6.1 This chapter analyses the impact of the
global crisis on the real sector of the economy
through trade and capital flow channels. The
widespread nature of the crisis was evident from
the decline in growth rates of real GDP across the
spectrum of developed, developing and emerging
market economies. As many as 130 countries
witnessed a decline of GDP growth in 2008 over
2007 and as many as 166 countries in 2009 over
2008 (World Economic Outlook, IMF, April 2010).
The significance of the trade channel during the
recent crisis was evident in world trade growth
decelerating from 7.3 per cent in 2007 to 2.8 per
cent in 2008 and eventually to a negative of 10.7
per cent in 2009.
6.2 Like other EMEs, the early impact of the
sub-prime crisis on the real sector of the Indian
economy was rather muted as the crisis initially
was restricted to turmoil in international financial
markets. Following the failure of Lehman Brothers
in September 2008, there was a sudden change
in the external environment which impacted India
adversely through the trade, finance and
confidence channels, in line with other EMEs. With
the crisis in the advanced economies turning more
synchronised globally, the impact became severe
in terms of shrinking trade and capital flow
reversals during the second half of 2008-09. During
this phase, the global financial shocks intensified
and graduated into unprecedented worldwide
economic slowdown and impacted trade, followed
by real sector activities. Against the above
backdrop, an assessment of the transmission of
the global crisis through the trade and capital flows
channels to the real sector as also the ultimate
impact on saving, investment and growth has been
undertaken in this chapter.
6.3 This chapter is organised as follows. A
perspective is given on various channels of
transmission of global shock to the real sector in Section I. In Section II, the analysis of the impact
emanating from the trade channel is given in detail,
while an analysis of the spillovers traversing through
the financial channel is given in Section III. The
impact of the decline in trade and capital flows
reversal on saving, investment and growth is
covered in Section IV. Section V contains the
concluding observations.
I. TRANSMISSION OF GLOBAL SHOCK TO
THE REAL SECTOR
Shift in Composition of Aggregate Demand in
India
6.4 Until the global crisis, the Indian economy
exhibited remarkable resilience to various adverse
external developments, despite the increasing
openness of the economy since the 1990s. There
were several reasons for this resilience. First,
domestic demand played a dominant role in the
growth process (Table 6.1). Second, domestic
demand was led by private consumption during the
first four decades of the independence. Third, a
large part of investment demand was supported by
domestic savings. Fourth, the services sector, led by domestic demand, contributed to the stability of
overall economic growth. Fifth, in the financial
sector, the banking sector accounted for a major
share of the financial intermediation process which
did not have significant exposure to international
financial markets.
Table 6.1: Shift in the Composition of
Aggregate Demand in India |
(Percentage to GDP at 1999-2000 prices) |
|
Private
Consumption |
Government
Consumption |
Investment |
Exports |
Imports |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
1950s |
89.0 |
5.6 |
12.5 |
6.1 |
7.5 |
1960s |
82.9 |
7.8 |
16.9 |
4.0 |
5.7 |
1970s |
77.6 |
9.8 |
19.4 |
5.7 |
5.0 |
1980s |
75.9 |
11.6 |
20.2 |
6.5 |
7.1 |
1990s |
67.6 |
11.7 |
23.3 |
9.3 |
10.3 |
2000s |
60.7 |
11.0 |
29.9 |
17.6 |
19.2 |
2007-08 |
58.5 |
10.3 |
38.2 |
21.6 |
26.2 |
2008-09 |
59.5 |
11.5 |
34.9 |
24.5 |
30.7 |
2009-10 (RE) |
58.0 |
11.6 |
34.7 |
19.3 |
23.8 |
Source: Central Statistical Organisation, Government of India. |
6.5 Unlike the episode of the late 1990s, the
recent global crisis led to a change in perspective
on the Indian economy. Global developments
became important for the economy due to the
significant increase in trade and finance openness
(Subbarao, 2009; Reddy, 2007 and 2008). The
share of exports and imports in the aggregate
demand in India has risen sharply during the current
decade compared to the 1980s and 1990s; on the
other hand, the share of private consumption has
fallen during the same period (Table 6.1). As a
result of the compositional shift in aggregate
demand, the Indian economy has become more
vulnerable to external shocks compared to the
earlier period. This is clearly visible in the decline
in the growth rate of the Indian economy as the
recent global crisis gathered momentum with
widespread impact across sectors. The growth rate
of the Indian economy moderated sharply to 6.7
per cent in 2008-09, declining by 3.0 percentage
points from the peak in 2006-07. At the same time,
there was also significant moderation in the growth
rates of private consumption and investment
activities.
Tenability of Decoupling Hypothesis
6.6 Decoupling of an economy entails
significant decline in its business cycle
synchronisation with that of other countries,
meaning that its business cycle moves independent
of the business cycle of another economy/group.
During the recent global crisis, policymakers and
researchers across the globe were debating in theinitial phase whether emerging markets economies
including India have decoupled from advanced
economies. However, as the global financial crisis
accentuated and graduated into a full-scale
economic slowdown encompassing almost all
countries including EMEs, this debate seems to
have settled against the decoupling of emerging
market economies.
6.7 It has been argued that the decoupling
hypothesis runs against the idea that globalisation
enhances trade linkages and international financial
integration, allowing for a stronger transmission of
country-specific shocks across countries and
hence, stronger business cycle co-movements
(Walti, 2009). Kose, Otrok and Prasad (2008) also
mention that greater openness to trade and
financial flows should make economies more
sensitive to external shocks and increase comovements
in response to global shocks by
widening the channels for these shocks to spill over
across countries1. In contrast, the proponents of
the decoupling hypothesis hold that emerging
market economies have become increasingly less
vulnerable to developments in advanced
economies on account of strengthening domestic
policy frameworks and achieving stronger domestic
demand growth, leading to lower business cycle
co-movements with advanced economies.
6.8 Walti (2009) investigated empirically the
degree of business cycle synchronisation between
emerging market economies and four aggregate
groups – all advanced economies, the G7, the
United States and the European Union – with
annual data from 1980 to 2007. It was concluded
that decoupling is largely a myth as business cycle
synchronisation has generally not declined over
time and certainly not during recent years and, thus,
emerging markets have not decoupled from
advance economies2. Similarly, Rose (2009) investigated the degree of cross-country
synchronisation of business cycles in 64 countries
taking annual data from 1974 through 2007 and
found that countries across the world seem to be
moving more closely over time and not less. It was
also argued that the evidence presented as
indicative of a divergence in economic
performance, referred to as decoupling, is not
definitive (Kohn, 2008).
6.9 The increased global integration has
rendered the Indian economy’s growth movements
more correlated with growth movements in the world
economy particularly during 2001-2008 compared
to the 1980s and 1990s (Table 6.2). It is noteworthy
that a large part of increased association between
growth in India and world has emanated from
emerging and developing economies as reflected
by the substantial increase in the correlation
compared with advanced economies.
6.10 The increased synchronisation of the Indian
economy with the rest of the world was also
discernible during the recent global economic
slowdown wherein India’s growth also decelerated
following the global trend despite having
unimpaired banking and financial systems unlike
some advanced and emerging market economies
(Chart VI.1). This intuitively reveals that, in the
current context, the decoupling hypothesis may not be tenable in the case of India and other emerging
market economies.
Table 6.2: Correlation between Growth of India
and the World Economy |
Period |
World
Economy |
Advanced
Economies |
Emerging &
Developing
Economies |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
1980s |
0.43 |
0.52 |
-0.02 |
|
(1.4) |
(1.7) |
(-0.1) |
1990s |
0.59 |
0.60 |
0.51 |
|
(2.1) |
(2.1) |
(1.7) |
2001-2008 |
0.92 |
0.71 |
0.96 |
|
(5.8) |
(2.5) |
(8.4) |
Note: Figures in parentheses indicates t-statistics.
Source: World Economic Outlook, IMF. |
 |
6.11 The decoupling hypothesis in the case of
India has been investigated by estimating
synchronisation of its growth in GDP and trade with
other countries. It has been found that India was
not decoupled from the unfolding financial crisis and
recession/ slowdown in the USA and other
advanced economies as is evident from its very
high degree of business cycle synchronisation in
income growth with the world economy, advanced
economies and emerging & developing economies
during recent periods, ranging from the first quarter
of 2005 to the second quarter of 2009 (Chart VI.2).
The findings of Walti (2009) also reveal that India
has not decoupled with respect to any of the four
aggregate groups of advanced economies, viz., all
advanced economies, the G-7, the United States
and the European Union3 .
6.12 Further, the decoupling of the Indian
economy from advanced economies and emerging
market economies has been explored estimating
the evolving bilateral business cycle synchronisation over the periods with quarterly
GDP and consumption data from the second
quarter of 1996 to the first quarter of 2009. It is
found that business cycle synchronisation (in terms
of GDP) of the Indian economy with most of the
advanced and emerging market economies has
increased over time, in particular during recent
periods (2006Q1-2009Q2) (Table 6.3).
 |
Table 6.3 : India’s Business Cycle Synchronisation
(GDP Growth) with Advanced and Emerging
Market Economies (EMEs) |
Country |
1996Q2-
2009Q2 |
1996Q2-
2000Q4 |
2001Q1-
2005Q4 |
2006Q1-
2009Q2 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Argentina |
0.6 |
0.4 |
0.4 |
0.8 |
Canada |
0.4 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.8 |
France |
0.4 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.9 |
Germany |
0.5 |
-0.1 |
0.2 |
0.7 |
Indonesia |
-0.2 |
-0.6 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
Italy |
0.3 |
-0.5 |
0.2 |
0.9 |
Japan |
0.3 |
-0.5 |
0.0 |
0.8 |
Korea |
0.0 |
-0.4 |
-0.4 |
0.6 |
Malaysia |
0.0 |
-0.4 |
-0.4 |
0.7 |
Russia |
0.0 |
-0.4 |
0.2 |
0.8 |
United Kingdom |
0.6 |
0.2 |
0.3 |
0.9 |
USA |
0.4 |
0.4 |
0.2 |
0.3 |
Table 6.4: India’s Business Cycle Synchronisation
(Household Consumption) with Advanced and
Emerging Market Economies (EMEs) |
Country |
1996Q2-
2009Q2 |
1996Q2-
2000Q4 |
2001Q1-
2005Q4 |
2006Q1-
2009Q2 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Argentina |
0.0 |
-1.0 |
0.4 |
-0.8 |
Canada |
-0.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
France |
-0.6 |
0.7 |
-0.3 |
-0.8 |
Germany |
-0.2 |
0.4 |
-0.2 |
-0.4 |
Indonesia |
-0.3 |
0.3 |
-0.4 |
-0.4 |
Italy |
0.1 |
-0.2 |
0.3 |
0.4 |
Japan |
0.0 |
-0.3 |
0.0 |
-0.7 |
Korea |
-0.1 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.6 |
Malaysia |
-0.3 |
0.0 |
-0.1 |
-0.5 |
Russia |
-0.4 |
0.5 |
0.3 |
-0.8 |
United Kingdom |
-0.2 |
-0.1 |
-0.2 |
0.1 |
USA |
-0.1 |
-0.3 |
0.2 |
0.5 |
6.13 On the contrary, the movement in business
cycle synchronisation of India in terms of
consumption with advanced and emerging
economies remained mixed as it has increased over
time with some countries, particularly the advanced
economies, while declined with others (Table 6.4).
6.14 The degree of co-movements of business
cycles of different sectors of an economy with other
countries may vary primarily depending on their
extent of external openness and exposure through
various indirect channels. India’s industrial sector
has been increasingly exposed to the world
economy with rising merchandise trade and capital
from international financial markets. Therefore, an
attempt has been made to analyse the comovement
of industrial cycles with advanced
economies in the wake of contagion emanating
from the recent global financial crisis and
consequent economic slowdown. The results show
that industrial cyclical synchronisation of India with
advanced countries, which had fallen sharply from
1995-2000 to 2001-2005 except for Germany,
improved substantially in recent periods (2006-
2009)4. During recent periods, India’s industrial
cycle synchronisation was the highest with Germany, followed by Italy and the US. Another
noteworthy feature is the significant increase in
industrial synchronisation in recent periods (2006-
2009) with major advanced countries (Chart VI.3).
Thus, the strengthening of synchronisation with
advanced countries made it difficult for India’s
industrial sector to remain unaffected from the
spillover effects of the global financial crisis and
economic slowdown.
Financial Crisis and Potential Output
6.15 Besides directly affecting potential output
through dampening demand and drying up of
funding, a financial crisis can also have an impact
through indirect effects as crises usually trigger policy
responses to counter the damaging effects
emanating from the economic downturn (Reinhart
and Rogoff, 2009). Such policy responses target the
increase in investment in infrastructure in order to
boost potential output; at the same time, they may
introduce distortions or encourage excessive risktaking.
Temporary fiscal measures can lead to
permanent increases in the size of government
expenditure and in debt levels, which in turn will have
negative effects on growth (Afonso and Furceri,
2008). Eventually, the nature and design of policy
responses would decide the outcome of the potential
output during crisis periods and subsequently. Hoj
et al. (2006) mention that financial crises can also
foster the implementation of structural reforms that
can, in turn, enhance potential output by moderating
political opposition to reforms.
6.16 Using the potential output based on the
Hodrick-Prescott method, it is observed that the
global shocks seem to have marginally impacted
India’s trend output growth from the pre-crisis
trajectory. It should, however, be emphasised that
some of the slowdown in the potential output
growth in India was on account of the cyclical
slowdown which had already set in before the
global crisis started affecting the economy. While
in the short run the output path may be impacted
by the drop in productivity growth, over the longer
horizon, the capital-to-labour ratio and
employment growth would determine the loss in
potential output. Thus, if an economy witnesses a
decline in output relative to its previous trend over
the medium term, it could be a decline in potential
output but may also represent a persistent decline
in aggregate demand.
6.17 It is argued that long-run employment loss
may be attributed to the response of labour, capital
and factor productivity to the financial crisis (IMF,
2009). If the shocks are significant enough to cause
structural unemployment, given the institutional
rigidities in the labour markets it may take longer
to reach the pre-crisis level of employment, which
may drag down productivity in the economy over
the medium-term. Second, the crisis may slow
down credit expansion and, hence, investment rate
through various conduits, such as tighter credit
standards, higher borrowing costs, and an adverse
impact of asset prices on corporates’ balance
sheets through reduction in collaterals. Third, productivity levels may fall due to loss of speed of
innovations and reduction in research and
development as companies attempt to restructure
due to the impact of the crisis. Although it is difficult to quantify the above factors, the impact of the
external shocks on investment rate in India may
not be as adverse as in the advanced economies
(Box VI.1).
 |
Box VI.1
Loss of Potential Growth in India vis-à-vis Emerging Market Economies (EMEs)
Potential output is generally the optimal level of output that
can be achieved within natural and institutional constraints
without putting pressure on inflation. Potential output has
also been called the “natural gross domestic product” and,
if the economy is at its potential, the unemployment rate
equals the NAIRU or the natural rate of unemployment.
The financial crisis often tends to affect the output of an
economy through lowering financial intermediation,
consumption and investments, and adversely affecting
business sentiments; the extent of damage, however,
depends on the severity and duration of the crisis. A recent
empirical study on OECD countries over the period 1960
to 2007 by Furceri and Mourougane (2009) concludes that
financial crises are estimated to lower potential output by
around 1.5 to 2.4 per cent on an average. Similarly, Cerra
and Saxena (2008) studied the output behaviour in 190
countries and found large and persistent actual output
losses associated with financial crises, with output falling
by 7.5 per cent relative to trend over a period of 10 years
in the event of a banking crisis. If output loss is temporary,
prompt and corrective policy initiatives are able to repair
the damage and bring the output to the previous trajectory
over a shorter span. On the other hand, in case output
loss tends to be permanent, i.e., potential output has a
structural break and has shifted to a lower trajectory,
policymakers have to strive very hard and it might take
longer than expected to shift back to the previous trajectory.
During the recent global crisis, the level of financial
intermediation decelerated significantly in India, both in
terms of bank credit and dent in equity markets. Second,
the unemployment rate also went up, especially in exportoriented
sectors, although official estimates are not
available. Third, merchandise exports contracted at a rapid pace, possibly rendering a significant part of their capital
stock and labour force idle if export-oriented enterprising
units failed to shift their focus on domestic markets. Hence,
in light of the above, it would be worthwhile to estimate
the loss of output growth, temporary or permanent
(potential), in the case of India vis-à-vis other emerging
market economies.
Although, there are various methodologies to estimate
potential output, obtaining a reliable measure is fraught
with difficulty and, hence, the issue of appropriateness
remains unsettled. Nonetheless, the Hodrick-Prescott (HP)
filter has been used for deriving a long term “trend” growth
using annual as well as quarterly data to assess the loss
of output growth during the current crisis. The shift in
potential output growth, if any, should be construed
preliminary and any inferences from the same need to be
made with caveats.
The quarterly estimates of the potential growth based on
the HP filter methodology shows that loss in growth, which
started from the second quarter of 2008, albeit marginal,
followed through the subsequent quarters with around 2.0
percentage points in Q4 of 2008 and Q1 of 2009 and 1.4
percentage points during Q2 of 2009. The trends in
potential growth suggest that actual growth in industry has
almost caught up with the potential level in Q2 of 2009,
indicating a temporary loss of growth. In contrast, loss of
growth in the services sector continued to widen.
Nevertheless, as mentioned above, these results are
preliminary and, therefore, should be used with great
caution. Since services contribute about 60 per cent to
the GDP, the potential growth in GDP seems to be
following the trend in the services sector (Chart 1).
 |
The potential growth in India as well as in some of the
emerging market economies (EMEs) was also estimated
using the HP filter with annual data from 1980 to 2008.
Most of the EMEs including India have experienced loss
in actual growth when compared with potential growth
during 2008, whereas these countries witnessed gains in
actual growth in recent years (Table 1). Russia had the
highest growth loss followed by China, Argentina, India,
Philippines, and Malaysia during 2008.
Table 1: Growth Gap in India vis-à-vis EMEs |
(Actual minus Potential) |
Country |
2001-2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
Argentina |
-1.2 |
2.0 |
1.1 |
-1.6 |
Brazil |
-0.4 |
-0.2 |
1.1 |
0.1 |
China |
-0.2 |
1.2 |
2.3 |
-1.9 |
India |
-0.5 |
1.7 |
0.8 |
-1.5 |
Indonesia |
0.7 |
0.2 |
0.5 |
-0.2 |
Malaysia |
-0.4 |
0.5 |
1.0 |
-0.8 |
Philippines |
-0.3 |
-0.1 |
1.5 |
-1.3 |
Russia |
-0.1 |
-0.1 |
0.0 |
-2.8 |
References:
1. Cerra, V. and S.C. Saxena. 2008. “Growth Dynamics: The Myth of Economic Recovery”. American Economic Review,
98: 439-457.
2. Furceri, D. and Annabelle Mourougane. 2009. “The Effect of Financial Crises on Potential Output: New Empirical
Evidence from OECD Countries”. OECD Economic Department Working Paper 699.
6.18 The shift in the composition of aggregate
demand towards exports during the current decade
has made the Indian economy more susceptible to
global developments. Again, India’s bilateral
synchronisation along with business cycle
synchronisation with three groups, viz., world
economy, advanced, and emerging & developing
countries, conclusively reflects the strengthening
of the co-movement of India’s business cycle with
the rest of the world and, hence, the decoupling
hypothesis is not found to be tenable during the
recent global financial crisis. Further, during this
crisis, several economies including India suffered
loss of potential growth. In the next section, the
impact of trade channels on the Indian economy is
discussed.
II. IMPACT ON INDIA THROUGH TRADE CHANNEL
Impact through Exports
World Income and Exports
6.19 The outlook for international trade was
strongly affected during the crisis and world trade
performance weakened considerably from the
last quarter of 2008. The rising trend witnessed
in the growth of world trade was reversed during
the crisis and it fell sharply and traversed to the
negative zone from the fourth quarter of 2008.
Advanced economies led this sharp deterioration in the initial period; however, the emerging and
developing economies also caught the
downswing (Table 6.5).
6.20 The contracting external demand from
advanced economies on account of falling
disposable income and heightened uncertainty
spilled over to emerging markets and developing
countries, concomitantly manifested in the
declining international trade of these countries.
India’s merchandise trade was also impacted by
the falling consumption, particularly in advanced
countries, and the slump in trade credit following
tightening of international credit market
conditions in the aftermath of the collapse of
Lehman Brothers in mid-September 2008. The
cyclical co-movements between growth in India’s
exports and external demand (GDP in world and
advanced economies) were highly synchronised
during the current global crisis (Chart VI.4). This
shows that during normal times, other factors
besides world income also play a pivotal role in
driving the growth in exports, while the impact
stemming from world GDP becomes overriding
during a crisis.
6.21 In view of India’s exports being highly
elastic to world income, the effect of the
contracting world income was reflected in the
overall decline in merchandise exports from the third quarter of 2008-09. As per the export demand
function estimated by Agarwala (1970), the income
and price elasticity coefficients were 0.35 and -0.44,
respectively. Another study by RBI (2003) found
that short-term and long-term elasticity of demand
for India’s exports with respect to world GDP growth
was at 0.8 and 1.5, respectively. Further, with the
latest data, the long-term elasticity of India’s exports
demand was estimated at 3.7 with respect to world
GDP (RBI, 2009). This confirms that with high
global growth, the pull factor operating on India’s
exports could be sizeable. The high income
elasticity of exports with respect to world income is
reflected across various commodities, with their
elasticity improving significantly during the reform period (1993-2008) compared with the 1980s
(Table 6.6).
Table 6.5: World Trade Performance |
(Annualised growth in per cent) |
|
Q1 2007 |
Q2 2007 |
Q3 2007 |
Q4 2007 |
Q1 2008 |
Q2 2008 |
Q3 2008 |
Q4 2008 |
Q1 2009 |
Q2 2009 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
Exports |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
World |
13.9 |
11.6 |
14.2 |
18.8 |
24.8 |
27.2 |
23.1 |
-6.3 |
-29.3 |
-30.8 |
Advanced Economies |
13.4 |
10.9 |
13.4 |
16.0 |
19.7 |
22.6 |
16.6 |
-11.8 |
-30.2 |
-31.5 |
Emer. & Develop Eco. |
15.1 |
12.9 |
15.6 |
24.0 |
34.7 |
35.9 |
34.8 |
3.5 |
-28.6 |
-30.0 |
Euro Area |
16.5 |
12.3 |
13.6 |
16.4 |
18.3 |
24.1 |
15.3 |
-16.5 |
-31.1 |
-34.5 |
USA |
10.8 |
10.7 |
12.2 |
14.2 |
17.1 |
19.0 |
17.1 |
-4.2 |
-22.4 |
-26.9 |
Imports |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
World |
14.0 |
13.1 |
14.0 |
19.4 |
23.3 |
25.9 |
23.3 |
-7.3 |
-30.6 |
-33.1 |
Advanced Economies |
11.6 |
10.1 |
10.6 |
16.4 |
19.5 |
22.2 |
19.1 |
-11.1 |
-30.7 |
-34.6 |
Emer. & Develop. Eco. |
16.3 |
14.2 |
14.6 |
17.0 |
18.8 |
22.7 |
14.2 |
-16.0 |
-29.7 |
-34.2 |
Euro Area |
20.3 |
20.3 |
21.7 |
26.5 |
32.3 |
34.2 |
32.1 |
1.0 |
-30.5 |
-29.8 |
USA |
4.1 |
3.7 |
3.2 |
10.3 |
11.4 |
14.2 |
14.3 |
-9.2 |
-29.9 |
-34.7 |
Source: IFS, November 2009, IMF. |
Export and Economic Growth
6.22 As discussed in the previous section, despite
the dominant role of domestic demand in shaping
the growth path, the role of trade in conditioning
the growth process became increasingly important
over time, which was also evident from a significant
rise in the trade-GDP ratio in the recent period. The
direct impact of exports on economic growth could
be determined by trade openness and the
acceleration in the growth of exports, which in turn
could be determined by the elasticity of exports with
respect to world income (Box VI.2).
 |
Table 6.6: Elasticity Response of India’s Commodity Exports to World Income |
Commodity |
1980-81 to
2007-08 |
1993-94 to
2007-08 |
1980s |
Commodity |
1980-81 to
2007-08 |
1993-94 to
2007-08 |
1980s |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
1. |
Food |
2.7 |
2.0 |
0.8 |
19. |
Textile yarn |
0.8 |
1.7 |
7.2 |
2. |
Cereals |
3.9 |
2.6 |
3.1 |
20. |
Textile (non-cotton) |
3.7 |
1.7 |
1.4 |
3. |
Sugar |
0.7 |
6.7 |
-10.2 |
21. |
Textile materials |
4.2 |
1.0 |
0.0 |
4. |
Coffee |
1.1 |
0.3 |
1.1 |
22. |
Floor coverings |
1.8 |
0.7 |
2.7 |
5. |
Spices |
2.0 |
2.3 |
0.0 |
23. |
Non-metallic minerals |
3.4 |
2.9 |
3.7 |
6. |
Oilseed cake |
2.6 |
0.4 |
2.7 |
24. |
Iron & steel |
7.5 |
3.8 |
1.2 |
7. |
Beverages |
1.6 |
2.0 |
-2.9 |
25. |
Non-ferrous metals |
7.7 |
7.4 |
5.6 |
8. |
Crude material |
4.4 |
5.5 |
1.2 |
26. |
Metals |
4.7 |
4.0 |
0.4 |
9. |
Raw cotton |
2.5 |
8.4 |
-3.0 |
27. |
Machinery |
5.3 |
5.2 |
2.4 |
10. |
Textile fibres |
4.2 |
4.8 |
5.4 |
28. |
Non-electrical machinery |
5.2 |
5.6 |
2.0 |
11. |
Minerals (non-POL) |
3.7 |
3.6 |
3.2 |
29. |
Tele-equipment |
6.6 |
5.5 |
2.6 |
12. |
Iron ore |
1.4 |
2.8 |
1.6 |
30. |
Electrical machinery |
5.0 |
5.9 |
2.6 |
13. |
Ores |
4.4 |
6.0 |
3.1 |
31. |
Transport equipment |
5.5 |
5.8 |
1.6 |
14. |
Fuel |
2.2 |
7.5 |
1.5 |
32. |
Miscellaneous |
2.1 |
2.8 |
3.0 |
15. |
POL |
6.1 |
29.3 |
9.9 |
33. |
Apparel accessories |
2.8 |
1.3 |
4.0 |
16. |
Chemicals |
5.3 |
3.7 |
3.3 |
34. |
Footwear |
0.9 |
2.7 |
7.6 |
17. |
Manufactures |
3.3 |
3.1 |
1.4 |
35. |
Miscellaneous |
5.3 |
4.2 |
2.8 |
18. |
Leather |
0.8 |
0.6 |
2.8 |
36. |
General Index |
3.9 |
3.7 |
1.2 |
6.23 Within the framework of growth accounting,
the contribution of exports to economic growth was
negligible during the first two decades after independence. Though it showed some
improvement in the 1970s, this could not be
sustained during the 1980s. During the reform period, the contribution of exports to economic
growth increased during the 1990s and more than
doubled during the 2000s (Table 6.7).
Box VI.2
Exports and Domestic Growth Relationship: The Growth Accounting Approach
Table 6.7: Contribution of Consumption, Investment
and Exports to Economic Growth |
(Percentage Points) |
Period |
GDP |
Private
Consumption |
Government
Consumption |
Investment |
Exports |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
1950s |
3.9 |
3.2 |
0.2 |
0.8 |
0.0 |
1960s |
4.1 |
2.6 |
0.6 |
1.1 |
0.1 |
1970s |
2.9 |
2.1 |
0.5 |
0.9 |
0.5 |
1980s |
5.7 |
3.5 |
0.8 |
1.2 |
0.3 |
1990s |
5.6 |
3.2 |
0.7 |
1.7 |
1.0 |
2000s |
7.2 |
3.5 |
0.4 |
3.5 |
2.4 |
2003-08 |
9.0 |
4.0 |
0.5 |
5.1 |
2.7 |
2008-09 |
6.7 |
4.9 |
1.7 |
-1.5 |
4.2 |
2009-10 |
7.4 |
2.4 |
0.9 |
2.1 |
-3.9 |
Note : The difference between the growth rate of GDP at constant market
price and the sum of growth of its components, consumption, Government
exependiture, investment and exports is accounted for by imports
expansion (contraction).
Source: Central Statistical Organisation, Government of India. |
6.24 In order to further explore the relationship
between exports and growth, the Granger causal
analysis between GDP growth and exports growth
and trade deficit to GDP ratio was undertaken
based on annual data during 1950-2008. The
Granger Causality results5 provided two insights:
first, the direction of causal relation between
exports and GDP growth rates was from the former
to the latter but not vice versa and, second, the
direction of the causal relationship between the
trade deficit ratio and economic growth was from
the latter to the former, which is attributable to the
role of imports demand driven by domestic
economic activity. The compositional shift in the
exports baskets towards technology-intensive
commodities during the past few years, spurred by
the prominence of exports in the Indian economy,
is reflected in their increased contribution to growth.
Exports and Consumption
6.25 The direct contribution of exports to
aggregate demand assumed a critical mass and
has become a crucial conduit of the trade channel
of transmission. Several domestic and external
developments which followed the global crisis
contributed to the moderation of private
consumption growth (Table 6.8). Apart from the
direct impact of exports on aggregate demand and
growth, exports could indirectly affect growth
through consumption and investment. In India,
exports and private consumption demand seem to
have displayed a close relationship during the
recent period.
6.26 There could be a number of indirect
channels through which export demand could
affect consumption. First, the manufacturing
sector has become export-intensive over the
period. The share of manufactured exports in manufacturing GDP in India has risen from 27.1
per cent in 1990-91 to 52.2 per cent in 2000-01
and further to 72.3 per cent in 2008-09. This
significant export-orientation of manufacturing has
also exposed the sector to external demand
shocks. Furthermore, a large part of
manufacturing exports (42 per cent) is accounted
for by leather and manufactures, textile and textile
products, gems and jewellery and handicrafts,
which are employment-intensive, and a major part
of exports in these sectors is contributed by smallscale
industries (SSIs). Thus, an external demand
shock has a larger impact on output and
employment in such industries, which has a direct
bearing on domestic consumption demand.
Furthermore, there are a number of SSIs that are
dependent on the supply chain of the
manufacturing export firms, which are also
indirectly affected by the external demand shocks.
Table 6.8: Some Determinants of Private
Consumption in India |
(per cent) |
Indicators |
2005-06 |
2006-07 |
2007-08 |
2008-09 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
(i) Private Consumption |
9.0 |
8.2 |
9.8 |
6.8 |
(ii) Agriculture GDP |
5.2 |
3.7 |
4.7 |
1.6 |
(iii) Loans to Households |
52.1 |
-3.6 |
-2.1 |
-4.3 |
(iv) Personal Loans |
40.5 |
26.8 |
12.1 |
10.8 |
Housing |
38.3 |
24.7 |
11.6 |
7.4 |
Credit cards |
41.3 |
47.7 |
44.2 |
6.1 |
Consumer durables |
-20.9 |
29.3 |
-4.2 |
-7.0 |
(v) CPI Inflation (IW) |
4.4 |
6.7 |
6.2 |
9.1 |
(vi) CPI Inflation (AL) |
3.9 |
7.8 |
7.5 |
10.2 |
(vii) Stock Returns |
44.2 |
48.3 |
35.0 |
-25.4 |
(viii) Remittance Inflows ($) |
18.4 |
23.6 |
41.1 |
6.6 |
(ix) Travel Earnings ($) |
17.8 |
16.2 |
24.4 |
-4.0 |
(x) Global Commodity Prices |
|
|
|
|
All Commodities |
24.3 |
15.8 |
21.6 |
3.8 |
Food |
1.1 |
12.7 |
21.8 |
6.4 |
Dubai Oil prices |
46.6 |
14.0 |
27.0 |
6.2 |
Impact on Exports: Trend, Composition and
Direction
6.27 The trade channel of the contagion that
intensified in the post-September 2008 phase of the crisis adversely impacted India’s merchandise
trade, with exports declining with greater intensity
and more swiftly than during the recession of the
early 2000s, in tandem with the steeper recession
in the developed countries (Table 6.9).
6.28 An analysis of the shift in the composition
of India’s commodity exports reveals some
interesting facts. Before the reforms, India’s exports
were significantly driven by exports of primary
agricultural commodities and manufacturing
commodities such as textiles, gems and jewellery;
while the commodity composition at the global level
was shifting to technology-intensive manufacturing
commodities such as engineering goods and
chemicals. Thus, despite the growth momentum in
the 1980s, India’s share in world exports declined
to about 0.5 per cent.
6.29 The reforms and favourable trade policy
brought a shift in the composition of India’s
commodity exports. Technology-intensive exports
comprising engineering goods such as metals,
machinery and transport equipment and
chemicals, including pharmaceuticals emerged as
the leading export sectors for India, signifying the rising prominence of exports in India’s GDP growth
(Table 6.10). Besides a shift towards technologyintensive
exports, the exports of petroleum
products (which showed spectacular growth)
emerged as a major contributor to total exports,
reflecting the impact of India becoming the sixth
largest refinery in the world.
Table 6.9: India’s Trade Performance |
Period |
Export Growth (%) |
Import Growth (%) |
2007-08 |
2008-09 |
2009-10 |
2007-08 |
2008-09 |
2009-10 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
April |
31.3 |
63.0 |
-32.8 |
42.1 |
65.0 |
-37.2 |
May |
23.2 |
50.0 |
-36.2 |
40.0 |
39.2 |
-32.7 |
June |
16.1 |
58.5 |
-29.8 |
39.0 |
44.6 |
-21.8 |
July |
18.0 |
52.1 |
-25.5 |
41.0 |
49.7 |
-33.2 |
August |
17.4 |
40.5 |
-24.1 |
32.9 |
64.6 |
-35.9 |
September |
16.4 |
26.1 |
-8.4 |
5.0 |
70.9 |
-34.0 |
October |
47.8 |
-3.7 |
2.7 |
24.7 |
18.5 |
-2.7 |
November |
29.4 |
-13.5 |
29.6 |
34.9 |
6.3 |
2.7 |
December |
35.0 |
-8.6 |
19.9 |
28.3 |
-3.3 |
32.2 |
January |
35.8 |
-13.6 |
18.7 |
58.1 |
-20.2 |
34.8 |
February |
43.1 |
-21.0 |
31.8 |
43.6 |
-27.6 |
67.3 |
March |
34.1 |
-25.1 |
54.1 |
37.6 |
-29.6 |
67.1 |
First Half |
20.4 |
48.4 |
-26.1 |
33.3 |
55.7 |
-32.5 |
Second Half |
37.5 |
-14.3 |
26.1 |
37.9 |
-9.3 |
33.6 |
Annual (Apr-Mar) |
28.9 |
13.7 |
-4.7 |
35.4 |
20.8 |
-8.2 |
Source : Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S). |
Table 6.10: Composition of India’s Commodity Exports |
(share in per cent) |
|
1987-91 |
1992-96 |
1997-2003 |
2004-08 |
2007-08 |
2008-09 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
1. Primary Products |
24.1 |
21.8 |
19.1 |
16.0 |
16.9 |
13.7 |
(i) Agricultural & Allied Products |
18.5 |
17.6 |
16.1 |
10.6 |
11.3 |
9.5 |
(ii) Ores & Minerals |
2.1 |
2.0 |
1.8 |
3.5 |
5.6 |
4.2 |
2. Manufactured Goods |
71.0 |
75.3 |
76.7 |
69.9 |
63.2 |
66.5 |
(i) Leather & Manufactures |
7.6 |
6.3 |
4.4 |
2.7 |
2.2 |
1.9 |
(ii) Chemicals & Related Products |
8.3 |
10.7 |
12.9 |
14.1 |
13.0 |
12.3 |
(iii) Engineering Goods |
11.4 |
13.4 |
15.1 |
21.5 |
22.9 |
25.5 |
Manufactures of metals |
2.3 |
2.8 |
3.3 |
4.1 |
4.3 |
4.1 |
Machinery Instruments |
3.6 |
2.9 |
3.5 |
4.9 |
5.6 |
5.9 |
Transport equipment |
1.9 |
2.8 |
2.4 |
3.8 |
4.3 |
6.0 |
Iron & steel |
0.5 |
1.9 |
2.4 |
3.9 |
3.3 |
3.2 |
Electronic goods |
1.5 |
1.5 |
2.2 |
2.3 |
2.1 |
3.7 |
(iv) Textiles and Textile Products |
23.3 |
26.0 |
25.1 |
15.6 |
11.9 |
11.8 |
(v) Gems & Jewellery |
18.4 |
16.7 |
16.9 |
14.6 |
12.1 |
15.1 |
(vi) Handicrafts |
1.4 |
1.4 |
1.6 |
0.5 |
0.3 |
0.2 |
3. Petroleum Products |
3.0 |
1.9 |
2.4 |
11.5 |
17.4 |
14.5 |
4. Other |
1.9 |
1.0 |
1.8 |
2.6 |
2.5 |
5.4 |
Total Exports |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Source: Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S). |
6.30 During 2008-09, the deceleration was,
however, modest in the case of manufacturing
goods. As a result, share of non-oil exports as well
as manufacturing goods exports in total exports
increased by around 8 percentage points during
2008-09 over the past year. In sum, this implies
the cost competitiveness of the manufacturing
sector on account of enhanced efficiency and
productivity. At a more disaggregated level, the
major commodities that witnessed a decline in
exports during 2008-09 were handicrafts, petroleum
products, ores and minerals, and agricultural and
allied products. The global crisis, however, had a
more pronounce impact on India’s exports during
2009-10 (April-October). All sectors including engineering, chemicals, gems and jewellery and
petroleum exports witnessed a decline in export
growth (Table 6.11).
6.31 The regional direction of India’s exports has
also experienced significant changes between 2000
and 2008. First, India’s exports share in traditional
markets such as the EU and North America
witnessed a significant decline. Second, there was
a structural shift in favour of Latin America, ASEAN,
West Asia, North Africa and South Asia. In terms
of growth, India’s export to developing countries
accounted for the largest downturn to (-0.5) per cent
during 2008-09 from 33.6 per cent in 2007-08,
which was mainly driven by a sharp fall in exports
to China. The second largest deceleration in growth
of India’s exports was to OECD countries during
2008-09. The US led the deceleration in exports to
OECD countries during 2008-09; nevertheless, the
US continued to be the single largest contributor
to India’s exports (Table 6.12). The increasing
share of India’s trade with the above regions could
be attributed to factors such as the distance and size of the economies as described in the Gravity
Model of international trade. The Gravity Model of
international trade is increasingly used to derive measures of divergence in expected volumes of
trade between trading partners and their actual
trade (Box VI.3).
Table 6.11: Global Crisis and India’s Exports |
Commodities |
Amount (US$ billion) |
Growth (%) |
2006-07 |
2007-08 |
2008-09 |
2007-08 |
2008-09 |
April-October |
2009-10 |
2008-09 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
1. Primary Products |
19.7 |
27.6 |
25.3 |
40.0 |
-8.0 |
-22.7 |
28.5 |
(i) Agricultural & Allied Products |
12.7 |
18.4 |
17.5 |
45.3 |
-4.9 |
-25.5 |
36.8 |
(ii) Ores & Minerals |
7.0 |
9.1 |
7.8 |
30.2 |
-14.5 |
-16.1 |
12.0 |
2. Manufactured Goods |
84.9 |
103.0 |
122.8 |
21.3 |
19.6 |
-20.9 |
39.3 |
(i) Leather & Manufactures |
3.0 |
3.5 |
3.6 |
16.1 |
1.5 |
-18.2 |
13.6 |
(ii) Chemicals & Related Products |
17.3 |
21.2 |
22.6 |
22.3 |
7.1 |
-15.8 |
26.6 |
(iii) Engineering Goods |
29.6 |
37.4 |
47.3 |
26.4 |
26.5 |
-28.7 |
51.2 |
Manufactures of metals |
5.1 |
7.1 |
7.6 |
38.8 |
7.0 |
-33.7 |
25.3 |
Machinery & Instruments |
6.7 |
9.1 |
11.0 |
35.8 |
19.9 |
-20.0 |
37.1 |
Transport equipment |
4.9 |
7.0 |
11.1 |
41.9 |
58.8 |
-12.2 |
80.9 |
Iron & steel |
5.2 |
5.4 |
5.8 |
4.0 |
6.9 |
-60.4 |
46.6 |
Electronic goods |
2.9 |
3.4 |
6.8 |
17.8 |
102.5 |
-15.1 |
134.6 |
(iv) Textiles |
17.4 |
19.4 |
20.0 |
11.8 |
3.0 |
-10.5 |
10.3 |
(v) Gems & Jewellery |
16.0 |
19.7 |
27.7 |
23.2 |
42.1 |
-19.8 |
67.0 |
(vi) Handicrafts |
0.4 |
0.5 |
0.3 |
16.0 |
-40.8 |
-38.2 |
-48.3 |
3. Petroleum Products |
18.6 |
28.4 |
26.8 |
52.2 |
-5.4 |
-35.8 |
-48.3 |
4. Other |
3.2 |
4.0 |
7.7 |
26.4 |
148.9 |
-13.2 |
98.3 |
Total Exports |
126.4 |
162.9 |
182.6 |
28.9 |
13.7 |
-23.3 |
39.4 |
Source : Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S). |
Table 6.12: Geographical Diversification of India’s Exports |
(share in per cent) |
Region/Country |
1987-90 |
1990-95 |
1995-00 |
2000-05 |
2005-08 |
2007-08 |
2008-09 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
1. Advanced Economies |
57.7 |
58.1 |
56.4 |
48.4 |
40.8 |
39.5 |
37.4 |
(i) EU |
24.8 |
27.1 |
26.4 |
22.1 |
21.4 |
21.2 |
21.0 |
UK |
6.0 |
6.4 |
5.9 |
4.8 |
4.3 |
4.1 |
3.6 |
Germany |
6.4 |
7.2 |
5.5 |
3.9 |
3.3 |
3.1 |
3.5 |
Other EU |
12.4 |
13.5 |
14.9 |
13.3 |
13.8 |
13.9 |
14.2 |
(ii) US |
17.7 |
17.4 |
20.2 |
19.1 |
14.0 |
12.7 |
11.3 |
(iii) Other OECD |
15.1 |
13.5 |
9.9 |
7.3 |
5.5 |
5.6 |
4.7 |
2. OPEC |
6.2 |
8.8 |
10.1 |
13.3 |
17.3 |
16.6 |
21.2 |
(i) Saudi Arabia |
1.6 |
1.9 |
1.9 |
1.8 |
2.2 |
2.3 |
2.7 |
(ii) UAE |
2.2 |
4.2 |
5.0 |
6.9 |
10.1 |
9.6 |
13.1 |
(iii) Other OPEC |
2.4 |
2.7 |
3.2 |
4.6 |
5.0 |
4.7 |
5.4 |
3. Eastern Europe |
17.5 |
8.3 |
3.6 |
2.6 |
1.3 |
1.1 |
1.1 |
4. Developing Countries |
15.5 |
22.5 |
28.9 |
33.5 |
39.6 |
42.5 |
37.6 |
(i) Asia |
13.0 |
18.7 |
22.6 |
26.3 |
29.9 |
31.6 |
28.1 |
China |
0.3 |
0.7 |
1.5 |
3.8 |
6.2 |
6.6 |
5.1 |
Hong Kong |
3.4 |
4.4 |
5.9 |
5.2 |
3.9 |
3.9 |
3.6 |
Other Asian Countries |
9.4 |
13.6 |
15.2 |
17.3 |
19.8 |
21.1 |
19.4 |
(ii) Africa |
2.0 |
2.8 |
4.6 |
4.9 |
6.6 |
7.5 |
6.3 |
(iii) Latin America |
0.5 |
1.0 |
1.7 |
2.3 |
3.2 |
3.4 |
3.1 |
5. Others |
3.1 |
2.3 |
0.9 |
2.2 |
0.9 |
0.4 |
2.7 |
Total |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Source: Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S). |
Box VI.3
The Gravity Model of Foreign Trade
Borrowing from Newtonian physics, the model consists
of a single equation postulating that the amount of trade
between two countries depends positively on the joint
size of the two trading economies and is negatively
related to the distance between them. Over time, the
Gravity Model of trade has been extended to incorporate
a wide variety of other factors. This approach has the
benefits of capturing the overall impact of a country’s
policy and institutional environment, including a wide
variety of artificial impediments, and not just trade policy.
A country is found to “under-trade” if its actual trade
across trading partners is, on average, below the level
predicted by the Gravity Model without explicit policy
variables (IMF, 2002; Rose 2002). An analysis of developing countries’ trading patterns, as per the Gravity
Model, suggests the following: (i) balance of payments
and trade restrictiveness remain important reasons for
developing countries to trade less than industrial
countries; and (ii) international vertical specialisation,
which had played an important role in East Asia, is likely
to become more significant for other developing countries
with open trading regimes, abundant labour and flexible
economies. Full liberalisation of both trade and balance
of payments policies in all countries would increase trade
between industrial countries (North-North trade) by about
40 per cent, North-South trade by about 63 per cent, and
trade between developing countries (South-South trade)
by about 94 per cent (IMF, 2002).
6.32 An empirical analysis is undertaken to assess
how the broad direction of India’s exports to emerging
market economies relative to developed countries was
determined by the relative price competitiveness effect
and real demand conditions. The long-run elasticity
of the direction of India’s exports with respect to
relative price was statistically significant and positive
at 1.88, higher than the almost unitary elasticity
coefficient with respect to relative real demand
conditions6. However, a significant structural shift
since 1991-92 in the model led to a significant
moderation of the relative price effect and
improvement in the relative real demand effect. The
price elasticity coefficient was reduced to 0.49, while
the real demand effect improved to 1.44 (Table 6.13).
The contraction in India’s exports since October 2008
was mainly conditioned by real demand effects
emanating from the sharp fall in real activities in
advanced and emerging market economies during the
current global crisis.
Leading Exports by Commodities and Firms
6.33 Engineering goods exports have assumed
critical proporation in merchandise exports of India
during the post-reforms period (Box VI.4). The critical
role of engineering and chemicals goods exports was
evident during the global crisis. The exports of
engineering goods maintained their growth momentum in 2008-09, with a significant acceleration
in the growth of transport equipment. The exports of chemicals also remained resilient in 2008-09, albeit
with some moderation in growth. The expansion of
exports in these two sectors in 2008-09 accounted
for the overall expansion of India’s total exports in
2008-09. In 2009-10 (April-October), the decline in
engineering goods exports accounted for about a half
of the decline in manufactured exports and a third of
India’s total exports.
Table 6.13: Relative Price and Real Demand
Effects on India’s Broad Direction of Exports
(Long-run Co-integration Coefficients)
Box VI.4
India’s Exports of Engineering Goods
During the reform period, India’s merchandise exports
witnessed a notable shift in terms of commodity
composition, led by engineering goods. In an environment
of increasing openness of the economy and a supportive
policy framework since the early 1990s, exports of
engineering goods accelerated from US$ 1.2 billion (9.5
per cent of total merchandise exports) in 1987-88 to US$
47.3 billion in 2008-09 (25.5 per cent of total merchandise
exports).The rapid growth of engineering goods exports
at a trend growth rate of 27.7 per cent during 2001-02 to
2008-09 was attributable to the growing competitiveness
and increasing technological sophistication of India’s
manufacturing exports. In 2004-05, engineering goods
emerged as the largest item of manufacturing exports,
surpassing exports of textiles and gems and jewellery.
Within engineering goods, transport equipment emerged
as the key driver of exports growth, attributable to the
increasing global competitive advantage of India’s
automotive industry. According to the Automobile Components Manufacturing Association of India (ACMA),
the Indian auto component industry is characterised by
the largest three-wheeler market, the second largest twowheeler
market, the fourth largest tractor market and the
fifth largest commercial vehicle market in the world and
the fourth largest passenger vehicle market in Asia. Since
the mid-1990s, India’s automotive industry has witnessed
rapid transformation from a low-volume and fragmented
sector into a highly competitive sector characterised by
world-class technology, large and assured volumes and
strict delivery schedules in response to the demand from
global vehicle manufacturers. Several Indian companies
have entered into technological collaborations and equity
partnerships with world leaders in automotive components.
Some global vehicle manufacturers have set up
subsidiaries for components manufacturing facilities in
India, taking into account the lower labour cost and the
availability of a highly skilled workforce. Furthermore,
India’s automotive components industry is highly diversified
with a capacity to produce as many as 150 different
products. Notwithstanding the recent surge in engineering
exports, the technology intensity of India’s exports
compared with emerging economies in East Asia and Latin
America has the potential for substantial growth. In terms
of the global positioning of the automotive industry, the
share of India’s exports in the global automotive market
remains small (Table). During 2001-2007, India’s exports
of machinery and transport equipments posted a trend
growth rate of 33.0 per cent compared with the global trend
growth rate of the sector at 12.1 per cent. Thus, the share
of India’s exports of machinery and transport equipment
and automotive components at the global level increased
from 0.10 per cent in 2000 to 0.33 per cent by 2007.
According to the ACMA, the automotive components
industry has to accelerate measures towards improving
quality and its competitive position in the global market.
Table : Exports of Automotive Products of
Emerging Economies |
(US$ billion) |
Country |
Machinery |
Automobile |
World |
5,348 |
1,234 |
Brazil |
42 |
15 |
China |
674 |
29 |
India* |
25 |
5 |
Korea |
234 |
49 |
Mexico |
154 |
46 |
Russia |
17 |
4 |
South Africa |
16 |
8 |
Thailand |
74 |
16 |
Turkey |
39 |
18 |
Source: World Trade Organisation. |
6.34 The significance of the engineering goods,
chemicals and textiles industries within the
manufacturing sector is evident from their principal
economic characteristics. According to the Annual
Survey of Industries 2007-08, the engineering goods sector accounted for about a third of
aggregate investment, output, value added and
employment in the manufacturing sector.
Engineering goods, chemicals and textiles together
accounted for more than 50 per cent of investment,
output, value added and employment in the
manufacturing sector (Table 6.14). Therefore,
engineering goods assume a critical proportion in
the growth of the manufacturing sector in India and
the relative resilience displayed by the performance
of engineering good exports somewhat insulated
the Indian industry from the shocks stemming from
sagging external demand during the crisis.
Table 6.14 : Principal Characteristics of
Leading Export Industries |
(Per cent to total) |
Indicators |
Engineering |
Chemicals |
Textiles |
Total |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
(i) No. of Factories |
25.2 |
7.6 |
11.3 |
44.1 |
(ii) Fixed Capital |
34.4 |
14.7 |
10.4 |
59.5 |
(iii) Productive Capital |
34.9 |
15.1 |
9.6 |
59.6 |
(iv) Invested Capital |
35.2 |
13.6 |
9.8 |
58.5 |
(v) Workers |
26.8 |
7.5 |
21.6 |
55.8 |
(vi) Total Persons |
27.8 |
8.5 |
20.0 |
56.3 |
(vii) Engaged |
|
|
|
|
(viii) Wages to Workers |
38.2 |
9.2 |
17.4 |
64.9 |
(ix) Total Emoluments |
40.3 |
12.2 |
13.4 |
65.9 |
(x) Total Input |
34.5 |
10.3 |
7.3 |
52.0 |
(xi) Total Output |
35.3 |
10.9 |
7.2 |
53.4 |
(xii) Depreciation |
34.1 |
15.8 |
11.2 |
61.1 |
(xiii) Net value added |
39.5 |
12.8 |
6.3 |
58.6 |
(xiv) Rent paid |
35.0 |
10.7 |
10.6 |
56.3 |
(xv) Interest paid |
33.2 |
13.2 |
13.0 |
59.4 |
Source: Annual Survey of Industries 2007-08. |
6.35 In order to further ascertain the role of the
trade channel in India’s growth, firm-level exportorientation
information was examined. The firmlevel
export orientation also demonstrates the
growing importance of trade channels in the growth
of India’s manufacturing sector. An analysis of 1,500
companies from the CMIE database showed that
the number of companies with exports-to-sales
ratios of 20 per cent or above more than doubled
between 1993-94 and 2007-08 (Table 6.15). Their share in manufacturing exports also increased
substantially during this period. This trend in firmlevel
export orientation was the outcome of the
increasing internationalisation of Indian companies.
On the back of an increased export orientation, the
global shocks spilled over to firms in the
manufacturing sector through declining external
demand for their products from the third quarter of
2008-09.
Impact through Imports
6.36 Merchandise imports also caught the global
downswings in the second half of 2008-09,
offsetting some of the adverse impact of contracting
exports. The growth in India’s imports plunged
sharply during the third quarter of 2008-09, and
subsequently contracted from the last quarter of
2008-09 to 2009-10 (April-October). A massive
weakening of imports was witnessed in the case
of crude oil, capital goods, and gold and silver
(Table 6.16).
6.37 There have been a number of subtle
compositional shifts in imports within the broad
aggregation during the past decade that need
to be recognised. For instance, within petroleum
imports, there has been a shift from petroleum
products to crude oil, following the large-scale
increase in refinery capacity within the country.
Further, since 2001-02, India has transformed itself from a net importer of petroleum products
to a net exporter of the same. Another significant
development during the 1990s has been the channelising of gold imports through official
routes (Table 6.17). Since 1997 when banks were
allowed to import gold, the import of gold through passenger baggage has declined significantly.
Industries that have shown the least import
propensity since the 1990s and, thereby have
gradually been phased out of the import
commodity basket, were mainly in the mediumto
low-technology, labour-intensive sectors.
Similarly, industries with the highest growth rate
of imports in the past decade have been largely
those with a medium- to high-technology content
that produced intermediary products needed
for exports.
Table 6.15: Firm-level Export Orientation |
Classification |
1993-94 |
1998-99 |
2002-03 |
2003-04 |
2004-05 |
2005-06 |
2006-07 |
2007-08 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Exports-Sales Ratio (per cent) |
Distribution of the Number of Companies |
>=75 |
56 |
71 |
77 |
75 |
81 |
61 |
76 |
71 |
>=50 |
75 |
126 |
158 |
160 |
168 |
159 |
169 |
179 |
>=35 |
94 |
175 |
219 |
242 |
241 |
249 |
272 |
261 |
>=20 |
145 |
269 |
346 |
357 |
382 |
388 |
409 |
417 |
>=10 |
249 |
398 |
499 |
533 |
542 |
555 |
566 |
566 |
Exports-Sales Ratio (per cent) |
Percentage to Total Exports of Manufacturing Sector |
>=75 |
12.5 |
15.0 |
13.0 |
12.6 |
11.5 |
10.2 |
10.4 |
13.1 |
>=50 |
15.6 |
24.4 |
28.1 |
26.9 |
24.7 |
24.6 |
22.5 |
51.6 |
>=35 |
23.2 |
34.0 |
36.5 |
40.8 |
38.2 |
42.0 |
68.8 |
61.1 |
>=20 |
34.3 |
50.6 |
68.0 |
68.2 |
74.4 |
73.3 |
76.0 |
77.8 |
>=10 |
62.1 |
70.6 |
84.4 |
82.8 |
85.5 |
84.2 |
83.1 |
83.7 |
Source: Prowess data for 1,497 companies, CMIE. |
Table 6.16: Global Crisis and India’s Imports |
Commodity Group |
US$ billion |
Growth (%) |
2006-07 |
2007-08 |
2008-09 |
2007-08 |
2008-09 |
April-October |
2009-10 |
2008-09 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
1. Bulk Imports |
84.2 |
112.7 |
135.7 |
33.8 |
20.3 |
-35.6 |
70.6 |
(i) Petroleum and Petroleum Products |
56.9 |
79.6 |
91.3 |
39.9 |
14.6 |
-35.0 |
71.6 |
(ii) Bulk Consumption Goods |
4.3 |
4.6 |
4.9 |
7.1 |
6.2 |
68.0 |
3.8 |
Edible Oil |
2.1 |
2.6 |
3.4 |
21.4 |
34.4 |
54.9 |
12.6 |
(iii) Other Bulk Items |
23.0 |
28.5 |
39.5 |
23.9 |
38.6 |
-46.2 |
78.5 |
Fertilisers |
3.1 |
5.4 |
13.6 |
71.9 |
151.2 |
-60.4 |
245.0 |
Iron & Steel |
6.4 |
8.7 |
9.4 |
35.2 |
7.8 |
-26.8 |
19.4 |
2. Non-Bulk Imports |
101.5 |
138.7 |
155.8 |
36.6 |
12.3 |
-22.7 |
33.7 |
(i) Capital Goods |
47.1 |
70.1 |
70.5 |
49.0 |
0.6 |
-24.1 |
46.2 |
Machinery except Electrical & Electronics |
13.9 |
19.9 |
20.9 |
43.4 |
5.3 |
-21.9 |
37.5 |
Electronic Goods incl. Computer Software |
16.9 |
21.1 |
24.4 |
24.6 |
15.7 |
-12.5 |
22.4 |
Transport Equipment |
9.4 |
20.1 |
13.0 |
113.1 |
-35.2 |
-56.7 |
133.4 |
(ii) Mainly Export-Related Items |
17.9 |
20.8 |
29.7 |
16.2 |
43.1 |
-31.1 |
75.6 |
Pearls, Precious & Semi-Precious Stones |
7.5 |
8.0 |
14.4 |
6.5 |
81.1 |
-39.1 |
112.1 |
Chemicals, Organic & Inorganic |
7.8 |
9.9 |
12.2 |
26.4 |
22.8 |
-25.0 |
56.1 |
(iii) Others |
36.6 |
47.8 |
55.5 |
30.8 |
16.1 |
-16.4 |
8.8 |
Gold & Silver |
14.6 |
17.9 |
18.7 |
22.0 |
4.6 |
-16.3 |
31.8 |
Total Imports |
185.7 |
251.4 |
291.5 |
35.4 |
15.9 |
-29.0 |
49.5 |
Memo Item |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Oil Imports |
128.8 |
171.8 |
200.2 |
33.4 |
16.5 |
-25.9 |
40.3 |
Non-Oil Imports excl. Gold & Silver |
114.1 |
153.9 |
181.5 |
34.9 |
17.9 |
-27.2 |
41.6 |
Source : Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S). |
Table 6.17: Commodity Composition of India’s Imports |
(share in per cent) |
Commodities |
1987-91 |
1992-96 |
1997-2003 |
2004-08 |
2006-07 |
2007-08 |
2008-09 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
I. Bulk Imports |
38.3 |
40.9 |
37.4 |
40.3 |
45.5 |
44.8 |
47.8 |
Petroleum, Crude and Products |
18.6 |
23.9 |
23.7 |
28.4 |
30.8 |
31.6 |
32.9 |
Bulk Consumption Goods |
3.7 |
2.7 |
4.2 |
3.0 |
2.3 |
1.8 |
1.6 |
Edible Oils |
1.7 |
1.0 |
3.0 |
2.2 |
1.1 |
1.0 |
1.2 |
Other Bulk Items |
15.9 |
14.3 |
9.5 |
9.0 |
12.4 |
11.3 |
13.2 |
Fertilisers |
3.6 |
3.7 |
2.2 |
1.3 |
1.7 |
2.1 |
4.9 |
II. Non-Bulk Imports |
53.1 |
59.1 |
62.6 |
59.7 |
54.5 |
55.1 |
52.2 |
Capital Goods |
22.9 |
25.5 |
20.5 |
23.7 |
25.3 |
28.1 |
21.3 |
Export-Related Items |
16.0 |
16.6 |
16.8 |
14.1 |
9.6 |
8.3 |
9.9 |
Pearls, Precious and |
9.5 |
8.3 |
9.3 |
7.5 |
4.0 |
3.2 |
4.7 |
Semi-Precious Stones |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Organic and Inorganic Chemicals |
5.4 |
6.7 |
5.9 |
4.8 |
4.2 |
3.9 |
4.2 |
Others |
14.2 |
17.0 |
25.4 |
21.9 |
19.6 |
18.7 |
21.0 |
Gold and Silver |
|
|
9.4 |
8.2 |
7.9 |
7.1 |
6.6 |
III. Total Imports/All Commodities |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Non-oil Imports |
81.4 |
76.1 |
76.3 |
71.6 |
69.2 |
68.4 |
67.1 |
Industrial Inputs |
73.5 |
67.3 |
59.2 |
58.0 |
56.3 |
56.4 |
53.1 |
Source: Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S). |
Table 6.18: Geographical Diversification of India’s Imports |
(Per cent share in total) |
Region/Country |
1987-90 |
1990-95 |
1995-00 |
2000-05 |
2005-08 |
2007-08 |
2008-09 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
1. Advanced Economies |
60.3 |
55.0 |
49.6 |
38.3 |
34.3 |
35.4 |
31.8 |
(i) EU |
32.8 |
28.7 |
25.7 |
19.4 |
15.6 |
15.3 |
14.3 |
UK |
8.4 |
6.3 |
5.6 |
4.6 |
2.2 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
Germany |
8.8 |
7.8 |
6.1 |
3.7 |
4.0 |
3.9 |
4.0 |
Other EU |
15.7 |
14.6 |
13.9 |
11.1 |
9.4 |
9.4 |
8.3 |
(ii) US |
10.8 |
10.8 |
8.9 |
6.4 |
6.8 |
8.4 |
6.2 |
(iii) Other OECD |
16.6 |
15.5 |
15.0 |
12.5 |
11.9 |
11.8 |
11.3 |
2. OPEC |
13.6 |
20.3 |
22.7 |
6.6 |
25.3 |
30.7 |
32.6 |
(i) Saudi Arabia |
4.7 |
6.6 |
5.8 |
1.0 |
5.7 |
7.7 |
6.7 |
(ii) UAE |
3.5 |
5.1 |
4.4 |
2.3 |
5.0 |
5.4 |
7.1 |
(iii) Other OPEC |
5.4 |
8.5 |
12.5 |
3.3 |
14.6 |
17.7 |
18.8 |
3. Eastern Europe |
8.3 |
4.3 |
2.8 |
1.9 |
2.1 |
1.5 |
2.3 |
4. Developing Countries |
17.8 |
20.5 |
24.8 |
24.9 |
30.4 |
31.5 |
32.9 |
(i) Asia |
12.7 |
15.3 |
18.4 |
18.8 |
24.5 |
25.5 |
26.6 |
China |
0.5 |
1.0 |
2.4 |
4.6 |
9.6 |
10.8 |
10.8 |
Hong Kong |
0.6 |
0.8 |
1.1 |
1.6 |
1.5 |
1.1 |
2.2 |
Other Asian Countries |
11.6 |
13.6 |
14.9 |
12.6 |
13.4 |
13.7 |
13.7 |
(ii) Africa |
3.0 |
3.3 |
4.8 |
4.4 |
3.7 |
3.7 |
4.3 |
(iii) Latin America |
2.1 |
1.9 |
1.6 |
1.7 |
2.2 |
2.3 |
2.0 |
5. Others |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
28.2 |
7.9 |
0.8 |
0.5 |
Total |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Source: Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S). |
6.38 Since the opening up of the Indian
economy, imports are increasingly sourced from
a wider range of countries. Traditional key trading
partners like Germany, Japan, UK, and US have
subsided in terms of their market share and new
import partners from East Asia (especially China)
have emerged (Table 6.18). Another important
development has been a gradual dissipation of the
East European countries as a major source of
India’s imports. The high share of OPEC countries
in the recent period reflects the magnitude of crude oil imports due to the rising oil-intensity of the
Indian economy and high oil prices. Finally,
imports from China have increased significantly
during recent years from almost minuscule level
in the early 1990s.
6.39 Imports, especially those of capital goods,
are often considered a leading indicator of industrial
activity and the near-term investment climate
(Chart VI.5). A sizeable portion of imports gets
channelised as inputs for industrial production. A
definite relationship between imports and industrial
production, however, may be difficult to establish
as imported commodities could be either
complements or substitutes to domestic industry.
As a result, an empirical test of these relations
remains largely country-specific. In the Indian case,
however, non-oil imports, thus far, have been
mostly in the form of capital goods, raw materials
and intermediate goods, which complement
industrial production.
6.40 An analysis of import elasticity of output in
India suggests that imports have grown at a much faster rate with respect to GDP in the 1990s
compared to the 1980s, which is consistent with
the liberalisation of external trade. The vital
importance of imports for the producing sector was
evident from the firm-level evidence. According to
the CMIE database, the top 100 importing
companies accounted for about half of the
manufacturing exports in the late 1990s. By 2008,
these companies accounted for 80 per cent of
manufacturing exports. The import intensity of
these firms, as percentage to sales, almost doubled
during 1999 to 2008 (Table 6.19).
Impact through Commodity Price Channel
6.41 Another component of the trade channel
transmission is global commodities prices, which,
inter alia, affects imports and cost of production.
Before the unfolding of the recent crisis, global
prices of commodities such as crude oil and
primary commodities surged significantly due to
soaring demand and supply-side constraints and
strained the balance of payments of the importing
countries across the world. The crude oil prices
of the Indian basket peaked at US$ 147 per barrel
in July 2008. The significant hardening of global
commodity prices, especially crude oil, generated
inflationary pressures. The global crisis, however,
drastically reduced the demand for these
commodities globally and their prices fell sharply,
easing the inflationary pressure significantly in the
second half of 2008-09.
6.42 The impact of change in prices on value of
imports depends on price elasticity of imports and
the extent of trade openness. For instance, if
merchandise imports are highly price elastic and
trade is fairly open, then declining global commodity
prices may lead to a rise in imports. The effect of
global commodity prices, however, on the cost of
production remains unambiguous. In India, oil imports, which constitute a large part of total
imports, are critical input for real activities. Oil
imports in India are relatively price inelastic and,
hence, are highly correlated with their prices.
Accordingly, oil imports fell sharply in India during
the second half of 2008-09, reflecting declining
crude oil prices (Chart VI.6). Imports of non-oil
primary commodities are also fairly correlated with
their prices as manifested by the declining value of
non-oil imports when prices of non-oil primary
commodities were declining (Chart VI.6).
Table 6.19: Import Intensity of Production:
Firm-Level Evidence |
Per cent |
|
1999 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
Companies |
Share in Industry (manufacturing) Total Exports |
Top 50 |
32.4 |
54.1 |
56.0 |
60.6 |
65.3 |
70.0 |
70.8 |
Top 100 |
46.2 |
65.9 |
67.7 |
72.2 |
76.0 |
78.9 |
80.0 |
Top 200 |
62.0 |
76.7 |
78.3 |
82.0 |
85.6 |
87.5 |
88.8 |
Top 300 |
70.2 |
83.4 |
85.3 |
88.0 |
90.7 |
92.2 |
93.3 |
Top 500 |
81.8 |
91.1 |
91.7 |
93.5 |
95.1 |
96.5 |
97.4 |
Total |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
|
Share in Industry (manufacturing) Total Imports |
Top 50 |
57.2 |
76.0 |
74.7 |
74.3 |
76.6 |
76.7 |
77.2 |
Top 100 |
63.2 |
80.4 |
79.2 |
79.0 |
81.0 |
81.0 |
81.4 |
Top 200 |
68.7 |
83.7 |
82.8 |
82.8 |
84.0 |
84.3 |
84.7 |
Top 300 |
71.7 |
85.7 |
84.9 |
85.0 |
86.0 |
86.4 |
86.9 |
Top 500 |
78.3 |
89.0 |
88.8 |
88.6 |
89.4 |
89.9 |
90.7 |
Total |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
Imports Intensity (Imports as percentage to Sales) |
Top 50 |
19.0 |
27.6 |
27.3 |
31.0 |
37.8 |
36.3 |
39.2 |
Top 100 |
18.3 |
26.1 |
25.9 |
29.3 |
35.7 |
34.3 |
36.9 |
Top 200 |
17.5 |
24.4 |
24.2 |
27.4 |
33.2 |
32.1 |
34.5 |
Top 300 |
16.9 |
23.6 |
23.4 |
26.6 |
32.3 |
31.3 |
33.5 |
Top 500 |
16.3 |
22.4 |
22.4 |
25.5 |
31.1 |
30.1 |
32.1 |
Total |
15.6 |
20.3 |
20.6 |
23.6 |
28.6 |
27.7 |
29.4 |
Source: Prowess data, CMIE. |
 |
6.43 Commodity price cycles have played an
important role in conditioning business cycles in
the global economy. The recent global commodity
price cycle that set off in 2002 reached another
peak in mid-2008, which had associated
implications for asset prices, investment, trade
balances and growth across countries (Chart VI.7).
According to the commodity price index data of the
IMF and the World Bank, all commodities price
indices witnessed an average 18.4 per cent
increase during 2003-07 compared with a
deceleration, albeit marginally, during the 1990s,
spurred by metals, energy, and food commodities.
The World Bank’s commodity price index of lowand
middle-income countries has also shown a
sharp acceleration during the current decade
compared with deflation trends in the 1980s and
the 1990s. Food price inflation was the highest
since the late 1970s, whereas prices of metals and
non-fuel commodities were the highest since the
late 1980s. This has been driven by the relatively strong and stable performance of the world
economy, rapid growth and structural changes in
a number of large developing economies and
increasing attention by policymakers and market
participants to the challenges of climate change and
shrinking oil reserves (UNCTAD, 2008).
Furthermore, the commodity price cycle was
relatively more prolonged compared to earlier
cycles, led by the sustained expansionary phase
of the business cycle (Box VI.5).
6.44 For commodity price importers, the
implications of the commodity prices shocks could
be distinctly different. An expansionary phase of
commodity price cycles could work through various channels. First, commodity price shocks
could directly affect domestic prices given the
degree of pass-through and exchange rate
movements. Further, given that primary
commodities such as oil and metals enter as inputs
for manufacturing and transportation, the rise in
import prices has a second-round effect on the
domestic prices of manufactured goods and higher
transportation costs. Second, a rise in global
commodity prices would adversely affect the trade
balance of the importing countries. Particularly,
in the case of oil, where the demand is relatively
less price elastic, price shocks could lead to wider
current account deficit (CAD). At the same time,
given the competitive pressures in exports of
manufactured products, a rise in primary
commodity prices could adversely affect the input
cost and, hence, export competitiveness. Third,
the indirect effect of the commodity price could
be higher inflationary expectations, which in turn
could push up nominal interest rates in the
economy. Further, a rise in commodity priceinduced
inflation could create more volatility in
domestic prices and, hence, bring in more
uncertainty about the investment climate, which
could adversely affect the investment decisions
of corporates and firms.
 |
Box VI.5
Affect of Commodity Prices on Asset Prices, Investment, Trade and Economic Activity
The overall impact of commodity price movements on
economies differs considerably, depending on the
composition of foreign trade, the relative weight of
commodity exports and imports in their gross national
income and price responsiveness. Higher prices of
primary commodities for commodity-exporting countries
have a favourable impact through improved export
earnings. This, in turn, augments the potential for financing
new investments in infrastructure and productive
capacities that spurs domestic productive activities,
consumption and employment. However, the impact of commodity price booms on domestic activity would also
depend on the allocation of export surpluses for domestic
consumption versus investment. The diversion of export
surplus arising from commodity price booms could help
in inter-temporal distribution of incomes and consumption
smoothing. Notwithstanding the beneficial effects of the
expansion in the commodity price cycle, a sudden rise in
price cycles and its persistence can cause Dutch disease,
which, through sharp appreciation in the real exchange
rate, can result in diminishing competitiveness of the nontradable
sectors.
6.45 During the recent phase of commodity
cycles between 2000 and 2007, the greatest
improvement in the terms of trade occurred in
developing and transition economies that are
exporters of crude oil and minerals. The developing countries that have emerged as
important exporters of labour-intensive
manufactures and are net oil importers, however,
experienced a significant deterioration in their
terms of trade. The pass-through of international
oil prices to export prices of industrial countries
and emerging market economies, as evident from
the Granger causal relationship arising from the
vector auto-regression model, provided crucial
insights about underlying global trade in inflation
across the countries. For industrial countries,
export price inflation was caused by oil price
inflation, but for emerging market economies it was
caused by both oil price inflation as well as the
export price inflation of advanced countries. This
implied that in the absence of an administered
price mechanism, industrial countries were in a
position to pass on some of the burden of the oil
price impact through higher prices of goods
exported to emerging market economies. The
latter, however, were not in a position to trade in
inflation to industrial countries. Further, the
interaction between the prices of tradable and nontradable
commodities was evident from the causal
relationship among export prices, import prices
and domestic consumer prices inflation for
industrial and emerging market economies. For
industrial countries, the prices of tradable items
had a significant causal association with domestic
consumer prices; in the case of emerging market
economies, the prices of exports rather than
imports had a significant causal relationship with
domestic prices (Table 6.20).
Table 6.20: Pass-through of International Oil
Prices to Export Prices of Developed and Emerging
Market Economies: Granger Causal Analysis |
Null Hypothesis: X does not Cause Y |
Chi-square
statistic |
Accept/
Reject |
1 |
2 |
3 |
(i) Oil prices do not Granger Cause export prices of Industrial countries |
30.66 |
Reject |
|
(0.00) |
|
(ii) Export prices of emerging countries do not Granger Cause export prices of Industrial countries |
15.26 |
Accept |
|
(0.23) |
|
(iii) Oil prices do not Granger Cause export prices of Emerging market countries |
43.23 |
Reject |
|
(0.00) |
|
(iv) Export prices of Industrial countries do not Granger Cause export prices of Emerging market countries |
41.67 |
Reject |
|
(0.00) |
|
(v) Export prices of Industrial countries do not Granger Cause Oil prices |
21.75 |
Reject |
|
(0.04) |
|
(vi) Export prices of Emerging countries do not Granger Cause Oil prices |
25.70 |
Reject |
|
(0.01) |
|
6.46 The pass-through of global to domestic
prices in India takes place in two stages. First, the
export prices of trading partners at global and
regional levels percolate to import prices of India.
Second, changes in import prices affect costs of
production and domestic supply of goods and
services, thus, affecting aggregate domestic
inflation measured by producers’ prices, which in
India relates to wholesale prices. In the Indian
context, the most direct impact of the global
commodity cycle on the economy comes through
the prices of primary commodities.
6.47 The aggregate import price inflation in
terms of domestic currency in the 2000s softened
significantly compared with the trends in the
decades of the 1960s through the 1990s. Second,
it is interesting to gauge the foreign prices of India’s
imports (prices of imports in foreign currency such
as the US dollar), since the import price in the
domestic currency is affected by the exchange rate.
The latter reveals that except for the decade of the
1970s when there was an oil price shock, India’s
import price inflation in US dollar terms remained
subdued through the 1950s to the 1990s. In the
current decade so far, however, such a measure
of import price inflation averaged 5.2 per cent, in
contrast to a declining trend in the 1990s and the
subdued trend in the 1980s.
Table 6.21: Correlation of India’s Import Prices
with Global and Regional Export Prices |
|
India |
EMEs |
Industrial
Countries |
Oil-Producing
Countries |
World |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
India |
1.00 |
|
|
|
|
Emerging |
0.68 |
1.00 |
|
|
|
Industrial |
0.63 |
0.71 |
1.00 |
|
|
Oil |
0.72 |
0.84 |
0.57 |
1.00 |
|
World |
0.70 |
0.86 |
0.97 |
0.72 |
1.00 |
6.48 The correlation of India’s import price
inflation in US dollar terms with export price inflation
at global and regional levels for industrial,
developing and oil-exporting countries based on
annual data reveals that export price inflation of oil
economies has a greater correlation with India’s
import price (Table 6.21). This suggests that the
oil price shocks are the most significant external
shocks for price stability in India.
6.49 The correlation of India’s import prices in
domestic currency with domestic prices suggests
that the import price index has a near-perfect
correlation with the domestic price index (Table
6.22). Since such a correlation could be
exaggerated due to trend components in the
variables, it is appropriate to consider the
correlation of inflation rates. The import price
inflation also has a significant correlation with
domestic inflation.
6.50 One key channel for transmission of global
commodity price shocks to India is oil imports. The
rising share of oil imports is attributable to the sharp increase in international crude oil prices and volume
growth of oil imports. According to the Petroleum
Planning Analysis Cell (PPAC), Ministry of
Petroleum & Natural Gas, Government of India, oil
imports in volume terms grew on an average of 7.9
per cent per annum during 2000-01 to 2008-09. In
quantity terms, growth in domestic consumption of
petroleum products in India remained subdued at
3.6 per cent during the same period (Table 6.23).
These stylised facts about oil consumption demand
and the import intensity of oil consumption amply
reveal that major price shocks in India have been
significantly caused by global oil price shocks
(Chart VI.8). In 2008-09 also, the price shocks
mainly emanated from international crude oil prices.
Table 6.22: Correlation of India’s Import Price
Index with Domestic Prices (WPI) |
Variables |
Correlation of
Import Price
Index with
Domestic Price
Index
1950-2008 |
Correlation of
Import Price
Inflation with
Domestic Inflation
Rates
1950-2008 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
WPI |
0.99 |
0.61 |
Domestic fuel price |
0.99 |
0.62 |
Domestic manufactured price |
0.99 |
0.56 |
Exchange rate |
0.96 |
0.19 |
Table 6.23: Oil Imports Volume Growth |
(Per cent) |
Year |
Domestic
Consumption
Growth |
Oil Imports
(Gross) Volume
Growth |
Oil Imports
(net) Volume
Growth |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
1997-98 |
6.5 |
|
|
1998-99 |
7.4 |
10.6 |
14.1 |
1999-00 |
7.2 |
17.0 |
17.2 |
2000-01 |
3.1 |
12.0 |
1.8 |
2001-02 |
0.4 |
2.8 |
0.8 |
2002-03 |
3.7 |
4.1 |
4.4 |
2003-04 |
3.5 |
10.3 |
6.2 |
2004-05 |
3.6 |
6.4 |
3.2 |
2005-06 |
1.4 |
7.8 |
3.4 |
2006-07 |
6.7 |
14.5 |
6.9 |
2007-08 |
6.8 |
11.6 |
8.2 |
2008-09 |
3.6 |
1.6 |
6.0 |
2009-10 |
3.4 |
– |
– |
1997-98 to 2008-09 |
4.5 |
9.0 |
6.6 |
2000-01 to 2008-09 |
3.6 |
7.9 |
4.5 |
Note : In gross terms, total oil imports in volume include imports of crude oil and finished petroleum products. In net terms, oil import volume growth pertains to total oil imports in
volume less exports of oil in volume.
Source : Petroleum Planning Analysis Cell (PPAC), Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, GOI. |
6.51 Another important channel of price shocks,
particularly during recent years, has been volatile
movements in international food prices. The rise in
international food prices has been transmitted in
varying degrees from international to local markets
(IFPRI, 2008). This varied transmission of price
changes from international to domestic markets is
attributed to import dependence, exchange rate
behaviour, domestic policies and discretionary
market segmentation, transportation costs and
natural market segmentation and imperfect
transmission related to market structure and the
existence of monopolistic/monopsonistic power.
Depending upon the weight of food prices in the
price index, the impact on the overall inflation has
also varied across countries.
6.52 There has been a secular decline in India’s
dependence on food imports in general over the
decades as reflected by the declining share of food
imports in total imports over the years (Table 6.24).
During the 2000s, though India’s food imports in
the total import basket declined in significance, the
global integration of food prices through rapid
financialisation of commodity markets resulted in
an increase in the correlation in domestic and world
food price inflation to 0.57. In fact, the global commodity cycle of the 2000s reveals that the
expansionary phase in food prices in India closely
followed the movements in the global commodity
price cycles. The commodity-wise analysis of the
correlation coefficient between domestic and
international prices reveals that during the period
1995-2008, domestic edible oil prices had the
strongest positive correlation with international
prices, reflecting the import dependency since a
large part of India’s consumption needs are met
through imports (over 30 per cent) (Rajmal and
Misra, 2009). Domestic prices of both food articles
and edible oils have started moving in tandem with
international prices, particularly during the latter
half, i.e., the period 2002-2008, as trade in
agricultural commodities has increased.
 |
Table 6.24: India’s Imports and Exports of Food |
Period |
Food Imports (per cent to total imports) |
Food Exports (per cent to total exports) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
1960s |
34.3 |
23.2 |
1970s |
31.7 |
18.3 |
1980s |
23.5 |
8.3 |
1990s |
16.8 |
5.0 |
2000s |
10.8 |
4.8 |
Source: World Bank, UNCTAD. |
6.53 The domestic supply and demand balance
also condition the transmission of international
price shocks to domestic prices. Demand
significantly outstripped domestic supply in the case
of edible oils and the deficit is met through imports
(Table 6.25). The production of pulses has also lagged behind demand, resulting in dependence
on imports to the extent of more than 10 per
cent. The complete pass-through of global food
price shocks on domestic prices would be
ultimately conditioned by trade policy interventions
in terms of import quotas and licensing, custom
duties and domestic fiscal measures. The
sustained movement of international food prices,
however, would impact domestic prices despite
short-run stability.
Table 6.25: India’s Dependence on Imports for
Consumption Requirements |
Period |
Percentage share of imports in total consumption |
Wheat |
Pulses |
Sugar |
Edible Oils |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
2001-02 |
-3.7 |
13.3 |
-0.5 |
41.7 |
2002-03 |
-6.8 |
14.2 |
-0.6 |
47.9 |
2003-04 |
-6.4 |
9.5 |
-0.5 |
42.9 |
2004-05 |
-3 |
7.5 |
0.3 |
38.9 |
2005-06 |
-1.1 |
8.5 |
0.1 |
34.1 |
2006-07 |
7.4 |
12.5 |
-0.5 |
33.5 |
2007-08 |
2.2 |
14.8 |
-1.4 |
31.1 |
Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. |
6.54 Empirical findings suggest that global
factors (import prices, capital flows, and
movements in exchange rate) are able to explain
about 20 to 30 per cent of the variation in domestic
inflation in India (Raj, Jain and Dhal, 2009). In the
long run, import prices, capital flows and exchange
rates could have a significant positive association
with domestic inflation. The interest rate variable
has a negative association with domestic prices in
the long run, though its statistical significance is
not as strong as other variables. The impact of
capital flows on domestic prices could be more
pronounced than import prices and exchange rates
as capital flows affect the latter.
Impact through Trade in Services & Remittances
6.55 The trade channel also transmits the effects
of global developments through services export
demand. The tradability of India’s services sector
has witnessed a significant increase, with the
services exports to GDP ratio rising about five-fold
from 3.2 per cent in 1990-91 to 15.1 per cent in
2008-09. In services exports, India was among
the first ten countries in the world during 2008
(Table 6.26). Among EMEs, the ranking of India
was higher, at second place after China, in terms
of services exports.
6.56 A large part of the services exports (about
46 per cent) are in the nature of Business Process
Outsourcing (BPOs) and Information Technologyenabled
Services (ITES), which are driven by the
explosion in information technology and are
employment-intensive with an estimated direct
employment of about 2 million. Since about 80 per
cent of the total demand for software exports originates in the US and the UK, a sharp contraction
in these economies had an adverse impact on
demand for software exports. A contraction in
demand for software services adversely affected
output and employment growth and, thus, reduced
the consumption demand of the workforce
dependent on this sector.
Table 6.26: Comparative Position of India among
Top Service Exporters, 2008 |
Country |
Exports (US$ bn) |
Share (%) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
1. |
USA |
545.6 |
15.3 |
2. |
UK |
286.9 |
8.1 |
3. |
Germany |
246.7 |
6.9 |
4. |
France |
161.8 |
4.5 |
5. |
Japan |
148.8 |
4.2 |
6. |
China |
147.1 |
4.1 |
7. |
Spain |
143.6 |
4.0 |
8. |
Italy |
123.5 |
3.5 |
9. |
Netherlands |
104.5 |
2.9 |
10. |
India |
103.0 |
2.9 |
11. |
Ireland |
99.29 |
2.8 |
12. |
Hong Kong |
92.3 |
2.6 |
13. |
Belgium |
88.99 |
2.5 |
Note : Share is calculated based on adding services exports available for all countries in the BOPSY, October, 2009.
However, the actual share may be slightly different from the calculated share presented here.
Source : BOPSY, IMF, October 2009. |
6.57 Exports and imports of services linked to
merchandise trade have also been affected by the
contraction in merchandise trade in India since the
second half of 2008-09. The compression in merchandise exports since the second half of
2008-09 impacted the exports of related services
such as transportation, insurance, and financial,
which is discernible from the synchronised
movements among merchandise exports and the
exports of these services. Similarly, imports of
trade-related services were adversely affected by
falling merchandise imports as evident from their
co-movements over the years, including the recent
crisis period (Chart VI.9).
6.58 Although services exports across the
board in India were adversely affected by the
recent global crisis, miscellaneous services
exports, primarily led by software exports,
displayed relative resilience, as manifested by
decelerated positive growth, whereas all other
sub-groups contracted since the second half of
2008-09. Exports of insurance services recorded
the highest decline followed by travel and
transportation during this period. In the case of
services imports, insurance services exhibited
relative resilience, reflected in their positive
growth, while the import of other services recorded
precipitous contraction during the second half of
2008-09. Among the imports of various services,
miscellaneous services, largely driven by business
services, declined the most, followed by travel and
transportation services (Table 6.27).
6.59 Travel services, which include earnings
through foreign tourists in sectors such as food,
hotels and transportation, are directly related to the arrivals of foreign tourists in India and affect
domestic consumption demand. The growth in
foreign tourist arrivals in India decelerated to
(-) 4.0 per cent in 2008 from 14.3 per cent in 2007
(Table 6.28). In fact, during second half of 2008-
09, the peak of the global financial crisis, the growth
of the trade, hotel, transport & communications
sector decelerated from 12.5 per cent to 6.1 per cent, which to some extent seems to have been
due to the slowdown in external demand from travel
and tourism.
 |
Table 6.27: Growth in Services Exports and
Imports (US$) |
(per cent) |
Category |
2000-
2001 |
2001-
2002 |
2002-
2005 |
2005-
2008 |
2008-
2009: H1 |
2008-
2009: H2 |
2009-
2010: H1 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
|
Exports |
Services |
3.6 |
5.4 |
37.2 |
27.8 |
28.9 |
-0.5 |
-18.5 |
Travel |
15.2 |
-10.3 |
30.0 |
19.5 |
22.0 |
-20.1 |
-8.8 |
Transportation |
19.9 |
5.6 |
29.9 |
28.9 |
37.9 |
-8.0 |
-10.6 |
Insurance |
16.9 |
6.7 |
49.8 |
23.9 |
0.4 |
-25.2 |
6.1 |
Misc. |
-3.4 |
12.6 |
41.9 |
29.8 |
29.4 |
5.0 |
-21.5 |
|
Imports |
|
Services |
25.2 |
-5.2 |
29.3 |
23.6 |
17.3 |
-15.5 |
-4.9 |
Travel |
31.1 |
7.5 |
21.5 |
21.9 |
23.1 |
-13.9 |
-9.8 |
Transportation |
47.6 |
-2.6 |
20.2 |
41.1 |
39.1 |
-11.3 |
-29.4 |
Insurance |
82.8 |
25.6 |
42.5 |
24.9 |
13.9 |
3.8 |
22.9 |
Misc. |
14.4 |
-11.7 |
38.3 |
23.9 |
6.6 |
-20.6 |
8.7 |
H1: April-September; H2: October-March.
Source: Reserve Bank of India. |
Table 6.28: India’s Foreign Exchange Earnings
from Tourism Sector |
Period |
Foreign Tourist Arrivals
(Percentage Growth) |
Foreign Exchange Earnings
(US$ billion) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
Month |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
January |
16.6 |
4.5 |
-17.6 |
1.1 |
1.4 |
0.9 |
February |
14.3 |
21.9 |
-10.6 |
1.0 |
1.3 |
0.9 |
March |
20.8 |
1.5 |
-12.9 |
0.9 |
1.2 |
0.9 |
April |
13.4 |
3.0 |
-3.5 |
0.8 |
0.9 |
0.8 |
May |
8.6 |
9.9 |
-1.9 |
0.6 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
June |
11.5 |
10.0 |
0.2 |
0.7 |
0.8 |
0.8 |
July |
18.5 |
8.0 |
0.6 |
0.8 |
0.9 |
1.0 |
August |
17.8 |
6.9 |
-8.6 |
0.8 |
0.8 |
0.9 |
September |
1.3 |
13.2 |
-4.1 |
0.6 |
0.7 |
0.8 |
October |
13.6 |
1.2 |
-0.9 |
1.0 |
0.9 |
1.0 |
November |
20.3 |
-0.1 |
-0.6 |
1.1 |
1.0 |
1.2 |
December |
10.2 |
-10.5 |
21.0 |
1.3 |
1.0 |
1.5 |
Full Period |
14.3 |
4.0 |
-3.3 |
9.4 |
10.7 |
11.4 |
*: Growth rate is for the period January-October 2009.
Source: Ministry of Tourism. |
Remittances
6.60 Yet another channel of transmission of
global shocks to the real economy in India could
be partly through the remittance channel. In the
recent past, a subtle shift has been noticed in the
geographical sources of inward remittances to India
with a significant increase from Gulf region, Europe
and Africa a decline from North America and East
Asia. However, the two important sources of origin
of remittances are the US and the oil-producing Gulf
countries. These two regions are estimated to
contribute about two-third of India’s workers’
remittance inflows. While the remittance inflows
from the US are affected by economic activity in
the US, those from the Gulf countries are
conditioned by the pace of activity reflected in oil
revenues. During the recent crisis, while
remittances from the US could have been affected
by the sharp contraction in real activity and
unemployment among migrants, the adverse effect
of the global crisis on remittances from the Gulf
countries seems to have worked through a decline
in oil prices, which in turn could have affected
migrant employment in the construction and
services sectors in the Gulf region. Oil prices and
remittances witnessed synchronised movement
during the recent period, including the crisis, which
corroborates the negative impact of oil priceinduced
reduction in remittance inflows to India
(Chart VI.10). A reduction in remittance inflows,
particularly low-value remittances, directly affects
the disposable incomes of the dependent
households and, hence, affects their propensity to
spend. Given that a large part of remittance inflows
to India are for family maintenance (above 50 per
cent of total remittance inflows to India), negative
growth in inflows following the global shock might
have adversely affected the consumption demand
of the dependent households.
6.61 Accordingly, private remittances to India from advanced countries and the Gulf region, which remained buoyant till the first half of 2008-09, suffered setback and decelerated in the second half of 2008-09. In fact, the growth in private remittances plunged from 46.3 per cent in the first half of 2008- 09 to (-) 19.4 per cent during the second half but recovered to 4.3 per cent in the first half of 2009- 10. During previous international crises, viz., the East Asian crisis (1997 and 1998) and the technology crisis (2000 and 2001) also, private remittances to India behaved in tune with globaleconomic dynamics and decelerated sharply.
|
Software Exports
6.62 India continued to remain the top software
services exporter, followed by Ireland (Table 6.29).
Since global banks and financial institutions,
which were severely hit by the current global
financial crisis, were large customers of Indian
software providers, the impact of the global crisis
seems to have been deceleration in exports to
such verticals.
Table 6.29: Software Services Export |
(US$ billion) |
Country |
2000 |
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
1. India |
4.7 |
16.3 |
21.9 |
29.1 |
37.5 |
49.4 |
2. Ireland |
7.5 |
18.8 |
19.6 |
21.0 |
26.1 |
34.5 |
3. Germany |
3.8 |
8.1 |
8.4 |
9.9 |
12.6 |
15.1 |
4. United Kingdom |
4.3 |
11.3 |
10.8 |
12.6 |
14.2 |
12.9 |
5. United States |
5.6 |
6.7 |
7.3 |
10.1 |
11.6 |
12.6 |
6. Sweden |
1.2 |
2.5 |
2.7 |
3.6 |
6.5 |
7.6 |
7. Israel |
4.2 |
4.4 |
4.5 |
5.3 |
5.8 |
6.9 |
8. Netherlands |
1.2 |
3.7 |
3.7 |
5.0 |
6.4 |
6.6 |
9. China |
0.4 |
1.6 |
1.8 |
3.0 |
4.3 |
6.3 |
10. Spain |
2.0 |
3.0 |
3.6 |
4.0 |
5.4 |
6.1 |
11. Canada |
2.4 |
3.0 |
3.6 |
4.3 |
4.6 |
4.6 |
12. Belgium |
.... |
2.4 |
2.6 |
2.9 |
3.0 |
3.7 |
Source: BOPSY, IMF, October 2009. |
6.63 Although India’s software exports remained
strong over the years, the slowdown in global
demand due to the crisis affected the export
performance of software companies to some extent
(Table 6.30). After remaining steady till the first half of 2008-09, despite mounting pressures on the
back of the global financial shock they succumbed
to the falling external demand since the second half
of 2008-09 and exhibited sharp deceleration in
growth (Box VI.6).
Table 6.30: Software Services Exports of India |
(US$ billion) |
Year |
IT Services
Exports |
Engineering
Services |
ITES-BPO
Exports |
Total Software
Services Exports |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
1995-96 |
0.8 |
– |
– |
0.8 |
2000-01 |
5.3 |
– |
0.9 |
6.2 |
2001-02 |
6.2 |
– |
1.5 |
7.6 |
2002-03 |
7.0 |
– |
2.5 |
9.5 |
2003-04 |
7.3 |
2.5 |
3.1 |
12.9 |
2004-05 |
10.0 |
3.1 |
4.6 |
17.7 |
2005-06 |
13.3 |
4.0 |
6.3 |
23.6 |
2006-07 |
17.8 |
4.9 |
8.4 |
31.1 |
2007-08 |
23.1 |
6.4 |
10.9 |
40.4 |
2008-09 |
26.5 |
7.1 |
12.7 |
46.3 |
ITES: IT-enabled services. BPO: Business Process Outsourcing.
Note : The break-up of engineering services exports is avail- able from 2003-04 onwards; prior to that year, they were added to IT services. Source : National Association of Software and Service Companies (NASSCOM). |
6.64 To sum up, in view of India’s exports being
highly elastic to world income, the effect of
contracting world income has been reflected in the
overall decline in merchandise trade since the third
quarter of 2008-09. Empirically, it was found that declining merchandise trade dented the overall
growth of the Indian economy. It was observed that
exports of engineering and chemical goods
remained resilient during this crisis. The firm-level
export orientation also demonstrates the growing
importance of trade channels in the growth of India’s
manufacturing sector. On the one hand, contracting
merchandise imports provided a cushion for the
aggregate demand; on the other hand, declining nonoil
imports negatively affected growth through
investment on the back of the elevated import
intensity of the industry. At the same time, the price
shocks to the Indian economy were transmitted
mainly through oil and food prices.
Box VI.6
Global Crisis and Impact on Software Exports
India’s information technology and business process
outsourcing (IT-BPO) industry has emerged over time as
a key sector of the economy in terms of contribution to
growth, export earnings, investment, employment and
overall economic and social development. In view of the
significant dependence of this sector on external demand,
the current global recession emerged as a key concern
for this sector. The current crisis led to mounting losses of
financial institutions in advanced countries, mainly in the
USA in 2008-09, which depend to a large extent on the
information technology (IT) and IT-related services of
Indian companies and also employ a large pool of Indians.
It is amply discernible that growth in India’s software
exports was significantly correlated with the GDP growth
of the USA during the recent period (Chart).
Further, the significance of the US’ GDP growth on the
growth of Indian software exports has been explored
by estimating the co-integrating relationship between
India’s software exports, external demand conditions
and exchange rate movements. The estimation reveals
that over the medium to long run, a one per cent increase
in the US real activity level (Log YUS) leads to about a
4 per cent increase in India’s software exports (Log
Xsoft). As regards the exchange rate, a one per cent
depreciation in exchange rate (Log ERUSD) would lead
to about a 2 per cent increase in software exports over
the long run (Table 1). It may be mentioned that the US
dollar is the major currency of invoicing India’s software
exports, accounting for about 75 per cent of total software exports. Thus, the co-integrating relationship
underscores the dominance of real activity in the host
country in determining the external demand for India’s
software exports.
 |
Table 1: Long-Run Co-integration Path of Software Exports to India |
Variables |
Coefficients |
Log Xsoftt-1 Normalised) |
1.000 |
Log YUSt-1 |
4.20 |
|
(3.28) |
Log ERUSDt-1 |
2.26 |
|
(9.57) |
Intercept |
40.44 |
The variance decomposition analysis reveals that the
lagged values of software exports (Log Xsoft)
predominantly explain the behaviour of India’s software
exports during the short run (Table 2). Real activity in the
host country (Log YUS) predominantly explains the
behaviour of India’s software exports over the medium to
long run. The nominal exchange rate impact on India’s
software exports demand is also significant over the short
to medium term, although its impact diminishes over time.
This amply demonstrates that a large external demand
shock adversely affected India’s software exports.
Although India’s software exports remained strong over
the years, the slowdown in global demand did affect
export performance to some extent, corroborating the
significance of external demand shocks manifested by
the estimated results.
Table 2: Variance Decomposition of Software Exports |
Quarter |
Log Xsoft |
Log YUS |
Log ERUSD |
1 |
63.2 |
0.3 |
36.5 |
4 |
40.6 |
14.0 |
45.4 |
8 |
15.5 |
41.9 |
42.6 |
12 |
7.0 |
62.3 |
30.7 |
16 |
3.9 |
71.1 |
25.1 |
20 |
2.4 |
75.7 |
21.9 |
declining merchandise trade dented the overall
growth of the Indian economy. It was observed that
exports of engineering and chemical goods
remained resilient during this crisis. The firm-level
export orientation also demonstrates the growing
importance of trade channels in the growth of India’s
manufacturing sector. On the one hand, contracting
merchandise imports provided a cushion for the
aggregate demand; on the other hand, declining nonoil
imports negatively affected growth through
investment on the back of the elevated import
intensity of the industry. At the same time, the price
shocks to the Indian economy were transmitted
mainly through oil and food prices.
6.65 Overall, the spillover effects of the global
economic crisis impacted the current account
balance mainly through the merchandise trade route
during 2008-09. The current account deficit as a
percentage of GDP escalated to 2.4 per cent in 2008-
09 on account of widened trade deficit on the back
of worsening global conditions. After discussing the
impact of the trade channel on the Indian economy,
the spillovers effects through the financial channel
are investigated in the following section.
III. IMPACT ON INDIA THROUGH FINANCIAL
CHANNEL
6.66 The finance channel has pronounced
implications for domestic investment activity. In fact,
it has been argued that the role of foreign savings
has become inportant in the domestic investment in
case of India during the post-reforms period (Box
VI.7) The transmission of global shocks on
investment demand in India could take place through
a variety of conduits. These include major channels
of capital flows such as FDI, portfolio inflows, external
commercial borrowings, trade credit, and overseas
borrowings of banks. Besides the interest rate
channel, liquidity and credit risks may also impact
domestic investment activity. The expectations
channels, representing sudden changes in risk
perception towards EME assets, uncertainty about
the investment climate and sharp turnarounds in
exchange rate movements also have an important
bearing on domestic investment demand.
6.67 The global shocks propagated through the
finance channel could have both a direct and
indirect impact on consumption and investment.
Such shocks could have affected domestic
consumption in India in the following ways. First,
a sharp correction in equity prices in response to
global shocks eroded a large part of household
wealth, which in turn may have adversely affected
consumption demand as erosion in household
wealth was associated with a sharp deceleration
in private final consumption demand during
2008-09. Second, reduced access for banks and
financial institutions to foreign markets reduced
their lending capacity in the domestic market,
including loans to households that, in turn, could
have affected consumption demand. Third,
contraction in trade finance might have impacted
imports and, thus, domestic consumption. Fourth,
higher credit spread on overseas borrowings
increases the demand for bank credit, which, in
turn, leads to a rationing of credit by banks. During
the crisis, banks tended to reduce credit for
consumption purposes as the risk perception
changed significantly.
6.68 The growing financial openness in India
was accompanied by a notable shift in the
composition of capital flows following the reforms
period. The gradual liberalisation of the capital
account, the shift in emphasis from debt to nondebt
flows, financial market development and
stronger growth prospects helped India emerge
as an increasingly important destination for foreign
investment flows. Accordingly, foreign investment
flows, comprising direct and portfolio equity flows,
became the dominant source of capital flows in
the reform period of the 1990s compared with debt
and external assistance in the pre-reform period
in the 1970s and the 1980s (Chart VI.11).
Although the more recent period witnessed a
revival of debt flows, unlike the 1970s and the
1980s when debt flows were largely from official
sources, it was spurred by private debt flows
reflecting the impact of capital account
liberalisation in general and better terms of credit
faced by corporates due to lenders’ confidence in the growth of the Indian economy. A unique
feature of capital flows to India was that even
during the recent global crisis when other sources
of funds dried up, FDI inflows remained steady,
re-emphasising their long-run stability.
Box VI.7
Foreign Savings and Investment in India
The shift in the composition of capital flows highlighted
the role of foreign savings amidst the changing causal
relationship between foreign and domestic savings. Till
the 1980s, the current account deficit mainly mirrored the
fiscal deficit of the government, but in the reforms period
the twin deficits disappeared with the compression of fiscal
deficit and financing almost entirely through domestic
household savings (Chart). With a progressively open
capital account, the current account gap now mainly
reflects private sector absorption. Second, foreign savings
are no longer planned; they now reflect the choice of
market agents driven by push factors from the originating
countries and pull factors in the host country. It is argued
that investment need not be constrained by the availability
of domestic savings, and that domestic savings and
investment could have a low correlation. This is based on the familiar permanent income hypothesis, which in an
open economy translates into borrowing from international
markets to smoothen consumption.
 |
An empirical analysis of the savings-investment
relationship for India based on the Granger Causal analysis
between the domestic savings rate (S), domestic capital
formation rate (I) and the current account balance-GDP
ratio (CAB) provided useful insights. An important
observation derived from the results is that in the prereform
period (1951-1991), investment (ΔI) caused CAB,
implying that typically under the strategy adopted for
financing the saving-investment gap in the plans, the
targeted investment rate dictated the rate of foreign
savings (Singh, 2009). This unidirectional relationship was
reversed in the reform period (1992-2007), with CAB
Granger causing ΔI, implying that with an open current
account and liberalisation of capital flows, foreign savings
was also driving the investment rate as the former was
determined by the decisions of market agents.
Pair-wise Granger Causality Test |
Null Hypothesis: |
F-Statistic |
Probability value |
1951-1991 |
|
|
ΔI does not Granger Cause CAB |
8.44 |
0.00 |
CAB does not Granger Cause ΔI |
2.01 |
0.15 |
1992-2007 |
|
|
ΔI does not Granger Cause CAB |
1.03 |
0.39 |
CAB does not Granger Cause ΔI |
11.25 |
0.00 |
6.69 The important role of foreign investment
inflows was evident from its share in domestic
investment. The share of FDI flows in the net
domestic capital formation increased significantly
during the post-reforms period (Chart VI.11).
 |
Table 6.31: India: Net Capital Flows |
(US$ billion) |
|
2007-08 |
2008-09 |
2009-10 |
|
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
Q4 |
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
Q4 |
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
1. Foreign Direct Investment |
2.8 |
2.3 |
2.1 |
8.6 |
9.0 |
4.9 |
0.4 |
3.2 |
6.1 |
6.5 |
3.9 |
Inward FDI |
7.6 |
4.8 |
7.8 |
14.3 |
11.9 |
8.8 |
6.3 |
8.0 |
8.7 |
10.7 |
7.1 |
Outward FDI |
4.7 |
2.6 |
5.8 |
5.7 |
2.9 |
3.9 |
5.9 |
4.8 |
2.6 |
4.2 |
3.9 |
2. Portfolio Investment |
7.5 |
10.9 |
12.7 |
-3.7 |
-4.2 |
-1.3 |
-5.8 |
-2.7 |
8.3 |
9.7 |
5.7 |
3. External Assistance |
0.2 |
0.5 |
0.6 |
0.8 |
0.4 |
0.5 |
1.0 |
0.8 |
0.01 |
0.5 |
0.6 |
4. ECBs |
6.9 |
4.2 |
6.2 |
5.2 |
1.5 |
1.7 |
3.8 |
1.0 |
-0.5 |
1.2 |
1.5 |
5. Banking Capital |
-0.9 |
6.6 |
0.2 |
5.8 |
2.7 |
2.3 |
-5.0 |
-3.3 |
-3.4 |
4.4 |
1.9 |
NRI Deposits |
-0.4 |
0.4 |
-0.9 |
1.1 |
0.8 |
0.3 |
1.0 |
2.2 |
1.8 |
1.0 |
0.6 |
6. Short-term Trade Credits |
2.0 |
4.9 |
3.3 |
5.8 |
4.5 |
1.3 |
-4.8 |
-2.6 |
-1.5 |
-0.6 |
3.3 |
7. Others |
-2.9 |
3.8 |
4.5 |
5.5 |
-8.9 |
-1.4 |
3.7 |
5.1 |
-3.2 |
0.9 |
-2.2 |
Total (1 to 7) |
15.7 |
33.2 |
29.6 |
28.0 |
4.9 |
7.1 |
-6.1 |
1.4 |
5.9 |
22.6 |
14.7 |
6.70 The Indian economy, like other emerging
market economies (EMEs)7, rapidly got integrated
with the global economy, particularly with advanced
countries, through increasing financial flows during
the 1990s and the 2000s. The turmoil in financial
markets in the advanced countries during the later
part of 2007 spilled over to India through financial
channels, through deceleration or reversals in
capital inflows, especially portfolio investments,
despite sound macroeconomic fundamentals and
the banking system (Table 6.31).
Foreign Investment
6.71 During the crisis, global financial
institutions, as part of substantial global
deleveraging, withdrew significant portfolio
investments from India, like in other EMEs during
2008-09, despite strong macroeconomic
fundamentals. With international financial markets
stabilising and signs of early recovery in India
becoming prominent, portfolio inflows resumed in
the aftermath of the crisis with net inflows during
2009-10 (Table 6.32).
6.72 On the other hand, foreign direct investment
in India remained almost unscathed from the ongoing global financial crisis. The continued
buoyancy in FDI inflows during 2008-09 and 2009-
10 reflected the relatively strong macroeconomic
fundamentals of the Indian economy and
recognition of India as a long-term investment
destination. Despite some deceleration in the second half of 2008-09, FDI inflows reverted back
on the ascending curve with further acceleration in
investments since the first quarter of 2009-10,
reiterating confidence in the macroeconomic
fundamentals.
Table 6.32: Foreign Investment in India |
(US$ billion) |
Period |
Portfolio Investment |
FDI (Net) |
Inflows |
Outflows |
Net |
Inward |
Outward |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
2006-07:Q1 |
30.8 |
31.3 |
-0.5 |
3.4 |
-1.7 |
2006-07:Q2 |
17.9 |
15.8 |
2.1 |
4.4 |
-2.3 |
2006-07:Q3 |
28.6 |
25.1 |
3.6 |
9.8 |
-7.0 |
2006-07:Q4 |
32.2 |
30.4 |
1.8 |
5.1 |
-4.1 |
2007-08:Q1 |
34.7 |
27.2 |
7.5 |
7.5 |
-4.7 |
2007-08:Q2 |
48.7 |
37.8 |
10.9 |
4.7 |
-2.6 |
2007-08:Q3 |
78.1 |
63.3 |
14.8 |
7.9 |
-5.8 |
2007-08:Q4 |
74.2 |
78.0 |
-3.8 |
14.2 |
-5.7 |
2008-09:Q1 |
40.7 |
44.9 |
-4.2 |
11.9 |
-2.9 |
2008-09:Q2 |
42.6 |
43.9 |
-1.3 |
8.8 |
-3.9 |
2008-09:Q3 |
26.6 |
32.4 |
-5.8 |
6.3 |
-5.9 |
2008-09:Q4 |
18.6 |
21.2 |
-2.6 |
8.0 |
-4.8 |
2009-10:Q1 |
38.6 |
30.2 |
8.3 |
8.7 |
-2.6 |
2009-10:Q2 |
44.4 |
34.7 |
9.7 |
10.7 |
-4.2 |
2009-10:Q3 |
35.8 |
30.1 |
5.7 |
7.1 |
-3.2 |
Source: Reserve Bank of India. |
6.73 Interestingly, outbound FDI also remained
strong during recent periods on account of Indian
firms establishing their production, marketing and
distribution networks overseas to achieve global
scale along with accessing new technology and
natural resources. Overseas investment by Indian
corporates surged considerably during the second
half of 2008-09, despite deteriorating conditions
in international financial markets. Indian
companies, particularly in the manufacturing sector,
funded their overseas acquisitions by accessing
liquidity from the domestic foreign exchange
market on the back of worsening conditions in
global credit markets.
External Commercial Borrowings (ECBs)
6.74 Corporates take recourse to ECBs mainly
for the import of capital goods, project financing
and modernisation of plant and capacity expansion,
which is a sign of rising investment activity
domestically. Commercial borrowings by Indian
corporates have also declined sharply since the first
half 2008-09 and, during the year, gross
commercial borrowing disbursements in India were
almost half of the disbursements in 2007-08. During
the first quarter of 2009-10, commercial borrowing
disbursements further dipped, whereas repayments
continued to be strong as in the previous year
resulting in net outflows, albeit marginal. However,
commercial borrowings raised by indian
corporates rebounded sharply since the second
quarter of 2009-10 with returning of stability in
international financial markets and growth recovery
in domestic economy.
6.75 A critical issue is that the relationship
between ECBs and industrial activities is not a
direct one but an indirect one through imports of
capital goods. As ECBs are largely used for
financing the import of capital goods (machinery,
equipment, etc.) to meet domestic investment demand, import of capital goods is the conduit
through which such shocks are transmitted. An
analysis of the relationship between ECB
disbursements and the import of capital goods
shows that there is a close positive relationship
between these two variables (Chart VI.12). This is
also corroborated by a high degree of correlation
(0.55) between the variables during the period
1992-93 to 2008-09. The import of capital goods,
in turn, is dependent on the momentum in industrial
activity. The capital goods import growth closely
tracks the movements in industrial production
growth. The coefficient of correlation between IIP
growth and imports of capital goods is observed to
be relatively high (0.50). Thus, a sharp contraction
in Indian corporates’ overseas borrowings during
2008-09 hampered domestic investment activity
(Chart VI.12).
 |
Trade Credit
6.76 The supply of international trade credit is
also a key channel through which global shocks
are transmitted to domestic investment and real
activity. During a period of monetary tightening,
firms which are likely to be constrained by declines
in bank credit resort to increasing use of trade
credit. Similarly, firms that experience limited access to various sources of finance including bank
credit are likely to turn to their suppliers for trade
credit. With trade credit lines usually being shortterm
in nature and capable of being redeemed
quickly at par, they are considered operationally
the easiest asset class for a bank to cut at times
of heightened risk aversion, often in the form of
not rolling over maturing credits as part of banks’
policy of overall reduction in country exposures
during a crisis.
6.77 The recent global credit squeeze affected
exporters and importers in terms of access to and
cost of trade credit. According to the IMF (2009),
during the recent global crisis the spreads on trade
finance increased from 100 to 150 basis points to
around 400 basis points over LIBOR, with
intensifying country and counterparty risks.
Although the spurt in costs of trade finance was
global, the decline in availability of trade credit was
felt more by EMEs, especially Asian EMEs, where
much of inter-regional trade is in low-profit margin
items that are part of the manufacturing supply
chain for exports to advanced economies. The
higher capital requirements imposed by regulators and by banks on their own lending also increased
the spreads between the banks’ costs of funds and
the price of trade finance to their customers.
Additionally, fear of default/counterparty risk led
banks to tighten lending guidelines.
6.78 A major part of the decrease in trade credit
reflected lower trade volumes and commodity
prices, but the decrease was also attributed to the
drying-up of the secondary market for trade finance
and reduced credit lines from banks specialising in
the provision of such finance (BIS, 2008-09).
Against this backdrop, short-term trade credit to
India decelerated in the first half, but the decline
accentuated during the second half of 2008-09. On
the other hand, Indian corporates were finding it
difficult to roll over the existing trade credit and,
hence, repayments of short-term credit escalated
sharply, resulting in net outflows in the second half
of 2008-09 (Chart VI.13). Thus, gross disbursement
of short-term trade credit to India declined sharply
in 2008-09; repayments, however, increased
significantly, mainly due to problems in rollover.
With stabilising global financial markets and
reviving growth domestically, trade credit disbursements revived since the beginning of 2009-
10 and resulted into net inflows during the second
quarter of 2009-10 and subsequently.
 |
6.79 Globally, the decline in the availability of
trade finance has been attributed as a major factor
in the decline in world trade. With India also
witnessing a slowdown in trade credit flows during
the second half of 2008-09, it was debated whether
it had a role in denting India’s imports from October
2008. Anecdotal evidence indicates that the cost
of trade credit had risen rapidly, while, at the same
time, availability had fallen substantially as reflected
in higher repayments. But some of the plunge in
trade credit could be attributed to a decline in
imports due to the recession, while some of the
rise in cost is due to the increased counterparty
risk on the back of the continued slump worldwide.
6.80 An exercise has been attempted to estimate
the elasticity of imports with respect to trade credit
along with other controlling variables, such as
industrial growth and exchange rate, with quarterly
data for the period 1997-98 to 2008-09 using
ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. The
estimation results signify that the contribution of
trade credit to growth in imports is statistically
significant8. However, the results show that
industrial growth remains the largest contributor to
imports growth in India. Thus, the estimation results
corroborate the conjecture that contraction in trade
credit along with industrial slowdown affected
import demand in India.
Banking Capital
6.81 Indian banks’ access to international capital
markets was also significantly affected during the
crisis on account of risk aversion towards the
financial sector and the significant risk in repricing
of EMEs assets. In international credit markets, the
risk default premia for banks and financial institutions reached a peak in October-November
2008 and continued to be at a level higher than in
the pre-Lehman episode for quite some time.
Coming under the impact of the global shocks,
Indian banks witnessed significant outflows under
banking capital. During the early 2000s and the
recent global crisis, banking capital inflows have
displayed pro-cyclical behaviour.
6.82 Despite the cushion provided by NRI
deposits, which remained steady during the crisis
mainly due to attractive interest rate incentives, the
significant net outflows of banking capital in the
second half of 2008-09 and first quarter of 2009-
10 were due to a significant rise in outflows on
account of repayments of existing liabilities and
possibly due to the recapitalisation of their overseas
subsidiaries in the wake of their deteriorating
balance sheets. A sudden jump in repayments of
liabilities by commercial banks could also be partly
explained by the factors contributing to the roll-over.
This decline in access to international borrowings
for banks partly constrained their ability to lend in
the domestic market.
Overall Balance and Forex Reserve
6.83 The widening current account balance, on
account of deteriorating trade balance in the first
half of 2008-09, coupled with net capital outflows,
resulting from reversal of portfolio investments and
significant lowering of debt flows particularly
commercial borrowings, trade credit and
commercial banks (excluding NRI deposits), led
overall balance into deficit in 2008-09. Due to large
capital outflows, foreign exchange reserves
declined during 2008-09; however, valuation
changes as a result of the weakening of the US
dollar against major currencies explained a
significant portion (around 65 per cent) of the
decline in reserves during the year (Table 6.33).
Table 6.33: Change in Reserves |
(US$ billion) |
Quarterly |
Reserve
Position |
Reserve
Change |
Valuation on
account of
Exchange
Rates |
Reserve
Change
excluding
Valuation |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Quarterly |
|
|
|
|
2007-08:Q1 |
213.4 |
14.2 |
3.0 |
11.2 |
2007-08:Q2 |
247.8 |
34.4 |
5.2 |
29.2 |
2007-08:Q3 |
275.3 |
27.6 |
0.8 |
26.7 |
2007-08:Q4 |
309.7 |
34.4 |
9.4 |
25.0 |
2008-09:Q1 |
312.1 |
2.4 |
0.1 |
2.2 |
2008-09:Q2 |
286.3 |
-25.8 |
-21.0 |
-4.7 |
2008-09:Q3 |
256.0 |
-30.4 |
-12.5 |
-17.9 |
2008-09:Q4 |
252.0 |
-4.0 |
-4.3 |
0.3 |
2009-10:Q1 |
265.1 |
13.2 |
13.1 |
0.1 |
2009-10:Q2 |
281.3 |
16.2 |
6.8 |
9.4 |
2009-10:Q3 |
283.5 |
2.2 |
0.4 |
1.8 |
Half-Yearly |
|
|
|
|
2007-08:H1 |
247.8 |
48.6 |
8.1 |
40.4 |
2007-08:H2 |
309.7 |
62.0 |
10.2 |
51.7 |
2008-09:H1 |
286.3 |
-23.4 |
-20.9 |
-2.5 |
2008-09:H2 |
252.0 |
-34.4 |
-16.8 |
-17.6 |
2009-10:H1 |
281.3 |
29.3 |
19.8 |
9.5 |
2009-10:H2 |
279.1 |
-2 |
|
|
Full Year |
|
|
|
|
2007-08 |
309.7 |
110.5 |
18.4 |
92.2 |
2008-09 |
252.0 |
-57.7 |
-37.7 |
-20.1 |
2009-10 |
279.1 |
27.1 |
– |
– |
6.84 To sum up, during this crisis, the impact of
the financial channel was more distinct with sharp
decline portfolio inflows, external commercial
borrowings, trade credit, and overseas borrowings
of banks. Foreign direct investment and nonresident
deposits, however, showed resilience. A
sharp contraction in Indian corporates’ overseas
borrowings significantly impacted domestic
investment activity. Access to trade finance was
severely affected for many EMEs due to tightness
in overseas liquidity. Some improvement is
discernible with the return of a degree of stability
in international financial markets and a recovery in
the industrial sector in many advanced countries.
India’s balance of payments (BoP) made a
turnaround, gaining strength mainly from elevated
private remittances coupled with a sharp bounceback
in portfolio investment and buoyant NRI
deposit inflows during 2009-10.
6.85 The final impact through the trade and
financial channel penetrated the real sector, which
was impacted severely during this crisis. One
reason for the higher impact on the real sector was
a shift in the composition of aggregate demand
towards the external sector during the current
decade (see Section I in this chapter). The
increasing openness of the Indian economy further
accentuated the transmission mechanism through
which the impact traversed to the real sector (see
Section I of Chapter 5). The final impact on the
savings, investment and real sector is discussed
in the next section.
IV. IMPACT ON SAVING, INVESTMENT AND
GROWTH
6.86 The Indian economy has witnessed a
distinct strengthening of the growth momentum
before the recent crisis on account of multiple
factors, viz., improved financial intermediation,
increased external demand, strengthening of
physical infrastructure and conducive public
polices. The recent global financial crisis and the
consequent recession in major advanced
economies, however, impacted the Indian economy
from both the demand and supply sides with
differential impact across sectors. While the
deceleration in exports may be the key factor on
the demand side, the drying-up of external sources
of funding, slowdown in capital flows and
dampening business confidence could be the
supply-side constraints. To what extent these two
factors will affect growth, savings and investment
needs to be assessed in order to understand their
implications for the economy.
Impact on Saving and Investment
6.87 The financial channel of transmission
affecting capital flows, stock markets, financial
intermediation, etc. which eventually boiled down
to savings and investment. It may be noted that
volatility and disruptions in financial markets during
crisis periods might have led to a shift in the
composition of household savings towards physical
assets. During the previous crises, viz., the balance of payments (BOP) crisis (1990-91), the East Asian
Crisis (1997-1998) and the dot-com crisis in the
US (2001-2002), India experienced some
slowdown in its growth momentum and a concurrent
deceleration in the growth of gross domestic
savings. A similar phenomenon has been observed
during the recent global financial crisis as growth
of gross domestic savings decelerated sharply
during 2008-09, reflecting growth slowdown in the
economy (Table 6.34). Drawing inferences from
past behaviour consequent to international crises,
gross domestic savings could surge in the coming
years.
Table 6.34: Contribution to Gross Domestic Savings |
Period |
As % of GDP |
Relative Contribution to Total Savings (%) |
Total |
Households |
Private Corporate |
Public |
Households |
Private Corporate |
Public |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
1991-1995 |
23.8 |
17.3 |
3.1 |
2.0 |
68.4 |
20.1 |
11.5 |
1996-2000 |
24.9 |
18.1 |
4.4 |
1.1 |
106.1 |
21.4 |
-27.5 |
2001-2005 |
26.4 |
22.7 |
4.5 |
-0.2 |
112.9 |
6.1 |
-19.0 |
2005-06 |
34.1 |
22.8 |
8.2 |
3.1 |
56.8 |
35.6 |
7.6 |
2006-07 |
34.4 |
22.9 |
8.0 |
3.6 |
48.8 |
26.0 |
25.2 |
2007-08 |
36.4 |
22.6 |
8.7 |
5.0 |
42.9 |
27.4 |
29.8 |
2008-09 |
32.5 |
22.6 |
8.4 |
1.4 |
1394.9 |
382.2 |
-1677.1 |
6.88 Further, an attempt has been made to find
the major factors behind the movements in
household savings in India in order to assess the
unfolding behaviour during the recent global crisis
and coming years. The household savings were
regressed on various independent variables, viz.,
personal disposable income, interest rate (yield on
government securities), financial deepening (M3/
GDP) and fiscal deficit during the period from 1970- 1971 to 2008-2009. The regression results show
that coefficients of personal disposable income and
financial deepening are positive and significant,
while the coefficients of interest rate and fiscal
deficit are found to be positive but insignificant9.
The regression results defy the Ricardian
Equivalence (RE) hypothesis10 in the case of India,
as the fiscal deficit has not been found not causing
any significant movement in household savings. In
a study, Ghatak and Subrata (1996) also found
invalidation of RE hyphthesis in India.
Nevertheless, savings, particularly in the household
and private sectors, may accelerate during postcrisis
periods on account of other factors, viz., to
create cushions for the possible recurrence of such
events in future and to pay off liabilities incurred
during the crisis.
6.89 The global financial crisis weakened the
capacity of companies to invest through reduced
access to financial resources, both internally and
externally, coupled with collapsed growth prospects
and heightened uncertainty severely affecting the private sector’s propensity to invest. All these
factors led to a perceptible contraction in private
investment in the economy during 2008-09. It may
be noted that private investment behaved similarly
during the past two international crises, i.e., the
East Asian and dot-com crises, when the pace of
private investment depleted significantly in the
former and overall investment contracted in the
latter. During these crises, the growth of investment
in the household and public sectors also dipped
substantially. Therefore, private investment
supported by other sectors led to a sharp fall in the
growth of gross domestic capital formation during
the past crises. Since the government has
enhanced expenditure in infrastructure as a
counter-cyclical measure during the recent global
crisis, the pace of incremental public investment
have not witnessed a sharp decline. At the same
time, households investment accelerated sharply
during 2008-09. Since, the gross domestic capital
formation during the last few years was powered
by private investment, the steep contraction in
private investment led to sharp deceleration in its
growth during the recent crisis (Table 6.35).
6.90 In light of the significance of private
investment to propel gross domestic capital
formation, an analysis of the factors driving the
momentum of private investment was undertaken.
The possible major factors driving private
investment could be bank credit, net capital flows
and interest rate from the supply side and personal
disposable income from the demand side. All these
variables were tested for stationarity and they were
found to be of the I(1) order. Since all these
variables had a unit root problem, instead of a
simple VAR, the Johansen Cointegration (1988,
1991) methodology was used to estimate the
variance decomposition of private investment with
respect to select explanatory variables11. The
Cholesky Variance Decomposition suggests that
bank credit explains about 28 per cent of the
variation in private investment, while personal
disposable income and interest rate explain about
8 per cent and 5 per cent variation, respectively.
The net capital flows, however, explains negligible
variation in private investment. The extent of
variation in private investment explained by bank
credit, however, increases over the period, while it declined in the case of personal disposable income.
Further, the results12 of the VAR Granger Casualty
test show that unidirectional causality runs from
bank credit to private investment at the 10 per cent
significance level and is bidirectional from personal
disposable income to private investment at a 1 per
cent level of significance. The causality from
interest rates and net capital flows to private
investment and vice versa has not been found
significant. The above empirical results
demonstrate the importance of like personal
disposable income and bank credit in influencing
private investment. In the present context also, both
these factors on the back of the economic
slowdown appear to have triggered the significant
deceleration in private investment eventually
leading to a sharp decline in the growth of gross
domestic capital formation in 2008-09.
Table 6.35: Gross Domestic Capital Formation at Current Prices |
Year/Period |
Growth (Per cent) |
Share in GDP (Per cent) |
Household |
Private |
Public |
Total |
Household |
Private |
Public |
Total |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
1990-1991 |
23.2 |
20.6 |
14.4 |
18.9 |
9.7 |
4.5 |
10.0 |
24.2 |
1991-1992 |
-24.9 |
58.1 |
9.1 |
4.6 |
6.3 |
6.2 |
9.5 |
22.0 |
1992-1996 |
24.7 |
34.3 |
12.3 |
22.4 |
7.2 |
7.7 |
8.9 |
23.8 |
1996-1999 |
19.9 |
0.3 |
8.0 |
8.2 |
7.4 |
8.3 |
7.2 |
22.9 |
1999-2000 |
37.8 |
15.6 |
17.7 |
28.5 |
10.5 |
7.4 |
7.4 |
26.1 |
2000-2002 |
11.7 |
-5.3 |
4.1 |
1.4 |
11.3 |
5.3 |
6.9 |
24.2 |
2002-2003 |
20.8 |
17.7 |
-4.6 |
12.3 |
12.6 |
5.9 |
6.1 |
25.2 |
2003-2004 |
13.2 |
29.4 |
16.9 |
19.3 |
12.7 |
6.8 |
6.3 |
26.8 |
2004-2005 |
13.8 |
79.9 |
24.3 |
34.9 |
13.5 |
10.3 |
7.4 |
32.5 |
2005-2006 |
0.0 |
50.1 |
21.8 |
20.9 |
11.8 |
13.5 |
7.9 |
34.3 |
2006-2007 |
16.8 |
24.5 |
22.7 |
21.3 |
11.9 |
14.5 |
8.4 |
36.0 |
2007-2008 |
11.0 |
28.1 |
22.9 |
20.6 |
11.5 |
16.1 |
8.9 |
37.6 |
2008-2009 |
19.8 |
-11.0 |
18.6 |
6.7 |
12.2 |
12.7 |
9.4 |
35.6 |
Source : Handbook of Statistics on Indian Economy.
Note : The growth in gross domestic capital formation was 4.7 per cent during the first quarter of 2009-10. |
Impact on Overall Growth
6.91 Although the growth of the Indian economy
started slowing down from the last quarter of 2007-08
and the trend continued in subsequent quarters
taking a cue from world growth, slowdown accentuated in the third and fourth quarter of 2008-
09 before improving somewhat during the first
quarter of 2009-10 (Table 6.36). In fact, the Indian
economy was already on the moderating growth
trajectory of the business cycle from the fourth
quarter of 2006, but the current global crisis made
the slowdown more pronounced from the third
quarter of 2008-09 (RBI Annual Report, 2008-09)13.
Hence, the Indian economy would have witnessed
a slowdown during 2008-09 even in the absence
of the global financial crisis, albeit at a lower pace.
6.92 The Indian economy, as mentioned above,
witnessed incipient signs of slowdown in the last
quarter of 2007-08 but the actual impact was felt in
the second half of 2008-09. On the demand side,
the first to respond to the global financial crisis were
investments (capital formation) and private
consumption, as growth in both these components
started decelerating concomitantly in the last
quarter of 2007-08. Exports of goods and services
got impacted in the third quarter of 2008-09 and
their growth plummeted sharply on account of a
large decline in the spending of advanced
economies (Chart VI.14).
Table 6.36: Quarterly Growth in GDP at Factor Cost |
(Per cent) |
Sector |
2007-08 |
2008-09 |
2009-10 |
2007-08 |
2008-09 |
2009-10 |
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
Q4 |
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
Q4 |
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
Q4 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
Agriculture & Allied |
4.7 |
1.6 |
0.2 |
3.1 |
3.9 |
8.7 |
2.1 |
3.2 |
2.4 |
-1.4 |
3.3 |
1.9 |
0.9 |
-1.8 |
0.7 |
Industry |
9.3 |
3.1 |
10.4 |
10.5 |
9.5 |
9.5 |
7.8 |
5.2 |
4.9 |
1.7 |
0.8 |
4.6 |
9.0 |
12.3 |
15.1 |
Services |
10.4 |
9.3 |
8.3 |
10.7 |
10.5 |
10.2 |
10.4 |
9.8 |
9.3 |
10.0 |
8.0 |
7.5 |
10.0 |
7.3 |
8.5 |
Total |
9.2 |
6.7 |
7.4 |
9.3 |
9.4 |
9.7 |
8.5 |
7.8 |
7.5 |
6.1 |
5.8 |
6.0 |
8.6 |
6.5 |
8.6 |
Source: Central Statistical Organisation, Government of India. |
 |
6.93 The positive cyclical co-movements
between GDP and private consumption and gross
domestic capital formation (investment) further
strengthened during recent periods (2006-2009)
(Table 6.37). The cyclical co-movements between
GDP and government consumption turned negative
in the recent past, primarily resulting from the
counter-cyclical fiscal policy stance executed in the
form of fiscal stimulus measures providing support
to the weakening growth in the wake of the global
crisis. The cyclical synchronisation between the
growth of GDP and various components of
aggregate demand was also assessed by
estimating the relationship between the variables
with ordinary least squares (OLS) regression for
the period from the second quarter of 1996 to the
second quarter of 2009. The results of the
regression demonstrate that the causality running
from cyclical gross domestic capital formation and private consumption to cyclical GDP is significant,
while it is insignificant in case of government
consumption and exports of goods and services14.
This indicates the primacy of private financial
consumption and investment in driving the growth
of the Indian economy in recent periods. Hence, it
could be inferred that the recent global crisis
accentuated the cyclical downturn in the Indian
economy, adversely affecting private consumption
and investment.
Table 6.37: Cyclical Co-movements of GDP with Components of Aggregate Demand (Correlation Coefficient) |
Component |
1996-2000 |
2001-2005 |
2006-2009:Q2 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
Gross Domestic Capital |
0.67 |
0.44 |
0.64 |
Formation |
|
|
|
Private Consumption |
0.00 |
0.50 |
0.60 |
Government Consumption |
0.42 |
0.16 |
-0.72 |
Exports of Goods & Services |
-0.01 |
0.14 |
0.32 |
Source: National Accounts Statistics, CSO, Govt. of India. |
6.94 The real growth in GDP at market prices
started slowing down from the first half of 2008-09,
after witnessing a higher trajectory during 2005-
2008, on the back of the global crisis adversely
affecting investment and private consumption
during this period (Table 6.38). The growth in
exports of goods & services, which had surged
significantly in the first half of 2008-09, decelerated
steeply during the second half. The growth in capital
formation, which decelerated substantially in the
first half of 2008-09, plunged further in the second
half. Similarly, private consumption continued to
decelerate during the second half of 2008-09 on
account of a continued slide in the stock market
and heightened uncertainty. At the same time,
government consumption increased massively in the second half of 2008-09 as the government took
counter-cyclical measures. The component-wise
(demand-side) analysis shows that the upturn in
growth during the first half of 2009-10 has come
from the upturn in gross domestic capital formation
supported by robust growth in government
consumption. All other demand components, viz.,
private consumption, exports and imports, which
directly contribute to growth, continued to witness
growth deceleration/contraction during this period.
Table 6.38: Growth in Demand Components of GDP (At 2004-05 Prices) |
(Per cent) |
Period |
Private Consumption |
Government Consumption |
Capital Formation |
Exports |
Imports |
Overall GDP (Market Prices) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
Trend |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1990-95 |
3.7 |
2.8 |
7.8 |
10.8 |
13.3 |
4.7 |
1995-00 |
5.9 |
9.8 |
8.0 |
13.4 |
13.3 |
6.6 |
2000-05 |
4.6 |
1.8 |
10.0 |
16.1 |
11.1 |
5.9 |
2005-08 |
9.0 |
7.2 |
15.3 |
17.6 |
21.5 |
9.5 |
Annual |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-08 |
9.8 |
9.7 |
16.9 |
5.2 |
10.0 |
9.6 |
2008-09 |
6.8 |
16.7 |
-1.7 |
19.3 |
23.0 |
5.1 |
2009-10 |
4.3 |
10.5 |
7.1 |
-6.7 |
-7.3 |
7.7 |
Half Yearly |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-08:H1 |
9.3 |
5.2 |
16.2 |
0.6 |
1.2 |
9.6 |
2007-08:H2 |
10.3 |
13.5 |
13.5 |
9.4 |
18.7 |
9.6 |
2008-09:H1 |
8.0 |
5.5 |
0.9 |
34.2 |
40.0 |
7.1 |
2008-09:H2 |
5.8 |
25.7 |
-3.9 |
6.6 |
8.6 |
3.4 |
2009-10:H1 |
4.6 |
22.5 |
0.9 |
-15.9 |
-9.5 |
5.8 |
2009-10:H2 |
4.0 |
2.3 |
13.0 |
3.3 |
-4.8 |
9.3 |
Quarterly |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-09:Q1 |
8.4 |
3.7 |
0.1 |
35.1 |
34.4 |
7.3 |
2008-09:Q2 |
7.6 |
7.5 |
1.6 |
33.3 |
45.2 |
6.9 |
2008-09:Q3 |
6.4 |
59.0 |
-4.9 |
12.3 |
23.2 |
3.0 |
2008-09:Q4 |
5.1 |
2.5 |
-2.9 |
1.4 |
-4.4 |
3.8 |
2009-10:Q1 |
2.9 |
15.3 |
-0.3 |
-16.0 |
-8.5 |
5.2 |
2009-10:Q2 |
6.4 |
30.5 |
2.1 |
-15.8 |
-10.5 |
6.4 |
2009-10:Q3 |
5.3 |
2.5 |
8.4 |
-7.5 |
-5.8 |
7.3 |
2009-10:Q4 |
2.6 |
2.1 |
17.3 |
14.2 |
-3.7 |
11.2 |
Source: Central Statistical Organisation, Govt. of India. |
Sectoral Impact of Slowdown
6.95 Industrial growth decelerated significantly
in the first half of 2008-09 from a high level during
the past three years as a result of spill-over effects
of the global crisis penetrating through trade and
financial channels. The decline in industrial growth was higher than the deceleration in overall growth
and, accordingly, the relative contribution of the
industrial sector in GDP also declined considerably
during 2008-09. On the other hand, the services
sector experienced moderate slowdown in growth
compared to industry during the 2008-09 and its
relative contribution in GDP improved (Table 6.39).
Moderation in the growth of the services sector
during this period emanated from the financial
channel and drying up of external demand.
6.96 The impact on the industrial and services
sectors got amplified in the second half of 2008-
09 with overall contraction in merchandise exports
and deceleration in the growth of services exports
along with shattered confidence reinforcing the
adverse affects stemming from the financial
channel. During this period again, the growth deceleration was more severe in the industrial
sector than the services sector, as manufacturing
exports, which contribute a large part to industrial
sector demand, contracted sharply on the back of
a sharp fall in the spending of the advanced
economies on consumer durables. It may,
however, be mentioned that services sector
growth continued to decelerate during 2009-10,
whereas industrial growth revived significantly.
Table 6.39: Sectoral Growth in GDP (At 2004-05 Prices) |
(Per cent) |
Period |
Contribution to Incremental GDP |
Growth |
Agriculture |
Industry |
Services |
Agriculture |
Industry |
Services |
Overall |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
Trend |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1990-95 |
11.8 |
17.2 |
71.0 |
3.4 |
5.3 |
5.6 |
4.8 |
1995-00 |
10.0 |
17.9 |
72.1 |
3.1 |
6.0 |
8.6 |
6.6 |
2000-05 |
2.9 |
21.5 |
75.6 |
1.8 |
6.0 |
7.8 |
6.0 |
2006-08 |
8.7 |
22.0 |
69.3 |
4.6 |
10.3 |
10.6 |
9.5 |
Annual |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-08 |
8.8 |
20.8 |
70.4 |
4.7 |
9.3 |
10.4 |
9.2 |
2008-09 |
3.9 |
9.5 |
86.6 |
1.6 |
3.1 |
9.3 |
6.7 |
2009-10 |
0.5 |
27.9 |
71.7 |
0.2 |
10.4 |
8.3 |
7.4 |
Half Yearly |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-08:H1 |
5.8 |
22.5 |
71.7 |
3.5 |
10.0 |
10.6 |
9.4 |
2007-08:H2 |
11.5 |
19.3 |
69.2 |
5.7 |
8.7 |
10.3 |
9.1 |
2008-09:H1 |
5.5 |
14.2 |
80.3 |
2.9 |
5.1 |
9.6 |
7.6 |
2008-09:H2 |
2.0 |
4.2 |
93.7 |
0.7 |
1.2 |
9.0 |
5.9 |
2009-10:H1 |
2.7 |
19.4 |
77.9 |
1.4 |
6.8 |
8.7 |
7.3 |
2009-10:H2 |
-1.5 |
35.1 |
66.4 |
-0.7 |
13.8 |
7.9 |
7.6 |
Quarterly |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-09:Q1 |
6.7 |
14.2 |
79.1 |
3.2 |
5.2 |
9.8 |
7.8 |
2008-09:Q2 |
4.3 |
14.2 |
81.5 |
2.4 |
4.9 |
9.3 |
7.5 |
2008-09:Q3 |
-4.6 |
5.7 |
98.9 |
-1.4 |
1.7 |
10.0 |
6.1 |
2008-09:Q4 |
8.9 |
2.8 |
88.3 |
3.3 |
0.8 |
8.0 |
5.8 |
2009-10:Q1 |
4.8 |
15.6 |
79.6 |
1.9 |
4.6 |
7.5 |
6.0 |
2009-10:Q2 |
1.3 |
22.0 |
76.7 |
0.9 |
9.0 |
10.0 |
8.6 |
2009-10:Q3 |
-5.1 |
35.9 |
69.2 |
-1.8 |
12.3 |
7.3 |
6.5 |
2009-10:Q4 |
1.2 |
34.6 |
64.2 |
0.7 |
15.1 |
8.5 |
8.6 |
6.97 Agriculture and allied activities, which
largely remain unconnected to global
developments, grew at a healthy rate due to robust
monsoons and provided support to industry and
services in the form of rural demand during the first
half of 2008-09. The growth in agriculture and allied
activities, however, decelerated significantly and,
accordingly, the rural demand component weakened in the second half of 2008-09. The failure
of the south-west monsoon in 2009 and the
consequent fall in agricultural output appears to
have weakened rural demand during 2009-10.
Industry: Disaggregated Analysis
6.98 The cross-country analysis reveals that the
impact of the crisis on the industrial sector has been
quite severe and broad-based as manifested by a
sharp deceleration in growth or contraction in
industrial output in many advanced and emerging
market economies, including India, during 2008 and
2009 (Table 6.40). Although the industrial sector
of the advanced economies was hit first, the ripple
effects travelled with a lag to emerging markets and
other developing economies through trade and
financial channels.
Table 6.40: Industrial Growth in Advanced and Emerging Market Economies |
(Per cent) |
Country |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
Q4 |
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
Q4 |
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
Q4 |
Q1 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
|
Emerging |
Brazil |
3.8 |
5.6 |
6.3 |
7.9 |
6.9 |
5.9 |
6.3 |
-7.2 |
-13.8 |
-11.6 |
-8.7 |
6.3 |
17.2 |
China |
15.1 |
18.3 |
18.1 |
17.5 |
10.9 |
15.9 |
13.0 |
6.4 |
9.7 |
9.0 |
12.3 |
17.9 |
- |
India |
10.3 |
8.7 |
8.3 |
7.0 |
5.3 |
4.7 |
0.8 |
0.5 |
3.8 |
9.0 |
13.4 |
15.1 |
12.9 |
Korea |
4.1 |
6.3 |
6.1 |
10.9 |
11.2 |
9.2 |
5.9 |
-10.9 |
-15.7 |
-6.1 |
4.3 |
16.1 |
25.6 |
Malaysia |
0.6 |
1.8 |
2.1 |
4.5 |
6.6 |
2.4 |
0.1 |
-9.1 |
-14.4 |
-10.9 |
-6.6 |
2.6 |
- |
Mexico |
2.5 |
1.5 |
2.1 |
1.8 |
0.4 |
1.3 |
-1.4 |
-2.6 |
-9.6 |
-11.1 |
-6.3 |
-2.0 |
5.2 |
|
Advanced |
Canada |
-1.6 |
0.1 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
-5.0 |
-4.6 |
-4.3 |
-7.2 |
-10.6 |
-14.5 |
-13.0 |
-7.1 |
- |
France |
0.5 |
-0.1 |
1.5 |
2.7 |
1.0 |
1.3 |
-1.2 |
-8.9 |
-15.7 |
-16.4 |
-10.6 |
-4.6 |
- |
Germany |
8.9 |
6.7 |
6.3 |
5.9 |
5.3 |
3.3 |
0.4 |
-7.6 |
-21.8 |
-21.3 |
-17.4 |
-10.1 |
- |
Italy |
3.9 |
2.0 |
3.0 |
-1.5 |
1.0 |
0.2 |
-5.2 |
-10.4 |
-22.3 |
-23.2 |
-17.2 |
-9.3 |
- |
Japan |
2.9 |
2.4 |
2.6 |
3.3 |
2.5 |
0.8 |
-1.3 |
-14.1 |
-33.5 |
-26.6 |
-18.9 |
-4.2 |
26.0 |
UK |
-1.3 |
0.7 |
0.4 |
1.6 |
-0.6 |
-0.9 |
-2.1 |
-8.0 |
-12.6 |
-12.8 |
-11.0 |
-6.3 |
- |
USA |
1.3 |
1.5 |
1.4 |
1.8 |
1.2 |
-0.3 |
-3.2 |
-6.7 |
-11.5 |
-13.5 |
-9.2 |
-4.6 |
2.5 |
Source: International Financial Statistics, IMF; CSO, Government of India. |
6.99 After witnessing buoyant growth during the
past few years, the industrial sector was already
on the slowdown curve of the business cycle from
November 2007 [based on the index of industrial
production (IIP)]. This sector was hit severely by
the spillover effects of the recent financial crisis,
resulting in a more pronounced slowdown
beginning from October 2008. The growth in
industrial production decelerated sharply in the
second half 0f 2008-09. However, the industrial
sector turned around and recorded accelerated
growth during 2009-10.
6.100 The correlation between the cyclical
component of IIP and merchandise exports
weakened substantially and turned insignificant
during the period of contracting merchandise
exports, i.e., from October 2008 to June 2009. At
the same time, the correlation between cyclical IIP
and non-food credit and FDI further strengthened
during this period, implying the increasing
association of the financial channel in the
pronounced slowdown in the industrial sector
during this period (Chart VI.15). The steep rise in
correlation between cyclical components of the IIP
and non-food credit during recent periods could be
on account of shrinking demand for credit during the crisis period on the back of the economic
slowdown and heightened uncertainty. The
correlation does not imply any cause-and-effect
relationship between the variables and hence, to
ascertain this relationship, further investigation with
a technical exercise was taken up.
6.101 To further investigate the role of different
factors, the Granger causality between industrial growth (based on the IIP), growth in bank credit
(non-food credit) and exports was estimated from
the vector autoregression model (VAR) using
monthly data from 1995-96 to 2009-10 to see the
cause-and-effect relationships. The results15 show
bidirectional causality running between bank credit
and industrial growth and exports. The causality
running from industrial growth to bank credit is more
significant than bank credit to industrial growth. On
the basis of the Granger causality results, it can be
inferred that in the beginning of the recent crisis,
lower bank credit was caused by a slowdown in
industry which, in turn, further dampened both
industrial slowdown and bank credit as part of the
cycle. Further, the VAR Granger causality suggests
that contracting exports hampered industrial growth
during the crisis period. The causality from industrial
growth to exports growth probably reflects the
technological improvement and competitiveness
effects of exports. In sum, the Granger causality
results suggest that the global crisis affected the
industrial sector through contracting exports and,
in turn, affected bank credit.
 |
Disaggregated Analysis
6.102 At the disaggregated level, the
manufacturing sector, which carries the largest
weight of 74.4 per cent in IIP, was affected the most
(Table 6.41). The significant slowdown in the
manufacturing sector immediately reflected in a
sharp fall in the growth of the overall industrial
sector. Other sectors, viz., mining & quarrying and
electricity, gas & water supply, also witnessed a
slowdown in the second half of 2008-09.
6.103 The cyclical slowdown in the manufacturing
sector became more broad-based, with 15 out of
17 two-digit manufacturing industries experiencing
negative/ decelerated growth during 2008-09. Like
in the previous two phases of slowdown, cotton
textiles, wood & wood products, and furniture &
fixtures exhibited negative growth in the current
phase (Table 6.42). However, the manufacturing
sector rebounded with significant positive growth
since the first quarter of 2009-10, drawing strength
from domestic factors and stabilising international
financial markets.
Table 6.41: Performance of Broad-Based Sectors in Industry |
|
2005Q2-2008Q1 |
2008: Q2 |
2008: Q3 |
2008: Q4 |
2009: Q1 |
2009: Q2 |
2009: Q3 |
2009: Q4 |
2010: Q1 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
Growth in Value Addition (%) |
Mining & quarrying |
4.6 |
2.6 |
1.6 |
2.7 |
-0.3 |
8.2 |
10.1 |
9.6 |
14.0 |
Manufacturing |
11.6 |
5.9 |
5.5 |
1.3 |
0.6 |
3.8 |
9.1 |
13.8 |
16.3 |
Electricity, gas & water supply |
8.4 |
3.3 |
4.3 |
4.0 |
4.1 |
6.6 |
7.7 |
4.7 |
7.1 |
Industry |
10.3 |
5.2 |
4.9 |
1.7 |
0.8 |
4.6 |
9.0 |
12.3 |
15.1 |
|
Relative Contribution in Value Addition (%) |
Mining & quarrying |
5.2 |
5.8 |
3.8 |
19.3 |
-5.0 |
20.6 |
12.3 |
9.6 |
11.6 |
Manufacturing |
86.6 |
87.8 |
87.5 |
58.5 |
56.0 |
65.0 |
79.2 |
86.7 |
83.9 |
Electricity, gas & water supply |
8.3 |
6.4 |
8.8 |
22.3 |
48.9 |
14.5 |
8.5 |
3.7 |
4.5 |
Table 6.42: Growth Performance of 17 two-digit Manufacturing Industries |
(Per cent) |
Industry |
2007-08 |
2008-09 |
2009-10 |
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
Q4 |
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
Q4 |
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
Q4 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
1. Food products |
26.8 |
-1.6 |
- 4.9 |
9.9 |
-7.1 |
7.6 |
0.6 |
-25.2 |
-17.2 |
-5.2 |
0.7 |
10.2 |
2. Beverages, tobacco and related products |
9.7 |
8.8 |
17.7 |
11.9 |
30.7 |
9.8 |
12.2 |
12.5 |
-6.2 |
2.1 |
1.7 |
3.1 |
3. Cotton textiles |
7.3 |
5.0 |
2.0 |
2.9 |
3.5 |
-3.2 |
-3.5 |
-4.3 |
-1.7 |
4.3 |
9.9 |
9.7 |
4. Wool, silk and man-made fibre textiles |
3.3 |
6.1 |
0.4 |
9.4 |
7.3 |
-8.8 |
1.3 |
0.5 |
4.8 |
21.2 |
10.7 |
-1.9 |
5. Jute and other vegetable fibre textiles (except cotton) |
30.1 |
9.9 |
-0.7 |
205.7 |
-8.1 |
-2.9 |
-23.2 |
-6.3 |
-16.2 |
-18.3 |
-6.3 |
-52.8 |
6. Textile products (including apparel) apparel) |
5.9 |
0.7 |
6.1 |
2.3 |
6.3 |
4.0 |
3.8 |
8.7 |
8.2 |
11.0 |
12.8 |
2.5 |
7. Wood and wood products, furniture & fixtures |
93.0 |
66.9 |
45.8 |
-3.7 |
-11.9 |
-0.5 |
-10.0 |
-16.3 |
14.7 |
1.3 |
11.2 |
13.1 |
8. Paper and paper products and printing, publishing and allied industries. |
1.6 |
0.2 |
4.0 |
5.0 |
1.3 |
7.7 |
1.3 |
-2.8 |
3.6 |
-0.5 |
3.5 |
9.4 |
9. Leather and leather & fur products |
8.5 |
10.8 |
11.4 |
16.2 |
5.8 |
-8.7 |
-10.5 |
-13.0 |
-3.5 |
4.8 |
1.3 |
7.1 |
10. Chemicals and chemical products (except products of petroleum & coal) |
6.9 |
10.5 |
14.9 |
10.4 |
11.2 |
1.2 |
-4.6 |
8.8 |
2.0 |
13.8 |
21.9 |
5.5 |
11. Rubber, plastic, petroleum and coal products |
12.5 |
11.3 |
6.5 |
5.6 |
-3.5 |
-4.5 |
-0.9 |
2.7 |
10.6 |
14.3 |
18.4 |
17.8 |
12. Non-metallic mineral products |
6.6 |
10.6 |
3.8 |
2.3 |
1.0 |
0.1 |
1.9 |
1.7 |
8.3 |
4.9 |
6.5 |
11.1 |
13. Basic metal and alloy industries |
20.1 |
16.9 |
6.8 |
6.8 |
4.9 |
8.4 |
5.0 |
-2.0 |
7.7 |
2.6 |
3.8 |
12.0 |
14. Metal products and parts (except machinery and equipment) |
-0.1 |
-1.9 |
-16.9 |
-2.2 |
2.0 |
1.8 |
-0.4 |
-16.8 |
-4.8 |
4.9 |
16.4 |
45.9 |
15. Machinery and equipment other than transport equipment |
14.3 |
8.4 |
13.5 |
6.6 |
7.9 |
12.3 |
4.7 |
10.3 |
7.2 |
15.0 |
24.4 |
35.0 |
16. Transport equipment and parts |
1.5 |
2.1 |
5.3 |
2.6 |
10.3 |
13.9 |
-10.9 |
-1.5 |
6.9 |
12.0 |
44.0 |
37.2 |
17. Other manufacturing industries |
7.4 |
18.2 |
35.8 |
17.1 |
-9.4 |
6.5 |
5 .6 |
-2.7 |
14.9 |
12.3 |
1.3 |
16.6 |
6.104 In the manufacturing sector, the group of
export-oriented industries (viz., basic chemical and
chemical products, textile products, wool, silk and
man-made fibre textiles, cotton textiles and leather
and leather & fur products), which experienced
sizable growth during 2003-08, had suffered along
with domestic-oriented units. Interestingly, both
export-oriented and domestic-oriented industries
rebounded with significant acceleration in their
growth during 2009-10 (April-September), which
remains considerably higher than the second half
of 2008-09 (Table 6.43).
6.105 The sluggish performance of the basic
goods and consumer goods industries in the first
half of 2008-09 also deteriorated further in the second half of 2008-09 (Table 6.44). All the subgroups
experienced deceleration/ negative growth
in the second half of 2008-09, but some of the subgroups,
viz., intermediate goods and basic goods,
turned around with improved performance from the
beginning of 2009-10, illustrating recovery from the
slump. The performance of corporates in the private
sector, after remaining subdued in the second half
of 2008-09, also witnessed a turnaround in their
margins, despite a decline in their sales in the first
quarter of 2009-10 (Box VI.8).
6.106 The analysis of the behaviour of use-based
sub-groups during the previous international crises
and afterwards could provide vital leads about the
sustainability of the industrial recovery witnessed in 2009-10. Capital goods led the recovery in the
industrial sector during the East Asian crisis,
whereas in the case of the dot-com crisis phase, all the sectors jointly pulled the industry from a
slowdown, but it was again the capital goods sector
that made the largest contribution. On the basis of the experiences during the past two international
crises, it can be inferred that capital goods recovery
is pivotal for sustainable recovery in the industrial
sector from the current slowdown, underscoring the
need to accelerate investment. Thus, the buoyant
growth in capital goods during 2009-10 suggests
that industrial recovery has become firm and
sustainable.
Table 6.43: Average Growth in Export-Oriented Manufacturing Industries (based on IIP) |
(per cent) |
Group |
2000-03 |
2003-08 |
2008-09: H1 |
2008-09: H2 |
2009-10: H1 |
2009-10: H2 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
Exports-Oriented* (weight = 25.46) |
4.3 |
8.8 |
4.4 |
2.1 |
7.4 |
11.0 |
Domestic-Oriented (weight = 53.90) |
4.9 |
9.7 |
5.8 |
0.7 |
5.8 |
17.1 |
Total Manufacturing (weight = 79.36) |
4.7 |
9.4 |
5.3 |
0.4 |
6.3 |
15.4 |
Note : Growth has been calculated aggregating the index of these industries as per their weights in IIP.
* Five industries have been taken where the major portion of sales comes through exports. |
Table 6.44: Monthly Growth of Use-based Industries |
(Per cent) |
|
Basic Goods |
Capital Goods |
Intermediate Goods |
Consumer Goods |
|
2007-08 |
2008-09 |
2009-10 |
2007-08 |
2008-09 |
2009-10 |
2007-08 |
2008-09 |
2009-10 |
2007-08 |
2008-09 |
2009-10 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
April |
8.6 |
4.0 |
4.4 |
10.9 |
12.4 |
-5.9 |
10.6 |
3.1 |
7.9 |
14.7 |
8.5 |
-4.6 |
May |
10.3 |
3.0 |
3.8 |
22.4 |
4.3 |
-3.6 |
8.8 |
1.9 |
6.6 |
8.7 |
7.4 |
-1.1 |
June |
9.2 |
2.2 |
10.7 |
23.1 |
7.8 |
13.4 |
8.6 |
2.8 |
7.9 |
3.6 |
9.9 |
4.4 |
July |
8.7 |
5.3 |
4.7 |
12.3 |
17.9 |
1.7 |
7.7 |
3.0 |
9.8 |
7.1 |
5.9 |
9.7 |
August |
12.7 |
3.9 |
7.7 |
30.8 |
0.9 |
9.2 |
13.8 |
-5.5 |
14.4 |
0.0 |
6.4 |
10.9 |
September |
6.5 |
5.0 |
5.3 |
20.9 |
20.8 |
13.5 |
10.1 |
-2.5 |
11.0 |
-0.2 |
7.4 |
9.7 |
October |
6.5 |
3.2 |
4.0 |
20.9 |
4.2 |
10.2 |
13.9 |
-4.4 |
15.5 |
13.7 |
-0.9 |
12.1 |
November |
5.2 |
2.2 |
6.0 |
24.2 |
0.5 |
11.1 |
5.5 |
-3.9 |
19.6 |
-2.9 |
9.4 |
12.2 |
December |
3.4 |
2.0 |
8.4 |
17.6 |
6.6 |
38.7 |
7.6 |
-8.9 |
22.8 |
8.7 |
1.7 |
13.1 |
January |
3.6 |
-0.7 |
11.5 |
2.6 |
15.9 |
53.7 |
8.0 |
-7.2 |
21.9 |
8.4 |
3.6 |
3.0 |
February |
7.3 |
-0.1 |
8.4 |
10.7 |
11.8 |
44.7 |
8.5 |
-3.0 |
15.0 |
11.7 |
-1.3 |
9.1 |
March |
3.3 |
1.9 |
10.4 |
20.3 |
-6.3 |
28.4 |
4.9 |
1.9 |
13.1 |
0.9 |
1.3 |
10.7 |
Apr.-Mar. |
7.0 |
2.6 |
7.1 |
18.0 |
7.3 |
19.2 |
8.9 |
-1.9 |
13.6 |
6.1 |
4.7 |
7.3 |
Source: CSO, Government of India. |
Box VI.8
Global Crisis and Performance of Corporates in India
The global crisis affected the performance of corporates in India
through all three channels of transmission, viz., trade, financial
and confidence. The impact on private sector corporates became
precipitous from the third quarter of 2008-09 on the back of
accentuating disruptions in international financial markets that
eventually mutated into a world recession/ economic slowdown.
Tightening domestic and foreign liquidity resulted in a steep
escalation in the cost of funds as well as reduced accessibility.
On the other hand, the recession in advanced economies pulled
down the demand for Indian corporates as manifested by
contracting exports since October 2008. The uncertainty
prevailing in the world economy also dampened investor
confidence and, hence, private corporates were hesitant to
undertake fresh investments. All these factors dampened both domestic and external demand, availability of funds, and
investment prospects and were reflected in the subdued
performance of private sector corporates during the second half
of 2008-09. The performance of the corporate sector, however,
improved considerably during the second half of 2009-10 owing
to revival in both domestic and external demand alongwith
stability in global financial markets (Table 1).
Table 1. Performance of the Private Corporate Sector |
|
2007-08 |
2008-09 |
2009-10 |
2008-09:
Q1 |
2008-09:
Q2 |
2008-09:
Q3 |
2008-09:
Q4 |
2009-10:
Q1 |
2009-10:
Q2 |
2009-10:
Q3 |
2009-10:
Q4 |
|
Growth (%) |
Sales |
18.6 |
17.2 |
11.7 |
29.3 |
31.8 |
9.5 |
1.9 |
-0.9 |
0.1 |
22.5 |
29.1 |
Expenditure Gross Profit |
19.4 24.9 |
19.5 -4.2 |
9.6 24.9 |
33.5 11.9 |
37.5 8.7 |
12.6 -26.7 |
-0.5 -8.8 |
-4.4 5.8 |
-2.5 10.9 |
20.6 60.0 |
30.7 336.7 |
Net Profit |
26.0 |
-18.4 |
28.8 |
6.9 |
-2.6 |
-53.4 |
-19.9 |
5.5 |
12.0 |
99.3 |
44.0 |
|
Ratio (% of Sales) |
Interest |
2.5 |
3.1 |
2.7 |
2.4 |
2.9 |
3.8 |
3.2 |
2.8 |
3.1 |
2.7 |
2.4 |
Gross Profit |
14.9 |
13.3 |
14.8 |
14.5 |
13.5 |
11.0 |
13.7 |
15.7 |
14.9 |
14.3 |
14.6 |
Net Profit |
9.8 |
8.1 |
9.4 |
9.7 |
8.6 |
5.3 |
8.1 |
10.2 |
9.4 |
8.8 |
9.0 |
The revenue growth of private corporates, which was quite
impressive during the first half of 2008-09, decelerated sharply
in the second half of 2008-09. Sales growth after averaging about
22 per cent for 20 quarters (from the 3rd quarter of 2004 to the
2nd quarter of 2009) moderated sharply to 9.5 per cent in the
third quarter and further to 1.9 per cent in the fourth quarter of
2008-09. The deceleration in net profits of private corporates, which erupted from the fourth quarter of 2006-07 after an average
acceleration of 42 per cent for 21 quarters from the third quarter
of 2001-02 to the third quarter of 2006-07, became more severe
at (-) 53 per cent during the third quarter of 2008-09, before
turning around with a rise of 19 per cent in the fourth quarter of
2008-09 (Chart 1). The non-core ‘other income’ comprising mostly
forex gains and treasury income, which contributed significantly
to net profits in the past couple of years, also showed a decline
impacted by subdued stock market activity and a weakening
rupee during 2008-09.
The sales of select small companies (defined as annual sales of
less than Rs.100 crore), which increased year-on-year by above
10 per cent in the first two quarters, plummeted post-September
2008. Likewise, year-on-year growth of around 30 per cent in
the sales of large companies (defined as having annual sales of
more than Rs.100 crore) in the first two quarters fell to less than
10 per cent in the last two quarters of 2008-09. Operating margins
weakened by around 400 basis points compared to that recorded
in Q3 of 2007-08. However, the pressure on margins seemed to
have eased since Q1 of 2009-10, owing primarily to falling input
costs and lower rise in interest outflow, resulting in improvement
in margins to levels recorded prior to the Lehman Brothers’
collapse in September 2008.
In terms of sectoral breakdown, the slowdown in sales and profits
performance for companies in the manufacturing sector was more
evident vis-à-vis those in IT and other services sectors. The net profit margin, measured as net income-to-sales ratio, has mostly
been the lowest for the manufacturing sector and reduced from
the two-digit level in the third quarter of 2007-08 to less than 5.0
per cent during the third quarter of 2008-09. The net margin,
however, appeared to have slowly returned to close to 10 per
cent in the first quarter of 2009-10. In comparison, companies in
services were able to maintain profit margins despite decelerating
sales during the quarters of 2008-09; the rise in commodity prices
during the first half of 2008-09 had a lower impact on the services
industries because raw material consumption formed a relatively
low share in their total expenses.
 |
6.107 The core infrastructure industries, which
constitute a large part of the industrial sector (27
per cent weight in IIP), were also impacted by the
spillover effects of the current global crisis. The
infrastructure sector, which continued to be in deficit
mode and a major bottleneck despite the high
growth trajectory in the recent past, suffered due
to non-availability of the requisite funds especially
projects in the private sector since the onset of the
amplified global crisis in September 2008. The gap
between the target and achievements further
widened among various infrastructure industries
during 2008-09 and 2009-10, reflecting the global
crisis (Table 6.45). The Eleventh Five-Year Plan
had envisaged stepping up the gross domestic
capital formation in infrastructure from 5 per cent of GDP in 2006-07 to 9 per cent of GDP in 2011-12
for improving availability and bridging the gap
between demand and supply.
Services Sector: Disaggregated Analysis
6.108 The high growth in the services sector has
been underpinning the buoyancy in India’s growth.
This sector exhibited an average growth of above 10 per cent during the five years preceding
2008-09 and its share and relative contribution in
GDP amounted to above 60 per cent and 70 per
cent, respectively during this period. The contribution
of services exports in overall value-added
accelerated sharply from 6.9 per cent in 2000-01 to
15.1 per cent during 2008-09. Despite decelerating
growth during 2008-09 and 2009-10 against the
backdrop of knock-on effects of the global economic
crisis, the services sector continued to grow at a
higher pace than overall growth in the Indian
economy. The resilience displayed by the services
sector during the recent crisis cushioned the Indian
economy from the worsening growth witnessed by
most of the advanced and emerging market
economies, especially on the back of the crumbling
industrial sector. Interestingly, the services sector
provided a similar cushioning to the Indian economy
during the previous international crises, such as the
Gulf crisis (1990-1991), the East Asian crisis (1997-
1998), and the technology crisis (2000-2001)
(Chart VI.16).
Table 6.45: Gap Between Targets and Achievements of Infrastructure Industries |
(Per cent) |
Sector |
2007-08 |
2008-09 |
2009-10 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
Power |
-0.8 |
-6.5 |
-2.3 |
Coal |
-1.0 |
-0.9 |
0.1 |
Finished Steel |
-3.1 |
-7.3 |
- |
Railways |
0.5 |
-2.0 |
-0.2 |
Shipping (Cargo handled at Major Ports) |
0.7 |
-7.9 |
-3.5 |
Fertilisers |
-12.6 |
-12.2 |
-0.1 |
Crude Petroleum |
-2.5 |
-6.8 |
-11.4 |
Petroleum Products |
6.7 |
-2.4 |
4.5 |
Natural Gas Production |
-2.9 |
-11.1 |
-8.8 |
Source: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Govt. of India. |
6.109 The disaggregated analysis of the services
sector shows that different sub-groups were
affected at different points of time by unfolding
international developments. Interestingly, when one
sub-group was adversely hit, the better
performance of another sub-group mitigated the
effects on the overall growth of the services sector.
For example, in the first half of 2008-09, the
financial, insurance, real estate and business
services sub-group was impacted severely, but another sub-group – trade, hotels, transport and
communications – continued to grow at an elevated
pace and cushioned the services sector from sharp
deterioration. Similarly, during the second half of
2008-09, the growth of trade, hotels, transport &
communications plunged sharply, but growth in the
financial, insurance, real estate and business
services sub-group recovered, along with
acceleration in the growth of community, and social
& personal services, providing a cushion to services
sector growth (Table 6.46).
6.110 In sum, the Indian economy witnessed
incipient signs of a slowdown in the last quarter of
2007-08 but the actual impact was felt in the second
half of 2008-09. The recent global crisis
accentuated the cyclical downturn in Indian
economy, adversely affecting private consumption
and investment. Industrial growth decelerated
significantly, while the services sector experienced
a moderate slowdown in growth compared to
industry during the first half of 2008-09. The steep
fall in correlation between cyclical components of
the index of industrial production and non-food
credit could be on account of shrinking demand for
credit during the crisis period on the back of the
economic slowdown and heightened uncertainty.
The performance of corporates in India was
affected through all four channels of transmission,
viz., trade, financial, commodity prices and
confidence. The moderation in the growth of the
services sector was due to heightened volatility and
uncertainty in domestic financial markets in tune with international financial markets. Indian
economy has, however, come out of slowdown with
firm recovery specially in industrial sector and
external trade since the second half of 2009-10.
 |
Table 6.46: Growth of Services Sector at Disaggregated Level
(At 2004-05 Prices) |
(Per cent) |
Year |
Construction |
Trade,
hotels, transports, commu
nications |
Financing, insurance, real estate&
business
services |
Community,
social &
personal
services |
Services |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
Trend |
|
|
|
|
|
2000-2002 |
5.1 |
8.2 |
5.7 |
4.4 |
6.3 |
2002-2005 |
12.0 |
10.7 |
7.4 |
5.4 |
8.7 |
2006-2008 |
11.0 |
11.5 |
13.5 |
5.7 |
10.6 |
Annual |
|
|
|
|
|
2007-08 |
10.0 |
10.7 |
13.2 |
6.7 |
10.4 |
2008-09 |
5.9 |
7.6 |
10.1 |
13.9 |
9.3 |
2009-10 |
6.5 |
9.3 |
9.7 |
5.6 |
8.3 |
Half Yearly |
|
|
|
|
|
2007-08:H1 |
11.9 |
10.7 |
13.9 |
5.6 |
10.6 |
2007-08:H2 |
8.3 |
10.8 |
12.6 |
7.7 |
10.3 |
2008-09:H1 |
8.5 |
10.4 |
8.8 |
9.6 |
9.6 |
2008-09:H2 |
3.4 |
5.1 |
11.3 |
17.8 |
9.0 |
2009-10:H1 |
4.6 |
7.0 |
11.7 |
11.0 |
8.7 |
2009-10:H2 |
8.4 |
11.3 |
7.9 |
1.2 |
7.9 |
Quarterly |
|
|
|
|
|
2008-09:Q1 |
9.8 |
10.8 |
9.1 |
8.7 |
9.8 |
2008-09:Q2 |
7.2 |
10.0 |
8.5 |
10.4 |
9.3 |
2008-09:Q3 |
1.1 |
4.4 |
10.2 |
28.7 |
10.0 |
2008-09:Q4 |
5.7 |
5.7 |
12.3 |
8.8 |
8.0 |
2009-10:Q1 |
4.6 |
5.5 |
11.8 |
7.6 |
7.5 |
2009-10:Q2 |
4.7 |
8.5 |
11.5 |
14.0 |
10.0 |
2009-10:Q3 |
8.1 |
10.2 |
7.9 |
0.8 |
7.3 |
2009-10:Q4 |
8.7 |
12.4 |
7.9 |
1.6 |
8.5 |
V. CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS
6.111 The recent global crisis was unique in
terms of its intensity and synchronisation of
slowdown across countries. The transmission of
global shocks to the real sector in India has worked
through various channels, notably, trade, finance,
expectations and commodity price channels. In the
Indian context, while traditionally the trade channel
was the primary conduit of transmission of shocks
to the real sector, financial channels have emerged
stronger over time. Even the trade channel has become relatively prominent over time with a rising
trade-to-GDP ratio for goods and services.
6.112 India’s business cycle synchronisation has
been strengthened by financial openness during
the past few years. After the onset of the sub-prime
crisis, it was debated whether India, along with
other EMEs, had remained unscathed and
decoupled from advanced economies, which were
witnessing a severe slowdown. However, the
growth of the Indian economy also slowed down
from the third quarter of 2008-09, reflecting the
increased business cycle synchronisation of India
with advanced countries and EMEs, which
invalidated the decoupling hypothesis.
6.113 The impact of the recent global financial
crisis on the Indian economy was experienced
directly through the trade channel, with export
demand predominantly determined by external
demand conditions. The Granger causal analysis
revealed the direction of causal relation from
exports to GDP growth rates but not vice versa.
Commodity-wise patterns showed that engineering
goods were more responsive to the global
economy. On the other hand, the direction of the
causal relationship between the trade deficit ratio
and economic growth was from the latter to the
former, attributable to the role of import demand
driven by domestic economic activity. Thus, as the
import demand also contracted in tandem with
domestic activity, the adverse impact of the
slowdown in external demand on the balance of
payments position was contained. It is felt that to
improve the prospects for exports on a more
sustainable basis the emphasis should be on
diversification, in terms of both markets and export
items, and competitiveness, without making the
sector remain dependent on incentives like tax
breaks, lower excise and customs duties on inputs
used for exports, and concessional interest rates
on financing for exporters, even though such
incentives may be necessary in a phase of
contraction in global demand as a temporary
support to the export sector.
6.114 The transmission of global shocks to India
was also through services such as travel, software and other ITES-BPO services. The global shocks
adversely affected tourist arrivals and, hence, the
demand for travel-related services such as hotels
and transportation mirrored the slowdown. ITESBPO
services, which are highly export-dependent,
experienced the direct and indirect effects of the
global shocks in terms of loss of exports, which
indirectly but significantly affected employment
and domestic consumption demand emanating
from this sector.
6.115 The commodity price channel operated
mainly through shocks to international prices of
primary commodities such as food, metals, oil, and
minerals. The impact of such shocks on prices and
real activity in an economy depends on their weight
in the consumption basket. In India, the shocks to
oil price, which are predominantly importdependent,
contributed significantly to domestic
prices and real activity in the past. During the recent
global crisis, the oil price shocks led to large
fluctuations in domestic inflation. In recent periods,
though India’s food imports in the total import
basket declined in significance, the global
integration of food prices through rapid
financialisation of commodity markets resulted in
an increase in the correlation in domestic and
world food price inflation. In fact, the global
commodity cycle in the recent period reveals that
the expansionary phase in food prices in India
closely followed movements in the global
commodity price cycles.
6.116 Consumption demand in India, though
primarily driven by domestic consumption, was
indirectly influenced by the external shocks. First,
a slowdown in remittance inflows, which were
impacted by both the slowdown in the US economy
and the sudden collapse of oil prices in the Middle
East countries, seems to have impacted
consumption demand in India as a large part of
the money repatriated to India is for family
maintenance. The empirical literature also
suggests some relationship between private
consumption demand and remittance transfers to
India. Second, the employment impact of exportdependent
and employment-intensive sectors, such as gems and jewellery, cotton textiles,
leather goods, and ITES-BPO services directly
resulted in a significant loss of employment in
these sectors and, hence, adversely affected
consumption demand. Third, the uncertainty
created by the loss of external demand and volatile
global financial markets impacted the investment
decisions of domestic firms, which led to overall
compression in domestic investment demand.
6.117 The impact of the finance channel was
mainly carried through portfolio flows external
commercial borrowings, banking capital and trade
credit. The decade of the 1980s heralded a regime
shift in capital flows to India with the ascendancy
of private capital flows in the form of external
commercial borrowings (ECBs), Non-Resident
Indian (NRI) deposits and short-term trade credit.
The liberalisation of the foreign investment regime
in the 1990s brought a further shift in capital flows
to India, particularly equity flows. Capital flows
have been intricately linked to interest rates, stock
prices, exchange rates and commodity prices.
6.118 The deleveraging by global financial
institutions and hedge funds resulted in a sharp
reversal of capital inflows from India in 2008-09,
which impacted the economy through a sharp
reduction in equity prices, exchange rate and
interest rate movements. The reversal of FIIs flows
had a direct contribution to the fall of equity prices
which, in turn, reduced the access of corporates to
capital markets as their balance sheets became
weak and the primary market turned illiquid. The
tightening of credit conditions in international
markets reduced Indian firms’ access to overseas
bond markets. At the same time, access to trade
credit significantly declined, with rollover problems
leading to compression in import demand. Banking
capital also witnessed significant outflows which,
in turn, led to deterioration in domestic credit
conditions. The impact of capital inflows was
reflected in slowdown in the growth of investment
demand in the economy.
6.119 Despite substantial decline in net capital
inflows from US$ 107 billion in 2007-08 to US$ 7.2 billion in 2008-09, the external sector of the
economy exhibited resilience as the reserve loss
(excluding valuation) was only US$ 20 billion during
2008-09. For the year as a whole, the current
account deficit widened to 2.4 per cent of GDP in
2008-09 from 1.5 per cent of GDP in 2007-08. The
significance of maintaining comfortable foreign
exchange reserves, even with a largely flexible
exchange rate regime, became evident during the
year when one of the severest external shocks
could be managed without any exceptional
measures to modulate specific transactions in the
current and capital accounts.
6.120 The final impact through trade, financial
and commodity prices channels was reflected on
growth. Growth, which decelerated with the
cyclical slowdown in the first half of 2008-09, was
magnified in the second half due to the contagion
from the global crisis. The significant deceleration
in private consumption and gross domestic
capital formation along with contracting external
demand necessitated expansion in public sector
demand, both consumption and investment. In
fact, it has been found that cyclical movements
in GDP growth have been mainly driven by
cyclical private consumption and gross domestic
capital formations.
6.121 The industrial sector witnessed a slowdown
or recession in most of the advanced countries and
EMEs during the current crisis and the movements
of the industrial sector in India have become highly
correlated with advanced and EMEs in recent
periods. The services sector also caught the
downswings generated by the global crisis, but
displayed strong resilience and cushioned the
growth rate of the Indian economy. Although India’s
services sector has a competitive edge in several
knowledge-based services, India needs to gain the
competitive edge by improving physical
infrastructure along with quality human resources
in the remaining services. The services sector faces
multiple challenges notwithstanding the high growth
and resilience displayed in the recent period. In this
regard, attention will have to be devoted to improve
the policy framework in health and education, while the potential of services like professional, legal,
postal, accountancy and insurance need to
explored with further liberalisation.
6.122 Adequate infrastructure is the key to the
development process. However, the development
of infrastructure has large financing requirements
and for this both the public and private sector need
to collaborate. The Eleventh Five-Year Plan has
estimated an investment requirement of over US$
500 billion. The recent global crisis dampening the
investment climate made it really challening to
realise this investment. The challenge here is to
make the investment attractive in terms of expected
return on capital while also being fair to consumers
and actual users of the infrastructure to enable the
active participation of the private sector. In recent
years, some progress is discernible in attracting
private investment in infrastructure sectors such as
telecommunications, power generation, airports,
ports, roads and the railways through public-private
partnerships (PPPs).
6.123 The Government of India and the Reserve
Bank responded with appropriate fiscal and
monetary policy measures, which were swiftly
delivered in a forward-looking manner. While the
Reserve Bank of India undertook swift and
calibrated policy measures to improve both
domestic and foreign exchange liquidity in the
system, the government implemented countercyclical
fiscal stimulus measures to support the
sagging aggregate demand. Both monetary and
fiscal policy measures appear to have brought the
desired result as manifested recovery in GDP
growth in 2009-10. The industrial sector has
recovered from the slump witnessed in the second
half of 2008-09 with buoyancy in growth since the
first quarter of 2009-10. The services sector,
however, continued to experience decelerated
growth in 2009-10, although upturn in growth was
witnessed in Q2 on account at payment of arrears
of sixth pay commission. The services sector has
been seen responding with a lag to the industrial
sector and the current industrial recovery would
spur the growth of industry-related services such
as travel, transportation, financing, and business services, generating some impulses for upward
movement in the growth of the services sector.
6.124 There is an active debate on the timing and
sequencing of expansionary monetary stance
around the world. The exit from the current
monetary policy accommodation could, however,
be different across countries depending on the
balance of risk to growth and price stability, types
of balance sheet adjustments that have taken
place during the crisis and the position of the
economy in the business cycle. In the case of
advanced countries, where central bank balance
sheets have expanded substantially including the
portfolio comprising mortgage-backed securities,
commercial papers and corporate bonds, the exit
policies may be constrained by the speed of revival
and developments in the specific market
segments. In contrast, the central bank
accommodation in India was mainly done through
unwinding of MSS and conduct of OMO, including
LAF, and through special refinancing facilities in
the banking system. Thus, the withdrawal of
monetary accommodation in India should be
feasible without an adverse impact on specific
market segments (Mohanty, 2009).
6.125 The October 2009 Review of Monetary Policy
for the Year 2009-10 brought forward the challenges
faced by the indian economy while managing the
recovery. The precise challenge for the Reserve Bank
is to support the recovery process without
compromising on price stability. This calls for a careful
management of trade-offs. Growth drivers warrant a
delayed exit, while inflation concerns call for an early
exit. Premature exit will derail the fragile growth, but
a delayed exit can potentially engender inflation
expectations. The balance of judgment at the current
juncture is that it may be appropriate to sequence the
‘exit’ in a calibrated way so that while the recovery
process is not hampered, inflation expectations
remain anchored. Thus, the ‘exit’ process began with
the closure of some special liquidity support
measures. The Reserve Bank began the first phase
of ‘exit’, in October 2009 by withdrawal of most of the
unconventional measures taken during the crisis
period, followed by increase in CRR and policy rates.
The government also, acting on the recommendations
of the Thirteenth Finance Commission, initiated exit
of the expansionary fiscal stance with partially rolling
back the indirect tax rates and compressing non-plan
expenditure during the budget 2010-11.
1 They found that the global factor has become less important for macroeconomic fluctuations in both industrial economies and EMEs
during the globalisation period (1985-2005) relative to the pre-globalisation period (1960-1984) and, in contrast, the importance of groupspecific
factors has increased markedly.
2 The results do not imply that business cycle synchronicity will remain at its current level permanently, or that synchronicity will necessarily
rise further in the future. The synchronicity is not expected to decline as long as the ongoing global recession continues, given the existing
evidence showing that business cycles become more synchronised in such time periods (Walti, 2009).
3 Overall, none of the emerging markets in the Asia region can be said to have decoupled from advanced economies; for each country, there
is always at least one group of advanced economies with respect to which synchronicity has not declined.
4 The monthly index of industrial production (IIP) in respect of India and other advanced economies was taken from the IMF from 1995 to 2009
(June) and seasonally adjusted using the US Census Bureau’s X12 ARIMA procedure. Then, data was detrended with the usual Hodrick-
Prescott filter and correlation coefficients between de-trended IIP between India and advanced economies were estimated.
5
Exports and Growth: Causal Relationship |
Causal relationship: Null Hypothesis |
F-statistics (probability) |
Result |
Exports growth did not cause GDP growth |
4.90 (0.01) |
Reject |
GDP growth did not cause Exports growth |
1.21 (0.31) |
Accept |
Trade deficit did not cause GDP growth |
0.02 (0.98) |
Accept |
GDP growth did not cause Trade deficit |
4.19 (0.02) |
Reject |
6 Estimate based on the co-integration model involving the natural logarithm of these variables for the period April 1980 to July 2009
7 Foreign private portfolio investment in both emerging market financial assets and cross-border lending by banks from advanced economies
increased significantly in the period preceding the recent crisis. Gross private capital inflows to EMEs thus rose from 4 per cent of their
combined GDP in 2003 to 10.7 per cent in 2007, compared with an increase from 4.7 per cent to 5.7 per cent of GDP between 1992 and 1996
(BIS, 2008/09).


10 The Ricardian Equivalence hypothesis provides that government expenditure funded through borrowings would be internalised by rational
consumers in their consumption behaviour, leading to more saving in order to pay higher taxes in future to the government for repaying these
borrowings.
11 The rank of co-integrating vectors has been found to be 1, implying only one co-integrating relationship. The various lag selection criterions
indicated only one lag.
12
VAR Granger Causality /Block Exogeneity Wald Tests |
Null Hypothesis |
Chi-square statistics |
Accept / Reject
(X does not cause Y) |
Bank credit does not cause private investment |
3.06 (0.10) |
Reject |
Net capital flows does not cause private investment |
1.33 (0.25) |
Accept |
Personal disposable income does not cause private investment |
18.26 (0.00) |
Reject |
Interest rate does not cause private investment |
0.45 (0.50) |
Accept |
13 During the current business cycle, the expansionary phase lasted for about 8 to 9 quarters beginning in 2004 (Q4) and reached its peak
closer to 10 per cent in the second and third quarters of 2006. Thereafter, the momentum of underlying growth showed some moderation until
2008-09 (Q4).

15
VAR Granger Causality / Block Exogeneity Wald Tests |
Null Hypothesis |
Chi-square statistics |
Accept/ Reject
(X does not cause Y) |
Growth in non-food credit does not cause industrial growth |
12.55 (0.05) |
Reject |
Exports growth does not cause industrial growth |
25.04 (0.00) |
Reject |
Industrial growth does not cause growth in non-food credit |
48.09 (0.00) |
Reject |
Industrial growth does not cause exports growth |
(75.60) (0.09) |
Reject |
|
|