Dr. (Mrs.) V. Bhanu Department of Commerce



Download 49.75 Kb.
Date09.07.2018
Size49.75 Kb.
Dr. (Mrs.) V. Bhanu Department of Commerce,

M.Com., M.Phil., Ph.D. Nizam College(Autonomous),

Professor of Commerce Osmania University,

Basheerbagh,

Hyderabad – 500 001, A.P.

 Off: 23240806 Ext: 38

Res: 27561583v_bhanu_49@yahoo.co.in

To whomsoever it may concern


I have known Ms. A.Radhika, while she was doing her Masters of Commerce at Nizam College (Autonomous), (OU), Hyderabad. I taught her Managerial Economics in M.Com. (Previous) and Industrial Economics & Business Environment in the Final year of M.Com. She was a sincere and hard-working student, who completed her assignments in time and was excellent at her job. She secured very good marks in both the years of Masters Degree and was awarded ‘first’ division and was placed among the top five students of her class. I take great pleasure in recommending her for further studies and I am confident that she will prove to be a promising and committed student.

22/ 03/ 2005

To


The Chief Editor

Productivity

National Productivity Council

New Delhi.


Sub: Request for the Publication of the Article reg;
Dear Sir,
My colleague Dr Usha and I, teachers of Osmania University are keen in publishing our article entitled, ‘Role of Foreign Direct Investment India’s Manufacturing Exports and Fiscal Decentralization’. We will be very thankful if it is accepted for publication in your esteemed journal. It is an empirical analysis (word doc) and is presented in about 21 pages; double-spaced and includes references and Tables (eight) (excel). The ABSTRACT and the article are enclosed. We look forward to an early reply.
Thanking you.
Yours sincerely,
Dr (Mrs.) V Bhanu and Dr Usha

Professor and Associate Professor of Commerce

Nizam College (OU)

Hyderabad – 500 001 (A. P)

Address for Communication:

Dr (Mrs.) V Bhanu

3-4-11, Flat no 202

Venkatesh Sadan

Kachiguda

Hyderabad- 500 027 (AP)



ROLE 0F FOREIGN DIRECT INVETSMENT IN INDIA’S MANUFACTURING EXPORTS AND FISCAL DECENTRALISATION
Dr. Bhanu and Dr. Usha*

ABSTRACT

The study is an empirical analysis of the role of FDI in India’s manufacturing exports during the period 1990-1 –2003-04. The study assumes importance in view of the fact that manufacturing export constitutes 60 per of the total exports and that spurt in FDI flow took place in the post 1994 period. The study also analyses the determinants of fiscal decentralization at the sub-national level for the period 1990-91 –2001-02. The theoretical arguments for the regression analysis of both the above aspects are based on earlier studies. FDI is found to be an important factor influencing manufacturing exports. GDP as a proxy for domestic demand, world income and unit value of export/world unit value ratio are the other important variables influencing manufacturing exports. As regards sub-national level FDI flows, the states of Maharashtra, Delhi, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh hold the first five positions. Of the sixteen states examined, the NSDP per capita is the highest for Kerala and the lowest for Bihar. Fiscal decentralization has been measured in terms of state expenditure as a ratio of total expenditure (centre and state). NSDP per capita and size of population have been found to be significant determinants of fiscal decentralization.



China and India rival one another and are aggressively challenging the United States as the world’s most favoured destination for foreign direct investment, according to the latest Foreign Direct Investment Confidence Index.’1

India is among the top four2 Asian destinations for foreign direct investment (FDI) but is well below the top ranked China. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) report, with an inflow of US $ 4.3 billion3 during 2003, India’s FDI flow is tiny as compared to US$ 53.5 billion worth of FDI flowing into China during the above-mentioned year. The differences are not limited to the FDI flows alone. The UNCTAD Report of 2002, identifying other areas of differences showed a negligible proportion of export contributed by foreign companies to India’s GDP as compared to 90 per cent for Ireland (manf 1999); 50 per cent for China (2001); 21 per cent for Brazil (2002) and 15 per cent for Korea (manf 1999)4. According to the Report, countries with dynamic export performance have used FDI to different degrees. The findings of a few studies, which have examined the role of FDI in India’s exports during the period 1970-1997, have also indicated insignificant contribution of FDI to India’s exports. Since a major part of FDI participation in Indian industries has been only from 1994 onwards, this study aims at examining the impact of FDI in exports of manufacturing goods during the period 1991-90 – 2001-02.

India is a union of states with a strong centre. In practice, even in the absence of major constitutional reform, the balance of centre-state relations is beginning to shift from centralization to a greater acceptance of regional autonomy. Economic reforms assigned greater powers to state governments and provoked greater competition among them. The 1995 decision to allow state governments to retain foreign exchange income was a landmark. State governments were free to identify the industries in which they wanted investment and to negotiate independently, although final clearance has still to be obtained from the Foreign Investment Approval Board or the Reserve Bank of India, depending on the size of investment. Greater financial autonomy has generally been welcomed by emerging regional elites. Businesses with a high degree of regional concentration prefer to deal directly with foreign multinational corporations rather than through the many additional layers of central bureaucracy. Regional politicians appreciate that foreign investments in their states have created fresh employment and thus freeing resources for social welfare purposes. In terms of foreign investment southern and western states have been the most successful- Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka in particular, have attracted US$ 6-10billion each (approvals) over the 1991-98 period. The second tier comprises Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh (between $3.6 and $4.6 billion each). Madhya Pradesh and Kerala come next, with $2.4billion and $1.4 billion respectively. Investment in Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Bihar was tiny, while eleven states received no foreign investment at all.
With this background, this study aims at examining the impact of foreign direct investment on India’s manufacturing exports and the influence of FDI and other factors on fiscal decentralization at the sub-national (states) level.

Fiscal decentralization at the sub-national (states) level in this study is measured in terms of the share of sub-national spending in total government (centre and states) expenditure. The other indicators are the share of transfers and grants from higher levels of government in total sub-national government revenues and the ratio of sub-national governments own revenues to their total revenues. Garrett and Rodden (2001) overviewed fiscal decentralization at the global level for the periods 1982-1989 and 1990-1997. The study revealed a good deal of variation in vertical fiscal structure of countries. It ranged from heavily decentralized countries like Canada, Denmark and Switzerland, where more than half of all government expenditures took place at sub-national levels, to countries like Paraguay and Thailand, where sub-national governments expenditure was less than ten per cent. The ratio was 49 per cent (1990-97) for India, which was an improvement from 46 percent during 1982-89.

Keeping the twin objectives in view, the paper is organized in Two Sections. Section A comprises a brief evaluation of foreign investment policy in India and the flow in magnitude of FDI in the post reform era; which is presented in part I. Part II of section one, relates to a study of India’s export performance. A simultaneous equation model is presented, tested and the results are given in part III. Section B, presents period-wise FDI investment/approvals in the states and selected indicators of state-level progress is discussed in part I. Fiscal decentralization and globalisation (integration of the states with the word economy) variables are regressed and the results are presented in part II. Finally, the conclusions are drawn.

SECTION ‘A’: FLOW OF FDI TO INDIA SINCE 1991

The success stories of East and South East countries suggest that FDI is a powerful tool of export promotion because multinational companies through which most of the FDI is undertaken, have well established contacts and upto date information about foreign markets. However the experience of these countries cannot be generalized for India, given the low level of infrastructure and the rigidity in both factor and commodity markets (Srinivasan, 1998). Furthermore, the role of FDI in exports promotion in developing countries remains controversial and depends on the motive for investment. If the motive behind FDI is to capture domestic market (tariff-jumping type of investment) it may not contribute to export growth. On the other hand, if the motive is to tap export markets by taking advantage of countries cheap labour, then FDI may contribute to export growth (Sharma 2000). By now it is well known that an outward oriented regime encourages export oriented FDI, while an inward oriented policy regime attracts FDI mainly to capture domestic rather than export market (World Bank, 1993).

Part–I - The Magnitude of FDI in the Pre and Post-reform era of Indian Economy


  1. Foreign Investment Policy

The pre-1991 era related to import substitution and assigned a highly circumscribed role to FDI in the economy. As a result, foreign equity participation was limited to 40 per cent and FDI was largely restricted to priority industries requiring sophisticated technology, export oriented undertakings and industries where critical production gaps existed.
A number of policy changes with regard to FDI were brought about consequent to the issuance of Industrial Policy Statements 1980 and 1982. For instance, 100 per cent export- oriented foreign firms were exempted from 40 per cent equity restrictions. Simplification of licensing procedures for MRTP companies; allowing non-resident Indians (NRIs) to invest in Indian companies through equity participation were the other significant policy changes.
However fundamental changes in policy took place in July 1991. The important reforms relating to FDI were: permitting large firms including foreign firms’ substantial expansion and diversification; allowing foreign firms receiving automatic approval, to have major share- holding and foreign investment upto a maximum of 51 per cent in high priority industries. Allowing foreign investments in twenty-two consumer goods industries subject to the conditions of dividend being ploughed back; de-reserving ready-made garments manufacturing and opening the industry to large-scale undertakings including foreign companies, subject to the export obligation of 50 per cent and investment limit of Rs. 30 million were other significant policy changes relating to FDI flow.

The new investment policy also spelt out more incentives to attract FDI from NRIs and overseas corporate bodies (OCBs) predominantly operated by NRIs. These include 100 per cent share in many areas and full repatriation of profit. Realizing the importance of large investments in infrastructure industries like, power generation, telecommunications, petroleum exploration, petroleum refining, transportation (roads, railways, ports, shipping and air services), special incentives have been offered for attracting FDI in these sectors. Apart from liberalisation in foreign investment policy, there have been substantial reforms in trade and payment regimes. Table-1 presents flow of FDI into different sectors of the economy. It will be noted that during the period 1992-3 –2000-1, engineering industry accounted for a larger share of foreign investment and after peaking in 1996-7, the investment showed a declining trend.


(b) Magnitude of FDI Inflows

India was one of the lowest recipients of FDI among developing countries until 1970s. During the 1970s cumulative inflows of FDI was about US $454 million or 0.20 per cent of gross domestic investment. Although the absolute value of FDI rose sharply in the 1980s, its share in GDI remained constant. It was only in the 1990s and in the post-2000, India experienced significant inflows of foreign capital in the form of FDI and portfolio capital. Table –2 presents FDI inflows into India during the period 1990-91 - 2002.


While India is far behind China in attracting FDI, it has done remarkably well in recent years as compared to its performance in the past. For instance, FDI flows reached US $4675 million in 2003-04 from a small aggregate FDI inflow of US $ 1130 million for the period 1981-90. India is among the top four Asian destinations for foreign direct investments. The inflow of US $ 4.3 billion during 2003 was 26.47 per cent higher over the previous year’s inflow of US $3.4 billion. The share of FDI in both total foreign capital (TFC) and gross domestic product (GDP) reached over 2.3 per cent by 2002, from 0.025 per cent during the 1980s (see columns 4 (FDI/TFC) and 10 (FDI/GDP) in Table-2). The sudden jump in FDI inflows may be attributed to the policy of liberalisation since 1991. Yet, investment climate in India is far less than satisfactory, which is seen in the difference between approved and actual inflows of FDI. For instance, as of January 1999, the cumulative FDI approval was US $ 54 billion but the actual inflows were only US $16 billion, which was less than 30 percent of the approvals (The Economists Intelligent Unit, 3rd Quarter, 1999:22). As The Economist (22nd Feb 1997:23) points out (as in Srinivasan, 1998):

‘the system simply does not work, as it is supposed to. The rules may be liberal in principle…(but) delays, complexities, obfuscations, overlapping jurisdictions and endless request for more information, remain much the same as they always have been.

Again, the findings of a few studies too have indicated almost no effect of FDI on Indian exports. But these studies have examined the impact of FDI in the total exports and for the period 1970-1997. Since a major part of FDI participation has been only from 1994 onwards and into manufacturing sector, this study aims at examining the impact of FDI in the exports of manufacturing goods for the period 1990-1 –2002-03. The model and theoretical reasoning have been taken from an earlier study (Sharma 2000).
Part II. Models of Export Demand and Supply Functions
Since export performance is influenced by both foreign demand and domestic supply factors a simultaneous equation model has been developed to explain India's export performance. On the basis of conventional trade theory it is expected that the lower the relative price of India's exports in relation to world export prices the higher the demand for its exports. Hence, a negative link between the relative price of exports and export demand is expected. World income is considered to have a positive impact on export demand and the appreciation of the real effective exchange rate (REER) reduces export demand (Joshi and Little, 1994 and Srinivasan, 1998).

During the 1990s, the manufacturing goods, accounting for about 60 per cent share (Table-3) dominated the Indian exports. The exports mainly consisted of engineering goods, chemical and allied products and ready-made garments (see Table-3). Export demand and Export supply in the model is measured in terms of Total Manufacturing Export Volume Index. On the basis of theoretical reasoning it is expected that a rise in export supply would take place following a rise in the export prices and a fall in relative domestic prices and vice versa. Conversely an increase in domestic demand diverts export supply towards domestic consumption, leading to a fall in exports. Thus a negative link between domestic demands and export supply (Joshi and Little, 1994) is expected. The role of FDI in export promotion in developing countries is ambiguous and crucially depends on the motive behind such investment. If the motive is to by pass trade barriers in the host country, then it is highly unlikely that such investment would result in better export performance. However, if FDI is motivated by the country's comparative advantage, then it may contribute to export growth. Thus, the nature of the link between FDI and export performance is not clear-cut. Reliable and efficient infrastructure facilities are essential for reducing costs, ensuring timely supply of exports and thereby improving export performance (Srinivasan, 1998). However, many developing countries including India lack reliable and efficient infrastructure facilities mainly due to under-investment and the public sector intervention. This contributes to higher costs and poor export performance. Thus, a positive link between improved infrastructure facilities and export supply is expected. However, due to non-availability of year-wise aggregate infrastructure investment data, this variable is not included for analysis. The above discussions lead to the following specifications of export demand and supply functions, with expected signs given in parentheses.

XD= f (ER, PX/PW, WY)-----------------(eq. 1)

(-) (-) (+)

XS= g (PX/P, DD, FDI)------------(eq. 2)

(+) (-) (?)


Where:
XD= Export demand is measured as total manufacturing exports volume index.


ER= Represents real effective exchange rate (REER).
PX/PW= is measured in terms of relative price of exports, defined as the ratio of unit price of Indian exports in US$ (PX) to the unit price of world exports in US$ (PW). Export subsidies are also included in PX.
WY= World GDP in US $ is the proxy for World income.
XS= Export supply is measured as total of manufacturing exports volume index.
PX/P= Indian export prices relative to domestic prices, where PX is the same as export

demand equation while P is the wholesale price index for India.


DD= GDP is taken as the proxy for domestic demand pressure.
FDI= Foreign direction investment is measured in terms of net inflows of FDI in US$.
Part III: Econometric Results

Models specified above are estimated using annual data for the period 1990-1– 2003-4. Results are reported in Tables 4 and 5. In an attempt to improve the individual significance of variables, variables with statistically insignificant t-ratios have been omitted one by one. This process has improved the results significantly. Estimates for both full and reduced models are reported. In the full model and the reduced model the fit is good (Table-4). The negative elasticity of export demand for manufacturing goods with respect to REER implies that the real appreciation of the rupee adversely affects the Indian exports. However the result is not significant. We find a significant link between India’s export performance and world income. This finding is in conformity with the observations of Joshi and Little (1994). In the reduced model the negative price elasticity of export demand is statistically significant and implies that one percent increase in India’s manufacturing export prices relative to world export prices reduces its export demand by 2.78 percent

The full and reduced model regression results of manufacturing export supply equation (Table-5) also show that the fit is good. The positive elasticity of GDP, taken as a proxy for domestic demand, to Export Supply is significant and implies that a one percent increase in GDP will bring about 1.7 percent increase in manufacturing export supply. Thus it may be stated that the growth in India’s Gross Domestic Product will have a telling influence on its manufacturing exports. Similarly, the FDI variable is found to have a significant effect on the manufacturing exports as hypothesized in this study. The coefficient of FDI is positive and statistically significant, implying that one percent increase in Foreign Investment will result in 0.21 percent increase in exports.

SECTION -’B’ FISCAL DECENTRALIZATION

India embarked on a process of economic policy reforms in mid-1991 in response to a fiscal and balance of payment crisis. While the central government has undertaken a series of reform measures in the areas of fiscal policy; trade and exchange rate policy; industrial policy; foreign investment policy and so on, the state governments in India have been slow in implementing the wide array of reform measures in order to attain high rates of Sate Domestic Product (SDP) growth. Although the reform process has mainly concentrated at the central level, yet a few of the state governments have taken lead in pushing reforms and some healthy competition is evident among them. They are Maharashtra, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. Thus these states have become principal arena for private investment- both foreign and domestic.


Part I: FDI in the Sub-nationals

The share of top five states in total FDI approvals during January 1991 –March 2004 was 17.48 per cent for Maharashtra; 12.06 per cent for Delhi; 8.58 per cent for Tamil Nadu; 8.26 per cent for Karnataka and 6.44 per cent for Gujarat (Economic Survey 2003-04 p.146). Table-6 presents State-wise break-up of aggregate Foreign Collaboration and FDI proposals approved for the period from August 1991 to October 2002.

The sub-national level variation in performance during the period 1990-1 –2002-3, has also been examined by using select indicators such as per capita NSDP growth, aggregate FDI flows and the ratio of urban to total population (Table-7). The study is based on current prices. Similar study for the period 1990 - 1997 (Bajpai and Sachs 1999) already exists. The average annual growth rate of NSDP per- capita has been higher during the 1990’s for a number of states. It has been highest for Kerala (16.2 percent), followed by Karnataka (14.3 percent), Delhi (13.8 percent), Andhra Pradesh (13.6 percent) and Maharashtra (13.5 percent), which is higher than the country’s average growth rate. A study of urbanization level in the sub-nationals, without considering Delhi (93.01), showed that Tamilnadu has been in the lead with 43.86 per cent of urbanization, indicating a better overall performance of the state.

Part II. Analysis of Cross-section Averages

This section examines the propositions with OLS regression analysis using cross-section data of sixteen states in India. The variables are averaged for the period 1990-91 – 2001-02. Share of state expenditure to total of centre and state expenditure, is the dependent variable. High scores on the dependent variable denote higher decentralization. The independent variables are area (average of districts) and population representing size and heterogeneity. The basic model also includes NSDP per capita at 1993-94 prices, to demonstrate higher levels of decentralization among well to do states. Since, some variation in fiscal decentralization may be explained by urbanization, a variable that measures urban population, as a share of the total is also included.

SE/NSDP = f (Area, Population, Per-capita NSDP, Urban Pop/Total)……Eq 1

SE/NSDP = f (FDI/NSDP, GE/NSDP, Fdefi/Revenue) ………………….Eq 2

Globalization is addressed by taking foreign direct investment as a ratio of net state domestic product (FDI/NSDP), to capture the contribution of FDI to the States Net Domestic Product. Finally, two public finance variables have been calculated. One, assuming that decentralization might be higher for larger states with larger public sector, hence the variable is the over all state government spending as a portion of NSDP. Second, average fiscal deficit as a percentage is included, to examine the plausibility of offloading hypothesis. Of the two equations for regression analysis, the first one specifies decentralization and the other globalisation.

India’s overall growth rate can be substantially stepped-up should the central government decentralize economic policy making and allow the states to make crucial economic decisions on their own. Crucial fiscal, infrastructure and regulatory decisions on economic management remain at central government level. Essentially, the centralized system of governance implies that the states have very little jurisdiction in or control over policy and regulatory decisions that would make their state more attractive to prospective foreign investors. Greater decentralization of decision-making will lead to greater competition among the states and therefore to higher efficiency and productivity in these regions.


Part II: REGRESSION RESULTS

First we estimate a basic model using the variables that have been analysed by the earlier studies along with urbanization variable. The fit of the regression results (Table-8) is poor in the first instance and none of the variables are statistically significant, implying that the variables considered individually do not have any effect on the dependant variable (ratio of sub-national expenditure to total centre and state expenditures). Hence, the variables: NSDP per capita; area; population; urban population ratio; FDI in states ratio; state NSDP ratio and gross fiscal deficit/revenue receipts ratio have been taken together and regressed. The result improved significantly. The coefficient of NSDP per capita, population and state expenditure to NSDP ratio are positive and statistically significant. Thus decentralization is positively correlated with area and wealth during the period of study. Next we add that the globalization variable proxied by FDI has no significant effect on decentralization. This is not surprising since globalization and decentralization are processes that unfold overtime. Finally, coefficient of state expenditure as a share of NSDP is positive and statistically significant. Thus if anything, the evidence that the states with larger spending tend to be more decentralized is supported by the finding. In sum, the cross section analysis finds reasonable support for the important findings of Oates (1972) and Panizza (1999), that larger and wealthier states tend to be more decentralized.


Concluding Remarks
During the 1990’s India’s exports have grown faster than the GDP. Several factors including FDI are considered to have contributed to this phenomenon. Studies in the past have examined the role of FDI in India’s export performance. This study has deviated and examined the role of FDI in India’s manufacturing exports. The study also examined the impact of other variables like World income, Unit value of exports to World unit value and wholesale price index and India’s GDP as a proxy for domestic demand. We find a significant link between India’s export performance and world income. In the same way an inverse price elasticity of export demand and world export prices is found. The study finds a significant relationship between FDI and Manufacturing Exports, suggesting that greater effort must be made in attracting higher Foreign Investments in the manufacturing sector.

Fiscal decentralization is the other aspect examined in this study taking state expenditure as a ratio of total expenditure (centre and state). Maharashtra, Delhi, Tamilnadu, Karnataka and Gujarat are the top five states in total FDI approvals upto March 2004. This clearly reveals that reform – oriented states (Bajpai and Sachs 1999) have consistently maintained the lead in attracting foreign investment. Urbanization level in the sub-national has grown significantly and other than Delhi, the state of Tamilnadu is in the forefront. States need to be viewed as potential agents for rapid and salutary change. At the global level Brazil, China and Russia are examples of greater decentralization (Bajpai and Sachs 1999). Drawing from the experiences of these countries, it may be hypothesized that greater fiscal decentralization may lead to greater competition among sub-national governments (states), which in turn may result in higher efficiency and enhanced productivity. However, for fiscal decentralization to be effective, institutional capacity should be built in sub-national jurisdictions to allow them to fully exploit the resources that they are best equipped to manage and administer based on the sub-national core competencies. Capacity should also be built in the areas of budget preparation; execution and supervision so that sub-national governments can handle the volume of resources assigned or devolved to them through decentralization (IMF study, 2001). However, when good governance does not follow decentralization it may become a bane rather than boon. Hence, fiscal decentralization and good governance ought to go hand in hand.



Sources and References:



  1. Manufacturing Export Volume Index: Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade of India (several issues), Director General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics, Government of India.

  2. Export unit price Index for India and the rest of the World: International Financial Statistics, International Monetary Fund (IMF) 2003.

  3. World Income: World Development Indicators, World Bank 2004.

  4. Economic Survey (several issues);

  5. REER: Hand Book of Statistics on Indian Economy, Reserve Bank of India Bulletin 2003-04.

  6. Handbook of Statistics on State Government Finances, RBI 2004.

  7. Domestic Demand Pressure is proxied by the gross fiscal deficit of the Central Government as a percentage of GDP. Source: Same as above.

  8. FDI: World Development Indicators, World Bank 2004.

  9. Infrastructure Facilities is proxied by infrastructure investment as a percentage of GDP.

  10. Srinivasan T N (1998), ‘India’s Export Performance: A Comparative Analysis’ in I J Ahluwalia and I M D Little (eds), India’s Economic Reforms and Development Essays for Manmohan Singh, Oxford University Press, Delhi.

  11. Kishore Shah (2000), ‘Export Growth in India: Has FDI Played A Role?’ Economic Growth Center, Yale University, Discussion Paper No. 816.

  12. Secretariat of Industrial Approvals, Newsletter Ministry of industry, Government of India.

  13. Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy- Relative Index of Infrastructure Development.
  14. Website: www.andhrapradesh.com; www.economictimes.com; www.gujaratindustry.gov.in; www.midcindia.com; www.commercenetindia.com;


www.maharashtra.gov.in;

  1. National Accounts Statistics of India.

  2. Annual Reports, Ministry of Industry, Govt of India.

  3. Bajpai N and Sach J D (1999), ‘The progress of Policy Reforms and Variations in Performance at the Sub-National Level in India’ Harvard Institute for International Development, Harvard University, Development Discussion Paper No.730, November.

  4. Jha Raghbendra (1998), ‘The Challenge of Fiscal Reform in India’, Australia South Asia Research Centre, Australian National university, Canberra.

  5. Garrett Geoffrey and Rodden Jonathen (2001), ‘Globalisation and Fiscal Decentralisation’, pdf.file

  6. IMF Working paper: Fiscal Decentralization and Governance- A Cross-country Analysis, 2001.




1* The writers are Professor and Associate Professor of Commerce, Nizam College, Osmania University.

 As per an annual survey of executives from the world’s largest companies conducted by global management consulting firm A T Kearney, Tuesday, October 12, 2004.

2 Other destinations are China, Korea, and Singapore.

3 There are efforts to revise this figure on the lines of World Bank, and the revised figure has been approximately put at US $ 6 billion.

4 James Gordon (2002), ‘ Foreign Direct Investment and Report’, Paper presented at IIFT, New Delhi, Sep 20, 2002.





Share with your friends:


The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2019
send message

    Main page