IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/rdevec/v13y2009i4p658-672.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reforms and Entry: Some Evidence from the Indian Manufacturing Sector

Author

Listed:
  • Sumon Kumar Bhaumik
  • Shubhashis Gangopadhyay
  • Shagun Krishnan

Abstract

Traditional research in the context of product market entry has explored the strategic reactions of incumbent firms when threatened by the possibility of entry, and have identified industry‐specific factors that affect entry rates. However, following de Soto (1989), there has been increasing emphasis on regulatory and institutional factors governing entry rates, especially in the context of developing countries. Using three‐digit industry‐level data from India, for the 1984–97 period, we examine the phenomenon of entry in the Indian context. Our empirical results suggest that during the 1980s industry‐level factors largely explained variations in entry rates, but that, following the economic federalism brought about by the post‐1991 reforms, variations in entry rates during the 1990s were explained largely by state‐level institutional and legacy factors. Past productivity growth affects net entry rates as well.

Suggested Citation

  • Sumon Kumar Bhaumik & Shubhashis Gangopadhyay & Shagun Krishnan, 2009. "Reforms and Entry: Some Evidence from the Indian Manufacturing Sector," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(4), pages 658-672, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:rdevec:v:13:y:2009:i:4:p:658-672
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9361.2009.00519.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9361.2009.00519.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-9361.2009.00519.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Perotti, Enrico & Volpin, Paolo, 2004. "Lobbying on Entry," CEPR Discussion Papers 4519, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Bhaumik, Sumon Kumar & Estrin, Saul, 2007. "How transition paths differ: Enterprise performance in Russia and China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 374-392, March.
    3. Juan C. Botero & Simeon Djankov & Rafael La Porta & Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes & Andrei Shleifer, 2004. "The Regulation of Labor," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(4), pages 1339-1382.
    4. Liu, Lili, 1993. "Entry-exit, learning, and productivity change Evidence from Chile," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 217-242, December.
    5. Philippe Aghion & Robin Burgess & Stephen Redding & Fabrizio Zilibotti, 2005. "Entry Liberalization and Inequality in Industrial Performance," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 3(2-3), pages 291-302, 04/05.
    6. Klapper, Leora & Laeven, Luc & Rajan, Raghuram, 2006. "Entry regulation as a barrier to entrepreneurship," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 591-629, December.
    7. Simeon Djankov & Rafael La Porta & Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes & Andrei Shleifer, 2002. "The Regulation of Entry," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(1), pages 1-37.
    8. Robert J. Barro, 1991. "Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(2), pages 407-443.
    9. Eric J. Bartelsman & John Haltiwanger & Stefano Scarpetta, 2004. "Microeconomic Evidence of Creative Destruction in Industrial and Developing Countries," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 04-114/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    10. Krugman, Paul, 1991. "Increasing Returns and Economic Geography," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(3), pages 483-499, June.
    11. Dani Rodrik & Arvind Subramanian, 2005. "From "Hindu Growth" to Productivity Surge: The Mystery of the Indian Growth Transition," IMF Staff Papers, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 52(2), pages 193-228, September.
    12. Abbas Pourgerami, 1988. "The political economy of development: A cross-national causality test of development-democracy-growth hypothesis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 123-141, August.
    13. S. K. Bhaumik & S. Gangopadhyay & S. Krishnan, 2008. "Policy, economic federalism, and product market entry: the Indian experience," The European Journal of Development Research, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 1-30.
    14. Aw, Bee Yan & Chen, Xiaomin & Roberts, Mark J., 2001. "Firm-level evidence on productivity differentials and turnover in Taiwanese manufacturing," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 51-86, October.
    15. Jovanovic, Boyan & Lach, Saul, 1989. "Entry, Exit, and Diffusion with Learning by Doing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(4), pages 690-699, September.
    16. Timothy Besley & Robin Burgess, 2004. "Can Labor Regulation Hinder Economic Performance? Evidence from India," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(1), pages 91-134.
    17. David Stasavage, 2005. "Democracy and Education Spending in Africa," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(2), pages 343-358, April.
    18. Kochhar, Kalpana & Kumar, Utsav & Rajan, Raghuram & Subramanian, Arvind & Tokatlidis, Ioannis, 2006. "India's pattern of development: What happened, what follows?," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(5), pages 981-1019, July.
    19. Pesaran, M. Hashem & Smith, Ron, 1995. "Estimating long-run relationships from dynamic heterogeneous panels," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 79-113, July.
    20. Arvind Virmani, 2004. "Economic reforms: Policy and institutions some lessons from Indian reforms," Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi Working Papers 121, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi, India.
    21. Roberto Alvarez & Ricardo A. López, 2008. "Entry and Exit in International Markets: Evidence from Chilean Data," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(4), pages 692-708, September.
    22. Nickell, Stephen J, 1996. "Competition and Corporate Performance," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(4), pages 724-746, August.
    23. Sumon Kumar Bhaumik & Shubhashis Gangopadhyay & Shagun Krishnan, 2006. "Reforms, Entry and Productivity: Some Evidence from the Indian Manufacturing Sector," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 822, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    24. Geroski, P. A., 1995. "What do we know about entry?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 421-440, December.
    25. Stennek, Johan, 2000. "Competition increases x-efficiency: A limited liability mechanism," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(9), pages 1727-1744, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dong, Zhiqiang & Zhang, Yongjing, 2016. "Accumulated social capital, institutional quality, and economic performance: Evidence from China," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 206-219.
    2. Sumon Kumar Bhaumik & Saul Estrin & Tomasz Mickiewicz, 2017. "Ownership identity, strategy and performance: Business group affiliates versus independent firms in India," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 281-311, June.
    3. Allard, Gayle & Martinez, Candace A. & Williams, Christopher, 2012. "Political instability, pro-business market reforms and their impacts on national systems of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 638-651.
    4. Bhaumik, Sumon Kumar & Co, Catherine Yap, 2011. "China's economic cooperation related investment: An investigation of its direction and some implications for outward investment," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 75-87, March.
    5. Batsakis, Georgios & Wood, Geoffrey & Azar, Goudarz & Singh, Satwinder, 2018. "International diversification and firm performance in the post-acquisition period: A resource dependence perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 151-159.
    6. Aradhna Aggarwal & Takahiro Sato, 2011. "Firm Dynamics and Productivity Growth in Indian Manufacturing: Evidence from Plant Level Panel Dataset," Discussion Paper Series DP2011-07, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.
    7. Sumon K. Bhaumik & Ying Zhou, 2014. "Do business groups help or hinder technological progress in emerging markets? Evidence from India," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series wp1066, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    8. Aradhna Aggarwal & Takahiro Sato, 2015. "Identifying High Growth Firms in India: An Alternative Approach," Discussion Paper Series DP2015-14, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.
    9. John Bennett & Saul Estrin, 2013. "Regulatory Barriers and Entry into a New Competitive Industry," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(4), pages 685-698, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sumon Kumar Bhaumik & Shubhashis Gangopadhyay & Shagun Krishnan, 2006. "Reforms, Entry and Productivity: Some Evidence from the Indian Manufacturing Sector," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 822, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    2. Estrin, Saul & Prevezer, Martha, 2010. "A survey on institutions and new firm entry: How and why do entry rates differ in emerging markets?," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 289-308, September.
    3. Sumon Kumar Bhaumik & Ralitza Dimova, 2009. "Economic reforms as a tool to attract foreign direct investment: is it a chimera?," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(9), pages 951-957.
    4. Calá, Carla Daniela, 2014. "Regional issues on firm entry and exit in Argentina: core and peripheral regions," Nülan. Deposited Documents 2023, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    5. Meghana Ayyagari & Asli Demirguc-Kunt & Vojislav Maksimovic, 2021. "Are large firms born or made? Evidence from developing countries," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 191-219, June.
    6. Philippe Aghion & Thibault Fally & Stefano Scarpetta, 2007. "Credit constraints as a barrier to the entry and post-entry growth of firms [‘Dualism and macroeconomic volatility’]," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 22(52), pages 732-779.
    7. Vahagn Jerbashian & Anna Kochanova, 2017. "The Impact of Telecommunication Technologies on Competition in Services and Goods Markets: Empirical Evidence," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 119(3), pages 628-655, July.
    8. Aradhna Aggarwal & Takahiro Sato, 2011. "Firm Dynamics and Productivity Growth in Indian Manufacturing: Evidence from Plant Level Panel Dataset," Discussion Paper Series DP2011-07, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.
    9. Antonio Ciccone & Elias Papaioannou, 2008. "Entry regulation and intersectoral reallocation," Economics Working Papers 1353, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    10. Haidar, Jamal Ibrahim, 2012. "The impact of business regulatory reforms on economic growth," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 285-307.
    11. Castelló-Climent, Amparo & Mukhopadhyay, Abhiroop, 2013. "Mass education or a minority well educated elite in the process of growth: The case of India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 303-320.
    12. Philippe Aghion & Robin Burgess & Stephen J. Redding & Fabrizio Zilibotti, 2008. "The Unequal Effects of Liberalization: Evidence from Dismantling the License Raj in India," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1397-1412, September.
    13. Carmen Pagés-Serra & Reyes Aterido & Mary Hallward-Driemeier, 2007. "Clima de negocios y creación de empleo: El efecto del acceso al crédito, la corrupción y el marco regulatorio en el crecimiento de las empresas," Research Department Publications 4560, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    14. Campos, Nauro F. & Iootty, Mariana, 2007. "Institutional barriers to firm entry and exit: Case-study evidence from the Brazilian textiles and electronics industries," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 346-363, December.
    15. Mitton, Todd, 2008. "Institutions and concentration," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 367-394, June.
    16. Philippe Aghion & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt & Susanne Prantl, 2009. "The Effects of Entry on Incumbent Innovation and Productivity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 91(1), pages 20-32, February.
    17. Aterido, Reyes & Hallward-Driemeier, Mary & Pagés, Carmen, 2007. "Investment Climate and Employment Growth: The Impact of Access to Finance, Corruption and Regulations across Firms," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 3301, Inter-American Development Bank.
    18. Carmen Pagés-Serra & Alejandro Micco, 2008. "Efectos económicos de la protección del empleo: Elementos de juicio a partir de datos internacionales a nivel de actividad económica," Research Department Publications 4497, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    19. Sumit K. Majumdar & Rabih Moussawi & Ulku Yaylacicegi, 2014. "Do Incumbents’ Mergers Influence Entrepreneurial Entry? An Evaluation," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 38(3), pages 601-633, May.
    20. Milan Žák & Petr Vymětal, 2006. "Institucionální aspekty nové komparativní ekonomie: ČR a EU [Institutional aspects of new comparative economy: Czech republic and European union]," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2006(5), pages 583-609.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:rdevec:v:13:y:2009:i:4:p:658-672. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1363-6669 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.