Author

  • Indrajit Bairagya

    • Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC), Bangalore, India
    • India

Abstract

Since its very onset, the concept and definition of the informal sector has been a subject of debate both at the national and international levels. Existing literature uses the terms ‘informal sector’ and ‘unorganized sector’ interchangeably. However, in India, the characteristics of enterprises in the informal and non-informal unorganized manufacturing sectors are different and, thus, it is not justifiable to consider the informal and unorganized sector interchangeably for the manufacturing sector. Thus, the objective of this paper is to test the hypothesis on whether or not the total factor productivity growth (TFPG) of the informal manufacturing sector is different from the non-informal unorganized manufacturing sector. TFPG is decomposed into technical efficiency change and technological change. Later, technical efficiency change is further decomposed by pure efficiency change and scale efficiency change. Results show that the average TFPG of the non-informal sector is higher than the informal sector. The informal sector heavily concentrates in own account small enterprises, whereas the non-informal unorganized sector concentrates only in directory manufacturing enterprises (DME). Due to large in size, DME avails the advantages of economies of scale, which, in turn, helps the units for more growth in terms of total factor productivity growth. The main reason for productivity decrease of the enterprises, besides technology regress and the lack of adequate investments, is the limitation of activities and scale along with the optimal allocation of resources. This study provides a basis on how policies can be designed for enhancing the total factor productivity growth of the informal sector.

Keywords

References

  • Caves, D. W., Christensen, L. R. & Diewert, W. E. (1982). Multilateral Comparisons of Output, Input and Productivity Using Superlative Index Numbers. Economic Journal , 92 (365), 73-86.
  • Caves, D. W., Christensen, L. R. & Diewert, W. E. (1982). The Economic Theory of Index Numbers and the Measurement of Input, Output and Productivity. Econometrica , 50 (6), 1393-1414.
  • Central Statistical Organisation, Government of India (2008). National Accounts Statistics (2008), New Delhi.
  • Chapelle, K. & Plane, P. (2005). Productive Efficiency in the Ivorian Manufacturing Sector: an Exploratory Study Using a Data Envelopment Analysis Approach. The Developing Economies , 43(4), 450–471.
  • Coelli, T., Rao, D. S. P. & Battese, G. E. (1998). An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London.
  • Färe, R., Grosskoff, S., Lindgren, B. & Roos, P. (1992). Productiviity changes in Swedish Pharmacies 198089: A Nonparametric Malmquist Approach. Journal of Productivity Analysis , 3(3), 85-101.
  • Färe, R., Grosskoff, S. & Lovell, C. A. (1994). Production Frontiers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
  • Färe, R., Grosskoff, S. & Norris, M. (1997). Productivity growth, technical progress and efficiency change in industrialised countries: Reply. American Economic Review , 87(5), 1040-1043.
  • Färe, R., Grosskoff, S., Norris, M. & Zhang, Z. (1994). Productivity growth, technical progress and efficiency change in industrialised countries. American Economic Review , 84(1), 66-83.
  • Hart, K. (1970). Small Scale Entrepreneurs in Ghana and Development Planning. Journal of Development Studies . 6, 104-120.
  • Hart, K. (1973). Informal Income Opportunities and Urban Employment in Ghana. Journal of Modern African Studies , 11, 61-89.
  • Hernández-Trill, F., Pagán, J. A. & Paxton, J. (2002). Start-up Capital, Microenterprises and Technical Efficiency in Mexico. Review of Development Economics , 9(3), 434-447.
  • International Labour Office (1972), Employment, Income and Equality: A Strategy for Increasing Productivity in Kenya, International Labour Organization, Geneva.
  • Kathuria, V., Raj, R. S. N. & Sen, K. (2011), Productivity Measurement In Indian Manufacturing: A Comparison Of Alternative Methods. Development Economics and Public Policy Working Paper Series, WP 31/2011, University of Manchester.
  • Kolli, R. & Hazra, S. (2005). Estimation of Informal Sector Contribution in the Net Domestic Product - Indian Experience. Expert Group on Informal Sector Statistics (Delhi Group), 29-31 March.
  • Li, K. W., Liu T. & Yun L. (2007). Technology Progress, Efficiency, and Scale of Economy in Post-reform China. Working Papers No. 200701, Department of Economics Ball State University.
  • Natarajan, S. & Rajesh S. N. R. (2007), Technical Efficiency in the Informal Manufacturing Enterprises: Farm Level Evidence from the Indian State. MPRA Working Paper, No. 7816.
  • National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganized Sector, Government of India (2008), Definitional and Statistical Issues. Task Force Report.
  • National Sample Survey Organisation, Government of India (2001). Informal Sector in India 1999-2000: Salient Features. 55th Round, Report No. 459 (55/2.0/2).
  • Rajesh, S. N. R. & Duraisamy, M. (2007). Economic Reforms, Efficiency Change and Productivity Growth: An Interstate Analysis of Indian Unorganised Manufacturing Sector. SSRN Paper.
  • Rajesh, S. N. R. & Duraisamy, M. (2008). Efficiency and Productivity in the Indian Unorganised Manufacturing Sector: Did reform matter? International Review of Economics , 55(4), 373-399.
  • Raveendran, G. (2006). Estimation of Contribution of Informal Sector to GDP. Expert Group on Informal Sector Statistics (Delhi Group), 11-12 May.
  • Ray, S. C. (2004). Data Envelopment Analysis: Theory and Techniques for Economics and Operations Research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
  • Sharma, S. & Sharma, M. (2010). Analyzing the technical and scale efficiency of small industries in India: state-wise cluster study. Measuring Business Excellence , 14(2), 54-65.
  • Trivedi, P., Lakshmanan, L., Jain R. & Gupta Y. K. (2011). Productivity, Efficiency and Competitiveness of the Indian Manufacturing Sector. Study No. 37, Development Research Group, Department of Economic and Policy Research, Reserve Bank of India.
  • Unni, J., Lalitha, N. & Rani, U. (2001). Economic Reforms and Productivity Trends in Indian Manufacturing. Economic and Political Weekly , 36(41), 3914-3922.

Downloads

No downloads have been recorded for this article yet. Figures appear here once readers begin downloading the full text.

How to Cite

Bairagya, I. (2011). Distinction between Informal and Unorganized Sector: A Study of Total Factor Productivity Growth for Manufacturing Sector in India. Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 3(5), 296-310. https://doi.org/10.22610/jebs.v3i5.283

Share this article

License

Author (s) should affirm that the material has not been published previously. It has not been submitted and it is not under consideration by any other journal. At the same time author (s) need to execute a publication permission agreement to assume the responsibility of the submitted content and any omissions and errors therein. After submission of revised paper in the light of suggestions of the reviewers, the editorial team  edits and formats manuscripts to bring uniformity and standardization in published material.

This work will be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) and under condition of the license, users are free to read, copy, remix, transform, redistribute, download, print, search or link to the full texts of articles and even build upon their work as long as they credit the author for the original work. Moreover, as per journal policy author (s) hold and retain copyrights without any restrictions.

Keywords

Section

Research Paper

Published in

Vol. 3 No. 5 (2011) Modelling, Markets & Managerial Behaviour View issue contents

Published

2011-11-15

Submissions

Have research to publish? Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies welcomes submissions.

Make a Submission