Abstract
This study differentiates total factor productivity (TFP) between the exporting and non-exporting firms in manufacturing sector of India. We use data from the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE) from 2003 to 2015. For a better understanding of the productivity distribution, we create two subgroups of sample based on firm age and size. Moving away from parametric tests this study adopts non-parametric statistics in testing the hypothesis. Productivity levels are found to be higher for the exporting firms as compared to the non-exporting firm. Further, within the exporting firms, those with larger firm size have higher productivity compared to the smaller firms.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test is a non-parametric test of the equality of continuous, one-dimensional probability distribution that can be used to compare a sample with a reference probability distribution. This can be either of one-sample or two-sample test. For more details, see Darling (1957).
- 3.
For a detail methodological review, refer to Degado et al. (2002).
- 4.
Comparisons between distribution functions for the whole population are avoided since this would have required the estimation of a mixture of two distributions.
- 5.
- 6.
We arrive at good accuracy of asymptotic approximation as the asymptotic and bootstrap P-values are fairly close. For detail, see Gine and Zinn (1990).
- 7.
Switchers are exporting firm that participate in the export market intermittently, in time intervals that is greater than 1Â year.
- 8.
Productivity distributions are also higher in all quartiles for firms in the export market as compared to the non-exporting firms. The median productivity of the former is 26% higher than the productivity of the latter. Similarly, productivity differences are greater at the lower part of the distribution, 7% in favour of exporting firms at the lower quartile, and smaller in the upper part, 5% in favour of exporting firms at the upper quartile.
- 9.
P-values on limiting the distribution and on bootstrap approximation lead to same results.
- 10.
On the entry side, the implication of selection is that only firms with higher productivity should enter the export market. On the exit side, if selection is at work, low productivity exporters should leave the export market.
- 11.
Switchers are excluded from the comparison.
References
Aw, B. Y., Chen, X., & Roberts, M. J. (1997). Firm level evidence on productivity differentials, turnover, and exports in Taiwanese manufacturing. NBER Working Paper 6235.
Aw, B. Y., Chung, S., & Roberts, M. J. (2000). Productivity and turnover in the export market: Micro evidence from Taiwan and South Korea. The World Bank Economic Review, 14(1), 65–90.
Aw, B. Y., & Hwang, A. (1995). Productivity and the export market: A firm-level analysis. Journal of Development Economics, 47, 313–332.
Bai, J. (1996). Testing for parameter constancy in linear regressions: An empirical distribution function approach. Econometrica, 64(3), 597–622.
Baldwin, J., Jarmin, R., & Tang, J. (2002). The trend to smaller producers in manufacturing: A Canada/US comparison. Economic Analysis Research Paper Series, No. 3, Statistics Canada.
Banga, R., & Goldar, B. (2007). Contribution of services to output growth and productivity in Indian manufacturing. Economic and Political Weekly, 42(26).
Bernard, A., & Jensen, J. B. (1999). Exceptional exporter performance: Cause, effect or both? Journal of International Economics, 47, 1–25.
Bernard, A. B., & Jensen, J. B. (1995). Exporters, jobs and wages in U.S. manufacturing, 1976–1987. The Brooking Papers on Economic Activity. Microeconomics, 67–112.
Cavusgil, S. T. (1976). Organizational determinants of firms’ export behavior: An empirical analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin, Madison (unpublished).
Clerides, S. K., Lach, S., & Tybout, J. R. (1998). Is learning-by-exporting important? Micro-dynamic evidence from Colombia, Mexico and Morocco. Quarterly Journal of Economics, CXIII, 903–947.
Darling, D. A. (1957). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Cramer-Von Mises tests. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 28, 823–838.
Delgado, M. A., & Mora, J. (2000). A non-parametric test for serial independence of regression errors. Biometrika, 87, 228–234.
Delgadoa, M. A., Jose, C. F., & Ruano, S. (2002). Firm productivity and export markets: A non-parametric approach. Journal of International Economics, 57(2002), 397–422.
Doyle, R. W., & Schommer, N. A. (1976). The decision to export: Some implications. A Motivation Study Commissioned by the Minnesota District Export Council.
Ericson, R., & Pakes, A. (1995). Markov-perfect industry dynamics: A framework for empirical work. Review of Economic Studies, 62, 53–82.
Gine, E., & Zinn, J. (1990). Bootstrapping general empirical measures. Annals of Probability, 18, 851–869.
Griliches, Z., & Regev, H. (1995). Firm productivity in Israeli industry 1979–1988. Journal of Econometrics, 65, 75–203.
Jensen, J. B., & Wagner, J. (1997). Exports and success in German manufacturing. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 133(1), 134–157.
Jovanovic, B. (1982). Selection and the evolution of industry. Econometrica, 50, 649–670.
Levinsohn, J., & Petrin, A. (2003). Estimating production functions using inputs to control for unobservables. The Review of Economic Studies, 70(2), 317–341.
Narayanan, K. (1998). Technology acquisition, de-regulation and competitiveness: A study of Indian automobile industry. Research Policy, 27(2).
Perkett, W. (1963). An analysis of the obstacles to increased foreign trade which confront British Columbia industrial machinery manufacturers. Ph.D. Thesis, Washington: University of Washington Seattle (unpublished).
Prowess IQ, Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy, Annual Financial Balance Statements. Accessed as on 11-10-2018.
Roberts, M. J., & Tybout, J. R. (1997). The decision to export in Colombia: An empirical model of entry with sunk costs. American Economic Review, 87(4), 545–564.
Sahu, S. K., & Narayanan, K. (2015). Technology import, R and D spillover and export: a study of automobile sector in India. Review of Development and Change, XX(2), 257–276. Special Issue on ‘Promises and Challenges in India’s Manufacturing Sector’, Madras Institute of Development Studies, Chennai.
Tybout, J. R. (1997). Heterogeneity and productivity growth: assessing the evidence. In M. J. Roberts, & J. R. Tybout (Eds.), Industrial evolution in developing countries. Oxford University Press.
Van Biesebroeck, J. (2005). Firm size matters: Growth and productivity growth in African manufacturing. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 53, 545–583.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Narayanan, K., Sahu, S.K. (2020). Firm-Level Productivity and Exports: The Case of Manufacturing Sector in India. In: Aggarwal, S., Das, D., Banga, R. (eds) Accelerators of India's Growth—Industry, Trade and Employment. India Studies in Business and Economics. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9397-7_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9397-7_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-32-9396-0
Online ISBN: 978-981-32-9397-7
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)