Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Unit 8 PDF
Unit 8 PDF
REFORMS
Structure
8.0
8.1
8.2
8.3
Objectives
Introduction
Parameters for Assessing Economic Reforms
Critique of Economic Reforms
8.3.1 GDP Growth, Employment and Poverty
8.3.1.1 Economic Reforms and Reduction of Poverty
8.3.1.2 GDP Growth, Employment Growth and Poverty
8.3.2
8.3.3
8.3.4
8.3.5
8.3.6
8.3.7
8.3.8
8.3.9
8.3.10
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.0
Let Us Sum Up
Exercises
Key Words
Some Useful Books
Answers or Hints to Check Your Progress Exercises
OBJECTIVES
In unit 7, you were introduced to the various aspects of economic reforms. Unit
8 is devoted to the assessment of economic reforms. For this purpose, it is
necessary to define certain parameters for judging the reform process. Once that
is done, it would be of interest to understand the developments in the
Indian economy during the last 15 years. After going through this unit, you will
be able to:
1)
2)
assess the extent to which the reform process has succeeded in achieving
the economic and soical objectives; and
3)
8.1
INTRODUCTION
Economic Reforms were introduced in 1991. It is now nearly 15 years since the
reform process was initiated. This cannot be treated as a short period to assess
the impact of economic reforms. It may be pointed out that there is near unanimity
among political parties regarding the implementation of economic reforms.
43
Development Strategies in
India
8.2
ii)
v)
Reduction of regional disparities between the rich and the poor states of
India; and
vi)
44
The critique of economic reforms should consider the actual growth rate achieved,
its impact on employment and poverty reduction, its impact on labour, its impact
on agriculture the major source of livelihood of over 60 per cent of population,
its effect on balance of trade and balance of payments, its effect on accelerating
industrial growth by stepping up domestic and foreign investment, in
strengthening economic and social infrastructure and last but not the least, in
reducing regional disparities between states. Let us consider the issues in detail.
Growth Rate
1980-81
4,01,128
1990-91
6,92,871
1991-92
7,01,863
1.3
1992-93
7,37,792
5.1
1993-94
7,81,345
5.9
1994-95
8,38,031
7.3
1995-96
8,99,563
7.3
1996-97
9,70,083
7.8
1997-98
10,16,594
4.8
1998-99
10,82,798
6.5
1999-00
11,48,367
6.1
2000-01
11,98,592
4.4
2001-02
12,67,945
5.8
2002-03
13,18,362
4.0
5.6
1990-91 to 2002-03
5.5
45
Development Strategies in
India
9
8
7.8
7.3
Growth Rate
7.3
6.5
5.9
5.1
6.1
4.8
5.8
4.4
3
2
1.3
Year
-03
20
02
-02
01
20
-01
00
20
-00
99
19
-99
98
19
-98
97
19
-97
96
19
-96
95
19
-95
94
19
-94
93
19
-93
92
19
-92
91
19
-91
90
19
19
80
-81
Growth Rate
46
1)
While there was a marked decline in both rural and urban poverty rates
between 1973-74, there is no sign of anything comparable thereafter.
2)
For the rural sector, for the period 1973-74 and 1990-91, headcount index
of poverty declined at the annual rate of 2.7 per cent, the rate of decline
since then (i.e. in the post-reform period) is not significantly different from
zero. (Refer table 8.2)
3)
For the urban sector, during 1973-74 and 1990-91, headcount index of
poverty declined at the annual average rate of 2.2 per cent, the same trend
is continued in the post-reform period (1990-91 to 1996-97) at the annual
average rate of 2.2 per cent.
4)
While the urban sector seems to have continued its march of poverty
reduction in the process of growth, rural poverty was choked off by lack of
rural growth.
Dr. Gaurav Datt has identified stagnation in rural growth as the basic cause of
slowdown in poverty reduction. This naturally puts a question mark on the very
nature of the reform process in terms of rural welfare.
Table 8.2: Poverty in India 1973-1997
Period of NSS Survey
Urban
Oct. 73 July 74
55.72
47.96
July 77 June 78
50.60
40.50
Jan 83 Dec 83
45.31
35.65
July 86 June 87
38.81
34.29
July 90 June 91
36.43
32.76
35.37
33.08
July 93 June 94
36.66
30.51
July 95 June 96
37.15
28.04
Jan 97 Dec 97
35.78
29.99
36.47
29.02
Source: Gaurav Datt, Has poverty declined since Economic Reforms? Economic and
Political Weekly, December 11-17, 1999.
47
Development Strategies in
India
poverty. For example, the period of high growth of employment in the 1980s
with a comparatively lower GDP growth has witnessed a significant reduction
in poverty. In the 1990s, as hypothesised, a low growth of employment is seen to
be associated with an increase in poverty.
Table 8.3: State of Employment in India (1983-1997)
In lakhs
Year
Total
Organised Sector
Unorganised Sector
1983
3,026.0
240.1
2,785.9
1990-91
3,567.6
270.6
3,297.0
1997-98
3,828.5
282.5
3,546.0
2.39
1.73
2.41
1.0
0.6
1.1
Lockouts
Total
Pre-reform Period
216.4
185.7
402.1
(1981-90)
(53.8)
(46.2)
(100.0)
91.6
(138.5)
230.1
(39.8)
(60.2)
(100.0)
18.4
62.2
80.6
(22.9)
(77.1)
(100.0)
Post-reform Period
(1991-2000)
2001-2003
48
Source: Calculated from the data provided in the Ministry of Labour, Annual Report
(2001-2002) and Economic Survey (2004-05).
Not only that, workers have to suffer as a result of closures. Management used
closures as a device to get rid of even permanent workers. During 1991-97, as a
result of 1,687 closures, 1.2 lakh workers lost their jobs. Similarly, lay-offs were
resorted to as a cost-cutting device and during the 7-year period (1991-97), 4.91
lakh workers were laid off. On the plea of redundancy, during the same period,
a total 20,720 workers were retrenched.
Table 8.5: Per centage Distribution of Workforce
Self Employed
Wage Employment
Casual Labour
1988
53.6
15.2
31.2
1994
51.9
14.7
33.5
1996
52.4
15.9
32.8
1997
52.6
14.5
32.9
1998
50.7
12.3
37.0
Source: Ashok Mathur (2000), Economic Reforms, Employment and NonEmployment, in P.D. Hajela and M.P. Goswami, Economic Reforms and
Employment.
The employers have been using every device in the post-reform period to increase
the component of casual labour so that they can bring about cost-reduction by
not paying them dearness and other allowances. It may be noted that the share of
casual labour which was 31.2 per cent in 1988 rose to 37.0 per cent in 1998.
All these developments indicate that labour was adversely affected by economic
reforms. Although the Government has not formally accepted an exit policy, yet
in practice, the managements are following an exit policy. The workers are being
pushed from more secure employment to insecure employment as a consequence
of casualisation of workforce.
49
Development Strategies in
India
8.3.4
Table 8.6 provides us the growth of the various components of GDP. Whereas
during 1980-81 to 1990-91, the annual average GDP growth was 5.6 per cent,
during the post-reform period (1990-91 to 2001-02), it was of the order of 5.7
per cent. This implies that average growth rate of GDP in the two period was
nearly equal. However, it may be noted that GDP in agriculture which showed a
growth rate of 3.7 per cent per annum during the pre-reform period (1980-81 to
1990-91) witnessed a decline in the 11-year post-reform period to 2.9 per cent.
This was due to the neglect of agriculture in the period of economic reforms,
because the reform process simply emphasised industry (manufacturing), more
especially the growth of the corporate sector and infrastructure like transport
and communications.
Table 8.6: GDP and GDP Growth Rates in Different Sectors
Sector
GDP Contribution
(Rs. crores)
Annual Average
Growth
1980-81
1990-91
2001-02
1,67,770
2,42,012
3,33,274
(41.8)
(34.9)
(26.2)
Manufacturing, Construction,
86,605
1,69,703
3,09,557
(21.6)
(24.5)
(24.4)
73,846
1,29,780
2,97,831
Communications
(18.5)
(18.7)
(23.5)
26,156
66,990
1,57,746
(6.5)
(9.7)
(12.4)
46,751
84,380
1,69,537
(11.6)
(12.2)
(13.4)
4,01,128
6,92,871
12,67,945
(100.0)
(100.0)
(100.0)
Agriculture
2001-02 1990-91/
/ 1990-91 1980-81
2.9
3.7
5.6
7.0
7.8
5.8
8.1
9.9
6.6
6.1
5.7
5.6
50
rate of 3.1 per cent per annum. But during the 13-year period of economic reform,
production of foodgrains increased from 176.4 million tonnes in 1990-91 to
212.0 million tonnes in 2003-04, indicating an annual average growth rate of
1.4 per cent which was lower than the growth rate of population at around 1.9
per cent. Obviously, there was neglect on the food front which does not usher
well for the Indian economy. For this, the main culprit was the decline in gross
capital formation in agriculture, more especially public sector investment declined
from Rs. 4,967 crores in 1994-95 to Rs. 4,397 crores in 2002-03 (at 1993-94
prices). Since public sector investment largely takes care of irrigation and rural
investment, it adversely affected foodgrains production. Moreover, the benefits
of green revolution in Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh have reached a near
saturation point and levelled off. The country could have achieved higher levels
of foodgrains production by extending the area under irrigation in backward
states. This did not happen and, consequently, agricultural growth suffered a
decline.
1981-82 to 1990-91
1993-94 to 2002-03
General Index
7.8
5.8
a) Manufacturing
7.6
6.9
b) Electricity
9.0
5.7
8.3
3.8
Source: Calculated from the RBI, Handbook of Statistics on the Indian Economy
(2003-04).
Data provided in table 8.7 reveal that the main cause of decrease in the growth
of Index of Industrial Production (IIP) was a sharp decline in electricity generation
from 9.0 per cent during the pre-reform period to 5.7 per cent in the post-reform
period. In mining and quarrying, the index of production slumped from 8.0 per
cent to 3.8 per cent.
Data presented in table 8.8 reveal that in capital goods, there was a sharp decline
in growth rate from 11.5 per cent during 1981-82 to 1990-91 to a low level of
6.6 per cent during 1993-94 to 2002-03. Even in basic goods, there was decline
in growth rate from 7.0 per cent to 5.4 per cent. In durable consumer goods,
also, index of growth rate declined from 13.9 per cent to 10.1 per cent.
51
Development Strategies in
India
1981-82 to 1990-91
1993-94 to 2002-03
7.0
5.4
11.5
6.6
c) Intermediate Goods
5.9
7.2
d) Consumer Goods
6.7
7.2
13.9
10.1
5.5
6.5
7.8
5.8
a) Basic Goods
b) Capital Goods
i)
Durables
ii)
Non- durables
General Index
From this analysis, it becomes evident that although the wide-ranging industrial
reforms were aimed at boosting industrial growth, but the ground reality as
revealed by the data only points to the failure of the reform process. The failure
was more pronounced in basic and capital goods sectors as also in consumer
durables.
ii) Check your answer(s) with those given at the end of the unit.
1) Enunciate the major parameters of assessing economic reforms in India.
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
52
2) Do you think that the reform process has established its distinct superiority
in terms of GDP growth when compared with the performance of the Indian
economy in the pre-reform period?
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
3) Do you consider that the effect on employment and poverty reduction has
been satisfactory in the post-reform period as compared to the pre-reform
period? Give reasons in support of your answer.
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
Development Strategies in
India
The situation took a turn during the 3-year period (2001-02 to 2003-04) and
annual average growth of exports was 12.9 per cent and that of imports was 10.5
per cent. The annual average trade balance deficit was much higher, viz., $12,949
million. But a unique feature was the sharp increase in net invisible of the order
of $18,845 million during the 3-year period. Consequently, India had a positive
balance on current account of the annual average of $5,896 million. The sharp
rise in net visible was primarily the result of a sharp increase in software exports
to $11,750 million in 2003-04. Net income from invisibles accounted for 145.5
per cent of trade deficit.
Table 8.9: Indias Exports, Imports, Trade Balance and Balance of
Payment Post-Reform period (1991-92 to 2003-04)
US $ million
Exports
Imports
Trade
Balance
Net
Balance
1 as 4 as %
Invisibles of Payments % of 2 of 3
on current
account
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
1991-92
18,266
21,064
-2,798
1,620
-1,178
86.7
57.9
1992-93
18,869
24,316
-5,447
1,921
-3,526
77.6
35.2
1993-94
22,683
26,739
-4,056
2,898
-1,158
84.8
71.4
1994-95
26,855
35,904
-9,049
5,680
-3,369
74.8
62.8
1995-96
32,311
43,670
-11,359
5,449
-5,910
73.9
48.0
Annual Average
23,797
30,339
-6,542
3,514
-3,028
78.4
53.7
(1991-92 to 1995-96)
Average Growth Rate
11.8
9.3
1996-97
34,133
48,948
-14,815
10,196
-4,619
69.7
68.8
1997-98
35,680
51,187
-15,507
10,007
-5,500
69.7
64.5
1998-99
34,298
47,544
-13,246
9,208
-4,038
72.1
69.5
1999-00
37,542
55,383
-17,841
13,143
-4,698
67.7
73.7
2000-01
44,894
59,264
-14,370
10,780
-3,590
75.7
75.0
Annual Average
37,309
52,465
-15,156
10,667
-4,489
71.1
70.4
(1996-97 to 2000-01)
Average Growth Rate
6.8
6.3
2001-02*
44,915
57,618
-12,703
13,485
+782
77.9
106.1
2002-03*
53,774
64,464
-10,690
17,035
+6,345
83.4
159.4
2003-04*
64,723
80,177
-15,454
26,015
+10,561
80.8
168.3
Annual Average
54,471
67,420
-12,949
18,845
+5,896
80.8
145.5
(2001-02 to 2003-04)
Average Growth Rate
12.9
10.5
34.3
* Partially revised.
Source: Compiled and computed from RBI, Handbook of Statistics on the Indian
Economy (2003-04) and Reserve Bank of India Bulletin, January 2005.
54
But as per information about 2004-05, exports were of the order of $79.59 billion
while imports were of the order of $106.12 billion, resulting in a huge trade
deficit of $26.52 billion highest recorded so far. Obviously, a liberal import
policy, removal of all quantitative restrictions and reduction of import tariffs
has resulted in a deepening of adverse trade deficit. As against 24.4 per cent
increase in exports, imports have risen by 35.6 per cent. The rise in the import
price of crude oil has also led to a sharp increase in imports.
It implies that during the 13-year period of economic reforms, India was able to
increase her exports from $18.26 billion in 1991-92 to $79.59 billion in 200405, but as against them, imports had shot up from $21.06 billion in 1991-92 to
$106.12 billion in 2004-05. Obviously, foreigners have been able to penetrate
the Indian market much more than India has been able to extend her reach to
foreign markets. This has resulted in a sharp increase in negative trade balance
to the tune of $26.52 billion in 2004-05. It may be concluded that export
promotion effort was nullified by a relatively larger increase in imports. Unlike
China which was able to generate a positive trade balance, India has not succeeded
in this regard.
However, India has gained on account of net invisibles and the positive balance
of net invisibles has continued its upward trend from $1.6 billion in 1991-92 to
$5.45 billion in 1995-96, to a near doubling to $10.78 billion in 2000-01 and
reaching a record level of $26.0 billion in 2003-04. In this respect, special mention
has to be made of a sharp increase in net software exports rising to $11.75 billion
in 2003-04. India has, therefore, been a gainer in net invisibles account.
Development Strategies in
India
Direct Investment
Portfolio Investment
Total
1991-92
129
133
1992-93
315
244
559
1993-94
386
3,567
4,153
1994-95
1,314
3,824
5,138
1995-96
2,144
2,748
4,892
1996-97
2,821
3,312
6,133
1997-98
3,557
1,828
5,385
1998-99
2,462
-61
2,401
1999-00
2,155
3,026
5,181
2000-01
4,029
2,760
6,789
2001-02
6,130
2,021
8,151
2002-03
5,035
979
6,014
2003-04
4,673
11,377
16,050
35,350
(49.8)
35,629
(51.2)
70,979
(100.0)
Total (1991-92
to 2003-04)
Source: Compiled and computed from RBI, Handbook of Statistics on the Indian
Economy (2001) and RBI Bulletin, January 2005.
Chart 2: Foreign Investment Flows in India
Foreign Investment Flows in India
18000
16000
14000
Investment
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
Year
56
200
3-0
4
200
2-0
3
200
1-0
2
200
0-0
1
199
9-0
0
199
8-9
9
199
7-9
8
199
6-9
7
199
5-9
6
199
4-9
5
199
3-9
4
-2000
199
2-9
3
199
1-9
2
Direct Investment
Portfolio Investment
Total
Another problem is the gap between actual flows and approvals. Actual inflows
of FDI were barely 26.8 per cent of the total approvals. Total FDI approved as
per Economic Survey (2003-04) was of the order of Rs. 2,51,431 crores, but
actual flows were merely Rs. 67,462 crores from January 1991 to March 2004.
This is rather very low. One can understand that there is bound to be a gap
between actual flows and approvals because it does take time to actualise a
promise, but the gap is too wide in the case of India. It needs to be bridged.
Check Your Progress 2
Note: i) Space is given below each question for your answer.
ii) Check your answer(s) with those given at the end of the unit.
1)
India has been able to penetrate foreign markets to a lesser degree than the
foreigners have been able to penetrate the Indian market. Do you agree
with this statement. Give facts in support of your answer.
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
2)
Indias record in net invisibles has been commendable. What was the most
important factor contributing to it?
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
3)
Development Strategies in
India
Data provided in table 8.11 reveal that in case of saleable steel and cement,
growth rates in the post-reform period were higher than in the pre-reform period.
In the case of steel, growth rate during 1993-94 to 2002-03 was 9.5 per cent as
against only 4.9 per cent in the 1980s. Similarly, in the case of cement, growth
rate in the post-reform period was 8.2 per cent as against 4.0 per cent in the prereform period. But it may be pointed that in both these cases, the withdrawal of
state control in pricing carried out in the 1980s was responsible for the uptrend
in the post-reform period.
Table 8.11: Trends in the Growth Rates of Infrastructure Industries
Index of Infrastructure
1980-81
1990-91+
Electricity
100.0
238.9
Coal
100.0
Saleable Steel
2002-03*
1993-94 to
2002-03
164.3
9.1
5.6
185.7
137.1
6.4
3.6
100.0
147.6
227.2
4.9
9.5
Cement
100.0
260.4
303.0
4.0
8.2
Petroleum
100.0
317.9
122.3
12.2
2.2
Petroleum Refinery
Products
100.0
186.8
210.9
6.5
8.6
Composite Index
100.0
215.0
172.9
8.0
6.3
8.3.10
Data provided in Table 8.12 reveal that NSDP in forward states indicated a
growth rate 6.0 per cent per annum during the period 1990-91 to 2000-01, but as
against them, it grew in backward states at merely 1.4 per cent. This only
underlined the fact that instead of reducing, it has further widened regional
inequalities.
This can be observed by making a comparison of per capita NSDP. In case of
Bihar, the per capita NSDP growth was negative to the extent of (-) 2.8 per cent
during 1990-91 and 2000-01. In case of Uttar Pradesh, it was just 0.8 per cent.
These two states account for 27 per cent of total population and thus, they pulled
down the average all-India growth of per capita NSDP. If we compare the ratio
of maximum and minimum NSDP, then it is revealed that this ratio was 2.7 in
1990-91 and increased to 4.6 in 2000-01. Obviously, the period of economic
reforms has resulted in increasing regional disparities. This was due to the fact
that approval of investment proposals and grant of financial assistance helped
the forward states to further accelerate growth leaving behind the backward
states which were not favoured by the market forces. Naturally, regional
disparities in terms of growth of NSDP both total and per capita widened
further.
Table 8.12: Statewise Net State Domestic Product and Per Capita
NSDP (1990-91 to 2000-01) at 1993-94 Prices
Net State Domestic Product
(Rs. Crores) (Rs.)
1990-91
Forward States
2000-01
Average
Growth
Rate
(1990-91
to 2000-01)
6.0
1. Punjab
23,693
37,413
4.7
11,776
15,390
2.7
2. Haryana
18,215
28,655
4.6
11,125
14,331
2.6
3. Maharashtra
79,869
1,45,734
6.2
10,159
15,172
4.1
4. Gujarat
36,207
63,161
5.7
8,788
12,975
4.0
5. Tamil Nadu
43,937
79,121
6.0
7,864
12,779
5.0
6. Andhra Pradesh
45,131
75,868
5.3
6,873
9,982
3.4
7. Kerala
19,774
34,451
5.7
6,851
10,627
4.5
8. Karnataka
29,845
62,477
7.6
6,631
11,910
6.0
9. West Bengal
40,633
78,108
6.7
5,991
9,778
5.0
10. Rajasthan
29,713
44,335
4.1
6,760
7,937
1.7
41,833
41,530
-1.0
6,350
7,003
1.0
12. Assam
12,299
15,470
2.3
5,574
5,867
0.5
74,791
94,612
2.4
5,342
5,770
0.8
14. Bihar
37,607
27,383
-3.1
4,474
3,345
-2.8
15. Orissa
13,450
18,690
3.3
4,300
5,187
1.9
5.5
7,430
10,428
3.4
2.7
4.6
Backward States
All India
Ratio between Maximum
and Minimum Per Capita
NSDP
1.4
6,23,407 10,62,616
Note: States have been arranged in the descending order on the basis of per capita NSDP for 1990-91.
Source: Compiled and computed from Ministry of Finance (2003), Indian Public Finance Statistics
(2002-03) and CSO, National Accounts Statistics (2003).
59
Development Strategies in
India
Life Expectancy
at Birth 2001-06
(Years)
Infant
Mortality
Rate (2002)
Birth
Rate
(2002)
Death
Rate
(2002)
Male
Female
Punjab
69.9
75.6
63.6
69.8
72.0
51
20.8
7.1
Maharashtra
77.1
86.0
68.1
66.8
69.8
45
20.3
7.3
Haryana
68.6
79.3
56.3
64.6
69.3
62
26.6
7.1
Gujarat
70.0
80.5
58.6
63.1
64.1
60
24.7
7.7
West Bengal
69.2
77.6
60.2
66.1
69.3
49
20.5
6.7
Karnataka
67.0
76.3
57.5
62.4
66.4
55
22.1
7.2
Kerala
90.9
94.2
87.9
71.7
75.0
10
16.9
6.4
Tamil Nadu
73.5
82.3
64.6
67.0
69.8
44
18.5
7.7
Andhra Pradesh
61.1
70.8
51.2
62.8
65.0
62
20.7
8.1
Madhya Pradesh
64.1
76.8
50.3
59.2
58.0
85
30.4
9.8
Assam
64.3
71.9
56.0
59.0
60.9
70
26.6
9.2
Uttar Pradesh
57.4
70.2
43.0
63.1
64.1
80
31.6
9.7
Rajasthan
61.0
76.5
44.3
62.1
62.8
78
30.6
7.7
Orissa
63.6
75.9
51.0
60.5
59.7
87
23.2
9.8
Bihar
47.5
60.3
33.6
65.7
64.8
61
30.9
7.9
All India
65.4
76.0
54.3
63.9
66.9
63
25.0
8.1
Forward States
Backward States
Source: Compiled from Census of India (2001) and Economic Survey (2004-05).
60
Most of the backward states have poor record in health indicators like infant
mortality, birth and death rates. It may be pointed out that among the forward
states, Haryana indicates a poor record in terms of infant mortality and birth
rates, though it enjoys a third rank in per capita NSDP. While Kerala and Tamil
8.4
LET US SUM UP
While economic reforms may be justified on the basis that they have helped to
improve rate of growth of GDP, they cannot be justified in reducing
unemployment and poverty to the desired extent. Their record in terms of
increasing unemployment rates is too glaring. As far their impact on labour is
concerned, it is adverse. They pushed labour from secure to insecure employment,
increasing employers militancy and weakened trade unions. A major sin of
economic reforms is neglect of agriculture, more especially in terms of reducing
investment in irrigation by the public sector. Economic reforms have also not
been successful in accelerating industrial growth, more especially in electricity
generation and mining. The failure was also manifest in basic and capital goods
industries.
61
Development Strategies in
India
8.5
EXERCISES
1)
2)
What have been the effects of the reform process on the welfare of labour?
Is the trend satisfactory from the point of view of human development?
3)
4)
Is there evidence of acceleration of industrial growth after undertaking wideranging industrial reforms? Support your answer with facts and figures.
5)
62
Direct Investment: It includes equities held by: (a) Government and Reserve
Bank of India, (b) Non-Resident Indians, (c) Acquisition of shares in incorporated
bodies, (d) Equity capital of unincorporated bodies, (e) Reinvested earnings and
(f) Other capital or inter-company debt transactions of FDI companies.
Portfolio Investment: It includes: (a) Global Depository Receipts/American
Depository Receipts, (b) Investment by Financial Institutional Investors and (c)
Off Shore Funds etc.
8.7
Datt, Ruddar (2003); Economic Reforms, Labour and Employment, Deep and
Deep Publications (P) Ltd., New Delhi.
Datt, Ruddar & Sundharam, K.P.M. (2005); Indian Economy, 51st Edition, S.
Chand and Company Ltd., New Delhi.
Government of India, Economic Survey (2004-05).
Government of India, Public Enterprises Survey (2002-2003).
Reserve Bank of India (2004); Handbook of Statistics on the Indian Economy
(2003-04).
8.8
2)
3)
2)
3)
Coal, Petroleum
2)
3)
63