Effect of firm ownership on productivity: empirical evidence from the Indian mining industry

Abstract

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.

Appendix

Measurement of capital

The database provides firms’ gross fixed asset (GFA) at historical cost. In many of our studies, especially in productivity-related studies, we use capital as a variable. But, it is a herculean task to estimate the capital accurately. Generally, capital stock is valued at historic cost which is known as book value of capital. But we actually need the present value of capital stock at constant prices for analysis. One of the methods to obtain this present value is through applying perpetual inventory method (PIM). Thus, in this study, data on capital stock have been estimated using the perpetual inventory method. As a first step to this, first of all, given GFA values are re-valued at the replacement cost with 2009–2010 as the benchmark year. For estimating the re-valuation factor, we have followed the method of Srivastava (1996). This study uses the gross fixed asset rather than the net fixed asset because depreciation charges in the Indian industry are highly arbitrary, fixed by income tax authorities hardly representing actual consumption. The detailed methodology of capital stock estimation (GFA) is presented below.

Estimation of capital stock using PIM

To estimate the capital stock from GFA, we have assumed the following:

• 1. Selection of the base year

  For our data, the base year is 2009 (our study period is 2000 to 2016). This is due to the availability of a greater number of observations in this year. We assume that the earliest vintage in the capital occurs from 1984, or the year of incorporation if it is after 1984. This specific year 1984 was chosen because the life of machinery and tools is assumed to be 25 years for the mining industry.

• 2. We assume that the price of capital changes at a constant rate ∏ = Pt/Pt − 1 from 1984 or the year of incorporation up to 2009. The values of ∏ are arrived at from a series of price deflators constructed from CSO’s data on gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) published in various issues of the National Accounts of Statistics (NAS).

• 3. Similar to the price of capital, we also assume that the price of investment changes at a constant rate g = It/It − 1. The growth rate of fixed capital formation at 2004–2005 constant prices, taken from various issues of NAS, is applied to the case of all the firms.

• 4. Based on the value of ∏ and g, we estimate the ‘re-valuation factor’ R^G, defined by Srivastava (1996) as

  $$ {R}^G=\left[{\left(1+g\right)}^{t+1}-1\right]\left(1+\prod \right)\left[\left(1+g\right)\left(1+\prod \right)-1\right]/g\left\{{\left[\left(1+g\right)\left(1+\prod \right)\right]}^{t+1}--1\right\} $$

• 5. After the re-valuation factor is estimated, we multiply the capital stock in the base year (2009) by this factor in order to convert the base year capital into capital stock at replacement cost at current prices.

• 6. The value of the capital stock in the benchmark year is then converted to constant prices using the WPI for machinery with the year 2004–2005 as the base.

• 7. Capital stock in the subsequent year is then estimated by adding the subsequent year’s investment, GFA_t – GFA_t − 1 (at constant prices), to the existing stock of the capital stock at each point of time using the perpetual inventory method.

Table 10 Sector-wise sample number of firms in the mining industry

Table 11 Percentage share of prowess output in the total value of mining output

Table 12 Summary statistics of the variables used in the analysis

Table 13 Weighted average of the TFP levels for the mining industry and its four subsectors