Karnataka is among pioneering Indian states to frame suitable policies aimed at encouraging local firms’ export activities. Promotion and facilitation of firms to look beyond national market was achieved by creating a strong enabling institutional framework, supporting expansion of productive capacity and helping exporting firms gain access to required physical infrastructure. As a result of such policies, exports from the Karnataka have been growing rapidly, with Karnataka contributing over half a quarter of Indian exports of commodities and software. The present study provides an overview of export trends and patterns of Karnataka in the backdrop of the state policy developments. It examines the relevance of various factors pertinent to the exports by Karnataka manufacturing firms and deduces implications for development policy of the state.
AggarwalA. (2002). Liberalisation, multinational enterprises and export performance: Evidence from Indian manufacturing. Journal of Development Studies, 38(3), 119–137.
2.
AnhN.N.NgocP.Q.ChuN.D.NhatN.D. (2007). Innovation and export of Vietnam’s SME sector. Paper for UNU-MERIT Conference on Micro-Evidence on Innovation in Developing Economies.
3.
BaldwinR.KrugmanP. (1989). Persistent effects of large exchange rate shocks. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104(4), 635–54.
4.
BarneyJ. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
5.
BarriosS.GorgH.StroblE. (2003). Explaining firms’ export behaviour: R&D, spillovers and the destination market. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 65(4), 475–96.
6.
BernardA.B.EatonJ.JensenB.KortumS. (2003). Plants and productivity in international trade. American Economic Review, 93(4), 1268–1290.
7.
BernardA.B.JensenJ.B. (1999). Exceptional exporter performance: Cause, effect, or both?Journal of International Economics, 47(1), 1–25.
8.
BernardA.B.JensenJ.B.ReddingS.J.SchottP.K. (2011). The empirics of firm heterogeneity and international trade. NBER Working Paper, No. 17627, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
9.
BernardA.B.WagnerJ. (2001). Export entry and exit by German firms. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 137(1), 105–123.
10.
BhavaniT.A.TendulkarS.D. (2001). Determinants of firm-level export performance: A case study of Indian textile garments and apparel industry. Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 10(1), 65–92.
11.
BleaneyM.WakelinK. (1999). Sectoral and firm-specific determinants of export performance: Evidence from the United Kingdom. GLM Research Paper, No. 99/12, University of Nottingham.
12.
BonaccorsiA. (1992). On the relationship between firm size and export intensity. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(4), 605–635.
13.
BraunerhjelmP. (1996). The relationship between firm-specific intangibles and exports. Economic Letters, 53(2), 213–219.
14.
BuckleyP.J. (1989). Foreign direct investment by small- and medium-sized enterprises: The theoretical background. Small Business Economics, 1(2), 89–100.
15.
CalofJ.L. (1994). The relationship between firm size and export behaviour revisited. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(2), 367–387.
16.
CavesR.E. (1971). International corporations: The industrial economics of foreign investment. Economica, 38(149), 1–27.
17.
ChandraR. (2003). Reinvestigating export-led growth in India using a multivariate cointegration framework. Journal of Developing Areas, 37(1), 73–86.
18.
ChaudhuriB.R.ChakrabortyD. (2010). Export potential at the state-level: A case study of Karnataka. IIFT Working Paper, No. EC-10-02, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, New Delhi.
ChernozhukovV.HongH. (2002). Three-step censored quantile regression and extramarital affairs. Journal of American Statistical Association, 97(459), 872–882.
21.
ConnerK.R. (1991). A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought within industrial organization economics: Do we have a new theory of the firm?Journal of Management, 17(1), 121–154.
22.
de la TorreJ.R. (1971). Exports of manufactured goods from developing countries: Marketing factors and the role of foreign enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 2(1), 26–39.
23.
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (2009). SIA Newsletter—Annual Issue 2009. New Delhi: Government of India.
24.
DixitA. (1989). Entry and exit decisions under uncertainty. Journal of Political Economy, 97(3), 620–638.
25.
DosiG.SoeteL. (1988). Technical change and international trade. In DosiG.FreemanC.NelsonR.SilverbergG.SoeteL. (Eds), Technical change and economic theory (pp. 401–431). London: Printer Publisher.
26.
DunningJ.H. (2001). The eclectic (OLI) paradigm of international production: Past, present and future. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 8(2), 173–190.
27.
EricsonR.PakesA. (1995). Markov-perfect industry dynamics: A framework for empirical work. Review of Economic Studies, 62(1), 53–82.
28.
FernandezZ.NietoM.J. (2005). Internationalization strategy of small and medium-sized family business: Some influential factors. Family Business Review, 18(1), 77–89.
29.
FitzgeraldB.MonsonT. (1989). Preferential credit and insurance as means to promote exports. The World Bank Research Observer, 4(1), 89–114.
30.
Government of Gujarat (2009). Industrial Policy—2009. Gandhinagar: Government of Gujarat.
31.
Government of India (2009). Economic Survey 2008–2009. New Delhi: Ministry of Finance, Government of India.
32.
Government of Karnataka (1990). Industrial Policy 1990. Bengaluru: Department of Industries and Commerce, Government of Karnataka.
33.
Government of Karnataka (1993). Industrial Policy 1993. Bengaluru: Department of Industries and Commerce, Government of Karnataka.
34.
Government of Karnataka (2003). Export Promotion Policy 2002–2007. Bengaluru: Government of Karnataka.
35.
Government of Karnataka (2009). Annual Report 2008–09. Bengaluru: Department of Industries and Commerce, Government of Karnataka.
36.
Government of Maharashtra (2001). Maharashtra Industrial Policy 2001. Mumbai: Government of Maharashtra.
37.
Government of Tamil Nadu (2003). Tamil Nadu New Industrial Policy 2003. Chennai: Government of Tamil Nadu.
38.
GuillénM.F. (2000). Business groups in emerging economies: A resource-based view. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 362–380.
HymerS.H.(1960). The International Operations of National Firms: A Study of Direct Foreign Investment. PhD Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Published in 1976, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
41.
JohansonJ.VahlneJ.-E. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm: A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1), 23–32.
42.
JohansonJ.VahlneJ.-E. (1990). The mechanism of internationalization. International Marketing Review, 7(4), 11–24.
43.
JohansonJ.VahlneJ.-E. (2006). Commitment and opportunity development in the internationalization process: A note on the Uppsala internationalization process model. Management International Review, 46(2), 165–178.
44.
JohansonJ.Wiedersheim-PaulF. (1975). The internationalization of the firm-four Swedish case. Journal of Management Studies, 12(3), 305–322.
45.
JovanovicB. (1982). Selection and the evolution of industry. Econometrica, 50(3), 649–670.
46.
KhannaT.PalepuK. (2000). The future of business groups in emerging markets: Long run evidence from Chile. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 268–285.
47.
KimL. (1980). Stages of development of industrial technology in a developing country: A model. Research Policy, 9(3), 254–277.
48.
KindlebergerC.P. (1969). American Business Abroad. New Haven: Yale University Press.
49.
KumarN.PradhanJ.P. (2007). Knowledge-based exports from India: A firm-level analysis of determinants. In KumarN.JosephK.J. (Eds), International competitiveness & knowledge-based industries in India (pp. 53–96). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
50.
KumarN.SiddharthanN.S. (1994). Technology, firm size and export behaviour in developing countries: The case of Indian enterprises. The Journal of Development Studies, 31(2), 289–309.
51.
LallS. (1995). The creation of comparative advantage: The role of industrial policy. In HaqueI.U.BellM.DahlmanC.LallS.PavittK. (Eds), Trade, technology, and international competitiveness (pp. 103–134). Washington, DC: World Bank.
52.
LallS. (1999). India’s manufactured exports: Comparative structure and prospects. World Development, 27(10), 1769–1786.
53.
LefebvreE.LefebvreL.A. (2002). Innovative capabilities as determinants of export performance and behaviour: A longitudinal study of manufacturing SMEs. In KleinknechtA.MohnenP. (Eds), Innovation and firm performance: Econometric explorations of survey data (pp. 281–309). London: Palgrave.
54.
MarjitS.KarS. (2008). Regional trade openness index, income disparity and poverty: An experiment with Indian data. Jaipur, India: CUTS International.
55.
MelitzM. (2003). The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica, 71(6), 1695–1725.
56.
NelsonR.R. (1987). Innovation and economic development: Theoretical retrospect and prospect. In KatzJ. M. (Ed.), Technology generation in Latin American manufacturing industries (pp. 78–93). Hong Kong: The Macmillan Press.
57.
NewbouldG.BuckleyP.J.ThurwellJ.C. (1978). Going international: The experience of smaller companies overseas. London: Associated Business Press.
58.
PenroseE.T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Wiley.
59.
PosnerM.V. (1961). International trade and technical change. Oxford Economic Papers, 13(3), 323–341.
60.
PowellJ.L. (1986). Censored regression quantiles. Journal of Econometrics, 32(1), 143–155.
61.
PradhanJ.P. (2008). Indian multinationals in the world economy: Implications for development. New Delhi: Bookwell Publisher.
62.
PradhanJ.P. (2011). Regional heterogeneity and firms’ R&D in India. Innovation and Development, 1(2), 259–282.
63.
PradhanJ.P.SahuP.P. (2008). Transnationalization of Indian pharmaceutical SMEs. New Delhi: Bookwell Publisher.
64.
Reserve Bank of India (RBI). (2011). RBI handbook of statistics on Indian economy 2010–11. Mumbai: RBI.
65.
RobertsM.J.TyboutJ.R. (1997). The decision to export in Columbia: An empirical model of entry with sunk costs. American Economic Review, 87(4), 545–564.
66.
RoyD.K. (1993). Impact of incentives on export performance of Bangladesh: A preliminary assessment. Bangladesh Development Studies, 21(2), 25–44.
67.
RoyS.S. (2007). Demand and supply factors in the determination of India’s disaggregated manufactured exports: A simultaneous error-correction approach. CDS Working Paper, No. 383, Centre for Development Studies, Trivandrum.
68.
SiddharthanN.S.NollenS. (2004). MNE affiliation, firm size and exports revisited: A study of information technology firms in India. Journal of Development Studies, 40(6), 146–168.
69.
SinghN. (2001). Trade intensities over a liberalization phase: The influence of firm size, foreign ownership, and technological inputs in Indian pharmaceuticals. In GuhaA.KrishnaK.L.LahiriA. (Eds), Trade and industry: Essays by NIPFP–Ford Foundation fellows (pp. 27–64). New Delhi: Vikas.
70.
SinghN. (2006). R&D, imports of technology and trade intensities: A simultaneous equation micro-level examination. In TendulkarS.MitraA.NarayananK.DasD. (Eds), India: Industrialization in a reforming economy–Essays for K L Krishna (pp. 471–491). New Delhi: Academic Foundation.
71.
SoeteL.L.G. (1981). A general test of the technological gap trade theory. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 117(4), 638–660.
72.
SterlacchiniA. (2001). The determinants of export performance: A firm-level study of Italian manufacturing. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 137(3), 450–472.
73.
TeitelS. (1987). Towards an understanding of technical change in semi-industrialized countries. In KatzJ.M. (Ed.), Technology generation in Latin American manufacturing industries (pp. 94–115). Hong Kong: The Macmillan Press.
74.
TyboutJ.R. (2003). Plant- and firm-level evidence on the ‘new’ trade theories. In ChoiE.K.HarriganJ. (Eds), Handbook of international trade (pp. 388–415). Oxford: Basil-Blackwell.
75.
United Nations Centre on Transnational Corporations (UNCTC) (1984). Costs and conditions of technology transfer through transnational corporations. ESCAP/UNCTC Publication Series B, No. 3. Bangkok: United Nations.
76.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (1999). World investment report 1999: Foreign direct investment and the challenge of development. New York and Geneva: United Nations.
77.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). (2001). World investment report 2001: Promoting linkages. New York and Geneva: United Nations.
78.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). (2002). World investment report 2002: Transnational corporations and export competitiveness. New York and Geneva: United Nations.
79.
VernonR. (1966). International investment and international trade in the product cycle. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 88(2), 190–207.
WakelinK. (1998). Innovation and export behaviour at the firm level. Research Policy, 26(7–8), 829–841.
82.
WilhelmM.O. (2008). Practical considerations for choosing between Tobit and SCLS or CLAD estimators for censored regression models with an application to charitable giving. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 70(4), 559–582.
83.
WuY.FuD.TangY. (2010). The effects of ownership structure and industry characteristics on export performance: Evidence from Chinese manufacturing firms. Economics Discussion Paper, No. 10-09, Department of Economics, The University of Western, Australia Crawley.
84.
YangC.H.ChenJ.R.ChuangW.B. (2004). Technology and export decision. Small Business Economics, 22(5), 349–64.
