1. By: Tanvi Gogate Sumaiya Patel Harsh Patel

2.  Dani Rodrik born on August 14, 1957. He is a turkish Economist.  He is a Professor of International Political Economy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

3.  He is affiliated with the National Bureau of Economic Research, Centre for Economic Policy Research (London), Center for Global Development, Institute for International Economics, and Council on Foreign Relations, and is the co-editor of the Review of Economics and Statistics.  He is the among the 100 most influential economists in the world.

4.  He has published widely in the areas of international economies, economic development, and political economy.  His research mainly focuses on What constitutes good economic policy and why some governments are better than others in adopting it.  He also writes for a Turkish daily newspaper (Radikal) since July, 2009.

5.  FROM “HINDU GROWTH” TO PRODUCTIVITY SURGE: THE MYSTERY OF THE INDIAN GROWTH TRANSITION By: Dani Rodrik Arvind Subramaniam

6.  India’s Economic Growth is linked always with the 1991 Liberalization.  But Dani Rodrik has described in this paper that the transition to high growth occured in the 1980’s, a full decade before economic liberalization.  The growth was triggered by an attitudinal shift on the part of the national government towards a pro-business approach.  Since 1980, India’s economic growth rate has more than doubled, rising from 1.7 percent (in per-capita terms) in 1950- 1980 to 3.8 percent in 1980-2000.

7.  With the “license-permit-quota raj” India used to serve the example of development strategies gone wrong.  But with Liberalization it showed how economic growth can be achieved by turning to free markets and open trade.  This transformation also holds hope for other poor countries around the world.

8.  Was it a Favourable External Environment?  Aggregate Demand and the Unsustainability of 1980s Growth  External Liberalization  Was it the Green Revolution?  Was it Public Investment?  Was it “Internal” Liberalization?

9.  There was an attitudinal change on the part of the Government in the 1980s signalling a shift in favour of the private sector.  The limited policy changes were pro-business rather than pro- competition, aimed primarily at benefiting incumbents in the formal industrial and commercial sectors.  These small shifts elicited a large productivity response because India was far away from its income possibility frontier.  Finally, manufacturing, which was built up through previous efforts, played a key role in determining the responses to the shifts.

10.  India’s growth transition began in the early 1980s rather than after the crisis of 1991. The reforms appeared to have been triggered by a perception on the part of the private sector that the government’s attitude toward it had changed, a perception that was subsequently (in the mid-to-late 1980s), mildly validated by piecemeal reforms of the industrial licensing system. The attitudinal shift signalled by the Congress governments in the 1980s elicited a large productivity response, a phenomenon facilitated by the fact that India was far away from its income possibility frontier.

11.  In China, economic dynamism created a fertile environment not just for incumbents, but also for entrants and new activities. It is perhaps not a coincidence that some of the IT powerhouses that would begin to fuel India’s growth a decade or so later got established in the early 1980s, just as the economic environment was turning more business-friendly.  For example, Wipro first ventured into IT in 1980, and Infosys was founded in 1981. These firms eventually were able to reap handsome benefits from India’s prior public investments in higher education (the IITs in particular) once the policy environment turned permissive. Their story is in many ways similar to the one we have laid out for the more traditional activities during the 1980s: pre-existing strengths unleashed by more pro- business policy attitudes.

12. (i) Eliminating the licensing of 25 categories of industries subject to certain fairly onerous conditions (ii) Extending delicensing to large companies in 22 industries which were previously restricted by the Monopolies and Trade Restrictive Practices Act (MRTP) and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) (iii) Allowing companies in 28 industries to expand the scope of their operations into related activities (iv) Allowing companies that had reached 80 percent capacity utilization to expand their capacity upto 133 percent of that reached in any of the previous years.

13. Apart from the first, all the remaining measures essentially allowed incumbents to operate more freely rather than facilitate the entry of new domestic firms and promote competition. Even the limited reduction in protection of capital goods industries served to increase the effective protection of incumbents in final goods industries.

14. The reforms of the 1991 were, of course, triggered by the crisis of 1990s. But if the 1980s experience was as successful as we think it might have been in creating a strong base of manufacturing and productivity growth, it is hard not to draw the conclusion that the quick rebound was also rendered possible by the strength of the 1980s performance. In some ways, although India was reforming in response to a macroeconomic crisis, it was reforming from a position of strength in the real sector of the economy. That might explain why the response to the reforms in India in the 1990s was so different from that in Latin America (or in sub-Saharan Africa). Finally 1991 marked the watershed for India—has been the unfortunate neglect of research on policies and performance in the 1980s.

15. THANK YOU

16.  ISI Dany rodricks Growth strategies Harward