cost price relationship in indian manufacturing industry · his results from indian data are sum...
Post on 26-Jun-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Cost Price Relationship in Indian Manufacturing Industry
S Hajra
In examining the cost-price relationship in industry this paper challenges the view that rise in prices of industrial products has anything to do with rise in wage costs.
The evidence for the industries studied here suggests no a relation-ship between unit wage and material costs and prices. Nor does it suggest that growth of labour productivity has lagged behind rise in wages. On the contrary, in most of the industries productivity has risen faster than wages.
THIS paper has been divided into three sections. The first section
reviews Sidney Weintraub's theory of inflation in India contained in his book, "Growth without Inflation" (Rational Council of Applied Economic Research, February 1965). The second examines the variations in unit material cost, unit wage cost and wage and labour productivity in relation to variations in prices for selected industries. The third section is a statistical study of the cost-profit relationship in manufacturing industries.
I In "Growth without Inflation" Sid
ney Weintraub has offered an analysis of inflation in India. He has used a simple model to explain his theory which he has tested with Indian data. For the convenience of readers the model is reproduced here. Weintraub's is a single equation model, formulated on the assumption that "sales proceeds are some multiple of wage pay-news" (p 55). In equation form:
From the model Weintraub concludes: "So long as k is constant or
nearly so and A, average productivity of labour, changes slowly or not: at all then it must follow that every change in w, the average money wage per employee, must, lead to a direct and proportional change in the level of prices" (p 56). Weintraub defines k in his equations as the mark-up factor, which is the "reciprocal of wage-share" (p 56), and calls his theory as the wage-cost mark-up theory (WCM). His results from Indian data are summarised in Table 1. The empirical evidence has led Weintraub to argue:
"The definite rise in W, The slow steady rise in A, the mild trend in k, and the somewhat undue rise in unit labour costs represented by w/A are very apparent. The rise in labour cost of some 13 per cent over the full period and some 23 per cent since 1955 can be alleged with little fear of contradiction as responsible for inflation" (p 62). His conclusion is that: "the inflationary problem in India has
involved a wage and salary inflation ... income payments have been growing at an undue, if not alarming, pace relative to the movement in labour productivity ... this has been the growing stream of individual income payment rampaging over the dam of productivity" (p 67).
What is required, then, is that: "India will have to face up to this question of holding individual income payments in check and instituting a wage-income policy, if it is serious about its endeavours at economic stability and inflation control" (p 67)
P S Lokanalhan, Director General of NACAFR, in his introduction to the book mentions a few limitations of Weintraub's policy recommendation for India. He points out that in the agricultural sector whatever be the labour productivity a living wage must be paid and, second, that as a result of market imperfections profits and rents may not be stabilised simultaneously with an income policy. He also
1629
1631
T H E E C O N O M I C W E E K L Y October 23, 1965
mentions that government deficit and increases in money supply are also responsible for aggravating the situation so that it is difficult to label any one factor as the culprit (p vii).
To the present writer it seems that Weintraub's conculsions are not adequately supported by his evidence. Unit wage cost has increase:! in manufacturing by 1.5 per cent and has declined by 8 per cent in Government enterprises, whereas money income in these two sectors have increased by 131.5 and 50.25 per cent, respectively. In the manufacturing sector productivity has increased by 128.5 per cent. The wage-productivity disparity is nowhere as large as Weintraub's expression "growing stream of income payment ... rampaging over the dam of productivity" suggests. What is this "growing stream of income payment"? Does it refer to (i) rise in wage rates of the existing employed or (ii) additional employment?
Obviously (i) and (ii) cannot have 'the same effect on P (prices). If the increase in income payments is due to (ii) and the larger part of the additional employment created falls in the (non-productive) tertiary sector (that is, increase in employment and income payments are not accompanied by an increase in 0) then i t will definitely be inflationary. But the cure for this type of situation is not res
traint of all money wage. Weintraub suggests "an alternative
formulation of the WCM truism that is more apt for the studies of economic growth that give weight and a stress to the capital-output ratio and to the amount of capital per employee" (p 66). This formulation he presents as
where K= capital; K/Q —capital cutput ratio and K/N = capital labour ratio. Weintraub argues that "Data c o u l d be fitted to this equation, but in view of the truistic nature this is superfluous at this stage ... neglecting the changes in wage share as relatively unimportant and as the capital-output ratios do not vary greatly in short periods, the money wage will rule the price level roost" (p 67),
However, in India during the Five-Year Plans the capital-output ratio has shown changes and the assumption of secular constancy of the ratio is also contrary to the evidence of other countries. As regards the short period movement of the capital-output ratio. we may quote here Kaldor: "It. is of the essence of the acceleration principle that it regards the ratio output capital determined by technical factors, which cannot undergo any significant alternation even in the short period; while it is the
essential feature of the cyclical movements that this tela lien is subject, to continuous changes in the course of i t". Hicks suggests a scries of partial coefficients instead of a single one, each applicable to a dilfeienl-period,
Weintraub's model of inflation is a single equation one, which includes (a) a real part with Q and N and (b) a monetary part with P and w. His equation, further, is an identity which deals with ex post quantities. Single equation regression models which consider data as stochastic to the extent that an error term and its random distribution are assumed have been neglected by Weintraub. And the specification of The money wage rate has helped him to draw all his conclusions. A conclusion that the rise in price has led to the rise in money wage is equally possible from his equation if the price is identified rather than the money wage. One further limitation of Weintraub's analysis is that he has used his productivity index in constant prices and wage index in current prices. What does such a comparison mean? The appropriate comparison should lake cither both in current prices where marginal revenue productivity is compared with wage, or both in constant prices where 'real' productivity is compared with 'real' wage.
Table 4: Changes in Money Wage and Unit Labour Requirement, Labour Cost and Labour Productivity
1633
October 23, 1965 T H E E C O N O M I C W E E K L Y
I I We now proceed to examine how
far price movements in manufacturing industries can be explained by movements not only in money wage and unit wage cost but also by variations in unit material costs since raw material prices have increased daring the period and raw material cost forms a large proportion of total operating cost. Twenty three manufacturing industries are covered here. This section examines the movement of unit material cost, unit labour cost, wage and labour productivity for individual industries. The data are given in Table 2.
Total cost of production has been classified as: (1) wage cost; (2) material and other input costs; and (3) capital cost. Prices has been defined as equal to the cost of production plus entrepreneural profit. With this definition of price there are two cources of price variation: variation in cost and variation in entrepreneurs' profit expectation. In this paper we will consider the first, taking only wage cost and material cost, since data on capital cost are not available.
The data used are from the Census of Manufacturing Industries and the period, 1947-58. The relevant data, as compiled from the Census, are given in Table 2 to 4. The concepts used arc similar to those used by the Census and are briefly discussed below:
(a) Value-added is the measure of output used here; it is equal to ex-factory sales value of output less cost of material, fuel, electricity, etc, consumed and depreciation.
(b) Unit wage-cost is wage-cost per unit of value added where wage cost includes wages, salaries and other benefits paid to workers.
(c) Unit material cost is total input cost per unit of value added, where input cost includes cost of raw material* fuel, electricity, lubricants, etc, consumed and payments to other concerns for work done by them.
Table 3 gives wage cost as a proportion of material cost as defined above. Table 4 gives percentage increase in money wage, percentage decline in unit-labour requirement (1952-58), percentage increase in labour productivity (1952-58), percentage decline in unit labour cost (1952-58) and percentage increase in money wage (1952-58). Table 5.1 gives the price-index (base 1947) and Table 5.2 the price index (base 1952). A small comment is called for here about the price indices, Both the price indices are published
1634
by the Ministry of Commerce. One cannot be sure that the industry classification in the Census and that in the price indices are the same, but in the absence of any other price indices these have been used. The first index covers 14 industries and the second one 18 industries. Cost-price relationship study has been, therefore, limited to these industries for which data are available.
It can be seen from Table 4 that during 1947-58 wages have gone up in all industries. Percentage increases in wage between 1947-52, 1952-55 and 1955-58 are given in the Table. With rising wage, unit labour cost (see Table 2) also increased during 1947-52 in 18 out of the 23 industries, but since 1952 the trend of unit labour cost has been almost reversed. A l though wages continued to rise, unit labour cost declined during 1932-55 in 19 out of 23 industries and in one it remained constant. The trend was similar in 1955-58. In 1952-58 unit
labour cost declined in 20 industries; in 1947-58 it declined in 17 industries. The evidence for most of the industries for the period as a whole points to a consistent rise in money wage and decline in unit labour cost.
Table 2 shows that unit material cost increased in 16 industries during 1947-52, but since 1952 the trend has been almost reversed. During 1952-55 unit material cost declined in 14 industries and during 1952-58 unit material cost declined in 17 industries.
Comparing unit material cost and unit labour cost, it can be seen that during 1952-58 the trend of the two is very similar. During this period both unit labour cost and unit material cost have declined for 17 industries. Table 3 gives the relative movement of wage cost and material cost, where wage cost has been ex pressed as proportion of material cost. It can be seen that during 1947-58 wage cost as proportion of material cost declined in 21 industries, jute
T H E E C O N O M I C W E E K L Y October 23, 1965
and matches being the exceptions. During 1952-58 the proportion declined for 17 industries with biscuit-making, soap, cement, plywood and tea-chests, cotton textile and jute textile as the exceptions. For most industries, therefore, the evidence is that wage cost has declined faster than material cost so as to depress the ratio.
From Table 3 it can also be seen that wage cost forms a quarter of material cost or in other words . wage cost is less than a quarter of the total cost in the manufacturing sector as a whole. Inter-industry variations in the proportion of wage cost to material cost are wide: it is much below 10 per cent in industries like wheat flour, rice-milling, vegetable oil anrT soap, and as high as 90 to 100 per tent in ceramics. The coefficients of variation of the proportion of wage costs to material costs are 73.29 per cert, 82.63 per cent, 84.78 per cent and 76.48 per cent, in 1947, 1952, 1955 and 1958 respectively.
Rising wages accompanied by declining unit wage cost is not very difficult to explain. Unit labour cost is the product of unit labour requirement and wage rates. If, therefore, unit labour requirement declines rapidly because capital is being substituted for labour due to a change in the relative prices of capital and labour then the product of unit labour requirement and the higher wage rate in alternative situations may decline even in the absence of technical progress. In the language of economic theory, when wages rise capital is substituted for labour and when the elasticity of substitution is greater than unity labour cost declines.2
The decline in unit material cost (in the face of constant or rising raw material prices) cannot be explained unless a further assumption is made. The assumption is one of technical progress, t e, rising technical efficiency which makes possible efficient use of raw materials and hence decline in unit material cost. The declining trend of unit labour cost and unit material cost in Indian manufacturing industries may be, therefore, attributed to:
(a) elasticity of substitution of capita! for labour being greater than unity; and
(b) technical progress, i e, rising technical efficiency.
Unit Material Cost and Price: The 1952-53 based price-index (Table 5.2) shows movement very similar to that of
unit material cost. It shows decline over 1952-55 for 14 out of 18 industries. The exceptions are cotton textile, woollen textile, aluminium, copper and brass and general and electrical engineering for which the unit material cost increased during 1952-55, Comparing the movement of unit material cost and price during 1952-58 it can be seen that the movement of material cost and prices are not similar for rice-milling, soap, matches, cement, paper, sugar, cotton textile, woollen textile, chemicals, bicycles, aluminium and general and electrical engineering (tools and implements in Table 5.2). If the 1947-based price index (Table 5.1) is compared with movement in unit material cost it can be seen that prices increased for all the industries during 1952-58, except glass and jute, whereas unit material cost declined for all industries. The evidence, therefore, does not support similar movement of unit material cost and prices.
Unit Wage Cost and Prices: With the 1952-53 based price index (Table 5.2) it can be seen that prices are higher in 1958 for 13 out of 18 industries. However, of these 33 industries unit labour cost increased during 1952-58 in soap and cement only. With the 1947-based price index (Table 5.1) it can be seen that prices in 1953 are higher for 13 out of 15 industries. In most of these 13 industries unit labour cost declined during 1947-58. The evidence, therefore, is that move
ment of unit wage cost and prices are also not similar.
Labour Productivity, Wage and Unit Labour Requirement: Table 4 gives the variations in labour productivity and wage (both in current prices) and unit labour requirement during 1952-58. From the table it can be seen that unit labour requirement has declined in almost all industries. The extent of variation is not uniform. Labour productivity has increased in all industries except soap and cement and in most cases the increase in productivity is higher than that in wages. The exceptions are soap, cement and plywood. It is, therefore, also not true that wage-productivity disparity is a general phenomenon.
III The movement of costs (wage and
material cost) in the different industries has been examined above. Move-ments of costs and prices have also been compared. The comparison do not suggest any unique relationship between cost and price for every in-industry. In this section the lindings are summarised by a simple statistical technique.
The data used in this section are: (a) index of wage and material costs combined with 1952 as base; (b) wholesale price indices with 1952-53 as base; and (c) index of rate of return with 1952 as base — we call this
1635
top related