Advertisement

Labour and Energy Intensity: A Study of the Pulp and Paper Industries in India

  • Santosh Kumar Sahu
  • K. Narayanan
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter is an attempt to understand the relationship between the labour and energy intensity for firms drawn from pulp and paper industries in Indian manufacturing. Pulp and paper industry accounts for a considerable share of the industrial enterprises, production, employment and exports in the Indian economy and also one of the energy-intensive industries in Indian manufacturing. This chapter uses data from the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE), at the unit level for the period 1992–2000. Analysis from the cross-tabulation of energy and labour intensity of the firms in this industry suggests that energy intensity is higher for the BSE-listed firms; however, the labour intensity is found higher for the non-listed firms. Further, energy and labour intensity is higher for the domestic when compared to foreign firms. The econometric analysis of the energy intensity and other firm-specific characteristics suggests that labour and energy intensity has an inverted U-shape relationship, suggesting a substitution possibility between energy and labour for the pulp and paper industries in India. The listed firms are found to be more energy intensive as compared to the non-listed firms. More importantly, technology import is found negatively related to energy intensity of firms, suggesting that firms in these industries could be using technology import and knowledge sharing from their foreign collaborators for energy saving.

Keywords

Total Factor Productivity Energy Intensity Foreign Firm Paper Industry Domestic Firm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgement

We gratefully acknowledge comments and suggestions by Prof. B. N. Goldar and Prof. N. S. Siddharthan. The errors that remain are our own.

References

  1. Ahluwalia IJ (1991) Productivity and growth in Indian manufacturing – trends in productivity and growth. Oxford University Press, New York/New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen RGD (1938) Mathematical analysis for economists. St. Martin’s Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Balasubrahmanya MH (2006) Labour productivity, energy intensity and economic performance in small enterprises: a study of brick enterprises cluster in India. Energy Conver Manage 47:763–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnett AH, Reutter K, Thompson H (1998) Electricity substitution: some local industrial evidence. Energy Econ 20:411–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caloghiro Y, Mourelatos A, Thompson H (1997) Industrial energy substitution during the 1980s in the Greek economy. Energy Econ 19:476–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cameron T, Schwartz SL (1980) Inflationary expectations and the demand for capital, labor, and energy in Canadian manufacturing industries. In: Ziemba WT et al (eds) Energy policy modeling: U.S. and Canadian experiences. Matinus Nijhoff Publishing, BostonGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang K (1994) Capital-energy substitution and the multi-level CES production function. Energy Econ 16:22–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chaudhuri S (2002) Economic reforms and industrial structure in India. Econ Pol Wkly 37(02):155–162Google Scholar
  9. Christensen LR, Jorgenson D, Lau LJ (1971) Conjugate duality and the transcendental logarithmic production function. Econometrica 39:255–256Google Scholar
  10. Cohen M (1998) Monitoring and enforcement of environmental policy. In: Tietenberg T, Folmer H (eds) International yearbook of environmental and resource economics, vol III. Edward Elgar Publishers, NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  11. Das D, Wadhwa D, Kalita G (2009) The employment potential of labor intensive industries in India’s organized manufacturing. Working paper no. 236. Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  12. Denison EF (1974) Accounting for United States economic growth 1929 to 1969. Brookings Institution, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. Denison EF (1979) Accounting for slower economic growth. Brookings Institution, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Denison EF (1985) Trends in American economic growth 1929–1982. Brookings Institution, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  15. Denny M, Fuss M, Waverman L (1981) Substitution possibilities for energy: evidence from US and Canadian manufacturing industries. In: Berndt ER, Field BC (eds) Modeling and measuring natural resource substitution. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Doonan J, Lanoie P, Laplante B (2005) Determinants of environment performance in Canadian pulp and paper industries: an assessment from inside the industry. Ecol Econ 55:73–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Easterly W, Levine R (2002)  Chapter 3: It’s not factor accumulation: stylized facts and growth models. In: Klaus S-H (ed) Economic growth: sources, trends, and cycles, vol 6, 1st edn. Central Bank of Chile, Santiago, pp 061–114
  18. Felipe J (1997) Total factor productivity growth in East Asia: a critical survey, EDRC report series number 65, Economics and Development Resource Center, Asian Development BankGoogle Scholar
  19. Foulon J, Lanoie P, Laplante B (2002) Incentives for pollution control: regulation or information? J Environ Econ Manage 44:169–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ganguli I, Roy J (1995) Oil demand elasticities in India. Indian J Appl Econ 5(1):75–87Google Scholar
  21. Goldar B (2000) Employment growth in organized manufacturing in India. Econ Pol Wkly 35(14):1191–1195Google Scholar
  22. Goldar B (2010) Energy intensity of Indian manufacturing firms: effect of energy prices, technology and other firm characteristics. Paper presented during the conference on frontier issues in technology, Development and Environment at MSE, ChennaiGoogle Scholar
  23. Hogan W, Jorgenson D (1991) Productivity trends and the cost of reducing CO2 emissions. Energy J 12(1):67–85Google Scholar
  24. Hseu JS, Shang JK (2005) Productivity changes of pulp and paper industry in OECD countries 1991–2000: a non-parametric malmquist approach. For Policy Econ 7:411–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hudson EA, Jorgenson D (1974) US energy policy and economic growth 1975–2000. Bell J Econ Manage Sci 5:461–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jha R, Murty MN, Paul S, Rao BB (1993) An analysis of technological change, factor substitution and economies of scale in manufacturing industries in India. Appl Econ 25:1337–1343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jorgenson DW, Fraumeni BM (1981) Relative prices and technical change. In: Berndt ER, Fields B (eds) Modeling and measuring natural resources substitution. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Jorgenson DW, Gollop FM, Fraumeni M (1987) Productivity and U.S. economic growth. North Holland, Amsterdam/OxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Kumar A (2003) Energy intensity: a quantitative exploration for Indian manufacturing. IGIDR Working paper no. 152. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.468440
  30. Lashof D, Tirpak D (eds) (1990) Policy options for stabilizing global climate: report to Congress, Executive summary, US Environmental Protection Agency, No. 21Google Scholar
  31. Li X, Buongiorno J, Ince PJ (2004) Effects of size and age on the survival and growth of pulp and paper mills. J For Econ 10:3–9Google Scholar
  32. Ma H, Oxley L, Gibson J (2009) Substitution possibilities and determinants of energy intensity for China. Energy Policy 37:1793–1804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mahmud S (2000) The energy demand in the manufacturing sector of Pakistan: some further results. Energy Econ 22:641–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mongia P, Sathaye J (1998a) Productivity trends in India’s energy intensive industries: a growth accounting analysis, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Working paper no. 41838, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  35. Mongia P, Sathaye J (1998b) Productivity growth and technical change in India’s energy intensive industries – a survey, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Working paper no. 41840, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  36. Mongia P, Schumacher K, Sathaye J (2001) Policy reforms and productivity growth in India’s energy intensive industries. Energy Policy 29:715–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nagaraj R (2004) Fall in organized manufacturing employment – a brief note. Econ Pol Wkly 39(30):3387–3390Google Scholar
  38. Pradhan G, Barik K (1999) Total factor productivity growth in developing economies: a study of selected industries in India. Econ Pol Wkly 34(31):M92–M97Google Scholar
  39. Roy J (1992) Demand for energy in Indian manufacturing industries. Daya Publishing, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  40. Roy J, Sathaye J, Sanstad A, Mongia P, Schumacher K (1999) Productivity trends in India’s energy intensive industries. Energy J 20(3):33–61Google Scholar
  41. Sahu SK, Narayanan K (2010) Determinants of energy intensity in Indian manufacturing industries: a firm level analysis. MPRA paper no. 21646, University Library of Munich, MunichGoogle Scholar
  42. Sahu SK, Narayanan K (2011) Determinants of energy intensity in Indian manufacturing industries: a firm level study. Eurasian J Econ Bus 4(8):13–30Google Scholar
  43. Sarkar S, Roy J (1995) Inter-fuel substitution during post oil embargo period - case study of two energy intensive manufacturing industries in India. The Indian Econ J 43(2):33–46Google Scholar
  44. Sathaye JA, Ravindranath NH (1998) Climate change mitigation in the energy and forestry sectors of developing countries. Annu Rev Eng Environ 23:387–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schumacher K, Sathaye J (1999) India’s pulp and paper industry: productivity and energy efficiency. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, LBNL-41843Google Scholar
  46. Solow RM (1957) Technical change and the aggregate production function. Rev Econ Stat 39:312–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Takayama A (1993) Analytical methods in economics. University of Michigan Press, Ann HarborGoogle Scholar
  48. Uma R, Unni J (2004) Unorganized and organized manufacturing in India: potential for employment generating growth. Econ Pol Wkly 39(41):4568–4580Google Scholar
  49. UNFCCC (1998) Kyoto protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on climate change, available at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf
  50. Varian HR (1984) Microeconomic analysis. W. W. Norton & Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Weyant J, Davidson O, Dowlatabadi H, Edmonds J, Grubb M, Parson EA, Richels R, Rotmans J, Shukla PR, Tol RSJ, Cline W, Fankhauser S (1996) Integrated assessment of climate change: an overview and comparison of approaches and results. In: Bruce JP, Lee H, Erik HF (eds) Climate change 1995 – economic and social dimensions of climate change. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. World Bank (2000) Greening industry: new roles for communities, markets, and governments. World Bank/Oxford University Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  53. Yi F (2000) Dynamic energy-demand models: a comparison. Energy Econ 22:285–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Humanities and Social SciencesIndian Institute of Technology, BombayMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations