A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z All
Burange, L. G.
- Productivity Spillovers from foreign Direct Investment in the Manufacturing Sector of India
Authors
1 Department of Economics, University of Mumbai, Mumbai 400032, IN
Source
Artha Vijnana: Journal of The Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, Vol 57, No 1 (2015), Pagination: 1-20Abstract
The paper studies productivity spillovers from foreign direct investment (FDI) in the manufacturing sector of India. Using firm-level data for the period 2000 to 2010, both horizontal and vertical (backward and forward) spillovers have been tested with the help of panel data fixed effects 'within' model. It is inferred that backward vertical spillovers and forward vertical spillovers positively affect Total Factor Productivity (TFP) of the manufacturing sector. Spillovers through horizontal channels are, however, encountered to be negative. Furthermore, productivity spillovers vary across various industries of the manufacturing sector. Spillovers through backward vertical channels are more pronounced than forward vertical spillovers and horizontal spillovers. The absorptive capacity of the manufacturing sector is also encountered to be weak.- Maharashtra's Organised Manufacturing Sector: An Appraisal
Authors
1 International Economics, Department of Economics, University of Mumbai, Vidyanagari, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400098, IN
2 Department of Economics, University of Mumbai, Vidyanagari, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400098, IN
Source
Artha Vijnana: Journal of The Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, Vol 55, No 2 (2013), Pagination: 172-197Abstract
The paper analyses the performance and growth of the manufacturing sector of Maharashtra for the period 1998-1999 to 2009-2010 at aggregated and disaggregated levels. The state's share in the manufacturing sector of India has declined over this period. The overall growth rates of number of workers, output, value-added and capital are lower than those of India. Paper and paper products, chemicals, machinery and equipments, electrical instruments and automobiles are some of the major industries located within the state. The manufacturing sector uses more capital-intensive technique which is adversely affecting the employment growth.- Performance of the Indian Cement Industry: The Competitive Landscape
Authors
1 Department of Economics, University of Mumbai, Vidyanagari, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400098, IN
Source
Artha Vijnana: Journal of The Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, Vol 51, No 3 (2009), Pagination: 209-242Abstract
The cement industry is experiencing a boom on account of the overall growth of the Indian economy primarily because of increased industrial activity, flourishing real estate business, growing construction activity, and expanding investment in the infrastructure sector. The performance of the industry, under different policy regimes, truly establishes that decontrol of the industry and liberalization of the economy has led to remarkable improvement in the indicators such as installed capacity, capacity utilization, per capita consumption and exports. Positive trends can be evidenced in some of the other indicators too namely technology, prices and regional and market concentration. The competitiveness among the firms in the Indian cement industry has also been evaluated for the year 2006-2007. Out of the sample of 17 firms (90.21 per cent of the market share), about 47 per cent have recorded above industry average performance in the overall competitiveness index. The marginal difference between the indices of competitiveness of different firms reveals the tough competition among the firms in the industry.- India’s Revealed Comparative Advantage in Merchandise Trade
Authors
1 Department of Economics, University of Mumbai, Vidyanagari, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400 098, IN
Source
Artha Vijnana: Journal of The Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, Vol 50, No 4 (2008), Pagination: 332-363Abstract
With the withering away of 'protectionist' policies, the trade pattern of India is likely to march in the direction of its comparative advantage. This paper assesses India's Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) in merchandise trade. The structure of comparative advantage in India and its change from 1996 to 2005 is evaluated. Data as per the Harmonized System (HS) of classification are used to compute the index of RCA for exports as well as for imports. India appears to enjoy comparative advantage in the exports of labour-intensive items like textiles and scale-intensive items such as chemicals, iron and steel.
The paper also evaluates India's RCA in exports and imports in different types of goods categorized on the basis of their production. These include 'Ricardo', 'Heckscher-Ohlin', 'Product-cycle' goods and 'Others'. India appears to have a comparative advantage in the exports of Ricardo and Heckscher-Ohlin goods. Product-cycle goods, in contrast, do not display any improvement in the RCA universe. On the import front, it is the Ricardo goods where India appears to enjoy comparative advantage. The production with standard technology shifting towards developing economies like India implies a relative absence of RCA in the imports of Heckscher-Ohlin goods.
- The Trends in Capacity Utilization in the Indian Manufactoring Sector (1951-86) and Implications of Full Utilization of Capacity
Authors
Source
Artha Vijnana: Journal of The Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, Vol 35, No 4 (1993), Pagination: 387-393Abstract
The main objectives of this study are threefold, (i) to estimate a continuous series of capacity utilization from 1951 to 1986-87 in manufacturing sector of the Indian economy, (ii) to make a programme for utilization of idle capacity, and (iii) to analyse the implications of full utilization of capacity in the economy.- Implications of Full Capacity Utilization of Manufacturing Sector in Indian Economy
Authors
Source
Artha Vijnana: Journal of The Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, Vol 35, No 2 (1993), Pagination: 160-181Abstract
This paper estimates the implications of full capacity utilization of manufacturing sector in Indian economy using the I-O framework. The study is carried out using the open Leontief model and also the semi-closed model endogenizing household demand. The working of the above models are illustrated using 1973-74 data. By fully utilizing the capacity of the manufacturing sector the output, income and employment increases by 22.86, 16.31 and 14.11 per cent respectively in open model and will increase by 38.68, 37.08 and 38.59 per cent in the semi-closed model. The output elasticity for the economy is 0.4048 and 0.6849 in open and semi-closed model respectively. The sectors 'mining and quarrying', 'banking and Insurance' and 'electricity' show high output elasticities.- Liberalisation and Employment in the Organised Manufacturing Sector of India:An Inter-Regional Analysis [Appendix]
Authors
Source
Journal of Indian School of Political Economy, Vol 13, No 3 (2001), Pagination: 471-482Abstract
* Appendix 1.* Appendix 2.
- Liberalisation and Employment in the Organised Manufacturing Sector of India:An Inter-Regional Analysis
Authors
1 University of Bombay, Mumbai, IN
Source
Journal of Indian School of Political Economy, Vol 13, No 2 (2001), Pagination: 197-215Abstract
This paper makes an attempt to examine employment growth in the organised manufacturing sector of the states, the regions and the country during the pre- and post-liberalisation periods on the basis of ASI data.- An Analysis of the Export Competitiveness of BRIC
Authors
1 Department of Economics, University of Mumbai, Mumbai, IN
Source
Journal of Indian School of Political Economy, Vol 27, No 1 (2015), Pagination: 1-165Abstract
The paper attempts to evaluate export competitiveness of BRIC for merchandise trade, covering the period from 1997 to 2013. The study analyses the structure of the Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) at Section, Chapter and Product levels. The study further tries to investigate the RCA of BRIC for different types of classification at the product level, i.e., Trade classification, UNCTAD classification and WTO classification. According to Trade Classification, Brazil, Russia and India enjoy RCA for the export of Ricardo products (products which use natural resources for their production). For Heckscher-Ohlin products (produced with standard technology with lowR&D intensity), India and China show competitiveness mainly due to abundant labour endowment. However, in the group, only China depicts RCA in the export of Product-cycle products (technology-intensive with high R&D intensity) because of FDI which helped China to gain RCA from 2005 onwards. UNCTAD Classification suggests that with the exception of China all other BRIC members enjoy export competitiveness for primary goods. Moreover, BRIC invariably shows export competitiveness for low-technology skill-based products. However, none of the member countries of BRIC exhibit advantage in exporting medium and high-technology skill-based products with the exception of China. On the basis of massive FDI inflows accompanied by advanced technology, China exhibits RCA in high-technology skill-based products from 2003 onwards. As per WTO Classification, BRIC lost its export competitiveness for agricultural products from 2003 onwards. However, Brazil maintains its comparative advantage for agricultural,raw material and intermediate products. India and China retain their competitiveness for consumer products. As far as capital goods are concerned, China is the only country in the group that started to gain competitiveness from 2003 onwards.- Inter-State Analysis of the Organised Manufacturing Sector in India
Authors
1 Department of Economics, University of Mumbai, Mumbai, IN
Source
Journal of Indian School of Political Economy, Vol 26, No 1-4 (2014), Pagination: 1-83Abstract
The manufacturing sector of a country is generally considered an engine of growth. The performance of the manufacturing sector in India has become a central issue during the post-reform period which needs to be assessed empirically. The share of employment, output, gross value added and capital of the industrially developed states such as Maharashtra, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu was high in the organised manufacturing sector. Even so, their growth rates of the organised manufacturing sector were quite low compared to the other small states such as Uttarakhand, Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh. The higher growth rates of these states could be the result of the narrow industrial base which has enabled the State Governments to focus on a few industries. Due to their targeted policies, these states have encouraged many industries to set up their plants there. Industrially developed states showcased less concentration of industries in their manufacturing sectors while industrially less developed states such as Odisha, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Goa registered high concentration over the period. It is also observed that industrially developed states have more localised industries whereas Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Kerala and Odisha have only a few localised industries. The assessment of the factor intensity of the states/UTs reveals that the industrially developed states made higher use of the capital-intensive techniques. Over the period of the study, the states have exhibited shifts in their factor intensities used in the production process. Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh and Jammu and Kashmir have registered higher number of workers per factory unit. The study concludes that there is still high potential in the manufacturing sector of the states/UTs which needs to be exploited through concrete policy actions over the coming years.- An Enquiry Into Employment in the Organised Sector in India
Authors
1 Department of Economics, University of Mumbai, Mumbai, IN
Source
Journal of Indian School of Political Economy, Vol 24, No 1-4 (2012), Pagination: 109-138Abstract
The paper attempts to analyse the trends in the organised sector employment of India for the period 1961 to 2010. It is found that, employment in the organised sector, is in a state of decline, exhibiting a downward trend throughout the period of analysis. The era of socialistic growth pattern (till mid 1980s) was more favourable for the public sector development than the private sector. Despite this, the share of public sector employment has been modest, and decreased after 1990s. Employment in the organised sector was expected to surge in the post-reform period; however, the adoption of reforms has worsened its employment generation potential. The public sector exhibits poor performance in the post-reform era, while employment creation capacity of the private sector has not increased to the level expected, in spite of its broadened scope. Within the industry groups, manufacturing is the worst performer in both the segments. The services sectors, mainly finance and transport, helped generating substantial employment in the aftermath of the reforms. This holds true, however, in the case of private sector only.- The Performance of Indian Iron and Steel Industry and Competitiveness of the Firms
Authors
1 Department of Economics, University of Mumbai, Mumbai, IN
Source
Journal of Indian School of Political Economy, Vol 20, No 3 (2008), Pagination: 449-495Abstract
The paper examines the performance of Indian iron and steel industry in the pre and post-liberalisation periods in terms of primary indicators such as production, consumption and foreign trade. It also studies growth in capacity utilisation, prices and employment. It is deduced that the industry has grown manifold in all the aspects, especially after the liberalisation of the economy except employment, which shows a substantial fall during post-liberalisation when competition among the Indian manufacturing firms has increased. Therefore, that leads us to investigate the competitiveness of the sample firms in the industry through composite competitiveness indices. On the basis of overall competitiveness, as well as financial and non-financial aspects of competitiveness, the industry is mostly dominated by Tata Steel Ltd., even though SAIL has a greater market share and proves to be superior with respect to non-financial indicators.- Growth in India's Intra-Industry Trade
Authors
1 Department of Economics, University of Mumbai, IN
Source
Journal of Indian School of Political Economy, Vol 19, No 1-2 (2007), Pagination: 1-50Abstract
In the wake of economic reforms adopted by India in the 1990s, the intra-industry trade (IIT) of the country was expected to expand. The paper attempts to assess the growth in India's IIT for a 19-year period from 1987-88 to 2005-06.- An Examination of Determinants of India’s Intra-Industry Trade
Authors
1 International Economics, Department of Economics (Autonomous), University of Mumbai, Mumbai-400 098, IN
2 Department of Economics (Autonomous), University of Mumbai, Mumbai 400 098, IN
Source
Journal of Indian School of Political Economy, Vol 30, No 1-2 (2018), Pagination: 1-29Abstract
Following the economic liberalisation that took place in the early 1990s in India, the share of intra-industry trade (IIT) in total trade has increased significantly. Various factors such as the rise in Per Capita Income (PCI), Gross Domestic Product (GDP), product differentiation, ease of entry for foreign firms and reduction in trade barriers have been found to be the major determinants of IIT. These determinants of IIT have varied from country to country. However, there is an issue of whether a country’s IIT is dominated by vertical IIT (VIIT) or horizontal IIT (HIIT). Various methodologies have been developed to examine this segregation. The present paperattempts to modify the existing methodologies related to segregation of IIT by attempting to identify the determinants of India’s IIT during the period of 1990-91 to 2015-16. The trends in IIT show that India’s IIT is dominated by VIIT though the HIIT is increasing at a higher rate over the period from 1990-91 to 2015-16. This study applies the Toda and Yamamoto method and also uses the modified Granger causality test to identify the causal relationship between IIT and its determinants. A unidirectional causality is observed from GDP, trade openness and PCI to IIT while unidirectional causality is found from EP and trade openness to HIIT.Keywords
IIT, Granger Causality, VIIT, HIIT JEL Codes: F140.References
- Abd-el-Rahman, Kamal, 1991; Firms, competitive and national comparative advantages as joint determinants of trade competition, WeltwirtschaftlichesArchiv, Vol. 127, No. 1.
- Ando, Mitsuyo, 2006; Fragmentation and Vertical IntraIndustry Trade in East Asia, North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol. 17 No. 3.
- Aturupane, Chonira, Simeon Djankov and Bernard Hoekman, 1999; Horizontal and vertical intra-industry trade between Eastern Europe and the European Union, WeltwirtschafilichesArchiv, Vol. 135,No. 1.
- Azhar, Abdul K. M., Elliott R. and Liu Junting, 2008; On the measurement of product quality in intra-industry trade: an empirical test for China, China Economic Review, Vol. 19 No. 2.
- Azhar, Abdul K. M. and Elliott R., 2006; On the measurement of product quality in intra-industry trade, Review of World Economics, Vol. 142, No. 3.
- Balassa, Bela, 1986; Intra-industry specialisation: a crosscountry analysis, European Economic Review, Vol. 30.
- Bergstrand, Jeffrey. H., 1990; The Heckscher-OhlinSamuelson Model, the Linder hypothesis and the determinants of bilateral intra-industry trade, Economic Journal, Vol. 100 No. 403.
- Bhat, T. P., 2011; ‘Structural Changes in India’s Foreign Trade’, A Study Prepared for Research Programme, Structural Changes, Industry and Employment in the Indian Economy, Macro-economic Implications of Emerging Pattern, Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR), Institute for Studies in Industrial Development, New Delhi.
- Bhattacharyya, Ranajoy, 2005; Economic Development and Intra-Industry Trade in the Republic of Korea, Journal of Economic Integration, Vol. 20, No. 4.
- Burange, L. G., Pooja Thakur and Hemangi K. Kelkar, 2015; ‘Foreign Direct Investment and Intra-Industry Trade in India’s Manufacturing Sector: A Causal Relationship’, ISFIRE Working Paper Series, WP-8, March.
- Burange, L.G. and Sheetal J. Chaddha, 2007; ‘Growth in India’s Intra-Industry Trade’, Journal of Indian School of Political Economy, Vol. 19, Nos. 1 and 2.
- Cabral Manuel, Rod Falvey and Chris Milner, 2013; Endowment differences and the composition of intraindustry trade, Review of International Economics, Vol. 21, No. 3.
- Caves, Richard E., 1981; Intra-industry trade and market structure in the industrial countries, Oxford Journals, Vol. 33, No. 2.
- Das, Gouranga Gopal, 2005; Growth and pattern of intraindustry trade in manufactures in India’s overall trade: A quantitative analysis, Indian Journal of Economics and Business, Vol. 4, No. 1.
- Dickey, David, A and Wayne A. Fuller, 1979; Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit ischolar_main, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 74, No. 366.
- Dixit, Avinash K. and Joseph E. Stiglitz, 1977; Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity, The American Economic Review, Vol. 67, No. 3.
- Durkin John T. and Markus Krygier, 2000; Differences in GDP per Capita and the share of intra-industry trade: The role of vertically differentiated trade, Review of International Economics, Vol. 8, No. 4.
- Ekanayake, E. M., 2001; Determinants of intra-industry trade: The case of Mexico, The International Trade Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1.
- Enders, Walter, 2004; Applied Econometric Time Series, Second Edition, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, John Wiley and Sons (Asia) Pvt. Ltd.
- Falvey, Rodney E., 1981; Commercial policies and intraindustry trade, Journal of International Economics, Vol. 11, No. 4.
- Fontagné, Lionel and Michael Freudenberg, 1997; Intraindustry Trade: Methodological Issues Reconsidered’ CEPII Working Paper 97-01, Centre d’Etudes Prospectivesetd’ Informations Internationales, Paris.
- Granger C.W., 1969; Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-spectral Methods, Econometrica, Vol. 37, No. 3.
- Greenaway, David, Robert Hine and Chris Milner, 1994; Country specific factors and pattern of horizontal and vertical intra-industry trade in the UK. WelwirtschaftlichesArchiv, Vol. 130, No. 1.
- Greenaway, David and Chris Milner, 1984; A cross section analysis of intra-industry trade in the U.K. European Economic Review, Vol. 25, No. 3.
- Grubel, H. G. and P. J. Lloyd, 1975; Intra-Industry Trade: The Theory and Measurement of International Trade in Differentiated Products, London: Macmillan Press.
- Gujarati, Damodar, 2004; Basic Econometrics, Fourth Edition, The McGraw-Hill
- Helpman, E., 1987; Imperfect competition and international trade: evidencefrom fourteen industrial countries, Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 1.
- Helpman, E. and P. R. Krugman, 1985; Market Structure and Foreign Trade- Increasing Returns, Imperfect Competition and the International Economy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Hughes, K., 1993; Intra-industry trade in the 1980s: A panel study. WeltwirtschaftlichesArchiv, Vol. 129, No. 3.
- Hummels, David and James Levinsohn, 1995; Monopolistic competition and international trade: reconsidering the evidence, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 110, No. 3.
- Kelkar,Hemangi and L.G. Burange, 2016; India’s vertical and horizontal intra industry trade during post-liberalisation period, Trade, Investment and Economic Development in Asia: Empirical and Policy Issues, Edited by Debashis Chakraborty and Jaydeep Mukherjee, Routledge Studies in Development Economics, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, Abingdon, UK.
- Kinnerup, Kristina, 2005; Country-specific determinants of intra-industry trade: A case for France. Student publication for Master’s degree, Department of Economics, School of Economics and Management, LUND
- University, Sweden.
- Krugman, Paul, 1981; Intra-industry specialisation and the gains from trade, Journal of political Economy, Vol. 89, No. 5.
- Lancaster, Kelvin, 1980; Intra-industry trade under perfect monopolistic competition, Journal of International Economics, Vol. 10, 2.
- Markusen, James. R., 1997; Trade versus investment liberalisation, Working Paper, No. 6231, National Bureau of Economic Research.
- Reserve Bank of India, 2016; Handbook of Statistics on the Indian Economy, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai, India.
- Shaked, Anver and John Sutton, 1983; Natural oligopolies, Econometrica, Vol. 51, No. 5.
- Toda, Hiro.Y. and Taku Yamamoto, 1995; Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes, Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 66, Nos. 1-2.
- Toh, Kiertisak, 1982; A cross-section analysis of intraindustry trade in U.S. manufacturing industries, WeltwirtschaftlichesArchiv, Vol. 118, No. 2.
- Veeramani, Choorikkad, 2002; India’s intra-industry trade under economic liberalisation: trends and country specific factors, WeltwirtschaftlichesArchiv, Vol. 138, No. 3.
- Veeramani, Choorikkad, 2004; Growing intra-industry trade in manufacturing: implications for policy, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 39, No. 41.
- Veeramani, Choorikkad, 2007; Industry-specific determinants of intra-industry trade in India, Indian Economic Review, Vol. 42, No. 2.
- World Bank, 2016; World Data Bank: World Development Indicators, The World Bank. Retrieved on October 18, 2016 fromhttp://databank.worldbank.org/data/databases.aspx
- Trends and Patterns of Bilateral Merchandise Trade Between India and Japan
Authors
1 Mumbai School of Economics and Public Policy, University of Mumbai, Mumbai, IN
Source
Journal of Indian School of Political Economy, Vol 30, No 1-2 (2018), Pagination: 31-110Abstract
The paper tries to examine trends of merchandise bilateral trade between India and Japan during the period from 1990-91 to 2015-16, using Quantity Index and Unit Value Index. It also evaluates and compares international and bilateral competitiveness of India and Japan during 1996 to 2015. The paper examines intra-industry trade (IIT) by constructing Grubel and Lloyd (G-L) index between India and Japan. It also decomposes India’s IIT with Japan into horizontal IIT and vertical IIT and further, segregates vertical IIT into low quality and high quality IIT using Product Quality Index. India’s IIT with Japan is displaying a positive trend. However, it has been dominated by horizontally differentiated products in terms of both number and share in the value of total merchandise trade between India and Japan. High economic growth and increase in per capita income of India resulted in higher demand as well as supply for horizontally differentiated products.Keywords
Trade, Quantum Index, Unit Value Index, Revealed Comparative Advantage, Intraindustry Trade, Horizontal Intra-Industry Trade, Vertical Intra-Industry Trade.References
- Abd-el-Rahman, Kamal, 1984; Exchanges intra-sectorielset éxchanges de specialisation dansl’analyse du commerce international: le cas du commerce intra- C.E.E de biens manufacturés. Thise de doctoratd’Etat, Université de Paris X - Nanterre.
- Abd-el-Rahman, Kamal, 1986; Riexamen de la définition et de la mesure des échangescroises du produitssimilares entre les nations, Review Economique, Vol. 37, No. 1.
- Abd-el-Rahman, Kamal, 1991; Firms Competitive and National Comparative Advantages as Joint Determinants of Trade Competition. Weltwirtschaftliches Archive, Review of World Economics, Vol. 127, No. 1.
- Ando, Mitsuyo, 2006; Fragmentation and Vertical Intraindustry trade in East Asia, North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol. 17, No. 3.
- Azhar, Abdul K. M. and Robert J. R. Elliott, 2006; On the Measurement of Product Quality in Intra-Industry Trade, Review of World Economics, Vol. 142, No. 3.
- Balassa, Bela, 1965; Trade Liberalisation and Revealed ComparativeAdvantage, Manchester School ofEconomic and Social Studies, Vol. 33, No. 2.
- Balassa, Bela, 1966; Tariff Reductions and Trade in Manufactures among the Industrial Countries, American
- Economic Review, Vol. 56, No. 3.
- Balassa, Bela, 1977; Revealed comparative advantage revisited: an analysis of relative export shares of the industrial countries 1953-1971, The Manchester School, Vol. 45, No. 4.
- Balassa, Bela, 1989; Comparative Advantage, Trade Policy and Economic Development, Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York.
- Ballance, Robert H., Helmut Forstner andW. Charles Sawyer, 1992; An Empirical Examination of the Role of Vertical Product Differentiation in North-South Trade, Weltwirtschaftliches Archive, Vol. 128, No. 2.
- Batra, Amita and Zeba Khan, 2005; Revealed comparative advantage: An analysis for India and China, Working Paper, No. 168. Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi.
- Bhattacharyay,Biswa Nath andKakali Mukhopadhyay, 2013; Economy Wide Impact of the Trade Integration between Japan and India a Computable General Equilibrium Analysis, CESifo Working Paper No. 4557, Center of Economic Studies and the IFO Institute (CESifo).
- Bowen, Harry P., 1983; On the theoretical interpretation of indices of trade intensity and revealed comparative advantage. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, Vol. 119, No. 3.
- Brown, A. J., 1947; Applied Economics: Aspects of world Economy in War and Peace, London.
- Brülhart, Marius, 2008; An Account of Global Intra-Industry Trade, 1962-2006, retrieved on 15th June, 2015 from htt p://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDRS/Resources/4 77365 1327525347307/8392086-1327527757537/Brulhart.pdf
- Burange, L. G. and Hemangi K. Kelkar, 2018a; Product quality index: A new way to classify Intra-industry trade, ISFIRE Working Paper Series, WP-34, retrieved on 1st Mayhttp://iire.in/ojs/index.php/isfirewps/issue/view/66.
- Burange, L. G. and Hemangi K. Kelkar, 2018b; An Examination of Determinants of India’s Intra-Industry Trade, Journal of Indian School of Political Economy, Vol. 30, Nos. 1&2.
- Burange, L. G. and Sheetal J. Chaddha, 2008; India’s revealed comparative advantage in merchandise trade. ArthaVijnana, Vol. 50, No. 4.
- Burange, L. G. and Sheetal J. Chaddha, 2007; Growth in India’s Intra-Industry Trade, Journal of Indian School of Political Economy, Vol. 19, Nos. 1&2.
- Caves, Richard E., 1981; Intra-Industry Trade and Market Structure in the Industrial Countries, Oxford Economic Papers, Vol. 33, No. 2.
- Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE). Data retrieved from India trades published by India’s Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S) in Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade data.
- Clark, Don P., 1993; Recent Evidence on Determinants of Intra-Industry Trade. WeltwirtschaftlichesArchiv, Vol.129, No. 2.
- Colley, Lisandra Patrice, 2015; An analysis of trade potential between CARICOM and China: What opportunities exist for increased cooperation?, International Review of Business Research Papers, Vol. 11, No. 2.
- Das, Gouranga G., 2007; Intra-industry trade and development: Revisiting theory, measurement andnew evidences, Munich Personal RePEc Archive, MPRA Paper No.37260, retrieved on 11th January 2016, from http://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/37260/
- Donges, Juergen B. and James Riedel, 1976; The expansion of manufactured exports in developing countries: an empirical assessment of supply and demand issues. Kiel Working Papers, No. 49, Kiel Institute of World Economics.
- Ekanayake, E. M., 2001; Determinants of intra-industry trade: the case of Mexico, The International Trade Journal, Vol.15, No. 1.
- Fontagné, Lionel and Micheal Freudenberg, 1997; IntraIndustry Trade: Methodological Issues Reconsidered, CEPII Working Paper No. 02, Centred’EtudesProspectivesetd’Informations Internationales (CEPII), Paris.
- Globerman, Steven, and JamesW. Dean, 1990; Recent Trends in Intra-Industry Trade and Their Implications for Future Trade Liberalization. WeltwirtschaftlichesArchiv, Vol. 126, No. 1.
- Government of India, 2003; Press Releases, Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, India.
- Government of India, 2006; Report of the India-Japan Joint Study Group, Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, India.
- Greenaway, David, Robert C. Hine, and Chris R. Milner, 1994; Country Specific Factors and the Pattern of Horizontal andVertical Intra-Industry Trade in theUK,Review of World Economics, Vol. 130, No. 1.
- Grubel, Herbert G, and Peter J. Lloyd, 1971; The Empirical Measurement of Intra-Industry Trade, Economic Record, Vol. 47, No. 4.
- Grubel, Herbert G, and Peter J. Lloyd, 1975; Intra Industry Trade: The Theory and Measurement of Trade in Differentiated Products, London: MacMillan.
- Hamilton, Clive, and Paul Kniest, 1991; Trade Liberalisation, Structural Adjustment and Intra-Industry Trade: A Note. WeltwirtschaftlichesArchiv, Vol. 127, No. 2.
- Helpman, Elhanan, 1987; Imperfect Competition and International Trade: Evidence from Fourteen Industrial
- Countries, Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 1.
- Hoen, Alex R. and Jan Oosterhaven, 2006; On the measurement of comparative advantage, Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 40, No. 3.
- Hudson, Peter Joy, 2013; Rising and Shining: The Coming Boom in Indo-Japanese Economic Relations, Institute of Chinese Studies, Analysis No. 9, Delhi.
- India Brand Equity Foundation, 2014; Sectoral Report on Automobile Industry, retrieved on 15th June, 2014 from http://www.ibef.org/industry/india-automobiles.aspx Joshi, P. R., 1997; Trends and Structural Behaviour of Indian Exports, Discovery Publication House, New Delhi.
- Khan, MostafaAbid, 2015; The revised generalized system of preference scheme of European Union: Implications for Bangladesh, Working Paper, retrieved on 11th January 2016, from www.freit.org/WorkingPapers/Papers/Trade PolicyMultilateral/FREIT962.pdf
- Kojima, Kiyoshi, 1964; The Pattern of International Trade among Advanced Countries, Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, Vol. 5, No. 1.
- Kojima, Makoto, 2011; Prospects and Challenges for Expanding India-Japan Economic Relations, Institute of Defense Studies and Analysis (IDSA), Issue Brief, New Delhi, India.
- Kondo, Masanori, 2012; Japan-India Economic Relationship: Trends and Prospects, RIETI Policy Discussion Paper Series No. 16, Research Institute of Economy and Trade and Industry (RIETI).
- Lafay, G., 1992; The Measurement of Revealed Comparative Advantages, In: Dagenais, M. G. and Muet, P. A. (eds.) International Trade Modelling. London: Chapman&Hall.
- Leishman, David, Dale J. Menkhaus and Glen D. Whipple, 1999; Revealed comparative advantage and the measurement of international competitiveness for agricultural commodities: an empirical analysis of wool exporters.
- Selected Paper of the 1999 Annual Meeting, July 11-14, 1999, Fargo, North Dakota.
- Liesner, H. H., 1958; The European common market and British industry, Economic Journal, Vol. 68,No. 270.
- Lundberg, Lars, 1982; Intra-Industry Trade: The Case of Sweden, WeltwirtschaftlichesArchiv, Vol. 118.
- Lundberg, Lars, 1992; The Structure of Swedish International Trade and Specialisation: ‘Old’ and ‘New’ Explanations, WeltwirtschaftlichesArchiv, Vol. 128, No. 2.
- Manzano, George N., 2014; An analysis of the Philippine offensive and defensive interests in the non-agricultural sector: inputs to the Philippine-European Union Free Trade Agreement, Discussion Paper, Discussion Paper Series No. 2014-04, Philippine Institute for Development Studies, Philippines.
- Mathur, Arpita, 2012; India-Japan Relations Drivers, Trends and Prospects, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, RSIS Monograph No. 23, Singapore.
- Mehta, Rajesh, 2001; Indo-Japanese Trade Recent Trends, Discussion Paper No. 12, Research and Information System for the Non-Aligned and Other Developing Countries (RIS), New Delhi.
- Michaely, Michael, 1962; Concentration in International Trade, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
- Michaely, Michael, 1967; Concentration in International Trade, Contributions to Economic Analysis, Amsterdam, North-Holland Publishing Company.
- Nataraj, Geethanjali, 2010; India-Japan Investment Relations: Trends and Prospects, ICRIER Working Paper, No. 245, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER).
- Nataraj, Geethanjali and Ashwani, 2014; India-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement: Gains and Future Prospects, ORF Occasional Paper No. 50. Observer Research Foundation (ORF).
- Nishith Desai Associates (NDA), 2016; The Indian medical device industry: Rugelatory, legal and tax overview.
- Research Paper, Nishith Desai Associates (NDA) retrieved on 11th December, 2016 from http://www.nish ithdesai.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/Research%20 Papers/The_Indian_Medical_Device_Industry.pdf Nayak, Shibananda, Vani aggarwal and Preeti Mann, 2013; India’s manufacturing export dynamics: An analysis of technology intensity transition. Working Paper, No. CWS/WP/200/6, Centre forWTOstudies, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, New Delhi.
- Pagoulatos, Emilio, and Robert Sorensen, 1975; Two-Way International Trade: An Econometric Analysis, WeltwirtschaftlichesArchiv, Vol. 111, No. 3.
- Panda, Rajaram, 2012; India-Japan Defence Partnership, Indian Foreign Affairs Journal, Vol. 7, No. 3.
- Pascha, Werner, 2002; Economic relations between Germany and Japan-An analysis of recent data, Working Paper, Working Paper No. 61, Duisburg Working Papers on East Asian Economic Studies, Germany.
- Phan, Thanh Hoan and Ji Young Jeong, 2012; An analysis of Korea-Vietnam bilateral trade relation, Munich Personal RePEc Archive, MPRA Paper No. 48312, retrieved on 12th June, 2014 from http://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/48312
- Proudman, James and Stephen Redding, 2000; Evolving patterns of international trade, Review of International Economics, Vol. 8, No. 3.
- Rajamohan, P. G., DilBahadur Rahut and Jabin T. Jacob, 2008; Changing Paradigm of Indo-Japan Relations: Opportunities and Challenges, ICRIER Working Paper No. 212, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER).
- Ray, Edward John, 1991; U.S. Protection and Intra-industry Trade: The Message to Developing Countries, Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 40, No. 1.
- Research and Markets, 2013; Analysing Indian Copper Industry, retrieved on 15th June, 2014 from http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/546310/analyzing_the_ indian_copper_industry
- Riaz, Khalid and Hans G. P. Jansen, 2012; Spatial patterns of revealed comparative advantage of Pakistan’s agricultural exports, Pakistan Economic and Social Review, Vol. 50, No. 2.
- Sahoo, Pravakar, 2012; The economic relations of China and India with Pakistan: Acomparative analysis, Asia-Pacific Development Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1.
- Seshadri, V. S., 2016; India Japan CEPA: An appraisal, ASEAN India Centre, Research and Information for Developing Countries, New Delhi, India.
- Sharma, Kishor, 2004; Horizontal and Vertical intra-industry trade in Australian manufacturing: Does trade liberalization have an impact?. Applied Economics, Vol. 36, No.15.
- Sharma, Sachin Kumar and Kavita Bugalya, 2013; Competitiveness of Indian agriculture sector: A case study of cotton crop, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 133.
- Silver, Mick, 2007; Do Unit Value Export, Import, and Terms of Trade Indices Representor Misrepresent Price Indices?, IMF Working Paper No. 121, International Monetary Fund (IMF).
- Srivastava, Amit and Yaj Medury, 2011; An Overview of India’s Intra-Industry Trade, Asia Pacific Business Review, Vol. 7, No. 1.
- Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1987; The Causes and Consequences of the Dependence of Quality on Price, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 25, No. 1.
- Stone, Joe A., and Hyun-Hoon Lee, 1995; Determinants of Intra-Industry Trade: A Longitudinal, Cross-Country Analysis, WeltwirtschaftlichesArchiv, Vol. 131, No. 1.
- Sundar, Raj, P. and B. Ambrose, 2014; A Brief Analysis of India-Japan Bilateral Trade: A Trade Intensity Approach, International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, Vol. 2, No. 2.
- Tandon, Anjali, 2012; China-India merchandise trade: Retrospect and prospects, Working Paper, No. 104, National Council for Applied Economic Research, New Delhi.
- Toh, Kiertisak, 1982; A Cross-Section Analysis of IntraIndustry Trade in U.S. Manufacturing Industries, WeltwirtschaftlichesArchiv, Vol. 118, No. 2.
- UN-COMTRADE Database, 2016; World Integrated Trade Solutions, Retrieved on 15th October.
- United Nations Industrial Development Organization, 2005; Technology Transfer and Trade: The Toy Industry in India, Technology Paper Series, Industrial Promotion and Technology Branch, India.
- Utkulu, Utku and Dilek Seymen, 2004; Revealed comparative advantage and competitiveness: evidence for Turkey vis-à-vis the EU/15. Paper prepared for the European Trade Group 6th Annual Conference, ETSG 2004, Nottingham.
- Veeramani, Choorikkad, 2002; Intra-Industry Trade of India: Trends and Country-Specific Factors, WeltwirtschaftlichesArchiv, Vol. 138, No. 3.
- Verdoorn, P. J., 1960; The Intra-Bloc Trade of Benelux, in E. A. G. Robinson (ed.), Economic Consequences of the Size of Nation, London: Macmillan.
- Vollrath, Thomas L., 1991; A theoretical evaluation of alternative trade intensity measures of revealed comparative advantage. WeltwirtschaftlichesArchiv, Vol. 127, No. 2.
- Wolter, Frank, 1977; Factor proportions technology and West German industry’s international, WeltwirtschaftlichesArchiv, Vol. 113, No. 2.
- World Bank, 2014; Country Overview: India, retrieved on 15th June, 2015 from http://www.worldbank.
- org/en/country/india/overview
- World Custom Organisation, 2016; Overview: Harmonized System, retrieved on 18th October 2016 from http://ww w.wcoomd.org/en/topics/nomenclature/overview.aspx.
- Yu, Run, Junning Cai and Ping Sun Leung, 2009; The normalized revealed comparative advantage index, Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 43, No. 1.