MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W59971811

Indian Manufacturing Productivity: What Caused the Growth Stagnation before the 1990s?

2010· article· en· W59971811 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicIndian Economic and Social Development
Canadian institutionsMitacs
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityEconomic stagnationEconomicsEnvironmental scienceEconomic geographyAgricultural economicsMacroeconomicsPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article addresses the question of why productivity growth in Indian manufacturing was slow in the pre-reform period and analyzes how economic reforms in the 1990s accelerated productivity growth. The answer lies in two subtle but important distortion-inefficiency mechanisms, which affected productivity growth by distorting intermediate input allocation. The interaction of quantitative restriction policies and inflexible labour laws resulted in lower than optimal materials per worker usage. The combination of high inflation and unavailability of credit exacerbated this factor distortion and lowered productivity growth further. Using a panel dataset on Indian industries, this article finds widespread underutilization of materials compared to labour until recently, and this sub-optimal materials per worker usage lowered productivity growth.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.602
Threshold uncertainty score0.705

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it