FOREIGN COLLABORATIONS IN INDIA A Study of Patterns in the Pre and the Post- liberalisation Era

Prof. Krishna Kumar Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow (India) ABSTRACT Developing countries like India have been using import of technology through foreign collaboration as a strategy to bridge the technological gaps in the country, to expedite economic development. There have not been many studies, however, to understand its impact and implications for technological capacity building of the country, and the deficiencies to be overcome for deriving the maximum benefits from collaborations. Experience also shows that many a collaborations have failed to fetch results as expected, and many have run into rough weather in implementation. There is thus, a need for comprehensive, systematic studies on the subject to help the decision makers at various levels in the industry and government. This study, based upon authentic databases available from the Indian Investment Centre, New Delhi and Centre for monitoring Indian Economy makes an effort to address some of the above issues. It analyses the patterns of foreign collaborations in India, spanning a period of 50 years from 1951 to 2000, divided into two parts, the pre and post liberalization era. The study reveals significant patterns in terms of the level of collaboration (both in terms of number and value), the nature of collaborations and the patterns by industry, partner countries and trade blocks. The study also reports significant, albeit, preliminary findings on the patterns by individual Indian firms in the corporate sector. The findings indicate that prima facie the trends are indicating that the countrys dependence on import of technology is increasing, which is not congenial for enhancing its global competitiveness congenial for sustainable, mutually beneficial international trade and that this may not be in be best interest of even the developed world. The study suggests the need for developing alternative strategies for technological and managerial competence building as a key to sustainable and mutually beneficial international trade.

4 .0 FOREIGN COLLABORATIONS IN INDIA:

A Study of Patterns in the Pre and Post Liberalisation Era
4.1 Introduction

Developing countries like India have been using import of technology through foreign collaboration as a strategy to bridge the technological gaps in the country, to expedite economic development1. There have not been many studies, however, to understand its impact and implications for technological capacity building of the country, and the deficiencies to be overcome for deriving the maximum benefits from collaborations. Experience also shows that many a collaborations have failed to fetch results as expected, and many have run into rough weather in implementation2. There is thus, a need for comprehensive, systematic studies on the subject to help the decision makers at various levels in the industry and government. This study makes an effort to address some of the above issues. It analyses the patterns of foreign collaborations in India, spanning a period of 50 years from 1951 to 2000, divided into two parts, the pre and post liberalization era. The study reveals significant patterns in terms of the level of foreign collaborations in India (both in terms of number and value), the nature of collaborations, the patterns by partner countries and trade blocks and by industry sectors. The study also reports significant, albeit, preliminary findings on the patterns by individual Indian firms in the corporate sector. The findings raise certain questions on the technological capacity building of India and the staleness of corporate strategies of Indian firms to meet the emerging challenges of global competition. It also reflects on the role being played by Indian corporate leaders in turning India into more of a global market than making it a global player. The paper also points out the need for close monitoring of the foreign collaborations and for developing relevant databases in public domain to facilitate systematic, comprehensive studies for practicing managers as well as policy makers. The data sources for the study are primarily the information available at the Indian Investment Centre, New Delhi and the PROWESS databases developed by the Centre for monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE). Two other data bases by title CAPEX and FS2001 from CMIE have also been used for the analysis in section 6 and 7 respetively. 4.2 Number Foreign Collaborations in the Pre and Post-liberalization Era

The number of foreign collaborations has been increasing on a cyclical manner in the first forty years, from 1951-91, starting with a meager 44 collaboration in the year 1951, it increased to 592 in the year 1961 and then suddenly to 402 in 1962, the year in which India faced war with China. The number of collaborations hovered around the same figure.

until 1965, when India faced war with Pakistan, when number dropped further to 343. This was followed with further decline due to political turmoil and rapid changes in government policies, marked with stricter regulatory requirements. The trend continued more or unchanged during 1970s, when the country underwent dramatic changes is political arena, with the imposition of emergency followed by short lived Janata Party government at the Centre. Eighties, however, saw the return to the rising trend, which became steeper and steeper in the 1990s, Total number of collaborations in the eighties equaled the total number of collaborations in the three decades of 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. The period 1991-2000 saw total number of collaborations in the decade surpassing the total number of all the collaborations in the 4 decades preceding it. Indeed, the total number collaborations in the 9 years of post- liberalization (19922000) period is observed to be 17810, while in the 41 years of pre- liberalization (195191), there were only 15105 foreign collaborations. India is thus banking on expert technological support for goods and services at an accelerated pace than in the preliberation era. The rise in number is substantial in the post liberalization era, 10fold compared to the decade of 1950s, 5- fold compared to the decades of 1960s and 1970s and 2-fold compared to the decade of 1980s.
Table 1 Year-wise no. of Foreign Collaboration in India
Year # of Collaborat ions Year # of Collaborati ons Year # of Collaboratio ns Year # of Collaborati ons year # of Collaborati ons

1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 Total

44 40 53 61 81 92 119 169 368 478 1505

1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970

592 452 443 521 343 203 179 131 138 185 3187

1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

232 263 264 374 274 273 268 307 268 527 3055

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990

388 579 653 955 798 906 590 648 979 1481 7976

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

891 1407 1476 1864 2337 2303 2325 1786 2224 2098 18709

4.3

Collaborating Countries

An interesting development is observed in terms of number of countries with whom India

Table 2 Number of Collaborating Countries in the Pre and Post-liberalisation Era collaborations Pre-liberalisation (1951-91) Post- liberalisation (1992-2000) No.of Countries Cumulative No.of Countries Cumulative
but <3000 but <1000 but <500 but <100 but <50 but <10 2 2 3 6 6 4 2 2 4 7 13 19 23 25 1 4* 6 13 8 27 55 1 5* 11 24 31 59 113

> 3000 > 1000 > 500 > 100 > 50 > 10 >1

# including NRs which was nil in pre-liberalization era.

5

Table 3 Foreign Collaborations in the Pre and post-liberalisation Era

Rank Country Block 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 17 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 USA GERMANY UK NRI JAPAN NETHERLANDS MAURITIUS ITALY FRANCE SWITZERLAND SINGAPORE KOREA (S) AUSTRALIA HONGKONG CANADA DENMARK AUSTRIA SWEDEN BELGIUM ISRAEL MALAYSIA TAIWAN THAILAND SPAIN ASEAN EC 0 1 9 29 5 ASEAN ASEAN NAFTA EC EC EC EC 7 19 0 32 19 28 30 28 51 24 20 26 20 59 26 28 78 93 176 55 16 30 7 15 ASEAN EC EC 42 41 65 82 143 177 114 175 215 418 373 344 60 40 52 EC 88 25 269 54 253 47 709 155 72 52 NAFTA EC EC 5160 272 201 618 Foreign Collaboration upto 1991 61718170 80 90 91 Total 662 489 922 641 603 602 1517 1375 1129 177 194 137 3269 2862 3408 0 1391 333 0 716 772 853 0 0 0 0 98 153 157 348 131 0 0 0 0 44 61 55 74 31 45 31 9 21 16 16 25 9 3 3 15 7 9

Year
1992 303 184 169 50 98 56 1993 299 169 172 125 93 56 8 55 52 62 41 35 30 16 16 16 33 11 9 8 7 20 8 8 1994 348 217 193 168 135 89 8 86 60 56 64 40 39 26 18 16 36 22 12 14 11 19 20 7 1995 469 252 201 141 146 146 71 121 68 85 65 60 43 34 39 28 34 23 18 55 20 17 15 11 1996 438 260 204 175 158 116 95 93 89 73 66 63 50 30 33 23 27 20 31 29 15 14 23 10 1997 459 254 204 121 147 103 141 114 77 92 86 82 61 32 35 24 12 14 30 19 39 9 9 11 1998 383 193 152 105 138 75 101 86 72 53 51 49 43 19 18 18 12 25 17 13 13 9 6 14 1999 481 208 193 141 157 116 146 92 88 60 71 62 45 28 21 23 13 27 20 9 21 9 9 20 2000 470 202 163 188 104 90 205 63 82 57 74 31 32 35 24 27 6 8 21 3 17 7 7 12

Total
3650 1939 1651 1214 1176 847 775 771 643 612 549 467 374 229 225 191 189 175 167 153 146 119 104 102

has foreign collaborations. In the 41 years of pre-liberalization era, the foreign collaborations were limited to 25 countries only. In the post liberalization era, the number of countries, with whom India has entered into foreign collaboration, swelled to 112 (see exhibit 1 for details), a dramatic over 4-fold rise indeed. It would be noticed from the table 2 that the number of countries with whom India has very large number of collaborations (more than 1000 each) during the 41 years of preliberalisation era (1951-91) and the 9 years of post- liberalization era (1992-2000) has not changed substantially, except that NRIs have engaged in a big way in the post liberalization era. But there has been a substantial rise in the number of countries with whom India did not have collaboration in the pre-liberalisation period, and has entered into collaboration only in the post liberalization era. This is true both for the 100-500 and below 100 collaborations categories. A look at exhibit I will reveal that foreign collaborations have been entered into even with very small countries, who are generally not considered to possess sound technological prowess to help bridge the technology gaps of India. The data thus, indicates that in the post-liberalisation era, the country is entering into foreign collaborations for a variety of reasons rather than for importing technology to build industrial base or to bridge the technology gaps, most important among them being to increase variety for meeting the customers choice of products and services, which is a major shift in pattern of collaborations in the post- liberalization period. In term of level of collaborations in the post liberalization era (1992-2000) by number, USA tops the list followed by Germany, the Great Britain and Japan. This is followed by Netherlands, Mauritius (!), Italy, France and Switzerland. The next few places have been occupied by the south- east Asian countries, nearly. Singapore, Korea(s), Australia and Hong Kong, which did not have any collaborations in the preliberalization era, They have pushed other leading European countries namely Denmark, Austria,. Sweden & Belgium to the next lower position East European technology providers of pre- liberalization era, the giant like USSR, Hungry, Poland, Romania etc., are pushed down to positions lower than even the countries like Luxembourg, indicating a major shift in both, the geo-political considerations as well as the main purpose of foreign collaboration (bridging the technology gaps). Two more striking observations may be worth noting. Firstly, unlike the popular perception in the west, the foreign collaborations with east- European countries (U.S.S.R, Poland, Hungary, Romania, etc) have been far lower (10%total) than the western developed countries, which constituted the balance 90%. Secondly, the giants of Europe, namely Germany and the Great Britain have badly lost out to USA in terms of number of collaborations with India in the post liberalization era. Indeed, the entire west European block has now lost its business closeness with India to the USA and to some extent even to the south- east Asian countries as discussed later. It would also be noted that from the table 3 in the 1950s and 60s, U.K. alone had more collaboration with India than the U.S.A. and Germany. From 1970s onwards, it lost out to Germany and U.S.A. But still both (U.K. and Germany) had number of
7

collaborations very close to that with U.S.A. In the post liberalization era however, the numbers of collaborations with U.S.A. exceeded the total number of collaboration with Germany and U.K. put together. Another significant development observed is that while Netherlands has substantially increased number of collaboration (333 in 41 years to 847 in the 9 years of post-liberalisation period, Italy retained the number of collaborations more or less at the same level as in pre-liberatisation period (716 us 771), proportionately, France has gone down (772 in pre-liberalisation to 642 in postliberalization). Likewise while Denmark, Austria and Belgium have almost equal number of collaborations in the pre-and post liberalization periods, proportionately Sweden has gone down. On the other hand, the south-east Asian countries have emerged as a significant group of foreign collaborators, with Singapore, South Korea, Australia and Hong Kong becoming more significant than Denmark, Austria, Sweden, Belgium and Finland 4.4 Foreign Collaborations by Value

The foreign calibrations have also been analyses by value in terms of foreign equity. It will be seen from the table 4 that there has been a steep rise in the value of foreign collaboration in the post liberalisaation era. From table exhibit 4, it will also be seen that out of a total of 112 countries with whom India bas collaboration (see table 5), 21 countries have collaborations with 1% of total or more by value (i.e.; foreign equity), including U.S.A. & Canada, seven EU countries (U.K, Germany, France Netherlands, Italy, Belgium and Sweden), 4 south-east Asian countries (Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Hong Kong) and 8 others. Table 4 Level of Foreign Collaboration in India by Value (Rs. in Million) Value Year 1992 26895 1993 88571 1994 141872 1995 324324 1996 361498 1997 548902 1998 307388 1999 283665 2000 340282 Total 1992-99 2423397 U.S.A. ranks number one (see table 5) with 25% share in foreign equity followed by Mauritius (!), U K (8%) and Japan (5%). South Korea (5%) Germany (4%). France,

Table 5
8

Foreign Collaboration by Value

Rs. in Million Sno 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Country USA MAURITIUS UK JAPAN KOREA (S) NRI GERMANY AUSTRALIA MALAYSIA FRANCE NETHERLANDS ITALY SINGAPORE ISRAEL BELGIUM CAYMEN ISLAND SWITZERLAND Total UNINDICATED COUNTRY CANADA THAILAND HONGKONG SOUTH AFRICA SWEDEN SAUDI ARABIA CHINA UAE WEST INDIES PANAMA KUWAIT OMAN BERMUDA DENMARK RUSSIA QATAR INDONESIA PHILLIPINES CZECH REPUBLIC NEW ZEALAND AUSTRIA IRELAND FINLAND LUXEMBOURG MEXICO BAHRAIN PORTUGAL ISLE OF MAN (UK) NIGERIA TAIWAN GIBRALTAR NORWAY EC EC EC EC EC NAFTA ASEAN ASEAN EC EC NAFTA ASEAN ASEAN EC ASEAN EC EC EC ASEAN EC EC Block NAFTA Value 495942.4 294532.5 162831.3 97512.48 96967.45 91592.76 82727.72 66141.34 55763.25 52103.54 46328.56 45128.81 44791.35 42357.3 39742.1 37322.41 27127.54 25991.26 25331.68 24596.94 21348.59 19041.27 17731.63 8117.52 7121.7 6887.88 6474.29 6406.77 5850.94 5824.97 5377.29 5322.91 4818.39 4570 3918.28 3845.24 2897.1 2787.14 2755.46 2598.8 2520.06 2511.79 2472.2 2029.59 1984.65 1612.83 1505.4 1356.61 989.08 971.64 % Share 25% 15% 8% 5% 5% 5% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Grand Total 2021794 100% Sno 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 Country BRITISH VIRGIN ISLAN AFGHANISTAN IRAN BANGLADESH BAHAMAS ISLANDS OF NEVIS LIECHENSTEIN SRI LANKA CYPRUS ARGENTINA CHANNEL ISLAND POLAND UKRAINE ESTONIA HUNGARY TURKEY YUGOSLAVIA JORDAN ROMANIA GREECE ARMENIA PAPUA NEW GUINEA BULGARIA USSR KAZAKHASTAN MALDIVES ICELAND JAMAICA SOMALIA VIETNAM SCOTLAND MONACO BRAZIL YAMAN KENYA CUBA SLOVAKIA LATVIA JAPAN EGYPT MALTA SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC TATARSTAN BELORUSSIA SUDAN NEPAL SPAIN URUGUAY EC ASEAN EC Block Value 817.77 761.01 714.56 516.85 461.7 315.0 308.7 236.2 234.8 184.0 130.7 119.2 81.6 73.1 34.3 32.2 24.5 23.2 21.0 20.4 20.3 19.2 19.1 16.7 15.0 14.3 13.5 10.0 10.0 8.9 8.3 6.7 6.1 5.0 4.9 4.2 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.2 1.3 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 % Share 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Netherlands, Italy and Belgium come close to ASEAN partners like Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Hong Kong. In effect what it means is that EU countries have placed less faith in India as a foreign collaborator for committing financially. Table 6 shows that while percentage share in terms of value as compared to the number of collaborations, is higher in the case of U.S.A. (26% vs.22%) and ASEAN (8% vs. 3%), in case of EU countries, this is just the opposite (23 vs. 39% ). In effect EU still has more focus on technological collaborations than equity based participation, a fact that is further buttressed by data given in the next section. Table 6 Foreign Collaboration by Trade Blocks (No. vs. Value)
Blocks NAFTA EC ASEAN Total Others Grand Total By Number Number % of Total 3884 22% 6876 39% 535 3% 11295 63% 6515 37% 17810 100% By Value 523746 464308 154273 1142327 879467 2021794 Value % of Total 26% 23% 8% 57% 43% 100%

4.5

Nature of Foreign Collaborations

The approvals of foreign collaborations have been classified in two classes; namely technological (without foreign equity participation) and financial (having Foreign equity participation). It will be seen from the data given in table 7 that out of a total of 17810 foreign collaborations approved during 9 years of post liberation period (19922000), only 6155 (45%) were technical collaboration and 11642 (65%) were financial ones (see exhibit 3 for details). Table 7 Foreign Collaboration s in the Post-liberalisation Era by Type
YEAR 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 TOTAL TYPE TOTAL FIN TECH 639 768 1407 785 691 1476 1062 792 1854 1353 984 2337 1557 746 2303 1664 661 2325 1185 601 1786 1726 498 2224 1684 414 2098 11642 6155 17810 FIN % 45% 53% 57% 58% 68% 72% 66% 78% 80% 65%

A closer look at the table would, however, also reveal that there is a major change in the proportion of technological & financial collaborations in the post- liberalization
10

period, the proportion of financial collaboration, which was only 45% in 1992, has jumped to 80% by 2000, a dramatic rise, indeed a paradigm shift. Data is not available to analyse patterns in the pre-liberalisation era, but an earlier study indicates that the patterns were similar to those in 19923. The shift in the nature of foreign collaboration points towards increasing interest of foreign partners in playing an active role in the management of the Indian venture rather than being contended with sale of technology. It also raises a possibility of concern of both (Indian and foreign) partners to do business together in India, than only Indian patterns desire for bridging technology gap. Another possibility, extending from this, which needs a more detailed examination, is that perhaps the foreign collaborations in post liberalization are more of partnerships for trading foreign goods and services with little valve addition rather than high value addition seeking import of manufacturing technology, which has been the key concern in the preliberalization era. This possibility gets buttressed by change in the type of Indian partners as discussed in section 7. 4.6 Foreign Collaboration by Industry Sector

For analysing the patterns by industry sectors, CAPEX database from CMIE was used, which had the information on industry sub-sector for each collaboration. The database, however, had information on foreign collaboration only from June 1992 onwards. The information for the year 1992 was observed to be incomplete and hence has been ignored for this study A look at foreign collaboration (see table 8) would show that there has been a spurt in foreign collaborations in almost all the industry sectors. No sector of industry has remained untouched with it. In as many as 45 (25%) industry sectors there have been more than 100 collaborations in 9 years (1993-2001). Another 32 industry sectors had 51- 100 collaborations in 9 years. There were only 29 sectors in which there were less than 10 collaborations during the decade. Although a more detailed study is required to make a conclusive statement, the data indicates that there is still a steady trend in most of the sectors which are increasingly banking on foreign assistance rather than developing products and technology on their own (see exhibit iv for details). It is no indication of domestic capacity building for developing global competitiveness of India, although it has enhanced domestic competition with all the global giants competing for market share here, pushing out domestic players, leading to over capacity creation. Running to global competitors for collaborations by industry at such a pace neither generates confidence that liberalisation is helping enhancement of India's global competitiveness though it provides an opportunity to be outsourcing point

11

Collaboration by Industry Sectors

1 2 26 3 4 27 5 28 6 29 7 34 8 35 36 9 37 10 11 38 39 12 40 41 13 42 43 14 15 44 16 45 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Computer Software Industrial Machinery (Excl. Chem. & Text.) Prime Movers Business Consultancy Domestic Electrical Automobile Ancillaries Appliances Drugs & Other Organic Pharmaceuticals Chemicals Misc. Chemicals Misc. Electrical Chemical Machinery Machinery Cosmetics & Toiletries Other Recreational Misc. Other Services Services Misc. Manufactured Minerals Articles Marine Foods Hotels & Restaurants Rubber & Rubber Electronic Equipments Products Other Agricultural Pumps & Products Compressors Thermoplastics Other Consumer Electronics Telecommunication Material Services Handling Equipments Storage & Distribution Electronic Components Other General Purpose Electricity Generation Machinery Communication Equipment Synthetic Yarn Food Processing Hire Purchase Financial Services Readymade Garments Floriculture Machine Tools Trading Other Metal Products Other Construction Activities Misc. Textiles 1374 910 167 853 730 157 527 145 497 144 476 125 457 124 123 436 122 371 356 117 113 341 113 106 313 104 104 286 282 103 277 102 241 239 223 222 217 212 207 205 187 46 47 71 48 49 72 50 73 51 74 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 Computer Hardware Glass & Glassware Castings & Forgings Inorganic Chemicals Other Vehicles Paints & Varnishes Health Services Transformers Finished Steel Other Non-Ferrous Metals Footwear Other Leather Products Cotton & Blended Yarn Lubricants, Etc. Wires & Cables Paper Products Ceramic Tiles Air-Conditioners & Refrigerators Gems & Jewellery Shipping Plastic Packaging Goods Dyes & Pigments Passenger Cars & Multi Utility Vehicles Switching Apparatus Tyres & Tubes Two & Three Wheelers Granite Textile Machinery Transport Support Services 97 96 57 97 97 57 90 56 89 55 87 87 85 85 83 78 77 73 69 66 65 62 62 62 62 61 60 60 60 78 79 103 80 81 104 82 105 83 106 84 111 85 112 113 86 114 87 88 115 116 89 117 118 90 119 120 91 92 121 93 122 123 94 124 125 95 126 127 128 96 129 97 130 98 131 132 99 133 100
134

Tourism Books & Newspapers Pesticides Cement & Asbestos Products Aluminium Products Oil Cakes & Animal Feed Mutual Funds Woollen Textiles Cement Other Fertilisers Clocks & Watches Soaps & Detergents Commercial Complexes Air Transport Offshore Drilling Steel Tubes & Pipes Welding Machinery Cocoa Products & Confectionery Metal Tanks & Fabrications Plastic Resins Coal & Lignite Refractories Dry Cells Misc. Financial Services Other Misc. Non-Metallic Liquors Mineral Products Electronic Tubes Ball Bearings Aluminium Plastic Tubes & Pipes Pre-Recorded And Recorded Motors & Generators Cassettes Crude Oil & Natural Gas Paper Road Transport Tractors Nitrogenous Fertilisers Plastic Films Structurals Photographic Films Beer Investment Services Banking Services Commercial Vehicles Courier Services Tobacco Products Pig Iron Dairy Products Abrasives Storage Batteries
Stainless Steel

49 45 27 44 43 26 43 25 37 24 37 22 37 21 21 37 21 36 36 19 18 36 18 18 35 18 17 34 33 17 33 17 16 32 15 16 31 15 15 14 30 13 29 12 29 12 11 29 10 29
10

135 136 160 137 138 161 139 162 140 163 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159

Caustic Soda Broadcasting/Distribution of Electricity Distribution Tv Serials/Films Fasteners Steel Wires Jute Products Starches Phthalic Anhydride Tea Provident Funds Coffee Explosives Plastic Sheets Soyabean Products Textile Processing Bicycles Carbon Black Civil Engineering Ferro Alloys Diversified Insurance Services Railway Transport Sponge Iron Sugar Acetic Acid Housing Construction Housing Finance Services Other Total Forms Of Primary Plastic Amusement Parks/Entertainment Centres/Theatres

9 9 1 9 9 1 8 1 8 1 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 16849 3 1

101

Wood Bakery & Milling Products

29 28

102

12

in availability of choicest products in domestic market. The data also raises questions about even the desirability of a large number of collaborations in many fields in view of sustained adverse trade balance5, mounting budget deficit of central and state governments6 and burgeoning external debt7. However, further comments are reserved for a later study with other contextual data. 4.7 Foreign Collaborations by Type of Indian Partners

The study also analyzed the foreign collaboration in the post liberalization era, by the type of Indian partners. Unfortunately data was not easily available for the preliberalization period. Efforts are on to extract the same to be able to give a more comprehensive understanding on the issue. But even the analysis of post-liberalization era data is important enough, as it points towards a significant pattern. For the purpose of this analysis, two sources were used, One, the information available from Indian Investment Centre about the foreign collaborations for the years 19922000, The other was PROWESS database of Centre for Monitoring Indian, Economy, giving data on financial performance of Indian Corporates. From the latter database the listed companies sale value for the year 2000 was taken and the companies were arranged in descending order of their sales. Then the top 1000 companies were picked up. These top 1000 companies represented 89% of sales of all the listed companies (9). Foreign collaborations by these companies were noted, by combining it with the information from the first database. A major problem was faced in tallying the two databases because of differences in the way the data was typed (names of the companies) in the two databases. Table 9 Foreign collaboration by (Top 1000) corporate Leaders
# total of collaborations 17810 # of companies having collaborations 496 # of collaboration 2358

From table 9 it will be seen that as many as 496 out of the top 1000 (i.e., 43%) industry leaders (by sales in the year 2000) have entered into foreign collaboration in the post liberalization period, a large number indeed. The data indicates that the industry leaders, even in the post- liberalization period are banking heavily on import of technologic to meet, and perhaps, enhance the demands of products and services, rather than developing new products and services and technological competencies, on their own. This is a serious development and has direct, adverse bearing on sharpening global competitiveness of Indian companies, both in the domestic and international markets. A look at table 10 also shows the patterns of spread of the foreign collaboration. It will be noted from table that there are as many 6 companies which had more than 30 collaborations over a period of 9 years (1992-2000) of post-liberalization era, Perhaps
13

no where else in the world this kind of phenomenon would be observed. Further, there were 29 others, who had 11 to 29 collaborations over the period, on the average one on more collaboration per year. Additionally, there were 47 companies that had 6-10 collaboration; at least one or more foreign collaboration every alternate year, on the average. Table 10 Frequency Distribution of Foreign Collaboration by Top 1000 companies
# of collaborations # companies* Indian >30 21-30 11-20 06-10 01-05 6 7 22 47 185 Foreign # companies (cumulative)* 6 13 25 72 267

Table 11 Detailed frequency Distribution of Foreign Collaboration by Corporate Leaders

#collaborations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 # companies #collaborations # companies #collaborations # companies 73 42 29 21 20 13 12 6 10 6 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 23 5 1 3 3 3 1 2 3 1 1 24 27 28 29 36 38 60 71 74 127 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

It will also be seen from table 11 that 4 companies have astonishingly high number of collaboration (60 or more) and one company had on the average even 14 collaborations per year (127 in 9 years). These high numbers do not auger well for technological capability building internally, through domestic efforts. An even more significant development is the fact that a large number of collaborate are taking place with Indian companies, which are small, having sale of less than Rs 44.6 crores in the year 2000, which do not find place in the PROWESS database. The FIRST SOURCE (2001) database of CMIE, giving details of 1,50,000 firms (both listed and unlisted) along with CAPEX database (giving the details of foreign collaborations from 1993 to 2002), however, provides a more comprehensive picture. From table 12 it will be seen that the total number of listed and unlisted large companies (with sales of Rs. 44.6 crores or more in the year 2001) numbering 1088 were having 3573 foreign collaborations. Thus over 14000 collaborations were by the firms having sales of less than Rs. 44.6 cr. in 2001. Further, as per the data available, the number of firms
14

reporting sales of Rs. 1 cr. and above in the year 2001(numbering 2437), had a total of 5818 collaborations out of 18695 collaboration. In other words, over 13000 (estimated) foreign collaborations were by firms having less than Rs 1 cr. sales. It reinforces the proposition that the collaborations are tending more towards trading than strengthening manufacturing capability as contended during the discussion on changing nature of collaboration in the previous section, although it requires validation with further studies.
.

Table 12 Industry Leaders and Foreign Collaborations

Rank Sales in year 2000 (Rs. in Cr) > Top 100 Top500 Top1000 Top 2000 Top5000 1731.1 315.4 137.4 44.6 1.0 Listed Companies No. of No. of Firms Collaborat. 46 276 492 771 1269 466 1243 2185 2826 3634 Unlisted Comapnies No. of No. of Firms Collaborat. 9 54 113 317 1168 32 214 361 767 2225 Total No. of No. of Firms Collaborat. 55 330 605 1088 2437 495 1632 2542 3573 5818

4.8

Foreign Collaboration in India Vs. Indian Joint Ventures Abroad

It is worthwhile to mention a bit about the comparative picture of global competitiveness of Indian industry in the pre and post- liberalization era. Two meaningful indicators of the same could be export/ import performance and the Indian business ventures abroad vs. foreign collaborations in India. Table 13 shows that the import/ export performance of India improved for a brief 3 years period after liberalization, but reverted back to the pre- liberalization period. Thus, measured in terms of export/ import ratio, the global competitiveness of India has not increased during the decade of liberalization, economic reforms undertaken not withstanding. A comparative picture of Indian business ventures abroad and foreign collaborations in India (see table 14) shows that although the Indian business ventures abroad have grown impressively in the post- liberalization period, but they are not commensurate with the level of foreign collaborations in India in the post- liberalisation period. It looks that the overall global competitiveness of India, measured in terms of Indian business ventures abroad vs. foreign ventures in India, is not increasing (it is actually decreasing). The policy measures taken so far are not proving good enough to check India from becoming more of global market only, rather than emerging as a global player.

Table 13
15

India' Export- Import Performance during 1971-2000

Year Export Import Net Export / Import Ratio (%) 78% 77% 92% 82% 71% 78% 94% 90% 72% 65% 52% 54% 58% 59% 64% Year Export Import Net Export/ Import Ratio (%) 55% 59% 64% 60% 69% 66% 87% 78% 85% 75% 74% 70% 86% 72% 68%

1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85

1890 2122 2579 2997 4006 4830 5750 6354 6817 7817 8445 8697 9490 9861 10061

2435 2759 2796 3646 5620 6197 6097 7051 9512 12076 16314 15970 16468 16575 15715

-545 -637 -217 -649 -1614 -1367 -347 -697 -2695 -4259 -7869 -7273 -6978 -6714 -5654

1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 19992000

9461 10413 12644 14257 16955 18477 18266 18869 22683 26855 32311 34133 35680 34298 37542

17294 17729 19812 23618 24411 27915 21064 24316 26739 35904 43670 48948 41535 47544 55383

-7833 -7316 -7168 -9361 -7456 -9438 -2798 -5447 -4056 -9049 -11359 -14815 -5855 -13246 -17841

Table 14 Indian Business Ventures Abroad and Foreign Collaborations in India

Upto 92 1991 Indian JVs Abroad Indian Wholly Owned Subsidiaries Abroad Total Indian Business Ventures Abroad Foreign Collaboration in India 244 75 72 28 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 Total Upto 1999 1023 1080

104 79

92 122

82 119

116 143

101 122

101 154

111 238

319

100

183

214

201

259

223

255

349

2103

16836

1531

1476

1854

2337

2303

2325

1786

2224

32672

Table 15
16

Corporate Leader's Venturing Abroad and Foreign Collaboration Total No. of Business Ventures Abroad No.of No. of Ventures Cos. Cumulativ Distributi e on of Frequency Ventures 1 171 1+ 909 2 154 2+ 738 3 25 3+ 430 4 17 4+ 355 5 6 5+ 287 6 6 6+ 257 7 2 7+ 221 8 4 8+ 207 9 2 9+ 175 10 2 10+ 157 11 3 11+ 137 12 3 12+ 104 15 18 20 2 1 1 15+ 18+ 20+ 68 38 20 Foreign Collaborations between 19922000 No. of No. of Companies Collaborations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 23 24 27 28 29 36 38 60 71 74 73 42 29 21 20 13 12 6 10 6 5 1 3 3 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

A look at table 15 also indicates that industry leaders in general are not helping India emerge as a global player. Instead they are facilitating the process of India becoming more of a global market. For example, against only one company having 20 business ventures abroad, there are as many as 12 companies, which have engaged in foreign collaborations in India. Likewise against 12 companies which have 10 or more business ventures abroad, there are 40 who have entered into foreign collaborations.
17

4.9

Summary of Findings

The findings of the study indicate that major changes in patterns of foreign collaborations are taking place. These are not only significant, but also draw attention of policy makers and executive action. The main findings of the study are: 1. There has been a steep rise in number of collaborations (1992-2000). The total number of foreign collaborations in 9 years of post liberalization period (17810) has out numbered the total number of foreign collaborations (16614) in 41 years of pre-liberalization period. The number of collaborations in a single year in the post liberalization is almost equal to those in the whole of a decade in 1950s and two thirds of those in the decades of 1960s and 70s. Dominance of U.S.A. is total now. In the race of collaborations with India, U.K and Germany, each of whom had higher number of collaborations than U.S.A up to 1970, have lost out to USA not only individually, but even collectively, Indeed, in the post liberalization period, EU countries have lost only, not only to USA, but even to some of the ASEAN countries in relative terms. The number of countries with whom Indian has foreign collaborations increased from 25 in pre-liberalization period to 112 in the post-liberalization period. The mix of foreign collaboration in terms of technological/ financial has undergone drastic change. The proportion of financial collaboration (indicating interest of foreign partner in playing active role in the Indian ventures has gone from less than 305 in the pre-liberalisation era (before 1991) to over 80% in the post liberalization era (after 1991). The number of collaborations by small players (having sales less than Rs.44.6 crores in the year 2000) is substantially high, estimated to be around 11000 compared to those by leaders (sales Rs.44.6 crores or more), estimated to be around 3573. The shift is thus visibly towards low value addition trading than technology capability building. Industry leaders in general do not demonstrate any change in their strategy (growing through import of technology) of pre-liberalization period. One could thus not expect global competitiveness of domestic companies to increase. The spread of collaboration is across all the industry sectors, not all of them can be called desirable ones from the view of point of capacity building for global competitiveness. Industry leaders in general are not helping India emerge as a global player. Instead they are facilitating the process of India becoming more of a global market.
18

2.

3. 4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

4.10 Implications of Findings

A steep rise in the number of foreign collaboration is a direct indication of the fact that country is increasingly banking on the other countries for the introduction of new products and technologies, rather than developing them through domestic efforts. This is in complete contrast to the pre-liberalisation policies of importing technology to enhance domestic technological capabilities of the country.. It can help in meeting the needs and serving the domestic market, but not so much in technology development for increasing competitiveness of India. The infrastructure created may even help in becoming a global outsourcing point, but that will give reduce the status to that of a small, ancillary supplier, who does not have any bargaining power (and hence can not expect capturing substantial portion of value created by him in the whole value chain, leave alone controlling the capture of value creation), and will always remain at the mercy of main product manufacturer. It may help in earning a bit of foreign exchange to reduce foreign exchange crisis, but can in no way increase competitiveness to become a global player. An alarmingly large number of small Indian partners, with high financial interest of foreign party, indicate that these are more of trading or marginal value addition outfits, engaged in distribution of foreign goods rather than potential major manufacturers with strong technological prowess. They may neither have resources nor inclination to engage in R & D work to increase competitiveness of India, but may only be interested in quick profits in the liberalised regime, when the going is good, and be instrumental in making India only a global market as well as cause drain on precious foreign exchange. The country needs to seriously engage in new product development activity as outlined earlier, developing new product with local endowments and designs and vendor bases, branching off from the existing applications, developing technology for scaling up the products of Indian origin. It requires development of attitudes and orientation of frame-bending and frame-braking8 while thinking of organization innovations and new product development. Importing technology at successive levels of up-gradation in the name of modernization and on the logic of India does not need to reinvent the wheel is not a tenable one. New product development is not reinventing the wheel. If it is so, every developed country is doing so on an ongoing basis. The present approach of importing technology for catching up by latching up10 does not help in development of real technical expertise, but instead generates a myth, a misplaced belief and false sense of technical expertise, which fails to meet the demands of competition. Further, it must be realized that the principles of science are more universal and generalisable than those related to the business. The moment one moves to application of the scientific principle to develop product and services, they tend to be less applicable due to the influence of the geo-political, socio-culture context of the

19

Table 16 1999200 199091 1991-92 1992-93 -4268 842 1129 1713 -503 -81 2773 -3423 -3526 1993-94 -4056 2898 535 1725 -332 1994-95 -9049 5680 602 1547 -167 1995-96 -11359 5460 -186 1546 -158 199697 -14815 10321 851 2020 -441 199798 -16277 9804 1143 1477 -726 1998-99 -13246 9208 2165 1250 -755 1999200 -17841 12143 4064 897 -703 200001 -14370 11791 2478 294 -1257 200102

A Current Account 1. Merchandise -17098 -9438 2. Invisible 12935 -242 a) Service 3856 980 I) Travel 897 1064 ii) Transportation -665 110 iii) Miscellaneous b) Transfer I) Private 12256 2069 c) Income I) Investmt Income -3695 -3752 Total of Current Account -4163 -9680 B. Capital Acount 1. Foreign Investment a) Direct 2167 97 b0 Portfolio 3024 3 2. Loans a) External Assist. 901 2210 b) Comm. Borrowing I) M.T./L.T. 313 2248 c) S.T. 377 1075 3. Banking capital a) Comm. Banks I) Assets 790 -364 ii) Liabilioties -26 -269 iii) NRI Deposits 2140 1537 b) Others -177 -222 4. Ruppe Debt. Service -711 -1193 5. Other Capital 1508 1931 Total of Capital Account 10242 7056 C. Errors & Omissions D. Overall Balance 6402 -2492 E. Monetary Movements a) IMF -260 1214 b) Fores. Reserves -6142 1278 F. Total External Debt 75857 83801 85285 of which Long Term 68356 75257 78215 Figures of 1999-2002 Table 43, RBI Bulletin, July, 2002

14054 4199 628 -413

5265 -3270 -1158

8093 -3431 -3369

8506 -3205 -5899

12367 -3307 -4494

11830 -3520 -6473

10280 -3569 -4038

12256 -3695 -4698

12798 -3918 -2579

12125 -2728 1351

315 242 1856 -358

586 3649 1901 607 -769

1343 3579 1528 1030 393

2133 2661 883 1275 49

2716 3312 1109 2848 838

3202 1828 899 3999 -96

2480 -68 820 4362 -748

2167 3024 901 313 377

2342 2760 427 4011 105

3905 2020 1204 -1147 -890

1073 -144 2001 896 -878 -10 3906 -560 1288 -728 90023 83683

-844 1297 1205 605 -1053 1638 8895 8537 187 -8724 92695 89068

-962 164 172 292 -983 1977 8502 5757 -1143 -4644 99000 94739

-384 218 1103 -175 -952 -2537 4078 -1221 -1715 2936 93730 88696

-870 -255 3350 4 -727 -254 11881 6793 -975 -5818 93470 86744

-2195 -190 1125 367 -767 3800 11924 4511 -618 -3593 94320 89274

-1397 -11 1742 1146 -802 1157 8565 4222 -393 -3829 97231 93902

790 -26 1540 -177 -711 1508 10444 6402 -260 -6142 98435

-1768 36 2317 -74 -617 9022 5856 -26 -5830

1264 382 2754 207 -519 9545 11757

-11757

20

societies as well as the economic and technological status of the country. While the adoption of former form elsewhere in the world is not questionable, adoption of the latter tend to be more societies as well as the economic and technological status of the country. While the adoption of former form elsewhere in the world is not questionable, adoption of the latter tend to be more irrelevant and difficult. Import of technology and product faces this challenge. The design and development of new products and services and technology thereof, thus, becomes extremely critical. The findings of the study also have significant implications for the international trade of India, both from the view point of India as also from the view point of the partner countries. From the Indian view point, the lock stock and barrel import of technology can does not lead to increase in its competitiveness, hence it would be increasingly difficult to finance the countrys adverse balance of trade through capital account (see table 16 for details) and sustaining trade in this way can only lead to adverse terms of trade and, ultimately influencing the sovereignty of the country, about which there are growing apprehensions in the country. Further, this may lead to decrease in purchasing power for two reasons. One, it can (perhaps has) lead to increased asset creation (see table 17), disproportionate to the demands of country and what the domestic sources are able to bear, resulting in a slow down of the Indian economy (see table 18) as is being observed since 199710. Table 17 Mismatch Between Demand Growth and Asset Growth
Year 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 Asset Growth % 122% 121% 121% 126% 119% 116% 117% 111% 102% Sales Growth % 121% 120% 117% 129% 124% 112% 110% 108% 113% Mismatch % 1% 1% 5% -3% -5% 4% 8% 3% -11% Mismatch 1991-99

14%

Table 18 No. of Companies making Profit or Loss in various years

Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Cos. Making Profit 1750 2025 2418 3288 4169 Cos. Making loss 376 420 577 499 727 Cos. Neither making Profit nor Loss 71 105 173 247 324 Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Cos. Making Profit 4281 3906 3632 3571 3176 Cos. Makin g loss 1151 1751 2105 2266 1725 Cos. Neither making Profit nor Loss 270 256 249 207 194

It has also resulted in a huge amount of investment being locked in the assets of companies that are loss making or not reporting their performance11. The amount
21

involves is the tune of almost Rs. 3,00,000 crores (see tables 19 and 20). This is associated with decreasing employment opportunities on account of large scale down sizing through Voluntary Retirement Schemes (VRS)/ closure of mills etc., so much so that in 2001-2002, some of young graduates of leading technical and management schools (turning out about 4000 graduates) were facing difficulties in getting proper employment12,13. Secondly such imports also do not promise to increase in employment that is associated with the manufacture and sales of locally developed products/ services. Because, the part of employment that gets generated in the product/ service design and technology development (embryonic stage) processes, is absent when proven technology is imported for domestic sales. That is why despite as many foreign collaborations in 9 years of post-liberalisation as in the 41 years of pre-liberalisation period, unemployment of even skilled manpower continues to be critical issue. Table 19 Assets Created During Post Liberalisation Era by Companies Existing in 1991 & Established During 1992-2000 But Locked in the Companies Making Loss/ Not Reporting Performance (Rs. In Crores)
GFA Profit Making GFA Loss Making 191890 GFA Not reporting 106818 GFA Total 298708

Table 20 Total Assets Locked in the Companies Making Loss/ Not Reporting Performance
GFA Profit Making (Rs. In Crores) GFA GFA Not reporting Loss Making 248973 135689 GFA Total 384662

All the above factors can only result in reduced purchasing power in large democracies like India. Perception of India as growing market for the products and services of the developed world, which at times is thought of as a tool to overcome their economic recessions may, thus, turn out to be a mirage in the long run14. Alternative strategies to develop technical and managerial competencies are, thus, necessary to enable India develop new products through local natural endowments and vendor bases. That will help in increasing purchasing power on a sustainable basis on the one hand, and enable development of their own products and services for international exchange on the other, which alone can sustain international trade, on a long term basis, as equal partners. Serious efforts and policy interventions are required from the industry, policy makers and technical and management institutions towards the same15,16. The present approaches, it is apprehended, can only retrogate to international trade on the pre-colonial format; which was marked with adverse terms
22

of trade for colonies and with the divide of the world into capital intensive and labour intensive categories. That format is unacceptable to the under-privileged nations and is fraught with other attendant consequences in a more informed world of today, with enhanced local destructive power. The findings also raise a fundamental question on the development of technology for scaling up the manufactured items. Manufacturing technologies could be capital intensive (machine content higher) or labour intensive (labour content higher). The economic development models describe how the mix or combination of man and machine goes on changing as man and machine become costlier. The developed countries from where we import technologies have higher labour costs (as they have shortage of labour), hence develop production technologies that are inherently capital intensive. The technology matches very well with the developed countries socioeconomic context. However, when it comes to the developing countries like, it has an obvious mismatch with the socio-economic conditions here. We thus run a capital intensive technology in a labour intensive manner. It cant lead to efficiency of operations comparable to original creators of products and services and to large scale generation of employment. Further, it runs into all kinds of difficulties on account of problems of maintenance of equipment as exemplified by the computer hardware today It is lucrative, however, as it is softest option. It does not require all the painstaking effort of technology development. One can not, however, expect the Indian companies to complete effectively with the multinational corporations, who have developed such technologies, even in the domestic market, leave alone facing competition globally. The use of capital intensive technology also has the advantage of having superior quality, because of finish and consistency. This creates a false sense that manufacture without imported technology cant have world class product. India has not been able to make much of headway in developing labour intensive technologies. This has deprived it from benefiting from its ability to design and develop new products, as the manufacturing could not be scaled up to a level to benefit from economies of scale. If India has to protect its domestic market, it can not do so by imitation. The development of labour intensive technologies alone can halt the march of multinational capture the domestic market. Can India do it? The answer is not simple. But the power of the concept of labour intensive technology and Indias capacity to develop it, is well manifested by Lijjat Papad. Unfortunately the temptation to make a fast buck never allowed Indian companies to make sincere and genuine efforts towards the same. The development of labour intensive technologies is all the more important in view of serious infrastructure constraints of the country that is needed for centralised production methods for benefiting from the economies of scale. The labour intensive technologies can not be developed so much by the scientists as the labour and facilitator unions. It is the group work with concern for all without losing sight of basic business concern; to cover up all costs. It is one more area which needs and fallen into the domain of workers and unions, to provide strengths to the organistion for long term survival. 4.11 Conclusions
23

Developing countries like India have been using import of technology through foreign collaboration as a strategy to bridge the technological gaps in the country, to expedite economic development. There have not been many studies, however, to understand its impact and implications not only from the Indian point of view, but also from the point of view of sustainable, mutually beneficial international trade. This study, based upon authentic databases available from the Indian Investment Centre, New Delhi and Centre for monitoring Indian Economy, makes an effort to address some of the above issues. It analyses the patterns of foreign collaborations in India, spanning a period of 50 years from 1951 to 2000, divided into two parts, the preliberalisation (before 1991) and post liberalization (1991 onwards) era. The study reveals significant patterns in terms of the level of collaboration (both in terms of number and value), the nature of collaborations and the patterns by partner countries and trade blocks. The study also reports significant, albeit, preliminary findings on the patterns by individual Indian firms in the corporate sector. The findings indicate that the trends are not congenial for sustainable, mutually beneficial international trade and that this may not be in the best interest of even the developed world. The findings indicate that the country is not making much headway in design and development of new product and technology realizing the benefits of economies of scale. It also creates a mismatch between the products and technology developed and the natural resource endowment of the country, the vendor base and the labour availability. It is difficult to understand how, being inherently capital intensive, the imported technologies can provide competitive advantage in a country having labour as abandoned resource. They help in meeting the domestic requirement but in the process only are making India a global market not a global player. The issue of development of new products and technology, especially the labour intensive one, needs urgent attention to guard against the surrender of domestic market to global players from rest of the world and marching to the markets of other parts of the global at least to the extent required for mitigating the foreign exchange requirements. The findings presented in the paper suggest that alternative strategies to develop technical and managerial competencies are necessary to enable the developing countries engaging in new products development through local, natural endowments and vendor bases. That will help in increasing purchasing- power on a sustainable basis on the one hand, and enable development of their own products and services for international exchange on the other, which alone can lead to international trade with the various developed and developing countries, on a sustainable basis, as equal partners. 4.12 References 1. 2. Foreign Collaborations in Indian Industry, Fourth Survey Report, (1985), Reserve Bank of India, Bombay, pp 5-10 For example see the case of collaborations in two wheelers and 4 wheelers, private airlines etc.
24

3.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14

15.

16.

Kumar, Krishna, Foreign Collaborations in India, W.P. 10 (3) 1994, Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow, Presented in the EICEP (Euro-India Cultural Exchange Programme) International Conference, organized by European Foundation of Management Development at New Delhi June 25-26, 1994 Kumar, Krishna, Fallout of Liberalisation, W.P. No. 2002/ 05, Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow, Presented in the National Seminar on WTO and Allied Issues, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, February 2-3, 2002 Merchandise Export, Import and Trade Balance, Foreign Trade and Balance of Payment, July 2001, (Mumbai), Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy. Reserve Bank of India Bulletin, January, 2001 Pension, PF Dues Promise Return to Haunt PM, Times of India, Lucknow, November 23, 2001 Tushman, M.L. ,Newman, W.H. and Romanelli, E, Convergence and Upheaval: Managing the Unsteady Pace of Organisational Evolution, California Maanagement Review XXIX, 1, Fall, pp 29-44 Kumar, Krishna, Imperatives, Challenges and Tasks Requirements for Becoming a Global Player: The Case of India Conference on Economic Foundations for Strategic Management, Indira Gandhi Institute for Development Research, Mumbai, July, 1997 Kumar, Krishna, Fallout of Liberalisation, op.cit. Kumar, Krishna Corporate Leaders of India W.P. No. 2003/0 , Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow Factory Sector Sheds 7 Lakh Jobs between 1998-2000, Economic Times, New Delhi, March 21,2000 Slowdown to IIM Students Dreams, Times of India, Lucknow, January 21, 2001 Kumar, Krishna, Perception of European Executives about India as a Business Partner, Paper presented in the Euro- India Cooperation Exchange Programme (EICEP) International Conference, Organised by European Foundation for Management Development, Brussels, at New Delhi, June 25-26, 1994 Meeting the Challenges of a Borderless Economy: Needed a Paradigm Shift?, , W.P. No. 2001/ 06, Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow, Presented in the Opening Seminar on WTO and Allied Issues, held at Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow, February 24-25, 2001 From Business of Education to Education of Business: Emerging Challenges to Management Education, W.P. No. 2002/15, Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow, Presented in the 16th Annual Convention of Association of Indian Management Schools, Amity Business School, NOIDA, August 23-25, 2002

25

Rank

Country Block NAFTA EC EC

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 17 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

USA GERMANY UK NRI JAPAN NETHERLANDS MAURITIUS ITALY FRANCE SWITZERLAND SINGAPORE KOREA (S) AUSTRALIA HONGKONG CANADA DENMARK AUSTRIA SWEDEN BELGIUM ISRAEL MALAYSIA TAIWAN THAILAND SPAIN UNINDICATED COUNTRY FINLAND CHINA EURO ISSUES (GDR) UAE RUSSIA NORWAY IRELAND BRITISH VIRGIN ISLAN

EC EC EC ASEAN

ASEAN NAFTA EC EC EC EC ASEAN ASEAN EC

Exhibit 1 Foreign Collaborations in the Pre and post-liberalisation Era Foreign Collaboration upto 1991 5161718160 70 80 90 91 Total 1992 1993 1994 272 662 641 1517 177 303 299 348 3269 201 489 603 1375 194 184 169 217 2862 618 922 602 1129 137 169 172 193 3408 50 125 168 0 88 269 253 709 72 98 93 135 1391 25 54 47 155 52 56 56 89 333 8 8 0 42 82 114 418 60 61 55 86 716 41 143 175 373 40 55 52 60 772 65 177 215 344 52 74 62 56 853 31 41 64 0 45 35 40 0 31 30 39 0 9 16 26 0 7 28 20 28 15 21 16 18 98 19 30 26 78 16 16 16 153 0 28 20 93 16 16 33 36 157 32 51 59 176 30 25 11 22 348 19 24 26 55 7 9 9 12 131 3 8 14 0 3 7 11 0 15 20 19 0 7 8 20 0 0 1 9 29 5 9 8 7 44 2 6 14 41 5 0 68 0 0 0 67 15 0 26 12 6 11 7 8 1 4 5 14 14 5 9 5 5 2 5 9 10 22 8 17 4 8 2

Year 1995 469 252 201 141 146 146 71 121 68 85 65 60 43 34 39 28 34 23 18 55 20 17 15 11 4 18 14 5 5 15 11 16 4 1996 438 260 204 175 158 116 95 93 89 73 66 63 50 30 33 23 27 20 31 29 15 14 23 10 13 13 9 14 10 6 9 11 3 1997 459 254 204 121 147 103 141 114 77 92 86 82 61 32 35 24 12 14 30 19 39 9 9 11 9 8 6 11 13 3 10 6 8 1998 383 193 152 105 138 75 101 86 72 53 51 49 43 19 18 18 12 25 17 13 13 9 6 14 15 5 4 7 8 5 6 4 3 1999 481 208 193 141 157 116 146 92 88 60 71 62 45 28 21 23 13 27 20 9 21 9 9 20 24 7 13 6 9 7 9 4 7 2000 470 202 163 188 104 90 205 63 82 57 74 31 32 35 24 27 6 8 21 3 17 7 7 12 15 3 7 17 9 4 9 9 6

Total

3650 1939 1651 1214 1176 847 775 771 643 612 549 467 374 229 225 191 189 175 167 153 146 119 104 102 90 89 83 82 78 73 71 64 39

EC

EC

4 1

9 0

14 6

37 8

3 0

34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

PHILLIPINES SRI LANKA NEW ZEALAND SAUDI ARABIA BERMUDA SOUTH AFRICA LUXEMBOURG OMAN CZECH REPUBLIC USSR CAYMEN ISLAND CYPRUS KUWAIT BAHRAIN PORTUGAL HUNGARY UKRAINE POLAND SLOVAKIA WEST INDIES INDONESIA CHANNEL ISLAND BRAZIL ISLE OF MAN (UK) PANAMA BAHAMAS MEXICO IRAN BANGLADESH ROMANIA SCOTLAND EURO ISSUE (GDR) JORDAN MALDIVES NIGERIA BULGARIA GREECE JAPAN. LATVIA

3 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 92 0 0 0 0 6 67 0 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 27 4 2 1 1

6 1 2 8 1 2 3 2

8 4 6 1 2 3

EC

16 4 7 1 4 2 6 3 9

5 8 7 3 3 5 6 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 2 1 2 3 3 1

1 8 1 6 2 4 4 2 2 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 2

6 5 4 5 4 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 2

3 7 7 7 4 7 2 2 3 2 3 2 1 3 1 3

5 4 4 8 3 3 2

23

49

12

20 1 1 1 3 4 2 5 1 2 6 1 1 2 1 1 1 12 1 2 4 2 1 1 2 4 1 2 4 4 2 2 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 9 5 4 2 1

EC

0 4 4

0 19 19

0 16 8

3 27 23

3 1 8

1 1 2 1 3 2 1 4 1 1 1 5 1 2 1

ASEAN

1 2 1 1 1 1

NAFTA

2 3 1

1 1

2 1

EC

3 1

39 39 36 35 32 28 27 22 20 20 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 14 14 13 12 11 11 11 10 9 8 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4

73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110

SLOVENIA TURKEY ARGENTINA GIBRALTAR LIECHENSTEIN MALTA NEPAL QATAR AFGHANISTAN ARMENIA CROATIA ESTONIA HAWAI ISLANDS ICELAND ISLANDS OF NEVIS KENYA LEBANON PHILIPPINES SUDAN VIETNAM YUGOSLAVIA BELORUSSIA BERUMUDA CHILE CUBA EGYPT JAMAICA JAPAN+M6422 KAZAKHASTAN LIECHTENSTEIN MALDOVA MODRING MONACO PAPUA NEW GUINEA SALANGOOR SAN SALVADOR SOMALIA SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC

12

73

44

62

0 0 0 191 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1

1 1 2

2 2 2 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

2 ASEAN ASEAN 0 18 6 18 2 0 0 0 44 0

1 1

1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 28 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

111 112 113 114

TATARSTAN URUGUAY VENEZEULA YAMAN Total

0 0 0 15185

1 1 1 1 2224

1458

3119

2953

6764

891

1407

1476

1854

2337

2303

2325

1786

2098

1 1 1 1 17810

29

Exhibit 2 Foreign Collaborations in the Post Liberalisation Era by Type By Rank of Country in Terms of Number of Collaborations
Rank by no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 USA GERMANY UK NRI JAPAN NETHERLANDS MAURITIUS ITALY FRANCE SWITZERLAND SINGAPORE KOREA (S) AUSTRALIA HONGKONG CANADA DENMARK AUSTRIA SWEDEN BELGIUM ISRAEL MALAYSIA TAIWAN THAILAND SPAIN UNINDICATED COUNTRY FINLAND CHINA EURO ISSUES (GDR) UAE RUSSIA NORWAY IRELAND BRITISH VIRGIN ISLAN PHILLIPINES SRI LANKA NEW ZEALAND SAUDI ARABIA BERMUDA SOUTH AFRICA LUXEMBOURG OMAN CZECH REPUBLIC USSR CAYMEN ISLAND CYPRUS KUWAIT BAHRAIN PORTUGAL HUNGARY UKRAINE COUNTRY TYPE FIN 2327 1063 981 1203 527 583 742 382 388 372 453 291 242 195 138 119 80 91 118 84 128 57 71 58 73 38 28 80 66 54 47 48 31 21 35 17 34 30 17 25 21 8 16 18 16 16 17 11 9 11 6 7 5 2 2 TECH 1323 876 670 11 649 264 33 389 255 240 96 176 132 34 87 72 109 84 49 69 18 62 33 44 17 51 55 2 12 19 24 16 8 18 4 19 1 2 11 2 1 12 4 3650 1939 1651 1214 1176 847 775 771 643 612 549 467 374 229 225 191 189 175 167 153 146 119 104 102 90 89 83 82 78 73 71 64 39 39 39 36 35 32 28 27 22 20 20 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 Total FIN % 64% 55% 59% 99% 45% 69% 96% 50% 60% 61% 83% 62% 65% 85% 61% 62% 42% 52% 71% 55% 88% 48% 68% 57% 81% 43% 34% 98% 85% 74% 66% 75% 79% 54% 90% 47% 97% 94% 61% 93% 95% 40% 80% 100% 89% 89% 100% 65% 56% 69% Rank by no. 44 47 59 61 62 65 66 67 68 76 79 80 81 82 84 86 87 90 91 92 94 95 97 98 99 101 102 105 106 109 110 111 112 114 4 28 37 7 41 38 40 35 45 46 21 53 14 29 54 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

By % of Financial Collaboration
COUNTRY TYPE FIN CAYMEN ISLAND BAHRAIN BAHAMAS IRAN BANGLADESH EURO ISSUE (GDR) JORDAN MALDIVES NIGERIA GIBRALTAR NEPAL QATAR AFGHANISTAN ARMENIA ESTONIA ICELAND ISLANDS OF NEVIS PHILIPPINES SUDAN VIETNAM BELORUSSIA BERUMUDA CUBA EGYPT JAMAICA KAZAKHASTAN LIECHTENSTEIN MONACO PAPUA NEW GUINEA SOMALIA SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC TATARSTAN URUGUAY YAMAN NRI EURO ISSUES (GDR) SAUDI ARABIA MAURITIUS OMAN BERMUDA LUXEMBOURG SRI LANKA CYPRUS KUWAIT MALAYSIA WEST INDIES HONGKONG UAE INDONESIA SINGAPORE 18 17 10 8 6 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1203 80 34 742 21 30 25 35 16 16 128 12 195 66 11 453 11 2 1 33 1 2 2 4 2 2 18 2 34 12 2 96 TECH 18 17 10 8 6 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1214 82 35 775 22 32 27 39 18 18 146 14 229 78 13 549 Total FIN % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 98% 97% 96% 95% 94% 93% 90% 89% 89% 88% 86% 85% 85% 85% 83%

30

51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108

POLAND SLOVAKIA WEST INDIES INDONESIA CHANNEL ISLAND BRAZIL ISLE OF MAN (UK) PANAMA BAHAMAS MEXICO IRAN BANGLADESH ROMANIA SCOTLAND EURO ISSUE (GDR) JORDAN MALDIVES NIGERIA BULGARIA GREECE JAPAN. LATVIA SLOVENIA TURKEY ARGENTINA GIBRALTAR LIECHENSTEIN MALTA NEPAL QATAR AFGHANISTAN ARMENIA CROATIA ESTONIA HAWAI ISLANDS ICELAND ISLANDS OF NEVIS KENYA LEBANON PHILIPPINES SUDAN VIETNAM YUGOSLAVIA BELORUSSIA BERUMUDA CHILE CUBA EGYPT JAMAICA JAPAN+M6422 KAZAKHASTAN LIECHTENSTEIN MALDOVA MODRING MONACO PAPUA NEW GUINEA SALANGOOR SAN SALVADOR

5 5 12 11 8 3 9 9 10 6 8 6 3 2 5 5 5 5 1 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 1 3 3 2 2

10 9 2 2 4 8 2 2 3

15 14 14 13 12 11 11 11 10 9 8 6

33% 36% 86% 85% 67% 27% 82% 82% 100% 67% 100% 100% 50% 33% 100% 100% 100% 100% 25% 75% 75% 75% 0% 50% 67% 100% 67% 33% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100% 50% 0% 100% 100% 100% 50% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0%

57 58 25 43 33 32 70 71 72 30 19 6 50 23 55 60 75 77 31 13 48 1 12 16 15 10 39 9 3 24 49 20 2 34 18 63 74 88 93 8 22 36 5 26 17 42 52 27 51 64 78 56 69 73 83 85 89 96

51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108

ISLE OF MAN (UK) PANAMA UNINDICATED COUNTRY USSR BRITISH VIRGIN ISLAN IRELAND GREECE JAPAN. LATVIA RUSSIA BELGIUM NETHERLANDS UKRAINE THAILAND CHANNEL ISLAND MEXICO ARGENTINA LIECHENSTEIN NORWAY AUSTRALIA PORTUGAL USA KOREA (S) DENMARK CANADA SWITZERLAND SOUTH AFRICA FRANCE UK SPAIN HUNGARY ISRAEL GERMANY PHILLIPINES SWEDEN ROMANIA TURKEY KENYA YUGOSLAVIA ITALY TAIWAN NEW ZEALAND JAPAN FINLAND AUSTRIA CZECH REPUBLIC SLOVAKIA CHINA POLAND SCOTLAND MALTA BRAZIL BULGARIA SLOVENIA CROATIA HAWAI ISLANDS LEBANON CHILE

9 9 73 16 31 48 3 3 3 54 118 583 11 71 8 6 2 2 47 242 11 2327 291 119 138 372 17 388 981 58 9 84 1063 21 91 3 2 1 1 382 57 17 527 38 80 8 5 28 5 2 1 3 1

2 2 17 4 8 16 1 1 1 19 49 264 5 33 4 3 1 1 24 132 6 1323 176 72 87 240 11 255 670 44 7 69 876 18 84 3 2 1 1 389 62 19 649 51 109 12 9 55 10 4 2 8 3 4 2 2 2 1

11 11 90 20 39 64 4 4 4 73 167 847 16 104 12 9 3 3 71 374 17 3650 467 191 225 612 28 643 1651 102 16 153 1939 39 175 6 4 2 2 771 119 36 1176 89 189 20 14 83 15 6 3 11 4 4 2 2 2 1

82% 82% 81% 80% 79% 75% 75% 75% 75% 74% 71% 69% 69% 68% 67% 67% 67% 67% 66% 65% 65% 64% 62% 62% 61% 61% 61% 60% 59% 57% 56% 55% 55% 54% 52% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 48% 47% 45% 43% 42% 40% 36% 34% 33% 33% 33% 27% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

3 4

6 6 5 5 5 5

3 1 1 1 4 2 1 1 2

4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2

2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

31

109 110 111 112 113 114

SOMALIA SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC TATARSTAN URUGUAY VENEZEULA YAMAN GRAND TOTAL

1 1 1 1 1 1 11655 6155

1 1 1 1 1 1 17810

100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 100%

100 103 104 107 108 113

109 110 111 112 113 114

JAPAN+M6422 MALDOVA MODRING SALANGOOR SAN SALVADOR VENEZEULA GRAND TOTAL 11655

1 1 1 1 1 1 6155

1 1 1 1 1 1 17810

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

32

Exhibit 3 Foreign Collaborations Over the Years (1992-2001) Industrywise Growth Indname 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Computer Software Business Consultancy Industrial Machinery (Excl. Chem. & Text.) Automobile Ancillaries Misc. Manufactured Articles Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Misc. Other Services Misc. Chemicals Misc. Electrical Machinery Other Telecommunication Services Hotels & Restaurants Electronic Equipments Other Agricultural Products Electronic Components Electricity Generation Communication Equipment Hire Purchase Financial Services Food Processing Readymade Garments Machine Tools Other Construction Activities Floriculture Other Metal Products Misc. Textiles Prime Movers Domestic Electrical Appliances Chemical Machinery Other Organic Chemicals Other Machinery Other Plastic Products Refinery Minerals Cosmetics & Toiletries Other Recreational Services Rubber & Rubber Products Marine Foods Pumps & Compressors Storage & Distribution Consumer Electronics Other General Purpose Machinery Health Services Material Handling Equipments Other Vehicles Computer Hardware Glass & Glassware Inorganic Chemicals Other Leather Products Finished Steel Footwear Lubricants, Etc. Cotton & Blended Yarn Paper Products Ceramic Tiles Air-Conditioners & Refrigerators Gems & Jewellery 11 41 13 3 6 19 6 12 16 15 2 27 10 12 13 15 9 8 10 4 2 1993 45 29 88 38 32 45 37 46 42 2 31 42 43 38 8 39 9 26 20 19 8 16 27 21 14 21 21 27 11 10 6 9 8 1994 63 43 139 47 58 62 47 76 89 3 35 22 46 30 6 54 19 37 28 29 20 37 24 22 28 16 14 23 13 13 7 6 24 8 14 43 8 7 13 7 5 15 7 18 9 9 17 12 15 7 10 12 13 12 9 1995 75 72 168 88 54 78 34 66 99 48 49 36 72 33 11 80 31 47 31 24 24 99 28 36 37 23 16 36 16 6 19 6 19 12 13 23 12 9 22 12 10 8 13 10 13 14 13 17 15 3 9 17 14 3 12 1996 117 96 178 88 48 74 67 79 100 23 46 44 46 38 28 35 36 29 23 40 50 42 26 26 30 19 15 15 14 15 33 29 20 29 22 6 15 10 14 12 12 10 6 8 17 7 10 18 10 11 14 14 15 10 7 1997 159 133 113 142 66 75 60 64 73 15 61 48 22 29 85 26 24 46 36 33 29 11 31 29 23 17 24 13 13 21 10 18 23 18 15 4 11 21 11 9 17 20 13 6 14 12 8 17 13 15 10 11 6 11 8 1998 161 82 80 110 65 57 52 47 24 21 50 45 19 25 34 24 19 28 31 25 28 9 14 17 10 20 23 9 10 22 17 12 13 17 9 2 22 16 11 11 13 15 13 13 14 6 16 9 7 15 12 7 5 10 12 1999 238 153 59 108 33 43 60 51 21 44 46 39 39 26 55 7 45 7 24 25 26 4 22 17 12 15 14 10 24 23 20 15 9 13 15 1 9 19 13 14 11 9 12 14 11 14 5 3 6 9 8 4 6 7 9 2000 441 122 57 66 34 61 79 54 14 121 33 62 47 46 47 8 48 15 21 18 17 4 28 15 6 22 14 8 26 17 20 22 4 23 11 1 15 17 12 15 10 8 13 11 10 5 8 1 5 8 10 4 6 11 6 2001 169 557 39 65 149 51 85 38 25 132 44 45 20 34 28 9 24 22 15 12 14 1 14 12 7 11 8 6 12 11 6 13 9 9 10 1 11 12 4 8 21 7 13 7 12 7 5 2 5 6 4 5 4 5 7 Total 1468 1287 921 752 539 546 521 521 487 409 395 383 354 299 302 282 255 257 229 225 216 223 214 195 167 164 149 147 139 138 138 130 129 129 120 122 116 114 106 107 105 104 106 102 102 101 92 91 89 89 86 82 79 73 72

33

56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114

Shipping Passenger Cars & Multi Utility Vehicles Dyes & Pigments Plastic Packaging Goods Switching Apparatus Paints & Varnishes Castings & Forgings Granite Other Non-Ferrous Metals Commercial Complexes Cloth Poultry & Meat Products Books & Newspapers Synthetic Yarn Industrial Gases Cement & Asbestos Products Aluminium Products Mutual Funds Metal Tanks & Fabrications Clocks & Watches Motors & Generators Cement Ball Bearings Refractories Steel Tubes & Pipes Cocoa Products & Confectionery Liquors Misc. Financial Services Paper Aluminium Banking Services Dairy Products Nitrogenous Fertilisers Storage Batteries Beer Courier Services Pesticides Bakery & Milling Products Oil Cakes & Animal Feed Other Fertilisers Air Transport Silk Textiles Synthetic Fabrics Road Transport Other Misc. Non-Metallic Mineral Products Soaps & Detergents Offshore Drilling Coal & Lignite Plastic Resins Crude Oil & Natural Gas Dry Cells Insurance Services Plastic Tubes & Pipes Electronic Tubes Pre-Recorded And Recorded Cassettes Investment Services Plastic Films Structurals Photographic Films

6 3 5 6 8 5 6 18 9 4 14 3 13 7 2 4 7 3 4 9 7 6 7 4 5 5 2 4

4 5 9 16 9 8 8 8 6 2 10 10 3 21 3 4 6 12 1 5 4 5 4 6 8 5 4 4 3 2 7

1 8 9 14 6 6 4 11 15 2 13 5 4 8 3 4 3 7 1 7 2 3 3 5 2 4 10 1 3 1 1 14 10 4 4 2 6 2 1 5 1 1 1 5 3 4 4 2 5 2

7 7 7 8 4 8 14 7 5 2 5 7 9 3 13 14 6 6 11 7 3 3 3 5 4 5 4 5 8 7 4 3 2 3 4 3 2 3 7 2 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 3 5 3 3 2 3 2

17 8 10 11 8 9 6 5 3 3 9 7 7 4 9 6 7 8 6 3 3 8 7 1 6 3 3 6 4 5 6 1 2 1 7 4 4 3 7 5 7 5 2 2 3 1 3 1 3 3 4 1 2 5 2 1

8 9 7 5 11 11 12 2 3 7 3 1 2 1 4 3 3 2 5 1 4 2 8 5 5 4 2 6 2 5 3 1 1 2 6 5 3 2 5 1 3 5 2 2 2 1 2

11 18 5 1 8 3 2 3 7 9 2 4 5 4 5 3 2 3 2 3 4 3 5 1 6 4 3 2 1 2 1 7 1 5 6 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1

11 3 6 1 5 4 3 6 2 10 3 3 9 1 5 6 7 1 4 5 4 3 3 2 3 4 3 15 2 5 11

8 9 8 4 6 10 7 9 17 3 2 7 2 4 5 7 4 8 5 4 2 2 1 4 17 2 4 4

73 70 66 66 65 64 62 60 59 52 52 53 49 51 50 48 44 43 40 39 39 39 38 37 37 36 36 32 34 33 31 30 31 31 30 30 28 28 28 24 23 24 24 21 21 22 21

5 2 7 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1

5 5 9 3 4 2 3 1 2 1 5 1

1 2 5 1 4 3 8 2 5 8 4 4 2 4

5 2 2 2 1 4 2 3 1 6 4

5 6 1 4 1 2 1 2 5 3 2 1

3 5 3 1 4 3 1

3 3 14

20 19 17 18 15 18 17 17

1 1 1 1 3 2

1 4 1 2

10 1 1

15 16 15 14

4 1 5

6 3 2

34

115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148

Commercial Vehicles Pig Iron Stainless Steel Abrasives Caustic Soda Electricity Distribution Fasteners Soyabean Products Steel Wires Sugar Amusement Parks/Entertainment Centres/Theatres Civil Engineering Starches Carbon Black Coffee Explosives Plastic Sheets Bicycles Ferro Alloys Diversified Housing Finance Services Other Forms Of Primary Plastic Railway Transport Sponge Iron Acetic Acid Housing Construction All India Development Institutions (Dfis) Broadcasting/Distribution Of Tv Serials/Films Equipment Leasing Services Irrigation Jute Products Other Loan Services Phthalic Anhydride Provident Funds Grand Total 1385 1730 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 2 3 2

1 3 2 2 1 1 2

2 2 1 1 2 3 2 1 1

2 2 2 4

3 1 1 6 1

4 2 2 1 1 2 1 2

1 1 1 1 2

13 11 11 10 10 9 9 9 9 8 5 7 8 7 7 7 7 6 6 5

1 1 1 2 5 4 5 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

2 1 1 3 2

1 1 1 2

3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3

1 1 1 2 1

1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

5 5 4 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 1

1 1 2

1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1 2109 2138 2142 1675 1745 2037 2116

1 17077

35