scope for business & industrial development prof. krishna kumar director indian institute of...
TRANSCRIPT
SCOPE FOR BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Prof. Krishna KumarDirector
Indian Institute of Management, Kozhikode
1. The world has changed and is still changing , providing both the opportunities and the threats and we have to gear up to play the role in the new economic era.
2. There is a great influx of major international players, both directly and indirectly (through joint ventures and alliances) ?
3. The resultant fact is that the number of competitors has increased manifold, in all fields.
4. Domestic players have started facing the problem of how to keep afloat.
5. The survival of the fittest is going to be order of the day.6. The MNCs are mighty powers. They have certain strategic
advantages which need to be identified and to develop appropriate strategy.
7. State of Kerala can not remain unaffected of it.
Issues For Consideration
68%1999-2000
69%1989-9065%1979-80
72%1998-9960%1988-8972%1978-79
86%1997-9864%1987-8890%1977-78
70%1996-97 59%1986-8794%1976-77
74%1995-9655%1985-8678%1975-76
75%1994-9564%1984-8571%1974-75
85%1993-9459%1983-8482%1973-74
78%1992-9358%1982-8392%1972-73
87%1991-9254%1981-8277%1971-72
66%1990-9152%1980-8178%1970-71
Ratio (%)Ratio (%)Ratio (%)
ImportImportImport
Export/ YearExport/ YearExport/ Year
India' Export- Import Performance during 1971-2000
Table 3
Indian Business Ventures Abroad and Foreign Collaborations in India
Upto ‘92 ‘93 ‘94 ‘95 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 Total
1991 Upto 1999
Indian JV Abroad 244 72 104 92 82 116 101 101 111 1023
Indian Wholly Owned 75 28 79 122 119 143 122 154 238 1080
Subsidiaries Abroad
Total Indian Business Ventures Abroad
319 100 183 214 201 259 223 255 349 2103
Foreign Collaboration in India
16836 1531 1476 1854 2337 2303 2325 1786 2224 32672
Table 6
Profit Position of Pre Reform Corporate Leaders in 2001
Year No Profit No Loss
Companies
Profit Making
Loss Making
Not Reporti
ng
Total
Companies Companies Companies
1991 67 1686 (79%) 388 - 2151
2001 7 1000 (46%) 679 465 2151
Table 7
Performance of Pre- Reform (1991) Corporate Leaders in the Post Liberalisation Era
Total 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Cos. InProfit 1696 1669 1573 1645 1691 1619 1461 1327 1203 1160 1000
Co. in NoProfit No LosConditio
n 67 40 16 14 10 11 10 14 8 10 7
Co. in Loss 388 355 403 351 312 369 520 632 713 714 679
Cos. Not Reporting 0 87 159 141 138 152 160 178 227 267 465
Total 2151 2151 2151 2151 2151 2151 2151 2151 2151 2151 2151
Comparative Profit Performance of Pre and Post Reform Corporate Leaders
Cos. In Profit
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Total N0. of Cos 1991 2151 1696 1669 1573 1645 1691 1619 1461 1327 1203 1160 1000
New Cos. Entering 1992 403 293 298 289 304 285 261 225 194 191 165
New Cos. Entering 1993 658 448 501 518 457 374 340 287 289 241
New Cos. Entering 1994 962 685 760 675 561 477 438 441 342
New Cos. Entering 1995 1128 764 786 593 516 476 503 366
New Cos. Entering 1996 584 351 339 270 269 274 216
New Cos. Entering 1997 431 235 236 188 201 146
New Cos. Entering 1998 328 193 205 150 106
New Cos. Entering 1999 488 303 304 230
New Cos. Entering 2000 316 217 208
New Cos. Entering 2001 38 19
5336 92-2001 Cos. 2039
Cos. In Profit (%)
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Total N0. of Cos 1991 2151 79% 78% 73% 76% 79% 75% 68% 62% 56% 54% 46%
New Cos. Entering 1992 403 73% 74% 72% 75% 71% 65% 56% 48% 47% 41%
New Cos. Entering 1993 658 68% 76% 79% 69% 57% 52% 44% 44% 37%
New Cos. Entering 1994 962 71% 79% 70% 58% 50% 46% 46% 36%
New Cos. Entering 1995 1128 68% 70% 53% 46% 42% 45% 32%
New Cos. Entering 1996 584 60% 58% 46% 46% 47% 37%
New Cos. Entering 1997 431 55% 55% 44% 47% 34%
New Cos. Entering 1998 328 59% 63% 46% 32%
New Cos. Entering 1999 488 62% 62% 47%
New Cos. Entering 2000 316 69% 66%
New Cos. Entering 2001 38 50%
5336 92-2001 Cos. 38%
Table 28
Total Assets Locked in the
Companies Making Loss/ Not Reporting Performance
(Rs. In Crores)
GFA GFA GFA GFA
Profit
Loss Making Not reporting Total (LM & NR)Making
675362 248973 135689 384662 (36.2%)
• TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANTAGESThe technological competence stems for three centuries old Industrial revolution. The MNcs take the lead in invention and then develop technology to scaling up the level of operations for worldwide operations.
• EXCHANGE RATE ADVANTAGESPuts developing countries at a disadvantage for creating infrastructure for business in a developed country. Disadvantage in terms of losing local supply of the domestic companies also figures clearly.
• SIZE ADVANTAGES A typical international player is several hundred times larger than the domestic players.
• POWER TO DECIDE THE RULES OF GAMEThe size of MNCs also influences the trade negotiations, as the international trade by major players in the developing countries form an insignificant amount to let them have a major say in the negotiations
Strategic Advantages
•POWER TO CREATE MYTHS LIKE–FREE FLOW OF GOODS IS ESSENTIAL
–ONLY DEVELOPED COUNTRIES ARE GOOD AT INNOVATING
–THE DEVELOPED COUNTRIES’ WOULD PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES FOR CAPABILITY BUILDING
–INTERNATIONAL TRADE IS IMPERATIVE FOR DEVELOPMENT
Firewall
Firewall
Free Ride without anyobligationRules Enforcing MNCsWithin Reach by All-
Investors Right
Country Competitiveness and Trade Barriers
Population
Technology(Desing/ Mfg)Money
Attracting Key PlayersHelping to Weaken
Acquire all strengthsNational CharacterCreation of Myths
Economically Less Advanced Countries
Emerging Challenges
2. Arresting the collapse
1. Knowing the realities
3. Facing the competitive challenges
Process Innovations
More competitors
Facing Mighty Main Global Players
Emotionally Yours
Facing Mighty Main Global Players
Joining Hands
Facing competition Head on
Becoming Mfg. Hub
BPO
Playing the second fiddle
Become a strategic partner
Innovation
Technology Development
Building on natural endowment
International perspective
Kerala can too has gear up to meet such emerging challenges in the future as they will not be limited to other states only.
The success will depend upon
• How much value addition we could do.
• How much of the value created by us could be captured/
appropriated by us.
• How well we are able to control the value
The three generic options to meet competition are
• Differentiation
• Cost Leadership
• Focus
A critical look is needed on what all it can offer
How well it can offer better than others
A QUICK LOOK AT WHAT KERALA OFFERS
Products
Services
Agro-products
Marine-products
Misc. Products
Tourism
Nursing
Kerala has limited land and high population density
Kerala has access to oceanic resources
Kerala has highest literacy rate in the country
It can not afford to damage its ecological balance
Kerala is green
A QUICK LOOK AT WHAT KERALA OFFERS
Products
Services
Agro-products
Marine-products
Misc. Products
Tourism
Nursing
Go for value addition
Search new markets (domestic)/superior technology for international markets
A QUICK LOOK AT WHAT KERALA OFFERS
Products
Services
Agro-products
Marine-products
Misc. Products
Tourism
Nursing
Go for value addition
Search new markets (domestic)/superior technology for international markets
Value addition/ capture/cooperation for integration
A QUICK LOOK AT WHAT KERALA OFFERS
Products
Services
Agro-products
Marine-products
Misc. Products
Tourism
Nursing
Go for value addition
Search new markets (domestic)/superior technology for international markets
Value addition/ capture/cooperation for integration
Call Centers
Misc. Services Ayurveda Treatment/ Massage
New Markets
A critical look is needed on what all it can offer
How well it can offer better than others
• Cooperation and strategic alliances with domestic partners have to be learnt fast to succeed.
• It has to follow unique combination of differentiation, cost leadership and focus strategies for different business
FINANCIAL RESOURCES
PHYSICALINFRASTRUCTURE
HUMANRESOURCES
ORGANISATIONALRESOURCES
HOW WELLDO THEY MEET THEREQT. OFBUSINESS?
NOT VERY WELLWEAKNESS
VERY WELLSTRENGTH
HOW DO THEY COMMPARE WITH
COMPETITOR
BETTER AS GOOD INFERIORCAN STRENGTHSBE TRANSFERREDTO ANOTHER BUSI
DISTINCTIVECOPETENCE
COPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
MEETING BUSIREQUIREENTS
KEYVULNERABILITY
Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value
1990-91 29985 102.4 26986 99.97 90 98
1991-92 20565 74.32 18714 72.49 91 98
1992-93 23821 78.94 21985 72.87 92 92
1993-94 47885 184.57 43485 169.33 91 92
1994-95 35636 226.01 33512 213.9 94 95
1995-96 26346 196.47 24419 283.1 93 144
1996-97 47893 412.32 46264 108.39 97 26
1997-98 35907 496.36 34380 163.62 97 33
1998-99 34864 638.11 34864 311.67 100 49
1999-2000 42100 864.98 42100 398.4 100 46
Source : Kerala Calling Magazine, May-August, 2002.
Export of Pepper from India & Kerala(During 1990-91 to 1999-2000)
(Qty. in MT, Value in Crore)
Years
India Kerala % Share of Kerala
Quantity Value Quantity Value
(In Tonne) (Rs. in Lakh) (In Tonne) (Rs. in Lakh)1975-76 31644 6781 54463 124531980-81 29148 9531 75591 234841982-83 32525 14147 78175 361361983-84 32840 14085 92691 373021984-85 31570 14825 86147 384291985-86 29580 13808 83651 398001986-87 33906 16457 85843 460671987-88 35576 18394 97179 531201988-89 45614 22131 99777 597851989-90 47194 24081 110843 634991990-91 50997 31379 139419 893371991-92 58743 44447 171820 1375891992-93 49094 41425 209025 1767431993-94 63809 62212 243960 2497311994-95 74613 81709 307337 3575271995-96 78896 85690 296277 3501111996-97 92288 93622 378199 4121361997-98 89366 94803 385818 4697481998-99 70641 81655 302934 4626871999-2000 91759 114239 343031 511667
Source : Department of Fisheries & Data Book on Agriculture, 2000,
Sate Planning Board, Govt. of Kerala.
Export of Marine Products from Kerala and India(1975-76 to 1999-2000)
Year
Kerala India
State 1997 1998
Year Earnings Kerala 182427 189941
India* Kerala 1986 17.07 India 5500419 5539704
1980 800150 21604 2.7 1987 17.411981 853148 24515 2.85 1988 17.51982 860178 24515 2.85 1989 21.151983 884731 25215 2.85 1990 26.991984 852503 24292 2.85 1991 28.281985 836902 42347 5.06 1992 59.751986 1079568 50841 4.71 1993 105.721987 1163744 51841 4.45 1994 116.111988 1239992 52083 4.2 1995 158.761989 1337232 62952 4.71 1996 196.381990 1329950 66139 4.97 1997 273.21991 1236120 69309 5.61 1998 302.081992 1434737 90635 6.32 1999 416.071993 1442643 95209 6.6 2000 525.3 State
1994 1886433 104568 5.54 2001 535 Kerala 4953401 4481714
1995 2123683 142972 6.73 2002 705.67 India 159877008 168196000
1996 2287860 176855 7.731997 2374094 182427 7.681998 2358629 189941 8.051999 2481928 202173 8.152000 2624259 209933 7.99
Averag Per Day Per Day Tourist (1999-2000) (1999-2000)
PlaceAverage
Duration of Tourists in
Kerala IndustryPer Day
Expenditur IndustryPer Day
ExpenditurThiruvananthapuram 2.5 (1999-2000) Hotel 390 Hotel 693
Kochi 2.5 PlaceAverage
Duration of Food on Trip 38 Food on Trip 80Thekkady/ Munnar 2.7
Thiruvananthapuram 4.4 Beverages 28 Beverages 85Kumarakom/
Allappuzha 2.2 Kochi 4.6Local Transport 70
Local Transport 116
Guruvayoor 2.1Thekkady/ Munnar 3.5
Health Rejuvenation 19
Health Rejuvenation 59
Total 6.5Kumarakom/ Allappuzha 2.4 Entertainment 21Entertainment 65
Guruvayoor 2.7Communication 16
Communication 60
Kerala 14.1Personal Care 12
Personal Care 13
Domestic Stay ForeignShop - Handicraft 13
Shop - Handicraft 182Shop -
Textiles 7Shop - Textiles 82Shop - Spices
and Cashews 8Shop - Spices and Cashews 62Shop -
Leather and 6Shop - Leather and 43
Shop - Others 24 Shop - Others 165Miscellaneous 31
Miscellaneous 60
Total 682 Total 1764
Expd per 4433 24872.4tourist
Number of Foreign Tourists Visited India and Kerala andShare of Foreign Tourists Arrivals to
Kerala(1980 to 2000)
YearNo. of Foreigners
Share of Foreign Tourist
Earnings from Tourism in Kerala(1986 to 2002)
(Rs. in Crore)
Foreign Tourist Visits in Kerala(1997 to 2002)
Average (1999-2000)
Domestic Tourist Visits in Kerala(1997 to 2002)
2001
US gets the cream from BPO, India the crumbs TIMES NEWS NETWORK [ FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2003 01:02:18 AM ]
NEW DELHI: In sharp contrast to the impression that outsourcing and offshoring are America’s biggest pains, the US economy is emerging the biggest gainer. Over three-fourths of the value being created to the global economy by offshoring goes to the US, and a receiving country like India gets only 22%, according to the latest research by McKinsey. By offshoring $1 of US labour costs, $1.45 to $1.47 of value is created globally. While the US captures $1.12 to $1.14 of additional value created by every dollar of spend offshored, a receiving country like India gains only 33 cents, from offshoring $1 of US labour costs.“Offshoring brings substantial benefits to the global economy and the lion’s share will likely go to the US economy,” says the research by McKinsey Global Institute. “Offshoring creates wealth for US companies and consumers and therefore for the US as a whole,” it adds. Of the $1.12 to $1.14 value potential to the US from $1 of spend offshored to India, 58 cents comes from savings accrued to US investors and customers and 5 cents from import of US goods and services by providers in India.
Romania cheaper than India for outsourcing: report IANS [ FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2003 12:56:48 PM ]
LONDON: IT workers in Romania offer a cheaper alternative to outsourcing for British companies than those in India, according to a new market report.Romanian IT workers have fewer cultural differences than India, which makes Romania the first choice for outsourcing, the report says.A report by Pierre Audoin Consultants (PAC) says that Romania and other Eastern European countries are virtually ignored by British firms, but are predominantly the first outsourcing choice for the rest of Western Europe.
ISSUES FOR RESEARCH
• There is a need for extensive, ongoing comprehensive work on nature, scope and magnitude of innovation being carried out in the country. It is also necessary to conduct sectoral studies on innovation, to understand how much of the innovations are being done by domestic efforts and how much by/ with the assistance of foreign players.
• It is important to study how much of the value of innovation is being captured and dominated by the foreign players. How much of the investment in infrastructure and intellectual capital is being made by domestic and foreign players and how it is being apportioned.
A critical ongoing research agenda also has to be on the degree of dependence or independence in innovations,as the dependence is directly related to the issue of sovereignty of the country.
The magnitude and task of the research work is so onerous, that traditional methods of research will be grossly inadequate, inefficient and may give partial or even misleading/ lopsided view of the situation. New, innovative appropriate research approaches have to be thought of for such large-scale coordinated research.
• The enormity of the research tasks associated with the above issues suggests that individual, sporadic and piecemeal research efforts are inadequate to meet the challenge. Time has come to attend to it through large scale, coordinated research by mobilizing and unifying the national efforts with active industry involvement at various stages of research.• Such coordinated studies with close industry association are important from two other angles. Firstly, these would pave way for relevant, meaningful, rich and sound research outputs in a cost effective manner. Secondly, the association in the process of research will facilitate necessary perspective building among the academicians and managers and common masses which would eventually be reflected in the way they will fine tune their approaches and strategies to meet the emerging challenges
Problems in Conducting Research
Problems in Research
Problems in Disseminating Research Findings
1. Identification of Topics2. Design of Research
3. Data Collection
4. Money
5. Time
6. Dissemination
Researcher gets disheartened And gives up
1. Publication in Journals
2. Presentation in Conferences
3. Teaching in Class/ Training
1. Traditional Methods
2. New Requirements
Dissemination to Common Masses
EffectiveEfficientFlexibility
Web- based
Research
Cooperation with Corporate Sector
Cooperationwith the Fourth Estate
•Reach•Archives
•Infrastructure•Ability to probe
New Approaches
Required
Measuring Competitiveness Enhancing Competitiveness
Determinants of Competitiveness
Wider Ramifications of Loss/ Gain of Competitiveness
Social Political Economic Cultural Technological
Roles of Various Estates
Developing Measurements of CompetitivenessMeasuring Competitiveness * Firms * Industry * Country
Strategies for Enhancing Competitiveness New Product Developments Organisation Innovations Strategic Alliances/ JVs Internationalisation of Business Acquisitions/ Mergers & Divestitures Managing Change & TransformationRoadblocks to Competitiveness
Socio-cultural-political impact on CompetitivenessImpact of Trade Agreements/ Regional Trade BlocksEconomic Reforms & CompetitivenessStrategic Disadvantages of Developing CountriesImpact of Multinational organisations on competitiveness
Legislature
Executive
Judiciary
Press/ Media
www.gcfindia.org
THANK YOU
Allowing/ Protecting
Allowing/ Protecting
Allowing/Protecting
Academic
Executive Judiciary
Legislature Press
Allowing/Protecting Allo
wing/
Protec
ting
INDUSTRY
Firm
Demading/protecting
Demanding/
ProtectingDemanding/Protecting
Demanding/
Protecting
Demanding/Protecting
External determinants of competitiveness
Bringing awareness among common masses about various developments
Giving a holistic/ coherent picture
Giving longitudinal patterns of developments
Highlighting/ analysing wider ramifications
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE
Mobilising public opinion for national decisions in desirable directions/ to benefit larger masses, and protecting long term interest of the country
Publishing data backed analytical articles
Table 1
Indian Business Ventures Abroad
Upto ‘92 ‘93 ‘94 ‘95 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 Total
1991 Up to 1999
Indian JV Abroad 244 72 104 92 82 116 101 101 111 1023
Indian Wholly Owned 75 28 79 122 119 143 122 154 238 1080
Subsidiaries Abroad
Total Indian 319 100 183 214 201 259 223 255 349 2103
Business Ventures
Abroad
Table 2
Contribution to Export/ Import by Size of the Companies in 2001
Top 100 Top Top Top Top Total
101- 500 501-1000 1001-2000 2001-5141 Firms
Positive Net Export
# of Firms 22 143 188 412 775 1540
Amount (Rs. In Crs.) 13825 12397 7304 8054 3085
Negative Net Export
# of Firms 53 216 279 455 812 1815
Amount (Rs. In Crs.) -98433 -20255 -6170 -3355 -2524
No Export/Import
# of Firms 25 41 33 133 1554 1786
Total Net(Rs. crs.) -84608 -7858 1134 4698 561 5141
These resulted into
Easy CreationToo many playersIncreased variety
Difficult survivals
Investments Lost
Assets Locked as NPAs
A/M & Divestitures
Policies
Cost Reductions
Falling Interest Rates
VRSRetirement
Down Sizing
Suffering
Equilibrium policies
Decreasing Industry Demand
Led to Decrease In Deposits to Development Banks
Leads To More Deposits in Commercial Banks
High Liquidity Diverted towards Consumer Loans
MNCs
POLICIES
De ReservationDe RegulationFree Import Tariff barriersFDI
A/M & Divestitures
Internal Adjustments
No. of Mergers between 1997-2003 = 653
No. of Divestiture cases (more than 30% of Assets) = 736between 1997-2000
Major Upheavels in the form of Corporate Restructuring
-1784155383375422000-565415715100611985
-1324647544342981999-67141657598611984
-585541535356801998-69781646894901983
-1481548948341331997-72731597086971982
-1135943670323111996-78691631484451981
-904935904268551995-42591207678171980
-405626739226831994-2695951268171979
-544724316188691993-697705163541978
-279821064182661992-347609757501877
-943827915184771991-1367619748301976
-745624411169551990-1614562040061975
-936123618142571989-649364629971974
-716819812126441988-217279625791973
-731617729104131987-637275921221972
-78331729494611986-545243518901971
NetImportExportYearNetImportExportYear
In U.S.$ million
India's Export/ Import Over the Years
Total Total Grand1991 92-01 Total
Total Total Total Total Total TotalCentral Govt. PSUs A 47 A 7 A 77 A 21 A 73 A 25 197 53 250State Govt. PSUs B 10 B 12 B 19 B 43 B 10 B 17 39 72 111State & Pvt. Sector (Joint Sector)C 3 C 5 C 4 C 7 C 2 C 3 9 15 24Private (Foreign) D 26 D 54 D 9 D 34 D 106 D 103 141 191 332Takenover PSU G 14 G 1 G 14 G 0 G 2 G 0 30 1 31PSU Banks H 2 H 3 H 1 H 2 H 8 H 16 11 21 32Cooperative Sector J 0 J 0 J 7 J 45 J 2 J 2 9 47 56Private Sector (Individual)P 227 P 787 P 171 P 1326 P 238 P 1310 636 3423 4059Private Sector (Business Groups)P Gr. 688 P Gr. 1306 P Gr. 464 P Gr. 1880 P Gr. 999 P Gr. 2111 2151 5297 7448
Grand Total688 Grand Total1306 Grand Total464 Grand Total1880 Grand Total999 Grand Total2111 2151 5297 7448
profit91 profit92-2001loss91 loss92-2001 notreport91 notreport92-2001
Poor Performance is Not Prerogative of Any Particular Sector
Loss NR Profit Loss NR Profit Loss NR ProfitCentral Govt. PSUs A 24% 39% 37% 13% 40% 47% 22% 39% 39%State Govt. PSUs B 26% 49% 26% 17% 60% 24% 20% 56% 24%State & Pvt. Sector (Joint Sector)C 33% 44% 22% 33% 47% 20% 33% 46% 21%Private (Foreign) D 18% 6% 75% 28% 18% 54% 24% 13% 63%Takenover PSU G 47% 47% 7% 100% 0% 0% 48% 45% 6%PSU Banks H 18% 9% 73% 14% 10% 76% 16% 9% 75%Cooperative Sector J 0% 78% 22% 0% 96% 4% 0% 93% 7%Private Sector (Individual)P 36% 27% 37% 23% 39% 38% 25% 37% 38%Private Sector (Business Groups)P Gr. 33% 15% 52% 30% 27% 43% 31% 22% 47%
1991 Leaders 1992-2000 Leaders 1991-2000 Leaders
Poor Performance is Not Prerogative of Any Sector
Table 24
Gross Assets Created by Cos. Created Before 1992 and During 1992-2000
( In Different Performance Categories)
Cos. Making Profit Cos. Making Loss Cos. Not Reporting
GFA GFA GFA GFA . GFA GFA
Year Cumulati
ve Cumulati
ve Cumulati
ve
No. of Cos.
(Rs. in Crores)
(Rs. in Crores)
No. of Cos.
(Rs. in Crores)
(Rs. in Crores)
No. of Cos.
(Rs. in Crores)
(Rs. in Crores)
1991 1000 533505 688 172923 465 73290
1992 168 21344 120 12391 115 16814
1993 250 50289 71633 181 10282 22673 227 8851 25665
1994 350 15943 87576 270 18692 41366 342 8850 34516
1995 382 14594 102170 275 11434 52800 471 8929 43445
1996 229 8762 110933 124 2934 55734 231 8664 52109
1997 155 6405 117338 92 2970 58704 184 4194 56303
1998 112 3597 120936 62 8455 67160 154 2468 58771
1999 247 10964 131900 95 6053 73213 146 2812 61583
2000 219 4163 136063 86 2418 75631 11 816 62399
2001 25 5794 141857 13 420 76051
Total 2112 141857 1305 76051 1881 62399
Grand Total 3112 675362 1993 248973 2346 135689
Firewall Firewall
Free Ride without any obligationRules Enforcing MNCsWithin Reach by All-
Investors Right
Country Competitiveness and Trade Barriers
Technology(Desing/ Mfg)MoneyAttracting Key PlayersHelping to WeakenAcquire all strengthsNational CharacterCreation of Myths
AT PAR LEVEL PLAYING FIELD
Economically Less Advanced Countries
• The socio-political-cultural context of the country varies from one state or region to another. The intricate relationship between the three twined with the economic factor is very complex and has been paid little attention in research on competitiveness.
INTERNAL FACTORS
The government of India initiated economic reforms as an aftermath of a serious foreign exchange crisis in 1991, which were further accelerated when the World Trade Organization came in existence in 1995 with India as a founder member.
The three major planks (LPG) of the economic reforms have been:
(a) Internal and External Liberalization (b) Privatization and (c) Globalization.
It was assumed/ expected, inter-alia, that these reforms will increase the global competitiveness of Indian industry, improve the economic prosperity of masses and avert possibility of any foreign exchange crisis in the future.