The Library

The historical roots of India’s service-led development: a sectoral analysis of Anglo-Indian productivity differences, 1870-2000

Tools

Broadberry, Stephen and Gupta, Bishnupriya (2007) The historical roots of India’s service-led development: a sectoral analysis of Anglo-Indian productivity differences, 1870-2000. Working Paper. Coventry: University of Warwick, Department of Economics. Warwick economic research papers (No.817).

Preview

PDF
WRAP_Broadberry_twerp_817.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (72Kb)

Official URL: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/resear...

Abstract

Overall labour productivity in India was already only around 15 per cent of the UK level between the early 1870s and the late 1920s. Between 1929 and 1950 India fell further behind and remained at around 10 per cent of the UK level until the 1970s. India has been catching-up since the 1970s, but by the end of the twentieth century was still further behind than in the late nineteenth century. Agriculture has played an important role in India’s relative decline to 1950 and subsequent delay in catching up, since comparative India/UK labour productivity in this sector has declined continuously and agriculture still accounts for around two-thirds of employment in India. Comparative India/UK labour productivity in industry has fluctuated around a level of around 15 per cent. The only sector to exhibit trend improvement in comparative India/UK labour productivity over the long run is services, rising from around 15 per cent to around 30%. India’s recent emergence as a dynamic service-led economy appears to have long historical roots.

Item Type:

Working or Discussion Paper (Working Paper)

Subjects:

H Social Sciences > HC Economic History and Conditions
D History General and Old World > DS Asia
D History General and Old World > DA Great Britain

Divisions:

Faculty of Social Sciences > Economics

Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):

Economic development -- India, Labor productivity -- India, Service industries -- India, India -- Economic conditions, Great Britain -- Economic conditions

Series Name:

Warwick economic research papers

Publisher:

University of Warwick, Department of Economics

Place of Publication:

Coventry

Official Date:

2 October 2007

Dates:

Date	Event
2 October 2007	Published

Number:

No.817

Number of Pages:

Status:

Not Peer Reviewed

Access rights to Published version:

Open Access

Version or Related Resource:

Broadberry, S.N. and Gupta, B. (2010). The historical roots of India’s service-led development: a sectoral analysis of Anglo-Indian productivity differences, 1870–2000. Explorations in Economic History, 47(3), pp. 264-278. http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/3322 ; Broadberry, Stephen and Gupta, Bishnupriya (2008). The historical roots of India’s service-led development : a sectoral analysis of Anglo-Indian productivity differences, 1870-2000. In: Economic History Society Annual Conference, University of Nottingham. Nottingham, 28-30 Mar 2008. http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/46019

Related URLs:

References:

A. Indian official sources
Central Statistical Organisation (1953), Statistical Abstract, India 1951-52, Delhi: Government of India.
Ministry of Commerce and Industry (1954), Fifth Census of Indian Manufactures, 1950, Calcutta: Government of India Press.
B. UK official sources
Board of Trade (1939), Statistical Abstract for the United Kingdom, 1924-1938, London: HMSO.
Board of Trade (1956), Report on the Census of Production for 1951, London: HMSO.
Central Statistical Office (various years), Annual Abstract of Statistics, London: HMSO.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1968), A Century of Agricultural Statistics: Great Britain 1866-1966, London: HMSO.
National Statistics (various years), UK National Accounts, London: HMSO.
Secretary of State for India (1939), Statistical Abstract for British India, with Statistics, where available, relating to certain Indian States from 1927-28 to 1936-37, London: HMSO.
C. Books and Articles
Balassa, B. (1964), “The Purchasing-Power Parity Doctrine: A Reappraisal”, Journal of Political Economy, 76, 584-96.
Bergin, , P.R., Glick, A.M. and Taylor, A.M. (2006), “Productivity, Tradability, and the Long-Run Price Puzzle”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 53, 2041-2066.
Bosworth, B. and Collins, S. (2007), “Accounting for Growth: Comparing China and India”, (unpublished paper, Brookings Institution).
Broadberry, S.N. (1993), “Manufacturing and the Convergence Hypothesis: What the Long-Run Data Show”, Journal of Economic History, 53, 772-795.
Broadberry, S.N. (1997a), “Forging Ahead, Falling Behind and Catching-Up: A Sectoral Analysis of Anglo-American Productivity Differences, 1870-1990”, Research in Economic History, 17, 1-37.
Broadberry, S.N. (1997b), “Anglo-German Productivity Differences 1870-1990: A Sectoral Analysis”, European Review of Economic History, 1, 247-267.
Broadberry, S.N. (1998), “How did the United States and Germany Overtake Britain? A Sectoral Analysis of Comparative Productivity Levels, 1870-1990”, Journal of Economic History, 58, 375-407.
Broadberry, S.N. (2003), “Relative Per Capita Income Levels in the United Kingdom and the United States since 1870: Reconciling Time-Series Projections and Direct-Benchmark Estimates”, Journal of Economic History, 63, 852-863.
Broadberry, S.N. and Irwin, D.A. (2006), “Labor Productivity in Britain and America during the Nineteenth Century”, Explorations in Economic History, 43, 257-279.
Broadberry, S.N. and Irwin, D.A. (2007), “Lost Exceptionalism? Comparative Income and Productivity in Australia and the United Kingdom, 1861-1948”, Economic Record, (forthcoming).
Editor of “The Statist” (1951), “Wholesale Prices in 1950”, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A (General), 114, 408-422.
Feinstein, C.H. (1972), National Income, Expenditure and Output of the United Kingdom, 1855-1965, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heston, A. (1983), “National Income”, in Kumar, D. and Desai, M. (eds.), The Cambridge Economic History of India, Volume 2: c.1757-c.1970, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 463-532.
Maddison, A. (1995), Monitoring the World Economy, 1820-1992, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Maddison, A. (2003), The World Economy: Historical Statistics, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Mitchell, B.R. (1988), British Historical Statistics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Mahony, M. (2002), National Institute Sectorial Productivity Dataset, NIESR, London, http://www.niesr.ac.uk/research/research.htm#4.
Ojala, E.M. (1952), Agriculture and Economic Progress, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pilat, D. (1993), “The Sectoral Productivity Performance of Japan and the United States, 1885-1990”, Review of Income and Wealth, 39, 357-375.
Prasada Rao, D.S. (1993), “Intercountry Comparisons of Agricultural Output and Productivity”, FAO Economic and Social Development Paper No. 112, Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome.
Samuelson, P.A. (1964), “Theoretical Notes on Trade Problems”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 46, 145-54.
Sivasubramonian, S. (2000), The National Income of India in the Twentieth Century, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Timmer, M. (1999), “The Dynamics of Asian Manufacturing: A Comparative Perspective, 1963-1993”, Eindhoven: Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies.
Ward, M. and Devereux, J. (2003), “Measuring British Decline: Direct versus Long-Span Income Measures”, Journal of Economic History, 63, 826-851.
Ward, M. and Devereux, J. (2004), “Relative U.K./U.S. Output Reconsidered: A Reply to Professor Broadberry”, Journal of Economic History, 64, 879-891.