ICRA Report

National Manufacturing Competitiveness Council
Deriving Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices of Key Sectors
Final Report
ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited
Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices 2009
Contents
1. 2. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ 13 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 21
2.1. Indias economic growth...................................................................................................................... 21 2.2. Manufacturing Performance ................................................................................................................ 22 2.3. Competitiveness ................................................................................................................................... 23 2.3.1. Drivers of Competitiveness ............................................................................................................... 25 2.3.2. Measures of Competitiveness ........................................................................................................... 26 2.4. Manufacturing Competitiveness Index ................................................................................................ 28 2.5. Need for Competitiveness Index .......................................................................................................... 29 2.6. Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices Key Expectations.............................................................. 29 2.7. Index Concept and Design Philosophy ................................................................................................ 30 3. Approach & Methodology .................................................................................................................. 31
3.1. Objective of the Study ......................................................................................................................... 31 3.2. Scope of Work ..................................................................................................................................... 31 3.3. Terms of Reference .............................................................................................................................. 32 3.4. Approach to Study ............................................................................................................................... 32 3.4.1. Overview of Design Framework ....................................................................................................... 33 3.4.2. Variables Selected ............................................................................................................................. 34 3.4.3. Base Year .......................................................................................................................................... 35 3.4.4. Index Construction ............................................................................................................................ 36 3.4.4.1. Manufacturing Index construction ................................................................................................. 36 3.4.4.2. Economic Competitiveness Index (ECI) & Macro Competitiveness Index (MCI) ....................... 37
3.4.4.3. Demand Competitiveness Index (DCI) .......................................................................................... 38 3.4.4.4. Price Competitiveness Index (PCI) ................................................................................................ 39 3.4.4.5. Firm Level Competitiveness Sub Sector Indices (FLCI) ............................................................... 40 3.4.4.6. Industry Cost Competitiveness Index (CCI) & Industry Profitability Sub Sector Indices (IPI) .... 41 3.4.4.7. Scaled Manufacturing Competitiveness Index............................................................................... 42 3.4.4.8. Sector Perception ........................................................................................................................... 43 3.4.5. Interpretation of Index ...................................................................................................................... 44 3.5. Methodology for Study ........................................................................................................................ 44 4. Manufacturing Competitiveness of Food Processing Industry ........................................................... 45
4.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 45 4.2. Food Processing Clusters in India ........................................................................................................ 46 4.3. Classification of Food Processing Industry ......................................................................................... 47 4.4. Key Drivers of Food Processing Industry ............................................................................................ 49 4.5. Food Processing Policy Initiatives ..................................................................................................... 50 4.6. SWOT Analysis of Food Processing Industry ..................................................................................... 51 4.7. Cost Structure....................................................................................................................................... 52 4.8. Manufacturing Competitiveness Index - Food Processing .................................................................. 54 4.8.1. Key drivers of index movement ........................................................................................................ 56 4.8.2. Regional Competitiveness ................................................................................................................ 62 4.8.3. Sector Perception .............................................................................................................................. 64 4.9. Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 66 4.10. Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 69 5. Manufacturing Competitiveness of Leather and Leather Products Industry....................................... 71
5.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 71
5.2. Leather Clusters in India ...................................................................................................................... 72 5.3. Classification of Leather Industry ........................................................................................................ 73 5.4. Key Drivers .......................................................................................................................................... 74 5.5. Policy Initiatives .................................................................................................................................. 75 5.6. SWOT Analysis of Leather Industry ................................................................................................... 76 5.7. Cost Structure....................................................................................................................................... 78 5.8. Manufacturing Competitiveness Index Leather Industry .................................................................. 79 5.8.1. Key drivers of index movement ........................................................................................................ 81 5.8.1.1. Macro and Exports ......................................................................................................................... 81 5.8.1.2. Demand Competitiveness .............................................................................................................. 83 5.8.1.3. Price Competitiveness .................................................................................................................... 84 5.8.1.4. Firm Level Competitiveness .......................................................................................................... 85 5.8.1.5. Financial Competitiveness ............................................................................................................. 86 5.8.1.6. Cost Competitiveness..................................................................................................................... 87 5.8.2. Regional Competitiveness ................................................................................................................ 87 5.8.3. Sector Perception .............................................................................................................................. 89 5.9. Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 91 5.10. Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 93 6. Manufacturing Competitiveness of Textiles and Garments Industry.................................................. 94
6.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 94 6.2. Textiles Clusters in India ..................................................................................................................... 95 6.3. Composition of Textiles Industry ........................................................................................................ 97 6.4. Key Drivers .......................................................................................................................................... 98 6.5. Policy Initiatives .................................................................................................................................. 99
6.6. SWOT Analysis of Textiles Industry ................................................................................................. 100 6.7. Analysis of Cost Indicators ................................................................................................................ 101 6.8. Manufacturing Competitiveness Index Textiles and Garments ...................................................... 103 6.8.1. Key drivers of index movement ...................................................................................................... 105 6.8.1.1. Macro and Exports ....................................................................................................................... 105 6.8.1.2. Demand Competitiveness ............................................................................................................ 107 6.8.1.3. Price Competitiveness .................................................................................................................. 108 6.8.1.4. Firm Level Competitiveness ........................................................................................................ 109 6.8.1.5. Financial Competitiveness ........................................................................................................... 110 6.8.1.6. Cost Competitiveness................................................................................................................... 111 6.8.2. Regional Competitiveness .............................................................................................................. 111 6.8.3. Sector Perception ............................................................................................................................ 112 6.9. Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 115 6.10. Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 118 7. Manufacturing Competitiveness of Electronics and IT Hardware Industry ..................................... 120
7.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 120 7.2. Electronics and IT Clusters in India ................................................................................................... 121 7.3. Classification of Electronics and IT Hardware Industry .................................................................... 122 7.4. Key Drivers of Electronics and IT Hardware Industry ...................................................................... 124 7.5. Policy Initiatives ................................................................................................................................ 125 7.6. SWOT Analysis of Electronics and IT Hardware Industry ............................................................... 126 7.7. Analysis of Cost Indicators ................................................................................................................ 127 7.8. Manufacturing Competitiveness Index - Electronics and IT Hardware Industry .............................. 129 7.8.1. Key drivers of index movement ...................................................................................................... 130
7.8.1.1. Macro and Exports ....................................................................................................................... 130 7.8.1.2. Demand Competitiveness ............................................................................................................ 132 7.8.1.3. Price Competitiveness .................................................................................................................. 133 7.8.1.4. Firm Level Competitiveness ........................................................................................................ 134 7.8.1.5. Financial Competitiveness ........................................................................................................... 135 7.8.1.6. Cost Competitiveness................................................................................................................... 136 7.8.2. Regional Competitiveness .............................................................................................................. 136 7.8.3. Sector Perception ............................................................................................................................ 138 7.9. Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 140 7.10. Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 143 8. Implementation of Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices ............................................................ 144
8.1. Manufacturing Competitiveness Index A tool to measure the Investment Climate........................ 144 8.2. Key Steps to Implement the Manufacturing Competitiveness Index ................................................. 147 Annexure ................................................................................................................................................... 148 Annexure 1 ................................................................................................................................................ 149 Calculation of Weights - Illustration..................................................................................................... 149 Annexure 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 151 Index Tables .......................................................................................................................................... 151 Food Processing Industry ...................................................................................................................... 151 Leather and Leather Products Industry ................................................................................................. 155 Textiles and Garments Industry ............................................................................................................ 159 Electronics and IT Hardware Industry .................................................................................................. 163 Annexure 3 ................................................................................................................................................ 167 List of Companies Covered in Primary Survey .................................................................................... 167
Food Processing Industry .................................................................................................................. 167 Leather and Leather Products Industry ............................................................................................. 168 Textiles and Garments Industry ........................................................................................................ 169 Electronics and IT Hardware Industry .............................................................................................. 171 Annexure 4 ................................................................................................................................................ 173 Guidelines to Update the Index............................................................................................................. 173
List of Figures
Figure 1 : Porters Competitiveness Diamond .............................................................................. 25 *Figure 2: Potential Beneficiaries of the Manufacturing Competitiveness Index ........................ 30 Figure 3: Hybrid Approach ........................................................................................................... 33 Figure 4: Sub Indices Leading to Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices (MCI) ...................... 34 Figure 5: Food Industry 2007-08 vis-a-vis 2012-13 ..................................................................... 45 Figure 6: Classification of Food Processing Industry (2004-05) .................................................. 48 Figure 7: Drivers of Food Processing Industry ............................................................................. 49 Figure 8: Food Processing Exports in USD Millions ................................................................... 56 Figure 9: Food Processing GFCF in Rs. Crores ........................................................................... 57 Figure 10: Consumer Expenditure of Food Products ................................................................... 58 Figure 11: Food Products - Wholesale Price Index ...................................................................... 59 Figure 12: Overall Productivity Input/ Output Ratio ................................................................. 60 Figure 13: Food Processing Industry Profitability - ROCE .......................................................... 61 Figure 14: Food Processing Cost Indicators ................................................................................. 62 Figure 15: Current Firm Stock Levels .......................................................................................... 65 Figure 16: Expected Production Levels after 6 months ................................................................ 66 Figure 17: Leather Production in India ......................................................................................... 72 Figure 18: Leather Clusters in India ............................................................................................. 72 Figure 19: Drivers of Leather Industry ......................................................................................... 74 Figure 20: Leather Exports in USD Millions................................................................................ 81 Figure 21: Leather Industry GFCF in Rs Crore ........................................................................... 82
Figure 22: Consumer Expenditure on Leather in Rs Crore .......................................................... 83 Figure 23: Wholesale Price Index of Leather and Leather Products ............................................ 84 Figure 24: Overall Productivity Input/ Output in Leather Industry ........................................... 85 Figure 25: Industry Profitability Leather Industry ..................................................................... 86 Figure 26: Cost Indicators in the Leather Industry ....................................................................... 87 Figure 27: Levels of Production expected after 6 months in the Leather Industry....................... 90 Figure 28: Textile Industry Production ......................................................................................... 94 Figure 29: Composition of Textiles and Garment Industry .......................................................... 97 Figure 30: Growth Drivers of Textiles Industry ........................................................................... 98 Figure 31: Exports of Textiles in USD Million .......................................................................... 105 Figure 32: Gross Fixed Capital Formation in Rs. Crores ........................................................... 106 Figure 33: Consumer Expenditure on Clothing .......................................................................... 107 Figure 34: Wholesale Price Index of Textiles and Garments ..................................................... 108 Figure 35: Overall Productivity of Textiles and Garments ......................................................... 109 Figure 36: Industry Profitability - ROCE ................................................................................... 110 Figure 37: Cost Indicators of Textiles and Garments Industry ................................................... 111 Figure 38: Current Level of Stocks ............................................................................................. 114 Figure 39: Expected Change in Production Levels..................................................................... 115 Figure 40: Growth Drivers of Electronics and IT Hardware Industry ........................................ 124 Figure 41: Exports of Electronics and IT Hardware Industry in USD Millions ......................... 130 Figure 42: Gross Fixed Capital Formation in Rs. Crores ........................................................... 131 Figure 43: Consumer Expenditure on Electronics and Hardware Products ............................... 132 Figure 44: Wholesale Price Index for Electronics and Hardware Products................................ 133
Figure 45: Overall Productivity in the Electronics and IT Hardware Industry........................... 134 Figure 46: Industry Profitability - ROCE ................................................................................... 135 Figure 47: Cost Indicators in Electronics and IT Hardware Industry ......................................... 136 Figure 48: Current Stock Levels ................................................................................................. 139 Figure 49: Future Production Levels .......................................................................................... 140
10
List of Tables
Table 1: The Overall Competitiveness Index Food Processing Industry .................................. 37 Table 2: Macro and Export Competitiveness Indices ................................................................... 38 Table 3: Demand Competitiveness Index ..................................................................................... 39 Table 4: Price Competitiveness Index .......................................................................................... 40 Table 5: Firm Level Competitiveness Indices .............................................................................. 41 Table 6: Industry Profitability and Cost Competitiveness Indices ............................................... 42 Table 7: Manufacturing Competitiveness Index - FP ................................................................... 43 Table 8: Food Processing Cluster Location by States .................................................................. 46 Table 9: Food Processing Sub-Industries ..................................................................................... 48 Table 10: SWOT Analysis of Food Processing Industry in India ................................................ 51 Table 11: Cost Indicators of Food Processing Industry ................................................................ 52 Table 12: Manufacturing Competitiveness Index - Food Processing ........................................... 55 Table 13: Food Processing Sector Perception .............................................................................. 64 Table 14: Classification of Leather Industry ................................................................................ 73 Table 15: SWOT Analysis of Leather Industry ............................................................................ 76 Table 16: Cost Indicators .............................................................................................................. 78 Table 17: The Leather and Leather Products Index ...................................................................... 80 Table 18: Sector Perception Leather Industry ........................................................................... 89 Table 19: Location of Textile Clusters ......................................................................................... 96 Table 20: Textiles Sub-Industries ................................................................................................. 97
11
Table 21: SWOT of Textiles Industry ........................................................................................ 100 Table 22: Cost Indicators in the Textiles and Garments Industry .............................................. 102 Table 23: Manufacturing Competitiveness Index Textiles &Garments ................................... 104 Table 24: Sector Perception : Factors Affecting Growth............................................................ 113 Table 25: Changing Composition of Electronics Industry ......................................................... 120 Table 26: Electronics and IT Clusters ......................................................................................... 121 Table 27: Classification of Electronics and IT Industry ............................................................. 122 Table 28: Cost Indicators of Electronics and IT Hardware Industry .......................................... 127 Table 29: Manufacturing Competitiveness Index Electronics & IT Hardware ....................... 129
12
1. Executive Summary
1. National Manufacturing Competitiveness Council (NMCC) mandated ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited (IMaCS) to develop manufacturing competitiveness indices for four industries, namely : Food Processing Leather and Leather Products Textiles and Garments Electronics and IT Hardware
2. The backdrop to the study is the robust economic growth experienced over the past few years, driven mainly by a broad base of resident manufacturing industries specifically Food Processing, Leather and Leather Products, Textiles and Garments and Electronics and IT Hardware. Cumulatively, the four industries contribute nearly 12 per cent of Indias GDP and 26 per cent of manufacturing employment1. In this context, the NMCC has rightly identified that developing manufacturing competitiveness of these industries is critical for policy and operational interventions 3. The Scope of work in this study entails Construction and Validation of Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices for four industries identified by NMCC across time and across four regions: North, East, West and South.
4. A hybrid approach has been used in constructing the manufacturing competitiveness indices. The process involves primarily two parts - quantitative analysis, which encompasses macro-econometric assessment and analysis of data and variables and qualitative analysis which involves analysis of
As on 2006-07, shares calculated from Economic Survey as per CSO, Economic Census, Ministry of Food Processing, Ministry of Textiles, Council for Leather Exports, Department of Information Technology figures, NMCC and Department of Commerce.
13
stakeholder inputs through primary surveys. We carry out the above approach through five steps which are
Designing a framework for above stated purpose, Selecting Variables for the same, Selecting the Base Year, Construction and Calibration of Competitiveness Indices, Index Interpretation and Validation.
4.1. In the design of framework, the Manufacturing Competitiveness Index (MCI) for each industry is stratified into constituent seven sub-indices namely; a. Export and Macro Competitiveness Index (EMCI) b. Demand Competitiveness Index (DCI) c. Price Competitiveness Index (PCI) d. Firm Level Productivity Index (FLPI) e. Cost Competitiveness Index (CCI) f. Financial Competitiveness Index (FCI)
g. Sector Perception The focus and coverage of sub-indices are given below 4.1.1. Export and Macro Competitiveness Index (EMCI) covers variables such as Exports of the industry as a percentage of total exports of the country, Foreign Direct Investments as a percentage of total FDI inflow into the industry, Gross domestic capital formation. 4.1.2. Demand Competitiveness Index covers Private final consumption expenditure. 4.1.3. Price Competitiveness Index (PCI) covers Wholesale price index (WPI). 4.1.4. Firm Productivity Index (FPI) covers the variables such as Factory Level productivity (Output/Factories), Per unit wage productivity (Input/Wages), Labour productivity
14
(Output/Workers), Capital Output Ratio (Output/ Invested Capital) and Total productivity (Input/output). 4.1.5. Financial Competitiveness Index (FCI) covers the variables such as Return on capital employed (ROCE), Profit before interest, depreciation and tax, Net Profitability Margin. 4.1.6. Cost Competitiveness Index (CCI) covers the variables Raw materials cost as percentage of sales, Power and Fuel cost as percentage of sales, Employee cost as percentage of sales, Manufacturing cost as percentage of sales and Selling and Administrative cost as percentage of sales. 4.1.7. Finally, the sector perception index captures the perception of key industry players of Large, Small and Medium units of four regions namely North, South, East and West. The sector perception is an analysis of results from the questionnaire surveys conducted across a 100 firms for each of the four Industries examined in the study. The sector perception also offers the opportunity to understand industry sentiment 2going forward. It examines factors affecting growth of firm, business and economic outlook. 4.2. To compare the relative performance of industry over the years, the 2004 05 chosen as a base year. In 2004-05, the manufacturing growth was stable and the BOP position continued to remain strong from the previous year. Current account deficit and fiscal deficit was recorded at 0.8 per cent of GDP and 4.1 per cent of GDP respectively. External debt was 17.3 per cent of GDP and the capital account surplus was of the order of 19.4 billion US dollars. 4.3. The next stage in the approach is the index construction and validation which involves identification and structuring of variables into designed framework and weighing of these variables to arrive at sub-indices. In turn, weights are assigned to sub-indices to arrive at manufacturing competitiveness Index or Scaled MCI. These weights are taken relative to the overall firm productivity. The Overall Scaled Index gives an idea of both, the direction of movement of the index and the quantum of change in the measure of competitiveness. If there is an increase in the Index from 100 to 101, then we conclude that competitiveness has gone up by
Qualitative analysis of rational expectations better explains sentiment a factor which could influence industry decisions. Since we study competitiveness over a 10 year period, the expectations of workers, consumers, and firms about future economic conditions are an essential part of the study.
15
1 per cent. All the sub-indices are also interpreted in the same way. The only exception is in the case of the cost competitiveness index where the competitiveness of the sector goes up when cost index moves down. This is because cost variables and all other variables share an inverse relationship. Similarly, the percentage change in the competitiveness measure can be interpreted from the absolute change in the Index. For example if an index increases by 1 point over a period of one year, then we can say that competitiveness has increased over the previous year by 1 percentage point. 4.4. As part of Index construction, we have used various statistical tools such as Time Series and Panel Data Methods Limited dependent models Multivariate Statistics Data Reduction methods In-time validation through causal functional forms (for example comparing actual trade data with construed indices) Construction of diffusion indices Normalisation of component series Cross-correlation analysis Cyclical adjustment
5. Based on the above approach and methodology, we have constructed Manufacturing Competitiveness Index for food processing, leather and leather products, textiles and garments and electronics and IT hardware. The key findings for the same are outlined below:
5.1. The Manufacturing Competitiveness Index for the Food Processing Industry has marginally moved up from 100, in the base year of 2004 to 102.8 in 2007 an increase of 2.8 per cent. This has been primarily due to an increase in the demand competitiveness of the Food Industry. This translates into the fact that the consumption expenditure of food products has increased substantially in the country. The corresponding effect being an increase in Industry profitability and reduction in per unit costs. 5.1.1. Though, there is an increase in demand competitiveness, the food processing industry unable to benefit due to lack of economics of scale as nearly 75 per cent of this industry is
16
unorganised. Also there is lack of investment in technology in cold storage, transportation and supply chain systems. This has curtailed productivity, reflecting on the slow growth in competitiveness. 5.1.2. In terms of regional competitiveness the Western region is competitively placed in terms of the production of primary processed products from fruits, vegetables, oilseeds, grains and meat. This is due to the easy access of raw materials. The Northern region is competitive in terms of the production of processed dairy products. All four regions are equally placed in terms of beverage production. This is due to the fact that government policies have more bearing on these industries compared to other factors. 5.1.3. While the sector perception survey of the food processing industry reveals some of the key factors impacting the growth of the industry are Access to Bank Credit (Rank 1), Capital Cost (Rank 2) and Shortage of Skilled Labour (Rank 3). Around 65 per cent of those surveyed indicated a positive outlook on present and future (6 months) business confidence. 78 per cent of respondents believe that increase in production levels will not be due to export growth, rather because of increase in domestic demand. 5.2. The Manufacturing Competitiveness Index for the Leather and Leather Products Industry has moved up from 100, in the base year of 2004 to 127 in 2007. This has been due to primarily an increase in the economic and macro competitiveness of the Leather Industry. The leather industry revenues are made up to 70 per cent by exports. There has been an entry of foreign players looking to diversify their portfolio of manufacturing locations by expanding outside China. This translates into the fact that the foreign investment into the country in Leather products has increased substantially. The corresponding effect being an increase in exports led profit growth. 5.2.1. In India, the Western region has a clear advantage in the Tanning and Dressing of Leather, Manufacture of Luggage handbags, Garments, Saddlery and Harness which represents all forms of leather products other than footwear. This is because of the superiority of design and innovative technology in the Western region which were the proponents of fashion and value added accessories in the country. We also observe that the Southern region is the leader in the production of footwear. It is the clear winner in terms overall productivity measure. This is due to the fact that the indutry in the southern region had positioned itself since the beginning as an export oriented market. It has developed its capabilities in such
17
that it specialises in the mass production of footwear. There is easy access to raw material and abundance of skilled labour. 5.2.2. While the sector perception survey reveals that of the 10 factors ranked against limiting growth of the firm in the Leather and Leather products industry, Access to Bank Credit (Rank 1), Capital Cost (Rank 2) and Shortage of Skilled Labour (Rank 3) are cause for most concern. Around 75 per cent of those surveyed indicate a positive outlook on present and future (6 months) business confidence. 88 per cent of respondents believe that increase in production levels will not be due to export growth, rather because of increase in domestic demand. 5.3. The Manufacturing Competitiveness Index for the Textiles and Garments Industry has moved up substantially from 100, in the base year of 2004 to 190 in 2007. The demand growth in the domestic market is positive. The growing middle class is spending increasingly on value added textiles like garments. This is partly due the success of the brands and retailing in the apparels sector. This was complimented by a sharp increase in savings in the sector measured by the gross fixed capital formation due to the increased investments3 provided by the government to combat adverse effects on exports due to the strengthening rupee. The industry costs came down sharply due to a combination of government policies and increased capital productivity. There had been an increase in industry profitability on accounts of the knitwear and the apparel sector. This was complemented by an increase in domestic sales. On the whole, the competitiveness of the industry improved considerably despite the poor performance on the export front. Textiles and garments exports represented 16 per cent of commodity exports from India in 2005. This declined to 13.4 per cent of commodity exports in 2007. This was partly due to the inability to capitalise on the quota system abolishment in 2005 due to market imperfections like labour market rigidities and lack of scale economies. The other factor that affected exports significantly was the fall in export competitiveness due to comparative rise in prices of Indian textiles on account of the strengthening rupee. 5.3.1. The Western region presents a clear advantage in textiles. The western region enjoys historical advantages and it is the nerve centre of the domestic market in India. The East is competitive in terms of textiles made of natural fabric like jute. It is competitive for the
3
Plan outlay for investments in Textile Industry in 2005-06 was 65 per cent higher than in 2004-05.
18
production of carpets, rugs, bags, tarpaulin, canvas, ropes and cordages. The South holds the competitive position in terms of being the most competitive in the production of knitwear. It has built up export capabilities over a period of time. The garments and apparel sector presents a mixed picture with the south, north and east being equally competitive in terms of production of these items. 5.3.2. The sector perception survey reveals that of the 10 factors ranked against limiting growth of the firm in the Textiles and Garments industry, Access to Bank Credit (Rank 1), Capital Cost (Rank 2) and Shortage of Skilled Labour (Rank 3) are cause for most concern. Around 80 per cent of those surveyed indicate a positive outlook on present and future (6 months) business confidence. 88 per cent of respondents believe that there will be an increase in production levels in the next six months due to increase in domestic demand. 5.4. The Manufacturing Competitiveness Index for the Electronics and IT Hardware Industry has moved up marginally from 100, in the base year of 2004 to 106 in 2007. This has been primarily due to an increase in the demand competitiveness. The growing middle class population is spending increasingly on electronics items such as mobile phones and personal computers. The significance attached to this development is the permeation of technology to a direct increase in the standards of living. There has also been a steady and growing inflow of foreign investments in this sector. There has been steady increase in exports. The upward movement of the index was countered by the corresponding sharp rise in costs. There has not been much change in the productivity of the sector due to the fact that with increasing levels of automation, component of low cost labour in manufacturing is steadily being replaced by expensive machinery. 5.4.1. The Northern region presents a clear advantage in terms of the consumer, industrial and components category. This is due to the concerted efforts of the government by creating investor friendly policies and clusters of IT and Electronics units in and around the national capital region. The west enjoys historical advantages in terms of IT hardware manufacture. The South is competitive in terms of production of communications equipment and comparably competitive in term of IT hardware. There are a number of foreign companies making investments in setting up plants in India as we transition from high volume low value production to higher end products by becoming a hub of sorts for contract manufacturing. There is also significant development in terms of very sophisticated products like semiconductor, as the first such plant is being set up in Andhra Pradesh.
19
Investor friendly government policies and infrastructural support is inevitable for these industries due to their capital dependence. 5.4.2. The sector perception survey reveals that of the 10 factors ranked against limiting growth of the firm in the Electronics and IT Hardware industry, Access to Bank Credit (Rank 1), Capital Cost (Rank 2) and Shortage of Skilled Labour (Rank 3) are cause for most concern. Around 80 per cent of those surveyed indicate a positive outlook on present and future (6 months) business confidence. 88 per cent of respondents believe that there will be an increase in production levels in the next six months due to increase in domestic demand. The sector perceptions for all the sectors present a positive picture for business confidence in terms of expected increase in production and sales. Majority of the surveyed firms believe that business outlook affirms with the general perception that consumption growth was not likely to see a slowdown in the future.
20
2. Background
2.1. Indias economic growth
India has seen a year on year real economic growth in excess of 7.7 per cent in the last 3 years. The economy has moved, decisively, to a higher growth phase4. In the same time period, exports were up by 20 per cent and imports by 33. per cent. Consumerism and purchasing power has been rising on account of the growing prosperity enjoyed by both individuals and firms. For instance, in 2007-08, private final consumption expenditure was 64 per cent of GDP. Also, there has been an increase in savings rate and investments. This is reflected by an average annual gross domestic investment of 28 per cent and a gross fixed capital formation at 23 per cent of GDP. Government revenues have also seen a buoyant growth which has enabled sustained fiscal consolidation as mandated under the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act. All public policy ultimately aims at achieving or facilitating means to increase social welfare. One of the accepted ways to achieve this objective is through economic growth. At a broad level, an increase in a societys per capita income can be a measure of an increase in that societys welfare to its residents. Hence ensuring a good rate of economic growth will ensure an increase in the standard of living in that country or region. However, an economys growth is inherently dependent on the health and performance of its constituent sectors. As we have witnessed in the past decade, manufacturing sector has been a consistent contributor to growth of the economy. The importance attached to the agricultural sector as an economic driver continues to diminish as the services sector grows by leaps and bounds. The Primary sector contributes around 18 per cent to the GDP as against 58 per cent attributed to the tertiary sector.5 Employment in these sectors, however, presents a different picture as the primary sector provides livelihood to 58 per cent of employed population. The challenge faced by the country today is to relocate the excess population engaged in the primary sector to secondary and tertiary sectors. This translates into, first
Economic Survey 2007-08
5 2005-06, Central Statistical Organisation
21
creating the gainful employment in manufacturing and services sectors and enabling sustainable transfer of human resources to jobs created by such high growth sectors. When an economy transitions to a higher growth plane, there is a natural accession of human resources into venues other than agriculture. The sectors income and employment contribution diminish as the other sectors flourish. A structural change takes place by adaptation of activities with higher productivity levels. This is possible as exports of industrial products and services enable import of agricultural produce. Though larger countries are typically self sufficient in all three sectors even in the event of a world devoid of trade, their agricultural contribution to National income becomes negligible as their per capita incomes grow. Hence, faced with a transitioning economy, there exists the new challenge of making the permanent shift, by providing the manufacturing sector with the right impetus to absorb this excess human resource as it expands rapidly.
2.2. Manufacturing Performance

An overview of the manufacturing sector shows that it has enjoyed a compounded annual growth rate of 10 per cent for the last five years6. The average Index of Industrial Production growth rate has been of the order of 7.8 per cent over the same time period. Since 1991, the economy is being progressively liberalised and its integration to the global economy is deepening. On one hand, these developments have provided opportunity for growth and expansion of industry; on the other hand, not only is domestic manufacturing facing stiff competition from free imports but has to re-double its efforts to grow its export capabilities. Globally, as we move towards a free trade regime, products are being sourced from regions or countries enjoying competitive advantages. This could be due to inherent resource endowments such as cheap/easy supply of raw material, large pool of skilled labour, knowledge, innovation or new technologies. Growth in the manufacturing sector has the potential to elevate much of the Indian population above the poverty line by shifting the part of the workforce out of low-wage agriculture. This would initiate a virtuous circle of higher production, incomes, savings and investment, and a more stable and prosperous India will in turn attract more business and higher growth opportunities.
National Manufacturing Competitiveness Council
22
The resurgence of India's manufacturing sector has been encouraging. During 2005-06, of the total 140 manufacturing sectors in the country reporting production, 27 recorded a growth rate of more than 20 per cent. Forty three sectors recorded a growth rate of 10-20 per cent and 50 sectors registered growth of up to 10 per cent. Indian manufactured products are now gaining acceptance in world markets. India already exports about Rs 1860 billion a year in manufactured goods and this is increasing at the rate of 20 per cent a year7. The four sectors identified as the focus sectors by the Government of India have shown tremendous growth in the past and offer immense growth potential in the future. They have all been growing at a rate higher than the average industrial growth rate in 2006-07 (in earlier paragraph, please check the period 2005-06). Food Processing (13.7 per cent) Electronics and IT Hardware (19 per cent) Textiles and Garments (16 per cent) Leather and Leather Products (15 per cent)
These sectors offer immediate opportunities to garner major shares in the global market due to inherent advantages they enjoy. In order to assess development of these sectors across regions and time we need to assess their competitiveness.
2.3. Competitiveness
An Economy is defined as being competitive if its population can enjoy high and rising standards of living and high employment on a sustainable basis. More precisely, the level of economic activity should not cause an unsustainable external balance of the economy nor should it compromise the welfare of future generations8. The competitiveness of an economy has very broad and important implications for its citizens.
NMCC Project Vikas World Competitiveness report, Global Economic Forum
23
A regions competitiveness is defined by the aggregation of firm competitiveness in that region.9 Regional capabilities can be seen as the combination of the human and physical resources available, the structures established in the region through time, and the regions specific institutional endowment. Over time, regional capabilities change, as resources are exhausted. Sustainable regional competitiveness implies that the process of asset erosion must be compensated by the formation of new capabilities, for instance an increase in productivity through technological infusion10. Again, a regions competitiveness has implications on its citizens. Competitiveness in the context of a particular industry deals primarily with basic infrastructure and accessibility, human capital, other factors such as R&D and innovation and demography. Basically, industries are a collective of their constituent firms. The implication of the competitiveness of an industry is that it has a cascading impact on the competitiveness of a region and even the country.
European Commission on Regional Competitiveness Localised Learning and Industrial Competitiveness, 1995 Maskell and Malmberg, BRIE
10
24
2.3.1. Drivers of Competitiveness

One of the most influential representatives of the theory of competitiveness is the Diamond theory of Michael Porter. Figure 1 : Porters Competitiveness Diamond
Industry/ Regional Competitiveness
Source: Theory of competitive advantages: Michael Porter, 1990 According to Porter, to be competitive, firms must continually improve operational effectiveness in their activities while simultaneously pursuing distinctive rather than imitative strategic positions. His argument is that the existence of geographical clusters encourages both of these requirements for firm competitiveness, by encouraging the formation of regionally-based relational assets external to individuals firms but of major benefit to their competitive performance as an industry. Some key benefits of a cluster based approach for developing firm competitiveness: a) Networking among enterprises b) Economies of scale c) Improved bargaining power d) Technology and skill up gradation
25
e) Global visibility and being part of the value chain f) Easier access to finance g) Greater institutional support. Competitiveness, according to Porter, is influenced by conditions given by four elements of the diamond: factor conditions, demand conditions, related and supporting industries, and the context for firm strategy and rivalry. The concept of competitiveness is used interchangeably across industries, regions or even countries. But one has to understand that, Competitiveness means the ability to compete with firms at the barrier of best practice. It must be recognised that it is firms that compete, not nations, due to their strategies, support institutions and factor input criterion. However, due to the intrinsic failure of markets in critical areas, government support for firms has in some contexts proved to be an important component of the process of attaining competitiveness11.Therefore if an industry is competitive it could be due to various reasons.
2.3.2. Measures of Competitiveness

There are several ways of measuring competitiveness. The most common measure would be of productivity. Another measure would be to link price competitiveness, a microeconomic concept with external balance, a macroeconomic concept. Widely used price competitiveness measures are Real Effective Exchange Rate (REER) and Unit Labour Cost (ULC)12. Prices are partly determined by costs and strategies of individual businesses, savings and investment decisions and the speed of adaptation and quantity of technological innovations. Measures of national competitiveness can combine a number of elements such as those mentioned above. For instance there can be a combination of measures of factors of production, firms business strategies (reflected by profit margins), an Investment climate of country etc. The Davos Index
13
of international competitiveness generated by the World Economic Forum
(WEF) is a popular example of such a broad measure. The Davos index combines eight factors: openness,
11 Asian Development Bank Outlook study, 2003 12 Hooper and Larin, 1989 13 Global Competitiveness Index, World Economic Forum
26
government, finance, infrastructure, management, labour and institutions. Each factor is an index created from sub-indices composed of both quantitative and survey data. The Davos index is a simple ranking with no economic meaning by itself either in terms of level or changes in competitiveness in a countrys competitiveness. However, using the information from the total set of 53 countries along with rankings of selected sub indices yields robust relationships between the rankings and issues of immediate policy relevance. For example, higher ranking in the index is correlated with faster growth in GDP per capita and with an increase in the real income of the poor.14 The WEF produces two indices, the growth competitiveness index (GCI), and the current competitiveness index (CCI). The Growth Competitiveness Index is made up of three factors, namely technological capacity, quality of public institutions, and quality of macroeconomic environment. The Current Competitiveness Index (CCI)15, on the other hand, examines the microeconomic bases of a nation's GDP per capita and provides insights into the level of GDP per capita that is sustainable in the long term. The CCI is made up of two sub-indices, the quality of the national business environment and the degree of company sophistication. The data used come primarily from a survey of senior business leaders and government officials. To compute an overall measure of the CCI, all the individual dimensions are combined using common factor analysis. The CCI is based on Michael Porter's framework, known as the "competitiveness diamond,"16 where the idea of competitive advantagesas opposed to comparative advantageis introduced. These arise from firm-level efforts to develop new products, make improvements, and develop better brands or delivery methods, to innovate in a broad sense of the term. Innovation, in turn, is influenced by conditions given by four elements of the diamond: factor conditions, demand conditions, related and supporting industries, and the context for firm strategy and rivalry. The Industrial Development Report of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) introduces an index in two parts: an index of a country's ability to produce and export manufactures, the 14 Warner, 1998, 30-37 : Asian Development Outlook, 2003 15 Porter, 2002, Enhancing the microeconomic foundations of prosperity 16 See Figure 1 : Competitiveness Diamond
27
competitive industrial performance index (CPI), and benchmarks of the structural drivers on industrial performance - an index which measures the ability of countries to produce and export manufactures competitively. The CPI is constructed from four indicators: manufacturing value added per capita, manufactured exports per capita, share of medium and high-technology products in manufacturing value added, and share of medium- and high-technology products in manufactured exports. The first two indicators provide information about industrial capacity, while the other two reflect technological complexity and industrial upgrading of a country. The index is constructed as the average of the four indicators, and is calculated for a total of 87 economies. Industrial performance index, on the other hand, is the outcome of many social, political, and economic factors interacting in complex and dynamic ways. The purpose is to benchmark economies on their key structural variables, called drivers. UNIDO focuses on five proxy variables: skills, technological effort, inward FDI, royalty and technical payments abroad, and modern infrastructure.
2.4. Manufacturing Competitiveness Index

Several Manufacturing Indices are constructed and used by various industry bodies, policy makers around the world. Most of these indices are either inter country, specific to the industry or inter state. Examples would be the IT industry competitiveness index across different countries17 and the MAC Index for manufacturing across US states
18
. A manufacturing Index would follow a similar ideology of
construction and evaluation, as the examples mentioned above. To give a clear picture of the direction and magnitude of competitiveness within an industry, the measure, in this case the manufacturing index should serve a dual purpose of being comparable among regions and across time. Although industrial production and output are clearly a critical element in understanding any industry, it is not the sole metric by which one should assess the competitive strengths, weaknesses and long-term viability of a given sector. Therefore, it is essential to use factors reflecting the macroeconomic, export,
17 Prepared by the Economist Intelligence Unit 18 MAC Index Manufacturers Association of Connecticut and Centre for Economic Analysis
28
demand, price, productivity, financial and perception to in an analysis to form a holistic picture of manufacturing competitiveness.
2.5. Need for Competitiveness Index

A number of benchmarking studies/ indices exist that reflect the competitiveness of countries or industries in the international scenario. However, even within the context of a particular industry, one needs to understand its evolution or rather the changes effected in its constituent factors over time and across regions to enable appreciation of the overall picture of say, industry competitiveness vis-a-vis another country or competitiveness between regions in an economy. The Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices for the four sectors identified as thrust areas by the Government of India, namely; Food Processing, Leather and Leather Products, Textiles and Garments, Electronics and IT Hardware, aims to fulfil the above objective, of presenting a picture of the evolution of competitiveness within a given timeframe across four broad regions19 , as defined by the determining factors taken into account.
2.6. Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices Key Expectations

The manufacturing competitiveness indexes strive to meet the expectation of diverse stakeholders by: Articulating industry and firm level manufacturing competitiveness Reflecting consumer patterns and prospects Assessing price movements and consumer spending Gauging characteristics of domestic business and industrial environment Sensitive to political stability, regulatory and legislative changes Reflects factors which are perceived qualitative externalities (e.g. investment climate issues) Easy to interpret for a wide variety of stakeholders*
19 Indian states grouped into four categories North, East, West and South based on geographical location within country
29
Lends itself to monitoring and updating Useful for long term planning and implementation *Figure 2: Potential Beneficiaries of the Manufacturing Competitiveness Index
2.7. Index Concept and Design Philosophy

An Index is a statistic which assigns a single number to several individual statistics in order to quantify trends The index is designed: 1) To allow analysis and monitoring of manufacturing and economic patterns with respect to the final composite indices 2) For ease in terms of introducing changes/ refinement to the model 3) To enable meaningful interpretation by target stakeholders 4) To allow systematic updating of index sub-components
Hence our design philosophy is given as under: The Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices envisaged as composite number are expected to capture trends and variations across time and across components
30
3. Approach & Methodology

3.1. Objective of the Study
The objective of this study is to: 1. To design and construct sector specific competitiveness Indices for four sectors Food Processing and Manufacturing Leather and Leather Products Textiles and Garments Electronics and IT Hardware
2. Validation of the Indices
3.2. Scope of Work

The Scope of work for this engagement is 1. Construction and Validation of Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices for four sectors identified by NMCC across time and across four regions: North, East, West and South20; Food Processing and Manufacturing Leather and Leather Products Textiles and Garments Electronics and IT Hardware
20 North implies a collective of the states of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Uttaranchal, Uttar Pradesh and union territories of Chandigarh and Delhi East implies a collective of the states of Assam, Bihar, Orissa, West Bengal, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Jharkhand, Tripura and Chattisgarh West implies a collective of the states of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and the union territories of Goa, Dadra and Nagra Haveli and Daman and Diu South implies a collective of the states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and the union territory of Pondicherry
31
2. The study precludes cross country relative performances and does not make inter state comparisons.
3.3. Terms of Reference

The terms of reference for the study are as follows: 1. Identify key drivers of competitiveness. 2. Develop a framework for assessing competitiveness. 3. Application of framework and comment on the results obtained. 4. Development of a Manufacturing Competitiveness Index for four sectors, namely, Food Processing and Manufacturing Leather and Leather Products Textiles and Garments Electronics and IT Hardware
5. To develop an index for assessing competitiveness of various Manufacturing locations. 6. Identify the key drivers that affect the competitiveness of industry. 7. To analyse and understand the cost structure and key success factors of various industries. 8. To develop the cost of manufacturing in various locations for each industry.
3.4. Approach to Study

A hybrid approach has been used in constructing the manufacturing competitiveness indices. The process involves primarily two parts:1) Quantitative Analysis: This involves macro-econometric assessment and analysis of data and variables used in the model 2) Qualitative Analysis: This involves analysis of stakeholder inputs through primary surveys
32
Figure 3: Hybrid Approach
The Study involves the following broad steps: 1. Design framework 2. Variables Selection 3. Base Year Selection 4. Construction and validation of Competitiveness Index 5. Index Interpretation
3.4.1. Overview of Design Framework

In the framework depicted in figure 4, each Index can be stratified into the constituent seven sub-indices namely; i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. Export Competitiveness Index (ECI) Macro Competitiveness Index (MCI) Demand Competitiveness Index (DCI) Price Competitiveness Index (PCI) Firm Level Competiveness Index (FLCI) Industry Cost Competitiveness Index (CCI) Sector Perception Index (SPI)
33
Figure 4: Sub Indices Leading to Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices (MCI)
These seven sub-indices made up in turn by its constituent variables, combine to give the Manufacturing Competitiveness Index (MCI) for each industry. The study covers four such MCIs, one each for Food Processing, Leather and Leather Products, Textiles & Garments and Electronics & IT Hardware.
3.4.2. Variables Selected

The variables used for index construction are for the time period (1995-2007) except in the case of firm productivity data and gross domestic capital formation21 are as follows: i. Export and Macro Competitiveness Index (EMCI) ii. Exports of the industry as a percentage of total exports of the country Foreign Direct Investments(FDI) as a percentage of total FDI inflow into the industry Gross domestic capital formation
Demand Competitiveness Index (DCI)
21 Annual Survey of Industry data available latest till 2004-05
34
iii. iv. v. vi.
Private final consumption expenditure (PFCF)
Price Competitiveness Index (PCI) Wholesale price index (WPI)
Firm Level Productivity Index (FLPI) Factory Level productivity (Output/Factories) Per unit wage productivity (Input/Wages) Labour productivity (Output/Workers) Capital Output Ratio (Output/ Invested Capital) Total productivity (Input/output)
Financial Competitiveness Index (FCI) Return on capital employed (ROCE) Profit before interest, depreciation and tax Net Profitability Margin
Industry Cost Competitiveness Index (CCI) Raw materials cost as percentage of sales Power and Fuel cost as percentage of sales Employee cost as percentage of sales Manufacturing cost as percentage of sales Selling and Administrative cost as percentage of sales
3.4.3. Base Year

A base year is the year against which the performance of all the other years in the index is measured. When a base year is chosen, it need not necessarily be the best year for the economy but it should definitely be a normal year. By normal we mean a year with stable manufacturing, macroeconomic performance and fiscal environment. The year chosen should not exhibit extraordinary deviations from the long term growth of the economy. There should be no occurrence or minimum incidence of extreme events, eventualities and political events. The year 2003-04 had the healthiest figures in terms of overall GDP growth, balance of payments position, with overall exports growing by 20 per cent year on year, we had strong foreign exchange reserves and a stable rupee against the declining dollar. The current account deficit was recorded at only 0.3 per cent of GDP. Fiscal deficit was recorded at 4.5 per cent of GDP. The external debt was recorded at
35
15.8 per cent of current receipts. The capital account surplus was of the order of 20 billion US dollars. This year was a vast improvement over 2002-03. Despite this, 2004-05 has been chosen as the base year as it is a normal year when compared to 2003-04. The manufacturing growth has been stable and the balance of payment position continued to remain strong. Current account deficit and fiscal deficit was recorded at 0.8 per cent of GDP and 4.1 per cent of GDP respectively. External debt was 17.3 per cent of GDP and the capital account surplus was of the order of US$ 19.4 billion. Thus we conclude that 2004-05 is the most balanced of the choice of available base years.
3.4.4. Index Construction 3.4.4.1. Manufacturing Index construction

The process involves identification and structuring of variables into designed framework and weighing of these variables to arrive at sub-indices. In turn, weights are assigned to sub-indices to arrive at manufacturing competitiveness Index or Scaled MCI. These weights are taken relative to the overall firm productivity. The sub-indices and their construction are explained with specific reference to food processing categories namely, production, preservation of fruits, vegetables, meat, fish and oil and fats; Dairy Products; Grain products; other foods; beverages.
36
Table 1: The Overall Competitiveness Index Food Processing Industry

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
YEAR ECI 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
MC
DSC PSC 81 88 87 94 94 91 97 95 99 67 73 78 87 89 90 91 91 94 100 101 104 103
INDUST COST FLC-PPP FLC-DP FLC-GP FLC-OF FLC-B COMP IC-PPP IC-DP IC-GP IC-OF IC-B 75.89 110.42 108.83 74.59 113.81 80.09 118.09 96.91 100.10 97.54 100.11 98.45 97.85 100.16 99.79 100 100 100 100 97.52 98.58 95.42 99.18 99.14 98.17 81.71 95.27 80.01 96.26 84.42 96.81 86.08 98.60 88.63 98.65 92.46 106 106 106 106 101 104 103 98 98 100 99 93 85 124 124 124 124 117 70 83 65 100 100 127 162 170 111 111 111 111 120 125 103 120 123 100 109 90 98 116 116 116 116 118 115 83 90 108 100 115 187 227 141 141 141 141 122 112 91 86 84 100 119 122 105 186 186 186 186 167 145 123 140 128 100 100 101 322
OVER ALL MCI
104 232 103 252 102 228 104 304 104 394 105 105 107 84 84 86
99.45 100.52 94.79
97.92 100.32
96.94 100.00 101.14 94.37 99.04 100.27 102.85 90.35 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
102 255
100 100 100 99 125 107 99 104 143 99 104 143
SCALED MCI 271 86 254 81 255 81 294 93 299 95 307 98 308 98 315 100 314 100 314 100 316 101 323 103 323 103
@ Variation in FDI movement (as % of total) has caused fluctuation in MC movement from Year 1999 to Year 2000
3.4.4.2. Economic Competitiveness Index (ECI) & Macro Competitiveness Index (MCI)
The Export Competitiveness Index measures the competitiveness of exports by weighing22 the
sub-components of the food processing industry23 to the categories respective shares in the output of food
KEY OBSERVATIONS 1. Export & Macro Competi Decline 2 Firm level competitiveness revea 3.Industry Cost structure show ove 4. Industry individualprofitability reveal marg 5. Overall industry competitivenes
products in a given year, say 2004-05.24 While the Macro Competitiveness Index factors is the Gross Fixed Capital Formation (GFCF), a measure of the net new investment by enterprises in the domestic economy in fixed capital assets during an accounting period which function as economic indicators of the level of business activity. GFCF is called "gross" because the measure does not make any adjustments for
22 See chapter on Construction of Scaled Weights Annexure 1 23 As per NIC 2004 3 digit classification 24 Latest year with information available on industry output from ASI
37
the depreciation of assets. GFCF time series data is often used to analyse the trends in investment activity over time, deflating the series using a price index. It is also used to obtain alternative measures of the fixed capital stock. The GFCF, in addition to the Foreign Direct Investment inflows as a share of total FDI inflows in a particular year are similarly weighed to corresponding sub-components share in output for 2004-05. Table 2: Macro and Export Competitiveness Indices
Food Export as a % of YEAR total

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 183 196 186 164 149 139 132 117 115 100 100 94 94
Productio n,processi ng and preservati

92 93 98 99 109 102 98 95 96 100 98 94 94
Manufac Manufac Manufac Manufa ture ture of ture of cture of of dairy grain other beverag FDI inflows product mill food es as a % of total
103 109 105 94 98 109 108 107 109 100 103 102 102 106 106 102 108 121 132 125 137 107 100 91 87 87 128 122 116 122 88 84 98 100 101 100 104 114 114 66 67 67 67 83 87 83 82 94 100 101 98 98 414 482 443 591 691 104 90 97 436 100 94 53 53
Exports
Productio Manufac n,processi ture ng and of dairy preservati product

39 28 22 29 66 24 56 54 41 100 242 242 242 78 53 -54 83 168 78 110 104 96 100 104 104 104
GFCF
Manufac ture of grain mill

38 -52 -36 -80 99 74 81 70 80 100 124 124 124
Manufac Manuf ture of acture EXPORT MACRO other of COMP COMP food bevera INDEX INDEX
77 71 81 71 100 83 91 86 82 100 122 122 122 16 39 25 21 106 124 62 93 114 100 88 88 88 104 103 102 104 104 105 105 107 102 100 99 99 99 232 252 228 304 394 84 84 86 255 100 125 104 104
3.4.4.3. Demand Competitiveness Index (DCI)

Demand Competitiveness is determined by the consumption expenditure on food products. We use Private Final Consumption Expenditure figures25, on the various sub components of food products. A market should maximise the supply efficiency of all that people need and want. Private Final Consumption Expenditure (PFCE) is one indicator of what people want. The PFCE pattern of a country indicates significantly, the level of development in a country. For instance, a developed country would spend more on value added foods and in general, spend less on food versus other non durable/ durable 25 Figures in national household surveys, as published by the National Social Surveys Organisation (NSSO)
38
commodities. A developing countrys share of food would be relatively higher than spending on any other segment. Table 3: Demand Competitiveness Index
Manufacture of grain Manufact mill products, starches Manufa cture of Production, processing and ure and starch products, preservation of meat, fish, of dairy and prepared animal Manufacture of other food products beverag es fruits, vegetables, oils and fats product feeds C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 TOTAL C6 90 69 70 75 96 98 80 51 43 99 18 80 90 80 75 80 104 113 134 56 59 119 29 88 101 63 75 85 94 103 58 61 35 108 8 83 103 88 80 88 100 116 118 67 73 123 39 93 98 80 83 98 101 100 82 73 54 126 32 92 105 76 84 88 91 83 89 78 69 132 36 89 99 75 90 92 109 102 92 83 73 128 47 96 100 64 95 93 103 87 90 88 73 108 66 94 99 89 98 95 106 110 88 94 73 101 82 98 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 112 91 104 107 105 102 105 106 116 129 122 108 118 80 107 109 108 107 104 106 116 160 122 108 118 80 107 109 108 107 104 106 116 160 122 108
YEAR
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
DEMAND COMP
81 88 87 94 94 91 97 95 99 100 107 115 143
3.4.4.4. Price Competitiveness Index (PCI)

An important measure of competitiveness is the measure of the prices of a commodity. Prices cannot be taken in absolution because, not only of the sheer variety but the range of prices across geographical positions of sale of these commodities. Thus we use the wholesale price index (WPI), weighed 26 to overall measure of WPI. This index captures change in prices by representing a basket of goods besides serving as a central measure of inflation. WPI captures price inflation at every stage of production. Prices, when lower generally indicate a more efficient market, except in the case of commodities having differential demand patterns due to non economic reasons. However, in the case of improved economic performance in an economy, there could be an exchange rate appreciation, and this leads to higher relative prices.27 For instance, if enterprises in a country become more efficient in the non-price dimensions of performance by being innovative or flexible or producing high-quality goods and so on, then the real 26 See chapter on Construction of Scaled Weights, Annexure 1 27 Bank for International Settlements (BIS), Journals, 93
39
exchange rate would be expected to strengthen. Price competitiveness would thus appear to "worsen". But such "deterioration" would of course be a symptom of success, not of failure. Hence, as in the case illustrated above none of these indices can be interpreted in isolation from other factors concerning competitiveness. Table 4: Price Competitiveness Index
Production, processing and preservation of meat, fish, Manufacture of dairy product Manufacture of grain mill products, Manufacture of other food products Manufactur e of Price Side Competitiv eness 67 73 78 87 89 90 91 91 94 100
YEAR 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Food Grains 69 78 78 86 99 98 97 98 99 100
Fruits and Eggs, Vegetable Meat and s Fish Edible Oils Milk 60 65 75 62 73 75 74 65 70 83 73 68 91 87 89 74 76 90 78 80 78 96 66 89 93 98 72 91 93 100 88 94 96 96 101 96 100 100 100 100
Dairy Grain Mill Products Products Starch 67 64 74 70 83 79 76 80 90 82 86 91 90 90 93 88 86 96 91 85 91 88 91 83 95 99 84 100 100 100
Sugar, Condimen Khandsari ts and Tea and and Gur Spices Coffee Beverages 69 82 62 59 73 94 63 62 82 94 86 70 94 117 88 77 96 120 100 81 94 108 102 83 89 100 95 90 82 103 77 94 85 109 95 95 100 100 100 100
3.4.4.5. Firm Level Competitiveness Sub Sector Indices (FLCI)

The Firm Competitiveness Index, shown in table 6, is a means to capture the productivity performance of the industry by sector and by nature of factor i.e., wages, number of factories, number of workers and the amount of invested capital. There are five measures of productivity used specifically in the above index. They are the output to number of factories ratio, output to capital ratio, output to workers ratio, input to wages ratio and input to output ratio. In effect, these are an accumulation of the regional
28
firm
productivities. This Index is perhaps the most relevant to the study on competitiveness. We are concerned, primarily about productivities as they offer comprehensive insight to a sector or regions competitiveness. Productivity as a measure of competitiveness can be interpreted directly in their absolute form, being easy to understand. They also enable convenient comparisons. Thus we augment the explanation of Firm
28 Categorisation of states into North, East, West and South based on geographical positions. Refer comment 18 on classification of states into regions
40
Competitiveness Index with sections on regional productivity comparisons to understand the factors that drive productivities across sectors and regions. In table 6, only two sub industries are represented. Table 5: Firm Level Competitiveness Indices
Productivity Factory Level Product Category

Output/
Capital Output ratio
Labour Productivity
Per unit Wage Productivity

Input/ Wages
Overall Productivity
Input/Output
YEAR Factories
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 27.84 38.60 46.43 52.28 53.02 54.58 52.90 59.30 97.26 79.60 100.00 48.21 55.70 60.03 58.14 74.52 85.97 97.63 85.83 97.97 91.69 100.00
Output/Invested Output/ Capital Workers

77.63 92.33 100.88 108.24 100.31 91.34 86.27 86.63 99.67 101.07 100.00 78.39 85.55 83.15 81.41 103.22 76.23 96.24 101.24 95.99 107.11 100.00 37.23 50.25 57.73 64.99 65.99 65.05 70.85 77.00 112.85 84.12 100.00 34.26 41.53 45.00 46.80 62.94 73.34 84.48 80.48 87.73 89.95 100.00
Production, processing and preservation of meat, fish, fruits, vegetables, oils and fats.
Manufacture of dairy product
60.57 54.20 56.76 65.47 73.42 71.75 73.54 70.61 103.01 77.36 100.00 64.79 81.80 85.54 88.03 89.96 87.73 91.09 85.32 87.63 90.04 100.00
96.12 75.89 74.59 80.09 96.91 97.54 98.45 97.85 100.16 99.79 100.00 101.21 110.42 113.81 118.09 100.10 100.11 97.52 97.92 96.94 99.04 100.00
3.4.4.6. Industry Cost Competitiveness Index (CCI) & Industry Profitability Sub Sector Indices (IPI)
In the Industry Profitability Index we weigh out the Industry averages29 of Return on Capital Employed (ROCE), Profit before Interest Depreciation and Tax-Manufacturing (PBIDTM) and Net Profitability Margin (CPM).
29 Industry averages provided by CAPITALINE Industry Financials database
41
For the Cost Competitiveness Index, we use five important input costs measure, weighed together. As a percentage of sales, we considered raw material costs, power and fuel costs, employee costs, manufacturing costs and selling & administration costs. These costs combined, account for up to 90 per cent of the costs incurred by the firms in any Industry. In the table 7 only two sub industries are represented. Table 6: Industry Profitability and Cost Competitiveness Indices
Sub Industry
YEAR
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Debt-Equ ity Ratio(Lat Raw ROCE PBIDTM CPM est) Materials

103 88 78 76 72 81 100 98 105 109 75 87 134 99 105 115 100 110 102 100 61 51 62 54 67 110 100 120 168 198 158 164 134 132 131 134 100 117 94 88 231 241 64 129 48 127 100 192 270 262 136 141 96 83 137 129 100 98 60 104 323 102 172 104 43 89 100 109 148 46 86 117 182 77 75 70 100 93 68 67 100 97 93 93 93 98 100 87 83 80 104 109 104 105 101 100 100 92 104 107
Selling Power and n Emplo Manufac Administr PROFIT COST Fuel/Sale yee/Sale turing ation ABILITY COMPETI s s Expenses expenses INDEX TIVENESS
121 102 117 125 106 95 100 108 119 94 98 97 99 89 91 100 100 105 104 86 153 147 140 153 135 102 100 100 111 99 96 84 89 104 79 92 100 86 56 52 98 91 105 111 105 93 100 95 90 101 121 92 99 121 69 93 100 102 171 66 146 136 143 137 130 106 100 106 109 114 67 63 74 85 69 108 100 93 72 89 124 117 70 83 65 100 100 127 162 170 111 120 125 103 120 123 100 109 90 98 124 115 120 124 114 99 100 99 103 98 97 89 93 101 82 99 100 96 101 80
3.4.4.7. Scaled Manufacturing Competitiveness Index

Thus having reasonably covered all facets of a dynamic system that could influence competitiveness either directly or indirectly, we combine them to construct the Overall MCI for an industry. The final weights for the index are determined by partial correlation analysis of these indices with respect to productivity.
42
Table 7: Manufacturing Competitiveness Index - FP

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
YEAR ECI 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
MC
DSC PSC 81 88 87 94 94 91 97 95 99 100 107 143 143 67 73 78 87 89 90 91 91 94 100 101 104 103
INDUST COST FLC-PPP FLC-DP FLC-GP FLC-OF FLC-B COMP IC-PPP IC-DP IC-GP IC-OF IC-B 75.89 110.42 108.83 74.59 113.81 80.09 118.09 96.91 100.10 97.54 100.11 98.45 97.85 100.16 99.79 100 100 100 100 97.52 98.58 95.42 99.18 99.14 98.17 81.71 95.27 80.01 96.26 84.42 96.81 86.08 98.60 88.63 98.65 92.46 106 106 106 106 101 104 103 98 98 100 99 93 85 124 124 124 124 117 70 83 65 100 100 127 162 170 111 111 111 111 120 125 103 120 123 100 109 90 98 116 116 116 116 118 115 83 90 108 100 115 187 227 141 141 141 141 122 112 91 86 84 100 119 122 105 186 186 186 186 167 145 123 140 128 100 100 101 322
OVER ALL MCI
104 232 103 252 102 228 104 304 104 394 105 105 107 84 84 86
99.45 100.52 94.79
97.92 100.32
96.94 100.00 101.14 94.37 99.04 100.27 102.85 90.35 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
102 255 100 100 99 125 99 104 99 104
SCALED MCI 271 86 254 81 255 81 294 93 299 95 307 98 308 98 315 100 314 100 314 100 316 101 323 103 323 103
The scaled MCI is a conversion to base 2004, of the Overall MCI. On the Scaled Index, one can determine the relative degree and direction of an increase or decrease in competitiveness of a particular KEY OBSERVATIONS Industry.
3.4.4.8. Sector Perception
1. Export & Macro Competi D 2 Firm level competitiveness 3.Industry Cost structure sho 4. Industry profitability reve 5. Overall industry competit
The sector perception is an analysis of results from the questionnaire surveys conducted across a 100 firms for each of the four Industries examined in the study. This section augments our quantitative analysis and presents a means to understand current trends in the industry which in the case of hard data may take a longer period to reflect. The sector perception also offers the opportunity to understand industry sentiment 30going forward. It examines factors affecting growth of firm, business and economic outlook.
30 Qualitative analysis of rational expectations better explains sentiment a factor which could influence industry decisions. Since we study competitiveness over a 10 year period, the expectations of workers, consumers, and firms about future economic conditions are an essential part of the study.
43
3.4.5. Interpretation of Index

The Overall Scaled Index gives an idea of both, the direction of movement of the index and the quantum of change in the measure of competitiveness. If there is an increase in the Index from 100 to 101, then we conclude that competitiveness has gone up by 1 per cent. All the sub-indices are also interpreted in the same way. The only exception is in the case of the cost competitiveness index where the competitiveness of the sector goes up when cost index moves down. This is because cost variables and all other variables share an inverse relationship. However, the index, as a composite number cannot be used to compare across sectors. For example, the index number in 2007 for Electronics and IT Hardware is 106, whereas the Food Processing Industry is 103. We cannot conclude from the above that Electronics and IT Hardware is more competitiveness than Food Industry. The percentage change in the competitiveness measure can be interpreted from the absolute change in the Index. For example if an index increases by 1 point over a period of one year, then we can say that competitiveness has increased over the previous year by 1 percentage point.
3.5. Methodology for Study

Combinations of techniques were used to analyse the data as illustrated below: Time Series and Panel Data Methods Limited dependent models Multivariate Statistics Data Reduction methods In-time validation through causal functional forms (for example comparing actual trade data with construed indices) In addition, we have used following techniques to integrate the qualitative inputs: Construction of diffusion indices and normalisation of component series Cross-correlation analysis Cyclical adjustment Weighing Peak-trough analysis
44
4. Manufacturing Competitiveness of Food Processing Industry 4.1. Introduction

Indias food-processing sector, still at a nascent stage, has a share of around 6 per cent of GDP. Its sales turnover is around Rs. 2.8 trillion, and it employs around 13 million people. Availability of raw materials, changing lifestyles and favourable policies has given a considerable push to the sectors growth. The Indian food processing sector holds considerable significance because of the linkages and synergies that it promotes between the two key sectors of the economy, i.e., primary sector (agriculture) and secondary sector (manufacturing). Strengthening this link is of critical importance to improve the value of agricultural produce; ensure remunerative prices to farmers and at the same time create favourable demand for Indian agricultural products in the world market. Thus a thrust to the food processing sector implies significant development of the agriculture sector and ensures value addition to it. The growth of food processing sector has nearly doubled to 13.7 per cent during the last four years, and the Ministry of Food Processing has set a growth target of 20 per cent by 2015. A dominant segment of the food industry, food processing is estimated to be worth Rs. 2784 billion with a 32 per cent share31. Figure 5: Food Industry 2007-08 vis-a-vis 2012-13
Source: Ministry of Food Processing 31 Minister of State for Food Processing Industries, Ministry of Food Processing
45
Estimates by the Food Processing ministry indicate that, by 2012-13, the size of the industry will be Rs. 5400 billion, around 40 per cent of the food industry. According to the 'India Food Report 2008', investments to the tune of Rs. 940 billion are in the pipeline to be made in the food processing industry over the next three years. The opportunity for growth is huge given the fact that a mere 1.3 per cent of food is processed in India, while 80 per cent of food is processed in the developed world. With India's food production likely to double in the next decade, there is an opportunity for large investments in allied sectors like skills and equipment, food and food processing technologies in refrigeration and thermo processing and canning and packaging.
4.2. Food Processing Clusters in India

The clusters found in peninsular India i.e., Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka engage in rice processing. Spice processing and marine foods processing is carried out in the Kerala clusters. The clusters in Western India including Gujarat, Maharashtra and Rajasthan also Karnataka are mainly oilseeds, vegetables, spirits and other food clusters. The clusters in Himachal, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh have large fruit processing units. Karnataka also has coffee processing and spice processing clusters. West Bengal has tea processing clusters. Table 8: Food Processing Cluster Location by States
STATE
CLUSTER LOCATION Balangir, Balasore,
STATE
CLUSTER LOCATION Bijapur, Gulbarga, Bijapur
Orissa
Cuttack, Ganjam, Koraput,Puri, Sambhalpur Pune, Thane Aloka, Bhandra
Karnataka
Mysore, Mangalore, Shimoga
Amritsar, Gurdaspur, Sangrur Kapurthala, Moga Punjab
Maharashtra
Chandrapur, Dhule Gadchiroli, Jalgaon, Nagpur, Nanded, Ratnagiri,Sudhudurg, Wardha,
46
STATE
CLUSTER LOCATION Yavatmal
STATE
CLUSTER LOCATION
Kerala Andhra Pradesh
Kochi East Godavari, West Godavari, Srikakulam, Vizag
Delhi
Delhi Alwar, Madhopur, Bharatpur Gangapur, Jaipur
Rajasthan Uttar Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Haryana Karnal, Kurukshetra, Panipat, Kaithal Bihar Muzzafarpur Himachal Pradesh Gujarat Source : www.nisiet-cluster.org The food industry can further be divided into a number of sub-industries. For the purpose of index construction we follow the Annual Survey of Industry (ASI) classification.32 Rajkot, Ahmedabad Kullu, Sirmaur Mazzafarnagar, Saharanpur Indore Tamil Nadu West Bengal Madurai, Thanjavur Kolkata
4.3. Classification of Food Processing Industry

The production, processing and preservation of meat, fruit, fish, oils and fats makes up 31 per cent of the food processing market. The manufacture of grain mill products and other foods each makes up 25 per cent of the pie. The rest is constituted by the manufacture of dairy products and beverages.
32
NIC 2004 codes as given by ASI, Ministry of Statistics and Programme implementation
47
Figure 6: Classification of Food Processing Industry (2004-05)

Category 5: Manufacture of Beverages, 7% Category 4: Manufacture of Other Products, 25% Category 1 : Production, zproc essing and Preservation of Meat, Fish, Fruit, Vegetables, Oil and Fat, 31%
Category 3: Manufacture of Grain Mill Products, Starches and Starch Products, Prepare d Animal Feeds, 25%
Category 2: Manufacture of Dairy Products, 12%
Data Source : ASI
The constituents of the Sub-Industries in the Food Processing Sector are listed in Table 10. Table 9: Food Processing Sub-Industries Sub-industries Constituents
Production Processing and Preservation of Meat, Fish, Fruit, Vegetables, Oils and Fats
Poultry , meat and fish products; fruit and vegetable jams, jellies, pickles, canned; edible oil and vegetable fat
Manufacture of Dairy Products
Processed milk, butter, cheese and other milk based sweets and drinks
Manufacture of Grain Mill Products, Starches and Starch Products, Prepared Animal Feeds
Milled cereals and pulses, corn, rice, ragi, wheat ; powders and mixes made with these
48
Sub-industries
Constituents
Manufacture of Other Food Products
Pasta, breads, cakes, pastries, corn flakes, ready to eat and ready to cook products, cocoa products, biscuits and segment of consumer foods
Manufacture of Beverages
Tea, coffee, soft drinks, beer, alcohol beverages, mineral and packaged water
Source: Annual Survey of Industry, National Industrial Classification
4.4. Key Drivers of Food Processing Industry
The drivers of the Food Processing Industry are represented below in Figure 7 Figure 7: Drivers of Food Processing Industry
Change in mindset and preferences: There is an increased acceptance of packaged/ preserved food against conventional preference for fresh foods in the emerging consumerist economy.
49
Continued Urbanization and increase of women in the work force: Home made food is found to be increasingly substituted with ready made easy to cook foods. Trickledown effect of increased consumption expenditure: In 2007, Consumption Expenditure on food items was around Rs. 6000 billion. This has shown a growth of 3.5 per cent CAGR during 2002-2007 Upward mobility of income classes and more disposable income: India has a 350 million strong urban middle-class. The average Indian household spends 50 per cent of its disposable income on food. Awareness of health & wellness platforms: This trend has lead to the emergence of strong market for GM foods, organic foods and artificial drinks. The above growth drivers of the Food Processing industry have given rise to a number of trends. There is a willingness amongst the consumers to try new products even as the consumption of value added products is rising. A tendency for the consumers is to shift away from unbranded to branded products. There is also a movement in the structure of the market as the unorganised sector gives way to organised retail chains. This entails also, an increase in the amount spent on supply chain activities. There is an increased investment in the food retail sector as marketing and distribution of processed food is made into an organised activity.
4.5. Food Processing Policy Initiatives

The salient policy initiatives of the government with respect to the food processing sector are given below. Fiscal Incentives Full repatriation of profits and capital is allowed Automatic approvals are allowed for foreign investment up to 100 per cent Income tax rebate is allowed (100 per cent of profits for 5 years and 25 per cent of profits for the next 5 years) for new industries in fruits and vegetables besides institutional and credit support
50
Setting up of subsidized food parks is cluster based and public private partnership based
Export-Import Initiatives Custom duties on packaging machines have been reduced. Central excise duty on meat, poultry and fish have been reduced to 8 per cent Zero duty imports of capital goods and raw materials for 100 per cent export-oriented units has been established, sales of up to 50 per cent in domestic tariff area is allowed for 100 per cent export-oriented units There is a full duty exemption on all imports for units in export processing zones
Other Initiatives A boost has been given to R&D in the food sector with set up of the National Institute for Food Technology and Management in collaboration with Cornell University, USA The Agricultural & Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) has been established to provide assistance with development of physical infrastructure, grading and packaging standards, modernization of packinghouses and financial assistance for infrastructure development.
4.6. SWOT Analysis of Food Processing Industry

An analysis of the strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the Food Processing Industry are given, in table 10. Table 10: SWOT Analysis of Food Processing Industry in India Strengths Weaknesses India is the worlds largest producer of milk, spices and second largest producer of fruits, vegetables and oilseeds Largest livestock population Indias relatively inexpensive but skilled labour force Lack of processing and storage of perishables, semi perishables wastage of 35 per cent of total produce worth Rs 70 Billion/ Year
51
Opportunities Threats
Supply chain infrastructure is weak Food Safety and Quality Standards not stringent Processing levels are a mere 2 per cent in fruits and vegetables, 4 per cent in fish and 2 per cent in meat and poultry and 15 per cent in milk 350 million strong urban middle class and changing food habits India's share in the global processed food trade is only1.6 percent at present Vulnerability to food borne diseases and contamination due to lack of attention to quality control in unorganized sector reducing export competitiveness Competition from other low cost production bases in Asia like Thailand and Indonesia
4.7. Cost Structure

We have drawn comparisons between Industry costs as a percentage of sales for raw materials, power and Fuel, Labour, Manufacturing and Selling and Administration between 2002 and 2007 for the five subsectors indicated in table 11. Table 11: Cost Indicators of Food Processing Industry Power n Fuel/ Sales 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 4% 4% Selling and Other Employee/ Administration Manufacturing Sales Expenses Expenses 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 6% 7% 7% 6% 4% 4% 4% 4% 7% 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 7% 10% 10% 9% 7% 9% 7% 6% 7% 6% 7% 6% 6% 7% 5% 7% 7% 7% 12% 5% 4% 5%
Category Production, processing and preservation of meat, fish, fruits, vegetables, oils and fats.
Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003
Raw Materials 77% 81% 82% 71% 68% 65% 69% 68% 68% 63% 71% 73% 79% 80%
Manufacture of grain mill products,
52
Category starches and starch products and prepared animal feeds
Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Raw Materials 79% 78% 84% 71% 44% 45% 40% 45% 50% 52% 28% 32% 29% 32% 27% 28%
Power n Fuel/ Sales 4% 4% 3% 2% 3% 3% 5% 4% 3% 4% 4% 4% 5% 4% 4% 4%
Selling and Other Employee/ Administration Manufacturing Sales Expenses Expenses 3% 3% 2% 2% 10% 9% 12% 9% 8% 8% 7% 6% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 10% 11% 11% 12% 10% 12% 30% 30% 32% 32% 32% 32% 4% 5% 3% 3% 16% 16% 16% 16% 11% 11% 23% 20% 20% 20% 19% 18%
Manufacture of other food products
Manufacture of beverages
Source: Data source-Capitaline Cost of raw materials is the most important cost component in the foods industry. There has been a decrease in costs in the production of meat, fish, fruits vegetables, oils and fats and also in the production of grain mill products, starches and animal feeds and no change in production of beverages. There has been an increase in costs in the production of dairy products and the production of other foods. The falling costs in manufacture of meat, fish etc and grain mill products is attributable to fall in the prices of input materials, as the economy moves towards free trade regime which has rationalised duty structures33. This can also be attributable to the firms moving up the learning curve as they put in place improved supply chain systems. However, when one looks at the other categories there has been a 3-4 per cent increase in costs and this can be attributed to the increase in the prices of input materials. The inputs in these categories are typically higher value added materials. For instance, in the dairy products category,
33 Zero import duty on capital goods and raw material for 100 per cent export-oriented units
53
the prices of milk solids continue to rise faster than other commodities34. It exhibits lower supply elasticity compared to other markets. As purchasing power of the consumer increases, milk is one of the commodities demanded in greater measure. The same principle applies to the other foods category. Baked items and confectionaries are the largest components of other foods category. Many of the products in both of these components are highly dependant on milk solids. Power and Fuel costs range across the board form 2-4 per cent for all the food categories. There has been a 2 per cent point decrease in the labour costs across production of dairy products; grain mill, starches and animal feeds; and production of other foods sectors, owing to the increase in capital productivity. The selling and administration costs have increased for categories dairy products, production of other foods and production of beverages by 2 per cent. The costs excluding raw material costs for the production of other foods and the production of beverages are higher than the other sectors the need for marketing and allied activities like advertising and promotion and hence administration is more owning to the heterogeneous products and the efforts to differentiate products from competitors as the chunk of the production is in the organised sector. Cost of packaging ranges anywhere from 10 to 64 per cent of production costs. This contributes to the other manufacturing costs in the production of other foods and production of beverages sector. The effect of positive and negative externalities, either through government or private initiative implicitly affects cost measures. For example, the effect of taxation may be difficult to capture as externalities are not amenable to measurement and quantification in a definite way. The resultant effects though can be studied via its effects on costs. However there may be some cancelling out of said externalities as say, an exemption or a subsidy from the government could counter some other negative effect on a firm weighing down its profitability.
4.8. Manufacturing Competitiveness Index - Food Processing

The Manufacturing Competitiveness Index for the Food Processing Industry has marginally moved up from 100, in the base year of 2004 to 103 in 2007. An index can be used to qualitatively measure change. Since the index has moved up, we say that there has been an increase in competitiveness. We could also
34 The consumer expenditure on dairy products has increased by a CAGR of 3 per cent from 2002-2007 but the price of dairy products has increased by a CAGR of 4 per cent in the same period. It is interesting to note however that the price of skimmed milk powder (milk solid form used as input in other foods industry) has increased at 10 per cent CAGR.
54
infer by how much. There has been approximately a 2.8 per cent increase in our measure of competitiveness in the Food Processing Industry. This has been due to primarily an increase in the demand competitiveness of the Food Industry. This translates into the fact that the consumption expenditure of food products has increased substantially in the country. The resulting effect is an increase in Industry profitability and reduction in per unit costs. The weight accorded to said factor in the index however is lower than productivity related changes and hence the very small change in the Index statistic. Table 12: Manufacturing Competitiveness Index - Food Processing
YEAR 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
ECI 104 103 102 104 104 105 105 107 102 100 99 99 99
MC 232 252 228 304 394 84 84 86 255 100 125 104 104
DSC PSC 81 88 87 94 94 91 97 95 99 100 107 143 143 67 73 78 87 89 90 91 91 94 100 101 104 103
INDU ST COST FLC-PPP FLC-DP FLC-GP FLC-OFFLC-B COMP IC-PPP IC-DP IC-GP IC-OF IC-B 76 75 80 97 98 98 98 100 100 100 100 100 100 110 114 118 100 100 98 98 97 99 100 100 100 100 109 99 95 99 99 99 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 95 96 97 99 101 99 101 103 100 100 100 100 82 80 84 86 89 95 92 94 90 100 100 100 100 106 106 106 106 101 104 103 98 98 100 99 93 85 124 124 124 124 117 70 83 65 100 100 127 162 170 111 116 141 111 116 141 111 116 141 111 116 141 120 118 122 125 115 112 103 120 83 90 91 86 84 186 186 186 186 167 145 123 140 128 100 100 101 322
Scale d OVERA LL MCI MCI

271 254 255 294 299 307 308 315 314 314 316 323 323
123 108
100 100 100 109 115 119 90 187 122 98 227 105
86 81 81 93 95 98 98 100 100 100 101 103 103
@ Variation in FDI (as % of total) movement has caused fluctuation in MC movement from Year 1999 to Year 2000
We examine below the factors that change the value of the MCI.
KEY OBSERVATIONS 1. Export & Macro Competi Decl 2 Firm level competitiveness rev 3.Industry Cost structure show o 4. Industry profitability reveal m 5. Overall industry competitiven
55
4.8.1. Key drivers of index movement

4.8.1.1. Macro and Exports Figure 8: Food Processing Exports in USD Millions
60000
50000
40000 30000 20000
Category 1: Production, processing and preservation of meat, fish, fruits, vegetables, oils and fats.
Category 2: Manufacture of dairy product

Category 3: Manufacture of grain mill products, starches and starch products, and prepared animal feeds Category 4: Manufacture of other food products
10000
0
2004
2005
2006
Category 5: Manufacture of beverages
Data Source: RBI The exports of category 1, 2 and 4 are steadily increasing. Products that have growing demand, especially in the Middle Eastern countries include pickles, chutneys, fruit pulps, canned fruits, and vegetables, concentrated pulps and juices, dehydrated vegetables and frozen fruits and vegetables. India is exporting egg powder, frozen egg yolk and albumin powder to Europe, Japan and other countries. Poultry exports are mostly to Maldives and Oman. Indian poultry meat products have good markets in Japan, Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore. Casein and lactose, used as additives in baby food and confectionary as well as indian milk products such as ghee as well as condensed milk has a steady demand from other Asian and African countries. The exports of category 3 and 5 are more or less unchanged even as the production of these food categories caters primarily to the domestic market. However, export competitiveness has gone down to 99 in 2005 from 2004 as the percentage share of the food processing products has been decreasing in the share of total goods exports from India.The share of food processing exports has come down from 6 per cent in 2002 to 3 per cent in 200735.
35 Export figures according to RBI Handbook of Statistics on Indian Economy.
56
Figure 9: Food Processing GFCF in Rs. Crores

C ategory 1: P roduc tion, proc es s ing and pres ervation of meat, fis h, fruits , vegetables , oils and fats . C ategory 2: Manufac ture of dairy produc t C ategory 3: Manufac ture of grain mill produc ts , s tarc hes and s tarc h produc ts , and prepared animal feeds C ategory 4: Manufac ture of other food produc ts C ategory 5: Manufac ture of beverages
250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 2002 2003 2004
Data Source : ASI The gross fixed capital formation for category 2 and 3 show a steady rising trend. There has been an increased investment in category 2 after it was liberalised from government control after abolishment of the Milk and Milk products order in 2001, which allowed abolishment of licensing and emphasis on quality and food safety which gave way to private player entry into the market and strengthening of backward linkages through contract farming .With consumption patterns moving towards preference for processed food, the category 3 is building up potential to service the baking industry. Category 1 and 4 show sharp spurts of growth. Investments in category 1 are growing on the backs of domestic as well as exports led growth for processed primary foods The macro competitiveness index shows an increase to 125 in 2005 and then falls back to 104 in 2006. This is due to the drop in share of FDI flowing into the Food Processing sector relative to other sectors which at Rs. 4500 crores in 2004 was only 2.5 per cent of total FDI flowing into India.
57
4.8.1.2.
Demand Competitiveness Figure 10: Consumer Expenditure of Food Products
250000
C ategory 1: P roduc tion, proc es s ing and pres ervation of meat, fis h, fruits , vegetables , oils and fats . C ategory 2: Manufac ture of dairy produc t C ategory 3: Manufac ture of grain mill produc ts , s tarc hes and s tarc h produc ts , and prepared animal feeds C ategory 4: Manufac ture of other food produc ts
200000
150000
100000
50000
0 2005 2006 2007
C ategory 5: Manufac ture of beverages
Data Source: NSSO There is slight growth in categories 1, 2 and 3. All these sub sectors have a 3 year CAGR of 3-4 per cent. In contrast category 4 has a 14 per cent CAGR for the same period36. Thus there is strong growth in the other foods category. The market peneteration for these goods is rapidly increasing. This is true also for category 5 but to a lesser extent which has been growing at a CAGR of 7 per cent over the last 3 years. The market for beverages is expected to grow rapidly in the next decade as higher percentage of population moves into the middle income category.
36 Computed from NSSO Consumption Expenditure figures 2004-2007
58
4.8.1.3.
Price Competitiveness Figure 11: Food Products - Wholesale Price Index
250
C ategory 1: P roduction, proces s ing and pres ervation of meat, fis h, fruits , vegetables , oils and fats . C ategory 2: Manufacture of dairy product
200
150
C ategory 3: Manufacture of grain mill products , s tarches and s tarch products , and prepared animal feeds C ategory 4: Manufacture of other food products
100
50
0 2005 2006 2007
C ategory 5: Manufacture of beverages
Data Source : eaindustry.nic.in The Price Competitiveness Index increases from 100 in 2004 to 103 in 2007. All categories have shown an increase in prices. The reason is primarily escalated transportation price due to high petroleum costs. The prices of petrol and diesel have on average gone up by 10 per cent and 20 per cent in the period 20032007.
59
4.8.1.4.
Firm Level Competitiveness Figure 12: Overall Productivity Input/ Output Ratio
1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 2002 2003 2004
C ategory 1: P roduc tion, proc es s ing and pres ervation of meat, fis h, fruits , vegetables , oils and fats . C ategory 2: Manufac ture of dairy produc t
C ategory 3: Manufac ture of grain mill produc ts , s tarc hes and s tarc h produc ts , and prepared animal feeds C ategory 4: Manufac ture of other food produc ts
Data Source: Annual Survey of Industry The overall productivity of the Food Processing Index sees no major changes in trend except the slight increase in the category 2 because of the greater infusion of technology in the dairy products sector. This is due to the entry of foreign players and increased investment after the dairy sector was liberalised in 2001.
60
4.8.1.5.
Financial Competitiveness Figure 13: Food Processing Industry Profitability - ROCE
18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 2005 2006 2007
C ategory 1: P roduc tion, proc es s ing and pres ervation of meat, fis h, fruits , vegetables , oils and fats . C ategory 2: Manufac ture of dairy produc t
C ategory 3: Manufac ture of grain mill produc ts , s tarc hes and s tarc h produc ts , and prepared animal feeds C ategory 4: Manufac ture of other food produc ts
Data Source : CAPITALINE The profitability of category 1 and 3 have been increasing sharply due to the proliferation of retail selling of these products. The profitability in categories 2 and 4 have fallen considerably. Despite topline growth remaining strong in category 4 as a result of price increases and volume growth, profitability came under pressure because of the phenomenon of the consumers shifting to low price point products in the wake of higher prices. The category 5, beverages trend shows a sharp upturn in 2007, ending up higher than all other foods categories. Apart from providing strong growth, India also provides attractive profit margins due to the consolidated nature of the industry for instance the top two beer market players in India account for 75 per cent of market share37. Hence prices do not fall due to the entry of new products.
37 Times of India - citing Industry sources.
61
4.8.1.6.
Cost Competitiveness Figure 14: Food Processing Cost Indicators
20.0% 19.5% 19.0% 18.5% 18.0% 17.5% 17.0% 16.5% 16.0% 15.5% 15.0% 14.5% 2005 2006 2007
C ategory 1: P roduc tion, proc es s ing and pres ervation of meat, fis h, fruits , vegetables , oils and fats . C ategory 2: Manufac ture of dairy produc t C ategory 3: Manufac ture of grain mill produc ts , s tarc hes and s tarc h produc ts , and prepared animal feeds C ategory 4: Manufac ture of other food produc ts C ategory 5: Manufac ture of beverages
Data Source : CAPITALINE The Cost competitiveness index has fallen from 100 in 2004 to 88 in 2007. This shows an increase in competitiveness as the cost index and the overall MCI are negatively correlated. The general trend in the above chart shows a fall in costs mainly due to the increased capital efficiency as shown by the increased capital productivity in this industry as a result of increased investments notably in category 2 and 3. However the costs in manufacture of category 4 have been going up due to increase in prices of input materials like wheat and milk powder.
4.8.2. Regional Competitiveness

In the case of production of meat, fish, fruits, vegetables, oil and fats, the per unit wage productivity of the Western region is the highest at 186.58 compared to the Indian average of 150. This means that for every unit of wage, the corresponding share of input is 186.58 times. The labour productivity again, is highest in the West at 70. This measures the Output to Wage ratio. Output for the western region is 70 times the per unit wage paid. The indian average is only 67 per cent of the Western region. The Southern region has the lowest labour productivity at 41 per cent of Western level. Capital productivity ratio is also
62
the highest in the Western region while the Eastern region has the lowest capital productivity at 59 per cent of West. Hence the west has a clear advantage in the production and processing of meat, fish, eggs, fruits, vegetables, oils and fats. This is because the centres of production of fruit, vegetables and oilseeds and even farming activity is highly concentrated in the west in states such as Maharashtra and Gujarat. When comparing the production of dairy products across regions, we see that the Northern region has the best per unit wage productivity ratio, the highest labour productivity ratio and the best factory to ouput ratio at 200 per cent of the Indian average. But the Southern region has the best capital output ratio and the Eastern region has the highest overall productivity ratio of 0.92 compared to the Indian average of 0.91. Hence this the production of dairy products presents a mixed picture but the north has an advantage in terms of labour considerations. The Northern region has the most advantageous source of raw material milk. The livetock population in India is highly concentrated in the North. In the production of grain mill products, starches and animal feeds, the Western region scores the highest productivity ratio on all counts with atleast a 25 per cent higher productivity compared to other regions. Hence The West is adept at producing grain milled products. This is because the Western region notably states like Gujarat and Maharshtra have most of the 516 large scale modern mills as compared to other regions38. The West exhibits the best labour productivity ratio and factory to output ratio at 200 per cent of Eastern India in production of other foods. However the Eastern region has the best capital productivity and overall productivity at 0.85. This is probably due to historical advantages of the modern processed food categories like biscuits and confectionaries in the Eastern region . The production of beverages presents quite a mixed picture with each region being dominant in a particular sphere, the West in terms of labour productivity, the South in terms of factory to output, the North in terms of capital productivity and the East in terms of overall productivity. Hence we see that no one area has an absolute advantage in its production, rather the advantage rests with the state government policies.
38 Food Processing Ministry report 2006
63
4.8.3. Sector Perception

Out of the 100 firms surveyed 37 per cent had revenues over Rs 10 crores and 12 per cent had revenues over Rs 500 crores. Table 13: Food Processing Sector Perception Factors Limiting Growth of Firm Access to bank credit Capital cost Shortage of skilled labour Insufficient demand for products Taxes and Regulations Exchange rate Operating costs Competition from Imports Access to market Employee costs Percentage of Respondents 62% 45% 43% 44% 46% 54% 48% 44% 44% 62%
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Source: IMaCS Sector Perception Survey Of the 10 factors ranked against limiting growth of the firm, Access to Bank Credit (Rank 1); Capital Cost (Rank 2) and Shortage of Skilled Labour (Rank 3) topped the list of concerns. On questions of Business situation compared to the past 3 months, 65-80 per cent of respondents ranked no change in financial situation, new orders and an increase in number of people employed. 77 per cent of respondents said there was an increase in the selling price. However, 37 per cent of repondents reported a drop in current stock levels against levels prevailing 3 months previously. 55 per cent of respondents reported improved profit margin in the current quarter versus the previous quarter. 22 per cent reported decline in profits against previous quarter and 23 per cent reported a no change.
64
Figure 15: Current Firm Stock Levels
Stock Level Down 37%
Stock Level Up 43%
Stock Level Same 20%
Source: IMaCS Sector Perception Survey The section on Business Confidence for the next 6 months reveals that, 55-88 per cent of respondents maintain positions on ranking positively financial situation, selling price, new orders. Only 42 per cent think there will be an inrease in number of people employed. 18 per cent respondents think that new orders will decrease and 11 per cent think that selling price will go down. Also, 23 per cent of repondents report an expected drop in future stock levels against levels prevailing currently.
65
Figure 16: Expected Production Levels after 6 months
79%
11%
10%
Increase
Same
Decrease
Will there be an increase in Production (in quantity terms) in next 6 months?
Source: IMaCS Sector Perception Survey 79 per cent of respondents think that there will be an increase in production in quantity terms of electronics products in the next 6 months. 60 per cent of repondents believe that capital finance requirements and 77 per cent believe that cost of raw materials would go up. 43 per cent of respondents report a decrease in the capacity utilisation of the current year versus the previous. 78 per cent of respondents believe that there is no scope for an increase in demand for exports and also, they are not certain if their products are facing competition from imports.
4.9. Recommendations
Challenges
The food processing sector in India is heterogeneous, dispersed, and mostly unorganized. It includes diverse types of production units ranging from traditional household industries to high-tech industries. Yet, it is often considered to be limited to SSIs and rural livelihoods. Due to the unorganized nature of the sector, entrepreneurs and workers face difficulties in accessing
66
government schemes. Consequently, the workers engaged in the MSE39 sector have very little bargaining power. Unable to take up aggressive marketing like big industries, they cannot find markets despite good quality and competent prices. The dispersed, unorganized nature of the industry raises concerns with respect to quality, bulk production, and inability of meeting big orders. Often individual units lack packaging facilities. As a result, markets, especially for traditional MSEs, are shrinking though the demand for organized retailing of food is growing. Many non-traditional MSEs serve as captive units for big industries. Thus money is held up, further impoverishing the workers. Though food processing units have schemes for credit availability, there is an acute non-availability of working capital. The fall in the percentage share of credit to MSEs under priority sector can, in part, be attributed to the expanding scope of the priority sector lending to accommodate fast-growing areas such as housing, exports, etc. Though the Nayak Committee (set up by RBI in 199192) had recommended working capital to the SSEs at 20% of their annual turnover, SSI units together received only 13.3% of their production value from scheduled commercial banks (SCBs) in 2005 06. Lending to micro enterprises, which is stipulated at 60% of the total credit to MSE sector, has fallen from 51.2% in 200203 to 45.1% at the end of 2005 06. Moreover, difficulty in arranging collaterals or third-party guarantees continues to be a problem. The high cost of credit to MSEs also impacts the competitiveness of their products. 40 Most food processing units do not have money to invest in market research and are unable to carry out design and technical improvements to keep up with market demands. Unlike big businesses, they cannot invest in advertising and packaging. This limits their ability to tap markets and attract consumers. There is a need for the establishment of cold chain, low cost pre-cooling facilities near farms, cold stores and grading, sorting, packing facilities to reduce wastage, improve quality and shelf life of products.
Strategies In order to address the above challenges the following significant interventions are proposed:
39
Medium and Small Enterprises Planning Commission, 11 FYP

th
40
67
The Eleventh Plan considers the MSE sector as an important segment of industry which is unorganized and hence provides several schemes to food processing industry with special enabling provisions. Support for womens empowerment and minority development has been stressed upon. The effort on the part of the government should be to organize this sector by creating clusters and SHGs to improve their bargaining power and to enable them to pool resources. These groups should be given control over cluster decisions and be provided support in the form of credit, inputs, expertise, and marketing links. Area-specific Agro Food Park clusters should be developed, dedicated to processing of the predominant produce of the area e.g., apple in J&K, pineapple in North East, Lichi in Bihar, Mango in Maharashtra & Andhra Pradesh etc. Banks should be encouraged to ensure that all loans upto Rs 5 lakh to MSEs (excluding credit from MFIs) are given free of collateral at the interest rate of 8%. As international experience indicates cluster based financing is the most effective way of providing credit to MSEs, MSE clusters based on the PPP model should be adopted on a pilot basis.41 Marketing campaign for food clusters using the media and icons should be launched. Food processing industries can be linked to tourism. Giving an industry status to household industries will entitle them to tax benefits and export promotion schemes, makes them eligible for banking and credit support, helping them lobby for protection of intellectual property. Mapping of the food processing sector should be carried out and registration of products under the GI Act should be encouraged and supported. . There should be strengthening of extension services to the farmers and co-operatives in the areas of post harvest management of agro-produce to encourage creation of pre-processing facilities near the farms like washing, fumigation, packaging etc. There should be efforts to encourage setting up of agro-processing facilities as close to the area of production as possible to avoid wastage and reduce transportation cost. Roads, transport, water, and other infrastructure problems, or their total absence, push up operating costs of MSEs as against goods produced in more favourable conditions in other countries and it is, therefore, imperative for the government to develop adequate infrastructure. Food processing units at a cluster level should be able to access production supply units around the world through the Internet. Information dissemination about availability of recent technologies, literature on modern machinery, contact details of suppliers, etc., is essential. A Technology Bank
41
Planning Commission, 11 FYP
th
68
could be set up for this purpose. This would enable development of new technologies in food processing. This could be facilitated by a mechanism helping quick transfer of technologies to field through a net work of R&D Institutions having a Central Institute at the national level with satellite institutions located strategically in various regions to cover up the whole Country and to make available the required testing facilities. This could be done by establishing a new institution or strengthening an existing one. The government should consider developing a Futures Market or an equalisation fund for food grains, pulses, fruits, vegetable, milk, meat and poultry in the interest of the farmers and the processors ensuring minimum price stability to the farmer and a sustained supply of raw material to the processor or compensation for shortages.42
4.10. Summary
The Manufacturing Competitiveness Index for the Food Processing Industry has marginally moved up from 100, in the base year of 2004 to 103 in 2007. An index can be used to qualitatively measure change. Since the index has moved up, we say that there has been an increase in competitiveness. We could also infer by how much. There has been approximately a 2.8 per cent increase in our measure of competitiveness in the Food Processing Industry. This has been due to primarily an increase in the demand competitiveness of the Food Industry. This translates into the fact that the consumption expenditure of food products has increased substantially in the country. The corresponding effect was an increase in Industry profitability and reduction in per unit costs. The weight accorded to said factor in the index however is lower than productivity related changes and hence the very small change in the Index statistic. Majority of exports from India in the Food Processing sector are in the primary processed foods category. Nearly 75% of this industry is unorganised. Hence the sector is not able to reap the benefits of economies of scale. Also there is lack of investment in technology in cold storage, transportation and supply chain systems. This has curtailed productivity, reflecting on the slow growth in competitiveness even though the food industry is firmly propelled by rapidly increasing consumption expenditure.
42
Ministry of Food Processing
69
The Regional Competitiveness analysis for the Food Processing Industry presents the fact that the Western region is competitively placed in terms of the production of primary processed products from fruits, vegetables, oilseeds, grains and meat. This is due to the easy access of raw materials. The Northern region is competitive in terms of the production of processed dairy products. All four regions are equally placed in terms of beverage production. This is due to the fact that government policies have more bearing on these industries compared to other factors.
The Sector Perception survey reveals that of the 10 factors ranked against limiting growth of the firm in the Food processing industry, Access to Bank Credit (Rank 1), Capital Cost (Rank 2) and Shortage of Skilled Labour (Rank 3) are cause for most concern. Around 65 per cent of those surveyed indicate a positive outlook on present and future (6 months) business confidence. 78 per cent of respondents believe that increase in production levels will not be due to export growth, rather because of increase in domestic demand.
70
5. Manufacturing Competitiveness of Leather and Leather Products Industry

5.1. Introduction
The post liberalization era has opened up a plethora of opportunities for the Indian leather industry. With global players looking for new sourcing options, India stands to gain a bigger share of the global market. India has a 2.32 per cent share43 in the global leather trade and ranks eighth in the world in terms of the countrys foreign exchange earnings from the industry. The composition of exports has also been changing, with more and more value added products being exported. India has distinct advantages in the leather industry in terms of availability of raw materials. India has the largest livestock population in the world. This has enabled India to become a significant player in the world leather market, with exports growing at 8 per cent CAGR. Indias leather industry is worth around Rs 175 billion. Exports of leather and leather products accounts for nearly 70 per cent of the total industry. It is projected to be around Rs 362 billion industry by 2012-13 and its share is estimated to go up to 77 per cent. Around 56 per cent of the market is constituted by the Footwear industry and the remaining 44 per cent is attributed to production of other leather products44. Around 70-75 per cent of the industry capacity is accounted by the small scale and tiny industry segment. The organized Leather and Leather products industry employs around 0.22 million people. The Leather Industry as a whole employs around 2.5 million persons. The major leather products and exports from India are hides and skins such as cow and bull calf, sheep nappa, goat skin, kid leather, wet blue etc. Footwear and footwear components like shoes, shoe uppers, soles etc., leather garments, leather gloves, leather saddlery goods, leather travel bags and totes, leather purses, wallets, briefcases etc.. 43 Center for Leather Exports 44 Other leather products include tanning and dressing of leather, manufacture of luggage handbags, saddlery & harness, garments and accessories.
71
Figure 17: Leather Production in India
5.2. Leather Clusters in India

Leather and leather products production is centred in southern, northern and eastern India. Key production units are located in Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Haryana and Delhi Figure 18: Leather Clusters in India Regions Northern Eastern Western Southern Cities Jalandhar (Punjab), Delhi, Kanpur and Agra (Uttar Pradesh) Kolkata (West Bengal) Mumbai (Maharashtra) Chennai, Ambur and Ranipet (Tamil Nadu); Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh); Bangalore (Karnataka) Source: Centre for Leather Exports
72
Tamil Nadu is the biggest leather exporter in the country and the south accounted for 43 per cent of the countrys share in 2007.45
5.3. Classification of Leather Industry

The Leather Industry can be classified into two categories as given in Table 15. Table 14: Classification of Leather Industry Sub Categories Leather Products Constituents Tanning and dressing of leather, manufacture of luggage handbags, saddlery & harness, garments and miscellaneous leather goods Footwear Leather shoes, leather sandals and chappals, leather-cum-rubber/plastic chappals cloth sandals and
45 India Brand Equity Foundation
73
5.4. Key Drivers

The Key Drivers of the Leather industry are as follows: Figure 19: Drivers of Leather Industry
Rising disposable incomes
Government policies
Leather Industry
Abundance of Leather
Indias emergence as low cost manufacturing base
Improved Design Capabilities
Rising Disposable Incomes: India has a large and growing middle income class constituting 350 million persons. The penetration level for footwear is only around 60 per cent46.
Abundance of Leather: India has the largest livestock population in the world. It has 22 per cent of the worlds large animals (cows, buffaloes, camels) and 10 per cent of the small animals (goat, sheep, calves).
Improved Design Capabilities: India has a historical advantage in the field of leather manufacturing and design. Coupled with this there is a rapid influx of foreign technology through foreign collaborations with indigenous firms.
46 Indian Brand Equity Foundation
74
Indias emergence as a low cost manufacturing base: There is an abundance of skilled labour in our country available at competitive rates. Raw materials are easily available.
Government policy: The government policies in the leather sector are conducive to the easy set up and operation of leather producing units. The leather clusters in the country enjoy numerous set-up and export incentives.
5.5. Policy Initiatives

Salient policy initiatives of the government with respect to the Leather and Leather Products sector are given below. Trade Incentives 1) Inter-State Trade Council has been set up to facilitate an enabling coordination between the Central and State Governments in trade policy matters 2) Through the Export Promotion Capital Goods scheme designated for the SSI sector - export obligation has been brought down from 8 times of duty saved to 6 times 3) All categories of exporters having past export performance can now avail the Advance License for annual requirement 4) Target Plus scheme has been announced in Foreign Trade Policy 2004 to reward incremental exports 5) Special facility introduced to the Status Holders in the erstwhile EXIM Policy 2003-04 has also now been made operational. 6) At present, the government of India recognizes Premier Trading Houses based on an export turnover of Rs.10,000 crores. 7) For Advance Licenses issued prior to 1.4.2002, the requirement of MODVAT/CENVAT certificate dispensed with in cases where the Customs Notification itself prescribed for payment of CVD. This will help in closure of a number of pending advance licences.
75
8) Supply of an Intermediate product by the domestic supplier directly from their factory to the Port against Advance Intermediate Authorisation, for export by ultimate exporter, has been allowed. 9) In case of Advance Authorisation for Annual Requirement where Standard Input-Output Norms are not fixed, the provisions in Customs Notification have been amended in line with Foreign Trade Policy. 10) At present, DEPB/Duty Credit Scrip can be used for payment of duty only on items which are under free category. The utilization is now extended for payment of duty for import of restricted items also. Investment Incentives 11) Foreign equity upto 100 per cent is allowed, subject to certain conditions. 12) Foreign equity upto 51 per cent is accorded automatic approval in several key areas 13) Free repatriation of profits and capital investment is permitted 14) Foreign investors need not have a local partner
5.6. SWOT Analysis of Leather Industry

Given below in Table 16 is an analysis of the Leather Industry using the SWOT analysis Table 15: SWOT Analysis of Leather Industry Strengths High Growth o 4th largest manufacturer of leather garments in the world (16 million pieces) o 4th largest exporter of leather goods in the world (63 million leather goods and 52 million gloves) Ready availability of highly skilled and cheap manpower
76
Large raw material base livestock and goats Policy initiatives taken by the Government Capability to assimilate new technologies and handle large projects Continuous emphasis on product development and design up gradation Weaknesses Lack of warehousing support from the government International price fluctuation Skills shortages resulting in high labour charges Lack of strong presence in the global fashion market Lack of awareness of international standards by many players Opportunities Rising potential in the domestic market Growing fashion consciousness globally Use of information technology and decision support software to help eliminate the length of the production cycle for different products Use of e-commerce in direct marketing Growing demand for fine leather like suede Threats Majority of the industry is unorganized 60 per cent Limited scope for mobilizing funds through private placements and public issues (many businesses are family-owned) Difficulty in obtaining bank loans resulting in high cost of private borrowing Stricter international standards
77
High competition from East European countries and other Asian countries Lack of communication facilities and skills
5.7. Cost Structure

We have drawn comparisons between Industry costs as a percentage of sales for raw materials, power and Fuel, Labour, Manufacturing and Selling and Administration between 2002 and 2007 for the two sub sectors in the Leather and Leather Products industry as given in table 16. Table 16: Cost Indicators Power and Fuel/ Sales 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% Selling and Other Employee/ Administration Manufacturing Sales Expenses Expenses 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 9% 10% 10% 10% 10% 9% 12% 12% 14% 13% 13% 14% 14% 15% 16% 16% 17% 17% 5% 7% 6% 6% 5% 5%
Category Tanning and Dressing of Leather, Manufacture of Luggage Handbags, Garments, Saddlery and Harness
Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Raw Materials 60% 61% 57% 63% 58%
Manufacture of Footwear
62% 2% 6% 64% 3% 14% 63% 3% 14% 59% 3% 12% 74% 2% 11% 62% 3% 11% 65% 3% 7% Source: Data source Capitaline
Raw materials cost account for roughly 60 per cent of total costs in the Leather Industry. Raw materials costs in the have gone up in both categories as the domestic supply of hides falls short of the demand for them due to increase in demand for finished products exports from India. Hence we have to depend on increased import of raw hides and skins. The power and fuel costs have remained constant. The role of labour is losing significance as technology permeates the manufacturing process especially in the
78
footwear segment. Other costs see a rise because of compliance with environmental protection policies of the government. Selling and administration costs see a rise because of expanding firms and activities associated with marketing and selling these products as demand rises in the domestic market in tandem with the foreign markets. The effect of positive and negative externalities, either through government or private initiative implicitly affects cost measures. For example, the effect of taxation may be difficult to capture as externalities are not amenable to measurement and quantification in a definite way. The resultant effects though can be studied via its effects on costs. However there may be some cancelling out of said externalities as say, an exemption or a subsidy from the government could counter some other negative effect on a firm weighing down its profitability.
5.8. Manufacturing Competitiveness Index Leather Industry

The Manufacturing Competitiveness Index for the Leather and Leather Products Industry has moved up from 100, in the base year of 2004 to 127 in 2007. There has been approximately a 27 per cent increase in our measure of competitiveness in the Leather Industry. This has been due to primarily an increase in the economic and macro competitiveness of the Leather Industry. This translates into the fact that the foreign investment into the country in Leather products has increased substantially in the country. The corresponding effect is an increase in exports and thus an increase in profits. The leather industry revenues are made up to 70 per cent by exports. Thus this industry is highly dependent on international leather market.
79
Table 17: The Leather and Leather Products Index
Y E AR E C I 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
MC 98 99 96 99 101 97 98 97 98 100 101 103 103 560 479 450 544 681 134 100 110 176 100 142 106 106
DS C 64 68 71 72 83 94 100 95 92 100 96 96 96
PS C 107 111 106 102 101 108 110 105 100 100 100 97 93
F L C -T DL F L C -MF 142 138 138 129 113 127 84 89 93 95 101 98 99 98 101 97 102 96 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
INDUS T C OS T C O MP 100 100 100 100 100 93 94 92 99 100 115 112 108
IC -T DL 94 94 94 94 123 91 83 103 103 100 98 92 104
IC -MF 54 54 54 54 60 70 75 91 94 100 81 83 79
S c aled MC I
170 165 161 134 105 122 130 90 95 100 139 143 127
@ Variation in FDI (as % of total) movement has caused fluctuation in MC movement from Year 1999 to Year 2000
The Scaled Leather Products Index saw a sharp increase from 100 in 2004 to 139 in 2005 and subsequently saw a fall to 127 in 2007. We analyse below the factors that influence the index movement.
80
5.8.1.1. Macro and Exports

Figure 20: Leather Exports in USD Millions
2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2005 2006 2007 C ategory 1: Tanning and Dres s ing of L eather, Manufac ture of L uggage handbags , G arments , S addlery C ategory 2: Manufac ture of F ootwear
Source: RBI We can see from the above graph that the exports of category 1, tanning and dressing, seem to have moderated in 2007 versus the steadily increasing exports of footwear in 2007. This is because of the fall in the rise in the exchange rate of India against the US dollar. UK followed by Germany and USA are the largest destination for India's leather exports, accounting for 74 per cent of India's total exports in this category.47Export competitiveness index has only increased marginally from 101 to 103.
47 DGCI&S
81
Figure 21: Leather Industry GFCF in Rs Crore
30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 2005 2006 2007
C ategory 1: Tanning and Dres s ing of L eather, Manufac ture of L uggage handbags , G arments , S addlery C ategory 2: Manufac ture of F ootwear
Source: ASI The Gross fixed capital formation saw a dip in 2006 before rebounding in 2007 in category 1. In the case of category 2 there is a steady rise in investments. This is due to the entry of foreign players into the retail space. The net effect results in the macrocompetitiveness going up momentarily to 142 in 2005 before falling to 106 in 2006.
82
5.8.1.2. Demand Competitiveness

Figure 22: Consumer Expenditure on Leather in Rs Crore
Source: NSSO The consumer expenditure on footwear has gone down drastically. This is due to the falling footwear prices. This has resulted from the entry of large number of players in the organised market 48 making it competitive. This is reflected in the Demand Competitiveness Index which went down from 100 in 2004 to 96 in 2005 and stayed at the same level.
48 26 per cent of footwear sector at Rs. 3000 crores Centre for Leather Exports
83
5.8.1.3. Price Competitiveness

Figure 23: Wholesale Price Index of Leather and Leather Products
180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2005 2006 2007 C ategory 2: F ootwear C ategory 1: L eather and L eather P roduc ts
Data Source : eaindustry.nic.in The price competitiveness of leather and leather products has more or less stayed constant. The footwear segment saw a fall in prices due to increase in scale of production. The price competitiveness decreased from 100 in 2004 to 93 in 2007.
84
5.8.1.4. Firm Level Competitiveness

Figure 24: Overall Productivity Input/ Output in Leather Industry
0.92 0.9 0.88 0.86 0.84 0.82 0.8 0.78 0.76 2002 2003 2004
C ategory 1: Tanning and Dres s ing of L eather, Manufac ture of L uggage handbags , G arments , S addlery C ategory 2: Manufac ture of F ootwear
Source: ASI The overall productivity of tanning, dressing and manufacture of leather, at the all India level has fallen while the productivity of the footwear sector has increased. This is due to the increase in scale of operations of the footwear sector.
85
5.8.1.5. Financial Competitiveness

Figure 25: Industry Profitability Leather Industry
25% C ategory 1: Tanning and Dres s ing of L eather, Manufac ture of L uggage handbags , G arments , S addlery and Harnes s C ategory 2: Manufac ture of F ootwear
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% 2005 2006 2007
Source: CAPITALINE The Industry profitability has come down in the footwear sector as it goes up for the tanning and dressing sector. This is because of falling footwear prices as the market is becoming more competitive. Hence the profitability index for footwear came down from 100 in 2004 to 79 in 2007 whereas the profitability index for tanning went up from 100 in 2004 to 104 in 2007.
86
5.8.1.6. Cost Competitiveness

Figure 26: Cost Indicators in the Leather Industry
22% 22% 21% 21% 20% 20% 19% 19% 18% 18% 17% 2005 2006 2007 C ategory 1: Tanning and Dres s ing of L eather, Manufac ture of L uggage handbags , G arments , S addlery and Harnes s C ategory 2: Manufac ture of F ootwear
Source: CAPITALINE The Cost competitiveness has decreased and then increased marginally in case of both categories. High costs attributed to sourcing raw materials is because of inefficiencies resulting from lack of suplier competition49. The cost competitiveness index is negatively correlated to the overall index and hence an increase in the cost index would mean fall in overall profitability but an increase in the cost index would mean a fall in the overall competitiveness of that sector.

In the case of the prodcution of leather products excluding footwear, the per unit wage productivity of the Northern region is the highest at 40.12 compared to the Indian average of 33. The labour productivity is highest in the Western region at 30. This measures the Output to Wage ratio i.e., the output is 30 times of 49 CLRI Central Leather Research Institute
87
wage paid. The indian average is only 67 per cent of the West. The Southern region has the lowest labour productivity at 41 per cent of Western level. Again capital productivity ratio is the highest in the Western region. The Eastern region has the lowest capital productivity at 50 per cent of Western region. The Western region also has the highest capital to output ratio and the highest factory to output ratio. Hence the Western region has a clear advantage in the Tanning and Dressing of Leather, Manufacture of Luggage handbags, Garments, Saddlery and Harness which represents all forms of leather products other than footwear. This is because of the superiority of design and establishments in the Western region which were the proponents of fashion and value added accessories in the country. When comparing the production of footwear, we see that the Southern region is the leader. It is the clear winner in terms of every productivity measure and by a large margin in each category. This is due to the fact that the indutry in the south had positioned itself since the beginning as an export oriented market. It has developed its capabilities in such a manner that it specialises in the mass production of footwear. There is easy access to raw material and abundance of skilled labour. This makes the Southern region the most advantageous region for the manufacture of footwear.
88

Out of the 100 firms surveyed 38 per cent had revenues over Rs 10 crores and 4 per cent had revenues over Rs 500 crores. Table 18: Sector Perception Leather Industry Factors Limiting Growth of Firm Access to bank credit Capital cost Shortage of skilled labour Insufficient demand for products Taxes and Regulations Exchange rate Operating costs Competition from Imports Access to market Employee costs Percentage of Respondents 65% 57% 55% 47% 52% 31% 52% 46% 53% 65%
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Source: IMaCS Sector Perception Survey Of the 10 factors ranked against limiting growth of the firm, Access to Bank Credit (Rank 1); Capital Cost (Rank 2) and Shortage of Skilled Labour (Rank 3) topped the list of concerns. On questions of Business situation compared to the past 3 months, 70-90 per cent of respondents ranked no change in financial situation, new orders and an number of people employed. 81 per cent report an increase in selling price. However, 39 per cent of repondents reported a drop in current stock levels against levels prevailing 3 months previously. 64 per cent of respondents reported improved profit margin in the current quarter versus the previous quarter. 23 per cent reported decline in profits against previous quarter and 15 per cent reported a no change.
89
The section on Business Confidence for the next 6 months reveals that, 60-90 per cent of respondents rank positively,financial situation, selling price, new orders and an increase in number of people employed. None report an expected decrease in any of the above parameters. However, 13 per cent of repondents report an expected drop in future stock levels against levels prevailing currently Figure 27: Levels of Production expected after 6 months in the Leather Industry
88%
7% Increase Same Will there be an increase in Production (in quantity terms) in next 6 months?
5% Decrease
Source: IMaCS Sector Perception Survey 88 per cent of respondents think that there will be an increase in production in quantity terms of electronics products in the next 6 months. 66 per cent of repondents believe that capital finance requirements and 87 per cent believe that cost of raw materials would go up. 77 per cent of respondents believe that there is no scope for an increase in demand for exports and also, they are not certain if their products are facing competition from imports.
90
Challenges The indigenous raw material base of the industry is deficient. As of 2007 about 90% (1.8 billion sq ft) of leather was produced in the country from indigenous hides and skins. To achieve exports of US$ 7 billion, 4 billion sq ft will be needed in 2012.50 The tanneries in the country have low capacities and outdated technologies with a majority of tanneries still using manual systems. During the Tenth Five Year Plan, the scheme for Integrated Development of Leather Sector (IDLS) under Indian Leather Development Programme (ILDP) was launched for technology upgradation and modernization, but the funds could be utilized only to a small extent because of delay in the finalization of the scheme. The existing tanning units (in Tamil Nadu) have been seeing the imposition of rigorous environmental requirement (Zero Liquid Discharge) by the State Pollution Control Board. While the large units have been able to make additional investment needed to comply with the requirement, the small-scale units do not have the financial strength to do so without the government assistance. There is acute shortage of skilled and semi-skilled workforce and it is estimated that if the full potential of the industry is to be realized till 2012, around 0.5 million workers would need to be trained.51 A large majority of the manufacturers produce small quantities and are unable to meet the large volume orders from the US, which accounts for a large share of world imports. Also much of the footwear production in India is of dress shoes for men, while there is increasing requirement for comfort shoes. Ladies shoes are also not being manufactured for exports. What is needed is to scale up the production and diversify the product mix.52 The competitiveness of Indian exporters of leather products suffers on account of bad roads, delays in Inland Container Depots.
50
Council for Leather Exports (CLE) CLE Planning Commission 11 FYP

th
51
52
91
Strategies
In order to address the above challenges the following significant interventions are proposed. For augmenting the raw material base, rearing of male buffalo calves would be encouraged as also scheme for modernization of slaughter facilities. For the better utilization of the skins of fallen animals, a scheme is being launched in the Department of Animal Husbandry for establishing 50 carcass centres, 20 bone-crushing plants, and 5000 hide-flaying units.53 In order to stimulate fresh investment in new tanning units as well as in leather products, it is proposed that at least 10 leather parks/complexes would be established on the pattern of the Scheme for Integrated Textile Parks (SITP) scheme of the Ministry of Textiles. The Tenth Five Year Plan schemes, notably the ILDS and efforts such as the Leather Tanning Complex at Nellore, Andhra Pradesh and the Footwear Complex at Ambur, Tamil Nadu need to be carried forward into the Eleventh Five Year Plan. The small and medium tanning units in Tamil Nadu and elsewhere would be assisted for making investment to enable them to comply with rigorous environment norms imposed by the Pollution Control Boards. It is proposed by the Government of India under the 11th FYP that it will provide 60% assistance, the remaining amount coming from the State Government and the units themselves. A Human Resource Development Mission is needed for onsite training of workers and artisans in the unorganized sector and also for entrepreneurship development. The Mission should cover the development of skilled manpower by the existing institutions, which offer courses at the degree level. The Footwear Design and Development Institute (FDDI), needs to be provided with additional machinery, equipment, workshops, and laboratory facilities for running courses on design and technology with increased intake. Consideration should be given to setting up more branches of FDDI in other parts of the country with concentrations of leather manufacturing units. A new branch of the FDDI is proposed to be set up at Fursatganj. In the Eleventh Plan an allocation of Rs 1300 crore has been made for the ILDP. Under the ILDP, the clause stating that the trainees taken up for training to avail fund assistance under short term courses need to have assured placement should be removed as skill requirements fluctuate according to market conditions and this puts an impediment in the way of training unskilled workers. Specific short term
53
th
92
training courses in operation in a few clusters such as the Chennai cluster are needed to be replicated country wide to address gaps at the operator, supervisor and production management levels.
5.10. Summary
The Manufacturing Competitiveness Index for the Leather and Leather Products Industry has moved up from 100, in the base year of 2004 to 127 in 2007. There has been approximately a 27 per cent increase in our measure of competitiveness in the Leather Industry. This has been due to primarily an increase in the economic and macro competitiveness of the Leather Industry. The leather industry revenues are made up to 70 per cent by exports. There has been an entry of foreign players looking to diversify their portfolio of manufacturing locations by expanding outside China. This translates into the fact that the foreign investment into the country in Leather products has increased substantially. The corresponding effect being an increase in exports led profit growth.
In India, the Western region has a clear advantage in the Tanning and Dressing of Leather, Manufacture of Luggage handbags, Garments, Saddlery and Harness which represents all forms of leather products other than footwear. This is because of the superiority of design and innovative technology in the Western region which were the proponents of fashion and value added accessories in the country. We also observe that the Southern region is the leader in the production of footwear. It is the clear winner in terms overall productivity measure. This is due to the fact that the indutry in the southern region had positioned itself since the beginning as an export oriented market. It has developed its capabilities in such that it specialises in the mass production of footwear. There is easy access to raw material and abundance of skilled labour.
The sector perception survey reveals that of the 10 factors ranked against limiting growth of the firm in the Leather and Leather products industry, Access to Bank Credit (Rank 1), Capital Cost (Rank 2) and Shortage of Skilled Labour (Rank 3) are cause for most concern. Around 75 per cent of those surveyed indicate a positive outlook on present and future (6 months) business confidence. 88 per cent of respondents believe that increase in production levels will not be due to export growth, rather because of increase in domestic demand.
93
6. Manufacturing Competitiveness of Textiles and Garments Industry 6.1. Introduction

After more than 4 decades of quota restrictions, the international textile trade moved into a quota free regime from January, 2005. This has provided an opportunity to the domestic textile industry to expand and strengthen itself in the international markets. The Textile industry has a size of Rs 2132 billion as on 2007. The industry size is estimated to go up to Rs 4400 billion by 2012-13. Figure 28: Textile Industry Production
Source: Ministry of Textiles, NMCC India is emerging as one of the major outsourcing hubs in the post quota period as it has comparative advantage over its competitors on availability of relatively inexpensive and skilled workforce, design expertise, a large production base of basic raw materials, yarn and fabric and availability of a wide range
94
of textiles. Higher investments, higher production and higher exports are illustrative of the resurgent mood of the Indian textile industry. The Indian textile industry is fragmented with only a few large and numerous small and medium companies. Statistics released by the Ministry of Textiles shows a high degree of fragmentation, except in the spinning sub-segment. The organised sector contributes over 95 per cent of spinning, but hardly 5 per cent of weaving fabric. Small Scale Industries (SSIs) perform the bulk of the weaving and processing operations. India's ability to manufacture a wide range of products in the backward supply chain has endowed it with a very strong and diverse raw material base for manufacturing natural and artificial fibres. India also has capacity-based advantage in textile and spinning. However, the high power and interest costs impair the advantage to a great extent. In the new scenario of a quota-free world, the readymade garments sector will play a crucial role in the economy, in terms of contributing to exports as well as employment generation, considering its inherent labour-intensive nature. In the cloth production segment, the hosiery and mill sectors are likely to be the gainers.
6.2. Textiles Clusters in India

The textile industry in India operates largely in the form of clusters. Roughly 70 textile clusters produce 80 per cent of the countrys total textiles. Some noteworthy textile clusters54 include: Panipat, accounting for 75 per cent of the total blankets produced in the country Tirupur, responsible for 80 per cent of the countrys hosiery exports Ludhiana, which accounts for 95 per cent of the countrys woolen knitwear produced. The clusters in Gujarat and Maharashtra are mainly specialized in power looms. Silk clusters are found in Karnataka and Orissa. Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Kerala are famous for hand printed and hand processed cloth. Garments clusters can be found in Delhi, MP, AP, Tamil Nadu, UP, Maharashtra and Gujarat.
54 UNIDO study on SME Clusters in India
95
Table 19: Location of Textile Clusters
State Andhra Pradesh
Location Guntur, Nagari, Narsapur, Pochampally, Anantapur, Sirsilla, Warangal Kolkata, Ranaghat Bhiwani, Gurgaon, Panipat Bangalore, Belgaum, Bellary, Gadag, Mysore Burhanpur, Chanderi, Indore, Jabalpur, Maheshwar, Ujjain, Bhiwandi, Ichalkaranji, Madhavnagar, Malegaon, Mumbai, Nagpur, Pune, Solapur Balasore, Dhenkanal, Ganjam, Nuapatna Source: CITI
State Gujarat
Location Ahmedabad, Rajkot, Gandhinagar, Surat, Vijapur Agartala Amritsar, Ludhiana Ernakulam, Faizlure, Kannur, Mallapuram, Palakkad Banda, Gorakhpur, Jhansi, Kanpur, Lucknow, Mau, Noida, Varanasi Bhavani, Chennimalai, Karur, Madurai, Rajapalayam, Salem, Surampatti, Tirupur Jaipur, Jodhpur, Kishangarh, Sanganer, Bangru
West Bengal Haryana Karnataka
Tripura Punjab Kerala
Madhya Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh
Maharashtra
Tamil Nadu
Orissa
Rajasthan
96
6.3. Composition of Textiles Industry

The Textiles Industry is composed of the following sectors as represented in figure 29. Figure 29: Composition of Textiles and Garment Industry
Source: ASI The sub industries represented in figure 29 can be further classified into the following sub categories. Table 20: Textiles Sub-Industries Spinning, weaving finishing textiles Preparation, spinning and finishing (bleaching, dyeing, calendaring, napping, and shrinking or printing ) of textile fiber, cotton fiber, silk fiber, wool, animal hair, of manmade fiber, cotton and synthetic blends, silk and synthetic blends, jute, mesta and other natural fibres
Manufacture of Manufacture of made-up textile articles, except apparel, curtains, bed-covers and other textiles furnishings, crocheted made up textile goods, except apparel, bedding, quilts, pillows, cushions and sleeping bags , mosquito nets, tarpaulin, carpet and rugs, cordage, rope, twine and netting, Embroidery work and making of laces and fringes, canvas goods
97
such as tents and sails Manufacture of Manufacture of knitted and crocheted fabrics and articles including cotton, woolen, knitted and synthetic, silk
crocheted fabrics and articles Manufacture of All types of textile apparel and clothing accessories, rain coats of waterproof textile wearing apparel, fabrics or plastic sheetings, hats and caps from waterproof textiles except apparel Source: ASI, NIC 2004 fur
6.4. Key Drivers

The key drivers of the textiles industry are as given in figure 30. Figure 30: Growth Drivers of Textiles Industry
Increased sourcing by global players end of MFA
Entry of foreign retailers and emergence of brands
Textile and Garments Industry
Increased demand for readymade items and home furnishings
Rise in disposable incomes increased consumption expenditure
Favorable demographic factors emergence of middle clas
98
Increased sourcing by global players: After the abolishment of the Multi-fibre agreement which required the presence of import quotas in countries to protect their domestic markets, have turned to India for supply of cheap garments and textiles. Increased demand for readymade items and home furnishings: The increasing urbanisation and growing disposable income is responsible for increase in demand for home textiles like beddings, curtains and other home furnishings. Favourable demographic factors: The Indian middle class at 350 million and growing is increasingly demanding more garments, home furnishings and other textiles. This is causing a spurt in demand led production. Rise in disposable incomes: Around 90 million households in India constitute the middle income category and these households demand higher value added textile products like readymade garments and furnishings. Entry of foreign retailers and emergence of brands: Due to the demand in the domestic market for branded apparel and thus organised retail, we see the trend of raid entry of foreign retailers to utilise the opportunity a the Indian branded market is a new phenomenon and as yet not well defined.

The notable policy initiatives provided by the government with respect to the textiles and garments industry are given below. Fiscal Incentives 1. Except for mandatory excise duty on man-made filament yarns and man-made staple fibres, the whole value addition chain given an option of excise exemption 2. The import of a number of textile machinery items of spinning, weaving, processing and readymade garment sectors has been allowed at concessional customs duty 3. Accelerated reimbursement of dues to exporters, reduction in the interest rate on pre-shipment and post-shipment credit and revision in drawback rates and Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) rates.
99
Other Initiatives 4. Technology Up gradation Fund Scheme (TUFS) 5. To reframe some of the financial and operational parameters of the Scheme 6. To infuse capital investment into the textiles sector 7. Focuses on additional capacity building, better adoption of technology, provides for a higher level of assistance to segments having a larger potential for growth, like garmenting, technical textiles, and processing 8. Scheme For Integrated Textiles Parks (SITP) 9. To create new textiles parks of international standards at potential growth centres 10. To facilitate setting up of textiles units with desired infrastructure facilities.
6.6. SWOT Analysis of Textiles Industry

Given below in Table 21 is an analysis of the Textiles and Garments Industry using the SWOT analysis. Table 21: SWOT of Textiles Industry Strengths 1. India is the second biggest textiles manufacturer worldwide, next only to China historical advantages 2. An abundant supply of cotton and human-made fiber 3. Mature and well-established production base 4. Cheap and skilled labour 5. Good design capabilities 6. The Apparel Industry is one of largest foreign revenue contributor and holds 12 per cent of the countrys total export.
100
Weaknesses
7. Indian Textile Industry is highly Fragmented Industry 8. Industry is highly dependent on Cotton 9. Lower Productivity in various segments 10. Infrastructural Bottlenecks and Efficiency such as, Transaction Time at Ports and transportation Time
Opportunities
11. Large, Potential Domestic and International Market 12. The post-MFA quota-free regime - Scope for an alternative to China to reduce risks 13. Improvements in infrastructure 14. India with traditional designs and craftsmanship can command a greater market share for niche products in made-ups and garments
Threats
15. Competition from other developing countries, especially China - Industry lacks adequate economies of scale 16. Threat for Traditional Market from Power loom 17. International labor and Environmental Laws 18. Labour force in India has much lower productivity rates than competing countries (China, Sri Lanka)
6.7. Analysis of Cost Indicators

We have drawn comparisons between Industry costs as a percentage of sales for raw materials, power and Fuel, Labour, Manufacturing and Selling and Administration between 2002 and 2007 for the four sub sectors in the Textiles and Garments industry as given in table 22.
101
Table 22: Cost Indicators in the Textiles and Garments Industry
Category
Year
Raw Materials
Power and Fuel/ Sales
Selling and Other Employee/ Administration Manufacturing Sales Expenses Expenses 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 7% 7% 7% 5% 7% 9% 10% 10% 10% 7% 7% 10% 11% 11% 12% 9% 11% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 7% 8% 9% 8% 8% 8% 8% 11% 12% 12% 11% 10% 10% 15% 16% 21% 19% 18% 18%
Spinning, Weaving and Finishing
Manufacture of other textiles
Manufacture of knitted and crocheted fabrics
Wearing Apparel
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
61% 8% 6% 60% 9% 6% 61% 9% 6% 60% 7% 6% 59% 7% 6% 60% 8% 6% 48% 9% 6% 54% 9% 6% 58% 9% 5% 63% 8% 6% 58% 9% 6% 61% 8% 6% 68% 6% 8% 52% 5% 6% 53% 5% 6% 58% 4% 6% 55% 4% 4% 54% 5% 4% 59% 2% 7% 55% 2% 7% 50% 2% 10% 52% 2% 11% 54% 2% 8% 57% 1% 8% Source: Data source Capitaline
Around 30 per cent of textiles cost and 14 per cent of garments costs are attributed to cotton. Prices of cotton saw a fall in 2005 due to increase in cotton production. The raw material costs of other textiles category however went up due to the fact that the dependence of this category on artificial fibres is high. Labour costs have gone down for the Knitwear and Crocheted Fabric manufacturing sector and this is due to the fact that manufacturing systems have become more technology intensive.
102
The effect of positive and negative externalities, either through government or private initiative implicitly affects cost measures. For example, the effect of taxation may be difficult to capture as externalities are not amenable to measurement and quantification in a definite way. The resultant effects though can be studied via its effects on costs. However there may be some cancelling out of said externalities as say, an exemption or a subsidy from the government could counter some other negative effect on a firm weighing down its profitability.
6.8. Manufacturing Competitiveness Index Textiles and Garments

The Manufacturing Competitiveness Index for the Textiles and Garments Industry has moved up substantially from 100, in the base year of 2004 to 190 in 2007. There has been approximately 0.9 times increase in our measure of competitiveness in the Textiles Industry. This has been due to an increase in the demand competitiveness. The growing middle class population is spending increasingly on value added textiles like garments. There was also a sharp increase in savings in the sector measured by the gross fixed capital formation. The industry costs came down sharply due to a combination of government policies and increased capital productivity. There had been an increase in industry profitability on accounts of the knitwear and the apparel sector. The resulting effect is an increase in domestic consumption.
103
Table 23: Manufacturing Competitiveness Index Textiles &Garments
Y E AR 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
E C I MC DS C P S C F L C -S WF F L C -OT F L C -K C F 127 429 71 90 95 91 100 126 275 75 89 97 103 10 127 310 82 83 89 117 9 112 157 72 83 97 95 100 107 184 82 84 98 98 101 107 42 97 87 99 95 99 106 33 93 89 101 94 100 103 58 98 90 98 98 101 100 59 96 93 99 100 99 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 97 121 114 101 100 100 100 96 12 119 103 100 100 100 96 12 124 103 100 100 100
INDUS T C OS T F L C -WA C OMP IC -S WF IC -OT IC -K C F IC -WA 87 88 129 83 110 98 89 88 129 83 110 98 92 88 129 83 110 98 96 88 129 83 110 98 96 95 87 70 119 117 99 93 118 70 144 159 98 95 91 69 93 140 100 96 99 70 118 118 99 98 85 98 124 140 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 96 124 94 96 128 100 88 140 95 135 198 100 89 147 84 145 187
S c aled MC I
130 130 130 130 86 124 93 97 89 100 160 186 190
@ Variation in FDI movement (as % of total) has caused fluctuation in MC movement from Y 1999 to Y 2000 and Y 2004 to Y 2005
The section below examines the factors that cause this increase in the Scaled MCI.
104

Figure 31: Exports of Textiles in USD Million
45000 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 2004 2005 2006 C ategory 2: Manufac ture of other tex tiles C ategory 3: Manufac ture of knitted and c roc heted fabric s C ategory 4: W earing A pparel C ategory 1: S pinning, W eaving and F inis hing
Source: RBI The exports of wearing apparel is the major chunk of exports at more than half of the exports of the textiles Industry. They have been growing steadily since the abolishment of the Multi Fibre Agreement.. However after the abolishment of the quota system in 2005, the garments export growth moderated in 2006 growing at 7 per cent compared to the 26 per cent growth in 2005. However, opportunities unleashed could not be materialised due to factors like reservation of certain items for small-scale sector, absence of labour market flexibility and an effective exit policy preventing development of scaleeconomies, longer lead time, and infrastructural and administrative bottlenecks including delays at
105
customs and competition from Chinese products55. This is reflected in the declining Exports Competitiveness Index. Figure 32: Gross Fixed Capital Formation in Rs. Crores
8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 2002 2003 2004 C ategory 2: Manufac ture of other tex tiles C ategory 3: Manufac ture of knitted and c roc heted fabric s C ategory 4: W earing A pparel C ategory 1: S pinning, W eaving and F inis hing
Source: ASI Substantial gross domestic capital formation has been taking place as capacities are being built up in the spinning, weaving and textiles finishing sector, Investment in the textiles sector increased from Rs. 11,628.00 crores in 2004-05 to Rs. 31,000.00 in 2006-0756. However chunk of this investment is by the central government as plan outlay, to improve infrastructural facilities in existing locations of production of textiles and in the starting of new textile and apparel parks. The foreign direct investment (FDI) made in the textiles and garments industry however was only around 1.31 per cent of total FDI made in the
55
Economic Survey 2006-07 Department of Commerce, Government of India
56
106
country in 2006 which was a decline from 2.7 per cent in 200457. Hence, the Macro Competitiveness Index has reduced from 100 in 2004 to 12 in 2007.

Figure 33: Consumer Expenditure on Clothing
Source: NSSO The spending on textiles and garments have gone up. The pattern of spending on clothing, especially readymade apparel and garments have gone up with the increasing consumerism. The consumer expenditure on clothing as seen in figure 33 has gone up 18 per cent between 2005 to 2007. The index has increased from 100 in 2004 to 124 in 2007.
57
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion
107

Figure 34: Wholesale Price Index of Textiles and Garments
C ategory 1: S pinning, W eaving and F inis hing
250
200 C ategory 2: Manufac ture of other tex tiles
150
100
50
C ategory 3: Manufac ture of knitted and c roc heted fabric s C ategory 4: W earing A pparel
0 2005 2006 2007
Data Source : eaindustry.nic.in The price competitiveness index has gone up marginally from 100 in 2004 to 103 in 2007 owing to near near constant trends in prices of textiles and garments. Indias prices of textiles and clothing which witnessed a declining trend in the quota period, hardended in the post-quota period due to increased investments by the government to improve infrastructure, helping in the expanion of production58 .Rising cotton prices were offset by policy incentives provided by the government.
58
FICCI study on Indian Textile Industry
108

Figure 35: Overall Productivity of Textiles and Garments
0.84 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.80 0.79 0.78 0.77 0.76 0.75 2005 2006 2007
C ategory 1: S pinning, W eaving and F inis hing C ategory 2: Manufac ture of other tex tiles C ategory 3: Manufac ture of knitted and c roc heted fabric s C ategory 4: W earing A pparel
Data Source: ASI The overall productivity for category 1 and 2 is rising suggesting an infusion of technology driven gains in productivity but and the productivities of category 3 and 4 , seen to be falling in 2006 to recover again in 2007. This is due to a fall in export led demand in 2006 after the abolishment of the quota system. The temporary slump in production and exports recovered in 2007. This pattern manifests itself in overall productivity of firms.
109

Figure 36: Industry Profitability - ROCE
C ategory 1: S pinning, W eaving and F inis hing C ategory 2: Manufac ture of other tex tiles C ategory 3: Manufac ture of knitted and c roc heted fabric s C ategory 4: W earing A pparel 2005 2006 2007
18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0%
Source: CAPITALINE The industry profitability is rising for all the categories except for the category 2. The production of category 2 is steadiliy falling and hence, the fall in profitability because of contraction in market share due to imports. India's textile imports from China in 2000-01 were 13.17 per cent of total global textile imports. This tripled to 36.53 per cent in 2006-07 and is growing59. More than 60 per cent of the import is constituted of synthetic and man made fibre. On the whole profitability of the industry has been rising on account of the Government making investments in this sector so as to reap profits through high unit value realisations and cot optimisations.
59
ASSOCHAM study on Indian Textiles Imports
110

Figure 37: Cost Indicators of Textiles and Garments Industry
20% 19% 19% 18% 18% 17% 17% 16% 16% 15% 15% 14% 2005 2006 2007
C ategory 1: S pinning, W eaving and F inis hing C ategory2: Manufac ture of other tex tiles C ategory 3: Manufac ture of knitted and c roc heted fabric s C ategory4: W earing A pparel
Source: CAPITALINE The Cost ratios of all categories have decreased or remained at constant levels. Rising input cots have been offset by incresed government investments and government incentives. Thus there has been a net negative effect and the cost competitiveness index has declined from 100 in 2004 to 89 in 2007. Thus thete has been a significant increae in cost competitiveness of the Industry.

In the spinning, weaving and finishing of textiles sector, the per unit wage productivity of the Northern region is the highest at 29 is nearly four times that of the Indian average of 8. The labour productivity, is highest in the Western region at 17. This measures the Output to Wage ratio, i.e., for every unit increase in wage, there is a increase in output of around 17 times. The Eastern regions labour productivity is only 20 per cent of the Western region. The Eastern region however has the highest capital productivity at 1.17 times the Western level. Again factory productivity ratio is the highest in the Eastern region. The Northern region has the highest overall productivity. The spinning activity which is capital intensive is
111
highly concentrated in the Western region whereas the weaving and finishing activities which are labour intensive, are found to be highly diffused across regions. This is due to historical reasons. The spinning process is largely dependant on unitterupted sources of power. The Western region is also the nerve centre of the domestic market in India. In the manufacture of other textiles, the Eastern region scores in terms of all the productivity ratios. This is due to the fact that made-up textile articles, bags, mosquito nets, tarpaulin, carpet and rugs, cordage, rope, twine and netting, canvas goods all use coarse to hard fiber. Natural coarse fiber like jute suits the purpose of manufacture of these items. The Eastern regions have built up capabilities in this area as raw material supply is abundant. When comparing regions in the production of knit and crocheted textiles we see that the Southern region has the best per unit wage productivity ratio, the highest overall productivity at 0.83. But the Western region has the highest labour productivity and the highest factory to ouput ratio. Hence this category of knitted and crocheted fabrics has mostly developed around the southern and western regions. These areas have developed as export centres and hence there is a certain level of permeation of technological and innovational infusions. The Southern and Western regions are production centres for export. These centres have come up mainly due to input availability and conducive government policies. In the Wearing Apparel category, the Southern, Eastern and Northern regions exhibit fairl even competitiveness in terms of productivity. The Western region has the highest labour productivity whereas the eastern region has the highest capital productivity. The Northern, Southern and Eastern regions are evenly matched in terms of overall productivity at 0. 80. Apparel and garments industry are highly structured, organised and export oriented. They have come up in mostly in and around areas having infrastructural facilities, access to inputs and most importantly, around centres of planned economic development by the government.

Out of the 100 firms surveyed 39 per cent had revenues over Rs 10 crores and 4.5 per cent had revenues over Rs 500 crores.
112
Table 24: Sector Perception : Factors Affecting Growth Factors Limiting Growth of Firm Percentage of Respondents 66% 33% 17% 40%
Rank
Access to bank credit 1 Capital cost 2 Operating costs 3 Shortage of skilled labour 4 Insufficient demand for products 5 48% Taxes and Regulations 6 44% Exchange rate 7 49% Competition from Imports 8 41% Access to market 9 42% Employee costs 10 61% Source: IMaCS Sector Perception Survey
Of the 10 factors ranked against limiting growth of the firm, Access to Bank Credit (Rank 1), Capital Cost (Rank 2) and Shortage of Skilled Labour (Rank 3) topped the list of concerns. On questions of Business situation compared to the past 3 months, 70-90 per cent of respondents indicated a no change in the financial situation, new orders and number of people employed. However, 83 per cent repondents reported a increase in selling price against levels prevailing 3 months previously. 43 per cent reported increased stock levels.
113
Figure 38: Current Level of Stocks
Source: IMaCS Sector Perception Survey 64 per cent of respondents reported improved profit margin in the current quarter versus the previous quarter. 24 per cent reported decline in profits against previous quarter and 14 per cent reported a no change. The section on Business Confidence for the next 6 months reveals that, 70-90 per cent of respondents change positions on ranking to be more positive about financial situation, selling price, new orders and an increase in number of people employed. However, 12 per cent of repondents report an expected drop in future stock levels against levels prevailing currently.
114
Figure 39: Expected Change in Production Levels
Source: IMaCS Sector Perception Survey 88 per cent of respondents think that there will be an increase in production in quantity terms of textiles products in the next 6 months. 65 per cent of repondents believe that capital finance requirements and 88 per cent believe that cost of raw materials would go up. 42 per cent report a decrease in capacity utilisation. 76 per cent of respondents believe that there is no scope for an increase in demand for exports and also, they are not certain if their products are facing competition from imports.
Challenges Indian Textiles and Garments industry has a significant employment potential and export potential in case the envisioned growth target is achieved. The industry is facing issues at two broad levels: Decline in demand from global markets Liquidity crisis Significant dependence on Cotton products Lack of skilled labour ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited
115
The major impediments to the growth of the industry are: Delay in disbursement of TUFS and other assistance High working capital interest High dependence on cotton products Lack of availability of skilled labour High dependence of textiles trade on EU27 and US markets Strategic interventions are required by both the Government and the industry to ensure the growth of the industry. Strategies In order to address the above challenges the following significant interventions are proposed:
Government should take steps to reduce the cost disadvantage of textiles and garments manufacturers which is created on account of unfavorable government policies. Power cost in India is on an average around 40% higher than that in the analysed competing countries. Moreover, the Indian T&C industry suffers from shortage of power for instance Tamil Nadu which accounts for around 40% of Indias spinning activity and over 25% of total industry activities have a declared power cut of 40%. Long term steps are being taken by the government to reduce the power shortage however, the industry needs a support during this crisis period. Liquid Fuels such as furnace oil and diesel used for captive power generation attract 10% basic customs duty and 14% excise duty; this coupled with high fuel prices makes the captive power costly. Government should support captive power generation in the regions of acute power shortage by allowing exemption of customs and excise duty paid for the liquid fuels that are used for captive power generation.60 To make the industry competitive in terms of labour, the government should consider routing the National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme (NREGA) through the Textiles and Garments industry; in this regard, the industry can commit employment guarantee on the lines of the NREGA,
60
Confederation of Indian Textiles Industry
116
which ensures 100 working days a year and minimum wages of Rs 60 a day and relaxing the norms of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with regards the number of workers in a concern. Taxes and duties charged by the State Governments and local bodies are not refunded to manufacturers. Moreover, the duty drawback rates fixed by the Ministry of Finance are not sufficient to neutralize the incidence of all the duties paid by the exporters. In addition, there is delay in disbursal of duty drawback claims to the level of 40 60 days which affects the cash flow of the companies. Government should take the following steps to overcome this anomaly: o o Refund State level taxes and duties Revise duty drawback rates and expedite the drawback claim disbursal
Delay in disbursement of TUFS assistance results in significant additional cost. Government should take immediate steps to allocate sufficient funds in order to clear the back log of TUFS till date. Moreover, for future loans under TUFS the mills should be permitted to pay interest net of subsidy to the banks; Government should arrange to remit interest subsidy amounts directly to banks concerned. Textiles and garments manufacturers pay working capital interest at the rate of 11 13%. Working capital requirement of the Cotton textile industry has increased on account of hike in cotton prices. Government should make provision to provide working capital loan for cotton on terms applicable for agriculture by reducing interest rate for working capital loans. The Textiles industry is cotton dominated with Cotton fibre accounting for 62% of total fibre consumption (2007) and Cotton Textiles accounting for 54% of total Textile exports of India. Measures should be taken by the Government to promote the domestic consumption of manmade fibres. Non-availability of trained labour is one of the primary business constraints mentioned by the industry. The initial cost of training is high which acts as a deterrent to in-house training initiatives by the industry because of high chances of loosing the trained man power. Associations should establish Skill Development centres to ensure availability of skilled labour to the industry. The Skill Development centres should run certified training courses focusing on the specific skills required by the industry. Registration of skilled workers should be done at the Skill Development centres to maintain a databank of skilled labour.
117
6.10. Summary
The Manufacturing Competitiveness Index for the Textiles and Garments Industry has moved up substantially from 100, in the base year of 2004 to 190 in 2007. Textiles and garments exports represented 16 per cent of commodity exports from India in 2005. This declined to 13.4 per cent of commodity exports in 2007. This has been partly due to the inability to capitalise on the quota system abolishment in 2005 due to market imperfections like labour market rigidities and lack of scale economies. The other factor that affected exports significantly was the fall in export competitiveness due to comparative rise in prices of Indian textiles on account of the strengthening rupee. However the demand growth in the domestic market is positive. The growing middle class is spending increasingly on value added textiles like garments. This is partly due the success of the brands and retailing in the apparels sector.
There was also a sharp increase in savings in the sector measured by the gross fixed capital formation due to the increased investments61 provided by the government to combat adverse effects on exports due to the strengthening rupee. The industry costs came down sharply due to a combination of government policies and increased capital productivity. There had been an increase in industry profitability on accounts of the knitwear and the apparel sector. This was complemented by an increase in domestic sales.
The Western region presents a clear advantage in terms of the spinning, weaving and processing category. The western region enjoys historical advantages and it is the nerve centre of the domestic market in India. The East is competitive in terms of textiles made of natural fabric like jute. It is competitive for the production of carpets, rugs, bags, tarpaulin, canvas, ropes and cordages. The South holds the competitive position in terms of being the most competitive in the production of knitwear. It has built up export capabilities over a period of time. The garments and apparel sector presents a mixed picture with the south, north and east being equally competitive in terms of production of these items.
The sector perception survey reveals that of the 10 factors ranked against limiting growth of the firm in the Textiles and Garments industry, Access to Bank Credit (Rank 1), Capital Cost (Rank 2) and Shortage of Skilled Labour (Rank 3) are cause for most concern. Around 80 per cent of those surveyed indicate a positive outlook on present and future (6 months) business confidence. 88 per cent of respondents believe
61
Plan outlay for investments in Textile Industry in 2005-06 was 65 per cent higher than in 2004-05.
118
that there will be an increase in production levels in the next six months due to increase in domestic demand.
119
7. Manufacturing Competitiveness of Electronics and IT Hardware Industry 7.1. Introduction

Indias economy is expanding rapidly (at a rate of over 9 per cent in 2007) as it advances to become the third largest economy globally by 2020. The electronics sector, including telecommunications and consumer electronics, is one of the fastest growing sectors of the Economy with average growth rates of over 20 per cent. India is becoming a manufacturing base in the areas of consumer electronics and telecom equipment. This follows Indias emergence as an attractive destination for Information Technology/ Information Technology Enabled Services. The government is committed to making India a major hub in the electronics manufacturing sector. It has rationalized taxes and duties and taken several initiatives to improve the performance of the hardware industry. As a result, in addition to the natural advantages present, there is likely to be sustained growth in the consumer electronics, component, and IT hardware sectors of the electronics industry Major international players have already set up manufacturing operations and R&D centres in India. Six out of the top ten Global Electronics Manufacturing Services (EMS) companies are in various stages of an Indian presence. Indias EMS market is forecast to grow at an astonishing five times the global average. Table 25: Changing Composition of Electronics Industry CAGR 5 Rs. Billion Consumer Electronics Computers Telecom Equipment 2002 138 43 48 2003 152 68 54 2004 168 88 48 2005 180 108 70 2006 200 128 95 2007 225 164 144 Year 8 per cent 25 per cent 20 per cent
120
Components Industrial Electronics Total
66 56 351
76 61 411
88 83 475
88 88 534
88 104 615
95 120 748
6 per cent 14 per cent 13 per cent
Source: Department of Information Technology In 2007-08, the production of Electronics and IT Hardware was Rs 748 Billion. The Electronics and IT Hardware Industry has been growing for the last five years at a compounded annual growth rate of 13 per cent. The demand for electronic components in the domestic market is estimated at Rs 1075 billion and around Rs 716 billion of this demand is met through imports62. Most of the imports are electronic materials, components and finished equipment. Over 95 per cent of the component market in India is made up of foreign players. On the whole, the electronic sector, has been de-licensed, with the exception of aerospace and defence electronics. Fiscal, investment and trade policies for the electronic sector have also been shaped to provide the greatest incentive to encourage foreigners to bring in the much needed investments. All components, raw materials and capital goods are freely importable without restriction. The government even renders a duty free environment for export of electronic hardware and software under the export oriented schemes. The big electronics manufacturers depend on captive power, since outages can irreparably damage parts in assembly; hence necessary facilities have been made able by the government.
7.2. Electronics and IT Clusters in India

Table 26: Electronics and IT Clusters Location Bangalore Gurgaon State Karnataka Haryana Location Abdasa Agartala State Gujarat Tripura
62
Department of Information Technology
121
Location Hyderabad Mumbai Ahmedabad
State Andhra Pradesh Maharashtra Gujarat
Location Noida Pune Chennai
State Uttar Pradesh Maharashtra Tamil Nadu
Source: UNIDO Cluster Database Currently, there are more than 3500 electronics manufacturing units of various sizes across the country. The current growth trend indicates the fact that, the share of IT and electronics in Indias output and employment has the potential to improve further, driven by its newfound prominence in the global electronics manufacturing value chain. The production clusters in India are fairly well spread out. The oldest clusters are the ones in Maharashtra and Gujarat and NCR that have existed primarily due to the cheap availability of inputs to production i.e., land, labour and materials. The cluster in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh has come up mainly due to the success of the IT/ ITES industry, to meet the demand for electronics from this sector. The other clusters have come up due to planned interventions/ development of the government granting facilities and benefits to producers/ exporters.
7.3. Classification of Electronics and IT Hardware Industry

The Electronics and IT Hardware Industry can be divided into the following sub categories. Table 27: Classification of Electronics and IT Industry Segments Computers Constituents Personal computers, servers, workstations, supercomputers, data processing equipment and peripherals such as monitors, keyboards, disk drives, printers, plotters, SMPS, modems, networking products and add-on cards
122
Components
TV picture tubes, monitor tubes, diodes and transistors, power devices, ICs, hybrid microcircuits, resistors, capacitors, connectors, switches, relays, magnetic heads, DC micro motors and tape deck mechanism, PCBs, crystals, loudspeakers and hard and soft ferrites
Consumer Industrial
televisions, audio systems, refrigerators, air conditioners and microwave ovens automation technologies, networking systems and other stand-alone
instrumentations used in manufacturing industries like Steel, Textiles, Cement, Power, Chemicals and Refineries Telecommunications Digital exchanges (EPABX, RAX, TAX and MAX), transmission equipment (HF, VHF, Microwave trans-receivers), satellite communication terminals, optical fibre communication equipment, two-way radio communication equipment Source: ASI and NIC 2004
123
7.4. Key Drivers of Electronics and IT Hardware Industry

The Key Drivers of Electronics are as listed in figure 40 below. Figure 40: Growth Drivers of Electronics and IT Hardware Industry
Increase in contract manufacturing, assembly for OEMs
Government policies (IT Hardware, Semiconductor)
Electronics and IT Hardware Industry
Growth of consumer demand for higher value added goods
IT industry boom domestic market for electronics
Derived demand for components
Increasing in contract manufacturing: India is emerging as a low cost manufacturing base as foreign players looking to diversify to alternate locations other than China. Growth of Consumer demand for higher value added goods: Consumer electronics market is growing rapidly due the increasing disposable income of the growing middle class incomes. Derived demand for components: There is increasing demand for components from the growing industrial, consumer, computers and telecom industries. IT Industry boom: Due to the booming IT industry there is increased demand for IT Hardware like computer and computer parts. Government Policies: Numerous policies have been provided by the government for the Electronics and IT Hardware Industry. The salient policy initiatives are as given below.
124

Business Start-Up Initiatives Economic Zone (SEZ) model and to focus on attracting foreign direct investment in hardware manufacturing Necessary infrastructure for uninterrupted power for large scale electronics manufacturers
Fiscal Initiatives Electronic Hardware Technology Park (EHTP) scheme to enable the sector to benefit from the zero-duty regime Customs duty on a number of components has been reduced to nil since 2000. The present customs duty range for components is 0 per cent-15 per cent Reduction in customs tariffs De - licensing of all consumer electronic products
Investment Initiatives The easing of foreign investment norms Allowing of 100 per cent foreign equity
125
7.6. SWOT Analysis of Electronics and IT Hardware Industry

Given below in Table 28 is an analysis of the Electronics and IT Hardware Industry using the SWOT analysis. Table 28: SWOT analysis of Electronics and IT Hardware Industry Strengths 1) Indian Electronics and IT Hardware sectors growth is nearly 22 per cent, which is three times the global growth rate of around 7 per cent 2) Increased collaborations with Eastern as well as international players 3) Availability of low cost labour 4) Investment and trade friendly policies Weaknesses 5) Infrastructural deficiencies (non - availability of dedicated power supply, backward linkages) 6) Transformation from manual assembly to automation may reduce employment in some processes Opportunities 7) Rising demand for consumer electronics, telecommunications equipment domestically increased consumption expenditure 8) Growing demand from and Industrial, Consumer Electronics, for
Telecommunications
Computer
Hardware
manufacturers
components (domestic and international) 9) Opportunities for contract manufacturing and assembly Threats 10) Other Asian countries have an established presence (first mover advantage) in low cost manufacturing (China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Thailand) 11) Lack of skills to match up high end value added functions such as design (Japan, Singapore, Europe, US, Canada)
126
7.7. Analysis of Cost Indicators

We have drawn comparisons between Industry costs as a percentage of sales for raw materials, power and Fuel, Labour, Manufacturing and Selling and Administration between 2002 and 2007 for the five sub sectors in the Electronics and IT Hardware Industry as shown in table 28. Table 28: Cost Indicators of Electronics and IT Hardware Industry Power Selling and Other and Employee/ Administration Manufacturing Fuel/ Sales Expenses Expenses Sales 3% 5% 7% 2% 4% 5% 8% 2% 4% 5% 8% 2% 3% 5% 10% 4% 4% 6% 10% 4% 4% 5% 6% 5% 1% 7% 11% 18% 0% 8% 8% 11% 0% 4% 9% 6% 0% 4% 11% 5% 0% 4% 8% 4% 0% 3% 4% 2% 6% 13% 11% 8% 6% 16% 12% 9% 6% 13% 11% 11% 7% 15% 11% 10% 6% 13% 12% 12% 4% 11% 9% 10% 1% 13% 10% 11% 1% 11% 9% 10% 1% 19% 8% 10% 1% 9% 8% 11% 0% 8% 7% 15% 0% 8% 7% 23% 1% 11% 7% 8%
Category
Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002
Raw Materials 69% 72% 72% 70% 70% 72% 53% 34% 40% 64% 72% 87% 48% 54% 46% 51% 50% 57% 57% 62% 57% 63% 59% 53% 61%
consumer
computers
components
industrial
communications
127
Category
Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Power Selling and Other Raw and Employee/ Administration Manufacturing Materials Fuel/ Sales Expenses Expenses Sales 57% 2% 13% 9% 8% 55% 1% 13% 10% 9% 68% 1% 13% 7% 6% 69% 1% 11% 7% 4% 80% 0% 8% 5% 3% Data Source: Capitaline
Except for the Industrial electronics sector we see that the raw materials cost has gone up for every other sector in the industry. Labour costs have fallen due to the high level of automation being brought into the plants. Selling and administration costs decrease because of as networking between the dealers and suppliers is strengthened. We see a major fall in costs in most categories going forward as the Industry is a new one and will reap the benefits of becoming established in the coming years. The effect of positive and negative externalities, either through government or private initiative implicitly affects cost measures. For example, the effect of taxation may be difficult to capture as externalities are not amenable to measurement and quantification in a definite way. The resultant effects though can be studied via its effects on costs. However there may be some cancelling out of said externalities as say, an exemption or a subsidy from the government could counter some other negative effect on a firm weighing down its profitability. The table above illustrates the cost structure of the various segments in the industry when resale component is not removed from total sales. When resale component of total sales is removed the costs as a percentage of sales increase by around 60%. In aggregate, over 50% of the total market for electronics and IT hardware in India is constituted by imports. The Electronics and IT Hardware Industry in India without engaging in resale would face much higher costs. This is because bigger economies of scale and technological expertise have been built up in other countries. Hence taking out the resale component increases costs and reduces overall competitiveness to the extent that it would be unviable to operate businesses. This is very evident in segments such as computers, consumer electronics and communications.
128
7.8. Manufacturing Competitiveness Index - Electronics and IT Hardware Industry

The Manufacturing Competitiveness Index for the Electronics and IT Hardware Industry has moved up marginally from 100, in the base year of 2004 to 106 in 2007. There has been approximately a 6 per cent increase in our measure of competitiveness in the Textiles Industry. This has been primarily due to an increase in the demand competitiveness. The growing middle class population is spending increasingly on electronics items such as mobile phones and personal computers. The significance attached to this development is the permeation of technology to a direct increase in the standards of living. There has also been a steady and growing inflow of foreign investments in this sector. There has been a burgeoning increase in exports. The upward movement of the index was countered by the corresponding sharp rise in costs. Table 29: Manufacturing Competitiveness Index Electronics & IT Hardware
Industry C ost YE AR E C I MC DS C PS C FC -C ONS FC -C OMP FC -C MPT FC -IND FC -C OMM comp IC -C ONS IC -C OMP IC -C MPT IC -IND IC -C OMM 1995 89 64 14 77 157 92 51 80 385 111 61 106 32 90 111 1996 88 65 17 73 147 93 55 87 90 111 61 106 32 90 111 1997 85 84 19 70 110 89 56 86 94 111 61 106 32 90 111 1998 87 126 23 67 111 97 58 89 96 111 61 106 32 90 111 1999 88 241 27 66 107 101 69 93 97 128 57 106 36 113 128 2000 89 55 36 66 104 99 67 95 100 90 58 138 62 113 90 2001 86 55 44 68 104 95 66 94 100 99 83 101 83 102 99 2002 144 70 60 66 95 99 68 97 102 120 406 93 97 113 120 2003 78 99 75 65 93 98 68 97 98 101 99 91 42 140 101 2004 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 2005 113 127 131 61 100 100 100 100 100 120 89 97 78 209 120 2006 121 73 174 57 100 100 100 100 100 725 115 113 70 209 725 2007 121 73 174 58 100 100 100 100 100 174 117 72 133 232 174
@ Variation in FDI movement (as % of total) has caused fluctuation in MC movement from Y 1999 to Y 2000 and Y 2004 to Y 2005
S caled MC I
58 58 58 58 83 67 69 86 100 100 125 167 106
129
We examine below the factors influencing index movement.

Figure 41: Exports of Electronics and IT Hardware Industry in USD Millions
5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2005 2006 2007
C ategory 1: C ons umer E lec tronic s C ategory 2: Indus trial E lec tronic s C ategory 3: C omputers
C ategory 4: C ommunic ation & B roadc as t E quipment C ategory 5: C omponents
Source: Department of Information Technology Exports of all categories have been increasing63. Annual average growth in export consumer electronics goods from India during the past five years is estimated to be 16.46 percent (18.74 percent in US$ terms). The major items of export include colour television sets, watches and clock and DVDs. Production of indutrial electronics equipment registered a growth of 24 percent (27 percent in US$ terms) during the year 2006-07 over the year 2005-06. Export of Computer Hardware registered a growth of 46 percent (50 percent in US$ terms) during the year 2006-07 over the year 2005-06. The export items were mainly head stacks, switching mode power supplies, scanners, dot matrix printers, LAN cards and parts of printers. The largest markets for hardware exports are Singapore, Hong Kong, Europe and the USA which make up around 92 per cent of total export market for India . Export of Telecom Equipments registered a growth of 30 percent (33 percent in US$ terms) during 2006-07 over 2005-06. The main items of export
63
Electronics and Software Export Promotion Council
130
in telecom equipment category were optical fiber cables, connector boxes and mobile handsets. The major detination for exports of telecom equipment besides Singapore were Africa, EU and middle eastern countries. Export of Electronics Components registered a growth of 54 percent (58 percent in US$ terms) during the year 2006-07 over the year 2005-06. CD recordables, picture tubes and solar cells are the top exports in the components category. EU countries are the major export destination for electronics components from India. The export competitiveness index has increased to 121 in 2007 from 100 in 2004. Figure 42: Gross Fixed Capital Formation in Rs. Crores
160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 2002 2003 2004
Source: ASI However, the Gross fixed capital formation in the largest category, consumer electronics, shows a declining trend as the market shrinks due to obsolescence of old technology and products like colour televisions. The market is shifting to new LCD technology and hence we see a scale down in capacities of the obsolescent products. Correspondingly there are new investments being made in the telecom sector a India emerges as the new low cost manufacturing base for handsets. With every major global hanset manufaturer setting up units in the country, investment in this sector is growing. The net effect however is a decline in 2004 when compared to 2002 and 2003 due to the erosion of gross domestic capital formation in the largest category, the consumer electronics, which accounts for 30 per cent of total production in the electronics and IT Hardware industry.Hence there is a fall in the macroeconomic index from 100 in 2004 to 73 in 2007.
131

Figure 43: Consumer Expenditure on Electronics and Hardware Products
Data Source: NSSO The Demand Competitiveness Index has increased from 100 in 2004 to 174 in 2007. This is due to the increasing demand for electronic and IT Hardware goods, such as computers, modems, fibre optic cables and cell phones. India is the fastest growing market for mobile phones in the world, adding about 6 million mobile phones every month64. The personal computer market has been growing at 19 per cent CAGR over the period 2002-2007. The number of internet users in India has increased by 40 per cent at 46 million in September 2007 as compared to 32.2 million in September 200665.
64 Telecom Regulatory authority of India 65 Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI)
132

Figure 44: Wholesale Price Index for Electronics and Hardware Products
140 120 100 80
60 40 20 0 2005 2006 2007 C ategory 4: C ommunic ation & B roadc as t E quipment C ategory 5: C omponents
Data Source : eaindustry.nic.in There is either a decline or a stagnation of prices across the sub-components of the Electronics and IT Hardware Industry. This is typical of a highly technologically driven industry. Products have very short life cycles and thus prices fall much quicker than in the case of any other type of commodity. Prices have also fallen due to competition among the major players, aggressive marketing strategies and declining import tariffs66. Also, bargaining power of customers is high due to the availability of multiple brands. Hence the price competitiveness index has fallen from 100 in 2004 to 58 in 2007.
66 FICCI survey
133

Figure 45: Overall Productivity in the Electronics and IT Hardware Industry
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 2002 2003 2004
Source: ASI Across the categories, we see a marginally improving or a constant trend of overall productivity. Price falls have been offset by the growth in technology. However, with increased automation, competitiveness is affected as the component of low cost labour in manufaturing is steadily being replaced by expensive machinery.
134

Figure 46: Industry Profitability - ROCE
25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2005 2006 2007
Data Source: CAPITALINE The Industry profitability measures across category 1, 3 and 4 are consistently increasing. Profitability in the category 2 is observed to be declining whereas profitability of comonents is flat. Generally, the net profit of newly incorporated companies as in the consumer electronics and computer hardware category are observed to be higher than that of their older counterparts. This is explained in terms of the edge the newer companies have vis-a-vis the older ones in terms of recurrent expenditures. Therefore, even a small increase in the gross profits of a new firm in absolute terms translates into a significant increase in net profits in relative terms67.
67 Study published by Indira Gandhi Institute of Developmental Research
135

Figure 47: Cost Indicators in Electronics and IT Hardware Industry
20% 20% 19% 19% 18% 18% 17% 17% 16% 16% 2005 2006 2007
Data Source: CAPITALINE The costs are clearly rising in category 2, 4 and 5. We see a fall in costs in category 3. In category 1 the costs are unchanged. As production process become increasingly automated, the electronics and IT Hardware manufacturing sector is losing the cheap labour advantage. The net effect is an overall increase in cost competitiveness index to 174 in 2007 from 100 in 2004. Thus cost competitiveness is clearly falling.

In the case of consumer electronics sector, the per unit wage productivity is highest in the western region. The labour productivity is highest in the Southern region at 61.9 and per unit wage productivity is highest in the Western region at 80.35, nearly 3.5 times that of the Eastern region. The labour productivity measures the Output to Wage ratio. This means for every unit of wage paid, the corresonding output of the sector is 61 times for the Southern region. Again, capital productivity ratio is the highest in the Southern region. The Northern region has the highest factory productivity. The Western region has the highest overall prodcutivity ratio of 0.86. This is because of the incentives that the government had
136
initially come up with, with export oriented SEZs manufaturing consumer electronics in the industrialised western states of Maharashtra and Gujarat. Whereas similarly because of conducive government policies, manufacturing units sprung up quickly in the NCR region. The Western region exhibits the best labour productivity ratio whereas the Northern region presents the highest factory to output ratio at 1.5 times that of Western region and Northern region in the production of Computer hardware. The Northern region also has the best capital productivity at 3.99 and overall productivity at 0.79. This is probably due to historical advantages of these production centres in this technological and capital intensive industry starting out before other regions, in the North specifically in the NCR region. When comparing the production of components, we see that the Northern region has the best per unit wage productivity ratio, the highest labour productivity ratio and the best factory to ouput ratio. But the Western region has the best capital output ratio and the Southern region has the highest overall productivity ratio of 0.81 compared to the Indian average of 0.77. Hence this category of components presents a picture where specific pockets in the north, south and west all have have advantages in inputs or because of policy considerations. These are global and well as local players who are rapidly making Indian manufacturing hubs. India is emerging as a contract hub as also there is an emergence of high value activities such as the manufacture of semiconductors. These industries however are power and water supply sensitive. Hence they need a fair share of dedicated infrastructural and policy support from the government to flourish. In the the production of components, the Northern region scores the highest productivity ratio on all counts which is around four times higher than other regions in all categories. This is because the industrial electronics manufacturing supplies its products to technologically intensive industries for example, to an high-end electrical equipment manufacturer. In India, such manufactures of high end products are found in the North. The production of communications presents a clear leader, the South, in terms of all productivity ratios. With major handset makers establishing production centres in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, the South is the frontrunner in the manufacture of communications equipment.
137

Out of the 100 firms surveyed 75 per cent had revenues over Rs 10 crores and 46 per cent had revenues over Rs 500 crores. Table 31: Sector Perception : Factors Limiting Growth of Firms Factors Limiting Growth of Firm Access to bank credit Percentage of Respondents 63%
Rank 1
Capital cost 2 50% Shortage of skilled labour 3 41% Insufficient demand for products 4 41% Taxes and Regulations 5 41% Exchange rate 6 48% Operating costs 7 50% Competition from Imports 8 42% Access to market 9 48% Employee costs 10 63% Source: IMaCS Sector Perception Survey Of the 10 factors ranked against limiting growth of the firm, Access to Bank Credit (Rank 1), Capital Cost (Rank 2) and Shortage of Skilled Labour (Rank 3) topped the list of concerns. On questions of Business situation compared to the past 3 months, 70-90 per cent of respondents ranked positive developments indicating a betterment in financial situation, selling price, new orders and an increase in number of people employed. None reported a decrease in any of the above parameters. However, 39 per cent of repondents reported a drop in current stock levels against levels prevailing 3 months previously. 64 per cent of respondents reported improved profit margin in the current quarter versus the previous quarter. 23 per cent reported decline in profits against previous quarter and 15 per cent reported a no change.
138
Figure 48: Current Stock Levels
Source: IMaCS Sector Perception Survey The section on Business Confidence for the next 6 months reveals that, 70-90 per cent of respondents still maintain positions on ranking positively financial situation, selling price, new orders and an increase in number of people employed. None report an expected decrease in any of the above parameters. However, 12 per cent of repondents report an expected drop in future stock levels against levels prevailing currently.
139
Figure 49: Future Production Levels
Source: IMaCS Sector Perception Survey 88 per cent of respondents think that there will be an increase in production in quantity terms of electronics products in the next 6 months. 67 per cent of repondents believe that capital finance requirements and 86 per cent believe that cost of raw materials would go up. 77 per cent of respondents believe that there is no scope for an increase in demand for exports and also, they are not certain if their products are facing competition from imports.
While domestic demand and cost savings has been the primary driver of production in the electronic and IT hardware industry, the primary motivation for the domestic market, in its early years of evolution have evolved from motivations of cost savings to access to specialist skills and freeing parent company resources in native countries to focus on the core business and technology development. Scalability and
140
process efficiency are expected to result in some degree of cost savings in the domestic market as well. Notwithstanding its relatively smaller contribution to the industry revenues, this segment is witnessing a noticeable increase in interest and activity.
There is a severe shortage of trained manpower in the industry across levels. Though the shortage seems more acute in the manufacturing and sales function, it is equally critical for the research and development initiatives where there is virtual non-existence of researchers. Indias education infrastructure produces one of the highest numbers of engineering graduates in the world. However, the industry has to expend significant efforts on improving the skills of the people at various levels. To achieve effective implementation of skill development initiatives, co-ordinated efforts are required from all stakeholders for improving the effectiveness of existing education infrastructure and creation of new infrastructure. The various initiatives to be taken require close co-ordination between various stakeholders such as Government, Education Institutes and Industry that should be targeted at the following levels:68 Introducing short term courses and opening training institutes in after-sales service support Introducing short term courses to train people for sales function Inculcating simple assembly/related skills and shop floor ethics at grass root level Improving skills for contract manufacturing and assembly operations Creating appropriate infrastructure to train people at operator level Opening Engineering Finishing Schools for technical graduates Capacity creation and curriculum updation in Technical Education National/Regional Centres of Excellence for Design and Development skills Imparting specialised training for emerging high technology manufacturing
The growth of IT industry requires building and strengthening of basic, business, and social infrastructure. The incremental infrastructure required to support the projected growth is unlikely to be absorbed into the existing city centres (Tier I/II), which are already witnessing signs of strain. With
68
Manufacturers Association for Information Technology
141
Tier III/IV cities lacking important elements of business and social infrastructure, decentralized growth of the IT and ITES sector will require a coordinated, large scale (distributed) urban planning exercise.
A favourable business policy and a regulatory environment are critical for the success of any sector. The example set by the Electronic Hardware Technology Parks (EHTP) scheme stands testament to this fact.69 In order to strengthen Indias proposition for accelerated development in the Electronics and IT Hardware space, it is essential to actively support the SME sector. Hence, it is essential for India to proactively formulate a robust policy framework to address this challenge. This calls for: Continuation of the benefits provided by the EHTP scheme Providing support for SME segment growth to ensure that SMEs can continue to leverage the benefits offered under the STP/SEZ scheme without constraints on where they may be located Ensuring adequate access to venture capital and angel funding for start-ups In order to structurally strengthen Indias proposition and ensure its long-term leadership, it is essential to nurture a sustainable ecosystem for innovation and R&D in the country. This will require a multifaceted approach comprising Developing core capabilities at the academic level in identified focus areas Encouraging industryacademia participation in R&D Facilitating the incubation/ commercialization of innovations
IPR awareness should be increased in institutes and industries. With a view to encourage and reward innovation, there is a need to ensure availability and access to adequate funding for technology entrepreneurs and commercialization of innovation. Research and training should go hand in hand. This is the practice worldwide. The CSIR laboratories should pair with universities and targeted R&D should be undertaken.
69
th
142
7.10. Summary
The Manufacturing Competitiveness Index for the Electronics and IT Hardware Industry has moved up marginally from 100, in the base year of 2004 to 106 in 2007. There has been approximately a six per cent increase in our measure of competitiveness in the Electronics and IT Hardware Industry in the last three years. This has been primarily due to an increase in the demand competitiveness. The growing middle class population is spending increasingly on electronics items such as mobile phones and personal computers. The significance attached to this development is the permeation of technology to a direct increase in the standards of living. There has also been a steady and growing inflow of foreign investments in this sector. There has been steady increase in exports. The upward movement of the index was countered by the corresponding sharp rise in costs. There has not been much change in the productivity of the sector due to the fact that with increasing levels of automation, component of low cost labour in manufaturing is steadily being replaced by expensive machinery.
The Northern region presents a clear advantage in terms of the consumer, industrial and components category. This is due to the concerted efforts of the government by creating investor friendly policies and clusters of IT and Electronics units in and around the national capital region. The west enjoys historical advantages in terms of IT hardware manufacture. The South is competitive in terms of production of communications equipment and comparably competitive in term of IT hardware. There are a number of foreign companies making investments in setting up plants in India as we transition from high volume low value production to higher end products by becoming a hub of sorts for contract manufacturing. There is also significant development in terms of very sophisticated products like semiconductor, as the first such plant is being set up in Andhra Pradesh. Investor friendly government policies and infrastructural support is inevitable for these industries due to their capital dependence.
The sector perception survey reveals that of the 10 factors ranked against limiting growth of the firm in the Electronics and IT Hardware industry, Access to Bank Credit (Rank 1), Capital Cost (Rank 2) and Shortage of Skilled Labour (Rank 3) are cause for most concern. Around 80 per cent of those surveyed indicate a positive outlook on present and future (6 months) business confidence. 88 per cent of
respondents believe that there will be an increase in production levels in the next six months due to increase in domestic demand.
143
8. Implementation of Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices 8.1. Manufacturing Competitiveness Index A tool to measure the Investment Climate
The post-liberalisation era has ushered in significant changes in the economic and investment environment at the state level with competition escalating not only from other Indian states but also countries around the world. States today face numerous challenges in the areas of investment attraction and industrial development; challenges across the dimensions of policy, institutional mechanisms, infrastructure development, legal frameworks, to cite a few.
During the licensing era, the flow of investments was directed by policy makers at the central level with a view to ensure industrial dispersal across the country. However, in the current scenario the restrictions on investment destinations have largely been removed and a number of paradigm shifts have taken place. The significant ones amongst these are: Market forces and not Government have started dictating investment flows across industrial sectors, geographic locations and scale of investment States are now aggressively wooing investors as opposed to lobbying with the Centre for the grant of industrial licenses States are competing aggressively to enhance their offer to potential investors in terms of information dissemination, infrastructure facilities, incentives, set-up facilitation and investment promotion Investors too now have greater choice in terms of project location, leading to increased objectivity in the location decision process There is increased clusterisation of investments around locations that offer the greatest economic benefits States are formulating focussed strategies for investment attraction, based upon natural locational advantages, resource endowments and industrial linkages Shift in investment attraction strategy from tax based incentives to provision of infrastructure
144
The above changes highlight the importance of assessing an investment attraction strategy. Investment, along with consumption and savings, plays a central role in a regions economic performance. The quantity and quality of investment flowing into a region depends upon the returns that investors expect and the uncertainties around those returns. Openness to foreign trade and investment through sound macro and trade policies is a necessary but not sufficient condition for sustained economic growth. These policies need to be complemented by a host of institutional factors and policies that affect the overall transaction costs of doing business in a particular location.
Procedures for entry & exit of firms - licensing procedures, etc. Industrial regulation/labor regulation and other government regulations Certainty about rules, laws and regulations Security and law & order situation Judicial system and contract enforcement mechanism
Governance & regulatory framew ork
Skilled & cost-effective labour Labourmarket flexibility Labourrelations Availability of other natural resources
Resources/Inputs
Investment Investment Clim ate Clim ate

Incentives to industry
Physical & Social Infrastructure Physical infrastructure such as pow er, water, roads, etc. Information infrastructure such as telecom, IT, etc. Social infrastructure such as educational & medical facilities, etc.
Tax incentives & exemptions Investment subsidies & other incentives Availability of finance at cost-effectiv e terms FDI Profitability and industry structure
While the specific challenges would vary across regions/states, in general the critical components of investment climate would include the following: Availability and ease of use of natural endowments and factor inputs such as land, labour, etc. Availability of adequate physical & social infrastructure, such as power, telecom, urban infrastructure, water supply, hospitals, educational institutions, etc. Governance & regulatory framework in terms of rules & regulations governing entry, operation, and exit of firms, stability in rules, laws & regulations, integrity of public services, law & order, etc.
145
Provision of incentives to industry including tax and non-tax incentives and subsidies, availability of adequate finance, etc.
Several of the factors affecting investment climate directly impact/constrain firm sales & investment growth, and productivity. The impact may differ based on the characteristics of the firm such as size, years in business, ownership, type of business, whether caters to exports, etc. For example, broadly speaking, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) may be more constrained by say taxes & tax administration and financing, and less by infrastructure. Similarly, larger firms may be more constrained by availability of infrastructure. Any assessment of the impact of investment climate must therefore take this into account.
For most elements of investment climate, it is possible to identify indicators that may be objectively measured and that would allow comparisons with other regions. In fact, studies have attempted to analyse the correlation between some investment climate measures and overall economic growth.
These studies find that removing some of the bottlenecks that deter private investment and productivity growth would lead to faster economic growth and ultimately a huge difference in living standards and the extent of poverty in the region. These studies also highlight the specific microeconomic and institutional conditions inhibiting productive investment, and identify conditions whose improvement would yield the greatest or easiest gains, thus helping set reform priorities.
Given this background, we have derived Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices of key sectors to assess to present a picture of the evolution of competitiveness within a given timeframe across four broad regions70 and its likely impact on the investment climate, as defined by the determining factors taken into account.
70 Indian states grouped into four categories North, East, West and South based on geographical location within country
146
8.2. Key Steps to Implement the Manufacturing Competitiveness Index

Key steps involved in implementing the manufacturing competitiveness indices are as follows: 1. Identify key drivers of sub-indices 2. Identify key variables driving the sub-indices (Lag variables) 3. Identify key lead variables impacting the lag variables 4. Conduct industry level sector perception survey measuring the outlook on lead variables 5. Monitor the movement of lead variables 6. Identify key actions (policy level, sector level and sub-sector level) to correct the movement of lead variables 7. Review the impact of lead variables on the lag variables at regular intervals 8. Review the impact of lag variables on sub-indices and correspondingly on the manufacturing competitiveness index 9. Review the impact of actions on the overall index movement To ensure the sustainability of index review, we propose set of actions to institutionalise the review process connecting industry association and policy makers: 1. Setting-up of policy committee as part of industry association to review the index movement 2. Align policy committee agenda to index movement 3. Identification of sector wise lead and lag variables for sub-indices 4. Link industry level business confidence survey with sub-indices 5. Quarterly review of lead & lag variables with members of industry association 6. Annual review of action taken vis-a-vis with Index performance 7. Feedback to Govt on the effectiveness of action taken 8. Identify key steps to improve the overall competitiveness of sectors
147
Manufacturing Competitiveness Index
Food Processing Index
Leather Index
Electronics & IT Hardware Index
Textiles & Garments Index
Sub-Indices
ECI
MCI
DCI
PCI
FLCI
ICI
Key drivers of Sub-Indices
Identification of lead & lag variables
Monitoring of lead & lag variables through policy committee of industry association
Policy review committee of Industry Associations
Action taken report
Annexure
Annual Review of Index
148
Annexure 1
Calculation of Weights - Illustration

V ariables Model (C ons tant) V AR 00001 V AR 00002 V AR 00003 V AR 00004 V AR 00005 V AR 00006 V AR 00007 V AR 00008 V AR 00009 V AR 00010 V AR 00011 D ependent V ariable: V AR 00013 T otal Uns tandardiz ed C oefficients -0.404667161 -0.00032858 0.04292314 0.929285034 0.203370019 -0.044352146 0.142646918 -0.044473456 -0.364335157 0.062894287 0.1512188 0.009023499 S caled W eights
F ruits &V egetables O ils eeds Meat, F is h, E ggs Milk and Milk P roducts C ereals P uls es C offee, T ea and C ocoa S pices O ther F ood S ugar & G ur B everages G rand T otal
0.0% 3.9% 85.4% 18.7% -4.1% 13.1% -4.1% -33.5% 5.8% 13.9% 0.8%
1.087872357
100.0%
The above is an illustration for calculation of weights. This example details the construction of scaled weights for the sub-components of the Demand Competitiveness Index of the Food Processing Industry. In the case of the presence of multiple components (private final consumption expenditure on each of these categories) as in the example above, there is the need to determine the relative importance that each of these sub-components should be accorded, when they are used as inputs to determine the final Demand Competitiveness Index. Hence, we calculate weights for the consumer expenditure on each of the food categories. In the case of a single year, the percentage contribution of the sub component to total expenditure could be used as a weight. In the case of the index above however, we must determine an equivalent for twelve years data from 1995-2007. Hence we use the method of partial correlations to determine the relationship each of these components has with the overall expenditure on food. We do not use simple correlations however because, in this case, as, correlations factor in the effect of all the other variables in the relationship. So if we wanted to measure the relationship between spending on food and
149
vegetables and overall food expenditure, using simple correlations, the resultant would be a measure of the way spending on food and vegetables affected overall food expenditure given spending on oilseeds, meat fish eggs, diary products and all other categories. Hence we remove the effect of these other sub components and determine only the one on one relationship between the expenditure on fruits and vegetables and the total expenditure on food. Thus partial correlations eliminate the effects of the other variables. The absolute private final consumption expenditure figures are first converted to satisfy the assumptions of normality by taking natural logarithms. We then run a simple regression with the dependant variable as the grand total of expenditure (see figure: Calculation of weights) and the expenditure on all other categories of food as the independent variables. The coefficients from the resultant regression give the measure of the partial correlations. For example for fruits and vegetables this equals -0.00032. This tells us two things. Firstly, that the expenditure on fruits and vegetables has a negative relationship with the total expenditure on all foods i.e., a 0.03 per cent reduction in purchase of foods and vegetables would correspond to a 1 per cent increase in the money spent on the purchase of all other foods. Secondly, that the effect at 0.03 per cent is negligible. Hence we conclude that the two variables in consideration are almost independent of each other. To assign scaled weights to each of these variables, we add up the correlation coefficient values across all categories. Then we determine the share of the individual correlations in the sum of correlation coefficients across all categories in percentage terms. This gives us a measure of relative importance of each category, the scaled weights. Now we can use this as a multiplicand against the absolute scaled index of the expenditure on foods scaled to 100 at 2004. This gives us the final demand competitiveness index.
150
Annexure 2
Index Tables
The Sub Indices which are part of the Manufacturing Indices are shown below for each of the Industries.
Food Processing Industry

1) Macro and Economic Competitiveness Index
EXPORTS
GFCF
Food Grain mill exports Meat, products, YEAR as a % fish, Dairy starches of total fruits, produ and starch vegetabl products, cts es, oils and and fats prepared 1995 183 92 103 animal 106
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 196 186 164 149 139 132 117 115 100 100 94 94 93 98 99 109 102 98 95 96 100 98 94 94 109 105 94 98 109 108 107 109 100 103 102 102 106 102 108 121 132 125 137 107 100 91 87 87
FDI Grain inflows Meat, mill Other as a % of fish, Dairy product food Bevera total fruits, prod s produ ges vegetabl ucts starche cts es, oils s and fats prepare 128 66 414 39 78 d 38
122 116 122 88 84 98 100 101 100 104 114 114 67 67 67 83 87 83 82 94 100 101 98 98 482 443 591 691 104 90 97 436 100 94 53 53 28 22 29 66 24 56 54 41 100 242 242 242 53 -54 83 168 78 110 104 96 100 104 104 104 -52 -36 -80 99 74 81 70 80 100 124 124 124
EXPORT COMPET Other ITIVENES food Bevera S INDEX produ ges cts
77 71 81 71 100 83 91 86 82 100 122 122 122 16 39 25 21 106 124 62 93 114 100 88 88 88 104 103 102 104 104 105 105 107 102 100 99 99 99
MACRO COMPETI TIVENES S INDEX
232 252 228 304 394 84 84 86 255 100 125 104 104
151
2) Demand Competitiveness Index

Manufacture of grain Manufact mill products, starches Manufa cture of Production, processing and ure and starch products, preservation of meat, fish, of dairy and prepared animal Manufacture of other food products beverag es fruits, vegetables, oils and fats product feeds C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 TOTAL C6 90 69 70 75 96 98 80 51 43 99 18 80 90 80 75 80 104 113 134 56 59 119 29 88 101 63 75 85 94 103 58 61 35 108 8 83 103 88 80 88 100 116 118 67 73 123 39 93 98 80 83 98 101 100 82 73 54 126 32 92 105 76 84 88 91 83 89 78 69 132 36 89 99 75 90 92 109 102 92 83 73 128 47 96 100 64 95 93 103 87 90 88 73 108 66 94 99 89 98 95 106 110 88 94 73 101 82 98 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 112 91 104 107 105 102 105 106 116 129 122 108 118 80 107 109 108 107 104 106 116 160 122 108 118 80 107 109 108 107 104 106 116 160 122 108
YEAR
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
DEMAND COMP
81 88 87 94 94 91 97 95 99 100 107 115 143
3) Price Competitiveness Index

Production, processing and preservation of meat, fish, Manufacture of dairy product Manufacture of grain mill products, Manufacture of other food products Manufactur e of Price Side Competitiv eness 67 73 78 87 89 90 91 91 94 100
YEAR 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Food Grains 69 78 78 86 99 98 97 98 99 100
Fruits and Eggs, Vegetable Meat and s Fish Edible Oils Milk 60 65 75 62 73 75 74 65 70 83 73 68 91 87 89 74 76 90 78 80 78 96 66 89 93 98 72 91 93 100 88 94 96 96 101 96 100 100 100 100
Dairy Grain Mill Products Products Starch 67 64 74 70 83 79 76 80 90 82 86 91 90 90 93 88 86 96 91 85 91 88 91 83 95 99 84 100 100 100
Sugar, Condimen Khandsari ts and Tea and and Gur Spices Coffee Beverages 69 82 62 59 73 94 63 62 82 94 86 70 94 117 88 77 96 120 100 81 94 108 102 83 89 100 95 90 82 103 77 94 85 109 95 95 100 100 100 100
152
4) Firm Productivity Index
Productivity Factory Level Product Category

Output/
Capital Output ratio
Labour Productivity
Per unit Wage Productivity

Input/ Wages
Input/Output
YEAR Factories
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 27.84 38.60 46.43 52.28 53.02 54.58 52.90 59.30 97.26 79.60 100.00 48.21 55.70 60.03 58.14 74.52 85.97 97.63 85.83 97.97 91.69 100.00
Output/Invested Output/ Capital Workers

77.63 92.33 100.88 108.24 100.31 91.34 86.27 86.63 99.67 101.07 100.00 78.39 85.55 83.15 81.41 103.22 76.23 96.24 101.24 95.99 107.11 100.00 37.23 50.25 57.73 64.99 65.99 65.05 70.85 77.00 112.85 84.12 100.00 34.26 41.53 45.00 46.80 62.94 73.34 84.48 80.48 87.73 89.95 100.00
60.57 54.20 56.76 65.47 73.42 71.75 73.54 70.61 103.01 77.36 100.00 64.79 81.80 85.54 88.03 89.96 87.73 91.09 85.32 87.63 90.04 100.00
96.12 75.89 74.59 80.09 96.91 97.54 98.45 97.85 100.16 99.79 100.00 101.21 110.42 113.81 118.09 100.10 100.11 97.52 97.92 96.94 99.04 100.00
153
5) Industry Profitability and Cost Competitiveness
Sub Industry
YEAR
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Debt-Equ ity Ratio(Lat Raw ROCE PBIDTM CPM est) Materials

103 88 78 76 72 81 100 98 105 109 75 87 134 99 105 115 100 110 102 100 61 51 62 54 67 110 100 120 168 198 158 164 134 132 131 134 100 117 94 88 231 241 64 129 48 127 100 192 270 262 136 141 96 83 137 129 100 98 60 104 323 102 172 104 43 89 100 109 148 46 86 117 182 77 75 70 100 93 68 67 100 97 93 93 93 98 100 87 83 80 104 109 104 105 101 100 100 92 104 107
Selling Power and n Emplo Manufac Administr PROFIT COST Fuel/Sale yee/Sale turing ation ABILITY COMPETI s s Expenses expenses INDEX TIVENESS
121 102 117 125 106 95 100 108 119 94 98 97 99 89 91 100 100 105 104 86 153 147 140 153 135 102 100 100 111 99 96 84 89 104 79 92 100 86 56 52 98 91 105 111 105 93 100 95 90 101 121 92 99 121 69 93 100 102 171 66 146 136 143 137 130 106 100 106 109 114 67 63 74 85 69 108 100 93 72 89 124 117 70 83 65 100 100 127 162 170 111 120 125 103 120 123 100 109 90 98 124 115 120 124 114 99 100 99 103 98 97 89 93 101 82 99 100 96 101 80
154
Leather and Leather Products Industry

Y E AR E C I 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
MC 98 99 96 99 101 97 98 97 98 100 101 103 103 560 479 450 544 681 134 100 110 176 100 142 106 106
DS C 64 68 71 72 83 94 100 95 92 100 96 96 96
PS C 107 111 106 102 101 108 110 105 100 100 100 97 93
F L C -T DL F L C -MF 142 138 138 129 113 127 84 89 93 95 101 98 99 98 101 97 102 96 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
INDUS T C OS T C O MP 100 100 100 100 100 93 94 92 99 100 115 112 108
IC -T DL 94 94 94 94 123 91 83 103 103 100 98 92 104
IC -MF 54 54 54 54 60 70 75 91 94 100 81 83 79
S c aled MC I
170 165 161 134 105 122 130 90 95 100 139 143 127
Demand Year Footwear Competitiveness 1994-95 6,197 62 1995-96 6,456 64 1996-97 6,799 68 1997-98 7,074 71 1998-99 7,205 72 1999-00 8,356 83 2000-01 9,429 94 2001-02 9,995 100 2002-03 9,566 95 2003-04 9,220 92 2004-05 10,034 100 2005-06 9,678 96 2006-07 9,663 96
155
Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Leather and Leather Products 75 83 84 89 93 105 107 101 92 100 107 117 112
Footwear 125 120 125 115 107 98 108 114 112 100 95 90 89
Price Competitiveness Index 108 107 111 106 102 101 108 110 105 100 100 100 97
156

Capital Output Ratio Output/ Invested Capital 44 54 61 167 91 89 104 103 103 100 74 81 87 79 80 82 94 93 97 100 Per Unit Wage Productivity Input/ Wages 39 47 51 146 69 81 75 89 68 100 70 74 75 110 98 94 97 87 105 100 63 76 77 104 79 99 89 99 69 100 126 138 137 118 114 105 107 96 107 100
Category
Year
Labour Productivity Output/ Workers
Overall Productivity Input/ Output 142 138 113 84 93 101 99 101 102 100 138 129 127 89 95 98 98 97 96 100
Tanning and Dressing of Leather, Manufacture of Luggage handbags, Garments, Saddlery and Harness
Manuacture of Footwear
1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05
157

Cost Profitability Competitiven Index ess Index Sellin and Admin 78 99 94 93 97 108 123 96 94 89 91 94 91 93 83 98 89 89 103 95 94 102 103 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 98 100 107 102 92 103 109 92 104 97 109 129 54 107 100 86 60 105 111 78 70 91 101 98 75 91 108 100 91 90 105 100 94 97 100 100 100 100 126 110 81 129 104 110 83 121 110 119 79 120
Category
Tanning and Dressing of Leather, Manufacture of Luggage handbags, Garments, Saddlery and Harness
Manuacture of Footwear
Raw Power Other Year ROCE PBIDTM CPM Materials and Fuel Employee Manf 1998 50 62 213 105 89 93 1999 100 66 224 92 93 89 2000 101 75 86 98 99 93 2001 92 65 83 107 106 93 2002 97 57 162 105 93 101 2003 106 100 99 107 100 98 2004 100 100 100 100 100 100 2005 112 69 102 109 100 92 2006 105 68 89 102 112 95 2007 114 94 94 109 95 82 1998 44 72 58 82 105 110 1999 71 60 39 110 109 119 2000 57 80 87 88 102 78 2001 87 79 45 122 91 41 2002 86 98 94 92 100 49 2003 80 108 110 117 113 49 2004 100 100 100 100 100 100 2005 78 52 118 152 142 116 2006 92 105 45 127 115 149 2007 68 135 47 113 132 124
158
Textiles and Garments Industry

EXPORTS
GFCF
Textiles exports YEAR as a % of Spinning, Weaving total and Finishing

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 219 201 193 176 170 153 135 126 121 100 100 82 82 129 128 131 114 114 113 111 108 102 100 94 94 94
Knitted Other and textiles crocheted fabrics

76 77 76 72 77 75 79 85 95 100 89 96 96 245 233 235 163 99 107 99 85 89 100 101 96 96
Wearing Apparel
FDI inflows as a % of Spinning, total Weaving and Finishing

819 508 574 264 296 29 27 57 51 100 242 25 25 49 53 58 64 86 55 40 62 68 100 100 100 100
Knitted Other and Wearing textiles crocheted Apparel fabrics

15 17 20 22 23 28 21 36 46 100 100 100 100 16 19 16 15 48 52 33 45 78 100 100 100 100 23 25 28 30 55 67 46 69 66 100 100 100 100
EXPORT MACRO COMPET COMPETI INDEX TIVENESS
90 90 88 102 100 102 101 101 101 100 109 106 106
127 126 127 112 107 107 106 103 100 100 97 96 96
429 275 310 157 184 42 33 58 59 100 171 62 62
159
Textiles - Clothing Year 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Rs.crore 46,812 49,655 52,491 57,272 50,607 57,936 67,974 65,182 69,015 67,462 70,261 80,225 83,594 Consumer Expenditure 67 71 75 82 72 82 97 93 98 96 100 114 119
160

Manufacture of knitted and crocheted fabrics
Year
Spinning, Weaving and Finishing Cotton Textiles Other Natural Textiles 61 78 90 78 84 91 93 101 100 91 100 114 122 123
Manufacture of other textiles Other Misc. Textiles 57 66 71 72 72 71 74 73 78 94 100 108 102 99
Wearing Apparel
Price Competitiveness Index
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
80 84 81 81 83 83 86 87 85 92 100 89 91 91
Knit and Man Made Crochet Textiles Apparel 77 85 88 91 90 85 83 86 90 97 100 104 103 99
107 116 104 91 85 83 88 88 90 96 100 98 98 99
81 90 89 83 83 84 87 89 90 93 100 101 103 103

Productivity Factory Capital Output Per Unit Wage Level Ratio Labour Productivity Productivity Output/Invested Capital Output/Factories Output/Workers Input/Workers 41 122 41 49 127 43 48 135 43 83 89 66 79 90 79 88 96 86 85 96 81 92 99 92 100 100 100 111 106 112 100 96 85 53 72 89 67 74 100 109 70 67 59 73 80 89 81 85 100 93 57 54 49 54 66 60 69 72 100 96
Year
Overall Productivity Input/Output 45 47 44 72 88 96 92 102 100 127 51 55 57 51 64 56 64 69 100 95 96 98 89 97 99 99 101 99 100 101 91 103 117 95 98 95 94 98 100 100
1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05
161

Competitiven Raw Power Other Sellin and Profitability ess Index Index CPM Mat and Fuel Employee Manf Admin 149 99 80 70 86 94 129 83 26 99 81 73 89 116 87 90 99 98 83 83 90 115 118 93 98 98 95 80 91 92 91 90 97 100 92 88 93 102 99 94 69 98 99 96 97 95 85 97 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 109 98 81 92 96 94 124 91 126 97 79 97 98 97 140 93 121 99 94 96 86 98 147 94 80 92 90 101 108 99 83 100 52 93 110 105 102 106 70 106 88 85 111 120 101 100 70 108 93 86 128 112 103 93 69 109 85 83 102 115 99 85 70 100 106 93 100 108 109 96 98 103 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 110 108 96 111 99 94 94 100 126 100 99 119 100 65 95 96 105 105 91 114 89 99 84 99
Category
Spinning, Weaving and Finishing
Manufact ure of other textiles
Year ROCE PBIDTM 1998 119 129 1999 110 100 2000 128 119 2001 90 88 2002 101 97 2003 92 88 2004 100 100 2005 137 112 2006 141 152 2007 157 153 1998 55 140 1999 60 108 2000 54 84 2001 53 76 2002 59 77 2003 92 103 2004 100 100 2005 90 87 2006 78 100 2007 75 82
162

Exports GFCF Exports FDI Communica Communic as Inflows Consu tion Consume ation Years % of as a % of EXPORT MACRO mer Industrial Comput & r Industrial Comput & total total COMPET COMPETI Electro Electronic ers Broadcast Compo Electronic Electroni ers Broadcast Compo nics s Equipment nents s cs Equipment nents INDEX TIVENESS 1995 86 45 82 154 82 108 78 41 44 84 50 38 89 64 1996 105 73 70 150 77 106 75 45 47 86 58 42 88 65 1997 130 89 81 165 63 94 108 48 71 94 59 43 85 84 1998 136 88 82 157 68 96 185 70 54 101 68 54 87 126 1999 133 77 79 177 71 93 416 20 58 112 75 56 88 241 2000 125 81 79 215 70 81 32 112 100 137 51 61 89 55 2001 130 84 87 207 59 80 45 91 122 58 35 70 86 55 2002 103 93 133 65 204 90 26 213 64 144 104 79 144 70 2003 123 75 105 125 49 103 70 180 55 117 148 107 78 99 2004 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 2005 99 145 127 71 119 83 154 100 100 100 100 100 113 127 2006 93 159 134 52 136 80 46 100 100 100 100 100 121 73 2007 93 159 134 52 136 80 46 100 100 100 100 100 121 73
163

Electronic Goods Demand Competitiveness Index 12 14 17 19 23 27 36 44 60 75 100 131 174
Year 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
Rs.Crore 6374 7532 8843 10094 12037 14538 19305 23397 31805 39548 53035 69242 92102

Commun Computer Components Industrial ications Computer Price and Semi Electronic ACSR Electronic Power Telephone Competitive Computer conductors IC's Conductor equipments Capacitor instruments ness Index 92.7 97.9 98.1 108.4 100 114 87.8 80 84 96.5 97.5 114.8 100 114 69.6 77 71.9 93.5 97.5 119.9 78.9 107.3 66 73 57.3 89.4 97.5 117.2 85.2 103.9 63.1 70 52.5 87 107.5 109 116.5 99 59.3 67 50.9 83.6 121.4 105.7 116.5 96.9 61.5 66 51.1 87.7 136.7 110.7 99.2 82.5 63.7 66 47.7 89.3 141.2 113.8 123.8 85.3 64.9 68 48.5 86.2 140.9 107.5 123.8 88.1 64.7 66 55.3 88 140.9 107.3 123.8 87.6 64.7 65 52.6 85 134.9 106.8 123.8 87 70 100 45.8 83.4 117.5 107.1 123.8 87 72.7 61 38.6 80.9 117 116.5 123.8 87 65.7 57 41.8 82.9 120.3 157 119.6 87 64.7 58
Year
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Consumer Picture TV sets TV sets tubes BW colour colour 106.4 106.5 96.1 111.8 96.3 92.5 111.3 95.2 91 111.4 86.6 91 109.7 66.8 80.6 109.2 62.6 77.1 108.5 63.2 80.6 100.8 69.1 87.4 93.5 67.8 81.3 89.9 63.2 73.2 88.1 54 64.8 89.4 48.7 58 85 42.8 45.2 83.5 37.2 42.3
164

Productivity Factory Level Output/ Factories 1995-96 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
2002-03
Category
Year
Capital Output Ratio
Labour Productivity
Per Unit Wage Productivity
2003-04 Consumer
2004-05
1995-96 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02

2002-03
2003-04 Computers 2004-05
124 135 179 183 177 149 169 114 108 100 47 47 49 49 101 71 71 92 103 100
Output/ Output/ Input/ Invested Capital Workers Wages 124 44 135 47 179 62 183 64 177 61 149 94 169 105 114 122 108 48 100 100 47 55 47 55 49 54 49 53 101 70 71 78 71 82 92 97 103 111 100 100
85 86 85 79 102 115 133 121 72 100 74 75 64 70 99 92 80 93 107 100
Input/Output 157 147 110 111 107 104 104 95 93 100 92 93 89 97 101 99 95 99 98 100
165
Category
consumer
computers
Year ROCE PBIDTM CPM Raw Mat 1998 64 5 111 194 1999 68 -10 104 131 2000 80 -31 101 112 2001 94 25 120 282 2002 88 1341 108 109 2003 87 113 109 107 2004 100 100 100 100 2005 96 54 110 138 2006 98 79 185 -3 2007 238 -282 276 1024 1998 108 94 114 77 1999 103 117 100 64 2000 155 146 96 84 2001 95 119 97 84 2002 89 102 91 68 2003 88 115 72 68 2004 100 100 100 100 2005 104 94 88 83 2006 128 119 78 65 2007 97 45 48 49
Power Sellin Cost and Other and Profitability Competitiv Fuel eness Index Employee Manf Admin Index 293 278 97 67 61 186 197 242 100 65 57 147 157 335 100 76 58 156 427 243 102 55 83 222 80 691 95 68 406 208 115 441 100 101 99 173 100 100 100 100 100 100 170 78 97 66 89 110 119 897 97 86 115 239 116 65 101 86 117 278 76 26 138 107 106 85 68 26 150 130 106 87 83 22 150 94 138 87 82 25 149 111 101 90 69 49 131 129 93 89 69 185 85 111 91 104 100 100 100 100 100 100 85 61 161 90 97 96 67 51 179 88 113 90 41 46 218 31 72 77
166
Annexure 3
List of Companies Covered in Primary Survey Food Processing Industry

Anandabari Tea Company Ovobel Foods Private Ltd Swan Dal And Food processing Madam Agro Food India UB Group MTR Foods Dhanya Associates Sunil Agro Foods Seven Seas Seafoods P Limited Victoria Marine Agro Exports Limited Goodricke Group Limited Hanuman Agro industries Limited Bansidhar Badridass Modi (P) Farm Suzane Pvt Limited Kothari Sugar & Chemicals limited Tata coffee Bannari AmmAN Ltd. The North Western Cochar Tea Co Ltd Arcuttipore Tea Co.ltd. Siewert & Dholakia (P) Ltd. Huldibari Industries & Jeypore sugars Avanti Foods Plantations Co.ltd Agarmet Corporation Hak Agro Foods JK sugar Jay Shree Tea & Industries EID Parry Ponni Sugars Dharani Sugars SKM EGG Products A.J. Tea House Pvt. Ltd. Globus Spirits Raj Agro Mills Amrit Corporation Limited Scottish Assam Limited Dabur Towers Mawana Sugars Fortune Foods Shree Renuka sugars ltd Flamingo Food Products Freshtrop Fruits Lijat MB sugars Assam Company Limited Okayti tea Co. Kothari Plantation Pvt Limited Elite Tea agency Pvt ltd Champagne Indage Ltd Bombay Burmah Dwarikesh Sugar
167
Waterbase Amalgam Enterprises Srinivasa Hatcheries Tyroon Tea Company Limited Sethia oils limited Chamong Tee Exports (P) Ltd. Ledo Tea company Limited
Balram Pur Chinni Mill Triveni Retail Ventures Limited The Delhi Flour Mills
Coca Cola Surya Food And Agro ltd Liberty Oil Mills Limited
Flex Foods Agro Dutch Industries
Kadambari Food Products Cinnatolliah Tea Garden
Radico Khaitan Ltd. Shaw Wallace Distilleries
Vishnu Sugar Mills Limited Ramesh Chah Ltd Kiran Tea Estates (P)
Tata Tea Limited Apeejay Tea group Parkwood Farms Pt Limited
KC Oils Britannia Mother Dairy
Limited Manjushree Tea Emporium Shah Brothers Terai Tea Company
Andrew Yule & Co. limited
Paras Dairy
Limited
Leather and Leather Products Industry

Comfy Shoemakers private Relaxo Footwears Limited Crew B.O.S Products Ganapati Shoe Machinery DCP Synthetics Pvt.Ltd. Skin Craft Lakhani Bata India Super House Limited Limited Shoemakers private Limited Cheviot Company Limited Priya Gopal Bishoyi V.P Udyog Ltd Acme Safetywears Ltd. Rajda Industries Exports Ltd. Saboo Cotspin Pvt Liimited Sovereign Leather Innovators Pvt Ltd Genius Leathercraft Pooja Exports Emmar Enterprises The Leather Mall CCL Products Pakkar Leathers Leather Choice Vinayaga Leder Exports Pvt Super Tannery Planet Inc. Kolkata Limited
168
Mirza International Haryana Leather Chemicals Ltd Sarup tanneries Liberty Shoes Mayur leather
Kanchan Vanijya Pvt Ltd
Nafisa overseas
H.M Enterprises Z.N.T International Leatherman Exotic fashions Pvt Ltd Lifestyle Furnishing Pvt
Shahrez Creations Nooruddin Bros Elite leathers Farida Leather Company
Divya International Gur Industries M&B Footwear Pvt Limited Adidas Leather Fads
Limited M&M Exports
Trimurthi Lederwaren Pvt Ltd Imperial Impex
Farinni Export Pvt.limited Islam International Leather Enterprises Naumman Enterprises Pvt
Wellwin Industries Limited Tanmix PSM Udyog
Euro leder fashions ltd Fine-Line Murli Industries Ltd Zirconium Chemicals Pvt ltd Cheemo Designer Leather
Limited Global Leather Apar Industries
AHW Harry And Co. Mercury Exports Mfg Pvt Ltd
Maa Kali Exports Pvt Limited Saraf Impex (P) Ltd
V.P Udyog Limited SPL Industries Limited
Textiles and Garments Industry

Aditya Birla Nuv Vardhman Royal Textile Rajapalayam Mills Indus Filaments Gangotri Textile Vardhman Polytex Limited Indian Acrylics Malwa Industries Ltd Sangam India Modern Syntex Banwara Syntex Banswara Systex RSWM LTD Siyaram Silk Aarvee Denims Jaybharat Textile Donear Industries
169
Pearl Global Arvind Mills Priyadarsharni spinning Syryalata Spinning Mills Limited Super Spinning Precot Meridian GTN Industries
SH Rajasthani Syntex Ginni International BSL Alps Industries Pasupati Acrym Filatex india limited Ginni Filaments Limited Rajda Narrow Fabric
IBF Industries Welspun India Gupta Synthetics Zenith Exports Pioneer Embroideries Ltd Raj Rayon Futura Polyester
KG Denim Celibrity Fashions SRF S Kumars Nations Suryavanshi Spinning mills Eastern Silk Industries Limited United Industrial
Industries Chandni Textiles Ltd Atit Textile Industries Ltd. Ashok textiles industries Rimkar textiles Ramsons Textiles Parmanini Textiles
Zodiac Clothing Co. LTd Aditya Birla Nuv synth. Raymonds Corporate Home Concepts Himatsingka Seide Limited Rajvir Industries E.H Turel & Company Indo Rama Synthetics
Swastik Enterprises AMG Apparels Binny Limited Al Champdany Industries Ltd
Panna Textiles Dionodia Textiles NRC Limited Gandhi Readymade Suryaamba Spinning Mills
(India) Ltd. SRF Industries S Kumar nations Nahar Spinning
Gloster Jute mills Limited Pawan Trading Company BK Birla Group Of companies Pasupati Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.
Limited Alok Industries Limited Eskay Knit
Spentea Industries TT Limited Abhishek Industries
Krishna Life
Nova Petrochemicals Indorama Synthetics (India)
GPL Textile Satluj Textile
Century Enka Modern Syntex
Ltd.
170

Excel Copier Systems Gemini Communications Powercap Systems Madras Pvt Ltd Tvs Electronics Spel Semiconduct Total Power Conditioners Pvt Ltd Corporate Concepts ECIL BEL Wipro Centum Electron Miracle Electronic Devices Hyderabad Flextech Limited ACI infocom Anu Technologies Astra Microwave Products Ltd BigBoss Infotech Limited ABB Limited Emerson Networks Gujrat Poly-AVX Electronics PCS Technologies ABEE Info Cosumables Limited Cosmo Ferrites Delta energy Systems india pvt Instrumentation Limited ltd Bar-Tech Systems and IntelCorp Software Pvt Ltd Arraycom(India) LTd automations ltd JP Exports Bathija International Kamal Industries Sharp India Siemens Techno Control Atul Enterprises Whirlpool India Limited Panasonic Talbros Naina Semiconductor Limited Samsung Max Mobility Pvt Limited Salora International Zenith Computers Ltd GTL Infrastructure Zicom Private Lenovo Siltech Corporation Inc. ST Microelectronics Barco LG BCG Fuba India Numeric Power Rajasthan Electron VXL Instruments Incap Limited Dell India Pvt Limited APC Precision BEL BPL Limited CCS infotech Yokogawa India Toyama Electric
171
IntelCorp Software Pvt Keltron Components D-Link Ltd Bajaj International Pvt Optocircuits Ruttosha International Rectifiers IVP Limited MIRC Electronics ESI KRCD India Pvt Ltd Godrej&Boyer Mfg Co.ltd Voltas Limited limited
172
Annexure 4
Guidelines to Update the Index

1) To update the index, the agency carrying out the operation must append the latest years data to the sub-indices source sheets. 2) The Data Sources are as given below: Data Sources
Index
Export Competitiveness Macro Competitiveness
Variables
Exports Foreign Direct Investment Gross Fixed Capital Formation
Source
Reserve Bank of India Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion Annual Survey of Industry Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy Office of Economic Advisor to PM
Demand Competitiveness Price Competitiveness
Private Final Consumption Expenditure Wholesale Price Index No of Workers No of Factories Total Input Total Ouput Capital Invested Industry Level financials and costs
Firm Competitiveness Industry Competitiveness
Annual Survey of Industry Capitaline
3) The Indices are dynamic and any updation will result in linked changes in all sheets. This will result in the corresponding index number appearing in the main sheet for the latest year for which data is entered. 4) The weights are dynamic and can be used irrespective for as long as there is a change in base year. When a new base is used, the weights will have to be re-worked. 5) For a one point change in the index number, the interpretation is a one point change in competitiveness of the corresponding index.
173
6) However, an increase in the cost competitiveness index has the opposite effect on the overall manufacturing competitiveness. 7) A comparison cannot be drawn across two sectors s each index in specific to the individual industrys competitiveness. 8) These competitiveness indices are an indication of the quantum and direction of change in the industrys competitiveness across time and regions.
174

ICRA Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ICRA Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ICRA Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Manufacturing Competitiveness Council

Deriving Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices of Key Sectors

ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited

Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices 2009

ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited

Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices 2009

5.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 71

ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited

Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices 2009

ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited

Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices 2009

ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited

Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices 2009

ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited

Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices 2009

ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited

Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices 2009

ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited

Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices 2009

ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited

Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices 2009

ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited

Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices 2009

ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited

Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices 2009

ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited

Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices 2009

ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited

Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices 2009

ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited

Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices 2009

ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited

Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices 2009

ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited

Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices 2009

ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited

Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices 2009

ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited

Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices 2009

ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited

Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices 2009

ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited

Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices 2009

Economic Survey 2007-08

5 2005-06, Central Statistical Organisation

ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited

Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices 2009

2.2. Manufacturing Performance

National Manufacturing Competitiveness Council

ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited

Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices 2009

NMCC Project Vikas World Competitiveness report, Global Economic Forum

ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited

Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices 2009

ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited

Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices 2009

2.3.1. Drivers of Competitiveness

Industry/ Regional Competitiveness

ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited

Manufacturing Competitiveness Indices 2009