|
|
|
|
Exploding
Imports |
|
Mar
22nd 2006, C.P. Chandrasekhar and Jayati Ghosh |
|
Recent
trade patterns in India have been characterised by a
burgeoning trade deficit despite very high rates of
growth of export, which implies that import growth in
value terms has been even more rapid. Indeed, the past
few years have witnessed the highest rate of growth
of imports of any three year period in the past thirty
years.
Chart
1 >>
As
Chart 1 shows, this is reflected in a dramatically increased
trade deficit, to as much as $27.8 billion by 2004-05,
and the early estimates suggest an even greater increase
in the current year. Imports now account for around
17 per cent of GDP. It is often suggested that the recent
increase in imports reflects higher values of oil imports
as international oil prices have increased. Yet Chart
2 makes it evident that non-oil imports have also risen
very fast, indeed faster than oil imports especially
in the most recent period.
Chart
2 >>
In fact, oil imports as per cent of total imports have
fallen from an average of 40 per cent in the early 1980s
to 28 per cent between 2002-03 and 2004-05. The general
presumption that high levels of oil import values are
due to high international prices is also misplaced:
there has also been very substantial increase in import
volumes in oil, as Chart 3 shows.
Between
1990-91 and 2003-04, both the quantum index and the
unit value index for oil imports increased around threefold,
and in fact the increase in the quantum index was slightly
more than in unit values. This suggests that the Indian
economy has tended to become much more dependent upon
oil, both because of increasing energy intensity of
some manufacturing production in particular, as well
as because other sources of energy have not increased
relative to requirements.
Chart
3 >>
While
capital goods have continued to be important among imports,
their share has fallen from 25 per cent of total imports
in the period 1987-88 to 1989-90, to 22 per cent in
the last three years. Within the broad category of capital
goods, the most significant changes have been the general
decline in the share of project goods imports and the
emergence of electronic goods imports, which currently
have the highest share in this category. The decline
of project goods imports in a period of relatively high
domestic investment rates probably reflects the effect
of declining tariffs on all other capital, which has
reduced the differential duty advantage that project
goods imports had in the past.
Chart
4 >>
Imports that are officially defined as related to exports,
that is which provide raw material or intermediates
for export production only, have fluctuated between
15 and 19 per cent of total imports, with no clear trend.
Most of these are items such as pearls and stones for
the gems and jewellery industry (which is dominantly
export-oriented) as well as certain chemicals, textiles
and fabrics and so on. Of course, this excludes the
large range of other imports that are directly and indirectly
used by exporting industries, just as it assumes that
these imports are used only for export production.
However, bearing this official classification in mind,
it is possible to work out the share of such imports
to exports in each of these sectors, as described in
Chart 5. This provides a mixed picture. In some categories
such as cashews, the ratio of imports to exports has
been increasing and is now very high at around 80 per
cent. Similarly gems and jewellery indicate a very high
such ratio of around 70 per cent on average, although
there does appear to have been a slight decrease from
77 per cent in the period 1987-88 to 1989-90 to 68 per
cent in the latest three year period.
In the case of chemicals, imports were greater than
exports at the start of this period and have declined
to about 45 per cent of exports in the latest three
year period. Textiles and clothing shows a relatively
low ratio, although it has been rising especially in
recent years, and now imports in this sector account
for 12 per cent of the value of exports.
Chart
5 >>
Charts 6 and 7 indicate the movement of quantum and
unit value indices for general manufactured goods imports
and imports of machinery and transport equipment, respectively.
The important point to note here is that the movement
of the quantum indices has been much faster and sharper
upwards than that of unit values. Indeed, for both of
these sectors, unit values have been broadly stable
between 199-98 and 2003-04, but import volumes have
shot up. In the case of general manufactured goods,
import volumes have increased by more than 80 per cent
in the same period, while import volumes for machinery
and transport equipment have increased by more than
100 per cent.
Chart
6 >>
Chart
7 >>
What this suggests is that actual import penetration
and displacement of domestic production is likely to
have been much greater than is suggested by the movement
of import values alone. The influx of imports into the
Indian economy has been especially sharp in terms of
volumes of manufactured goods, and is it widely perceived
that they have had the most deleterious competitive
impact upon small scale producers. Since small scale
industry is not only more employment intensive but also
employs the greater bulk of manufacturing workers anyway,
this must be a major contributor to the slow growth
of employment in manufacturing that has been marked
and reiterated once again in the latest NSS Survey of
2004.
Overall, recent trends in imports point to some areas
of concern. First, the continuing high dependence upon
oil imports, reflecting not just price factors but also
even sharper increases in volumes. Second, the increase
in manufacturing imports which are not dominantly for
export processing but essentially replace domestic production.
This impact is even greater than is suggested by share
of import values to domestic value added, since volumes
have increased dramatically and much faster than unit
values.
So
the Indian economy is clearly undergoing a restructuring
because of greater trade openness. The problem is that
such restructuring appears to be associated with a further
collapse of employment generation in an economy that
is already characterised by large levels of both open
and disguised unemployment. |
|
Print
this Page |
|
|
|
|