remained almost stagnant, nearly to 28 percent, in the last 10 years. The NRCA indices of various traditional jute products also reveal the same picture that though India still enjoys the comparative advantage in these products they show a losing trend of comparative advantage in the world market (except for 560710).
Had jute been a simple primary commodity, the celebrated income elasticity argument would mean slow or no growth in demand for the products. The stagnation for India and growth for Bangladesh in market shares on the face of the reflected comparative advantage points to the faster development of new product lines in Bangladesh in comparison to India. This hints at a strong positive potential for the Indian Jute. Besides, this also reveals a well known facet of oligopoly that induces non-price competition which often takes the form of new product development. It can very well be argued that this imperfect market structure of domestic and external market is largely responsible of the market stagnancy, especially for India's jute industry. Given the depressed domestic market and slow growing external matket vis-a-vis the dynamic and fast growing jute industry of Bangladesh and other rivals, India's jute gives in despite continued support from the government. It definitely is indicative of whether there are intra-industry strategic equations that often stand on the way to a long required break through. Only a thorough and empowered investigation can illuminate the black box. We wish we were wrong.
Authors are greatful to Professor Sarmila Banerjee, Department of Economics, University of Calcutta for her valuable comments and suggestions on this paper.
Acharya, S (2002), India: Crisis, Reforms and Growth in the Nineties, Centre for Research on Economic Development and Policy Reform, Working Paper No. 139.
Balassa, B (1965), "Trade Liberalisation and Revealed Comparative Advantage", Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, 33:99-123.
Balassa, B (1989), Comparative Advantage Trade Policy and Economic Development, New York University Press.
Basak, K (1997), Stagnation of the Indian Jute Industry: A Re-examination of Major Hypothesis, PhD Dissertation, University of Calcutta.
EXIM Bank (2004), Export Potential of Indian Jute Industry, Export-Import Bank of India, Working Paper Series no. 7, March.
Government of India, Planning Commission (1999), Ninth Five Year Plan, 1997-2002, Volume 11:589.
Kolodko Grzegorz W. (2001), Globalisation and Catching-up in Transition Economies, Rochester University Press, Rochester, New York.
International Monetary Fund (IMF), Annual Reports, various issues
Nayar, Balder Raj (1988), "Business and India's Economic Reforms", Economic and Political Weekly, September 19:2455-56
Perra, N (1980), "The Price Incompetitiveness of India's Jute Manufacturing Exports", The Indian Economic Journal. 28(2), Oct Dec
Run Yu, Jun Ning Cai, & Ping Sun Leung (2008), "The Normalised Revealed Comparative Advantage Index", The Annals of Regional Science, February.
Singh, Manmohan (1964), India's Export Trend and the Prospect of Self-Sustained Growth, OUP, London.
World Bank Annual Reports various issues.
(1.) We consider the pre-reform period or the time preceding the New Economic Policy 1991 as the pre-globalisation phase. The time period since 1990-91 onwards is considered as post-globalisation phase.
(2.) FAO Statistics, various issues.
(3.) The major African Countries that are involved in jute products' trade are Algeria, Ghana, Kenya, Morocco, Tanzania, Cameroon, Zimbabwe etc. The major Latin American countries include Argentina, Mexico, Brazil, El Salvador etc. The Near East trading countries are Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Sudan and Iran. And the Far East countries are China, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and Thailand who are the net exporters and Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka etc who are the net importers of jute products.
(4.) The only North American country that is involved in jute goods' trade is the United States. The European countries are EU (25), EU(15), Belgium-Lux., France, Germany, Netherlands, UK, Spain, Poland and other EU. The other developed countries are South Africa and Japan.
(5.) Excluding 1999 as world export data on jute and jute products does not contain the share of Bangladesh.
(6.) Apart from India and Bangladesh other exporting countries in this region are China, Nepal, Thailand etc.
(7.) Calculated on the basis of export data of jute goods (000 tons) for India and Bangladesh from FAO Statistics:
7. Calculated on the basis of export data of jute goods (000 tons) for India and Bangladesh from FAO Statistics: Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Bangladesh 409.6 343.9 395.7 433.7 408.5 409.2 India 180.7 245.4 242.5 161 176.5 151 Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 Bangladesh 400.6 391.9 439.4 440 India 189.9 243.8 193 208.1
(8.) FAO Statistics, 2001-2006.
(9.) World Bank Annual Report, 1996.
(10.) IMF Annual Report 1998 (part-2)
(11.) EXIM Bank Working Paper (7) on Export Potential of Indian Jute industry, 2004.
Anusri Pal is Assistant Professor, Symbiosis School of Economics, Symbiosis International University, Pune 411004. E-mail:firstname.lastname@example.org.
Pinaki Chakraborti is Professor, Department of Economics, University of Burdwan, Burdwan 713 104. E-mail: c.pinakitajgmail.com
Table 1: World Trade of Jute Products from Developing Regions (000 tons) Year World Developing Africa 1996 1505.1 952.1 47.4 1999 1343.5 868.7 28.0 2001 1209.0 846.4 37.2 2004 1363.1 1029.7 36.1 2005 1383.3 1050.5 38.1 Growth Rate (1996-2005) -0.006 ([dagge]) 0.0051 -0.007 ([dagger]) Growth Rate (2001-2005) 0.015 * 0.024 * 0.029 * Year Latin Near Far America East East 1996 17.6 212.6 674.5 1999 12.7 181.0 647.0 2001 11.3 189.1 608.8 2004 9.7 289.3 694.6 2005 10.5 292.5 709.4 Growth Rate (1996-2005) -0.029 ([dagger]) 0.016 * 0.002 ([dagger]) Growth Rate (2001-2005) 0.020 ([dagger]) 0.046 * 0.019 * ([dagger]) Insignificant at 5 percent level * Significant at 5 percent level. Source: FAO Statistics Table 2: World Trade of Jute Products from Developed Regions (000 tons) Year World Developed North 1996 1505.1 553.0 63.5 1999 1343.5 474.8 72.6 2001 1209.0 362.6 54.6 2002 1274.2 364.9 64.0 2005 1383.3 332.8 61.1 Growth Rate (1996-2005) -0.006 ([dagger]) -0.029 * -0.009 * Growth Rate (2001-2005) 0.015 * -0.010 * 0.008 ([dagger]) Year Europe Former America USSR 1996 363.0 40.0 1999 274.2 40.0 2001 235.7 7.6 2002 225.8 8.5 2005 204.8 8.7 Growth Rate (1996-2005) -0.029 * -0.100 * Growth Rate (2001-2005) -0.012 ([dagger]) 0.012 ([dagger]) Year Oceania Other (Australia) Developed 1996 38.0 48.5 1999 57.6 30.4 2001 35.0 29.7 2002 41.0 25.6 2005 34.7 23.5 Growth Rate (1996-2005) -0.019 * -0.036 * Growth Rate (2001-2005) -0.0121 ([dagger]) -0.021 * ([dagger]) Insignificant at 5 percent level * Significant at 5 percent level. Source: FAO Statistics Table 3: Export of Jute Goods from India (000 tons) Year ** Hessian Sacking 1991-92 154.6 28.5 1995-96 146.9 10.2 1998-99 57.9 17.0 2000-01 86.0 3.1 2001-02 51.6 13.0 2003-04 157.1 33.4 2004-05 153.7 31.2 Growth Rate (1991-2005) -0.005 ([dagger]) -0.005 ([dagger]) Growth Rate (1999-2005) 0.089 * 0.272 * Year ** CBC Y & T 1991-92 22.0 20.1 1995-96 22.0 66.4 1998-99 14.4 89.9 2000-01 8.1 127.0 2001-02 2.8 80.9 2003-04 5.2 90.6 2004-05 3.2 120.0 Growth Rate (1991-2005) -0.079 * 0.043 * Growth Rate (1999-2005) -0.057 ([dagger]) 0.0141 Year ** Other JDPs Total-X 1991-92 5.0 230.2 1995-96 4.0 249.5 1998-99 14.6 193.8 2000-01 30.5 254.7 2001-02 14.7 163.0 2003-04 24.1 310.4 2004-05 25.0 331.4 Growth Rate (1991-2005) -0.088 * 0.010 ([dagger]) Growth Rate (1999-2005) 0.045 * 0.059 * ([dagger]) Insignificant at 5 percent level * Significant at 5 percent level. ** July-June Source: IJMA & JMDC Statistics. Table 4: NRCA Index ** of Jute Products Year/code 530710 530720 531010 NRCA(A) NRCA(B) NRCA(C) 1991 5.39 4.20 39.10 1995 2.67 7.24 13.80 2000 3.87 7.02 10.40 2001 3.83 3.59 4.96 2004 1.00 4.35 9.34 2005 0.88 7.30 9.70 Trends [NRCA.sub.i] = a + bt -0.313 * -0.0951 -1.509 * Year/code 531090 560710 630510 NRCA(D) NRCA(E) NRCA(F) 1991 0.11 -0.03 30.49 1995 0.27 -0.03 16.00 2000 0.13 0.30 6.76 2001 0.07 0.26 3.74 2004 0.05 0.33 5.95 2005 0.06 0.48 6.64 Trends [NRCA.sub.i] = a + bt -0.003 ([dagger]) 0.052 * -1.512 * ([dagger]) Insignificant at 5 percent level * Significant at 5 percent level. ** Calculations are based on the data taken from UN Trade Statistics. To facilitate the presentation of the results, we scale the NRCA scores with a constant of [10.sup.6], which does not affect the inter pretation of the results.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Pal, Anusri; Chakraborti, Pinaki|
|Publication:||Indian Journal of Industrial Relations|
|Date:||Jul 1, 2011|
|Previous Article:||Technology transfer & R&D in the Indian chemical industry.|
|Next Article:||Social networks of migrant construction workers in Goa.|