Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
THE
APPENDICES
The Appendices
Page I
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
Appendix 1.1
Manufacturing Processes of Sugar Using Sugarcane
1) Cane Preparation
a) The cane stalks are carried in the cane carrier by two endless chains of roller type and placed
at an angle;
b) They are cut into chips by a set of revolving knives and are also torn into shreds by hammer
mill shredders reversal of cane knives is also being adopted to improve efficiency of cane
preparation;
c) The shredders help shredding the cane to improve mill extraction and crushing;
d) Heavily grooved crusher rollers break the cane and extract the juice. Intensive preparation of
cane helps in increasing the capacity and extraction of the milling plant.
2) Cane Crushing
a) A sugar mill consists of multiple units (4 to 6) of three roller combination (12 to 18 rollers in
all). In each set, three rollers are arranged in a triangular form and are called (i) Cane or feed
roller (ii) Top roller and (iii) bagasse or discharge roller;
b) Feed roller and bagasse roller are fixed at the bottom while the top roller may vary in position
according to the feed of cane and the thickness of matting of prepared cane;
c) Steam engines or turbines are used for driving the mills. Hydraulic pressure on the top roller
enables extraction of maximum juice from the crushed cane leaving bagasse;
d) The final bagasse or crushed cane is wood fibre containing about 48% to 50% moisture and is
generally used in the boilers as fuel but can be used for manufacture of paperboard of paper.
3) Imbibitions
A spray of water or thin juice and this process is called ' imbibitions' or 'macertation’.
4) Sucrose extraction
a) Adoption of modern methods in imbibitions enables extraction of over 93% of sugar in cane,
and this is known as sugar extraction; and
b) The mixed juice contains particles of fine bagasse which are removed before the juice goes for
clarification.
5) Clarification
a) The juice from the mills is turbid, dark green in colour, acidic in character and contains both
soluble and insoluble impurities;
The Appendices
Page II
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
b) These are removed by using chemicals and heat as clarifying agents and this process is called
clarification;
c) Heating and filtering removes the colloids which cause turbidity in juice;
d) Lime treatment removes gums, pectin, organic and inorganic acid salts by precipitation.
e) Colouring matter is removed by treatment with sulphur dioxide;
f) The juice extracted by the mills is passed through a metal strainer to remove suspended
purities. Use of clarifying agents like Milk of Lime and Sulphur dioxide helps in precipitation
Non-sugars as mud gets separated from clear juice by sedimentation in classifiers and is filtered
with the help of rotary drum vacuum filters;
g) The precipitate from the juice is called press cake, and is used as fertilizer and in preparation of
other byproducts while the clarified light juice is sent to the evaporators; and
h) Two processes are in vogue in clarification the more common one is Sulphitition and the other
is carbonation.
6) Sulphitition
a) Milk of lime is added to the raw juice to neutralize the acidity of the juice and to keep the juice
alkaline up to PH 9.0-10.5. Excess lime is neutralized by passing sulphur dioxide gas. Sulphur
dioxide is used as the chief bleaching agent to make the juice brilliant and light in colour; and
b) The juice treated with lime and sulphur dioxide is heated to boiling point so that the precipitate
settles down leaving the clear juice at the top.
7) Carbonation
a) In this process excess of lime is neutralized by passing carbon dioxide gas resulting in
precipitate of calcium carbonate;
b) The lime stone mixed with coke is burnt in a special kiln to obtain burnt lime as well as carbon
dioxide;
c) Carbonation is a costlier process than Sulphitition as the requirement of lime is high; and
d) The whole juice after treatments filtered using plate frame type filters. But the latest system is
to have continuous clarification in a single tray-type clarifier with vacuum filters.
8) Evaporation
a) The clarified juice contains about 85% water, two thirds of which is evaporated in a series of
vaccum boiling cells of multiple effect evaporators’ thus-avoiding destruction of sugar caused by
boiling of juice over direct fire or by steam in air;
The Appendices
Page III
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
b) This also results in better fuel economy. These evaporators are arranged in a series and the
juice is boiled in such a way that each succeeding evaporator has a higher vacuum and therefore
boils at a lower temperature; and
c) The juice thus become more and more concentrated and in the last evaporator turn into syrup
containing about 60-65% solids and the rest water.
9) Sugar boiling and crystallization
a) The evaporated syrup is black in colour and Sulphur dioxide is passed-through this syrup to'
bleach the colouring matter;
b) The sulphured syrup is then evaporated till it gets saturate with sugar;
c) Seed grain is added to serve as nuclei for sugar crystals and as the water evaporates syrup is
further added;
d) The concentration of syrup and formation of crystals achieved in-vacuum pans;
e) Pan boiling is an important skilled operation as the size and colour of crystals of the fin product
sugar are determined by the quality of pan boiling; and
f) In a boiling system 3 types of massecuites A, B C are dealt with the first Grade A’ massecuite,
which produced by boiling the Syrup alone and other higher pure materials like melt etc., is
centrifuged to separate sugar as molasses and these are called ‘A’ sugar and ‘A’ heavy molasses
and after washing, ‘A’ light molasses. Similarly from ‘B’ & massecuites’ ‘B’ & ‘C’ sugars.
10) Diffusion
a) In some sugar factories cane is prepared by two sets of cane knives and one set of mills for
primary extraction of about 65% to 70% of the sugar content and the remaining Sugar in bagasse
is extracted by the diffuser;
b) The bagasse contains 85% moisture which has to be reduced to about 48%-50% before it can
be used as fuel in the boilers;
c) Slurry of prepared cane material is passed through the diffuser with conveyor; it is subjected to
intensive sprays of juice of progressively decreasing concentration;
d) The bagasse coming out of the diffuser contains large quantity of residual juice which is
squeezed out by passing the bagasse through one or two sets of three roller mills;
e) The residual juice extracted by the dewatering mills is screened and milk of lime added to
bring the PH of the juice to 9.0, heated to 800 C and sent to the clarifier for settling the suspended
impurities; and
f) Operation of the diffuser is fully-automatic with minimal manual supervision.
The Appendices
Page IV
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
11) Centrifuging
a) The massecuite from the crystallizers is pumped into a revolving, machine called 'centrifuge'.
Washing with water and then steaming under high speed, the centrifugal force of the centrifuges
is increased expelling molasses into the casing of the machine, retaining sugar crystals on-the
perforated sheet;
b) Spinning is continued till the- sugar crystals are practically free from molasses. Such
separation is called 'purging' or' curing;
c) The use of superheated steam or wash water has eliminated the process of drying of sugar but
on the other hand the sugar has to be cooled in a cooler before it is packed in jute bags; and
d) The final molasses which is heavy and viscous contains about one-third sucrose, one-third
reducing sugars and the rest non-sugars. It serves as raw material for production of industrial
alcohol and yeast and is also useful as cattle feed.
12) Grading
a) Grading of sugar is done in sugar graders of vibrating type with different decks fitted with
various meshes and the sugar from each deck is collected through separate chutes into the bags;
directly;
b) Grading of sugar is done according, to size of grain and presently there are five grades in India
viz., A1, B, C, D & E of which A1 has the biggest and 'E' has the smallest crystal size.
c) Sugar is classified according to colour also; presently there are only two colours 29 and 30.
The later, being superior to the former;
d) With five grain sizes and two colours, there are in all ten grades of sugar;
e) Recently under new gradation, Government of India reduced the existing five grain sizes to
three grades Large, Medium and Small, the two colour series remaining as they are; and
f) The new gradation has come into force from 1984-85 crushing season.
13) Packing and weighing
a) Sugar is packed in 100 kg bags which are stitched mostly by machines; and
b) Sugar for export is packed in 50 kg special gunny bags having polythene lining to withstand
multiple handling and transportation to long distances.
The Appendices
Page V
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
Figure A1: Flow Chart of Stages in the Production of Sugar using Sugar Cane
Source: Barnes (1977) and Abbott (1989)
**************
The Appendices
Page VI
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
Appendix 1.2
Manufacturing Processes of Sugar using Beetroot
1) Harvesting Sugar Beet
a) Using either single row harvester or multiple-row harvesters, harvesting of sugar beet is
completed;
b) After harvesting the beet is topped and cleaned to remove surplus dirt and thrash. Topping
removes the crown and leaves of the plant which contain huge amount of non-sucrose material;
and c) These materials are used for feeding livestock or shredded and ploughed back as fertilizer.
2) Obtaining Sucrose from sugar beet
a) After transporting the beet to the factory it is washed and sliced into thin stripes called
cossettes. At this stage the roots contain between 16 and 20 percent sucrose; and
b) Sucrose is extracted by treating the cossettes with steam and immersing them into diffusion
tanks filled with hot water. This procedure removes the sugar from the pulp which is dried and
mixed with molasses and sold as cattle feed.
3) Precipitation and Filtration of Juice
a) The raw juice is purified by treating it with a mixture of lime, carbon dioxide, and sulpher
dioxide;
b) Further, it passes through batteries of filters to remove the non-soluble matter.
4) Crystallization and Obtaining Sugar
a) After the precipitation has been filtered out, the juice must be thickened in order to allow
crystals to form. This process involves passing it through a series of multiple-effect evaporators
where steam is used to remove excess moisture and concentrate it. The thick juice has a sucrose
content of 50-65 percent;
b) Further filtration produces clear liquid called standard liquor which is now ready for
crystallization;
c) The liquor is boiled in huge vacuum pans at low temperatures to prevent carmelization;
d) Once it reaches super saturation, the liquor is seeded with pulverized sugar to form crystals;
and
e) The crystals are then moved by conveyor to the drier or granulator to be dried and
prepared for marketing and distribution.
The Appendices
Page VII
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
Figure A2: Flow Chart of Stages in the Production of Refined Sugar From Sugar Beet
Source: Abbott (1989)
**************
The Appendices
Page VIII
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
Appendix 2.1
Kernel Density and Bandwidth Selection in DEA Bootstrapping
In statistics, kernel density estimation (or Parzen window method, named after Emanuel
Parzen) is a non-parametric way of estimating the probability density function of a
random variable. As an illustration, given some data about a sample of a population,
kernel density estimation makes it possible to extrapolate the data to the entire
population. A kernel is a weighting function used in non-parametric estimation
techniques. Kernels are used in kernel density estimation to estimate random variables'
density functions, or in kernel regression to estimate the conditional expectation of a
random variable. Kernels are also used in time-series, in the use of the periodogram to
estimate the spectral density. An additional use is in the estimation of a time-varying
intensity for a point process. Commonly, kernel widths must also be specified when
running a non-parametric estimation. Mathematically defined, a kernel is a non-negative
real-valued integrable function K satisfying the following two requirements:
i)
∫
+∞
−∞
K (u ) du = 1 ; and
ii) K (−u ) = K (u ) for all vales of u.
The first requirement ensures that the method of kernel density estimation results in a
probability density function. The second requirement ensures that the average of the
corresponding distribution is equal to that of the sample used. If K is a kernel, then so is
the function K* defined by K*(u) = λ−1K(λ−1t), where λ > 0. This can be used to select a
scale that is appropriate for the data.
Definition of Kernel
If ∂1 , ∂ 2 ,K , ∂ n
f is an independent and identically-distributed sample of a random
variable (efficiency scores), then the kernel density approximation of its probability
density function is
1 n  ∂ − ∂i 
fˆ h (∂ ) =
∑K 

nh i =1  h 
The Appendices
(A)
Page IX
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
where K is some kernel and h is a smoothing parameter called the bandwidth. Quite often
K is taken to be a standard Gaussian function with mean zero and variance 1. Thus the
variance is controlled indirectly through the parameter h:
 ∂ − ∂i
K
 h
1  ∂−∂ i 

h 
2
1 − 2 

e
=

2π

In general, if a probability function is used for K(.), then fˆ h (∂ ) can be viewed as the
average of n different densities K centered on the observed points ∂ i , with h playing the
role of a scaling parameter. The bandwidth h is used as a tuning parameter to control the
dispersion of the n densities. Several types of kernel functions such as uniform, triangle,
epanechnikov, quartic (biweight), tricube (triweight), gaussian, and cosine are commonly
used. The Table-A provides the Kernel Functions of these distributions and their
diagrammatic representation.
However, in DEA bootstrapping two choices must be made in order to implement
Kernal density estimation: a kernel function and the bandwidth. The standard normal
(Gaussian) probability density function is frequently used, although the Epanechnikov
kernel is optimal in the sense of minimizing asymptotic mean integrated square error
(ANISE).
The choice of kernel function is of relatively minor importance; the choice of
bandwidth has a far greater effect on the quality of the resulting estimator in terms of
AMISE. A sensible choice of h is determined, in part, by the following considerations:
i) As h becomes smaller, fewer observations − only those closest to the point ∂ where
the density is estimated − influence the estimates of fˆ h (∂ ) ;
ii) As h is increased, increasing numbers of faraway observations play a role in
determining fˆ h (∂ ) ;
iii) If h → 0 , the density will degenerate into the empirical density function, which is
discrete with mass 1 n at each observed point ∂ˆ i − this case results in Naïve bootstrap,
with no smoothening; and
iv) If h → ∞ , the density will degenerate to a flat horizontal line.
The Appendices
Page X
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
The choice of bandwidth h used with kernel density estimators presents a fundamental
trade-off between bias and variance. If h is chosen too small, the resulting density
estimate will have high variance but low bias; if h is chosen too large, the density
estimates will have low variance but high bias. Optimal choices of h are usually defined
in terms of an approximation of AMISE.
Table A2.1: Some Commonly Used Kernal Functions
Kernel
Diagrammatic
u 2 K (u )du
∫
Functions, K(u)
Representation
Distribution
Uniform
K (u ) =
Triangular
K (u ) = (1 − u ) f ( u ≤ 1)
Epanechnikov
K (u ) =
Quartic
Triweight
Gaussian
Cosine
1
f ( u ≤ 1)
2
∫K
2
(u ) du
1
3
1
2
1
6
2
3
3
(1 − u 2 ) f ( u ≤ 1)
4
1
5
3
5
K (u ) =
15
(1 − u 2 ) f ( u ≤ 1)
16
1
7
5
7
K (u ) =
35
(1 − u 2 )3 f ( u ≤ 1)
32
1
9
350
429
1
1
1 − 12 u 2
e
2π
K (u ) =
K (u ) =
π
π 
cos  u  f ( u ≤ 1)
4
2 
2 π
1−
8
π2
π
16
2
Source: Wikipedia.
The standard kernel density estimator in (A) does not take into account the boundary
condition ∂ ≥ 1 and can be shown to be biased and inconsistent near the boundary. The
reflection method, described by Silverman (1986) and others, provides a simple way to
overcome this difficulty. To implement the method, reflects each point ∂ˆ ≥ 1 around
The Appendices
Page XI
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
unity, yielding 2 − ∂ˆ i ≤ 1, i = 1,K , n .Next, use the standard kernel density estimator in (A)
to estimate the density of the resulting 2n points; denote this estimate gˆ h (t ) , where
gˆ h (t ) =
1 n   t − ∂ˆ i
∑ K 
2nh i =1   h

 t − (2 − ∂ˆ i )  
 + K 
 
h


 
Then define
∀t ≥ 1
2 gˆ (t )
fˆh (t ) =  h
0
otherwise
Statistical theory reveals that under mild regularity conditions on the true density f and on
( ) , fˆ (t ) → f (t ) as n → ∞ and fˆ (t ) is
the kernel K, and for a “good” choice of h = O n
−1
5
h
h
asymptotically normally distributed. In theory, optimal values of h can be found by
deriving the AMISE of fˆh (t ) , which depends upon the true density f(t) and the kernel
function K(.), and then minimizing this with respect to h. Silverman (1986) provides an
optimal value for h in cases where f(t) is a normal density function and K(.) is standard
normal; this is referred to as the “normal reference rule”, and the corresponding value of
optimal value of h is
h = 1.06σˆ n
−1
5
Where σˆ is the sample standard deviation of the observations used to estimate the
density. A more robust choice (with respect to the assumption of normality) for f(t) is
given by (again, assuming the kernel function is standard normal)
−1
hR = 1.06 min(σˆ , Rˆ /1.34)n 5
Where R̂ is the interquartile range.
{ }
In the DEA framework, the set of estimates ∂ˆ i contains some number of
spurious values equal to 1. This provides spurious mass (greater than 1/n) at the boundary
value 1 in the discrete density to be smoothed. These spurious values can be eliminated
for purposes of selecting bandwidth; they are merely an artifact of the nature of the DEA
The Appendices
Page XII
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
estimator of Ψ . Suppose m<n values ∂ˆ i > 1 emain after deleting observations where the
DEA efficiency estimate equals 1. The after reflecting these, there are 2m observations.
MISE of the kernel density estimator is given by
∞

2
MISEgˆ (h) = E  ∫ { gˆ h (∂ ) − g (∂ )} d ∂ 
 −∞

This is estimated by the least-squares cross-validations function
∞
CV (h) =
∫
gˆ h2 (∂ )d ∂ −
−∞
1 2m 2 %
∑ gˆ h,(i ) (∂ i )
2m i =1
Where gˆ h2,( i ) is the leave-one-out estimator of g (∂) based on the original observations (the
m values ∂ˆ j ≠ 1 ), except ∂ˆ i , with bandwidth h. Let hCV be the minimize of CV(h). This
must be adjusted by computing
hCV
1/ 5
m
= hcv 2  
n
1
5
 sn 


 s2 m 
where sn is the sample standard deviation of the original n values ∂ˆ i and s2m is the sample
standard deviation of the 2m reflected observations, to adjust for i) the fact that the
reflected data contain twice the number of actual observations; ii) the differences in the
sample, n; and iii) the difference in variances between the original data and the reflected
data.
**************
The Appendices
Page XIII
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
Appendix Table A6.1: Requirement of Intermediate Inputs to Achieve Capacity Output
(Figures in Percentages)
STATES
Andhra
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Karnataka
Madhya
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil
Uttar
Pradesh
Pradesh
Nadu
Pradesh
1974/75
59.00
9.00
172.00
0.00
106.00
84.00
92.00
52.00
56.00
451.00
0.00
0.00
1975/76
53.00
22.00
243.00
5.00
100.00
39.00
54.00
94.00
34.00
348.00
58.00
14.00
1976/77
52.00
39.00
351.00
5.00
102.00
8.00
30.00
150.00
20.00
274.00
156.00
34.00
1977/78
105.00
36.00
192.00
157.00
75.00
30.00
55.00
301.00
30.00
297.00
96.00
47.00
1978/79
73.00
-4.00
174.00
94.00
41.00
0.00
36.00
26.00
0.00
159.00
61.00
45.00
1979/80
204.00
31.00
314.00
331.00
105.00
10.00
52.00
255.00
106.00
424.00
82.00
149.00
1980/81
299.00
86.00
376.00
433.00
201.00
253.00
82.00
651.00
172.00
1053.00
97.00
238.00
1981/82
197.00
64.00
160.00
212.00
135.00
311.00
15.00
2647.00
197.00
1093.00
42.00
132.00
1982/83
0.00
-1.00
94.00
100.00
37.00
86.00
-2.00
29.00
59.00
582.00
2.00
62.00
1983/84
82.00
0.00
182.00
136.00
49.00
73.00
16.00
20.00
42.00
711.00
9.00
95.00
1984/85
219.00
71.00
327.00
151.00
134.00
185.00
93.00
68.00
75.00
690.00
68.00
139.00
1985/86
199.00
249.00
221.00
194.00
116.00
193.00
36.00
92.00
71.00
759.00
35.00
226.00
1986/87
134.00
75.00
108.00
212.00
127.00
217.00
39.00
92.00
93.00
689.00
-2.00
208.00
1987/88
76.00
50.00
95.00
130.00
66.00
97.00
50.00
39.00
77.00
507.00
5.00
134.00
1988/89
68.00
42.00
115.00
136.00
13.00
188.00
0.00
8.00
148.00
898.00
0.00
108.00
1989/90
62.00
53.00
97.00
92.00
4.00
41.00
26.00
48.00
241.00
739.00
3.00
118.00
1990/91
37.00
46.00
96.00
60.00
1.00
53.00
2.00
84.00
107.00
417.00
81.00
111.00
1991/92
37.00
46.00
111.00
56.00
0.00
37.00
17.00
0.00
96.00
269.00
30.00
127.00
1992/93
106.00
65.00
173.00
198.00
-7.00
129.00
25.00
26.00
113.00
340.00
35.00
110.00
1993/94
81.00
195.00
114.00
119.00
12.00
135.00
36.00
142.00
144.00
626.00
61.00
179.00
1994/95
135.00
130.00
97.00
191.00
-10.00
111.00
24.00
957.00
205.00
368.00
-2.00
190.00
1995/96
3136.00
8502.00
3403.00
5025.00
707.00
1705.00
1242.00
10130.00
3617.00
3107.00
1158.00
3174.00
1996/97
41364.00
135535.00
55214.00
69960.00
6255.00
15686.00
12953.00
92373.00
40028.00
14403.00
15987.00
33701.00
1997/98
3588.00
11079.00
3260.00
5864.00
911.00
1438.00
296.00
11200.00
4878.00
1606.00
1150.00
3172.00
1998/99
102.00
238.00
105.00
285.00
12.00
136.00
50.00
913.00
263.00
288.00
59.00
229.00
1999/00
94.00
195.00
103.00
127.00
37.00
15.00
15.00
713.00
156.00
308.00
32.00
177.00
2000/01
104.00
205.00
0.00
180.00
52.00
332.00
10.00
862.00
108.00
0.00
37.00
204.00
2001/02
160.00
223.00
173.00
144.00
60.00
8.00
49.00
760.00
105.00
446.00
102.00
190.00
2002/03
124.00
270.00
139.00
144.00
90.00
268.00
82.00
499.00
118.00
2815.00
38.00
176.00
2003/04
189.00
212.00
104.00
358.00
141.00
443.00
195.00
745.00
164.00
477.00
128.00
162.00
2004/05
150.00
296.00
97.00
291.00
152.00
124.00
235.00
764.00
267.00
508.00
88.00
183.00
Entire Period#
114.32
105.11
161.89
162.18
69.68
128.79
50.50
394.18
116.68
590.57
50.04
135.25
Pre-Reforms
112.88
51.06
195.12
144.00
83.06
109.88
39.76
273.88
89.88
593.59
46.65
109.41
#
Post-Reforms
116.55
188.64
110.55
190.27
49.00
158.00
67.09
580.09
158.09
585.91
55.27
175.18
Note: i) # represent that average of the given period excludes the requirements of intermediate inputs foe three years 1995/96, 1996/97 and 1997/98; ii) Positive figures refers the need to increase
input; and iii) Negative figures refers need to reduce the input.
Source: Author’s Calculations
YEARS
The Appendices
Page XIV
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
Appendix Table A6.2: Requirement of Labour to Achieve Capacity Output
(Figures in Percentages)
STATES
Andhra
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Karnataka
Madhya
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil
Pradesh
Pradesh
Nadu
1974/75
91.00
-60.00
-33.00
0.00
0.00
-31.00
-44.00
-49.00
-21.00
-86.00
-46.00
1975/76
62.00
-64.00
-54.00
20.00
-36.00
-38.00
-46.00
-70.00
-24.00
-86.00
-64.00
1976/77
39.00
-68.00
-67.00
35.00
-59.00
-45.00
-47.00
-83.00
-27.00
-86.00
-76.00
1977/78
63.00
-70.00
-58.00
260.00
-44.00
-38.00
-49.00
-89.00
-6.00
-88.00
-58.00
1978/79
116.00
-60.00
-54.00
314.00
-32.00
0.00
-38.00
-26.00
0.00
-88.00
-44.00
1979/80
80.00
-56.00
-45.00
249.00
-35.00
-21.00
-44.00
-57.00
13.00
-90.00
-45.00
1980/81
48.00
-70.00
-38.00
142.00
-65.00
-38.00
-57.00
-69.00
-24.00
-91.00
-63.00
1981/82
71.00
-68.00
-44.00
151.00
-52.00
-58.00
-55.00
-16.00
0.00
-90.00
-60.00
1982/83
0.00
-48.00
-44.00
195.00
-36.00
1.00
-42.00
-30.00
51.00
-88.00
-43.00
1983/84
290.00
0.00
-18.00
372.00
-2.00
67.00
-12.00
21.00
61.00
-74.00
-24.00
1984/85
367.00
53.00
4.00
307.00
10.00
133.00
10.00
0.00
104.00
-66.00
-10.00
1985/86
427.00
145.00
21.00
272.00
12.00
138.00
2.00
29.00
96.00
-62.00
-3.00
1986/87
357.00
84.00
4.00
487.00
39.00
133.00
10.00
20.00
160.00
-70.00
-6.00
1987/88
331.00
79.00
-29.00
479.00
6.00
213.00
12.00
42.00
121.00
-74.00
-8.00
1988/89
337.00
84.00
-1.00
487.00
-3.00
77.00
0.00
30.00
216.00
-71.00
0.00
1989/90
288.00
153.00
-17.00
464.00
-10.00
109.00
21.00
60.00
395.00
-64.00
18.00
1990/91
288.00
104.00
-27.00
412.00
4.00
150.00
13.00
53.00
249.00
-66.00
112.00
1991/92
285.00
190.00
-1.00
434.00
0.00
163.00
11.00
0.00
330.00
-72.00
48.00
1992/93
456.00
160.00
7.00
632.00
22.00
243.00
22.00
28.00
374.00
-67.00
61.00
1993/94
401.00
268.00
3.00
559.00
27.00
245.00
43.00
91.00
509.00
-64.00
82.00
1994/95
707.00
328.00
10.00
567.00
14.00
298.00
43.00
995.00
559.00
-62.00
69.00
1995/96
593.00
370.00
5.00
607.00
7.00
366.00
40.00
959.00
451.00
-63.00
95.00
1996/97
500.00
416.00
1.00
657.00
2.00
475.00
37.00
927.00
371.00
-63.00
137.00
1997/98
798.00
661.00
-19.00
750.00
61.00
315.00
54.00
939.00
437.00
-29.00
75.00
1998/99
757.00
912.00
-2.00
1103.00
52.00
412.00
55.00
1002.00
624.00
-66.00
128.00
1999/00
807.00
1051.00
-4.00
838.00
89.00
959.00
29.00
427.00
385.00
-49.00
185.00
2000/01
896.00
996.00
0.00
1208.00
121.00
1046.00
43.00
528.00
398.00
0.00
193.00
2001/02
1026.00
987.00
34.00
1370.00
116.00
784.00
55.00
742.00
560.00
-43.00
289.00
2002/03
1051.00
1006.00
19.00
764.00
142.00
557.00
73.00
770.00
503.00
-7.00
175.00
2003/04
1336.00
925.00
21.00
1125.00
216.00
1211.00
103.00
1242.00
536.00
-38.00
241.00
2004/05
1482.00
972.00
16.00
1063.00
243.00
1228.00
144.00
1802.00
633.00
-24.00
204.00
Entire Period*
462.90
302.58
-13.23
526.55
26.10
292.06
12.45
329.61
259.16
-64.10
50.39
Pre-Reforms*
191.47
8.12
-29.41
273.29
-17.82
44.24
-21.53
-13.76
80.24
-78.82
-24.71
*
Post-Reforms
792.50
660.14
6.43
834.07
79.43
302.83
53.71
746.57
476.43
-46.21
141.57
Note: i) * represent the average of the given period; ii) Positive figures refers the need to increase input; and iii) Negative figures refers need to reduce the input.
Source: Author’s Calculations
YEARS
The Appendices
Uttar
Pradesh
0.00
-3.00
-5.00
19.00
81.00
75.00
48.00
58.00
116.00
251.00
303.00
388.00
438.00
439.00
470.00
542.00
615.00
668.00
616.00
781.00
1044.00
1016.00
988.00
1237.00
1314.00
1435.00
1735.00
1794.00
1617.00
1774.00
1743.00
696.68
225.59
1268.71
Page XV
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
Appendix 7.2
Testing Unit-Root Using ADF and PP Statistics
Stationarity is the first fundamental statistical property tested for in time series analysis,
because most statistical models require that the underlying generating processes be
stationary. A time series is covariance stationary when it has the following three
characteristics: a) exhibits mean reversion in that it fluctuates around a constant long-run
mean; b) has a finite variance that is time-invariant; and c) has a theoretical correlogram
that diminishes as the lag length increases. In its simplest terms a time series y t is said to
be stationary if: i) E ( y t ) is constant for all t; ii) Var ( y t ) is constant for all t; and iii)
Cov ( yt , yt + k ) is constant for all t and all k ≠ 0 , or if its mean, its variance and its
covariance remain constant over time. Stationarity is important because if the series is
non-stationary then all the typical results of the classical regression analysis are not valid.
Regression with non-stationary series may have no meaning and are therefore called
spurious. In stationary time series, Shocks will be temporary and over time their effects
will be eliminated as the series revert to their long-run mean values. On the other hand,
non-stationary time series will necessarily contain permanent components. Therefore, the
mean and the variance of a non-stationary time series will depend on time. Regression
with non-stationary series may have no meaning and are therefore called spurious.
In general, a stationary series will follow a theoretical correlogram that will die
out quickly as the lag lag-length increases, while the theoretical correlogram of a nonstationary time series will not die out(diminish or tend to zero) for increasing lag length.
However this method of identifying non-stationary series is bound to be imprecise
because a near unit-root process will have the same shape of autocorrelation function
(ACF) with that of a real unit-root process. Thus, what might appear for one person may
appear as a stationary process for another. So the formal tests for identifying nonstationarity (or, differently stated, the presence of unit roots) are needed. The next section
explains what unit root is and then present a formal tests for the existence of unit roots
and discusses the problems regarding the existence of unit roots in the regression models.
Consider the auto regressive model of order one:
The Appendices
Page XVI
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
yt = φ yt −1 + ut
Where ut is a white noise process and the stationarity condition is φ < 1 .
In general we have three possible cases: i) if φ < 1 , the series is stationary; ii) if φ > 1 ,
in this case the series explodes; and iii) if φ = 1 , in this case the series contains a unit
root and is non-stationary.
Testing for the order of integration
A test for the order of integration is a test for the number of unit roots, and it follows the
steps described below:
Step1: Test y t to see if it is stationary. If yes then yt
Step 2: Take first differences of y t as
stationary. If yes then yt
I (0) ; if no then yt
I (n) ; n>0.
∆y t = yt − yt −1 , and test ∆y t to see if it is
I (1) ; if no then yt
I (n) ; n>0.
Step 3: Take second differences of y t as ∆ 2 yt = ∆yt − ∆yt −1 , and test ∆ 2 yt to see if it is
stationary. If yes then yt
I (2) ; if no then ∆ 2 yt = ∆yt − ∆yt −1 ; n>0. etc… till we find that
it is stationary and then we stop. So, for example if ∆ 3 yt
∆yt
I (2) , and finally yt
I (0) , then ∆ 2 yt
I (1) and
I (3) ; which means that yt needs to be differenced three
times in order to become stationary. Following are the three major statistics utilized to
test the presence of unit-root in a given time series variable:
a) The Simple Dickey-Fuller test for unit roots
Dickey and Fuller (1979, 1981) devised a procedure to formally test for nonstationarity. The key insight of their test is that testing for non-stationarity is equivalent to
testing for the existence of a unit root. Thus the obvious test is the following which is
based on the simple AR(1) model of the form:
yt = φ yt −1 + ut
(1)
What we need to examine here is whether φ is equal to 1 (unity and hence ‘unit root’).
Obviously, the null hypothesis is H 0 : φ = 1, and the alternative hypothesis is H1 : φ < 1 . A
The Appendices
Page XVII
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
different or more convenient version of the test can obtain by subtracting yt −1 from both
sides of above AR (1) model.
yt − yt −1 = φ yt −1 − yt −1 + ut
(2)
∆yt −1 = (φ − 1) yt −1 + ut
(3)
∆yt −1 = γ yt −1 + ut
(4)
Where of course γ = (φ − 1) . Then, now the null hypothesis is H 0 : γ = 0 and the
alternative hypothesis is H1 : γ < 0 , where if γ = 0 then yt follows a pure random walk
model. Dickey and Fuller (1979) also proposed two alternative regression equations that
can be used for testing for the presence of a unit root. The first contains a constant in the
random-walk process as in the following equation:
∆yt −1 = α 0 + γ yt −1 + ut
(5)
This is an extremely important case, because such processes exhibit a definite trend in the
series when
γ = 0 , which is often the case for macroeconomic variables. The second
case is to also allow, a non-stochastic time trend in the model, so as to have:
∆yt −1 = α 0 + a2t + γ yt −1 + ut
(6)
The Dickey Fuller test for stationarity is then simply the normal ‘t’ test on the coefficient
of the lagged dependent variable yt −1 from one of the three models. This test does not
however have a conventional ‘t’ distribution and so we must use special critical values
which were originally calculated by Dickey and Fuller. MacKinnon (1991) tabulated
appropriate critical values for each of the three above models and these are presented in
following table.
Table AA7.1 Critical values for the Dickey Fuller test
Model
1%
5%
10%
-2.56
-1.94
-1.62
∆yt −1 = γ yt −1 + ut
-3.43
-2.86
-2.57
∆yt −1 = α 0 + γ yt −1 + ut
-3.96
-3.41
-3.13
∆yt −1 = α 0 + a2t + γ yt −1 + ut
Standard critical values
Source: MacKinnon (1991)
The Appendices
-2.33
-1.65
-1.28
Page XVIII
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
In all cases the test concerns whether γ = 0 . The DF-test statistic is the t statistic for the
lagged dependent variable. If DF statistical value is smaller in absolute terms than the
critical value then we reject the null hypothesis of a unit root and conclude that y t is a
stationary process.
b) The augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test for unit roots
As the error term is unlikely to be white noise, Dickey and Fuller extended their test
procedure suggesting an augmented version of the test which includes extra lagged terms
of the dependent variable in order to eliminate autocorrelation. The lag length on these
extra terms is either determined by the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) or Schwartz
Bayesian Criterion (SBC), or more usefully by the lag length necessary to whiten the
residuals (i.e. after each case we check whether the residuals of the ADF regression are
autocorrelated or not through LM tests and not the DW test). The three possible forms of
the ADF test are given by the following equations:
p
∆yt = γ yt −1 + ∑ β i ∆ yt −i + ut
(7)
i =1
p
∆yt = α 0 + γ yt −1 + ∑ β i ∆ yt −i + ut
(8)
i =1
p
∆yt = a0 + γ yt −1 + a2t + ∑ β i ∆ yt −i + ut
(9)
i =1
The difference between the three regressions again concerns the presense of the
deterministic elements a0 and a2t . The critical values for the ADF tests are the same as
those given in aforementioned table provided for the DF test.
Unless the econometricians know the actual data generating process, there is a
question concerning whether it is most appropriate to estimate (7), (8) or (9). Doldado, et
al. (1990) suggest a procedure which starts from the estimation of the most general model
given by (9) and then answering a set of questions regarding the appropriateness of each
model and moving to the next model.
c) The Phillips-Perron test
The distribution theory supporting the Dickey-Fuller tests is based on the assumption that
the error terms are statistically independent and have a constant variance. So, when using
The Appendices
Page XIX
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
the ADF methodology we have to make sure that the error terms are uncorrelated and that
they really have a constant variance. Phillips and Perron (1988) developed a
generalization of the ADF test procedure that allows for fairly mild assumptions
concerning the distribution of errors. The test regression for the Phillips-Perron (PP) test
is the AR(1) process:
∆yt −1 = α 0 + γ yt −1 + et
(10)
While the ADF test corrects for higher order serial correlation by adding lagged
differenced terms on the right hand side, the PP test makes a correction to the t-statistics
of the coefficient γ from the AR(1) regression to account for the serial correlation in et .
So, the PP statistics are just modifications of the ADF t-statistics that take into account
the less restrictive nature of the error process. The expressions are extremely complex to
derive and are beyond the scope of this study. However, since many statistical packages
(EViews, EasyReg and Microfit) have routines available to calculate these statistics, it is
good for the researcher to test the order of integration of a series performing the PP test
as well. The asymptotic distribution of the PP t-statistics is the same as the ADF tstatistics and therefore the McKinnon (1991) critical values are still applicable. As with
the ADF test, the PP test can be performed with the inclusion of a constant, a constant
and linear trend, or neither in the test regression.
***************
The Appendices
Page XX
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
Appendix 7.3
Kruskal-Walis Test
In the test, all elements of different samples are pooled together and they are ranked with
the lowest score receiving a rank value 1. Ties are treated in the usual fashion for ranking
data. If all the samples belong to the same population (the null hypothesis) then the sum
of the ranks of the elements of each sample would be equal. Let ri be the sum of the ranks
of the elements of the ith sample. The Kruskal-Wallis test uses the χ 2 -test to test the null
hypothesis. The test statistics is given by:
k
ri 2
12
H=
∑ − 3(n + 1)
n(n + 1) i =1 ni
where n is the total number of elements in the k samples. H follows a χ 2 distribution
with k-1 degrees of freedom. The null hypothesis is rejected if the calculated value of H
is greater than χ 2 at a given level of significance.
**********
Appendix 7.4
Hausman Specification Test
A central assumption in random effects estimation is the assumption that the random
effects are uncorrelated with the explanatory variables. One common method for testing
this assumption is to employ a Hausman (1978) test to compare the fixed and random
effects estimates of coefficients (for discussion see, for example Baltagi (1995)).
H = qˆ1′[var(qˆ1 )]−1 qˆ1
where q1 is the difference between the random affect and fixed effect coefficients.
**********
The Appendices
Page XXI
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
Sr.
No.
*1.
*2.
Appendix Table A4.1: Literature on Measuring Capacity Utilization in Indian Manufacturing
Study Name
Author/ Year
Data Used
Technique
Major conclusions of the Study
Applied
Engineering Industry in
Gulati, K.S.
Data collected from
Ratio
i) the expansion of capacity utilization in 44
industries since 1955;
India-Their
Capacity
(1959)
63 Engineering
Method
ii) among these 44 industries, in 10 of them
Utilization.
Industries for the
unnecessary expansion in the capacity led to
period 1955-58.
underutilization of capacity;
iii) in the remaining 34 industries, when the
capacity was increased, there production as
well as their utilization increased;
iv) in remaining 12 industries despites the
constant capacity the production increased
leading to over-utilization of capacities
i) the directly unutilized capacity between 30 to 35
Nag, S.P.
Primary Data
Ratio
Under-Utilization
of
percent,
while, hidden or disguised under-utilization
(1961)
collected from the
Method
Installed Capacity in the
was 3 to 6 percent of the maximum possible loomIndian Cotton
Cotton Textile Industry
shifts;
in India 1948-58.
textile industry
ii) limitations and restriction on plant and equipment,
restrictions on imports, severe paucity of working
capital, etc., found to be causing under-utilization of
loom-shifts;
iii) the additional working capital required for
increasing the utilization was found to the tune of
69.20, 78.00, 74.80, 95.20, and, 64.00 percent of the
actual monthly cost of production during the years
1952 to 1956;
iv) in the face of acute shortage of finances the mills
preferred to under-utilize their capacities.
*3.
The Utilization of Indian
Industrial Capacity
The Appendices
Budin and Paul
(1961)
75 industries for the
period spanning
over 1951-59
Ratio
Method
i) at an aggregate level there was an upward
movement in the rates of CU during the
period under scrutiny.
ii) The average utilization of capacity index
Page XXII
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
*4.
Implications of Capacity
Utilization: A Study of
the Calcutta Metropolitan
District
*5.
*6.
Bose, A.N.
(1964)
Primary data for the
manufacturing
firms operating in
Calcutta
Ratio
Analysis
Underutilization of
Industrial Capacity
NCAER,
(1966)
Primary data for
129 firms spanning
over the period
1954 to 1964.
Ratio
Analysis
Utilization of Industrial
Capacity in India.
Koti, R.K.
(1968)
Survey of 618
industries including
mining but
Survey
Approach
The Appendices
increased from 75.85 percent in 1951 to
92.22 percent in 1959; and
iii) inter-industry comparison revealed that
infrastructure industries utilized their
capacity more intensively followed by the
inter-mediate goods industries and consumer
goods industries.
i) Calcutta metropolitan district utilized only
35 percent of the production and employment
capacity in the manufacturing sector;
ii) if the remaining 65 percent of the capacity
is utilized, not only the present
unemployment would be eliminated but it
will also absorb the entire additional labour
force in the district for the next 10 to 15
years;
iii) this would increase the per capita income
of the district by 30 to 60 percent along with
higher rates of investment and growth.
i) the Index of unutilized capacity was to the
extent of 13.30 percent in 1955, decreased in
1956 and 1957 to rise up to 15.20 percent in
1958. It however decreased to 9.40 percent in
1962 and again rose to 11.00 and 10.50
percent in 1963 and 1964; and
ii) a sharp increase in the Index to 15.20
percent in 1958 was noticed due to foreign
exchange difficulties during the year;
i) out of 618 products analyzed, about half of
the products underutilized more than 50
percent of their capacity;
Page XXIII
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
excluding textile
and food industries.
*7.
On Recessionary Trends
in Organized Industry
The Appendices
Reserve Bank of
India
(1968)
The study covered
the period from
1961 to 1967 and
the industries were
divided into usebased category.
Ratio
Analysis
ii) out of the surveyed products, inadequate
demand (42 percent) and shortage of raw
material (21 percent) were found to be the
major reasons for under utilization of
capacity;
iii) other reasons like power-shortage; labour
trouble, inadequate finance, etc. affected
about 17 per cent of the products surveyed.
i) in all industries, except intermediate goods
industries, the growth rate has found to be
declined;
ii) the CU rate is measured as a ratio of
output to installed capacity. This ratio was
found to be low or declining in many
industries;
iii) among the industries considered for the
study purpose, a decline in CU has been
observed for: a) finished steel; b) iron and
steel structural and pipes; c) castings and
forgings; d) soda ash; e) asbestos; copper
smelting (Basic-goods industries); f) railway
wagons, trailers, bare copper conductors; g)
complete ring spinning frames (Capitalgoods industries); h) Storage batteries
(Intermediate-goods industries); i) sewing
machines; weaving of cotton textiles (mills);
and
j)
enamelware
(consumer-goods
industries). These industries account for 38
percent of the weight in the Index of
Industrial production;
v) some industries showed an increase in the
Page XXIV
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
*8.
Capacity Utilization in Commerce Research
the Manufacturing Sector
Bureau (1968)
The Appendices
226 industries in
electricity
generation and
manufacturing
sector during the
period 1967-68
Ratio
Analysis
level of CU such as: a) semi-finished steel; b)
aluminum sheets and circles (Basic-goods
industries); c) internal combustion engines;
d) electric motors (Capital-goods industries);
e) paints and varnishes (Intermediate-goods
industries); f) bicycle; g) electric lamps; h)
soap; and i) matches (Consumer-goods
industries). These industries accounted for
only 5.80 percent of the weight.
vi) a decline in capacity utilization has been
found in more important industries as
compared to an increase in CU in less
important industries.
i) in the manufacturing sector, the percentage
of CU declined from 79.90 percentage in
1966-67 to 77.70 percentage in 1967-68;
ii) during the period under study, there were
76 industries having CU of less than 60
percent which accounted for a weight of
14.30 of the manufacturing activity;
iii) in the remaining 150 industries CU was
60 percent and above, and these industries
accounted for a weight of 59.0, that is about
two-third of total manufacturing activity;
iv) the industries where the CU was below
the average level (i.e., 77.70 percent) were
Food; Textiles; Leather and Fur; Nonmetallic minerals; Basic metals; Non
electrical machinery; and, Miscellaneous
industries;
v) the industries utilizing their capacities
Page XXV
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
*9.
Capacity Utilization in
Indian Industry: A study
of
the
Food
Manufacturing
Industries.
*10. Index
of
Potential
Production and Potential
Utilization Ratio for the
Manufacturing Industries
in India
The Appendices
Sandesara, J.C.
(1969)
Divetia, V.V. and
Verma, R.
(1970)
ASI Firm level data
collected for Sugar,
Sugar
Confectionaries,
Flour milling and
Grinding, Biscuits
and Hydrogenated
oil (Vanaspati) for
the period 1946-66.
CMI and ASI data
over the period
1961-1968
Method
based upon
ratio of
actual
production
to installed
capacity
Potential
Production
Method
above 77.70 percent were: Beverage and
tobacco; Footwear and wearing apparels;
Wood and cork manufactures; Paper; Rubber
products; Chemical products; Petroleum and
coal products; Material products; Electrical
machinery; and Transport equipments.
i) in 1966 the capacity utilization was found
to be highest in sugar (refined); and
ii) the remaining three industries suffered
from high degree of excess capacity with CU
rate of 63.09 percent for sugar confectionery,
followed by hydrogenated oil (61.38 per
cent) and the last came the flour milling and
grinding industry with CU of only 38.82 per
cent.
i) the potential expansion as measured by the
index of potential production (base
1960=100) increased from 107.60 percent in
1960 to 168.00 in 1968 (an increase of 60.40
points);
ii) among the major industry groups, the
growth was the highest for capital-goods
industries, i.e., 138.00 points for the period
1961-68. It was followed by basic industries,
which recorded an increase of 106.00 points;
and
iii) intermediate-goods industries observed an
increase of 57.00 points and it was closely
followed by the consumer goods industries
with an increase of 45.00 points during the
period studied.
Page XXVI
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
*11. Trends in the Index of
Potential Production and
Potential
Utilization
Ratio
for
the
Manufacturing Industries
During 1970
Reserve Bank of
India (1972)
All manufacturing
industries classified
into use based and
input based
categories for 1949
and 1970
Ratio
Analysis
*12. Growth and Utilization
of Industrial Capacity
Paul, S.
(1974)
The study covered
the period from
1960 to 1970,
which was further
Monthly
Statistics of
Production
Definition
The Appendices
i) the level of potential utilization for all
manufacturing industries has been around
80.50 percent during 1969-70;
ii) for all manufacturing industries, the index
of potential production increase by 5.40
points in 1969 and 8 points in 1970;
iii) the Basic-goods industries had an
increase of 6.80 points in 1969 and by 7.30
points in 1970, capital-goods industries had a
marginal increase of 0.30 points in 1969 and
6.30 points in 1970. However, in
intermediate goods industries the increase
was 7.60 points in 1969 and 3.40 points in
the following year;
iv) in consumer-goods industries, the
potential production index increases by 5.40
points in 1969 and 4.80 points in 1970;
v) among the input based industries, for agrobased industries the increase was by 3.10
points in 1969 and by 2.90 points in 1970;
vi) for metal based industries, the increase
was by 5.20 points in 1969 and by 7.10
points in 1970; and
vii) the Chemical based industries observed
the highest increase in potential production
index by 10.70 points in 1969 and by 6.70
points in 1970.
i) the capacity utilization for the period has
been as high as 80 percent. Nevertheless,
when adjusted for multiple shifts, the average
utilization rate was not more than 53 percent;
Page XXVII
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
sub divided into
three periods: i)
1960-64; ii) 196467; and, iii) 196770.
*13. Capacity Utilization in
Public
Enterprises:
Problems and Prospects
The Appendices
Karim, B. and
Bhinde, B.T.
(1975)
ASI data for the
years 1972-73 and
1973-74.
Ratio
Analysis
ii) in the consumer goods industries the
utilization increased from 43 to 49 percent in
the first and second period and to 53 percent
in the third;
iii) capital goods industries utilized their
capacity above 58 percent in the first period
but stagnated at around 42.43 percent during
the later periods;
iv) the intermediate goods industries showed
the highest level of utilization i.e., 64 percent
in the first, 61 percent in the second and third
period; and
v) the engineering industries had low level of
utilization due to the poor performance of
steel industry where the utilization level
decreased from 86 percent in 1966 to 65
percent in 1971.
i) Average CU less than 50 percent;
ii) the number of enterprises showing
capacity utilization between 50-75 percent
increased from 15 in 1972-73 to 22 in 197374;
iii) the number of enterprises exceeding the
capacity utilization level of 75 percent
increased from 41 in 1972-73 to 45 in 197374; and
iv) factors such as incorrect choice of
technology, inadequate demand, inadequacy
of raw materials, inadequacy of power,
industrial
unrest
and
managerial
shortcomings caused under-utilization of
Page XXVIII
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
*14. Capacity Utilization and
Profitability: A Case
Study of Fertilizer Units.
Gupta, M. and
Thavaraj, M.J.K.
(1975)
ASI data collected
for Fertilizer
Industry for the
period 1963-73.
Cost
Function
based
approach
*15. Capacity Utilization in
the Cotton Mill industry
in India.
Sastry, D.U.
(1980)
Data Collected
from cotton
industries for the
period 1950-73.
Wharton
Index, RBI
Index,
Maximum
Output per
plant, Two
shifts based
method,
Minimum
Capacity
Output ratio
method and
National
Productivity
Council
Measure
*16. Capacity Utilization In
Industries: Theory and
Evidence
Seth, V.K.
(1986)
CMI and ASI data
for 20 industries
coming under
different use-based
Wharton
Index of CU
and
Minimum
The Appendices
capacities in public enterprises.
i) the capacity utilization declined during the
period; and
ii) the technical defects in installation, nonavailability and low quality of materials,
shortages of power supply, unscheduled
breakdowns, disturbed industrial relations,
etc., led to under-utilization of capacity in
different fertilizer units of India.
i) the estimates of CU vary according to the
measure employed and the range of variation
is between 50 to 90 percent and above;
ii) Wharton index and maximum output per
spindle/loom show high utilization rates
between 88 to 94 percent and also reveal
close correspondence both in their levels and
in their movements;
iii) the other measures show that the
utilization ranged in between the range of 50
to 70 percent;
iv) for entire period, the actual rate of CU
was around 70 percent. However, all the
measures suggests a gentle decline in
utilization over the period; and
v) the most important factor influencing
capacity utilization has been the availability
of raw materials.
i) An average CU of 62.31 percent has been
observed for all industries;
ii) the study reported a highest rate of CU
i.e., 83.57 percent for the consumer goods
Page XXIX
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
classifications and
all industries during
the period 1960-80.
*17. Economic reforms and
Industrial performance –
An analysis of Capacity
Utilization in Indian
manufacturing
The Appendices
Azeez, E.A.
(2002)
Annual Survey of
Industries (ASI)
data for the period
1974-78.
Capital
industries, followed by 77.79 percent for
Output Ratio capital goods industries, 72.09 percent for
intermediate industries, and the lowest of
Methods
59.76 for the basic industries; and
iii) the highest degree of instability in the rate
of utilization was in Basic industries,
followed by capital goods and intermediate
industries.
translog
i) the conventional installed CU measures
variable cost underestimate the true economic utilization
function,
level;
which is
ii) the Indian manufacturing sector
estimated
experienced a cyclical pattern of economic
along with CU over the period of study;
the share
iii) identifies three different phases of
equations,
economic CU movement. While phase 1
using an
(1974-1984)
marked
relatively
wide
interactive fluctuations, the phase 2 (1985-90), shown
version of
more or less a stable level of utilization. The
the zellner’s third phase shows same fluctuation just as in
SUR
phase 1 over (1991-1998);
estimation iv) there has not been any correspondence
technique.
between observed phases of capacity
utilization with corresponding policy
environment;
v) Phase-1 characterized by a restrictive
policy regime, Phase-2 and Phase-3 are
characterized by partial and further
liberalization policies;
vi) liberalization has positive impact on CU;
and
Page XXX
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
*18. Economic Reforms and
Capacity Utilization in
Indian Industries
The Appendices
Bhanu, V.
(2006)
vii) the role of supply side is more significant
relative to demand side factors in affecting
the level of economic CU.
ASI data for sixteen
Wharton,
i) the temporal pattern of rates of utilization
two-digit and thirty
Modified
are the same with the diverse methods
three-digit
Wharton and applied, whereas, the magnitude may vary
industries during
RBI Index of under different methods;
the period 1980/81
CU
ii) a higher rate of CU is observed using
to 1999/2000
Wharton index and a lower rate of utilization
under modified index and RBI index
methods;
iii) there has been a substantial growth in
capacity creation, particularly in capital,
intermediate and consumer goods industries.
Its efficiency in the use of capital as
represented by the CU rate has consistently
improved between 1993-94 and 1996-97,
notwithstanding the buoyant growth in
installed capacity;
iv) as regards use based group of industries,
the performance of basic goods, intermediate
goods and consumer durable goods industries
have shown a consistent improvement in
terms of CU, while consumer non-durable
goods industries has shown a relatively
stagnant or decline trends in utilization;
v) CU for the capital goods industries has
maintained its level around 90 percent during
1947-97, despite intense competition from
imported machinery sector; and
vi) in general, the CU levels have performed
Page XXXI
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
*19. On the Measurement of
Capacity Utilization: An
Evidence from Indian
Chemical Industry
The Appendices
Ray, S. and Pal,
M.K.
(2008)
ASI data for Indian
Chemical Industry
over the period
1979/80 to 2003/04
well as is observed in the higher rate of
utilization of basic, intermediate, consumer
durable and non durables goods in the post
reform period;
Minimum
i) economic measure of CU is always higher
Capital
than the minimum capital output ratio base
Output Ratio measure of CU;
ii) a declining trend of CU is notices after
Method
along with a mid 90’s due to slow increase in actual
output; and
Translog
iii) slow increase in actual output is due to
Cost
stagnated demand and rapid expansion of
Function
capacity output as a result of abolition of
licensing rule consequent to economic
reforms.
Page XXXII
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
Sr.
No.
*1.
*2.
Appendix Table A4.2: Literature on Measuring Technical Efficiency in Indian Manufacturing
Study Name
Author/ Year
Data Used
Technique
Major conclusions of the Study
Applied
Page, J.M.
ASI data for four
i) the evidence regarding the relationship
Stochastic
Firm Size and Technical
(1984)
industries viz.,
Frontier
between firm size and relative levels of
Efficiency: Application
shoes, printing,
Analysis
technical efficiency is mixed. Except
of Production Frontiers
machine tools, in remaining three industries
to Indian Survey Date
soap, and machine
there is no statistical significant relationship
tools, for the
between small and large scale enterprises;
financial year
and
1979/80.
ii) the study highlights that average
experience of labour force within the
enterprise, experience of the entrepreneur,
age of establishment’s plant and equipment
and level of capacity utilization were
identified as significant sources of variations
in technical efficiency for one or more of the
industries;
Goldar, B.N.
Data for 2634 units
Stochastic
i) The mean technical efficiency has been
Unit Size and Economic
found to be 47 percent: which indicates that
(1985)
covered by census
Frontier
Efficiency in Small Scale
considerable gain in output is possible with
of small scale
Analysis
Washing Soap Industry
better utilization of resources.
in India
industrial units for
ii) tiny washing soap units are quite
the reference year
inefficient as compared with relatively bigger
1972
units within small scale washing soap
industry;
iii) a significant positive relationship between
unit size and efficiency;
iv) presence of significant scale economies in
small size washing soap production; and
v) output, ratio of value added to output, and
The Appendices
Page XXXIII
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
*3.
International Efficiency
Variations in Indian
Manufacturing Sector
The Appendices
Neogi, C. and
Ghosh, B.
(1994)
Panel data culled
out from Annual
Survey of
Industries for 35
US-based
industrial groups
over the period
1974-75 to 198788.
wage rate are three important determinants of
inter-firm variations in technical efficiency.
Econometrics i) the corrected ordinary least square (COLS)
based
estimates of technical efficiencies are below
Deterministic 50 percent;
and
ii) there is an overall declining trend across
Stochastic
industries with some exceptions where
Frontier
efficiency have been rising or have remained
Approach
stagnant;
iii) The results of Battese and Coelli (1991)
and Cornwell et. al. (1990) models confirmed
a) the decreasing efficiency of Indian
industries from 1974-75 to 1987-88, and b)
substantial variations of technical efficiency
across industries;
iv) the analysis of the sources of efficiency
variations suggest that among the economic
factor which are basically internal to the
industries, skill, labour productivity, profit,
capital utilization and industry dummy
contribute positively a major part in
explaining the variations in technical
efficiency;
v) capital intensity plays a significantly
negative role in explaining this variation; and
vi) the comparative analysis of efficiency
rankings of the industries highlights that most
of the consumer goods industries have
registered higher efficiency rankings relative
to capital goods and intermediate goods
industries during this period.
Page XXXIV
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
*4.
Estimating
Technical
Efficiency in Selected
Indian
Manufacturing
Using
Frontier
Production Function
Gajanan, S.N.
(1995)
Cross-section ASI
three-digit levels
data for three
different industrial
groups. (1) Food
and Tobacco (2)
Cotton Textiles
and (3)
Nonmetallic
Metals, Machinery
and Electrical
Equipment for the
years 1976 and
1985
*5.
Technical Efficiency in
the Spinning Mills of
Kerala
Kumar, P.S.M. and
Pillai, N.C.
(1996)
Data spanning over
the period 1982 to
1992
*6.
Relative Efficiency of
Small Scale Industries in
India: An Inter-state
Comparison
Nath, H.K.
(1996)
Data culled out
from the reports in
second all India
census of small
scale industrial unit
The Appendices
Stochastic
Frontier
Analysis
i) Average technical efficiency measures
decrease for each industry, consequently
inefficiency increased over the two study
periods;
ii) Metals industry is relatively the most
efficient industry in 1976 but in 1985 it is the
most inefficient;
iii) the textile industry was more efficient
than food industry in 1976, and it maintains
this position in 1985 also; and
iv) both textile and food have gone up in their
ranking in 1986 swapping the metal industry;
v) the analysis of relative measure of
inefficiency reveals that each industry has
become more inefficient over time;
i) technical efficiency of private sector firms
is the highest to the tune of 88 percent among
ownership categories;
ii) the least efficient is the co-operative sector
with mean technical efficiency of 51 percent;
iii) among size categories, the medium sized
mills are technically more efficient than
small sized mills; and
iv) firm level technical efficiency indices
reveal that the four technically efficient mills
belong to private sector.
i) in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, most
of the SSIs are relatively more efficient than
in other states;
ii) in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Kerala, Tamil
Nadu and West Bengal they were relatively
Page XXXV
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
conducted in 198889. However, the
state level data was
obtained from
corresponding state
wise volume of the
report.
*7.
Indian
Engineering
Firms:
Globalization,
Technical Efficiency and
Export Behaviour
The Appendices
Aggarwal, R.N.
(2001a)
Firm-level data
supplied by the
Reserve Bank of
India spanning
over the period
1992 to 1995
less efficient;
iii) a use based classification of industries
revealed that consumer durable industries had
some of the highest average efficiency
indices and relatively smaller coefficient of
variations.
iv) the intermediate product industries and
the consumer non-durable industries had
wider variation in their relative efficiency
indices across states; and
v) in case of the intermediate product
industries, it could be ascribed to greater
variation in technological knowledge and
opportunities for vertical integration among
the states.
Econometrics i) technical efficiency and export intensity of
based
firms influence each other;
deterministic ii) it is revealed that the competitive pressure
production
generated by liberalization of economic
frontier based policies and globalization through the import
approach
of technology, foreign direct investment and
export has helped in improving technical
efficiency of firms;
iii) firm specific factors like firm size, energy
intensity, vertical integration and age are also
found important; and
iv) export intensity is found to have improved
with improvement in technical efficiency,
import of raw materials and components, and
marketing efforts through advertisement etc;
Page XXXVI
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
*8.
Technical Efficiency and
Productivity Growth in
the Central Public Sector
Enterprises
in
India
During 1990s.
Aggarwal, R.N.
(2001b)
Firm level data for
236 central public
sector enterprises,
provided by the
department of
public enterprises,
ministry of
industries,
government of
India,
CobbDouglas
Production
Function and
Random
Effect Model
*9.
Regional Variations in
Technical Efficiency of
Indian
Manufacturing
Sector: A Stochastic
Frontier Approach
Kumar, S.,
(2001)
CMI and ASI
interstates data
spanning over the
period 1969 to
1995
Stochastic
Frontier
Approach
The Appendices
i) the results corresponding to technical
efficiency of firms, and ranking of firms by
technical efficiency in three broad sectors
such as petroleum/oil generation, heavy,
medium and light engineering, and
infrastructure, suggested that majority of
firms had low levels of technical efficiency
and that the efficiency had not improved
significantly over time;
ii) growth of technical efficiency was
observed in some firms in the engineering
sector and many firms in the petroleum
producing/selling sector;
iii) the panel data estimated using the CobbDouglas production function and Random
Effects model shown that the co-efficient of
time trend was small and statistically
insignificant. This showed that public sector
enterprises had not experienced a significant
technological change during the 1990s; and
iv) the results point to a decreasing returnsto-scale in production.
i) the Cobb-Douglas technology with and
without Hicks-neutral technical change is not
appropriate for Indian manufacturing sector
and translog functional form with non-neutral
technical change appropriately represents the
technological
relationships
in
Indian
manufacturing sector;
ii) it has been found that the mean technical
efficiency for 15 states was 77 percent. This
Page XXXVII
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
*10. Economic Reforms and
Technical
Efficiency:
Firm Level Evidence
From Selected Industries
in India
The Appendices
Parmeswarn, M.
(2002)
Annual Survey of
Industries Data,
Provided by the
Ministry of
Statistics and
Stochastic
Frontier
Analysis
(SFA)
result implies that about a quarter of technical
potentials in Indians manufacturing sector is
not realized and requires a fine turning in the
operations of existing policies and
programmes which together constitute
strategy for industrial development in India;
iii) technical inefficiency effects follow timeinvariant pattern and have half normal
distribution;
iv) there are wide variations in the technical
efficiency of manufacturing sectors of
different states;
v) highest level of technical efficiency has
been observed in the manufacturing sector of
Maharashtra;
vi) the states of Maharashtra, Karnataka,
Gujarat and Haryana operate close to
maximum technically feasible production
levels since their manufacturing sectors
realized more 90 percent of their technical
potentials;
vii) in the remaining 11 states including the
industrially developed states of West Bengal
and Tamil Nadu, the level of technical
efficiency has been observed to be less than
80 percent.
i) All the industries considered have
registered a higher rate of technical progress
in the post reform period along with a decline
in the level of technical efficiency;
ii) the effect of change in the policy
Page XXXVIII
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
Program
Implementation.
*11. Economic Reforms and
Efficiency of Firms: The
Indian
Manufacturing
Sector
During
the
Nineties
Ray, S.
(2002a)
ASI data for 27
industrial groups
spanning over the
period 1991 to
2001
Data
Envelopment
Analysis
*12. Technical Efficiency of
Small Scale Industry:
Application of Stochastic
Production
Frontier
Model
Nikaido, Y.
(2004)
Data drawn from
second all India
census of small
scale unit,
published by
development
commissioner
(SSI) in 1992
Stochastic
Frontier
Analysis
The Appendices
environment on technical efficiency varies
among industries; and
iii) the study also found that firms’
involvement in the international trade
through export and import of raw materials
and technology had a positive effect on
technical efficiency.
i) a positive impact of import liberalization
on the efficiency of firms through import of
capital goods and import of technology has
been observed;
ii) Easing of foreign ownership norms of
firms is a part of a more market friendly
industrial policy. These highlight the success
of these policies in enhancing the
competitiveness of Indian firms in the face of
global competition; and
iii) As a result of such increases in firm level
competitiveness, the industrial sector is
bound to the more resilient to competitive
shocks that are an inherent aspect of
globalization.
i) On average SSI operate at 80 percent of the
potential maximum production frontier;
ii) The agglomeration of firms has a positive
effect on the measured technical efficiency,
while the firm size has negative effect on it;
iii) Locating closely to other firms can enable
the government to reduce the unit cost of
infrastructure and of monitoring. On the other
hand, it can lead to accretion of skills and
Page XXXIX
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
*13. MNEs,
Strategic
Alliances and Efficiency
of Firms: Emerging
Trends.
Ray, S.
(2004)
*14. Ownership Efficiency in
Engineering Firms: 199091 to 1999-2000.
Goldar, B.,
Renganathan, V.S.
and Banga R.
(2004)
*15. Technical Efficiency in
the Iron and Steel
Industry: A Stochastic
Frontier Approach
Kim, J.W., and Lee,
J.Y.
(2005)
The Appendices
Data Collected
from Capital O’Le
for 27 selected
Industrial Groups
for the period
1991-2001.
Prowess and ASI
Database for year
2001
Data
Envelopment
Analysis.
Data for 52 major
iron and steel firms
over the period of
1978 to 1997
Stochastic
Frontier
Analysis
Stochastic
Frontier
Analysis
lowering input cost, and then SSI can enjoy
external economies; and
iv) Under the environment in which the
government has protected SSI from
competition with large firms and foreign
firms and has ensured them the markets, SSI
has not had the incentive to grow into large
firms and has ignored the quality of its goods.
i) Initially the efficiency declined for the
period 1991-1996 and then rises; and
ii) although, an increase in efficiency has
been observed after 1996, yet it could not
achieve the level of the 1991.
i) The analysis indicated higher efficiency in
case of foreign firms as compare to domestic
firms in India; and
ii) there are indications of the process of
convergence because domestically owned
firms are catching up with foreign owned
firms in terms of technical efficiency.
i) POSCO and Nippon steel were the most
efficient firms, with their production on
average, exceeding 95 percent of their
potential output;
ii) if a firm is government owned its
privatization is likely to improve its
efficiency to a great extent. If an iron and
steel firm is privatized, its production might
increase by 14 percent of its potential output
with the same amount of inputs;
Page XL
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
Mahambare, V. and
Balasubramanyam,
V.N.
(2005)
Annual Survey of
Industries (ASI)
data.
*17. Financial Liberalization, Kambhampati, U.S.,
(2006)
Corporate
Governance
and the Efficiency of
Firms
in
Indian
Manufacturing.
RBI’s Compilation
of Firm-Level
Profit and Loss
Accounts and
Balance sheets of
the large and
medium, non
government, nonfinancial, public
limited registered
companies
ASI data for 31
capital godds
industries
*16. Trade Liberalization and
Indian
Manufacturing
Sector
*18. An
Evaluation
of
Technical Efficiency of
Indian Capital Goods
The Appendices
Kumar, S. and
Arora, N.
(2007a)
Cobb
Douglas
Production
Frontier
based SFA
Technique
Stochastic
Frontier
Approach
(SFA)
Data
Envelopment
Analysis
iii) Steel production requires a high level of
initial capital investment and thus incurs high
fixed costs. The resulting economies of scale
in the iron and steel industry are confirmed
by the empirical results. A firm’s technical
efficiency tends to be positively related to the
firm’s share of the world crude steel
production; and
iii) By empirical findings, adoption of new
technologies and equipment is another
important source of efficiency growth.
i) a mixed affect of liberalization on the
technical efficiency of Indian manufacturing
sector; and
ii) the study confirmed improvement in the
technical efficiency in eight sectors out of the
thirteen sectors included.
i) the study proved that the government and
Indian financial institutions have a similar
impact on the firm efficiency, banks are quite
distinct; and
ii) the study also confirmed the insignificant
difference between the pre-reforms and postreforms impact of different sources of funds
on the technical efficiency.
i) average technical efficiency to the tune of
70.49 percent;
ii) only four industries found to be forming
Page XLI
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
Industries:
parametric
Approach
A
NonFrontier
*19. Technical and Scale
Efficiency in Indian
Manufacturing Sector: A
Ctross-Sectional Anaysis
Using
Deterministic
Frontier Approach
The Appendices
classified at 4-digit
level for the year
2003/04
Kumar, S. and
Arora, N.
(2007b)
ASI data for 127
manufacturing
industrial groups
classified at 4-digit
level for the year
2003/04
Data
Envelopment
Analysis
the efficiency frontier with overall technical
efficiency score of one;
iii) increaing returns-to-scale prevails in the
Indian capital goods industry; and
iv) the environmental variables such as
capital deepning, profitability and labour skill
are positivelly affecting techbnical efficiency.
i) The average overall technical inefficiency
(OTIE) is to the tune of 39.7 percent in
Indian manufacturing;
ii) only, nine industrial groups are identified
to be globally efficient along with 17 locally
efficient industrial groups;
iii) the observed OTIE is dominated by
improper management practices i.e., pure
technical inefficiency, whereas scale
inefficiency is relativelly scant source of
OTIE;
iv) decreasing returns-to-scale prevails in
Indian manufacturing sector; and
v) the environmental variables such as capital
deepning, profitability and labour skill are
positivelly affecting techbnical efficiency.
Page XLII
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
Sr.
No.
*1.
*2.
Appendix Table A4.3: Literature on Measuring Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Manufacturing
Study Name
Author/ Year
Data Used
Technique
Major conclusions of the Study
Applied
Capital intensity and
Banerji, A.
CMI and ASI
Partial
i) The performance of the selected
Productivity in Indian
(1975)
data for
Productivity manufacturing sector was sluggish over the
Industry.
manufacturing
Analysis and period 1946-64;
sector as a whole
SFA based ii) Labour productivity showed a significant
and five
upward trend;
approach
iii) No evidence was found indicating the
individual
presence of ‘technical progresses’ in the
industries viz.,
sector;
cotton textiles,
iv) The hypothesis of constant return to scale
Jute textiles,
was not rejected;
sugar, paper and
v) Elasticity of substitution between capital
bicycle, for the
and labour seems to be unity in almost all the
period 1946-64.
industries.
Scale
Economies,
Elasticity of Substitution
and Productivity Change
in
the
Agro-based
Industries in India
The Appendices
Oomen, M.A. and
Evenson, R.
(1977)
ASI data for
seven major agrobased industries
with thirty-one
sub-industries
classified at 3-, 4and 5-digit levels
of aggregations
over the period of
eight years
spanning over
1959/60 to
1966/67.
CD and CES i) the estimates of elasticity of substitution
production between capital and labour were found to be
function
low, that is below one;
ii) the estimates of elasticity of substitution
varies somewhat by industry;
iii) in a static sense, the Indian manufacturing
sector appeared to be relatively inefficient,
however, in dynamic sense, TFP measures
did show some improvement over time;
iv) Significant inter-industry and interregional differences in TFP have been
noticed; and
v) The tobacco industry appeared to be the
best performer with exceptionally well score
Page XLIII
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
*3.
Empirical issues in Total
Factor
Productivity
measurement:
An
Experiment with cement
industry in India.
Acharya, S. and
N.K. Nair
(1978)
*4.
Growth and Productivity
in Indian Industries
Mehta, S.S.
(1980)
*5.
Productivity Trends in
Indian Manufaccturing
Industry: 1951 to 1978
Goldar, B.
(1983)
The Appendices
Time series data
for the period
1959 to 1971
collected for
Cement industry
from various
issues of ASI
ASI and CMIE
data for 27 Indian
industries for the
period 1953 to
1965
CD
Production
function and
Solow Index.
CMI and ASI
data for the
period 1951 to
1978
Solow and
Translog
Indices
on productivity front.
i) Fitting of Cobb-Douglas production
function suggested that cement industry was
subject to increasing returns to scale,
implying that the industry can reap higher
return by expansion; and
ii) No monotnic trend has been showed by
Solow index of Total Factor Prductivity.
i) Labor productivity was found to be
increased significantly in industries like
vegetable oil, chemical, tanning, glass and
glassware and insignificantly in matches, iron
and steel and cement;
ii) Capital productivity has not increased
appreciably in most industries; rather the
reverse was true in most industries;
iii) The TFP of Indian manufacturing sector
has found to be declined;
iv) Most of the industries exhibited presence
of constant returns-to-scale and diseconomies
of scale have not set in; and
v) The elasticity of substitution was found to
be significantly different from zero and one
in many industries.
i) A rising trend in labor productivity and
capital intensity and a falling trend in capital
productivity during the study period;
ii) Growth in TFP seems to have been rather
sluggish and its contribution to output growth
is quite small;
iii) The observed rise in labor productivity
Page XLIV
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
*6.
Industrial Growth in
India: Stagnation since
The Appendices
Ahluwalia, I.J.
(1985)
CMI and ASI
data for the
Solow and
Translog
and fall in capital productivity may
accordingly be attributed to increasing capital
intensity;
iv) Substitution of labor by capital seems to
have been the main feature of industrial
growth;
v) The result of Cobb-Douglas function
estimation seems to favor the assumption of
constant returns-to-scale;
vi) Under-utilization of capacity, shortage of
fuels, power and transport facilities and
deteriorating industrial relations had a
significant depressing effect on productivity
growth;
vii) Moreover, gestation lags in the basic and
capital goods industries, which accounted for
a dominant part of investment in post 1956
period, must have had a depressing effect on
productivity growth;
viii) the industrial structure is changing in
favor of basic and capital goods industries;
ix) It has been shown that metals, chemicals,
rubber, petroleum and machinery are among
the lowest ranked in terms of TFP growth;
and
x) The policy of import substitution, though
it contributed much in regard to the objective
of self reliance, has been inimical to
productivity growth.
i) For aggregate manufacturing, the Solow
index of TFPG registered a growth of (-)0.6
Page XLV
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
Mid-Sixties
period 1959 to
1980 with two
sub-periods 1959
to 1965 and 1966
to 1980
indices of
TFP
*7.
Trends in Productivity
Growth Across Large
Scale
Manufacturing
Industries of India
Dabir-Alai, P.
(1987)
2-digit ASI data
and Input Output
Tables for the
Years 1973/74
and 1979/80
Solow and
Kendrik
Indices
*8.
Productivity Growth in
Indian
Manufacturing
Ahluwalia, I.J.
(1991)
CMI and ASI
data for the
Translog
Index
The Appendices
percent per annum during the entire studies
period. As regard the comparison of two subperiods the author estimated the rates of
growth in TFP to be (-)0.3 and (-)0.7 percent
indicating a deterioration in productivity
performance;
ii) Productivity performance in the registered
manufacturing did not appear to have
deteriorated after 1965; and
iii) a positive trends observed in capitaloutput ratio for the manufacturing sector over
the entire study span which was interpreted
and taken as evidence in favor of the
declining efficiency in factor use.
i) The study found widely fluctuating capital
intensity, labor and capital productivity
figures for the bulk of the manufacturing
industries reviewed;
ii) The results presented by the tables of
“TFP growth two digit manufacturing
industries” highlights considerable variation
within broad industrial groupings which goes
some way towards explaining the wide
fluctuations observed in the partial
productivity indices; and
iii) On the whole the figures show that the
manufacturing sector is dominated by
industries whose TFP growth has remained
positive over the above mentioned period.
i) improvement in TFPG in the first half of
the eighties which is largely reflected by
Page XLVI
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
Sector
The Appendices
period 1959/60 to
1985/86
improvements in labour productivity.
However, capital productivity showed neither
an increase nor a decrease;
ii) The consumer goods sector was the leader
in the turnaround in TFPG after 1979/80;
iii) The intermediate goods sector, which was
worse performer in the seventies showed a
significant improvement although it’s TFPG
continued to be relatively low, i.e. 1.4 percent
per annum;
iv) The capital goods sector showed a
considerable improvement from 1.7 percent
per annum to 3.4 percent per annum, but the
improvement was statistically insignificant;
v) The production function analysis showed
that there has been negligible and
insignificant growth in TFP in the
manufacturing sector over the period from
1959-60 to 1982-83 and there was evidence
of a distinct upward shift after 1982-83;
vi) the estimates for the sector as a whole
also suggested that the returns-to-scale are
not constant and the technical progress had a
capital saving bias;
vii) The upward shift in TFPG was
established for all the sectors except capital
goods;
viii) Technical progress was found to be
Hicks-neutral in intermediate goods and
capital saving in consumer non-durables and
capital goods; and
Page XLVII
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
*9.
Regional Variation in
Productivity Growth in
Indian Manufacturing: A
Nonparametric Analysis
*10. Impact of Liberalization
on performance of Indian
Industries: A firm level
study
The Appendices
Ray, S.C.
(1997)
Neogi, C. and
Ghosh, B.
(1998)
ix) In consumer durables there was evidence
of the emergence of a capital using bias in the
eighties;
CMI and ASI
Malmquist i) The analysis shows an average decline in
data for the
Productivity TFP at the rate of 2.89 percent;
ii) At the individual level, although most
period 1969 to
Index
states experienced productivity decline,
1984
considerable regional variations are evident;
iii) A non-parametric decomposition revealed
that regressive technical change accounts for
most of decline in productivity;
iv) The results of regression analysis showed
that while an increase in degree of
urbanization and in the capital labour ratio
fastened productivity growth. However, a
higher
proportion
of
non-production
employees to production workers hinder
productivity increase; and
v) Worsening industrial relations resulting in
a higher number of man days lost per worker
also deterred productivity growth.
Production i) Productivity growth and efficiency levels
Firm Level time
have not improved as per expectation during
Frontier
series Data for
model
industries namely,
the post-reform period and the distribution of
estimated
chemical, textile,
efficiency is skewed;
with the help ii) The TFP growth has fallen very sharply
non-metallic
mineral products, of Corrected during the period of reforms with the
Ordinary
and electric
exception of chemical industry;
Least Square iii) The relationship between labour
machinery, for
(COLS)
the period 1989productivity and capital intensity indicates a
method.
94.
general downfall of efficiency of the firms
Page XLVIII
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
*11. Total Factor Productivity
Growth in Developing
Economies: A Study of
Selected Industries in
India
Pradhan, G. and
Barik, K.
(1999)
Data for the
period 1963-93
for aggregate
manufacturing
sector and eight
selected
industries
Translog
cost
function.
*12. Total Factor Productivity
Growth and Urbanization
Economies: A Case of
Indian Industries
Mitra, A.
(1999)
ASI panel data
for 15 major
states and 17 twodigit industry
groups for the
period 1976/77 to
CD and
Translog
Production
Functions
The Appendices
during the study period; and
iv) The level of technical efficiency for all
the industries was found to be very low and
no significant improvement has been
observed in this level during the post reform
period.
i) The scale factor for aggregate Indian
manufacturing sector was found to be less
than unity and a deceleration in scale factor
during the 1980s has been noticed;
ii) Except pulp and paper, a deceleration in
scale sector has been found in all selected
industries
in
1980s
for
aggregate
manufacturing sector and most of individual
industries, a declining trend in technical
change has been noticed in recent years;
iii) On the whole, a declining trend of TFPG
in Indian manufacturing sector-both at
aggregate and disaggregate levels-has been
noticed; and
iv) a decline in both scale economies and
technical change seems to have produced the
present character of TFPG, although decline
in the latter does not appear to be as sharp as
the former.
i) The TFPG in a large number of industries
seems to have improved across most states
during 1985-86 to 1992-93 as compared with
the rates estimated for the period 1976-77 to
1984-85; and
ii) technology acquisition, efficient utilization
Page XLIX
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
1992/93
*13. Total Factor Productivity
in the Manufacturing
Industries in India
Singh, T.
(2001)
Sample set of 10
industries in the
manufacturing
sector of India for
the period of
1973-94 using
ASI, RBI bulletin
and Economic
Survey data
Solow
Index
*14. Did India’s Economic
Reforms
Improve
Efficiency
and
Productivity?
A
Nonparametric Analysis
of the Initial Evidence
from Manufacturing
Ray, S.C.
(2002b)
ASI data for 22
Indian states over
the period
1986/87 to
1995/96
Malmquist
Productivity
Index
The Appendices
of resources and infrastructure development
were considered some of the factors, which
possibly contributed to increase in TFPG.
i) the TFP recorded improvements in all the
sample industries except for the basic metal
industries in which the TFP witnessed a
declining trend during the research period;
ii) The highest growth of TFP is observed in
the case of food products industry followed,
in descending order, by the transport
equipment, non-metallic products, electrical
machinery, non-electrical machinery and
wool and silk textiles, chemicals and jute
textile; and
iii) The recent policy initiatives (adopted
since July 1991) aimed at the removing of
controls and creation of competition in
industrial (and services) sector have
important implications for TFP and the
process of overall economic growth. These
policy initiatives have brought several
changes in both the real and financial sectors
of the economy.
i) the states with higher capital-labour ratio
and higher percentage of the urban
population experienced a greater acceleration
in the productivity growth rate after the
reforms;
ii) At the same time there is tendency
towards convergence in the sense that a
higher Pre-Reform growth rate lowers the
Page L
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
*15. Import Liberalization and
Total
Productivity
Growth
in
Indian
Manufacturing Industries
in in the 1990s
The Appendices
Goldar, B. and
Kumari, A.
(2003)
ASI data for two
decades of 1980s
and 1990s
rate of improvement;
iii) On an average the annual rate of
productivity growth has been higher in the
Post-Reform period than in Pre-Reform
period;
iv) Some states have actually experienced a
slowdown in the productivity growth or even
productivity decline after the reforms; and
v) A subsequent regression showed that there
is a tendency towards convergence in the
productivity growth rates across states.
i) during the 1990s there was a deceleration
in
TFP
growth
in
manufacturing,
corroborating the findings of several earlier
studies;
ii) Capacity utilization was a significant
factor influencing productivity growth in
manufacturing industries;
iii) There was an increase in capacity
utilization in manufacturing in the 1980s and
a fall in the 1990s;
iv) After making corrections for making
changes in capacity utilization, the TFP
growth estimates for the 1990s were found to
be about the same as in previous decade;
v) a significant favourable effect of tariff
reforms on industrial productivity has been
observed; and
vi) The results also indicated that slower
growth of agriculture in the 1990s and
gestation lags in investment project may have
Page LI
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
*16. Inter-temporal and Interstate Comparison of
Total Factor Productivity
in Manufacturing Sector:
An Integrated Growth
Accounting Approach
Kumar, S.
(2003)
ASI data for years
1969 to 1995
Tӧrnquist
Index
*17. An Analysis of Total
Factor Productivity in
Indian Fertilizer Industry.
Sharma, S. and
Upadhyay, V.
(2003)
Time series firm
level data
collected for
Indian Fertilizer
Industries for the
period 1973-74 to
1997-98.
Translog
Cost
Function
The Appendices
had adverse effect on TFP growth in Indian
manufacturing in this period.
i) a significant but slow TFP growth at the
rate of just 1.35 per cent per annum;
ii) Industrially developed states were found
to be experienced either a decline or slow
TFP growth in the entire study period;
iii) It was found that the deregulatory policy
had imparted a positive effect on the TFP
growth of Indian manufacturing sector at
aggregated and disaggregated level during
1980s; and
iv) TFP growth had fallen to 1.70 percent per
annum during the period 1991-92 to 1993-44
in comparison to 2.34 per cent per annum
during the Mild-liberalization period 1980-81
to 1990-91. Thus, the most recent phase of
liberalization failed to make any significant
dent on the pattern of TFP growth in Indian
manufacturing sector since;
i) Over the entire study period, the industry
witnessed scale economies which have been
less than one with a more or less fluctuating
pattern till eighties;
ii) During nineties there is a straight decline
in scale economies;
iii) There is a continuous increase in the
growth rate of technical progress over the
study period; and
iv) technical bias as well as scale bias has
been in favor of material input only. In case
Page LII
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
18.
Investment Climate and
Total Factor Productivity
in
Manufacturing:
Analysis of Indian States
The Appendices
Veeramani, C. and
Goldar, B.
(2004)
Annual Survey of
Industries (ASI)
data
for
the
period
19802000.
Multilateral
total factor
productivity
Analysis.
of other inputs, the bias is insignificant.
i) The study establishes a critical importance
of labour market flexibility, access to
finance, availability of infrastructure, etc. for
improving industrial productivity, overall
growth, and hence for eradicating poverty;
ii) A market friendly investment climate was
found to be essential for achieving higher
levels of TFP in the manufacturing sector;
iii) New investment will be undertaken only
if the investment climate is market friendly.
Under such circumstances, states that foster
better investment climate would grew faster
and be able to eradicate poverty quicker
while others lag behind; and
iv) the most effective way to eliminate
regional growth inequality is to ensure that
the lagging states initiate reforms to make
their investment climate market friendly.
Page LIII
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
Sr.
No.
*1.
*2.
Appendix Table A4.4: Literature on Measuring CU, Technical Efficiency and TFP Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
Study Name
Author/ Year
Data Used
Technique
Major conclusions of the Study
Applied
Beri, C.C.
CMI data for the
Partial
i) The sugar industry found to be moving at a
Measurements
of
(1962)
period 1948 to
Productivity snail’s pace;
Production
and
ii) Its cost of production was relatively high
1955
Measures
Productivity in Indian
because of the high price of cane which was
Industry
statutorily fixed and which constitute 65 to
70 percent of the price of sugar;
iii) It was recommended that to improve the
efficiency of sugar industry there is need to
raise the sugarcane productivity per acre and
sucrose contents in the cane; and
iv) This attempt will not only improve the
performance of sugar manufacturing, but also
better off the cane cultivators.
A Study of Productivity
Singh, P.N.
Primary data from Case study i) an urgent need of re-organizing sugar-cane
in Export Industry: Sugar
(1964)
sugar mills of
research in the country;
in U.P.
western U.P.
ii) as input cost rises the margin of profit has
declined in industry;
iii) To enjoy productivity gains, the sugar
firms must install up-to-date machinery,
appliances and employ qualified engineers so
as to increase competitiveness in world
market;
iv) Improvement in management is also
required so as to minimize the waste of
resources; and
v) Proper licensing system and control of
intermediaries must be adopted so as to
eliminate malpractices in sugar marketing.
The Appendices
Page LIV
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
*3.
Measurement
of
Productivity
and
Production Functions in
Sugar Industry in India:
1951-1961
Sastry, V.S.R.K.
(1966)
CMI and ASI
data over the
period 1951 to
1961
*4.
Growth and Productivity
in Indian Industries.
Mehta, S.S.
(1974)
Time series data
collected for
Indian sugar
industry from the
various volumes
of CMIE and ASI
for the period
1953-65.
*5.
Production Function in
Indian Sugar Industry
Gupta, G.S. and
Patel, K.
(1976)
Time series data
for the period
1946 to 1966
subdivided into
two sub periods
The Appendices
Three forms
of
production
functions
i) The study reported that the total factor
productivity (TFP) had been falling at the
regional and national levels;
ii) An increase in labour productivity is
attributed to capital intensities; and
iii) Labour was found to be marginally more
efficient than capital in the tropical region
while the reverse holds in sub tropical
regions.
CD and CES i) TFP had been declining over the period
production under investigation;
ii) Growth of output in sugar industry was
functions
attributed mainly to increase in capital per
employee;
iii) There exists constant returns-to-scale in
the industry;
iv) there was no evidence for neutral
technical progress for the industry;
v) The elasticity of substitution between
capital and labour has been observed to be
low (0.54) which was significantly different
from unity as well as zero;
vi) CES production function found to be
better explaining the characteristics of Indian
sugar industry in comparison of CD
production function.
Different
i) The industry found to have zero neutral
forms of
technical progress;
production ii) Unit elasticity of substitution between
labour and capital;
functions
iii) Increasing returns-to-scale; and
Page LV
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
1946 to 1958 and
1959 to 1966
*6.
Sharing of Productivity
Gains in Indian Sugar
Industry: An Empirical
Study
*7.
Measurement
of
Productivity
and
Production Functions in
Indian Sugar Industry: A
Regional Analysis
The Appendices
iv) Labour found to be more important factor
than capital in terms of factor elasticity of
output, marginal factor productivity and
relative contribution to mean value added by
sugar industry.
Singh, M.P. and
Singh N.
(1984)
CMI and ASI
data, Indian Sugar
Annual Issues
CD
Production
Function
Subramaniyan, G.
(1979)
CMI and ASI
data 1953 to 1969
Kendrick
CES
Production
Function
i) Increasing returns-to-scale in the sugar
industry which implies that there is a scope
for further expansion of industry;
ii) Returns-to-scale in Uttar Pradesh found to
be less than at the all-India level;
iii) Labour emerges as a more important
factor than capital in terms of factor elasticity
of output, marginal factor productivity and
contribution to the mean value added at the
all-India and UP levels;
iv) This favors an argument for relatively
larger increase in labour input at both the
levels; and
v) For the entire reference period, the share
of wages has been lower than the relative
contribution of labour to total productivity
gains at both the national and state levels.
i) Labour productivity showed upward trend
as compare to downward trend in capital
productivity;
ii) High capital deepening under the rigid
technology is the reason of low capital
productivity in all the regions;
iii) Barring Tamil Nadu, TFP found to be
declining in U.P., Bihar, Maharashtra and
Page LVI
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
*8.
Regional Efficiency in
Indian Sugar Industry: A
Production
Function
Approach
Subramaniyan, G.
(1982)
CMI and ASI
data 1953 to 1969
CD
Production
Function
*9.
Returns to Scale and
Factor Productivity in the
Cooperative
Sugar
Dawar, K.R.
(1990)
Primary datasets
of 6 cooperative
sugar firms (4
CD
production
function
The Appendices
Andhra Pradesh;
iv) Elasticity of substitution between capital
and labour is unity;
v) Increasing returns-to-scale prevails in the
sugar industry of All-India, U.P., and Tamil
Nadu, whereas, constant returns-to-scale in
Bihar, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh; and
vi) No evidence of neutral technical progress.
i) labour had been reported more important
factor than capital in terms of ‘factor
elasticity’, ‘marginal productivity’ and
relative contribution to output growth in all
India, UP, Bihar and Maharashtra;
ii) In Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh,
capital had been found more important factor
than labour;
iii) Constant returns-to-scale in Tamil Nadu,
Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh, whereas
decreasing returns-to-scale observed for all
India, UP and Bihar;
iv) It had also been disclosed that
Maharashtra is most efficient state compared
to all other states under evaluation;
v) On the whole, the tropical regions viz.,
Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and
Maharashtra found to be more efficient
regions compared to the sub-tropical i.e., UP
and Bihar regions.
i) The performance of the cooperative sugar
mills in Punjab in general has been better
than in Haryana and thus the scope of
Page LVII
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
Industry in Punjab and
Haryana
*10. Efficiency in the Indian
Sugar Industry
The Appendices
from Punjab and
2 from Haryana)
over the time
span of 20 years
i.e., 1963/64 to
1982/83
Jha, R. and Sahni,
B.S.
(1993)
CMI and ASI
data for the
period 1960-61 to
1986-87
expanding the industry in later state is clearly
indicated;
ii) In Punjab capital has performed well
whereas labour and raw material have not
yielded desired results;
iii) There is need for the judicious manpower
planning and efficient cane management in
Punjab;
iv) In the state of Haryana, more attention
should be paid to reorganization and
modernization of existing sugar mills rather
than installing new ones;
v) However, these conflicting objectives can
be achieved only if the pace of expansion is
temporarily slowed down and state
concentrates mainly on improving the
working of the existing sugar mills; and
vi) A caution use of inputs, particularly
labour and capital, will certainly add viability
to the sugar mills and save the state economy
from input wastes.
Translog
i) Capital using and labour saving character
cost function of technical progress in the industry;
ii) The elasticity of cost with respect to
output
confirmed
the
presence
of
diseconomies of scale in the industry;
iii) The government’s decision to expand
capacity in the industry is wrong;
iv) Complementary nature of labour and
capital throughout the study period;
v) Therefore, no major structural break has
Page LVIII
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
*11. The Technical Efficiency
of Vacuum-Pan Sugar
Industry of India: An
Application
of
a
Stochastic
Frontier
Production
Function
Using Panel Data
Ferrantino, M.J.
and Ferrier, G.D.
(1995)
*12. Organizational Form of
Efficiency:
Evidence
from
Indian
Sugar
Manufacturing
Ferrantino, M.J.,
Ferrier, G.D. and
Linvill, C.B.
(1995)
*13. Best-Practice
Technology
in
an
Adverse
Environment:
Ferrantino, M.J.,
and Ferrier, G.D.
(1996)
The Appendices
been observed in the pattern of production;
and
vi) A mild downward trend in the pattern of
allocative inefficiency in the Indian sugar
industry has been observed.
Stochastic
Panel data of 239
i) The smaller sugar factories (i.e., the sugar
sugar mills for the
Frontier
factories crushing 1000-1250 tonns of cane
Analysis
period 1980/81 to
per day) and firms with access to sweater
1984/85 obtained
cane are more efficient;
from Cooperative
ii) Public-owned firms are found to be less
Sugar Directory
efficient than the private and co-operative
and Yearbook
sugar firms; and
1985/86 and the
iii) Much of the efficiency differences
Indian Sugar
amongst the sugar firms are owing to the past
Yearbook
legacy of India’s licensing practices which
1986/87
regulated both organizational structure,
location and the size of factories.
Panel data of 126
Stochastic
i) The average of technical efficiency (TE)
sugar mills for the
scores has observed to be 0.85 and thus,
Frontier
period 1980/81 to
indicating that majority of the sugar factories
Analysis
1984/85 obtained
are operating close to the efficient frontier;
from Cooperative
ii) There exists a slight difference between
Sugar Directory
the efficiency of co-operative, public, and
and Yearbook
private sugar factories; and
1985/86 and the
iii) The study proved that in Indian sugar
Indian Sugar
industry, there exist under-utilization of nonYearbook
seasonal labour, and overutilization of
1986/87
seasonal labour and capital.
Panel data of 122
Data
i) Over the first four growing seasons the
sugar mills for the Envelopment average level of technical efficiency steadily
improved from 0.963 to 0.981, and then
period 1981/82 to
Analysis
Page LIX
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
The Case of Indian
Sugar, 1981-1986
1984/85 obtained
from Cooperative
Sugar Directory
and Yearbook
1985/86 and the
Indian Sugar
Yearbook
1986/87
*14. Environmental
Murty, M.N.,
Survey of
Regulation, Productive Kumar, S. and Paul,
Polluting
Efficiency and Cost of
M.
Industries in India
Pollution Abatement: A
(2006)
conducted for
Case Study of the Sugar
1996/97, 1997/98
Industry in India
and 1998/99
The Appendices
Malmquist
Productivity
Index
dropped in the final growing season to 0.960;
ii) The reason behind the technical efficiency
regress is the low percentage (i.e., 72
percent) of the factories with the efficiency
score of 0.95 or higher;
iii) An average efficiency score of 0.97 had
been observed over the study period of five
years;
iv) The factories with the greatest licensed
capacity (i.e., greater than 3000 tonns
crushed per day) were on average the most
technically and scale efficient among the five
size classes analyzed;
v) Statistically significant productivity gains
had been realized in 1982/83 and 1985/86,
while productivity declined in 1984/85 and
remained constant in 1983/84;
vi) The productivity gains in 1982/83 were
associated with the improvement in
production frontier accompanied by constant
efficiency; and
vii) In 1985/86 a significant improvement in
technical progress accompanied by trivial
regress in technical efficiency levels was
responsible for productivity gains.
i) The average environmental efficiency has
been observed to be 0.85, implying the
industry has to incur an input cost of 15
percent more to reduce pollution for a given
level of production of good output;
ii) The Malmquist productivity index used to
Page LX
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
*15. Total Factor Productivity
Growth,
Technical
Progress and Efficiency
Change in Sugar Industry
of Uttar Pradesh
Singh, S.P. and
Agarwal, S.
(2006)
The panel dataset
of 36 sugar mills
spanning over the
period 1996/97 to
2002/03
*16. Technical and Scale
Efficiencies in the Indian
Sugar Mills: An InterState Comparison
Singh, S.P.
(2006a)
Data for 65
private sugar
mills operating in
six major states
viz., U.P., Bihar,
Punjab, Andhra
Pradesh,
Karnataka, and
Tamil Nadu
The Appendices
measures changes in the TFP of firms found
to be sensitive to the environmental
constraints; and
iii) The increase in TFP is almost 200 percent
without binding environmental constraints
while it increases only by 10 percent with
these constraints.
Malmquist i) The TFP in sugar industry grew at a
productivity moderate rate of 1.6 percent per annum
index (MPI) during the entire study period;
ii) Technical change dominate the efficiency
change in the sugar industry of UP;
iii) The magnitude of average TFP growth
varies significantly across ownership, size
and location of sugar mills;
iv) The private sector has witnessed the
highest growth in TFP, followed by the cooperative sector; and
v) The sugar mills situated in western region
of UP achieves relatively better TFP growth
than the eastern and central regions’ sugar
mills.
Data
i) 38 percent and 60 percent of sugar mills
Envelopment have attained the status of globally and
locally (efficient under VRS assumption)
Analysis
efficient firms respectively;
ii) the prevalence of increasing returns-toscale (IRS) has been observed in 60 percent
of the inefficient sugar mills, signifying the
urgent need of increase the plant size; and
iii) On an average, the inefficient mills can
Page LXI
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
obtained from
Prowess database
of CMIE
*17. Efficiency Measurement
of Sugar Mills in Uttar
Pradesh
Singh, S.P.
(2006b)
The primary
dataset of 36
sugar mills of
U.P. for the year
2002/03
*18. Performance of Sugar
Mills in Uttar Pradesh by
Ownership, Size and
Location
Singh, S.P.
(2007)
Data for 36 sugar
firms for the
period 1996/97 to
2002/03
The Appendices
become as efficient if they could reduce their
net fixed assets by 33 percent, cost of raw
material by 11 percent, wage bills by about
23 percent, fuel by 16 percent and current
assets by 19 percent.
Data
i) 14 percent of sugar mills attained
Envelopment efficiency score equal to 1 and, thus,
Analysis
identified as globally efficient under the
constant returns-to-scale technology;
ii) The average level of inefficiency has been
observed to be 9 percent;
iii) There is a pressing need for capacity
expansion because most of the sugar mills are
found to be operating in the zone of
increasing returns-to-scale;
iv) The post-DEA regression analysis reveal
that net sugar recovery and plant size
encompass a significant and positive effect
on overall technical efficiency and scale
efficiency of the sugar mills of UP; and
v) The under-utilization of labour and
overstaffing has been identified as the major
problems of sample firms.
Data
i) The sample firms operate at a high level of
Envelopment efficiency and the magnitude of inefficiency
Analysis
was only 7 percent;
ii) Owing to the differences in ownership,
size and location of the mills, the
performance of sugar mills diverge
significantly;
iii) The mills in the western region of UP are
Page LXII
Technical Efficiency, Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Sugar Industry
*19. Estimation of Economic
Efficiency of
Sugar
Industry
in
Uttar
Pradesh: A Frontier
Production
Function
Approach
Singh, N.P., Singh,
P. and Pal, S.
(2007)
Data for 63 sugar
mills of U.P. for
the year 2001/02
collected from
diverse sources
viz., ISMA, U.P.
Cooperative
Sugar Federation,
U.P. Sugar
Corporation and
Prowess database
of CMIE
Stochastic
Production
Function
found to be more efficient than the central
and eastern regions; and
iv) The problem of surplus labour is found to
be serious, as 43 percent reduction is
theoretically possible in the labour input so as
the sugar firms in UP can become labour
efficient.
i) The results revealed the average efficiency
to the tune of 73.5 percent in the sugar
industry of UP;
ii) The firm specific inefficiency levels found
to be ranging from 8 percent to 55 percent;
iii) the private sector sugar factories in the
western region of UP attained the maximum
average efficiency score of 84.29 percent,
and thus, belong to “most efficient category”;
and
iv) The cooperative sector mills in the eastern
region of UP are classified under the category
of “least efficient group”.
***********************
The Appendices
Page LXIII
Appendix Table A7.1: Inter-temporal and Interstate Variations in TENIRS of Sugar Industry in India
YEARS
1974/75
1975/76
1976/77
1977/78
1978/79
1979/80
1980/81
1981/82
1982/83
1983/84
1984/85
1985/86
1986/87
1987/88
1988/89
1989/90
1990/91
1991/92
Andhra
Pradesh
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Karnataka
Madhya
Pradesh
0.6892
(0.5655*)
0.6937
(0.6086*)
0.6978
(0.6205*)
0.7068
(0.6506*)
0.7215
(0.6754*)
0.7413
(0.7024*)
0.7285
(0.6985*)
0.7432
(0.7107*)
0.7433
(0.7136*)
0.7393
(0.7100*)
0.7425
(0.7139*)
0.7444
(0.7173*)
0.7510
(0.7239*)
0.7562
(0.7286*)
0.7181
(0.6779*)
0.7322
(0.6948*)
0.7447
(0.7099*)
0.7553
(0.7229*)
0.6121
(0.5320*)
0.6464
(0.5949*)
0.6825
(0.6346*)
0.7196
(0.6822*)
0.7443
(0.7062*)
0.7555
(0.7232*)
0.8198
(0.7572*)
0.7690
(0.7401*)
0.7664
(0.7414*)
0.7700
(0.7374*)
0.7638
(0.7360*)
0.7685
(0.7405*)
0.7728
(0.7430*)
0.7769
(0.7462*)
0.7439
(0.7013*)
0.7485
(0.7094*)
0.7495
(0.7139*)
0.7579
(0.7233*)
1.0000
(0.6740)
0.9118
(0.7098*)
0.8171
(0.6573*)
0.8528
(0.7012*)
0.8362
(0.7152*)
0.8427
(0.7351*)
0.8197
(0.7161*)
0.8321
(0.7261*)
0.7975
(0.6958*)
0.7890
(0.7061*)
0.7759
(0.6953*)
0.7935
(0.7128*)
0.7879
(0.7114*)
0.7855
(0.7137*)
0.7758
(0.7034*)
0.7750
(0.7132*)
0.7833
(0.7284*)
0.7821
(0.7272*)
1.0000
(0.6601)
0.9786
(0.7260*)
0.9469
(0.7145*)
0.9278
(0.7344*)
0.9187
(0.6919*)
0.8940
(0.7046*)
0.8305
(0.6818*)
0.8478
(0.6875*)
0.8619
(0.7002*)
0.8537
(0.6870*)
0.8615
(0.7041*)
0.8636
(0.7162*)
0.8728
(0.7333*)
0.8676
(0.7410*)
0.8577
(0.7223*)
0.8542
(0.7393*)
0.8610
(0.7551*)
0.8559
(0.7578*)
0.8341
(0.7061*)
0.8308
(0.7495*)
0.7925
(0.7140*)
0.7982
(0.7271*)
0.7666
(0.7033*)
0.7807
(0.7263*)
0.7448
(0.7058*)
0.7491
(0.7039*)
0.7338
(0.6970*)
0.7221
(0.6854*)
0.7186
(0.6848*)
0.7350
(0.7002*)
0.7451
(0.7118*)
0.7472
(0.7190*)
0.7426
(0.7137*)
0.7508
(0.7261*)
0.7586
(0.7339*)
0.7642
(0.7400*)
0.6306
(0.5640*)
0.6532
(0.6125*)
0.6765
(0.6423*)
0.6920
(0.6658*)
0.7028
(0.6753*)
0.7167
(0.6920*)
0.7375
(0.7129*)
0.7546
(0.7326*)
0.7783
(0.7594*)
0.7804
(0.7603*)
0.7815
(0.7638*)
0.7863
(0.7699*)
0.7938
(0.7783*)
0.8019
(0.7853*)
0.6671
(0.5971*)
0.6742
(0.6074*)
0.6776
(0.6178*)
0.6878
(0.6304*)
Appendix Tables
STATES
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil
Nadu
Uttar
Pradesh
All
India#
0.8204
(0.7234*)
0.9016
(0.8347*)
0.8943
(0.7775*)
0.8788
(0.7834*)
0.8032
(0.7321*)
0.8126
(0.7493*)
0.7816
(0.6966*)
0.7961
(0.7339*)
0.7821
(0.7219*)
0.7812
(0.7253*)
0.7859
(0.7327*)
0.7904
(0.7345*)
0.7885
(0.7445*)
0.7767
(0.7381*)
0.7617
(0.7175*)
0.7609
(0.7238*)
0.7741
(0.7373*)
0.7771
(0.7451*)
0.6527
(0.4271)
0.6823
(0.5100)
0.7088
(0.5298)
0.7170
(0.5465)
0.7516
(0.5945*)
0.7849
(0.6397*)
0.8118
(0.6679*)
0.7957
(0.6226*)
0.7935
(0.6343*)
0.7714
(0.6149*)
0.7769
(0.6329*)
0.7768
(0.6458*)
0.7793
(0.6591*)
0.7821
(0.6571*)
0.7446
(0.6093*)
0.7571
(0.6326*)
0.7664
(0.6517*)
0.7759
(0.6699*)
0.6441
(0.5406*)
0.6360
(0.5546*)
0.6523
(0.5776*)
0.6786
(0.6087*)
0.7073
(0.6343*)
0.7090
(0.6449*)
0.7172
(0.6586*)
0.6896
(0.6371*)
0.6943
(0.6442*)
0.7073
(0.6650*)
0.7120
(0.6573*)
0.7145
(0.6633*)
0.7172
(0.6678*)
0.7246
(0.6828*)
0.7134
(0.6716*)
0.7231
(0.6884*)
0.7310
(0.7002*)
0.7348
(0.7056*)
0.7705
(0.6636*)
0.7410
(0.6652*)
0.7121
(0.6348*)
0.7221
(0.6570*)
0.7156
(0.6505*)
0.7398
(0.6838*)
0.7416
(0.6773*)
0.7264
(0.6808*)
0.7323
(0.6936*)
0.7239
(0.6903*)
0.7310
(0.7015*)
0.7295
(0.7016*)
0.7318
(0.7052*)
0.7332
(0.7080*)
0.6725
(0.6342*)
0.6677
(0.6326*)
0.6654
(0.6334*)
0.6654
(0.6346*)
0.9909
(0.8311*)
0.8934
(0.7892*)
0.8451
(0.7597*)
0.8185
(0.7490*)
0.8164
(0.7582*)
0.8344
(0.7837*)
0.7929
(0.7560*)
0.8254
(0.7818*)
0.8255
(0.7816*)
0.8197
(0.7777*)
0.8170
(0.7737*)
0.8272
(0.7840*)
0.8388
(0.7976*)
0.8431
(0.8061*)
0.8254
(0.7827*)
0.8362
(0.7971*)
0.8457
(0.8070*)
0.8491
(0.8121*)
0.6818
(0.5485*)
0.6910
(0.6039*)
0.6817
(0.5983*)
0.6994
(0.6315*)
0.7087
(0.6465*)
0.7268
(0.6701*)
0.7401
(0.6904*)
0.7270
(0.6782*)
0.7382
(0.6921*)
0.7359
(0.6961*)
0.7290
(0.6866*)
0.7385
(0.6994*)
0.7495
(0.7099*)
0.7625
(0.7255*)
0.7557
(0.7169*)
0.7620
(0.7287*)
0.7687
(0.7381*)
0.7745
(0.7469*)
0.7772
(0.6197*)
0.7716
(0.6632*)
0.7590
(0.6551*)
0.7676
(0.6781*)
0.7661
(0.6819*)
0.7782
(0.7046*)
0.7722
(0.7016*)
0.7713
(0.7029*)
0.7706
(0.7063*)
0.7662
(0.7046*)
0.7663
(0.7069*)
0.7724
(0.7155*)
0.7774
(0.7238*)
0.7798
(0.7293*)
0.7482
(0.6873*)
0.7535
(0.6994*)
0.7605
(0.7106*)
0.7650
(0.7180*)
Page LXIV
Contd…...
0.6436
0.7197
0.7421
0.8537
0.6986
0.6215
0.7385
0.7559
0.6890
0.6312
0.7803
0.7257
0.7167
(0.5953*) (0.6842*) (0.6812*) (0.7366*) (0.6623*) (0.5638*) (0.7006*) (0.6306*) (0.6545*) (0.6016*) (0.7293*) (0.6908*) (0.6609*)
0.6363
0.7138
0.7415
0.8287
0.6901
0.6148
0.7262
0.7627
0.6798
0.6275
0.7782
0.7026
0.7085
1993/94
(0.5894*) (0.6829*) (0.6789*) (0.7081*) (0.6532*) (0.5570*) (0.6865*) (0.6449*) (0.6385*) (0.6039*) (0.7282*) (0.6657*) (0.6531*)
0.5462
0.6527
0.6430
0.8226
0.5420
0.5701
0.6004
0.7163
0.5954
0.5775
0.6312
0.6203
0.6265
1994/95
(0.5003*) (0.6156*) (0.5781*) (0.6620*) (0.4906*) (0.5222*) (0.5504*)
(0.5646) (0.5294*) (0.5478*) (0.5672*) (0.5730*) (0.5584*)
0.3627
0.4060
0.5996
0.7430
0.4555
0.2369
0.5591
0.4244
0.4561
0.3215
0.5511
0.4558
0.4643
1995/96
(0.3018*) (0.2826) (0.5162*) (0.5950) (0.3916*) (0.1767)
(0.4984*)
(0.2311)
(0.3608) (0.2728*) (0.4665*) (0.3896*) (0.3736)
0.3795
0.4173
0.6170
0.7538
0.4682
0.2524
0.5748
0.4271
0.4727
0.3304
0.5706
0.4701
0.4778
1996/97
(0.3127*) (0.2915) (0.5183*) (0.5872) (0.4004*) (0.1798)
(0.5068*)
(0.2282) (0.3798*) (0.2824*) (0.4711*) (0.4004*) (0.3799)
0.3870
0.4334
0.6140
0.7608
0.4651
0.2506
0.5484
0.4344
0.4797
0.3245
0.5650
0.4818
0.4787
1997/98
(0.3223*) (0.3045) (0.5055*) (0.5909) (0.3947*) (0.1833)
(0.4789*)
(0.2268) (0.3921*) (0.2805*) (0.4636*) (0.4145*) (0.3798)
0.3955
0.4444
0.6238
0.7596
0.4836
0.2525
0.5571
0.4332
0.4783
0.3271
0.5731
0.4897
0.4848
1998/99
(0.3330*) (0.3212) (0.5213*) (0.5959) (0.4168*) (0.1874)
(0.4915*)
(0.2353) (0.3938*) (0.2837*) (0.4745*) (0.4253*) (0.3900)
0.4031
0.4583
0.6264
0.7688
0.4958
0.2775
0.5648
0.4273
0.4778
0.3294
0.5895
0.4974
0.4930
1999/00
(0.3437*) (0.3350) (0.5287*) (0.6113) (0.4329*) (0.1606)
(0.5025*)
(0.2463) (0.4012*) (0.2660) (0.4845*) (0.4334*) (0.3955)
0.3941
0.4467
0.5805
0.7705
0.4702
0.2673
0.5217
0.4216
0.4603
0.3468
0.5500
0.4817
0.4759
2000/01
(0.3333*) (0.3172)
(0.4642)
(0.6003) (0.4030*) (0.1432)
(0.4530*)
(0.2372) (0.3858*) (0.2391) (0.4440*) (0.4127*) (0.3694)
0.3925
0.4447
0.5815
0.7617
0.4719
0.2795
0.5196
0.4196
0.4605
0.3482
0.5554
0.4709
0.4755
2001/02
(0.3329*) (0.3194)
(0.4735)
(0.5925) (0.4080*) (0.1444)
(0.4557*)
(0.2445) (0.3883*) (0.2373) (0.4526*) (0.3985*) (0.3706)
0.4025
0.4529
0.5896
0.7669
0.4854
0.2803
0.5254
0.4238
0.4678
0.3474
0.5690
0.4834
0.4829
2002/03
(0.3451*) (0.3354)
(0.4806)
(0.6014) (0.4243*) (0.1518)
(0.4644*)
(0.2587) (0.3985*) (0.2421) (0.4667*) (0.4130*) (0.3818)
0.4111
0.4611
0.5979
0.7624
0.4968
0.2881
0.5256
0.4277
0.4759
0.3506
0.5766
0.4959
0.4892
2003/04
(0.3556*) (0.3473) (0.4908*) (0.6018) (0.4358*) (0.1755)
(0.4669*)
(0.2692) (0.4092*) (0.2473) (0.4788*) (0.4257*) (0.3920)
0.6128
0.5219
0.7139
0.7594
0.6770
0.4374
0.5225
0.5093
0.5193
0.2850
0.6791
0.6536
0.5743
2004/05
(0.5392*) (0.4419) (0.6123*) (0.6053) (0.6147*) (0.3211)
(0.4711*)
(0.3900) (0.4650*) (0.0619) (0.5719*) (0.5802*) (0.4729)
Entire
0.6166
0.6432
0.7429
0.8408
0.6650
0.5684
0.7081
0.6520
0.6232
0.5829
0.7456
0.6516
0.6700
Period
(0.5661*) (0.5788*) (0.6384*) (0.6757*) (0.6121*) (0.5108*) (0.6477*) (0.4953*) (0.5613*) (0.5230*) (0.6751*) (0.5945*) (0.5899*)
Pre0.7290
0.7417
0.8221
0.8881
0.7618
0.7238
0.8053
0.7560
0.6983
0.7210
0.8409
0.7292
0.7681
Reforms (0.6837*) (0.7023*) (0.7068*) (0.7117*) (0.7122*) (0.6904)
(0.7416*) (0.6045*) (0.6410*) (0.6714*) (0.7833*) (0.6742*) (0.6936*)
Post0.4802
0.5236
0.6466
0.7834
0.5475
0.3798
0.5901
0.5257
0.5320
0.4152
0.6299
0.5574
0.5509
Reforms (0.4234*) (0.4287) (0.5555*) (0.6319) (0.4906*) (0.2927)
(0.5337*)
(0.3627) (0.4645*) (0.3429) (0.5436*) (0.4978*) (0.4640*)
Note: i) # represent the average of 12 sugar producing states; and ii) Figures in parenthesis of type ( ) are bias corrected efficiency scores; and iii) * represents that value is
significant at 5 percent level of significance.
Source: Author’s Calculations
1992/93
Appendix Tables
Page LXV
Appendix Table A7.2: Confidence Intervals For Overall Technical Efficiency Score
(α=0.05)
Year
1974/75
1975/76
1976/77
1977/78
1978/79
1979/80
1980/81
1981/82
1982/83
1983/84
1984/85
1985/86
1986/87
1987/88
1988/89
1989/90
1990/91
CI
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
Appendix Tables
States
Andhra
Pradesh
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Karnataka
Madhya
Pradesh
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil
Nadu
Uttar
Pradesh
All
India#
0.5264
0.6822
0.5535
0.6877
0.5721
0.6924
0.6019
0.7021
0.6351
0.7088
0.6679
0.7303
0.6635
0.7192
0.6829
0.7348
0.6870
0.7370
0.6821
0.7301
0.6998
0.7388
0.7014
0.7411
0.7072
0.7475
0.7128
0.7516
0.6171
0.6739
0.6387
0.6906
0.6568
0.7058
0.4737
0.6055
0.5205
0.6416
0.5659
0.6766
0.6117
0.7142
0.6623
0.7411
0.6839
0.7518
0.7197
0.8130
0.7025
0.7651
0.7050
0.7628
0.7064
0.7650
0.7086
0.7588
0.7154
0.7637
0.7172
0.7676
0.7205
0.7710
0.6796
0.7355
0.6872
0.7407
0.6948
0.7421
0.7071
0.9873
0.6311
0.8440
0.5898
0.7584
0.6214
0.7788
0.6703
0.8082
0.6896
0.8147
0.6729
0.7939
0.6836
0.8059
0.6625
0.7807
0.6466
0.7522
0.6230
0.7300
0.6447
0.7507
0.6408
0.7435
0.6461
0.7426
0.6311
0.7272
0.6455
0.7331
0.6629
0.7446
0.6892
0.9879
0.7004
0.9640
0.6906
0.9257
0.6917
0.9075
0.6810
0.9022
0.6802
0.8791
0.6551
0.8174
0.6524
0.8235
0.6550
0.8272
0.6387
0.8051
0.6542
0.8208
0.6601
0.8198
0.6750
0.8309
0.6684
0.8155
0.6541
0.8086
0.6619
0.8095
0.6784
0.8207
0.5806
0.7626
0.5240
0.6797
0.5156
0.6523
0.5319
0.6565
0.5812
0.6941
0.5998
0.7022
0.5977
0.6793
0.5986
0.6853
0.6141
0.6906
0.6066
0.6772
0.6039
0.6699
0.6248
0.6896
0.6401
0.7016
0.6505
0.7070
0.6105
0.6749
0.6295
0.6867
0.6418
0.6976
0.5072
0.6237
0.5420
0.6489
0.5811
0.6717
0.6075
0.6872
0.6421
0.6999
0.6638
0.7138
0.6687
0.7225
0.7070
0.7497
0.7345
0.7741
0.7372
0.7773
0.7461
0.7785
0.7516
0.7836
0.7605
0.7913
0.7671
0.7990
0.5819
0.6564
0.5940
0.6649
0.6029
0.6685
0.4416
0.6042
0.4828
0.6395
0.5119
0.6656
0.5457
0.6852
0.6033
0.7247
0.6221
0.7325
0.5909
0.7120
0.6015
0.7087
0.6202
0.7221
0.6032
0.7014
0.5925
0.6921
0.6061
0.7038
0.6201
0.7089
0.6236
0.7055
0.6109
0.6932
0.6265
0.6998
0.6425
0.7146
0.4500
0.6440
0.4981
0.6732
0.5210
0.6980
0.5353
0.7003
0.5811
0.7411
0.6139
0.7746
0.6452
0.7999
0.6111
0.7823
0.6192
0.7818
0.6028
0.7609
0.6166
0.7666
0.6243
0.7667
0.6339
0.7692
0.6341
0.7707
0.5937
0.7309
0.6138
0.7451
0.6319
0.7563
0.4963
0.6377
0.5036
0.6313
0.5024
0.6190
0.5257
0.6373
0.5839
0.6847
0.5997
0.6897
0.6157
0.7008
0.6002
0.6757
0.6077
0.6794
0.6194
0.6866
0.6244
0.6956
0.6284
0.6972
0.6328
0.7001
0.6458
0.7037
0.6233
0.6800
0.6421
0.6915
0.6544
0.6993
0.5963
0.7618
0.5921
0.7344
0.5775
0.7059
0.5962
0.7157
0.5981
0.6961
0.6338
0.7226
0.6303
0.7252
0.6387
0.7123
0.6528
0.7212
0.6536
0.7140
0.6717
0.7233
0.6742
0.7224
0.6788
0.7251
0.6823
0.7263
0.6125
0.6612
0.6117
0.6575
0.6147
0.6562
0.6634
0.8833
0.6257
0.7982
0.6486
0.7904
0.6652
0.7831
0.6922
0.7862
0.7033
0.7902
0.6661
0.7428
0.6872
0.7685
0.7059
0.7867
0.6980
0.7740
0.7104
0.7794
0.7228
0.7924
0.7356
0.8032
0.7416
0.8081
0.6651
0.7482
0.6877
0.7641
0.7015
0.7774
0.4008
0.5600
0.4359
0.5822
0.4698
0.6043
0.5079
0.6323
0.5410
0.6512
0.5776
0.6784
0.6180
0.7053
0.6018
0.6873
0.6091
0.6942
0.6141
0.6925
0.6276
0.6989
0.6452
0.7107
0.6584
0.7232
0.6750
0.7343
0.6455
0.7088
0.6598
0.7178
0.6726
0.7267
0.5444
0.7283
0.5508
0.7104
0.5622
0.7050
0.5868
0.7167
0.6226
0.7365
0.6446
0.7483
0.6453
0.7443
0.6473
0.7416
0.6561
0.7465
0.6507
0.7364
0.6566
0.7377
0.6666
0.7451
0.6750
0.7510
0.6807
0.7529
0.6271
0.7082
0.6415
0.7168
0.6546
0.7258
Page LXVI
Contd….
L
0.6722
0.7052
0.6707
0.6929
0.6589
0.6162
0.6569
0.6466 0.6632
0.6173
0.7161 0.6845 0.6667
U
0.7188
0.7511
0.7480
0.8272
0.7096
0.6796
0.7219
0.7662 0.7057
0.6567
0.7868 0.7343 0.7338
1992/93
L
0.5739
0.6629
0.6075
0.6770
0.5504
0.5490
0.5736
0.6184 0.6171
0.5836
0.6168 0.6388 0.6058
U
0.6265
0.7124
0.6905
0.8236
0.6159
0.6127
0.6493
0.7433 0.6643
0.6239
0.6997 0.6932 0.6796
1993/94
L
0.5694
0.6620
0.6049
0.6604
0.5520
0.5427
0.5689
0.6327 0.6085
0.5859
0.6245 0.6277 0.6033
U
0.6222
0.7075
0.6872
0.8023
0.6164
0.6068
0.6423
0.7503 0.6598
0.6224
0.7049 0.6797 0.6752
1994/95
L
0.4778
0.5813
0.4565
0.6182
0.4230
0.4972
0.4176
0.5725 0.5123
0.5169
0.4837 0.5333 0.5075
U
0.5382
0.6432
0.5461
0.7852
0.4949
0.5581
0.4994
0.6960 0.5808
0.5698
0.5696 0.6016 0.5902
1995/96
L
0.2863
0.3257
0.4224
0.5907
0.3213
0.1847
0.3628
0.3139 0.3677
0.2638
0.3853 0.3729 0.3498
U
0.3394
0.3934
0.5095
0.7123
0.3883
0.2286
0.4417
0.4075 0.4372
0.3137
0.4719 0.4337 0.4231
1996/97
L
0.3025
0.3352
0.4391
0.6007
0.3349
0.1986
0.3768
0.3170 0.3836
0.2724
0.4034 0.3861 0.3625
U
0.3577
0.4052
0.5287
0.7248
0.4032
0.2446
0.4596
0.4134 0.4532
0.3230
0.4935 0.4485 0.4379
1997/98
L
0.3089
0.3472
0.4527
0.6083
0.3515
0.1990
0.3863
0.3218 0.3904
0.2702
0.4162 0.3975 0.3708
U
0.3665
0.4213
0.5437
0.7345
0.4196
0.2432
0.4643
0.4203 0.4616
0.3180
0.5054 0.4609 0.4466
1998/99
L
0.3200
0.3601
0.4610
0.6121
0.3665
0.2022
0.3962
0.3238 0.3927
0.2738
0.4281 0.4062 0.3786
U
0.3757
0.4316
0.5515
0.7336
0.4339
0.2453
0.4724
0.4208 0.4608
0.3205
0.5152 0.4679 0.4524
1999/00
L
0.3296
0.3704
0.4680
0.6213
0.3779
0.2141
0.4000
0.3205 0.3969
0.2725
0.4265 0.4130 0.3842
U
0.3840
0.4453
0.5541
0.7421
0.4434
0.2688
0.4749
0.4151 0.4615
0.3225
0.5148 0.4755 0.4585
2000/01
L
0.3206
0.3555
0.4137
0.6123
0.3551
0.2037
0.3763
0.3147 0.3777
0.2752
0.4027 0.3862 0.3661
U
0.3741
0.4329
0.5046
0.7378
0.4220
0.2576
0.4492
0.4077 0.4423
0.3374
0.4912 0.4532 0.4425
2001/02
L
0.3207
0.3562
0.4155
0.6161
0.3650
0.2100
0.3842
0.3182 0.3823
0.2761
0.4137 0.3873 0.3704
U
0.3738
0.4311
0.5043
0.7403
0.4294
0.2695
0.4549
0.4066 0.4459
0.3386
0.5027 0.4534 0.4459
2002/03
L
0.3324
0.3658
0.4261
0.6220
0.3785
0.2123
0.3940
0.3241 0.3917
0.2767
0.4276 0.3979 0.3791
U
0.3856
0.4398
0.5155
0.7462
0.4419
0.2706
0.4620
0.4110 0.4543
0.3385
0.5166 0.4640 0.4538
2003/04
L
0.3436
0.3759
0.4372
0.6192
0.3926
0.2194
0.4000
0.3298 0.4027
0.2787
0.4391 0.4100 0.3873
U
0.3946
0.4494
0.5266
0.7428
0.4548
0.2789
0.4649
0.4155 0.4631
0.3426
0.5262 0.4769 0.4614
2004/05
L
0.5404
0.4450
0.4388
0.4669
0.5292
0.4095
0.3702
0.3707 0.4113
0.1977
0.3713 0.3738 0.4104
U
0.6002
0.4874
0.5130
0.5364
0.5745
0.4784
0.4076
0.4135 0.4370
0.2438
0.4288 0.4282 0.4624
Entire
L
0.5388
0.5653
0.5736
0.6453
0.5196
0.5050
0.5164
0.5081 0.5292
0.5057
0.5895 0.5282 0.5437
U
0.6010
0.6344
0.6845
0.8050
0.5985
0.5630
0.6090
0.6371 0.6012
0.5727
0.6808 0.6058 0.6327
Period
PreL
0.6474
0.6632
0.6511
0.6698
0.5971
0.6585
0.5850
0.5898 0.5945
0.6303
0.6894 0.5859 0.6302
U
0.7161
0.7362
0.7821
0.8568
0.6887
0.7183
0.6949
0.7448 0.6770
0.7107
0.7868 0.6769 0.7324
Reforms
PostL
0.4070
0.4463
0.4796
0.6156
0.4255
0.3185
0.4331
0.4089 0.4499
0.3543
0.4682 0.4582 0.4388
U
0.4612
0.5108
0.5659
0.7421
0.4891
0.3745
0.5046
0.5062 0.5091
0.4051
0.5519 0.5194 0.5117
Reforms
Notes: i) CI refers to the confidence interval; ii) L refers to the lower bound of confidence interval; and iii) U-refers to the upper bound of confidence interval.
Source: Author’s Calculations
1991/92
Appendix Tables
Page LXVII
Appendix Table A7.3: Confidence Intervals For Pure Technical Efficiency Score
(α=0.05)
Year
1974/75
1975/76
1976/77
1977/78
1978/79
1979/80
1980/81
1981/82
1982/83
1983/84
1984/85
1985/86
1986/87
1987/88
1988/89
1989/90
1990/91
CI
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
Appendix Tables
States
Andhra
Pradesh
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Karnataka
Madhya
Pradesh
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil
Nadu
Uttar
Pradesh
All
India#
0.5456
0.6901
0.5797
0.6944
0.5923
0.6970
0.6262
0.7062
0.6552
0.7195
0.6791
0.7389
0.6739
0.7260
0.6880
0.7410
0.6925
0.7413
0.6922
0.7378
0.6964
0.7409
0.6991
0.7437
0.7058
0.7507
0.7134
0.7561
0.6681
0.7186
0.6837
0.7328
0.6984
0.7452
0.5143
0.6226
0.5744
0.6621
0.6138
0.6957
0.6621
0.7280
0.6901
0.7514
0.7004
0.7559
0.7355
0.8158
0.7133
0.7663
0.7130
0.7642
0.7118
0.7666
0.7146
0.7614
0.7230
0.7704
0.7278
0.7756
0.7323
0.7810
0.6954
0.7522
0.7010
0.7561
0.7062
0.7573
0.7262
0.9895
0.7144
0.9039
0.6607
0.8099
0.6988
0.8454
0.6996
0.8292
0.7155
0.8355
0.6946
0.8148
0.7075
0.8270
0.6815
0.7956
0.6828
0.7847
0.6759
0.7738
0.6930
0.7914
0.6919
0.7839
0.6963
0.7815
0.6856
0.7705
0.6948
0.7719
0.7090
0.7799
0.7109
0.9887
0.7310
0.9777
0.7269
0.9549
0.7324
0.9428
0.7203
0.9353
0.7141
0.9061
0.6871
0.8435
0.6904
0.8560
0.6991
0.8675
0.6819
0.8524
0.6907
0.8593
0.7003
0.8607
0.7109
0.8704
0.7124
0.8628
0.6975
0.8519
0.7042
0.8487
0.7150
0.8552
0.6678
0.8262
0.7075
0.8252
0.6823
0.7869
0.6949
0.7937
0.6804
0.7663
0.7043
0.7799
0.6796
0.7419
0.6826
0.7484
0.6733
0.7328
0.6623
0.7198
0.6613
0.7154
0.6790
0.7326
0.6943
0.7441
0.7023
0.7453
0.6967
0.7403
0.7097
0.7487
0.7176
0.7563
0.5738
0.6695
0.6115
0.6868
0.6333
0.6956
0.6563
0.7030
0.6642
0.7114
0.6726
0.7178
0.6874
0.7345
0.7073
0.7516
0.7358
0.7757
0.7364
0.7774
0.7458
0.7812
0.7527
0.7881
0.7616
0.7957
0.7688
0.8040
0.5891
0.6741
0.5976
0.6804
0.6053
0.6837
0.6842
0.8140
0.7939
0.8971
0.7537
0.8873
0.7463
0.8737
0.7000
0.7981
0.7165
0.8073
0.7061
0.8252
0.7036
0.7908
0.6903
0.7775
0.6947
0.7771
0.7022
0.7807
0.7072
0.7857
0.7149
0.7833
0.7128
0.7724
0.6926
0.7570
0.7010
0.7571
0.7156
0.7701
0.7138
0.9898
0.7335
0.9515
0.7242
0.9529
0.7451
0.9536
0.7555
0.9453
0.7074
0.9090
0.6862
0.8558
0.7087
0.9155
0.7051
0.9010
0.6993
0.8877
0.7051
0.8831
0.7106
0.8776
0.7181
0.8750
0.7197
0.8810
0.7077
0.8740
0.7233
0.8800
0.7369
0.8853
0.5201
0.6441
0.5289
0.6353
0.5515
0.6491
0.5841
0.6747
0.6154
0.7035
0.6224
0.7048
0.6342
0.7127
0.6144
0.6864
0.6216
0.6905
0.6430
0.7047
0.6395
0.7068
0.6420
0.7097
0.6473
0.7122
0.6642
0.7199
0.6549
0.7072
0.6715
0.7176
0.6838
0.7261
0.6457
0.7808
0.6404
0.7486
0.6116
0.7136
0.6309
0.7223
0.6312
0.7134
0.6592
0.7371
0.6546
0.7395
0.6542
0.7229
0.6669
0.7291
0.6651
0.7200
0.6792
0.7277
0.6805
0.7273
0.6855
0.7295
0.6885
0.7306
0.6209
0.6718
0.6210
0.6690
0.6230
0.6677
0.7911
0.9833
0.7476
0.8873
0.7281
0.8424
0.7242
0.8153
0.7400
0.8164
0.7636
0.8335
0.7296
0.7897
0.7606
0.8244
0.7601
0.8243
0.7534
0.8158
0.7494
0.8129
0.7606
0.8241
0.7733
0.8340
0.7829
0.8391
0.7610
0.8213
0.7753
0.8319
0.7850
0.8410
0.5233
0.6753
0.5649
0.6851
0.5668
0.6756
0.6012
0.6943
0.6225
0.7024
0.6447
0.7214
0.6603
0.7358
0.6499
0.7223
0.6642
0.7340
0.6680
0.7314
0.6624
0.7241
0.6755
0.7338
0.6856
0.7449
0.7039
0.7572
0.6972
0.7494
0.7086
0.7565
0.7181
0.7635
0.6347
0.8061
0.6606
0.7963
0.6538
0.7801
0.6752
0.7878
0.6812
0.7827
0.6917
0.7873
0.6858
0.7780
0.6900
0.7794
0.6919
0.7778
0.6909
0.7730
0.6935
0.7723
0.7020
0.7788
0.7098
0.7833
0.7164
0.7859
0.6806
0.7574
0.6910
0.7626
0.7012
0.7693
Page LXVIII
Contd….
L
0.7119
0.7147
0.7171
0.7222
0.7249
0.6174
0.7237
0.7505 0.6904
0.6243
0.7895 0.7295 0.7097
U
0.7555
0.7652
0.7843
0.8505
0.7616
0.6934
0.7727
0.8918 0.7298
0.6677
0.8439 0.7692 0.7738
1992/93
L
0.5801
0.6749
0.6709
0.7053
0.6475
0.5459
0.6772
0.7328 0.6394
0.5898
0.7055 0.6707 0.6533
U
0.6398
0.7245
0.7426
0.8460
0.6966
0.6230
0.7331
0.8793 0.6845
0.6317
0.7739 0.7191 0.7245
1993/94
L
0.5713
0.6688
0.6630
0.6771
0.6369
0.5397
0.6654
0.7261 0.6233
0.5898
0.7060 0.6455 0.6427
U
0.6314
0.7137
0.7363
0.8199
0.6857
0.6169
0.7200
0.8669 0.6740
0.6260
0.7724 0.6967 0.7133
1994/95
L
0.4877
0.6106
0.5597
0.6479
0.4726
0.5182
0.5300
0.6964 0.5257
0.5407
0.5469 0.5564 0.5577
U
0.5426
0.6586
0.6333
0.8112
0.5355
0.5728
0.5937
0.8408 0.5896
0.5811
0.6242 0.6131 0.6330
1995/96
L
0.3057
0.3641
0.5069
0.6014
0.3801
0.1995
0.4805
0.4920 0.3728
0.2860
0.4552 0.3821 0.4022
U
0.3614
0.4298
0.5867
0.7260
0.4457
0.2482
0.5510
0.6463 0.4477
0.3355
0.5400 0.4457 0.4804
1996/97
L
0.3195
0.3796
0.5188
0.6084
0.3913
0.2209
0.4919
0.4980 0.3911
0.2945
0.4695 0.3942 0.4148
U
0.3773
0.4475
0.6045
0.7379
0.4586
0.2760
0.5667
0.6572 0.4687
0.3463
0.5590 0.4607 0.4967
1997/98
L
0.3271
0.3874
0.5106
0.6113
0.3843
0.2212
0.4639
0.5005 0.3974
0.2900
0.4625 0.4051 0.4135
U
0.3864
0.4617
0.5997
0.7442
0.4535
0.2740
0.5385
0.6643 0.4741
0.3401
0.5538 0.4717 0.4968
1998/99
L
0.3366
0.4005
0.5234
0.6129
0.4045
0.2243
0.4756
0.5019 0.3988
0.2961
0.4724 0.4149 0.4218
U
0.3951
0.4730
0.6111
0.7432
0.4729
0.2758
0.5483
0.6610 0.4744
0.3444
0.5628 0.4799 0.5035
1999/00
L
0.3436
0.4079
0.5292
0.6251
0.4198
0.2349
0.4864
0.4936 0.4028
0.3022
0.4863 0.4226 0.4295
U
0.4004
0.4852
0.6135
0.7516
0.4852
0.2999
0.5554
0.6484 0.4747
0.3639
0.5773 0.4883 0.5120
2000/01
L
0.3279
0.3788
0.4748
0.6249
0.3927
0.2389
0.4403
0.4912 0.3834
0.2982
0.4486 0.4038 0.4086
U
0.3848
0.4602
0.5619
0.7525
0.4577
0.3160
0.5105
0.6422 0.4517
0.3741
0.5384 0.4694 0.4933
2001/02
L
0.3309
0.3854
0.4799
0.6177
0.3966
0.2506
0.4428
0.4837 0.3872
0.3112
0.4557 0.3904 0.4110
U
0.3870
0.4633
0.5655
0.7499
0.4596
0.3375
0.5089
0.6277 0.4553
0.3932
0.5447 0.4589 0.4960
2002/03
L
0.3410
0.3928
0.4868
0.6237
0.4121
0.2518
0.4520
0.4875 0.3953
0.3130
0.4690 0.4036 0.4191
U
0.3974
0.4707
0.5726
0.7566
0.4734
0.3372
0.5148
0.6288 0.4631
0.3939
0.5583 0.4716 0.5032
2003/04
L
0.3517
0.3998
0.4961
0.6242
0.4235
0.2559
0.4537
0.4904 0.4059
0.3247
0.4798 0.4162 0.4268
U
0.4050
0.4765
0.5807
0.7542
0.4854
0.3359
0.5156
0.6274 0.4705
0.4091
0.5688 0.4852 0.5095
2004/05
L
0.5235
0.4621
0.6057
0.6258
0.5943
0.3963
0.4552
0.5303 0.4593
0.4377
0.5603 0.5622 0.5177
U
0.5976
0.5319
0.6934
0.7570
0.6663
0.4994
0.5117
0.6458 0.5197
0.6767
0.6601 0.6409 0.6167
Entire
L
0.5532
0.5889
0.6313
0.6759
0.5928
0.5231
0.6250
0.6476 0.5488
0.5341
0.6578 0.5747 0.5961
U
0.6143
0.6531
0.7347
0.8366
0.6594
0.5851
0.7031
0.8176 0.6188
0.6044
0.7392 0.6444 0.6842
Period
PreL
0.6641
0.6841
0.6958
0.7074
0.6880
0.6764
0.7139
0.7177 0.6199
0.6505
0.7580 0.6481 0.6853
U
0.7282
0.7460
0.8170
0.8902
0.7591
0.7312
0.8032
0.9069 0.6944
0.7206
0.8374 0.7239 0.7799
Reforms
PostL
0.4185
0.4734
0.5531
0.6377
0.4772
0.3368
0.5171
0.5625 0.4623
0.3927
0.5362 0.4855 0.4878
U
0.4758
0.5401
0.6347
0.7715
0.5384
0.4076
0.5815
0.7092 0.5270
0.4631
0.6198 0.5479 0.5681
Reforms
Notes: i) CI refers to the confidence interval; ii) L refers to the lower bound of confidence interval; and iii) U-refers to the upper bound of confidence interval.
Source: Author’s Calculations
1991/92
Appendix Tables
Page LXIX
Appendix Table A7.4: Confidence Intervals For Scale Efficiency Score
(α=0.05)
Year
1974/75
1975/76
1976/77
1977/78
1978/79
1979/80
1980/81
1981/82
1982/83
1983/84
1984/85
1985/86
1986/87
1987/88
1988/89
1989/90
1990/91
CI
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
Appendix Tables
States
Andhra
Pradesh
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Karnataka
Madhya
Pradesh
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil
Nadu
Uttar
Pradesh
All
India#
0.5367
0.6861
0.5699
0.6911
0.5731
0.6963
0.6038
0.7057
0.6221
0.7039
0.6579
0.7284
0.6531
0.7170
0.6627
0.7331
0.6690
0.7351
0.6793
0.7279
0.7050
0.7414
0.7055
0.7433
0.7112
0.7499
0.7197
0.7547
0.6067
0.6515
0.6263
0.6735
0.6447
0.6869
0.4769
0.6078
0.5269
0.6425
0.5632
0.6800
0.6128
0.7180
0.6587
0.7425
0.6759
0.7547
0.7316
0.8177
0.6900
0.7667
0.6975
0.7643
0.7126
0.7694
0.7242
0.7633
0.7274
0.7677
0.7307
0.7719
0.7439
0.7759
0.6822
0.7373
0.6954
0.7434
0.6997
0.7444
0.7677
0.9970
0.6941
0.8475
0.6407
0.7595
0.6843
0.7882
0.7274
0.8086
0.7511
0.8179
0.7391
0.7973
0.7440
0.8098
0.7191
0.7804
0.7044
0.7524
0.6771
0.7242
0.6989
0.7461
0.6918
0.7378
0.6876
0.7361
0.6664
0.7108
0.6796
0.7202
0.6933
0.7293
0.7395
0.9975
0.7708
0.9690
0.7885
0.9319
0.7952
0.9077
0.7876
0.8966
0.7766
0.8769
0.7411
0.8143
0.7265
0.8161
0.7475
0.8238
0.7272
0.8040
0.7457
0.8197
0.7457
0.8166
0.7630
0.8291
0.7525
0.8189
0.7335
0.8081
0.7434
0.8106
0.7551
0.8169
0.6557
0.7608
0.5742
0.6566
0.5600
0.6202
0.5769
0.6321
0.6203
0.6626
0.6344
0.6721
0.6158
0.6540
0.6188
0.6589
0.6338
0.6624
0.6216
0.6577
0.6250
0.6558
0.6439
0.6765
0.6555
0.6892
0.6647
0.6955
0.6052
0.6360
0.6245
0.6548
0.6388
0.6638
0.5087
0.6245
0.5507
0.6485
0.5670
0.6737
0.6001
0.6903
0.6268
0.7009
0.6503
0.7159
0.6616
0.7189
0.6899
0.7516
0.7187
0.7756
0.7357
0.7798
0.7544
0.7812
0.7587
0.7860
0.7667
0.7935
0.7781
0.8015
0.5762
0.6584
0.5717
0.6663
0.5914
0.6700
0.4658
0.5195
0.5136
0.6167
0.5511
0.6482
0.6076
0.6738
0.6528
0.6973
0.6687
0.7076
0.6411
0.6907
0.6431
0.6762
0.6655
0.6934
0.6422
0.6809
0.6346
0.6721
0.6471
0.6858
0.6577
0.6917
0.6545
0.6865
0.6245
0.6584
0.6387
0.6719
0.6556
0.6842
0.4841
0.6509
0.5321
0.6784
0.5770
0.7065
0.5916
0.7153
0.6462
0.7495
0.6945
0.7842
0.7377
0.8113
0.6877
0.7952
0.6932
0.7932
0.6855
0.7658
0.6904
0.7736
0.6995
0.7737
0.7071
0.7762
0.7139
0.7813
0.6611
0.7406
0.6806
0.7543
0.6943
0.7634
0.4974
0.6414
0.5127
0.6333
0.5093
0.6147
0.5401
0.6335
0.6069
0.6759
0.6207
0.6844
0.6344
0.6965
0.6074
0.6713
0.6198
0.6765
0.6414
0.6841
0.6505
0.6937
0.6494
0.6953
0.6533
0.6988
0.6656
0.7035
0.6251
0.6671
0.6416
0.6823
0.6506
0.6854
0.6003
0.7656
0.5996
0.7373
0.5801
0.7102
0.6027
0.7209
0.6063
0.6885
0.6409
0.7179
0.6531
0.7202
0.6376
0.7091
0.6535
0.7193
0.6626
0.7139
0.6872
0.7249
0.6859
0.7238
0.6896
0.7264
0.6980
0.7288
0.6082
0.6604
0.6093
0.6580
0.6113
0.6557
0.7461
0.8873
0.6772
0.7874
0.6755
0.7849
0.6854
0.7817
0.7002
0.7717
0.7168
0.7718
0.6717
0.7181
0.6929
0.7435
0.7205
0.7627
0.7130
0.7569
0.7360
0.7741
0.7491
0.7870
0.7602
0.8000
0.7646
0.8034
0.6668
0.7065
0.6898
0.7302
0.7073
0.7414
0.4102
0.4874
0.4519
0.5342
0.4877
0.5747
0.5246
0.6071
0.5587
0.6139
0.5936
0.6494
0.6253
0.6862
0.6046
0.6653
0.6169
0.6700
0.6319
0.6721
0.6512
0.6851
0.6627
0.6981
0.6757
0.7121
0.6926
0.7275
0.6478
0.6836
0.6632
0.6999
0.6724
0.7038
0.5741
0.7188
0.5811
0.7036
0.5894
0.7001
0.6188
0.7145
0.6512
0.7260
0.6734
0.7401
0.6755
0.7368
0.6671
0.7331
0.6796
0.7381
0.6798
0.7304
0.6901
0.7341
0.6978
0.7417
0.7052
0.7480
0.7113
0.7511
0.6420
0.6932
0.6553
0.7055
0.6679
0.7121
Page LXX
Contd….
L
0.6583
0.7110
0.6988
0.7606
0.6544
0.6026
0.6679
0.7124 0.6579
0.6140
0.7216 0.6808 0.6784
U
0.6992
0.7531
0.7330
0.8200
0.6776
0.6804
0.6905
0.7732 0.6912
0.6560
0.7524 0.7102 0.7197
1992/93
L
0.5452
0.6677
0.6313
0.7625
0.5404
0.5320
0.5777
0.6881 0.6041
0.5786
0.6167 0.6294 0.6145
U
0.6210
0.7153
0.6694
0.8223
0.5762
0.6158
0.6057
0.7534 0.6532
0.6250
0.6619 0.6757 0.6662
1993/94
L
0.5441
0.6651
0.6322
0.7353
0.5458
0.5329
0.5769
0.7046 0.5989
0.5830
0.6330 0.6138 0.6138
U
0.6215
0.7113
0.6682
0.8065
0.5827
0.6111
0.6022
0.7609 0.6563
0.6251
0.6729 0.6721 0.6659
1994/95
L
0.4723
0.5967
0.4910
0.7341
0.4295
0.5054
0.4322
0.6553 0.5143
0.5252
0.4947 0.5389 0.5325
U
0.5449
0.6501
0.5463
0.8028
0.4913
0.5676
0.4836
0.7143 0.5879
0.5754
0.5668 0.6025 0.5945
1995/96
L
0.2948
0.3251
0.4493
0.6332
0.3384
0.1896
0.3818
0.3488 0.3765
0.2540
0.4104 0.3748 0.3647
U
0.3343
0.3966
0.5035
0.7245
0.3772
0.2281
0.4189
0.4172 0.4442
0.3157
0.4613 0.4316 0.4211
1996/97
L
0.3236
0.3644
0.4692
0.6604
0.3547
0.2202
0.4002
0.3688 0.4117
0.2964
0.4337 0.4075 0.3926
U
0.3562
0.4105
0.5254
0.7367
0.3927
0.2479
0.4364
0.4240 0.4611
0.3266
0.4848 0.4473 0.4374
1997/98
L
0.3280
0.3886
0.4768
0.6709
0.3699
0.2265
0.4040
0.3918 0.4202
0.3053
0.4390 0.4229 0.4037
U
0.4293
0.4616
0.6222
0.7687
0.4826
0.2673
0.5118
0.4517 0.5322
0.3059
0.6009 0.5074 0.4951
1998/99
L
0.3414
0.3964
0.4867
0.6744
0.3857
0.2254
0.4146
0.3794 0.4219
0.3000
0.4542 0.4299 0.4092
U
0.3739
0.4373
0.5408
0.7438
0.4247
0.2483
0.4494
0.4296 0.4669
0.3227
0.5085 0.4649 0.4509
1999/00
L
0.3532
0.4126
0.4939
0.6853
0.3976
0.2423
0.4177
0.3729 0.4287
0.3007
0.4559 0.4396 0.4167
U
0.3834
0.4539
0.5443
0.7540
0.4332
0.2747
0.4502
0.4215 0.4681
0.3266
0.5033 0.4741 0.4573
2000/01
L
0.3524
0.4036
0.4413
0.6857
0.3796
0.2356
0.3942
0.3677 0.4175
0.3092
0.4405 0.4180 0.4038
U
0.3764
0.4437
0.5061
0.7498
0.4207
0.2659
0.4418
0.4162 0.4507
0.3448
0.4940 0.4567 0.4472
2001/02
L
0.3544
0.4060
0.4505
0.6915
0.3944
0.2465
0.4078
0.3715 0.4250
0.3131
0.4572 0.4234 0.4118
U
0.3773
0.4429
0.5065
0.7574
0.4290
0.2783
0.4476
0.4152 0.4552
0.3471
0.5060 0.4603 0.4519
2002/03
L
0.3655
0.4128
0.4654
0.6971
0.4105
0.2478
0.4203
0.3760 0.4347
0.3129
0.4761 0.4362 0.4213
U
0.3878
0.4509
0.5240
0.7600
0.4433
0.2791
0.4594
0.4193 0.4626
0.3462
0.5210 0.4708 0.4604
2003/04
L
0.3742
0.4210
0.4768
0.6927
0.4235
0.2573
0.4245
0.3803 0.4427
0.3152
0.4842 0.4478 0.4283
U
0.3968
0.4592
0.5333
0.7557
0.4559
0.2853
0.4617
0.4233 0.4708
0.3493
0.5292 0.4824 0.4669
2004/05
L
0.5694
0.4806
0.5464
0.6771
0.5770
0.3992
0.4580
0.4587 0.4899
0.2326
0.6001 0.5746 0.5053
U
0.6038
0.5197
0.6187
0.7544
0.6250
0.4344
0.4895
0.5059 0.5156
0.2842
0.6495 0.6202 0.5517
Entire
L
0.5427
0.5807
0.6186
0.7290
0.5410
0.5087
0.5465
0.5727 0.5474
0.5183
0.6190 0.5487 0.5728
U
0.6010
0.6411
0.6873
0.8166
0.5846
0.5652
0.5904
0.6496 0.6050
0.5752
0.6781 0.5983 0.6327
Period
PreL
0.6439
0.6676
0.7039
0.7553
0.6217
0.6533
0.6214
0.6574 0.6074
0.6368
0.7102 0.5983 0.6564
U
0.7133
0.7393
0.7802
0.8563
0.6652
0.7198
0.6679
0.7537 0.6728
0.7106
0.7711 0.6512 0.7251
Reforms
PostL
0.4198
0.4751
0.5150
0.6972
0.4429
0.3331
0.4556
0.4697 0.4746
0.3743
0.5084 0.4884 0.4712
U
0.4647
0.5219
0.5744
0.7683
0.4866
0.3774
0.4963
0.5233 0.5226
0.4108
0.5652 0.5340 0.5205
Reforms
Notes: i) CI refers to the confidence interval; ii) L refers to the lower bound of confidence interval; and iii) U-refers to the upper bound of confidence interval.
Source: Author’s Calculations
1991/92
Appendix Tables
Page LXXI
Appendix Table A7.5: Confidence Intervals For TENIRS Score
(α=0.05)
Year
1974/75
1975/76
1976/77
1977/78
1978/79
1979/80
1980/81
1981/82
1982/83
1983/84
1984/85
1985/86
1986/87
1987/88
1988/89
1989/90
1990/91
CI
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
Appendix Tables
States
Andhra
Pradesh
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Karnataka
Madhya
Pradesh
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil
Nadu
Uttar
Pradesh
All
India#
0.5254
0.6836
0.5624
0.6884
0.5750
0.6937
0.6097
0.7028
0.6391
0.7176
0.6690
0.7379
0.6656
0.7259
0.6797
0.7404
0.6850
0.7406
0.6853
0.7360
0.6908
0.7391
0.6947
0.7412
0.6999
0.7477
0.7072
0.7526
0.6555
0.7102
0.6735
0.7247
0.6893
0.7375
0.4825
0.6049
0.5449
0.6422
0.5827
0.6783
0.6354
0.7166
0.6613
0.7409
0.6865
0.7523
0.7247
0.8153
0.7025
0.7667
0.7052
0.7642
0.7078
0.7664
0.7104
0.7593
0.7159
0.7635
0.7183
0.7679
0.7220
0.7712
0.6765
0.7356
0.6852
0.7406
0.6901
0.7427
0.7130
0.9866
0.7033
0.9025
0.6470
0.8089
0.6861
0.8416
0.6891
0.8264
0.7095
0.8335
0.6865
0.8109
0.6985
0.8220
0.6695
0.7878
0.6747
0.7815
0.6659
0.7688
0.6827
0.7856
0.6849
0.7800
0.6883
0.7776
0.6758
0.7656
0.6832
0.7663
0.7018
0.7749
0.7017
0.9871
0.7162
0.9666
0.7071
0.9360
0.7076
0.9168
0.6894
0.9055
0.6889
0.8811
0.6614
0.8204
0.6715
0.8361
0.6830
0.8510
0.6728
0.8438
0.6823
0.8512
0.6908
0.8532
0.7039
0.8619
0.7067
0.8563
0.6882
0.8452
0.6972
0.8446
0.7086
0.8510
0.6481
0.8239
0.6930
0.8240
0.6629
0.7857
0.6789
0.7914
0.6628
0.7609
0.6906
0.7754
0.6704
0.7416
0.6703
0.7447
0.6629
0.7302
0.6559
0.7186
0.6560
0.7145
0.6708
0.7305
0.6853
0.7399
0.6950
0.7424
0.6880
0.7375
0.7019
0.7465
0.7128
0.7538
0.5095
0.6247
0.5655
0.6491
0.5941
0.6732
0.6243
0.6895
0.6392
0.7000
0.6598
0.7139
0.6805
0.7347
0.7042
0.7521
0.7323
0.7762
0.7370
0.7776
0.7442
0.7788
0.7509
0.7838
0.7595
0.7915
0.7659
0.7995
0.5739
0.6582
0.5849
0.6653
0.5936
0.6696
0.6576
0.8116
0.7739
0.8965
0.7348
0.8844
0.7285
0.8720
0.6853
0.7964
0.7058
0.8064
0.6622
0.7747
0.6922
0.7895
0.6824
0.7765
0.6866
0.7761
0.6969
0.7800
0.6991
0.7841
0.7107
0.7829
0.7066
0.7721
0.6850
0.7555
0.6930
0.7562
0.7118
0.7689
0.4601
0.6425
0.5107
0.6746
0.5337
0.7014
0.5487
0.7094
0.5879
0.7438
0.6224
0.7763
0.6520
0.8018
0.6210
0.7848
0.6267
0.7843
0.6090
0.7623
0.6223
0.7678
0.6303
0.7684
0.6401
0.7710
0.6397
0.7730
0.6000
0.7325
0.6202
0.7462
0.6357
0.7563
0.4974
0.6386
0.5148
0.6318
0.5349
0.6479
0.5708
0.6731
0.6005
0.7006
0.6142
0.7023
0.6253
0.7110
0.6081
0.6839
0.6153
0.6888
0.6370
0.7020
0.6336
0.7058
0.6389
0.7085
0.6435
0.7103
0.6597
0.7183
0.6487
0.7046
0.6667
0.7153
0.6800
0.7242
0.6064
0.7627
0.6153
0.7352
0.5904
0.7078
0.6142
0.7179
0.6126
0.7104
0.6496
0.7345
0.6426
0.7348
0.6487
0.7221
0.6601
0.7289
0.6619
0.7197
0.6763
0.7261
0.6779
0.7247
0.6818
0.7272
0.6864
0.7288
0.6117
0.6646
0.6116
0.6601
0.6129
0.6587
0.7672
0.9768
0.7323
0.8853
0.7071
0.8390
0.7061
0.8120
0.7200
0.8104
0.7492
0.8298
0.7206
0.7893
0.7481
0.8208
0.7484
0.8208
0.7470
0.8151
0.7437
0.8113
0.7526
0.8213
0.7674
0.8327
0.7766
0.8378
0.7533
0.8193
0.7682
0.8305
0.7817
0.8399
0.5155
0.6727
0.5522
0.6827
0.5520
0.6744
0.5837
0.6919
0.6049
0.7009
0.6334
0.7193
0.6517
0.7345
0.6426
0.7208
0.6556
0.7323
0.6637
0.7299
0.6559
0.7228
0.6707
0.7328
0.6818
0.7434
0.6985
0.7563
0.6900
0.7475
0.7026
0.7552
0.7138
0.7626
0.5904
0.7680
0.6237
0.7649
0.6185
0.7526
0.6412
0.7612
0.6493
0.7595
0.6732
0.7719
0.6703
0.7662
0.6740
0.7653
0.6772
0.7651
0.6782
0.7607
0.6815
0.7605
0.6896
0.7665
0.6981
0.7714
0.7044
0.7738
0.6622
0.7397
0.6740
0.7460
0.6860
0.7533
Page LXXII
`Contd….
L
0.7031
0.7012
0.7025
0.7134
0.7198
0.6068
0.7200
0.6513 0.6869
0.6154
0.7867 0.7243 0.6943
U
0.7485
0.7506
0.7740
0.8465
0.7591
0.6798
0.7720
0.7664 0.7281
0.6585
0.8430 0.7685 0.7579
1992/93
L
0.5718
0.6601
0.6552
0.6985
0.6383
0.5364
0.6726
0.6256 0.6321
0.5819
0.7015 0.6650 0.6366
U
0.6349
0.7121
0.7312
0.8422
0.6915
0.6138
0.7316
0.7440 0.6810
0.6249
0.7722 0.7182 0.7081
1993/94
L
0.5649
0.6592
0.6518
0.6736
0.6290
0.5306
0.6584
0.6392 0.6161
0.5839
0.6993 0.6387 0.6287
U
0.6280
0.7069
0.7308
0.8157
0.6823
0.6072
0.7185
0.7513 0.6714
0.6221
0.7703 0.6951 0.7000
1994/95
L
0.4770
0.5897
0.5494
0.6383
0.4634
0.5002
0.5192
0.5817 0.5144
0.5244
0.5356 0.5458 0.5366
U
0.5387
0.6445
0.6302
0.8039
0.5338
0.5600
0.5918
0.7004 0.5854
0.5710
0.6221 0.6106 0.6161
1995/96
L
0.2968
0.3274
0.5019
0.5963
0.3765
0.1836
0.4749
0.3178 0.3660
0.2645
0.4517 0.3775 0.3779
U
0.3518
0.3949
0.5858
0.7212
0.4448
0.2289
0.5504
0.4102 0.4393
0.3139
0.5391 0.4425 0.4519
1996/97
L
0.3099
0.3369
0.5125
0.6040
0.3864
0.1971
0.4860
0.3197 0.3798
0.2730
0.4654 0.3888 0.3883
U
0.3683
0.4055
0.6018
0.7331
0.4568
0.2441
0.5646
0.4150 0.4559
0.3234
0.5572 0.4573 0.4653
1997/98
L
0.3175
0.3479
0.5045
0.6098
0.3805
0.1977
0.4583
0.3232 0.3881
0.2696
0.4571 0.4008 0.3879
U
0.3758
0.4210
0.5969
0.7396
0.4522
0.2429
0.5371
0.4216 0.4633
0.3174
0.5496 0.4693 0.4655
1998/99
L
0.3270
0.3596
0.5183
0.6117
0.4012
0.2003
0.4700
0.3248 0.3895
0.2726
0.4679 0.4109 0.3961
U
0.3852
0.4321
0.6082
0.7393
0.4711
0.2446
0.5459
0.4202 0.4629
0.3201
0.5578 0.4772 0.4721
1999/00
L
0.3367
0.3718
0.5242
0.6234
0.4158
0.2138
0.4801
0.3230 0.3936
0.2731
0.4830 0.4188 0.4048
U
0.3924
0.4454
0.6113
0.7473
0.4838
0.2691
0.5549
0.4159 0.4620
0.3224
0.5743 0.4851 0.4803
2000/01
L
0.3273
0.3565
0.4695
0.6193
0.3888
0.2034
0.4352
0.3170 0.3781
0.2757
0.4439 0.4004 0.3846
U
0.3833
0.4335
0.5598
0.7469
0.4564
0.2585
0.5080
0.4083 0.4449
0.3380
0.5335 0.4676 0.4616
2001/02
L
0.3274
0.3567
0.4743
0.6129
0.3924
0.2096
0.4367
0.3195 0.3798
0.2760
0.4492 0.3871 0.3851
U
0.3819
0.4323
0.5643
0.7434
0.4586
0.2700
0.5076
0.4080 0.4460
0.3394
0.5398 0.4574 0.4624
2002/03
L
0.3375
0.3667
0.4814
0.6187
0.4075
0.2116
0.4456
0.3262 0.3884
0.2772
0.4627 0.4001 0.3936
U
0.3921
0.4402
0.5700
0.7495
0.4727
0.2713
0.5138
0.4121 0.4540
0.3394
0.5535 0.4701 0.4699
2003/04
L
0.3471
0.3753
0.4902
0.6183
0.4191
0.2180
0.4483
0.3311 0.3979
0.2785
0.4712 0.4125 0.4006
U
0.4006
0.4489
0.5790
0.7455
0.4843
0.2791
0.5143
0.4163 0.4627
0.3426
0.5610 0.4828 0.4764
2004/05
L
0.5200
0.4427
0.5970
0.6106
0.5845
0.3338
0.4529
0.4081 0.4480
0.2011
0.5550 0.5544 0.4757
U
0.5949
0.5122
0.6913
0.7388
0.6633
0.4244
0.5107
0.4940 0.5069
0.2738
0.6557 0.6380 0.5587
Entire
L
0.5442
0.5679
0.6223
0.6654
0.5842
0.5020
0.6152
0.5151 0.5403
0.5105
0.6490 0.5675 0.5736
U
0.6096
0.6358
0.7308
0.8265
0.6572
0.5623
0.7002
0.6413 0.6139
0.5765
0.7362 0.6426 0.6611
Period
PreL
0.6534
0.6678
0.6859
0.6928
0.6768
0.6600
0.7007
0.5977 0.6111
0.6388
0.7464 0.6393 0.6642
U
0.7247
0.7370
0.8130
0.8769
0.7566
0.7199
0.7991
0.7468 0.6922
0.7156
0.8348 0.7223 0.7616
Reforms
PostL
0.4117
0.4466
0.5452
0.6321
0.4717
0.3102
0.5113
0.4149 0.4542
0.3548
0.5307 0.4804 0.4636
U
0.4697
0.5129
0.6311
0.7652
0.5365
0.3710
0.5801
0.5131 0.5188
0.4076
0.6164 0.5457 0.5390
Reforms
Notes: i) CI refers to the confidence interval; ii) L refers to the lower bound of confidence interval; and iii) U-refers to the upper bound of confidence interval.
Source: Author’s Calculations
1991/92
Appendix Tables
Page LXXIII
Appendix Table A7.6: Ratio r = ( 13 ) × ( ( Bias ) σ
2
YEARS
Andhra
Pradesh
1974/75
0.6714
1975/76
0.6511
1976/77
0.7258
1977/78
0.7645
1978/79
0.6967
1979/80
0.7173
1980/81
0.5790
1981/82
0.6404
1982/83
0.5725
1983/84
0.7544
1984/85
0.6511
1985/86
0.6539
1986/87
0.7463
1987/88
1.0017
1988/89
1.7836
1989/90
1.8687
1990/91
1.8672
1991/92
1.7461
1992/93
1.3099
1993/94
1.2407
1994/95
1.1017
1995/96
0.3486
1996/97
0.2612
1997/98
0.2416
1998/99
0.2652
1999/00
0.2480
2000/01
0.2684
2001/02
0.2718
2002/03
0.2567
2003/04
0.2392
2004/05
0.0968
Entire Period
0.1618
Pre-Reforms
0.5333
Post-Reforms
0.1220
Source: Author’s Calculations
Appendix Tables
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Karnataka
Madhya
Pradesh
0.5594
0.4519
0.5464
0.5652
0.5347
0.5964
0.5688
0.5360
0.4955
0.6965
0.7814
0.8899
0.8840
1.0189
1.3113
1.2764
1.3221
1.2526
1.1459
1.0668
1.1313
0.0380
0.0411
0.0400
0.0375
0.0429
0.0522
0.0516
0.0470
0.0410
0.0744
0.0373
0.5097
0.0387
1.0159
1.1377
0.9924
1.1114
1.0083
1.0068
0.8377
1.0789
0.7773
0.7373
0.8007
0.8738
0.6531
0.8002
0.8918
0.9361
0.9993
0.9544
1.1632
1.2689
1.1200
0.6044
0.3827
0.4410
0.4479
0.4063
0.5097
0.5383
0.5079
0.4920
0.1343
0.4787
0.7446
0.2907
0.8997
1.0767
1.2232
1.2997
1.0822
1.0088
0.8641
0.9541
1.0042
0.9656
0.9144
0.9316
0.9835
0.9318
0.8646
0.7317
0.7387
0.7354
0.8031
0.8863
1.0987
0.6486
0.3526
0.3459
0.3426
0.3558
0.4121
0.4200
0.4173
0.4003
0.1744
0.5786
0.8748
0.3534
0.7314
0.8941
1.1075
1.3307
1.0268
1.1299
0.8628
0.9341
0.7787
0.6745
0.5930
0.7188
0.8752
0.9669
1.2184
1.2498
1.2074
1.1820
1.2908
1.3685
1.1161
0.8200
0.5284
0.5922
0.6057
0.5814
0.5411
0.5387
0.5381
0.5348
0.1526
0.2447
0.7061
0.1426
0.6513
0.5395
0.5679
0.6103
0.6472
0.7230
0.7506
0.7654
0.7063
0.8105
0.9681
0.8869
0.9002
0.9823
1.1273
1.1094
1.0441
0.9980
0.8706
0.8410
1.4713
0.3801
0.0910
0.0860
0.0855
0.0388
0.0600
0.0733
0.0753
0.0982
0.1224
0.0606
0.5989
0.0658
2
)
for Overall Technical Efficiency
STATES
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil
Nadu
Uttar
Pradesh
All
India#
1.1464
1.0335
1.3568
1.2654
1.0609
1.1734
0.9395
1.2326
1.0273
0.8400
0.8256
0.8837
0.9336
1.0485
1.0876
1.0502
1.0371
1.0832
1.2470
1.3560
1.2937
0.6955
0.4901
0.5547
0.5404
0.5340
0.4525
0.4382
0.4136
0.4150
0.1081
0.5483
0.9152
0.3062
0.8823
1.2424
1.3596
1.4862
1.0160
1.0335
0.8471
1.0122
0.9470
0.9232
0.7891
0.7376
0.6839
0.6785
0.5762
0.5311
0.4694
0.4440
0.4418
0.4302
0.7725
0.2323
0.1566
0.1689
0.1705
0.1497
0.1553
0.1482
0.1424
0.1291
0.0956
0.2918
0.8593
0.1674
0.5746
0.6124
0.9165
1.2514
0.9404
0.9714
0.8418
0.7957
0.7922
0.9167
0.8818
0.9017
1.0363
1.2882
1.7565
1.8311
1.9337
1.8648
1.4050
1.1301
1.0385
0.3612
0.4277
0.4247
0.4852
0.4119
0.3889
0.3984
0.3800
0.3626
0.1118
0.3155
0.7679
0.2033
0.5912
0.5411
0.6760
0.7918
0.8953
0.8958
0.9480
0.7461
0.6578
0.7569
0.8297
0.8901
0.8925
1.0267
1.4344
1.4377
1.4418
1.4565
1.3104
1.1561
1.1049
0.5890
0.3349
0.3469
0.3553
0.0670
0.1150
0.1398
0.1323
0.1469
0.1883
0.1165
0.5655
0.0887
0.9277
0.8217
0.7668
0.8082
0.7550
0.8267
0.7300
0.8451
0.7197
0.6889
0.5896
0.6016
0.6708
0.7749
1.1543
1.0526
1.0342
1.0420
1.1535
1.1685
1.0925
0.6507
0.4993
0.5953
0.6180
0.6624
0.5883
0.6008
0.6082
0.6082
0.1705
0.3429
0.6097
0.2862
0.9431
1.0470
1.1447
1.1676
1.0146
1.0180
0.8053
0.8291
0.8227
0.9359
0.9730
1.0252
1.0703
1.2947
1.6440
1.6026
1.5977
1.6635
1.3722
1.2078
1.0889
0.4934
0.3668
0.3829
0.3806
0.4002
0.4504
0.4744
0.4624
0.4576
0.1514
0.2913
0.7564
0.1478
0.6928
0.7656
0.8642
0.9362
0.7018
0.7083
0.6369
0.6329
0.5737
0.5645
0.5229
0.5397
0.5361
0.5472
0.6236
0.5680
0.5491
0.5246
0.5223
0.5493
0.7088
0.1318
0.1197
0.1180
0.1172
0.0933
0.1202
0.1242
0.1209
0.1205
0.1293
0.1935
0.5883
0.1171
Page LXXIV
Appendix Table A7.7: Ratio r = ( 13 ) × ( ( Bias ) σ
2
YEARS
Andhra
Pradesh
1974/75
0.6237
1975/76
0.6949
1976/77
0.6628
1977/78
0.7062
1978/79
1.0038
1979/80
0.8789
1980/81
0.7311
1981/82
0.7593
1982/83
0.7721
1983/84
0.8470
1984/85
0.6446
1985/86
0.6806
1986/87
0.7778
1987/88
0.9914
1988/89
1.4109
1989/90
1.3620
1990/91
1.3563
1991/92
1.4254
1992/93
1.0763
1993/94
1.0870
1994/95
1.1707
1995/96
0.3207
1996/97
0.2669
1997/98
0.2557
1998/99
0.2439
1999/00
0.2435
2000/01
0.2891
2001/02
0.2805
2002/03
0.2700
2003/04
0.2758
2004/05
0.7066
Entire Period
0.3631
Pre-Reforms
0.5804
Post-Reforms
0.3137
Source: Author’s Calculations
Appendix Tables
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Karnataka
Madhya
Pradesh
0.6044
0.5603
0.5820
0.6058
0.7449
0.7540
0.4354
0.6477
0.6089
0.7064
0.9183
0.9967
1.0563
1.1445
1.4065
1.3891
1.4090
1.4110
1.3211
1.1674
1.1942
0.0347
0.0452
0.0474
0.0479
0.0505
0.0644
0.0573
0.0621
0.0526
0.0565
0.0420
0.6266
0.0440
0.7326
0.6188
0.5548
0.6412
0.7684
0.8109
0.7282
0.9118
0.6323
0.5787
0.6480
0.6938
0.4778
0.5121
0.6061
0.6782
0.7402
0.7248
0.9242
0.9409
1.1697
0.4761
0.3574
0.4158
0.3765
0.3699
0.4899
0.4643
0.4817
0.5195
0.7719
0.4924
0.5272
0.4505
0.6885
0.6530
0.6475
0.5980
0.7063
0.7399
0.6397
0.6641
0.7082
0.6839
0.6737
0.6957
0.7402
0.6694
0.6992
0.6332
0.6200
0.6427
0.6713
0.7584
0.7732
0.5618
0.2964
0.3103
0.3133
0.3035
0.3338
0.3601
0.3502
0.3376
0.5077
0.4777
0.6240
0.3670
0.6823
0.6576
0.6346
0.6007
0.5708
0.6375
0.5159
0.6185
0.5322
0.4786
0.5458
0.6446
0.8012
0.8790
0.7630
0.7815
0.7943
0.9169
0.9693
0.9749
0.9315
0.6461
0.5096
0.6138
0.6029
0.5707
0.6130
0.5983
0.6063
0.6381
0.8945
0.5500
0.5131
0.5979
0.6167
0.5258
0.5888
0.6966
0.7928
0.7780
0.7252
0.7795
0.7589
0.9418
1.0654
1.0696
1.1463
1.1563
0.8677
0.8450
0.8229
0.8311
0.6945
0.7182
1.4096
0.3982
0.0630
0.0540
0.0632
0.0470
0.0670
0.0728
0.0672
0.0716
0.1264
0.0468
0.6150
0.0575
2
)
for Pure Technical Efficiency
STATES
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil
Nadu
Uttar
Pradesh
All
India#
0.6924
0.7589
0.9503
0.6208
0.6182
0.6998
0.4708
0.7298
0.5718
0.4578
0.5446
0.6170
0.7107
0.7008
0.6556
0.5731
0.6225
0.6539
0.7085
0.7999
1.0362
0.3721
0.3227
0.4026
0.3627
0.3558
0.4167
0.3956
0.3811
0.4011
0.6838
0.4824
0.5705
0.3988
0.6919
0.6409
0.8221
0.7275
0.7340
0.8369
0.8221
0.8754
0.8589
0.7095
0.6136
0.5796
0.5449
0.5370
0.5117
0.4813
0.4512
0.4165
0.4020
0.4204
0.3872
0.1195
0.1131
0.1254
0.1148
0.1059
0.1067
0.1071
0.1030
0.0956
0.0705
0.1316
0.6533
0.1026
0.6561
0.6970
0.7430
0.8126
0.9142
1.0033
0.8752
0.8061
0.8196
0.8139
0.6594
0.6477
0.8383
1.0840
1.4464
1.4720
1.4305
1.5684
1.3634
1.1027
0.7119
0.4005
0.5334
0.5532
0.5327
0.4950
0.5011
0.5018
0.4688
0.5022
0.6952
0.5467
0.7475
0.4755
0.6746
0.7093
0.7184
0.7354
0.9896
0.9967
0.9136
0.8142
0.7458
0.8878
0.9948
1.0943
1.2076
1.3051
1.6451
1.6893
1.6663
1.7036
1.6185
1.4031
1.2691
0.3839
0.2568
0.3026
0.3038
0.0371
0.0709
0.0760
0.0796
0.0808
0.1806
0.0414
0.7410
0.0470
0.6458
0.6970
0.5313
0.5690
0.7480
0.7591
0.7936
0.7090
0.5988
0.5106
0.6374
0.6822
0.7906
0.7308
0.7276
0.6294
0.6736
0.7528
0.7717
0.8002
0.7662
0.4907
0.3849
0.4607
0.4504
0.4346
0.4317
0.4611
0.4743
0.4733
0.8825
0.4334
0.5234
0.4484
0.5828
0.6254
0.7334
0.7930
0.9553
1.0205
0.8220
0.8693
0.8112
0.8539
0.9467
0.9652
1.0151
1.1876
1.2463
1.1576
1.1328
1.3407
1.2794
1.1122
1.1318
0.5539
0.4661
0.5078
0.4723
0.4696
0.5231
0.6202
0.6028
0.6424
0.9129
0.5780
0.6363
0.5457
0.4872
0.4620
0.4885
0.4525
0.4788
0.5002
0.4836
0.4592
0.4257
0.3868
0.3822
0.3992
0.4010
0.3741
0.4164
0.3895
0.3812
0.3784
0.3654
0.3896
0.3355
0.0704
0.0717
0.0765
0.0752
0.0659
0.0777
0.0776
0.0777
0.0772
0.0667
0.0961
0.4106
0.0707
Page LXXV
Appendix Table A7.8: Ratio r = ( 13 ) × ( ( Bias ) σ
2
YEARS
Andhra
Pradesh
1974/75
0.3280
1975/76
0.4500
1976/77
0.3372
1977/78
0.3528
1978/79
0.5580
1979/80
0.4431
1980/81
0.3685
1981/82
0.3313
1982/83
0.3200
1983/84
0.6229
1984/85
0.1946
1985/86
0.2321
1986/87
0.2401
1987/88
0.3004
1988/89
3.6970
1989/90
2.8341
1990/91
3.0882
1991/92
3.1669
1992/93
0.5174
1993/94
0.3589
1994/95
0.2109
1995/96
1.1558
1996/97
1.3707
1997/98
0.0074
1998/99
1.3262
1999/00
1.2131
2000/01
1.0126
2001/02
0.8842
2002/03
0.8357
2003/04
0.8193
2004/05
0.7056
0.1985
Entire Period
0.3835
Pre-Reforms
0.1020
Post-Reforms
Source: Author’s Calculations
Appendix Tables
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Karnataka
Madhya
Pradesh
0.3549
0.4586
0.3558
0.3374
0.3957
0.2958
0.2159
0.2480
0.2450
0.3125
0.1895
0.2315
0.2481
0.3122
1.0965
1.0154
1.0417
1.0241
0.7562
0.4168
0.4199
0.0246
0.0112
0.0027
0.0132
0.0092
0.0088
0.0085
0.0061
0.0057
0.0111
0.0319
0.2761
0.0110
0.2864
0.3350
0.3640
0.2680
0.5078
0.4779
0.4606
0.4114
0.4104
0.7891
0.8767
0.8010
0.6540
0.7418
3.3188
3.3165
3.7724
2.9247
4.7020
4.5766
0.6841
1.1526
0.8732
0.0178
1.0903
1.0570
0.5095
0.5558
0.3277
0.3176
0.3439
0.2298
0.3326
0.1670
0.2463
0.3233
0.3755
0.4872
0.5234
0.4347
0.4822
0.5027
0.5385
0.5627
0.4174
0.5362
0.5576
0.3795
0.7360
0.6179
0.7878
1.0274
0.8352
0.5194
0.5801
0.3061
0.2734
0.0035
0.3180
0.2905
0.2571
0.0978
0.1286
0.1174
0.2286
0.1072
0.3084
0.0419
0.9129
1.8491
3.5316
3.3231
5.7101
5.8685
3.6086
3.7076
5.2065
3.3745
2.3555
2.1788
2.1683
2.5184
13.1331
11.2764
15.3686
16.7518
8.7624
7.0898
0.6140
3.0109
3.0010
0.0176
2.4352
2.9004
1.1502
1.5084
1.3474
1.3482
0.9523
0.6665
2.9383
0.2910
0.5023
0.6310
0.3809
0.3875
0.4221
0.3216
0.4818
0.2775
0.2730
0.2546
0.1521
0.1880
0.2156
0.2552
0.4517
0.3632
0.3645
0.3589
0.2252
0.1562
0.2929
0.6681
0.1839
0.0019
0.2091
0.0050
0.0087
0.0064
0.0075
0.0168
0.0742
0.0605
0.3028
0.0206
2
)
for Scale Efficiency
STATES
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil
Nadu
Uttar
Pradesh
All
India#
7.0599
0.8567
0.9782
1.6640
4.5549
4.4670
1.5574
6.7171
6.2901
3.1751
2.4827
2.1931
2.8306
3.7237
9.2010
7.5920
6.5184
15.9650
18.9986
18.8176
1.5490
5.3236
5.3477
0.0320
5.1078
5.6940
1.7392
2.3418
1.7615
1.7751
1.2006
0.7570
2.1109
0.3827
0.2396
0.3095
0.2604
0.2236
0.2409
0.1566
0.1082
0.0995
0.0856
0.1919
0.1229
0.1312
0.1344
0.0894
0.1965
0.1614
0.1603
0.1432
0.1165
0.0757
0.1232
0.0681
0.0245
0.0036
0.0287
0.0271
0.0188
0.0210
0.0230
0.0164
0.0300
0.0506
0.1624
0.0197
0.3122
0.4038
0.5225
0.5747
0.9221
0.7001
0.5573
0.4827
0.5031
0.9558
0.3997
0.4305
0.4570
0.6711
2.4049
2.2392
2.8049
2.9339
1.6612
0.8160
0.2552
0.3486
0.4945
0.0050
0.5192
0.6153
0.6126
0.5750
0.5960
0.5896
0.6990
0.1532
0.4589
0.0572
0.3521
0.4209
0.3261
0.3080
0.6816
0.5412
0.5534
0.4081
0.3540
0.5319
0.3645
0.3872
0.4130
0.4265
1.1838
1.0683
1.1056
1.0748
0.7660
0.4544
0.3626
0.3646
0.5445
0.0007
0.9439
0.0153
0.0278
0.0134
0.0205
0.0211
0.0142
0.0657
0.3052
0.0151
0.6120
0.8798
0.6234
0.5752
1.2170
1.7655
2.1236
2.4379
2.5084
2.3969
1.0077
1.0891
0.9769
1.1855
8.2630
6.7097
8.3638
10.6864
6.0285
6.2102
0.6436
1.9391
1.5201
0.0275
1.3748
1.5533
0.8556
0.8695
0.8749
0.8625
0.9424
0.5633
1.1985
0.3587
2.2987
2.3173
1.3030
1.1665
2.9664
2.0852
1.2078
1.3022
1.6918
3.1150
2.5799
2.2519
1.9178
1.6860
5.9061
4.6881
6.1046
6.7414
2.1359
1.0095
0.5129
0.8719
1.2803
0.0045
1.6527
1.4603
0.7579
0.5802
0.5931
0.5719
0.4637
0.3126
1.5436
0.0679
0.4750
0.5381
0.5294
0.4985
0.8317
0.7320
0.6064
0.5981
0.6192
0.7623
0.4629
0.4985
0.5223
0.5107
1.7303
1.4265
1.6035
1.6649
1.3420
1.0352
0.4358
0.2106
0.1493
0.0068
0.1773
0.0921
0.0830
0.0721
0.0569
0.0572
0.0675
0.1561
0.5088
0.0652
Page LXXVI
Appendix Table A8.1: Confidence Intervals For Malmquist TFP Index
(α=0.05)
Year
1975/76
1976/77
1977/78
1978/79
1979/80
1980/81
1981/82
1982/83
1983/84
1984/85
1985/86
1986/87
1987/88
1988/89
1989/90
1990/91
CI
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
Appendix Tables
States
Andhra
Pradesh
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Karnataka
Madhya
Pradesh
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil
Nadu
Uttar
Pradesh
All
India#
1.0118
1.0742
1.0117
1.0643
1.0210
1.0616
0.9916
1.0418
1.0200
1.0627
0.9912
1.0279
0.9986
1.0349
0.9891
1.0328
1.0051
1.0555
1.0076
1.0553
0.9887
1.0303
0.9972
1.0328
0.9958
1.0286
1.0000
1.0460
1.0037
1.0562
1.0036
1.0529
1.1120
1.1337
1.1105
1.1308
1.1064
1.1205
1.0680
1.0940
1.0460
1.0716
1.0345
1.0627
1.0256
1.0525
1.0102
1.0395
1.0246
1.0705
0.9950
1.0343
1.0128
1.0477
1.0058
1.0426
1.0051
1.0391
1.0105
1.0402
1.0042
1.0365
1.0021
1.0312
0.5594
0.7021
0.7036
0.8528
0.8318
1.0021
0.9324
1.0770
0.9221
1.0387
0.8996
0.9957
0.9258
1.0365
0.9696
1.0824
0.9706
1.0853
0.9571
1.0614
0.9729
1.0781
0.9875
1.0864
0.9615
1.0658
0.9708
1.0707
0.9742
1.0626
0.9804
1.0550
0.8888
0.8980
0.9053
0.9609
0.9307
1.0075
0.9632
1.0833
0.8852
1.0467
0.8931
1.0417
0.8671
1.0070
0.9052
1.0520
0.9135
1.0764
0.9067
1.0663
0.9069
1.0524
0.9161
1.0603
0.9280
1.0617
0.9223
1.0477
0.9330
1.0485
0.9377
1.0369
0.6880
0.8342
0.8446
0.9970
0.8617
1.0252
0.9790
1.1328
0.9679
1.0886
0.9361
1.0445
0.9469
1.0490
0.9680
1.0659
0.9802
1.0789
0.9874
1.0829
0.9982
1.0864
1.0012
1.0720
1.0026
1.0582
0.9994
1.0681
0.9870
1.0605
0.9870
1.0563
1.0505
1.0717
1.0565
1.0708
1.0453
1.0577
1.0208
1.0471
1.0339
1.0580
1.0220
1.0519
1.0346
1.0658
1.0362
1.0729
1.0382
1.0669
1.0184
1.0401
1.0214
1.0358
1.0249
1.0370
1.0213
1.0358
1.0233
1.0865
0.9810
1.0774
0.9792
1.0686
1.0284
1.1193
1.0596
1.1426
1.0052
1.1069
1.0457
1.1525
0.9949
1.0879
0.9376
1.0273
0.9673
1.0634
1.0021
1.0964
0.9935
1.0922
0.9910
1.0861
0.9709
1.0701
0.9856
1.0612
0.9950
1.0543
1.0045
1.0666
0.9986
1.0552
1.0077
1.0583
1.0906
1.1239
1.0805
1.1093
1.0435
1.0736
1.0491
1.1028
1.0415
1.1115
1.0331
1.1085
0.9706
1.0341
0.9894
1.0587
0.9670
1.0367
0.9962
1.0614
0.9897
1.0421
0.9954
1.0418
0.9934
1.0381
0.9929
1.0471
0.9933
1.0539
0.9948
1.0480
0.9170
0.9736
0.9242
0.9733
0.9660
1.0308
1.0129
1.0864
0.9814
1.0600
0.9621
1.0345
0.9616
1.0264
0.9738
1.0478
1.0038
1.0813
1.0099
1.0783
0.9743
1.0318
0.9817
1.0336
0.9894
1.0342
0.9981
1.0386
1.0055
1.0452
1.0023
1.0379
0.8633
0.9235
0.8682
0.9215
0.9577
1.0057
0.8913
0.9666
0.9747
1.0588
0.9375
1.0127
0.9454
1.0115
0.9672
1.0328
0.9767
1.0396
0.9796
1.0342
0.9717
1.0145
0.9813
1.0195
0.9810
1.0161
0.9597
0.9946
0.9669
1.0048
0.9724
1.0081
0.7433
0.9452
0.9130
1.0540
0.9099
1.0136
0.9683
1.0754
0.9799
1.0530
0.9574
1.0274
0.9556
1.0267
0.9894
1.0705
0.9910
1.0763
1.0004
1.0793
0.9937
1.0688
1.0005
1.0681
1.0056
1.0624
0.9940
1.0669
0.9825
1.0661
0.9849
1.0593
1.0764
1.1404
1.0753
1.1344
1.0793
1.1284
1.0250
1.0976
1.0457
1.1185
1.0201
1.0820
1.0052
1.0653
0.9994
1.0693
1.0042
1.0812
1.0087
1.0729
1.0073
1.0621
1.0089
1.0593
1.0075
1.0549
1.0054
1.0496
1.0071
1.0475
1.0068
1.0426
0.9013
0.9853
0.9550
1.0303
0.9764
1.0519
0.9944
1.0788
0.9899
1.0711
0.9675
1.0427
0.9660
1.0393
0.9828
1.0599
0.9886
1.0699
0.9877
1.0626
0.9836
1.0515
0.9902
1.0511
0.9902
1.0457
0.9897
1.0516
0.9862
1.0511
0.9881
1.0462
Page LXXVII
Contd….
L
1.0042
1.0079
0.9873
0.9480
0.9938
0.9909
1.0072
0.9968 1.0004
0.9766
0.9880 1.0091 0.9924
U
1.0487
1.0390
1.0584
1.0350
1.0579
1.0756
1.0550
1.0460 1.0351
1.0110
1.0562 1.0406 1.0464
1992/93
L
0.9903
1.0014
0.9739
0.9494
0.9942
1.0103
1.0109
1.0013 1.0076
0.9832
0.9941 1.0090 0.9937
U
1.0431
1.0306
1.0480
1.0367
1.0665
1.0925
1.0615
1.0437 1.0416
1.0130
1.0610 1.0376 1.0478
1993/94
L
0.9901
1.0027
0.9856
0.9464
0.9917
0.9673
1.0099
1.0034 1.0084
0.9806
0.9946 1.0069 0.9905
U
1.0496
1.0366
1.0623
1.0428
1.0718
1.0414
1.0677
1.0463 1.0484
1.0128
1.0650 1.0395 1.0486
1994/95
L
0.9807
0.9863
0.9894
0.9396
0.9868
0.9733
1.0032
0.9901 1.0108
0.9816
1.0006 0.9937 0.9862
U
1.0349
1.0230
1.0667
1.0425
1.0589
1.0331
1.0669
1.0306 1.0622
1.0176
1.0709 1.0315 1.0447
1995/96
L
1.0304
1.0172
1.0374
0.9734
1.0251
1.0065
1.0520
0.9920 1.0439
0.9930
1.0215 1.0306 1.0183
U
1.1428
1.1493
1.1383
1.0997
1.1322
1.1561
1.1372
1.0989 1.1483
1.0800
1.1376 1.1102 1.1273
1996/97
L
0.9597
0.9583
0.9236
0.8337
0.9299
0.9581
0.9711
0.8724 0.9695
0.9199
0.9185 0.9465 0.9292
U
1.1653
1.1568
1.1281
1.0750
1.1232
1.1895
1.1309
1.0948 1.1459
1.0653
1.1268 1.1038 1.1249
1997/98
L
0.9414
0.9177
0.9504
0.8200
0.9798
0.9430
0.9869
0.8532 0.9578
0.9067
0.9458 0.9696 0.9297
U
1.1070
1.1014
1.0883
1.0394
1.1106
1.1100
1.0915
1.0706 1.0953
1.0368
1.0967 1.0788 1.0853
1998/99
L
0.9355
0.9163
0.9313
0.9054
0.9759
0.9471
0.9883
1.0482 0.9358
0.9264
0.9445 0.9537 0.9500
U
1.1042
1.0969
1.0743
1.0382
1.1056
1.1114
1.0915
1.0583 1.0759
1.0536
1.0936 1.0676 1.0807
1999/00
L
0.9371
0.9243
0.9350
0.9247
0.9743
0.9890
0.9881
0.6942 0.9423
0.9294
0.9583 0.9594 0.9262
U
1.0996
1.0981
1.0701
1.0505
1.0966
1.1606
1.0864
1.0405 1.0768
1.0532
1.1060 1.0689 1.0835
2000/01
L
0.9472
0.9208
0.9443
0.9328
0.9768
0.9448
0.9878
0.9842 0.9560
0.9266
0.9463 0.9642 0.9524
U
1.1000
1.0899
1.0884
1.0528
1.0977
1.1135
1.0875
1.0460 1.0855
1.1059
1.0954 1.0685 1.0857
2001/02
L
0.9441
0.9203
0.9160
0.9326
0.9734
0.9598
0.9868
0.8376 0.9577
0.8833
0.9470 0.9585 0.9339
U
1.0950
1.0857
1.0771
1.0441
1.0898
1.1392
1.0855
1.0523 1.0917
1.0698
1.0918 1.0657 1.0821
2002/03
L
0.9539
0.9215
0.9332
0.9272
0.9792
0.9383
0.9899
0.8302 0.9573
0.8772
0.9531 0.9640 0.9344
U
1.0993
1.0838
1.0836
1.0409
1.0925
1.1075
1.0843
1.0633 1.0844
1.0535
1.0914 1.0670 1.0791
2003/04
L
0.9569
0.9291
0.9339
0.9196
0.9820
0.9599
0.9809
0.8312 0.9632
0.8949
0.9493 0.9671 0.9381
U
1.0933
1.0806
1.0786
1.0277
1.0897
1.1248
1.0722
1.0610 1.0839
1.0667
1.0861 1.0663 1.0773
2004/05
L
0.9639
0.9264
0.9347
0.9305
0.9834
0.9650
0.9827
0.8669 0.9577
0.8836
0.9523 0.9696 0.9424
U
1.0971
1.0724
1.0705
1.0328
1.0849
1.1250
1.0690
1.0626 1.0727
1.0405
1.0817 1.0619 1.0723
Entire
L
0.9854
0.9958
0.9245
0.9156
0.9603
0.9981
0.9975
0.9631 0.9773
0.9410
0.9614 1.0022 0.9681
U
1.0674
1.0724
1.0458
1.0395
1.0679
1.0834
1.0839
1.0632 1.0580
1.0240
1.0685 1.0734 1.0621
Period
PreL
1.0023
1.0351
0.8986
0.9124
0.9420
1.0253
0.9988
1.0132 0.9786
0.9489
0.9583 1.0235 0.9771
U
1.0473
1.0649
1.0162
1.0332
1.0480
1.0589
1.0833
1.0678 1.0379
1.0034
1.0503 1.0812 1.0491
Reforms
PostL
0.9664
0.9528
0.9549
0.9193
0.9817
0.9678
0.9960
0.9089 0.9758
0.9322
0.9649 0.9784 0.9579
U
1.0908
1.0810
1.0806
1.0468
1.0911
1.1121
1.0846
1.0580 1.0815
1.0482
1.0898 1.0646 1.0773
Reforms
Notes: i) CI refers to the confidence interval; ii) L refers to the lower bound of confidence interval; and iii) U-refers to the upper bound of confidence interval.
Source: Author’s Calculations
1991/92
Appendix Tables
Page LXXVIII
Appendix Table A8.2: Confidence Intervals For Technical Efficiency Change Index
(α=0.05)
Year
1975/76
1976/77
1977/78
1978/79
1979/80
1980/81
1981/82
1982/83
1983/84
1984/85
1985/86
1986/87
1987/88
1988/89
1989/90
1990/91
CI
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
Appendix Tables
States
Andhra
Pradesh
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Karnataka
Madhya
Pradesh
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil
Nadu
Uttar
Pradesh
All
India#
1.1114
1.4862
1.1404
1.4181
1.1841
1.4192
1.0853
1.2698
1.1173
1.2747
1.0711
1.2101
1.0755
1.2112
1.0460
1.1732
0.9318
1.0513
0.9681
1.0830
0.9607
1.0627
0.9689
1.0653
0.9654
1.0600
0.8085
0.9336
0.9705
1.1284
0.9729
1.1204
1.2249
1.5932
1.2580
1.5247
1.2860
1.5108
1.1282
1.3155
1.0727
1.2328
1.0560
1.1993
1.0447
1.1877
1.0362
1.1608
0.9378
1.0816
0.9516
1.0763
0.9724
1.0804
0.9692
1.0723
0.9679
1.0688
0.9453
1.0421
1.0128
1.1228
1.0111
1.1124
0.6535
1.0727
0.8314
1.1532
1.0358
1.3628
0.9655
1.2385
0.9736
1.1911
0.9448
1.1415
0.9784
1.1943
0.9351
1.1636
0.8424
1.0669
0.8439
1.0844
0.9115
1.1566
0.8707
1.1052
0.9009
1.1112
0.8761
1.0697
0.9272
1.1162
0.9497
1.1103
0.8728
1.3085
0.8095
1.2262
0.8549
1.2798
0.7859
1.2270
0.8431
1.2539
0.8528
1.2411
0.8538
1.2103
0.8989
1.2508
0.7678
1.1525
0.8530
1.2180
0.8481
1.1910
0.8757
1.1958
0.8636
1.1718
0.8687
1.1876
0.8859
1.1916
0.9183
1.1944
0.8150
1.1422
0.9925
1.3054
1.0586
1.3537
1.1014
1.3659
1.0961
1.3027
1.0522
1.2412
1.0589
1.2437
1.0749
1.2401
0.8913
1.0557
0.9247
1.0919
0.9668
1.1330
0.9698
1.1104
0.9688
1.0895
0.8513
0.9929
0.9492
1.1122
0.9511
1.1017
1.1806
1.5056
1.2167
1.4461
1.2265
1.3982
1.0940
1.2430
1.0842
1.2120
1.0612
1.1833
1.0602
1.1840
1.0292
1.1464
0.9782
1.0686
0.9908
1.0705
0.9969
1.0631
1.0019
1.0625
0.9974
1.0597
0.6959
0.8578
0.9186
1.1701
0.9208
1.1570
1.0682
1.5148
1.1040
1.4879
1.1250
1.4597
1.1008
1.3811
1.0727
1.2887
1.0130
1.2024
1.0513
1.2496
1.0735
1.2621
0.8694
1.0624
0.8815
1.0957
0.9231
1.1373
0.9413
1.1209
0.9375
1.0911
0.9110
1.0577
0.9590
1.1056
0.9753
1.1077
1.2194
1.5843
1.2374
1.5048
1.2143
1.4526
1.1107
1.3297
1.0395
1.2562
1.0097
1.2143
0.9349
1.1270
0.9787
1.1458
0.9274
1.0741
0.9850
1.1217
0.9841
1.1045
0.9882
1.1040
0.9908
1.1011
0.9358
1.0630
1.0234
1.1718
1.0267
1.1591
1.0546
1.3914
1.0556
1.3326
1.1474
1.4268
1.1350
1.3877
1.0926
1.3056
1.0549
1.2527
1.0498
1.2374
1.0600
1.2352
0.9104
1.0958
0.9229
1.1022
0.9262
1.0949
0.9362
1.0934
0.9467
1.0864
0.9176
1.0464
0.9928
1.1186
0.9920
1.1029
1.0037
1.3117
1.0144
1.2581
1.1270
1.3753
0.9660
1.1890
1.0603
1.2851
1.0006
1.2012
0.9969
1.1913
1.0195
1.1860
0.9276
1.0785
0.9685
1.0988
0.9586
1.0703
0.9673
1.0699
0.9653
1.0638
0.8920
0.9866
0.9918
1.1029
0.9984
1.0996
0.9240
1.2425
1.0938
1.3651
1.1191
1.3355
1.0693
1.2570
1.0845
1.2463
1.0581
1.2095
1.0636
1.2152
1.0838
1.2379
0.9006
1.0605
0.9521
1.1103
0.9662
1.1120
0.9688
1.0997
0.9666
1.0879
0.8076
0.9631
0.9385
1.1266
0.9382
1.1138
1.1959
1.5989
1.2236
1.5404
1.2560
1.5416
1.1080
1.3571
1.1380
1.3653
1.0967
1.2947
1.0801
1.2717
1.0864
1.2579
0.9332
1.1160
0.9634
1.1249
0.9777
1.1243
0.9806
1.1171
0.9800
1.1083
0.9451
1.0659
1.0070
1.1312
1.0089
1.1203
1.0108
1.3848
1.0712
1.3747
1.1303
1.4079
1.0491
1.2952
1.0533
1.2671
1.0204
1.2154
1.0184
1.2097
1.0252
1.2042
0.8999
1.0800
0.9325
1.1059
0.9485
1.1102
0.9524
1.1008
0.9535
1.0912
0.8682
1.0191
0.9639
1.1328
0.9713
1.1246
Page LXXIX
Contd….
L
0.9713
1.0172
0.9368
0.9249
0.9551
0.9277
0.9708
1.0305 0.9899
1.0008
0.9391 1.0094 0.9722
U
1.1079
1.1143
1.0871
1.1714
1.0973
1.1550
1.0908
1.1541 1.0921
1.0982
1.1033 1.1122 1.1150
1992/93
L
0.8146
0.9964
0.8255
0.8913
0.7608
0.8273
0.8256
1.0268 0.9352
0.9876
0.7745 0.9582 0.8809
U
0.9536
1.0847
0.9798
1.1539
0.9185
1.0309
0.9566
1.1390 1.0333
1.0755
0.9483 1.0569 1.0249
1993/94
L
0.9183
0.9902
0.9154
0.8223
0.9151
0.8930
0.9327
1.0060 0.9565
0.9810
0.9172 0.9587 0.9326
U
1.0914
1.0888
1.0930
1.1142
1.1231
1.1212
1.1016
1.1224 1.0714
1.0763
1.1322 1.0706 1.1003
1994/95
L
0.7964
0.8725
0.6614
0.7636
0.7044
0.8669
0.6484
0.8944 0.7894
0.8595
0.6892 0.8212 0.7761
U
0.9556
0.9755
0.8725
1.1107
0.9117
1.0470
0.8592
1.0111 0.9410
0.9617
0.9155 0.9527 0.9572
1995/96
L
0.4390
0.3359
0.6987
0.6568
0.5392
0.2556
0.6796
0.4494 0.4800
0.3585
0.5069 0.5396 0.4756
U
0.6016
0.6170
0.9955
1.0112
0.7830
0.4094
0.9570
0.5959 0.7479
0.5513
0.8013 0.7373 0.7108
1996/97
L
0.8557
0.7465
0.8570
0.7393
0.8733
0.8519
0.8916
0.7381 0.8708
0.7982
0.8345 0.8723 0.8256
U
1.2310
1.1815
1.1879
1.1460
1.2208
1.3074
1.2166
1.1523 1.2085
1.1701
1.2208 1.1666 1.2001
1997/98
L
0.7467
0.7456
0.8252
0.7635
0.8795
0.7934
0.8740
0.9138 0.8340
0.7579
0.8248 0.8608 0.8164
U
1.1891
1.1799
1.1831
1.1457
1.2064
1.2081
1.1909
1.1537 1.1813
1.1141
1.1954 1.1551 1.1749
1998/99
L
0.8806
0.7674
0.8123
0.7562
0.8823
0.8044
0.8843
0.9046 0.8207
0.7831
0.8332 0.8554 0.8307
U
1.1993
1.1892
1.1629
1.1423
1.1937
1.2153
1.1870
1.1449 1.1645
1.1436
1.1908 1.1498 1.1734
1999/00
L
0.8851
0.7892
0.8227
0.7817
0.8815
0.8412
0.8773
0.8923 0.8262
0.7853
0.7970 0.8640 0.8360
U
1.1956
1.1933
1.1584
1.1517
1.1851
1.2646
1.1711
1.1268 1.1668
1.1446
1.1600 1.1522 1.1720
2000/01
L
0.8518
0.7301
0.6890
0.7673
0.8306
0.7780
0.8408
0.8891 0.7927
0.7348
0.7816 0.8044 0.7890
U
1.1471
1.1262
1.0484
1.1287
1.1120
1.1798
1.1092
1.1210 1.1138
1.1506
1.1247 1.0803 1.1197
2001/02
L
0.8638
0.7480
0.7877
0.7767
0.8826
0.8087
0.8933
0.9084 0.8239
0.7464
0.8333 0.8370 0.8242
U
1.1626
1.1510
1.1546
1.1346
1.1671
1.2281
1.1604
1.1346 1.1518
1.1464
1.1846 1.1269 1.1583
2002/03
L
0.8948
0.7824
0.8205
0.7800
0.9017
0.8134
0.9120
0.9212 0.8464
0.7518
0.8466 0.8641 0.8428
U
1.1873
1.1754
1.1720
1.1399
1.1743
1.2032
1.1637
1.1428 1.1647
1.1367
1.1911 1.1518 1.1667
2003/04
L
0.8074
0.7916
0.8238
0.7712
0.9051
0.8379
0.9031
0.9210 0.8596
0.7703
0.8434 0.8677 0.8404
U
1.1783
1.1715
1.1647
1.1259
1.1702
1.2174
1.1478
1.1398 1.1594
1.1458
1.1818 1.1511 1.1626
2004/05
L
0.9039
0.7941
0.8320
0.7925
0.9083
0.8432
0.9139
0.9324 0.8610
0.7723
0.8503 0.8736 0.8550
U
1.1787
1.1615
1.1535
1.1306
1.1613
1.2136
1.1390
1.1408 1.1445
1.1186
1.1735 1.1450 1.1548
Entire
L
0.9202
0.9092
0.8529
0.8190
0.9097
0.8939
0.9283
0.9551 0.9186
0.8820
0.8961 0.9540 0.9025
U
1.1318
1.1462
1.1217
1.1754
1.1362
1.1326
1.1604
1.1469 1.1468
1.1093
1.1370 1.1660 1.1424
Period
PreL
1.0193
1.0493
0.8981
0.8525
0.9790
1.0201
0.9970
1.0334 1.0093
0.9898
0.9922 1.0568 0.9896
U
1.1762
1.1999
1.1439
1.2181
1.1751
1.1662
1.2174
1.2102 1.2005
1.1560
1.1694 1.2475 1.1897
Reforms
PostL
0.8187
0.7719
0.8040
0.7824
0.8364
0.7686
0.8556
0.8728 0.8249
0.7731
0.7975 0.8487 0.8122
U
1.0832
1.0878
1.0969
1.1285
1.0933
1.0953
1.0985
1.0785 1.0884
1.0583
1.1012 1.0795 1.0907
Reforms
Notes: i) CI refers to the confidence interval; ii) L refers to the lower bound of confidence interval; and iii) U-refers to the upper bound of confidence interval.
Source: Author’s Calculations
1991/92
Appendix Tables
Page LXXX
Appendix Table A8.3: Confidence Intervals For Pure Technical Efficiency Change Index
(α=0.05)
Year
1975/76
1976/77
1977/78
1978/79
1979/80
1980/81
1981/82
1982/83
1983/84
1984/85
1985/86
1986/87
1987/88
1988/89
1989/90
1990/91
CI
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
Appendix Tables
States
Andhra
Pradesh
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Karnataka
Madhya
Pradesh
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil
Nadu
Uttar
Pradesh
All
India#
1.0977
1.4749
1.1227
1.4086
1.1770
1.4227
1.1745
1.3616
1.1952
1.3410
1.1527
1.2803
1.1656
1.2882
1.0804
1.2014
0.9383
1.0698
0.9413
1.0767
0.9550
1.0760
0.9664
1.0802
0.9659
1.0707
0.8853
0.9986
0.9682
1.0945
0.9688
1.0862
1.2136
1.5766
1.2209
1.4759
1.2608
1.4753
1.1470
1.3279
1.1478
1.2958
1.1450
1.2781
1.1379
1.2742
1.1004
1.2234
0.9306
1.0841
0.9472
1.0965
0.8942
1.1061
0.9011
1.1078
0.9605
1.0884
0.9307
1.0659
0.9781
1.1216
0.9800
1.1098
0.8096
1.2088
0.8038
1.0796
0.9351
1.2467
0.9052
1.1640
0.9523
1.1985
0.9088
1.1403
0.9468
1.1961
0.8938
1.1467
0.8680
1.1153
0.8949
1.1264
0.9128
1.1531
0.8870
1.1165
0.9015
1.1095
0.8940
1.0918
0.9272
1.1099
0.9464
1.1041
0.8728
1.3085
0.7695
1.2659
0.7946
1.3001
0.8045
1.2718
0.8493
1.2934
0.8674
1.2905
0.8785
1.2667
0.8929
1.2867
0.7269
1.1649
0.8055
1.2121
0.8061
1.1974
0.8297
1.1968
0.8222
1.1660
0.8189
1.1557
0.8574
1.1809
0.8896
1.1803
0.9512
1.2764
0.9366
1.1587
1.0050
1.2146
0.9553
1.1413
1.0250
1.2019
0.9865
1.1410
1.0240
1.1771
1.0046
1.1408
0.9141
1.0674
0.9379
1.0839
0.9732
1.1103
0.9800
1.1029
0.9697
1.0736
0.9564
1.0549
0.9823
1.0780
0.9815
1.0666
1.1468
1.4291
1.1563
1.3578
1.1938
1.3533
1.1050
1.2517
1.1359
1.2570
1.1364
1.2549
1.1438
1.2637
1.0466
1.1745
0.9413
1.0708
0.9658
1.0890
0.9815
1.0800
0.9845
1.0757
0.9892
1.0724
0.7085
0.8882
0.9073
1.1688
0.9130
1.1569
1.0067
1.3850
0.8333
1.1686
0.9433
1.2003
0.8797
1.0858
0.9750
1.1823
0.9238
1.1112
0.9636
1.1611
0.9454
1.1309
0.9117
1.1116
0.9326
1.1208
0.9321
1.1155
0.9430
1.1076
0.9369
1.0776
0.9165
1.0578
0.9509
1.0896
0.9672
1.0902
0.8778
1.3147
0.7861
1.2728
0.8166
1.3239
0.7621
1.2743
0.7519
1.1861
0.7485
1.2549
0.7752
1.2739
0.7575
1.2575
0.6293
1.2404
0.6325
1.2648
0.6741
1.2687
0.7023
1.2662
0.7170
1.2083
0.6271
1.2058
0.6785
1.2167
0.6996
1.2032
1.0319
1.3811
1.0707
1.3716
1.1203
1.3919
1.1196
1.3565
1.1067
1.3141
1.0859
1.2771
1.0908
1.2730
1.0698
1.2426
0.9285
1.1120
0.8964
1.0914
0.9192
1.1001
0.9314
1.0996
0.9561
1.0973
0.9275
1.0541
0.9776
1.0950
0.9793
1.0826
0.9822
1.2800
0.9794
1.2274
1.1087
1.3637
1.0484
1.2659
1.1272
1.3339
1.0732
1.2532
1.0770
1.2537
1.0671
1.2260
0.9158
1.0690
0.9467
1.0910
0.9448
1.0726
0.9515
1.0715
0.9562
1.0639
0.8913
0.9973
0.9728
1.0961
0.9773
1.0897
0.8019
1.0945
0.9749
1.2068
1.0446
1.2460
1.1016
1.2728
1.1207
1.2625
1.0812
1.2059
1.0821
1.2066
1.0349
1.1647
0.9305
1.0721
0.9405
1.0797
0.9648
1.1016
0.9656
1.0949
0.9668
1.0833
0.9260
1.0441
0.9680
1.0886
0.9659
1.0779
0.9952
1.3771
1.0034
1.3062
1.1087
1.3857
1.1177
1.3517
1.1589
1.3572
1.1327
1.3155
1.1329
1.3079
1.1229
1.2830
0.9390
1.1084
0.9410
1.0943
0.9718
1.1218
0.9760
1.1155
0.9817
1.1102
0.9502
1.0726
0.9778
1.0920
0.9798
1.0826
0.9745
1.3367
0.9605
1.2702
1.0324
1.3244
1.0003
1.2575
1.0363
1.2672
1.0118
1.2318
1.0278
1.2444
0.9955
1.2054
0.8752
1.1061
0.8932
1.1175
0.9063
1.1240
0.9145
1.1184
0.9234
1.1010
0.8631
1.0545
0.9245
1.1185
0.9337
1.1100
Page LXXXI
Contd….
L
0.9702
0.9883
0.9449
0.8771
0.9813
0.9204
0.9664
0.7009 0.9751
0.9794
0.9635 0.9838 0.9339
U
1.0796
1.1120
1.0897
1.1466
1.0607
1.1558
1.0752
1.1874 1.0690
1.0862
1.0684 1.0773 1.1000
1992/93
L
0.7621
0.9443
0.8695
0.8441
0.8576
0.8068
0.8955
0.4701 0.9143
0.9521
0.8392 0.9161 0.8274
U
0.8982
1.0665
1.0117
1.1440
0.9519
1.0249
1.0058
1.1473 1.0074
1.0527
0.9602 1.0092 1.0210
1993/94
L
0.8980
0.9422
0.9130
0.7983
0.9355
0.8800
0.9294
0.6415 0.9286
0.9495
0.9338 0.9255 0.8849
U
1.0801
1.0746
1.0748
1.1172
1.0558
1.1271
1.0569
1.1342 1.0501
1.0607
1.0816 1.0423 1.0792
1994/95
L
0.7721
0.8624
0.7457
0.7568
0.6781
0.8369
0.7200
0.4913 0.7708
0.8591
0.7045 0.8165 0.7439
U
0.9475
1.0033
0.9193
1.1277
0.8276
1.0544
0.8665
1.1205 0.9372
0.9801
0.8680 0.9518 0.9627
1995/96
L
0.4822
0.1736
0.7726
0.6493
0.6227
0.2027
0.7506
0.8436 0.4565
0.3891
0.6015 0.5144 0.4884
U
0.6728
0.6783
0.9835
1.0342
0.8763
0.4444
1.0211
0.9736 0.7642
0.6012
0.8905 0.7482 0.7853
1996/97
L
0.8498
0.8020
0.8592
0.7307
0.8767
0.7055
0.9035
0.7174 0.8653
0.8289
0.8411 0.8669 0.8180
U
1.2145
1.1954
1.1730
1.1772
1.1954
1.3442
1.1815
1.3936 1.2295
1.2024
1.1975 1.1801 1.2219
1997/98
L
0.7384
0.6901
0.6526
0.7611
0.7945
0.5853
0.7929
0.7629 0.8473
0.8057
0.7696 0.8467 0.7500
U
1.1928
1.1812
1.1351
1.1745
1.1215
1.2353
1.0874
1.3686 1.1983
1.1445
1.1288 1.1710 1.1763
1998/99
L
0.8704
0.6902
0.9038
0.7552
0.8693
0.6118
0.8800
0.7356 0.8317
0.8282
0.8001 0.8514 0.7975
U
1.1953
1.1864
1.1770
1.1680
1.2164
1.2345
1.1982
1.3480 1.1792
1.1722
1.1937 1.1687 1.2022
1999/00
L
0.8738
0.6936
0.9027
0.7750
0.8797
0.0721
0.8846
1.0177 0.8458
0.4551
0.7992 0.8484 0.6557
U
1.1849
1.1754
1.1584
1.1772
1.1990
1.2721
1.1870
1.3551 1.1801
1.1891
1.1987 1.1616 1.2021
2000/01
L
0.8276
0.6522
0.8001
0.7599
0.8184
0.0295
0.8027
0.9779 0.8070
0.4187
0.7365 0.7939 0.5721
U
1.1210
1.1175
1.0528
1.1623
1.1084
1.2575
1.0722
1.3707 1.1162
1.1845
1.1012 1.0999 1.1441
2001/02
L
0.8611
0.7081
0.8789
0.7501
0.8664
0.0647
0.8716
0.9493 0.8446
0.4327
0.7915 0.7942 0.6348
U
1.1661
1.1956
1.1463
1.1536
1.1603
1.3026
1.1488
1.3387 1.1658
1.2451
1.1774 1.1101 1.1908
2002/03
L
0.8890
0.7322
0.8904
0.7663
0.8940
0.0732
0.8928
0.8461 0.8645
0.4393
0.8186 0.8552 0.6514
U
1.1890
1.1993
1.1592
1.1751
1.1825
1.2655
1.1638
1.3657 1.1791
1.2156
1.1963 1.1765 1.2044
2003/04
L
0.8942
0.7283
0.7610
0.7578
0.8888
0.1556
0.8835
0.7794 0.8710
0.4325
0.8261 0.8517 0.6783
U
1.1799
1.1914
1.1645
1.1616
1.1735
1.2692
1.1474
1.3563 1.1727
1.2388
1.1895 1.1695 1.1999
2004/05
L
0.9036
0.7531
0.9013
0.7785
0.9000
0.1409
0.8950
0.4109 0.8749
0.7545
0.8255 0.8609 0.6838
U
1.1781
1.1845
1.1575
1.1646
1.1705
1.2851
1.1410
1.3446 1.1598
1.2233
1.1781 1.1629 1.1945
Entire
L
0.9309
0.8671
0.8698
0.7995
0.9097
0.5383
0.8985
0.7196 0.9190
0.8115
0.8950 0.9301 0.8322
U
1.1421
1.1642
1.1216
1.1924
1.1085
1.1543
1.1152
1.2577 1.1500
1.1345
1.1200 1.1486 1.1501
Period
PreL
1.0420
1.0489
0.8982
0.8291
0.9735
1.0203
0.9343
0.7241 1.0102
0.9988
0.9886 1.0277 0.9529
U
1.1988
1.2221
1.1433
1.2324
1.1290
1.1762
1.1350
1.2514 1.2025
1.1670
1.1415 1.2116 1.1836
Reforms
PostL
0.8183
0.6977
0.8385
0.7669
0.8419
0.2592
0.8593
0.7145 0.8248
0.6400
0.7988 0.8298 0.7128
U
1.0806
1.1013
1.0973
1.1482
1.0856
1.1297
1.0929
1.2649 1.0928
1.0985
1.0959 1.0805 1.1130
Reforms
Notes: i) CI refers to the confidence interval; ii) L refers to the lower bound of confidence interval; and iii) U-refers to the upper bound of confidence interval.
Source: Author’s Calculations
1991/92
Appendix Tables
Page LXXXII
Appendix Table A8.4: Confidence Intervals For Scale Efficiency Change Index
(α=0.05)
Year
1975/76
1976/77
1977/78
1978/79
1979/80
1980/81
1981/82
1982/83
1983/84
1984/85
1985/86
1986/87
1987/88
1988/89
1989/90
1990/91
CI
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
Appendix Tables
States
Andhra
Pradesh
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Karnataka
Madhya
Pradesh
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil
Nadu
Uttar
Pradesh
All
India#
0.9825
1.0335
0.9695
1.0395
0.9483
1.0224
0.8874
0.9620
0.9019
0.9786
0.9004
0.9734
0.8968
0.9658
0.9420
0.9985
0.9527
1.0218
0.9777
1.0468
0.9623
1.0259
0.9593
1.0241
0.9674
1.0219
0.8857
0.9666
0.9670
1.0684
0.9703
1.0644
0.9775
1.0466
1.0031
1.0631
0.9951
1.0477
0.9651
1.0109
0.9189
0.9768
0.9057
0.9664
0.9041
0.9604
0.9292
0.9744
0.9840
1.0210
0.9616
1.0171
0.9569
1.0320
0.9444
1.0294
0.9575
1.0249
0.9518
1.0276
0.9746
1.0483
0.9767
1.0444
0.7441
0.9408
0.9604
1.1544
0.9950
1.1861
0.9613
1.1376
0.9057
1.0503
0.9263
1.0673
0.9232
1.0701
0.9431
1.0759
0.8901
1.0244
0.8674
1.0340
0.9015
1.0835
0.8989
1.0579
0.9283
1.0642
0.9087
1.0387
0.9397
1.0562
0.9471
1.0525
1.0000
1.0000
0.9289
1.0840
0.9246
1.1028
0.8999
1.0193
0.8646
1.0261
0.8705
1.0191
0.8662
1.0093
0.8810
1.0436
0.8783
1.1037
0.8871
1.1269
0.8879
1.1150
0.9001
1.1156
0.9067
1.1023
0.9477
1.1168
0.9351
1.0822
0.9502
1.0748
0.7642
1.0048
0.9717
1.2387
0.9522
1.2246
1.0576
1.2927
0.9843
1.1461
0.9910
1.1491
0.9624
1.1142
1.0063
1.1371
0.9066
1.0528
0.9227
1.0647
0.9364
1.0730
0.9359
1.0570
0.9552
1.0562
0.8564
0.9744
0.9366
1.0617
0.9447
1.0582
0.9860
1.1135
1.0137
1.1044
0.9939
1.0629
0.9634
1.0155
0.9363
0.9878
0.9103
0.9677
0.9064
0.9627
0.9566
1.0018
0.9802
1.0471
0.9638
1.0346
0.9647
1.0294
0.9678
1.0318
0.9676
1.0261
0.9316
1.0092
0.9611
1.0422
0.9624
1.0390
0.8700
1.2632
1.0559
1.4703
0.9846
1.3865
1.0802
1.4226
0.9821
1.1739
0.9807
1.1723
0.9722
1.1679
1.0198
1.2076
0.8561
1.0400
0.8563
1.0572
0.8996
1.1039
0.9150
1.0853
0.9309
1.0746
0.9290
1.0600
0.9475
1.0675
0.9552
1.0608
0.8054
1.5950
0.9308
1.5529
0.7881
1.4785
0.7831
1.4187
0.7730
1.3841
0.6994
1.3121
0.6362
1.1940
0.6466
1.2489
0.6641
1.2257
0.6640
1.2453
0.6484
1.2059
0.6617
1.1889
0.6973
1.2016
0.6561
1.1803
0.6965
1.2661
0.7133
1.2476
0.9821
1.0412
0.9253
1.0166
0.9699
1.0726
0.9676
1.0721
0.9488
1.0262
0.9308
1.0142
0.9230
1.0032
0.9560
1.0227
0.9416
1.0256
0.9676
1.0640
0.9510
1.0424
0.9548
1.0381
0.9522
1.0227
0.9566
1.0248
0.9804
1.0527
0.9816
1.0478
0.9975
1.0577
1.0051
1.0609
0.9835
1.0377
0.8970
0.9815
0.9063
1.0116
0.8995
1.0021
0.8941
0.9928
0.9269
1.0050
0.9757
1.0478
0.9767
1.0474
0.9705
1.0369
0.9733
1.0383
0.9757
1.0305
0.9654
1.0233
0.9790
1.0424
0.9832
1.0439
1.0618
1.2392
1.0319
1.2251
1.0025
1.1273
0.9165
1.0264
0.9215
1.0191
0.9326
1.0421
0.9332
1.0456
0.9950
1.1028
0.9149
1.0382
0.9597
1.0749
0.9444
1.0595
0.9510
1.0511
0.9577
1.0414
0.8372
0.9546
0.9363
1.0680
0.9411
1.0641
1.0559
1.3562
1.0813
1.3443
1.0091
1.2397
0.8935
1.1135
0.9003
1.0885
0.8875
1.0598
0.8785
1.0409
0.8996
1.0441
0.9159
1.0791
0.9565
1.0909
0.9429
1.0570
0.9488
1.0537
0.9503
1.0417
0.9522
1.0349
0.9890
1.0736
0.9933
1.0682
0.9292
1.1281
0.9886
1.1851
0.9603
1.1580
0.9363
1.1125
0.9103
1.0672
0.8999
1.0579
0.8869
1.0412
0.9197
1.0688
0.9007
1.0593
0.9088
1.0738
0.9092
1.0710
0.9134
1.0634
0.9256
1.0579
0.8938
1.0325
0.9334
1.0760
0.9401
1.0709
Page LXXXIII
Contd….
L
0.9698
0.9795
0.9375
0.9716
0.9510
0.9649
0.9564
0.7331 0.9854
0.9861
0.9450 0.9937 0.9451
U
1.0586
1.0419
1.0449
1.0883
1.0579
1.0372
1.0565
1.2456 1.0487
1.0446
1.0628 1.0651 1.0698
1992/93
L
1.0245
0.9976
0.8941
0.9552
0.8619
0.9759
0.8779
0.7905 0.9927
0.9998
0.8869 1.0110 0.9362
U
1.1046
1.0621
1.0179
1.0774
0.9924
1.0500
0.9921
1.2877 1.0546
1.0578
1.0221 1.0810 1.0642
1993/94
L
0.9743
0.9917
0.9306
0.9334
0.9400
0.9584
0.9471
0.7721 0.9859
0.9924
0.9321 0.9905 0.9438
U
1.0526
1.0614
1.0826
1.0630
1.1051
1.0432
1.0973
1.2888 1.0582
1.0537
1.0924 1.0684 1.0872
1994/95
L
0.9757
0.9422
0.8096
0.9181
0.9820
0.9531
0.8385
0.6974 0.9721
0.9523
0.9307 0.9638 0.9071
U
1.0552
1.0265
1.0196
1.0539
1.1600
1.0633
1.0605
1.2133 1.0486
1.0239
1.1076 1.0419 1.0714
1995/96
L
0.7914
0.8315
0.8627
0.9066
0.7668
0.8081
0.7751
0.3641 0.9380
0.8226
0.7450 0.9341 0.7769
U
0.9629
0.9930
1.1092
1.0591
0.9760
1.0195
1.0280
0.8916 1.0630
0.9812
0.9798 1.0618 1.0089
1996/97
L
0.8767
0.8401
0.8610
0.8897
0.8735
0.8509
0.8594
1.7497 0.8922
0.8561
0.8615 0.8977 0.9210
U
1.1078
1.0737
1.1195
1.0543
1.1272
1.0856
1.1406
1.1927 1.0684
1.0498
1.1300 1.0713 1.1010
1997/98
L
0.8660
0.8472
0.9044
0.8855
0.9377
0.7170
0.9358
1.8181 0.8966
0.8582
0.9014 0.9003 0.9302
U
1.0935
1.0995
1.1622
1.0595
1.1973
1.1036
1.2260
1.2304 1.0755
1.0524
1.1833 1.0718 1.1278
1998/99
L
0.8758
0.8477
0.8397
0.8910
0.8540
0.7446
0.8521
1.8399 0.9020
0.8599
0.8542 0.9025 0.9120
U
1.0949
1.1031
1.1022
1.0570
1.1042
1.1104
1.1218
1.2341 1.0777
1.0545
1.1241 1.0639 1.1031
1999/00
L
0.8897
0.8689
0.8485
0.8955
0.8541
0.7487
0.8398
1.5911 0.9048
0.8545
0.8145 0.9104 0.9014
U
1.0940
1.1134
1.1132
1.0589
1.1018
1.1348
1.1123
1.2055 1.0700
1.0534
1.0858 1.0716 1.1005
2000/01
L
0.9062
0.8638
0.8384
0.8857
0.8722
0.7232
0.8959
0.5931 0.9175
0.5472
0.8662 0.8933 0.8065
U
1.1058
1.1148
1.1133
1.0638
1.1189
1.0932
1.1595
1.1896 1.0823
1.0807
1.1424 1.0684 1.1105
2001/02
L
0.8838
0.8285
0.8375
0.8851
0.8722
0.4517
0.8792
1.4460 0.9045
0.5053
0.8539 0.9296 0.8245
U
1.0806
1.0621
1.1289
1.0784
1.1218
1.1203
1.1324
1.2106 1.0729
1.0384
1.1267 1.1119 1.1063
2002/03
L
0.8839
0.8424
0.8486
0.8749
0.8669
0.4158
0.8755
0.7323 0.9067
0.4242
0.8525 0.8959 0.7607
U
1.0823
1.0793
1.1321
1.0639
1.1023
1.1445
1.1171
1.1912 1.0680
1.0644
1.1115 1.0708 1.1017
2003/04
L
0.8913
0.8550
0.8483
0.8706
0.8761
0.2920
0.8850
1.2852 0.9129
0.4627
0.8558 0.9036 0.7835
U
1.0760
1.0801
1.1260
1.0624
1.1045
1.1578
1.1152
1.1851 1.0661
1.0598
1.1068 1.0748 1.1006
2004/05
L
0.9000
0.8479
0.8460
0.8784
0.8731
0.4730
0.8878
0.5543 0.9156
0.4967
0.8594 0.9037 0.7658
U
1.0710
1.0673
1.1168
1.0619
1.0956
1.1333
1.1100
1.1661 1.0592
1.0321
1.1070 1.0703 1.0903
Entire
L
0.9247
0.9211
0.8900
0.9051
0.9132
0.8168
0.9156
0.8142 0.9434
0.8405
0.9109 0.9415 0.8936
U
1.0407
1.0415
1.0815
1.0676
1.1000
1.0578
1.1377
1.2495 1.0498
1.0366
1.0836 1.0902 1.0850
Period
PreL
0.9413
0.9562
0.9134
0.9073
0.9405
0.9600
0.9501
0.7126 0.9554
0.9561
0.9510 0.9517 0.9219
U
1.0128
1.0177
1.0670
1.0705
1.1035
1.0290
1.1685
1.3029 1.0365
1.0285
1.0715 1.1074 1.0820
Reforms
PostL
0.9060
0.8825
0.8640
0.9025
0.8829
0.6791
0.8778
0.9480 0.9298
0.7253
0.8671 0.9299 0.8624
U
1.0736
1.0694
1.0984
1.0644
1.0961
1.0918
1.1035
1.1911 1.0652
1.0460
1.0976 1.0708 1.0884
Reforms
Notes: i) CI refers to the confidence interval; ii) L refers to the lower bound of confidence interval; and iii) U-refers to the upper bound of confidence interval.
Source: Author’s Calculations
1991/92
Appendix Tables
Page LXXXIV
Appendix Table A8.5: Confidence Intervals For Technological Change Index
(α=0.05)
Year
1975/76
1976/77
1977/78
1978/79
1979/80
1980/81
1981/82
1982/83
1983/84
1984/85
1985/86
1986/87
1987/88
1988/89
1989/90
1990/91
CI
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
Appendix Tables
States
Andhra
Pradesh
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Karnataka
Madhya
Pradesh
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil
Nadu
Uttar
Pradesh
All
India#
0.6172
0.9087
0.6869
0.8919
0.6931
0.8685
0.7827
0.9265
0.8106
0.9198
0.8296
0.9296
0.8365
0.9338
0.8580
0.9557
0.9817
1.0895
0.9501
1.0540
0.9498
1.0409
0.9525
1.0392
0.9546
1.0412
1.0981
1.2262
0.9033
1.0450
0.9084
1.0421
0.6356
0.9003
0.6948
0.8814
0.7015
0.8613
0.8117
0.9486
0.8528
0.9741
0.8722
0.9774
0.8730
0.9793
0.8823
0.9777
0.9699
1.0991
0.9396
1.0558
0.9522
1.0496
0.9552
1.0473
0.9573
1.0470
0.9841
1.0753
0.9044
1.0016
0.9105
1.0000
0.5062
0.8566
0.6147
0.8752
0.6178
0.8434
0.7638
1.0041
0.8003
0.9827
0.8169
0.9812
0.8027
0.9769
0.8614
1.0546
0.9444
1.1717
0.9074
1.1451
0.8645
1.0867
0.9266
1.1313
0.8929
1.0902
0.9406
1.1283
0.8968
1.0736
0.9067
1.0522
0.4983
0.9919
0.6355
1.0783
0.6170
1.0640
0.7502
1.1688
0.6854
1.0670
0.7129
1.0529
0.7071
1.0325
0.7301
1.0254
0.8307
1.1657
0.7642
1.0776
0.7805
1.0791
0.7888
1.0643
0.8133
1.0880
0.7924
1.0722
0.7871
1.0698
0.7861
1.0402
0.6108
0.9075
0.6646
0.8941
0.6554
0.8632
0.7322
0.9399
0.7703
0.9214
0.7888
0.9215
0.7935
0.9243
0.8062
0.9304
0.9851
1.1226
0.9470
1.0937
0.9169
1.0550
0.9319
1.0528
0.9450
1.0519
1.0434
1.1758
0.9141
1.0585
0.9221
1.0555
0.6573
0.8958
0.7094
0.8745
0.7324
0.8576
0.8270
0.9423
0.8609
0.9574
0.8777
0.9644
0.8889
0.9746
0.9231
1.0103
0.9849
1.0698
0.9600
1.0358
0.9670
1.0292
0.9694
1.0267
0.9707
1.0287
1.2386
1.4114
0.8610
1.0781
0.8651
1.0743
0.6351
0.9557
0.6833
0.9585
0.6531
0.9189
0.7313
0.9780
0.7760
0.9565
0.7983
0.9528
0.7928
0.9482
0.8039
0.9616
0.9765
1.1592
0.9356
1.1393
0.8835
1.0766
0.8955
1.0698
0.9311
1.0772
0.9749
1.1159
0.9206
1.0572
0.9262
1.0473
0.6210
0.8896
0.6831
0.8768
0.6852
0.8624
0.7975
0.9537
0.8522
1.0058
0.8843
1.0211
0.8891
1.0312
0.8953
1.0180
0.9325
1.0616
0.9160
1.0284
0.9181
1.0196
0.9218
1.0191
0.9215
1.0156
0.9604
1.0697
0.8678
0.9872
0.8779
0.9825
0.6129
0.8929
0.6727
0.8913
0.6557
0.8733
0.7144
0.9238
0.7602
0.9246
0.7848
0.9306
0.7914
0.9339
0.8079
0.9425
0.9483
1.1171
0.9482
1.1020
0.9075
1.0617
0.9130
1.0589
0.9241
1.0553
0.9690
1.0953
0.9118
1.0238
0.9209
1.0212
0.6254
0.8886
0.6752
0.8823
0.6685
0.8698
0.7614
0.9482
0.7801
0.9403
0.8081
0.9512
0.8148
0.9614
0.8386
0.9644
0.9305
1.0681
0.9132
1.0284
0.9258
1.0267
0.9333
1.0261
0.9375
1.0263
0.9908
1.0839
0.8893
0.9871
0.8968
0.9862
0.6204
0.8702
0.6825
0.8661
0.6970
0.8463
0.8038
0.9495
0.8081
0.9306
0.8170
0.9264
0.8116
0.9220
0.8247
0.9387
0.9814
1.1186
0.9323
1.0722
0.9241
1.0492
0.9381
1.0529
0.9482
1.0565
1.0725
1.2267
0.8991
1.0685
0.9066
1.0662
0.5986
0.8955
0.6626
0.8843
0.6619
0.8694
0.7576
0.9466
0.7790
0.9343
0.8023
0.9392
0.8057
0.9422
0.8142
0.9409
0.9305
1.0919
0.9206
1.0618
0.9153
1.0441
0.9221
1.0417
0.9287
1.0409
0.9627
1.0746
0.9025
1.0121
0.9097
1.0092
0.6012
0.9038
0.6717
0.9029
0.6691
0.8815
0.7687
0.9673
0.7933
0.9587
0.8148
0.9616
0.8158
0.9627
0.8357
0.9759
0.9487
1.1106
0.9180
1.0739
0.9075
1.0513
0.9196
1.0522
0.9262
1.0513
0.9971
1.1425
0.8874
1.0380
0.8939
1.0310
Page LXXXV
Contd….
L
0.9205
0.9162
0.9373
0.8150
0.9313
0.8800
0.9411
0.8822 0.9294
0.9025
0.9182 0.9172 0.9069
U
1.0434
1.0010
1.0705
1.0412
1.0567
1.0759
1.0524
0.9807 1.0213
0.9875
1.0668 1.0098 1.0334
1992/93
L
1.0590
0.9327
1.0312
0.8432
1.1174
1.0021
1.0813
0.8920 0.9884
0.9227
1.0774 0.9641 0.9893
U
1.2187
1.0152
1.1911
1.0648
1.3042
1.2248
1.2289
0.9876 1.0872
1.0064
1.2780 1.0605 1.1338
1993/94
L
0.9261
0.9326
0.9278
0.8540
0.9042
0.8787
0.9328
0.9071 0.9571
0.9211
0.8909 0.9505 0.9148
U
1.0874
1.0237
1.0944
1.1475
1.0970
1.0871
1.0949
1.0104 1.0656
1.0107
1.0936 1.0588 1.0719
1994/95
L
1.0410
1.0296
1.1724
0.8720
1.1048
0.9286
1.1982
0.9986 1.1047
1.0405
1.1111 1.0617 1.0514
U
1.2383
1.1378
1.4428
1.1773
1.3734
1.1407
1.4733
1.1138 1.2664
1.1479
1.3998 1.2088 1.2541
1995/96
L
1.8278
1.8212
1.0655
0.9541
1.3605
2.6821
1.1154
1.7882 1.4707
1.9065
1.3240 1.4567 1.5033
U
2.2996
2.2079
1.4115
1.4143
1.7757
3.4799
1.4688
2.1924 1.8421
2.3400
1.7704 1.7894 1.9349
1996/97
L
0.7620
0.8582
0.8330
0.8034
0.7805
0.6959
0.8117
0.8194 0.7935
0.8123
0.7847 0.8262 0.7974
U
1.1761
1.2237
1.1572
1.1906
1.1333
1.1769
1.1413
1.1856 1.1601
1.1449
1.1530 1.1433 1.1652
1997/98
L
0.8236
0.7788
0.8302
0.7590
0.8322
0.7950
0.8380
0.7901 0.8376
0.8451
0.8153 0.8612 0.8167
U
1.1505
1.1603
1.1234
1.1590
1.1253
1.1677
1.1225
1.1535 1.1328
1.1582
1.1401 1.1232 1.1429
1998/99
L
0.8201
0.7656
0.8450
0.7509
0.8492
0.8056
0.8516
0.7696 0.8420
0.8392
0.8275 0.8626 0.8183
U
1.1303
1.1408
1.1107
1.1547
1.1126
1.1507
1.1086
1.1435 1.1210
1.1401
1.1261 1.1106 1.1290
1999/00
L
0.8182
0.7740
0.8474
0.7703
0.8523
0.8131
0.8629
0.7884 0.8422
0.8393
0.8674 0.8633 0.8275
U
1.1253
1.1352
1.1116
1.1463
1.1113
1.1493
1.1157
1.1398 1.1150
1.1329
1.1703 1.1046 1.1296
2000/01
L
0.8626
0.8359
0.9599
0.8066
0.9136
0.8363
0.9105
0.8154 0.8961
0.8811
0.8723 0.9261 0.8752
U
1.1711
1.1969
1.2557
1.1681
1.1803
1.1794
1.1706
1.1497 1.1716
1.1929
1.1953 1.1858 1.1845
2001/02
L
0.8512
0.7884
0.8382
0.7892
0.8641
0.8190
0.8720
0.7986 0.8736
0.8182
0.8269 0.8809 0.8344
U
1.1481
1.1700
1.1290
1.1552
1.1118
1.1591
1.1058
1.1390 1.1364
1.1618
1.1281 1.1389 1.1401
2002/03
L
0.8391
0.7766
0.8424
0.7773
0.8660
0.8193
0.8755
0.8048 0.8610
0.8190
0.8273 0.8643 0.8304
U
1.1202
1.1387
1.1094
1.1462
1.0983
1.1398
1.0894
1.1350 1.1105
1.1454
1.1180 1.1114 1.1217
2003/04
L
0.8433
0.7857
0.8461
0.7876
0.8691
0.8244
0.8802
0.8197 0.8648
0.8294
0.8336 0.8658 0.8370
U
1.1158
1.1363
1.1066
1.1475
1.0948
1.1336
1.0864
1.1336 1.1067
1.1441
1.1166 1.1085 1.1190
2004/05
L
0.8517
0.8014
0.8533
0.7841
0.8765
0.8331
0.8869
0.8137 0.8735
0.8312
0.8386 0.8703 0.8423
U
1.1140
1.1300
1.1041
1.1391
1.0914
1.1312
1.0824
1.1258 1.1009
1.1348
1.1140 1.1047 1.1142
Entire
L
0.8852
0.8741
0.8529
0.7634
0.8736
0.8963
0.8708
0.8626 0.8677
0.8695
0.8732 0.8709 0.8627
U
1.0829
1.0734
1.0883
1.1105
1.0763
1.1108
1.0837
1.0653 1.0652
1.0638
1.0819 1.0564 1.0797
Period
PreL
0.8543
0.8618
0.8050
0.7245
0.8294
0.8840
0.8247
0.8452 0.8194
0.8296
0.8461 0.8218 0.8279
U
0.9906
0.9899
1.0233
1.0702
0.9938
1.0079
1.0206
0.9882 0.9872
0.9755
0.9923 0.9805 1.0014
Reforms
PostL
0.9219
0.8884
0.9111
0.8103
0.9270
0.9106
0.9266
0.8829 0.9264
0.9175
0.9053 0.9307 0.9043
U
1.1990
1.1774
1.1677
1.1583
1.1789
1.2414
1.1607
1.1609 1.1618
1.1747
1.1942 1.1503 1.1769
Reforms
Notes: i) CI refers to the confidence interval; ii) L refers to the lower bound of confidence interval; and iii) U-refers to the upper bound of confidence interval.
Source: Author’s Calculations
1991/92
Appendix Tables
Page LXXXVI
Appendix Table A8.6: Confidence Intervals For Hicks Neutral Technological Change Index
(α=0.05)
Year
1975/76
1976/77
1977/78
1978/79
1979/80
1980/81
1981/82
1982/83
1983/84
1984/85
1985/86
1986/87
1987/88
1988/89
1989/90
1990/91
CI
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
Appendix Tables
States
Andhra
Pradesh
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Karnataka
Madhya
Pradesh
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil
Nadu
Uttar
Pradesh
All
India#
0.6398
0.9142
0.6927
0.9098
0.6980
0.8788
0.7420
0.8752
0.7685
0.8683
0.7824
0.8720
0.7846
0.8707
0.8388
0.9308
0.9739
1.0856
0.9622
1.0744
0.9408
1.0421
0.9418
1.0373
0.9469
1.0403
1.0255
1.1375
0.9379
1.0500
0.9439
1.0479
0.6521
0.9111
0.7304
0.9086
0.7242
0.8789
0.8028
0.9369
0.8063
0.9169
0.8125
0.9092
0.8084
0.9081
0.8326
0.9259
0.9678
1.1012
0.9320
1.0538
0.9404
1.0569
0.9347
1.0579
0.9427
1.0485
0.9648
1.0785
0.9077
1.0230
0.9141
1.0187
0.8299
1.0171
0.8299
1.0171
0.8454
1.0218
0.7944
1.0176
0.7610
0.9502
0.7837
0.9607
0.7747
0.9669
0.8537
1.0621
0.9007
1.1357
0.8866
1.0951
0.8762
1.0741
0.9153
1.1096
0.8950
1.0879
0.9187
1.1027
0.9005
1.0715
0.9155
1.0541
0.5029
0.9985
0.6538
1.0772
0.6469
1.0693
0.8079
1.2035
0.6592
1.0459
0.6860
1.0257
0.6836
1.0047
0.7066
1.0212
0.8277
1.1809
0.7725
1.1113
0.7734
1.1086
0.7835
1.0977
0.8150
1.1218
0.8229
1.1196
0.7914
1.0964
0.7957
1.0664
0.7504
1.0262
0.8486
1.0446
0.8360
1.0151
0.9192
1.1065
0.8493
0.9961
0.8589
0.9826
0.8435
0.9640
0.8893
1.0019
0.9730
1.1007
0.9513
1.0746
0.9295
1.0441
0.9360
1.0385
0.9529
1.0441
0.9752
1.0636
0.9457
1.0327
0.9552
1.0316
0.6946
0.9135
0.7596
0.9127
0.7599
0.8785
0.8245
0.9397
0.8255
0.9173
0.8250
0.9102
0.8289
0.9136
0.8995
0.9943
0.9845
1.0870
0.9485
1.0437
0.9556
1.0376
0.9591
1.0357
0.9613
1.0341
1.2013
1.3816
0.8650
1.0834
0.8700
1.0777
0.7981
1.0753
0.9543
1.2120
0.8433
1.1123
0.9560
1.2219
0.8444
1.0429
0.8662
1.0445
0.8525
1.0354
0.8952
1.0800
0.9090
1.1011
0.9041
1.0768
0.8987
1.0603
0.9023
1.0606
0.9389
1.0713
0.9671
1.1004
0.9230
1.0527
0.9371
1.0465
0.7949
1.1816
0.7949
1.1816
0.6737
1.0845
0.7439
1.1283
0.8195
1.2041
0.7365
1.1295
0.7224
1.1018
0.7139
1.1142
0.7697
1.1747
0.7613
1.1541
0.7472
1.1145
0.7556
1.1069
0.8046
1.1396
0.7964
1.1547
0.7702
1.1410
0.7852
1.1278
0.5975
0.8897
0.6902
0.9228
0.7049
0.9128
0.7477
0.9335
0.7547
0.9088
0.7679
0.9064
0.7670
0.9007
0.8077
0.9349
0.9377
1.0952
0.9613
1.1144
0.9056
1.0648
0.9092
1.0599
0.9235
1.0506
0.9691
1.0883
0.9356
1.0397
0.9437
1.0350
0.6360
0.8934
0.6899
0.8979
0.6744
0.8814
0.7349
0.9088
0.7453
0.8943
0.7688
0.8979
0.7677
0.9003
0.8098
0.9282
0.9417
1.0810
0.9224
1.0435
0.9277
1.0375
0.9344
1.0368
0.9389
1.0337
0.9835
1.0832
0.9006
1.0050
0.9088
1.0041
0.7054
0.9693
0.7599
0.9417
0.7447
0.8914
0.7979
0.9183
0.8029
0.9026
0.8198
0.9083
0.8218
0.9120
0.8792
0.9783
0.9643
1.0880
0.9575
1.0784
0.9292
1.0435
0.9357
1.0466
0.9450
1.0489
0.9815
1.0900
0.9327
1.0419
0.9412
1.0421
0.6654
1.0024
0.7436
1.0029
0.7277
0.9640
0.7703
0.9658
0.7717
0.9176
0.7786
0.9124
0.7717
0.9014
0.8016
0.9222
0.9350
1.0865
0.9495
1.0866
0.9168
1.0458
0.9229
1.0436
0.9297
1.0423
0.9591
1.0709
0.9369
1.0410
0.9434
1.0380
0.6828
0.9793
0.7582
0.9973
0.7371
0.9619
0.8008
1.0067
0.7823
0.9598
0.7890
0.9522
0.7841
0.9461
0.8249
0.9891
0.9215
1.1093
0.9064
1.0835
0.8926
1.0605
0.9003
1.0606
0.9147
1.0631
0.9591
1.1199
0.8937
1.0559
0.9027
1.0487
Page LXXXVII
Contd….
L
0.9503
0.9200
0.9347
0.8393
0.9640
0.8825
0.9465
0.8046 0.9514
0.9152
0.9483 0.9498 0.9159
U
1.0476
1.0188
1.0612
1.0871
1.0374
1.0794
1.0484
1.1326 1.0342
1.0065
1.0462 1.0352 1.0524
1992/93
L
1.1351
0.9529
0.9983
0.8508
1.0810
1.0125
1.0155
0.8540 1.0169
0.9463
1.0634 1.0137 0.9917
U
1.2889
1.0545
1.1359
1.0999
1.1812
1.2410
1.1252
1.1854 1.1084
1.0402
1.1915 1.1079 1.1445
1993/94
L
0.9363
0.9495
0.9475
0.8504
0.9687
0.8760
0.9629
0.8484 0.9814
0.9382
0.9358 0.9798 0.9301
U
1.1052
1.0599
1.0942
1.1612
1.0797
1.0939
1.0813
1.2098 1.0902
1.0395
1.0762 1.0933 1.0979
1994/95
L
1.0542
1.0026
1.1179
0.8573
1.2391
0.9376
1.1881
0.8711 1.1102
1.0224
1.1859 1.0678 1.0478
U
1.2635
1.1277
1.3315
1.1736
1.4490
1.1605
1.3839
1.2459 1.2819
1.1401
1.4100 1.2184 1.2613
1995/96
L
1.6352
1.5767
1.1053
0.9321
1.2254
2.5394
1.0589
1.0154 1.4433
1.7694
1.2064 1.4411 1.3583
U
2.0653
1.8910
1.3698
1.3998
1.5402
3.3781
1.3008
1.6212 1.8353
2.1558
1.5370 1.7765 1.7607
1996/97
L
0.8258
0.8163
0.8665
0.7917
0.8152
0.7097
0.8064
0.5188 0.8214
0.7525
0.7790 0.8449 0.7730
U
1.1196
1.1078
1.0925
1.1071
1.1299
1.1426
1.1207
1.1617 1.1198
1.1126
1.1481 1.1076 1.1224
1997/98
L
0.8220
0.8142
0.8810
0.7162
0.8994
0.7072
0.9295
0.5420 0.8226
0.8254
0.8654 0.8425 0.7983
U
1.1366
1.1553
1.1617
1.1443
1.2088
1.1812
1.2125
1.2159 1.1347
1.1206
1.1990 1.1237 1.1657
1998/99
L
0.8299
0.8088
0.8393
0.7036
0.8330
0.7399
0.8434
0.5384 0.8318
0.8252
0.8166 0.8451 0.7823
U
1.1224
1.1361
1.1101
1.1395
1.1238
1.1699
1.1147
1.2078 1.1253
1.1047
1.1324 1.1124 1.1329
1999/00
L
0.8376
0.8348
0.8480
0.7301
0.8412
0.7436
0.8523
0.5655 0.8313
0.8394
0.8298 0.8536 0.7958
U
1.1234
1.1640
1.1015
1.1349
1.1126
1.1790
1.1090
1.2153 1.1247
1.1140
1.1414 1.1111 1.1355
2000/01
L
0.8963
0.8637
0.9696
0.7637
0.9264
0.7733
0.9560
0.5704 0.8985
0.7664
0.8780 0.9070 0.8396
U
1.1841
1.2116
1.2404
1.1520
1.1972
1.2169
1.2137
1.1968 1.1831
1.1841
1.2149 1.1751 1.1973
2001/02
L
0.8533
0.7810
0.8633
0.7575
0.8664
0.6814
0.8775
0.5795 0.8584
0.7425
0.8188 0.8928 0.7920
U
1.1367
1.1367
1.1331
1.1633
1.1259
1.2032
1.1249
1.1943 1.1385
1.1322
1.1405 1.1791 1.1504
2002/03
L
0.8404
0.7830
0.8665
0.7262
0.8617
0.6681
0.8726
0.5769 0.8479
0.7360
0.8152 0.8417 0.7809
U
1.1116
1.1231
1.1219
1.1369
1.1056
1.2028
1.1042
1.1726 1.1132
1.1306
1.1231 1.1150 1.1297
2003/04
L
0.8442
0.7958
0.8533
0.7374
0.8633
0.5610
0.8743
0.5664 0.8551
0.7419
0.8156 0.8483 0.7715
U
1.1083
1.1254
1.1050
1.1401
1.1025
1.2114
1.0987
1.1640 1.1138
1.1246
1.1202 1.1153 1.1270
2004/05
L
0.8566
0.7922
0.8604
0.7444
0.8697
0.6917
0.8781
0.5769 0.8608
0.7192
0.8268 0.8536 0.7886
U
1.1044
1.1107
1.1021
1.1328
1.0983
1.1952
1.0925
1.1428 1.1035
1.1049
1.1172 1.1103 1.1176
Entire
L
0.8840
0.8681
0.8843
0.7529
0.9169
0.8540
0.9121
0.7102 0.8706
0.8443
0.8833 0.8811 0.8529
U
1.0689
1.0604
1.0933
1.1151
1.0962
1.1187
1.1148
1.1738 1.0678
1.0520
1.0750 1.0722 1.0919
Period
PreL
0.8428
0.8491
0.8534
0.7274
0.8987
0.8781
0.8982
0.7610 0.8247
0.8227
0.8654 0.8396 0.8369
U
0.9729
0.9806
1.0451
1.0828
1.0347
1.0037
1.0859
1.1395 0.9878
0.9677
0.9913 1.0008 1.0231
Reforms
PostL
0.9336
0.8903
0.9210
0.7831
0.9381
0.8273
0.9283
0.6563 0.9263
0.8696
0.9041 0.9311 0.8716
U
1.1902
1.1596
1.1511
1.1532
1.1708
1.2663
1.1489
1.2144 1.1672
1.1573
1.1794 1.1600 1.1761
Reforms
Notes: i) CI refers to the confidence interval; ii) L refers to the lower bound of confidence interval; and iii) U-refers to the upper bound of confidence interval.
Source: Author’s Calculations
1991/92
Appendix Tables
Page LXXXVIII
Appendix Table A8.7: Confidence Intervals For Hicks Non-neutral Technological Change Index
(α=0.05)
Year
1975/76
1976/77
1977/78
1978/79
1979/80
1980/81
1981/82
1982/83
1983/84
1984/85
1985/86
1986/87
1987/88
1988/89
1989/90
1990/91
CI
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
Appendix Tables
States
Andhra
Pradesh
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Karnataka
Madhya
Pradesh
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil
Nadu
Uttar
Pradesh
All
India#
0.9288
1.0209
0.9466
1.0359
0.9633
1.0364
1.0163
1.0901
1.0178
1.0837
1.0256
1.0890
1.0330
1.0935
1.0019
1.0485
0.9785
1.0310
0.9565
1.0089
0.9785
1.0273
0.9782
1.0325
0.9797
1.0257
1.0369
1.1126
0.9350
1.0265
0.9380
1.0234
0.9512
1.0143
0.9333
0.9922
0.9507
1.0032
0.9906
1.0306
1.0260
1.0822
1.0388
1.0960
1.0437
1.0970
1.0306
1.0708
0.9845
1.0138
0.9823
1.0242
0.9602
1.0294
0.9446
1.0404
0.9732
1.0342
0.9684
1.0400
0.9500
1.0194
0.9546
1.0176
0.8085
0.9541
0.8085
0.9541
0.7722
0.9158
0.8955
1.0672
0.9932
1.1025
0.9780
1.0826
0.9672
1.0802
0.9560
1.0545
0.9850
1.0861
0.9630
1.0972
0.9216
1.0683
0.9534
1.0777
0.9422
1.0506
0.9707
1.0766
0.9514
1.0450
0.9521
1.0368
0.9909
0.9945
0.9189
1.0224
0.8934
1.0431
0.8910
1.0142
0.9688
1.0962
0.9756
1.0926
0.9735
1.0902
0.9476
1.0800
0.8860
1.0816
0.8698
1.0715
0.8834
1.0720
0.8883
1.0623
0.9008
1.0540
0.8903
1.0231
0.9229
1.0408
0.9298
1.0301
0.7541
0.9564
0.7177
0.9226
0.7253
0.9237
0.7270
0.9178
0.8577
0.9834
0.8700
0.9876
0.8931
1.0097
0.8722
0.9734
0.9582
1.0673
0.9493
1.0620
0.9457
1.0502
0.9562
1.0507
0.9594
1.0380
1.0387
1.1369
0.9425
1.0508
0.9463
1.0437
0.9079
1.0162
0.9127
0.9878
0.9446
1.0034
0.9828
1.0257
1.0173
1.0623
1.0351
1.0844
1.0418
1.0911
1.0023
1.0395
0.9623
1.0168
0.9708
1.0281
0.9711
1.0286
0.9699
1.0284
0.9750
1.0268
0.9959
1.0623
0.9603
1.0292
0.9629
1.0286
0.6662
1.0006
0.5949
0.8954
0.6529
0.9475
0.6647
0.9040
0.8545
1.0050
0.8461
0.9963
0.8521
1.0020
0.8298
0.9718
0.9765
1.1388
0.9535
1.1346
0.9078
1.0833
0.9228
1.0720
0.9338
1.0591
0.9531
1.0670
0.9475
1.0528
0.9487
1.0406
0.5907
0.9470
0.5907
0.9470
0.6517
1.0616
0.7105
1.0978
0.7498
1.0494
0.8065
1.1456
0.8458
1.1721
0.8317
1.1887
0.7384
1.2084
0.7149
1.1959
0.7741
1.2042
0.7727
1.2049
0.7845
1.1324
0.7830
1.2015
0.7263
1.1141
0.7518
1.1023
0.9773
1.0576
0.9296
1.0261
0.8945
0.9979
0.9221
1.0203
0.9776
1.0433
0.9874
1.0585
0.9982
1.0665
0.9772
1.0339
0.9825
1.0474
0.9443
1.0213
0.9601
1.0332
0.9666
1.0327
0.9758
1.0306
0.9746
1.0297
0.9508
1.0103
0.9544
1.0093
0.9639
1.0096
0.9445
1.0083
0.9631
1.0186
0.9832
1.0708
0.9914
1.0832
1.0014
1.0925
1.0105
1.0978
0.9983
1.0653
0.9612
1.0165
0.9624
1.0152
0.9673
1.0200
0.9666
1.0206
0.9736
1.0197
0.9801
1.0278
0.9580
1.0116
0.9588
1.0109
0.8017
0.9677
0.8477
0.9662
0.8965
0.9927
0.9704
1.0683
0.9741
1.0619
0.9613
1.0520
0.9510
1.0477
0.9069
0.9956
0.9732
1.0672
0.9395
1.0288
0.9575
1.0443
0.9649
1.0425
0.9729
1.0386
1.0606
1.1618
0.9386
1.0543
0.9404
1.0491
0.7402
0.9923
0.7580
0.9768
0.7976
0.9949
0.8621
1.0531
0.9253
1.0800
0.9481
1.0937
0.9662
1.1048
0.9481
1.0740
0.9337
1.0619
0.9182
1.0251
0.9536
1.0431
0.9564
1.0389
0.9623
1.0351
0.9674
1.0370
0.9319
1.0044
0.9358
1.0017
0.8298
0.9938
0.8145
0.9770
0.8341
0.9939
0.8765
1.0282
0.9424
1.0605
0.9533
1.0717
0.9623
1.0785
0.9396
1.0483
0.9406
1.0684
0.9241
1.0580
0.9300
1.0576
0.9350
1.0576
0.9428
1.0450
0.9655
1.0799
0.9239
1.0379
0.9293
1.0326
Page LXXXIX
Contd….
L
0.9435
0.9576
0.9624
0.9162
0.9482
0.9650
0.9542
0.7469 0.9571
0.9583
0.9434 0.9389 0.9306
U
1.0228
1.0156
1.0489
1.0111
1.0377
1.0269
1.0420
1.0876 1.0083
1.0084
1.0472 1.0016 1.0296
1992/93
L
0.9023
0.9339
0.9861
0.9260
1.0093
0.9519
1.0197
0.6723 0.9510
0.9440
0.9805 0.9224 0.9287
U
0.9719
0.9974
1.0930
1.0246
1.1330
1.0159
1.1348
1.0557 1.0018
0.9958
1.1091 0.9846 1.0416
1993/94
L
0.9530
0.9356
0.9232
0.9417
0.9069
0.9586
0.9209
0.6780 0.9474
0.9484
0.9163 0.9346 0.9103
U
1.0168
1.0028
1.0507
1.0467
1.0464
1.0279
1.0557
1.0632 1.0054
1.0027
1.0560 1.0035 1.0312
1994/95
L
0.9441
0.9702
0.9701
0.9517
0.8425
0.9256
0.9318
0.6230 0.9579
0.9770
0.8878 0.9588 0.9058
U
1.0176
1.0542
1.1450
1.0616
0.9913
1.0343
1.1277
1.1600 1.0214
1.0439
1.0440 1.0257 1.0593
1995/96
L
1.0420
1.0268
0.8816
0.9430
1.0180
0.9543
0.9512
0.1556 0.9385
1.0133
1.0092 0.9347 0.8349
U
1.1964
1.1729
1.1081
1.0756
1.2413
1.1067
1.2307
1.7685 1.0514
1.1559
1.2459 1.0562 1.1892
1996/97
L
0.8905
0.9172
0.8856
0.9603
0.8676
0.9106
0.8598
0.3567 0.9329
0.9364
0.8553 0.9342 0.8366
U
1.0899
1.1032
1.1023
1.0937
1.0944
1.0789
1.1342
1.4023 1.0747
1.1098
1.1056 1.0796 1.1195
1997/98
L
0.9053
0.8490
0.8389
0.9472
0.8121
0.8278
0.7825
0.2465 0.9312
0.9333
0.8176 0.9343 0.7823
U
1.1000
1.0994
1.0579
1.0909
1.0285
1.1121
1.0323
1.3820 1.0803
1.1068
1.0523 1.0791 1.0986
1998/99
L
0.9033
0.8510
0.8858
0.9498
0.8827
0.8277
0.8633
0.2467 0.9287
0.9328
0.8710 0.9357 0.8022
U
1.0890
1.1026
1.0969
1.0867
1.0975
1.1032
1.1144
1.3849 1.0741
1.1084
1.1039 1.0714 1.1168
1999/00
L
0.9058
0.8319
0.8861
0.9458
0.8862
0.8352
0.8696
0.2168 0.9307
0.9248
0.8972 0.9315 0.7946
U
1.0780
1.0669
1.1043
1.0815
1.1036
1.0861
1.1271
1.3656 1.0659
1.0890
1.1363 1.0665 1.1117
2000/01
L
0.8962
0.8572
0.8709
0.9412
0.8639
0.7905
0.8238
0.1529 0.9235
0.8693
0.8506 0.9343 0.7555
U
1.0583
1.0844
1.1071
1.0937
1.0836
1.1028
1.0732
1.4009 1.0596
1.1254
1.0885 1.0855 1.1105
2001/02
L
0.9183
0.9006
0.8550
0.9234
0.8772
0.7725
0.8652
0.1478 0.9345
0.7105
0.8681 0.8912 0.7446
U
1.0861
1.1316
1.0947
1.0840
1.0870
1.1460
1.0932
1.3777 1.0735
1.1530
1.0998 1.0449 1.1199
2002/03
L
0.9184
0.8976
0.8536
0.9443
0.8901
0.7427
0.8771
0.2111 0.9387
0.8583
0.8810 0.9309 0.7838
U
1.0849
1.1126
1.0939
1.0994
1.0922
1.1466
1.1005
1.3811 1.0717
1.1557
1.1018 1.0795 1.1241
2003/04
L
0.9245
0.8915
0.8683
0.9405
0.8948
0.8125
0.8850
0.2543 0.9384
0.8632
0.8870 0.9266 0.8043
U
1.0782
1.1018
1.1042
1.0953
1.0899
1.1059
1.0955
1.3783 1.0652
1.1577
1.1011 1.0746 1.1180
2004/05
L
0.9294
0.9079
0.8751
0.9435
0.8984
0.7739
0.8908
0.3959 0.9452
0.9395
0.8885 0.9306 0.8411
U
1.0724
1.1046
1.1044
1.0922
1.0875
1.1395
1.0932
1.3560 1.0647
1.1375
1.0985 1.0748 1.1165
Entire
L
0.9553
0.9453
0.9101
0.9297
0.8865
0.9182
0.8600
0.4911 0.9507
0.9445
0.9185 0.9163 0.8739
U
1.0574
1.0575
1.0675
1.0631
1.0440
1.0588
1.0583
1.2067 1.0409
1.0632
1.0662 1.0442 1.0682
Period
PreL
0.9815
0.9795
0.9236
0.9199
0.8765
0.9751
0.8341
0.7351 0.9604
0.9739
0.9393 0.9034 0.9140
U
1.0486
1.0374
1.0454
1.0538
1.0091
1.0346
1.0208
1.1200 1.0322
1.0363
1.0390 1.0379 1.0426
Reforms
PostL
0.9262
0.9077
0.8948
0.9410
0.8982
0.8572
0.8907
0.3097 0.9396
0.9120
0.8953 0.9312 0.8303
U
1.0676
1.0811
1.0934
1.0737
1.0853
1.0872
1.1029
1.3140 1.0509
1.0949
1.0983 1.0514 1.0982
Reforms
Notes: i) CI refers to the confidence interval; ii) L refers to the lower bound of confidence interval; and iii) U-refers to the upper bound of confidence interval.
Source: Author’s Calculations
1991/92
Appendix Tables
Page XC