171
Trade and Regional Characteristics in India
Table 6.4 Share of Manufacturing in GSDP by State in Selected Years, 1980–81 to 2008–09 percent Share of manufacturing State Andhra Pradesh Bihar Gujarat Haryana Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Arunachal Assam Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Tripura Himachal Jammu and Kashmir Mean Coefficient of variation
Share of services
1980–81
1990–91 2000–01 2008–09 1980–81 1990–91 2000–01 2008–09
13.86 9.92 18.92 13.65 15.25 9.52
15.32 12.56 26.14 19.10 18.63 11.11
13.69 3.73 30.41 20.59 17.26 11.68
12.05 2.50 29.94 20.00 19.85 9.96
39.26 28.02 33.22 25.39 31.59 40.92
41.71 31.95 37.34 29.81 39.17 50.35
46.54 43.39 44.18 40.18 46.13 56.09
51.25 51.28 44.38 46.43 54.53 60.73
11.11 24.92 9.08 9.21 12.43 31.47 9.01 20.31 3.80 9.55 6.41 1.80 1.49 3.44 3.01
15.50 26.08 11.29 13.61 12.36 28.54 13.87 17.8 2.60 9.17 13.53 2.42 2.87 2.78 7.32
15.35 23.93 12.13 15.96 16.5 24.36 14.02 17.28 3.43 7.67 7.93 2.07 1.73 4.85 15.02
12.73 23.46 17.04 16.05 15.63 23.32 14.01 16.37 2.03 10.74 7.48 8.49 2.13 2.82 13.64
27.99 39.94 27.16 36.18 33.94 36.73 33.94 40.38 29.04 31.57 23.13 42.46 59.10 39.37 33.65
33.36 43.86 34.76 33.48 35.12 39.98 37.9 43.34 23.08 35.34 41.59 49.88 46.15 49.84 38.69
40.55 53.36 43.38 36.92 41.15 47.93 40.34 49.35 34.24 44.58 46.24 53.45 64.42 59.23 41.57
39.71 57.20 45.07 41.27 41.90 57.1 42.440 53.50 23.31 51.05 41.03 50.79 62.46 58.42 40.95
— 11.0568
— 13.0114
5.86 12.46
8.1 12.5974
— 35.7164
— 39.811
51.44 46.875
48.76 48.36
0.68869
0.59505
0.6426
0.6143
0.23899
0.2025
0.1567
0.1800
Source: Aggarwal and Archa 2012. Note: GSPD = gross state domestic product, — = not available.
Tamil Nadu, and Gujarat; “noncore” includes 12 other provinces.6 The results from table 6.6 show very clear differences in both the firm characteristics and the reported business environment of firms in core and noncore regions. Like in Indonesia, firms in India’s core tend to be larger and more foreign owned (although not significantly in India), and tend to make greater use of technology, training, and quality certification. This same pattern generally holds true if grouping states into the traditional leading and lagging categories. The results from table 6.6 with regard to the business environment in core versus noncore regions are powerful. The table shows that, like in Indonesia, firms in India’s core regions have better infrastructure, as measured by electricity quality, and better transport (although customs clearance times are much worse in the core). They also have significantly better access to finance. Again, like in The Internal Geography of Trade • http://dx.doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-9893-7