The Inconsistency in the Industrial Policy

Resolutions and its Effect on the

Industrial Development

Page | 1
Background

1
The goals and objectives set out for the nation by Pandit Nehru on the eve of Independence, namely,
the rapid agricultural and industrial development of our country, rapid expansion of opportunities for
gainful employment, progressive reduction of social and economic disparities, removal of poverty and
attainment of self-reliance remain as valid today as at the time Pandit Nehru first set them out before
the nation. Any industrial policy must contribute to the realization of these goals and objectives at an
accelerated pace. The industrial policy is inspired by these very concerns, and represents a renewed
initiative towards consolidating the gains of national reconstruction at this crucial stage.
Let’s take a brief look at the various Industrial Policy Resolutions that have been taken up by the
Government of India-
2
INDUSTRIAL POLICY RESOLUTION 1948 (6TH APRIL, 1948)
The Resolution emphasized at the following:
1. The importance to the economy of securing a continuous increase in production
2. Its equitable distribution
3. State must play of progressively active role in the development of Industries
4. It laid down that besides arms and ammunition, atomic energy and railway transport, which would be
the monopoly of the Central Government, the State would be exclusively responsible for the
establishment of new undertakings in six basic industries-except where, in the national interest, the
State itself found it necessary to secure the cooperation of private enterprise
5. The rest of the industrial field was left open to private enterprise though it was made clear that the
State would also progressively participate in this field

3
INDUSTRIAL POLICY RESOLUTION 1956 (30TH APRIL, 1956)
The Resolution emphasized at the following:
1. Improving living standards and working conditions for the mass of the people
2. To reduce disparities in income and wealth
3. To prevent private monopolies and concentration of economic power in different fields in the hands
of small numbers of individuals
4. The State will progressively assume a predominant and direct responsibility for setting up new
industrial undertakings and for developing transport facilities
5. Undertake State trading on an increasing scale
6. At the same time private sector will have the opportunity to develop and expand

1
http://siadipp.nic.in/publicat/nip0791.htm
2
Industrial policy of India - Prof Chowdari Prasad
3
Industrial policy of India - Prof Chowdari Prasad

Page | 2
7. The principle of cooperation should be applied whenever possible and a steadily increasing
proportion of the activities of the private sector developed along cooperative lines
8. The adoption of the socialist pattern of society as the national objective
9. The need for planned and rapid development
10. All industries of basic and strategic importance, or in the nature of public utility services, should be in
the public sector
11. It is always open to the State to undertake any type of industrial production
12. Categorization of industries:
i) In the first category will be industries the future development of which will be the exclusive
responsibility of the State
ii) The second category will consist of industries which will be progressively state-owned and in
which the State will, therefore, generally take the initiative in establishing new undertakings, but
in which private enterprise will also be expected to supplement the efforts of the State
iii) The third category will include all the remaining industries, and their future development
will, in general, be left to the initiative and enterprise of the private sector
13. The Government of India would stress the role of cottage and village and small scale industries in the
development of the national economy
14. Disparities in levels of development between different regions should be progressively reduced

4
INDUSTRIAL POLICY 1973 (2ND FEBRUARY, 1973)
1. The Industrial Policy Resolution of 1956 still remained valid, but certain structural distortions had
crept in the system.
2. The new policies were hence directed towards removing these distortions
3. It provided for a closer interaction between the agricultural and industrial sectors
4. Accorded the highest priority to the generation and transmission of power
5. An exhaustive analysis of industrial products was made to identify products which are capable of
being produced in the small scale sector
6. The list of industries exclusively reserved for the small scale sector was expanded from 180 items to
more than 500 items
7. Within the small scale sector, a tiny sector was also defined with investment in machinery and
equipment up to Rs.1 lakh and situated in towns with a population of less than 50,000 according to 1971
census figures, and in villages
8. Special legislation to protect cottage and household industries was also proposed to be introduced
9. It was also decided that compulsory export obligations, merely for ensuring the foreign exchange
balance of the project, would no longer be insisted upon while approving new industrial capacity

4
Industrial policy of India - Prof Chowdari Prasad

Page | 3
10. In the areas of price control of agricultural and industrial products, the prices would be regulated to
ensure an adequate return to the investor

5
INDUSTRIAL POLICY RESOLUTION 1977 (23RD DECEMBER, 1977)
1. Industrial Policy Highlights on producing inputs needed by a large number of smaller units and making
adequate marketing arrangements
2. The nucleus plant would also work for upgrading the technology of small units
3. The Government would promote the development of a system of linkages between nucleus large
plants and the satellite ancillaries
4. To boost the development of small scale industries, the investment limit in the case of tiny units
was enhanced to Rs.2 lakh, of a small scale unit to Rs.20 lakh and of ancillaries to Rs.25 lakh
5. A scheme for building buffer stocks of essential raw materials for the Small Scale Industries was
introduced for operation through the Small Industries Development Corporations in the States and the
National Small Industries Corporation in the Centre
6. Industrial processes and technologies aimed at optimum utilization of energy or the exploitation of
alternative sources of energy would be given special assistance, including finance on concessional terms.

6
THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY STATEMENT 1980 (JULY, 1980)
It was based on the Industrial Policy Resolution of 1956:
1. Optimum utilization of installed capacity;
2. Maximum production and achieving higher productivity;
3. Higher employment generation;
4. Correction of regional imbalances;
5. Strengthening of the agricultural base through agro based industries and promotion of optimum
inter-sectoral relationship;
6. Promotion of export-oriented industries;
7. Promotion of economic federalism through equitable spread of investment and dispersal of returns;
8. Consumer protection against high prices and bad quality

7
INDUSTRIAL POLICY RESOLUTION 1991 (24TH JULY, 1991)
1. Government is pledged to launching a reinvigorated struggle for social and economic justice, to end
poverty and unemployment and to build a modern, democratic, socialist, prosperous and forward-
looking India
2. Such a society can be built if India grows as part of the world economy and not in isolation

5
Industrial policy of India - Prof Chowdari Prasad
6
Industrial policy of India - Prof Chowdari Prasad
7
Industrial policy of India - Prof Chowdari Prasad

Page | 4
3. While Government will continue to follow the policy of self-reliance, there would be greater emphasis
placed on building up our ability to pay for imports through our own foreign exchange earnings.
4. Government is also committed to development and utilization of indigenous capabilities in technology
and manufacturing as well as its upgradation to world standards.
5. Government will continue to pursue a sound policy framework encompassing encouragement of
entrepreneurship, development of indigenous technology through investment in research and
development, bringing in new technology, dismantling of the regulatory system, development of the
capital markets and increasing competitiveness for the benefit of the common man
6. The spread of industrialization to backward areas of the country will be actively promoted through
appropriate incentives, institutions and infrastructure investments
7. Government will provide enhanced support to the small-scale sector so that it flourishes in an
environment of economic efficiency and continuous technological upgradation
8. Foreign investment and technology collaboration will be welcomed to obtain higher technology, to
increase exports and to expand the production base
9.Government will endeavor to abolish the monopoly of any sector or any individual enterprise in any
field of manufacture, except on strategic or military considerations and open all manufacturing activity
to competition.
10. The Government will ensure that the public sector plays its rightful role in the evolving
socioeconomic scenario of the country. Government will ensure that the public sector is run on business
lines as envisaged in the Industrial Policy Resolution of 1956 and would continue to innovate and lead in
strategic areas of national importance
11. Government will fully protect the interests of labor, enhance their welfare and equip them in all
respects to deal with the inevitability of technological change
12. Labor will be made an equal partner in progress and prosperity.
13. Workers’ participation in management will be promoted
14. Workers cooperatives will be encouraged to participate in packages designed to turn around sick
companies
15. The major objectives of the new industrial policy package will be to build on the gains already
made, correct the distortions or weaknesses that may have crept in, maintain a sustained growth in
productivity and gainful employment and attain international competitiveness
16. Need to preserve the environment and ensure the efficient use of available resources
17. Government’s policy will be continuity with change
18. In pursuit of the above objectives, Government has decided to take a series of initiatives in respect
of the policies relating to the following areas:
A. Industrial Licensing
B. Foreign Investment
C. Foreign Technology Agreements
D. Public Sector Policy
E. MRTP Act

Page | 5
8
A. INDUSTRIAL LICENSING

The industrial licensing system has been gradually moving away from the concept of capacity licensing.
The system of reservations for public sector undertakings has been evolving towards an ethos of greater
flexibility and private sector enterprise has been gradually allowed to enter into many of these areas on
a case by case basis. Further impetus must be provided to these changes which alone can push this
country towards the attainment of its entrepreneurial and industrial potential.

In the above context, industrial licensing will henceforth be abolished for all industries, except those
specified, irrespective of levels of investment. These specified industries (Annex-II), will continue to be
subject to compulsory licensing for reasons related to security and strategic concerns, social reasons,
problems related to safety and over-riding environmental issues, manufacture of products of hazardous
nature and articles of elitist consumption. The exemption from licensing will be particularly helpful to
the many dynamic small and medium entrepreneurs who have been unnecessarily hampered by the
licensing system. As a whole the Indian economy will benefit by becoming more competitive, more
efficient and modern and will take its rightful place in the world of industrial progress.

9
B. FOREIGN INVESTMENT

In order to invite foreign investment in high priority industries, requiring large investments and
advanced technology, it has been decided to provide approval for direct foreign investment up to 51%
foreign equity in such industries. There shall be no bottlenecks of any kind in this process. These groups
of industries have generally been known as the “Appendix I Industries” and are areas in which FERA
companies have already been allowed to invest on a discretionary basis. This change will go a long way
in making Indian policy on foreign investment transparent. Such a framework will make it attractive for
companies abroad to invest in India.

Promotion of exports of Indian products calls for a systematic exploration of world markets possible
only through intensive and highly professional marketing activities. To the extent that expertise of this
nature is not well developed so far in India, Government will encourage foreign trading companies to
assist us in our export activities. Attraction of substantial investment and access to high technology,
often closely held, and to world markets, involves interaction with some of the world's largest
international manufacturing and marketing firms. The Government will appoint a special board to
negotiate with such firms so that we can engage in purposive negotiation with such large firms, and
provide the avenues for large investments in the development of industries and technology in the
national interest.

8
http://siadipp.nic.in/publicat/nip0791.htm
9
http://siadipp.nic.in/publicat/nip0791.htm

Page | 6
10
C. FOREIGN TECHNOLOGY AGREEMENT

With a view to injecting the desired level of technological dynamism in Indian industry, Government will
provide automatic approval for technology agreement related to high priority industries within specified
parameters. Similar facilities will be available for other industries as well if such agreements do not
require the expenditure of free exchange. Indian companies will be free to negotiate the terms of
technology transfer with their foreign counterparts according to their own commercial judgments. The
predictability and independence of action that this measure is providing to Indian industry will induce
them to develop indigenous competence for the efficient absorption of foreign technology. Greater
competitive pressure will also induce our industry to invest much more in research and development
and they have been doing in the past. In order to help this process, the hiring of foreign technicians and
foreign testing of indigenously developed technologies, will also not require prior clearance as
prescribed so far, individually or as a part of industrial or investment approvals.

11
D. PUBLIC SECTOR POLICY

The priority areas for growth of public enterprises in the future will be the following-

 Essential infrastructure goods and services.

 Exploration and exploitation of oil and mineral resources.
 Technology development and building of manufacturing capabilities in areas which are crucial in
the long term development of the economy and where private sector investment is inadequate.
 Manufacture of products where strategic considerations predominate such as defense
equipment.

At the same time the public sector will not be barred from entering areas not specifically reserved for it.

In view of these considerations, Government will review the existing portfolio of public investments
with greater realism. This review will be in respect of industries based on low technology, small scale
and non-strategic areas, inefficient and unproductive areas, areas with low or nil social considerations or
public purpose, and areas where the private sector has developed sufficient expertise and resources.

Government will strengthen those public enterprises which fall in the reserved areas of operation or are
in high priority areas or are generating good or reasonable profits. Such enterprises will be provided a
much greater degree of management autonomy through the system of memoranda of understanding.
Competition will also be induced in these areas by inviting private sector participation. In the case of
selected enterprises, part of Government holdings in the equity share capital of these enterprises will be
disinvested in order to provide further market discipline to the performance of public enterprises. There
are a large number of chronically sick public enterprises incurring heavy losses, operating in a
10
http://siadipp.nic.in/publicat/nip0791.htm
11
http://siadipp.nic.in/publicat/nip0791.htm

Page | 7
competitive market and serve little or no public purpose. These need to be attended to. The country
must be proud of the public sector that it owns and it must operate in the public interest.

12
E. MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT (MRTP ACT)

The principal objectives sought to be achieved through the MRTP Act are as follows:

 Prevention of concentration of economic power to the common detriment, control of

monopolies, and
 Prohibition of monopolistic and restrictive and unfair trade practices.

With the growing complexity of industrial structure and the need for achieving economies of scale for
ensuring high productivity and competitive advantage in the international market, the interference of
the Government through the MRTP Act in investment decisions of large companies has become
deleterious in its effects on Indian industrial growth. The pre-entry scrutiny of investment decisions by
so called MRTP companies will no longer be required. Instead, emphasis will be on controlling and
regulating monopolistic, restrictive and unfair trade practices rather than making it necessary for the
monopoly house to obtain prior approval of Central Government for expansion, establishment of new
undertakings, merger, amalgamation and takeover and appointment of certain directors. The thrust of
policy will be more on controlling unfair or restrictive business practices. The MRTP Act will be
restructured by eliminating the legal requirement for prior governmental approval for expansion of
present undertakings and establishment of new undertakings. The provisions relating to merger,
amalgamation and takeover will also be repealed. Similarly, the provisions regarding restrictions on
acquisition of and transfer of shares will be appropriately incorporated in the Companies Act.

Simultaneously, provisions of the MRTP Act will be strengthened in order to enable the MRTP
Commission to take appropriate action in respect of the monopolistic, restrictive and unfair trade
practices. The newly empowered MRTP Commission will be encouraged to require investigation suo
moto or on complaints received from individual consumers or classes of consumers.

12
http://siadipp.nic.in/publicat/nip0791.htm

Page | 8
The Inconsistencies and its Effects

INDUSTRIAL POLICY RESOLUTION 1948

The Industrial Policy Resolution of 1948 in itself suffered from certain inconsistencies. Whatever
industrial pattern existed up to 1948 was contributed by the Private Sector. The Industrial Policy
Resolution of 1948 made industrialization Government driven to a large extent. Private players could
play only nominal roles and that too with the approval of the State. This reduced the rate of investment
by the private sector by 1/3rd.

INDUSTRIAL POLICY RESOLUTION 1977

The Industrial Policy Resolution of 1977 was a controversial one which preached “small is beautiful”. It
emphasized that “whatever can be produced by small and cottage industries must only be so produced.”
The focal point of development of small-scale industries was taken away from the big cities to districts.
An economy which was moving towards heavy and intermediate goods was suddenly shifted towards
small scale industries.
The resolution was totally detrimental to private players. Private players were forced to move outside
the country to continue functioning properly. CII and ASSOCHAM showed interest to move out of India
and expand elsewhere. Business giants like Aditya Birla group and Reliance group started setting up
foreign businesses. A large portion of Hinduja group’s strategy to have 80% base outside India and only
20% in India can be attributed to the Industrial Policy Resolution of 1977.

INDUSTRIAL POLICY RESOLUTION 1991

Our main focus is on The Industrial Policy Resolution of 1991. There are certain areas where the policies
have produced undesirable results and have thus invited a lot of criticism-
1. EXPOSURE TO FOREIGN COMPETITION

While the private sector industrialists initially welcomed the Industrial Policy Resolution of 1991
in the euphoria of liberalization, they later realized that opening up of the Indian economy
invited cheaper imports and foreign investments. The MNCs would have opportunities to take
over their enterprises while they would not be able to meet the challenge from MNCs due to
their weak economic strength. There were a number of fronts on which the Indian businesses
faced unequal competition. The Indian enterprises faced ‘size disadvantages’ as they were very
small compared to the MNCs. The Indian industries had been under a protectionist environment
for a long time, suddenly they got exposed to competition from financially stronger MNCs who
also had the leverage of cheaper imports. The scenario suddenly changed from too much
protection to too little protection.

The worst affected here was the capital goods sector-

 Firstly, the user sectors now had the option of importing most modern capital goods and
equipments instead of buying them from the domestic industry as a result of
liberalization.

Page | 9
  Secondly, with a progressive reduction in import duties, most of the user sectors
adopted a wait and watch policy and postponed their investment plans.

As a result industries like copper, paper and hydrocarbon suffered where there was high amount
of import while the domestic capacity languished.

2. BUSINESS COLONISATION

The measures to promote foreign investments and the concessions given to such investments
have provided opportunities for MNCs to penetrate the Indian economy and own Indian
enterprises.

There have been 3 major ways of colonization by foreign players-

a. Some foreign investors have bought local brands along with their branded products with
the aim of replacing them with their own internationally known products thus
eliminating the possibility of local competition.
b. Some foreign investors use the joint venture route to gain foothold in the domestic
industry but in the long run, after consolidating their own positions, reduce the Indian
partner to a subordinate position.
c. Some foreign investors started off with joint ventures but set up parallel hundred
percent subsidiaries of their own in the same field. These were favored with greater
resources and modern technologies thus rendering the joint venture uncompetitive and
useless.

These kinds of ways have raised severe dangers of business colonization in India.

3. OVER DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT

One of the major expectations from foreign investments was the accompanying technological
up gradation. However, hardly any MNC has attempted to develop India as an important base
for a significant part of its research and development work. The MNCs have not tried to expand
the export market. They have restricted exports to the extent they were compelled to or found
necessary to earn foreign exchange for other imports. Instead of using India as a manufacturing
base the MNCs are using it as trading and exporting concerns.

Also, it is often argued that the production and managerial technologies found suitable in other
countries may not necessarily prove to be the best in the Indian circumstances. India has a very
large manpower resource base. This implies that the technologies to be adopted should be labor
intensive and capital saving. Most foreign technologies have been developed in labor scarce
capital intensive countries which imply that there is a mismatch in expectations which cannot be
easily resolved. Besides, most countries are reluctant to transfer technology readily to other
countries since a lot of modern technologies are also related to the defense segment. Hence,
unless there are strategic tie ups between the countries in terms of defense, there is little scope
of technology sharing.

4. INABILITY TO ERADICATE PERSONALISTIC APPROACH

Page | 10
 In the ‘license raj’ era, the entire industrial licensing operations were controlled by rent seeking
activities. Now with the abolition of the license raj, the corrupt practices have moved away from
the Central Government level to the State Government level due to the increase in the number
of interactions points in the latter level.

Industrial Performance of India

13
SOME IMPORTANT AGGREGATES

India’s overall economic performance - at least insofar as it is reflected in terms of dollar per capita
incomes - has not been particularly impressive, either in relation to other LDCs (both first and second-
tier newly industrialized countries-NICs) or the developed market economies.

By 1994, the share of industry in GDP had stabilized at about 27-28%, so industrial sector performance
clearly had an impact on overall economic performance. So, if the macroeconomic achievement was
poor, to what extent was this due to low levels of industrial development? From Table 1 it is evident
that although industrial growth rates have been lower than those projected by the various FYPs, the
sector has nevertheless grown consistently and at a respectable rate. From the late 1970s until 1990,
the growth of India’s manufacturing sector outperformed that of the other main regions other than East
Asia.

Source: India’s Industrial Development: An Interpretative Survey - RAPHAEL KAPLINSKY - Institute of

Development Studies, Brighton, Sussex, U.K.

14
STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF INDUSTRIAL GROWTH

These macroeconomic aggregates mask seven structural features which circumscribe the trajectory of
future Indian industrial development. First, a common characteristic of import-substituting economies
has been that the range of products manufactured has tended to be much wider than that which would
13
India’s Industrial Development: An Interpretative Survey - RAPHAEL KAPLINSKY - Institute of Development
Studies, Brighton, Sussex, U.K.
14
India’s Industrial Development: An Interpretative Survey - RAPHAEL KAPLINSKY - Institute of Development
Studies, Brighton, Sussex, U.K.

Page | 11
have resulted had these economies been more open and subject to processes of international
specialization. In India’s case, this does not show up at the aggregative level since the trade/GDP ratio
(measured as the sum of imports and exports over GDP) of 19.7% in 1992, was in fact larger than that of
the United States (16.4%). (In general, large economies tend to have smaller trade/GDP ratios than small
economies.) But this lack of specialization has been more prevalent at the level of the firm, where the
portfolio of goods produced has generally been relatively diverse. Often this has led firms into
suboptimal scales of production, the recognition of which was one of the factors which led to a
relaxation of controls over the large industrial houses (LIHs) during the 1980s. If anything, this lack of
specialization became even more of a problem after the liberalization process was set in train
(Jacobsson and Alam, 1994).

A second relevant feature of this growth process was that it was associated with high levels of industrial
concentration. Despite the extensive attempts to restrict the growth of monopolies under the MRPTA,
concentration ratios remained high - the four dominant firms in 38 leading sectors accounted for over
two-thirds of the total market, with little diminution of concentration during 1976-83 (Table 2). As Marjit
and Singh observe, Indian firms were often operating in a policy environment where even the normal
strategic rivalry of oligopoly was attenuated or frozen (Marjit and Singh, 1993).

Source: India’s Industrial Development: An Interpretative Survey - RAPHAEL KAPLINSKY - Institute of

Development Studies, Brighton, Sussex, U.K.

Third, during the 1980s there was a marked shift in the relative growth rate of key sectors. In the early
postwar period the primary growth sectors were metal-based. But in the 1980s it was petrochemicals
and related industries which grew most rapidly (in part because of the exploitation of oil deposits in the
Bombay High field) together with the food-processing and electrical machinery sectors (Kelkar and
Kumar, 1990). A number of consequences flowed from this change in sectoral growth patterns:

Page | 12
- the relative decline of the metal-related industries marked a further shift in industrial gravity toward
Maharashtra and Gujarat in the West - W. Bengal, Bihar and Orissa’s share of industrial output fell from
23% in 1968-69 to 16% in 1984 85;

- the employment elasticity of growth was low since the chemical industries are highly capital intensive;

- there was a fall in export intensity in manufacturing. The domestic resource ratios in chemicals are
much higher than in metal-based sectors and are reflected by high rates of effective protection.

A fourth significant characteristic of the recent growth period has been the extent to which industrial
growth has been fuelled by an expansion of middle income purchasing power, and hence in the
expansion of the consumer durables sector. As can be seen from Table 3, the growth of the consumer
durables sector was significantly higher than that of either the intermediate or the capital goods sectors
during the 1980s (but not during the 1990s). This change in industrial structure was associated with a
growth in income inequality, a drop in household savings and a growth in the trade deficit which
occasioned the economic crisis and policy reforms of 1991. During the 1990s not only has the expansion
of middle-income demand been sustained, but the openness to imports and to international taste-
patterns has for the first time forced manufacturers to “win over” consumers rather than to produce
poor quality standardized products into a supply-constrained market. This represents a major change in
industrial orientation - “[the striking feature of Indian planning is the almost complete disregard for any
form of consumer preference” (Mohan and Aggarwal, 1990).

Source: India’s Industrial Development: An Interpretative Survey - RAPHAEL KAPLINSKY - Institute of

Development Studies, Brighton, Sussex, U.K.

Fifth, the growth of the consumer durables sector and the basic resource sector was associated with a
relative retreat from technology- and capital-intensive sectors to resource- and labor-intensive sectors
(Table 4).6 The upshot is not only that there was a systematic drift toward lower levels of labor
productivity, but to sectors of lower skill intensity. Nambiar and Tadas observe that the ratio of skilled to
unskilled workers in the high-tech sectors is 90% higher than that in the resource-intensive sectors
(Nambiar and Tadas, 1994). (We will return to the significance of these developments later in this
paper.) What is not clear from this analysis of Nambiar and Tadas, though, is the distribution of Indian

Page | 13
manufacturing within these various sectors of activity. It may well be that there is no evidence of a drift
away from skill-intensity and toward resource intensity at the intra-sectoral level; this is a matter for
further research.

Source: India’s Industrial Development: An Interpretative Survey - RAPHAEL KAPLINSKY - Institute of

Development Studies, Brighton, Sussex, U.K.

Sixth, despite the long-lived attempts to first promote and then to protect SSI, the share of this sector in
industrial output is lower than in comparable countries; most significantly, there appears to be a
“missing middle” and the large progressive industrial firms appear to be hampered by a poor supplier
infrastructure. The reasons for this weakness of SMEs are not entirely clear but two explanatory factors
do appear to be relevant. The first is a consequence of the particular policy design utilized to stimulate
SSI, in that these firms face the equivalent of a “growth-trap” since the significant subsidies and
protection from which they benefit disappear as they grow in size. Second, they suffer from the high
levels of concentration in product markets observed above. It is also significant that it is not just the SSI
sector which has been relatively disadvantaged during the 1980s but also the unorganized sector which
also grew relatively slowly (Kelkar and Kumar, 1990).

Finally, investments in research and development (R&D) - already low by international standards - fell as
a proportion of GDP through the decade of the 1980s. The share directed to civilian purposes fell from
38% in 1980/l to 29% in 1990/l; and the share of the private sector in industrial R&D fell from 58% in
1980-81 to 54% in 1990-91. “Hence, the response of industry, in particular the private industry, to the
new economic context was indeed very hesitant in terms of its commitment to R&D” (Jacobsson and
Alam, 1994). These aggregate figures on R&D were reflected at the firm level, where leading Indian
producers in the engineering industries produce at l- 5% of the scale of global leaders; in the power
sector, average sales of $50-75 m, are small and R&D is less than 2% of sales compared to 12% for the
major global firms (Sinha, 1994). But perhaps most importantly, the evidence suggests that Indian R&D
was predominantly directed to materials technology in order to minimize imports rather than product
development (Sinha, 1994). This was a direct consequence of the incentive structure erected by the
state to encourage ISI.

Page | 14
References
1. Economic Environment of Business – S.K. Mishra & V.K. Puri
2. Indian Economy – Ruddar Datt & K.P.M Sundaram
3. Indian Economy Since Independence – Edited by Uma Kapila

Page | 15