Revision summary
After 1991, services pulled GDP while manufacturing stayed a modest share of output. Causes include infrastructure, land and labour frictions, inverted duties, Chinese imports, and weak SME credit. The National Manufacturing Policy already set a 25 per cent-of-GDP ambition that was missed. Make in India, FDI liberalisation, industrial corridors, GST, and the IBC are the recent toolkit. They can raise industrial growth only with working tax credit, time-bound insolvency, and real power-and-logistics delivery.
Model answer
Introduction
After 1991, India’s Gross Domestic Product rose mainly on services. Industry, especially manufacturing, grew, but more slowly, so its share of GDP stayed stuck near the mid-teens. That lag is the puzzle in the question. Recent policy — Make in India, easier foreign direct investment, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and the coming Goods and Services Tax — tries to close it. Capacity on paper is not the same as factories that hire.
Body
Why industry lagged GDP after reforms
- Services (information technology, finance, telecom) faced fewer land–labour–power knots and rode a world demand boom; factories still needed plots, inspectors, and stable electricity.
- Infrastructure: ports, freight, and quality power remained dear; inventory and downtime killed competitiveness against East Asia.
- Land and labour: acquisition conflict and rigid industrial-labour law (and a thick inspector raj) pushed capital toward capital-intensive plants or toward services, not mass-employment lines.
- Inverted duties and cheap imports, especially from China after it joined the World Trade Organization, undercut domestic capital goods and light manufactures.
- Credit: small units stayed informal; banks preferred large names or retail; the later non-performing asset pile froze new project loans.
- Skills did not match shop-floor need; engineers queued for services jobs.
- Public-sector disinvestment was slow; many Navratna firms did not become globally aggressive manufacturers.
- The National Manufacturing Policy (2011) already admitted the lag and aimed at about 25 per cent of GDP and 100 million jobs — a target that showed how far the post-reform path had drifted.
Recent industrial-policy changes (mid-2010s)
- Make in India (2014) and easier FDI caps in defence, railways, construction, and single-brand retail tried to import capital and technology into factories, not only into software.
- Industrial corridors (Delhi–Mumbai and others) and National Investment and Manufacturing Zones offered plug-and-play land.
- Ease of Doing Business (single window, labour compliance easing on paper) cut some entry cost.
- GST (from July 2017) promised one market and an end to cascading tax that had punished value-addition in manufacturing.
- IBC (2016) aimed to recycle stuck steel and other plants instead of keeping zombie capacity.
- Start-up India, Mudra, and MSME tax cuts in Budget 2017-18 addressed the small-unit layer.
- Sector missions: textiles, electronics (Phased Manufacturing), food parks, and defence offsets.
- A new industrial policy discussion (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, 2017) talked of technology, jobs, and sustainability together — still a draft, not a finished statute.
How far can this raise industrial growth?
- GST plus IBC plus FDI can lift formal, tradable manufacturing if implementation is clean: input-tax credit must work, and resolution must be time-bound.
- Corridors help coastal and hinterland plants only if power, water, and labour housing arrive with the fence.
- They cannot by themselves fix farm-to-factory labour transition, State-level land politics, or a world of cheap Chinese surplus.
- Without cheaper logistics and a skill pipeline, Make in India stays a logo on assembly of imported kits.
- Policy is capable in direction, not yet proven in a sustained industrial growth rate above GDP.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD GDP[Post-1991 GDP] --> S[Services lead] GDP --> I[Industry lag] I --> CAUSE[Land labour power China credit] POL[Make in India GST IBC FDI] --> I POL --> IF[If logistics skills States deliver]
Conclusion
Industry lagged post-1991 GDP because services were easier, factories faced land, labour, power, China, and credit knots, and manufacturing’s GDP share did not rise. Make in India, FDI, corridors, GST, and IBC point the right way. They will raise industrial growth only if the single market, bankrupt-plant recycling, and real infrastructure arrive together — not as separate press notes.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
What are the salient features of 'inclusive growth'? Has India been experiencing such a growth process? Analyze and suggest measures for inclusive growth.
Next question in the 2017 paper (Q13). View answer →
-
Did liberalisation shrink industry in absolute terms?
No. Industry grew. It grew slower than services, so its share of GDP did not climb as in East Asia.
-
Is GST enough to fix the lag?
It helps a national market. Plants still need land, power, skills, and credit. Tax reform is one necessary piece, not the whole policy.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2023 · Q1 · GS III · 10 marks
Faster economic growth requires increased share of the manufacturing sector in GDP, particularly of MSMEs. Comment on the present policies of the Government in this regard. -
2021 · Q1 · GS III · 10 marks
Explain the difference between computing methodology of India's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) before the year 2015 and after the year 2015. -
2020 · Q2 · GS III · 10 marks
Define potential GDP and explain its determinants. What are the factors that have been inhibiting India from realizing its potential GDP? -
2019 · Q2 · GS III · 10 marks
Do you agree with the view that steady GDP growth and low inflation have left the Indian economy in good shape? Give reasons in support of your arguments.
More from this paper
Q1 · UPSC Mains 2017 · GS III · 10 marks
Among several factors for India's potential growth, savings rate is the most effective one. Do you agree? What are the other factors available for growth potential?
Indian Economy
Savings finance investment and matter for potential growth, as in the Harrod-Domar link between the savings rate and output. India already saves a large share of GDP, mainly in households, so a higher rate is not the only or always the strongest lever. Idle gold and land savings, or a high incremental capital-output ratio, waste the savings effort. Other factors are investment quality, skills, infrastructure, institutions, technology and financial intermediation. Jan Dhan, pensions, GST, Make in India and transport programmes try to put savings to work.
Q2 · UPSC Mains 2017 · GS III · 10 marks
Account for the failure of manufacturing sector in achieving the goal of labour-intensive exports rather than capital-intensive exports. Suggest measures for more labour-intensive rather than capital-intensive exports.
Indian Economy
India's export growth after reforms was real, but the mix was more petroleum, engineering and chemicals than garments and leather. Rigid factory labour rules, costly land and power, and capital subsidies encouraged automation and small size. Bangladesh and Vietnam took buyer-driven apparel chains that hire many workers. Correctives are labour flexibility, the apparel and leather packages, MUDRA and clusters, GST refunds, Sagarmala, and skills tied to orders. The aim is jobs per unit of export, not only a larger export bill.
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2017 · GS III · 10 marks
Examine the developments of Airports in India through Joint Ventures under Public-Private Partnership(PPP) model. What are the challenges faced by the authorities in this regard.
Infrastructure
AAI could not fund metro airport expansion alone, so PPP joint ventures were used for greenfield and brownfield hubs. Bengaluru, Hyderabad and Cochin show greenfield JVs; Delhi and Mumbai show brownfield OMDA with AAI equity. AERA regulates major-airport tariffs; later AAI rounds tried to PPP more State capitals. UDAN supports regional routes that do not attract the same private capital. Challenges are land, tariff disputes, high revenue-share bids, exclusive contract clauses, and weak PPP appetite for small airports.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.