The inter-regional disparity in economic indicators in India has increased by a considerable amount over the years. The current study is an attempt to highlight the inter-state industrialisation disparities in India. The study, based on the theoretic exposition of new economic geography, argues that the initial geographical (historical) advantage to the southern part of India has locked in industrial activities in that region (core), depriving the northern (periphery) regions of the similar benefits. Based on the Annual Survey of Industries data, the study validates that the southern regions are geographically advantageous in India and are better industrialised than the geographically disadvantaged northern regions. The study points towards the negligence of the union government in acknowledging and intervening into the industrialisation and developmental divides rampant in the latter regions. The study concludes by laying grounds open for the furtherance in the recognition of economic geography as one of the fundamental determinants of inter-regional inequalities across India, demanding immediate policy attention.
AbdelazizE. A., SaidurR., & MekhilefS. (2011). A review on energy saving strategies in industrial sector. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(1), 150–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.09.003
2.
Aguilera-CaracuelJ., & Guerrero-VillegasJ. (2018). How corporate social responsibility helps MNEs to improve their reputation. The moderating effects of geographical diversification and operating in developing regions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(4), 355–372.
3.
AhmedZ., ZafarM. W., & MansoorS. (2020). Analyzing the linkage between military spending, economic growth, and ecological footprint in Pakistan: Evidence from cointegration and bootstrap causality. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(33), 41551–41567.
4.
AmsdenA. H., & SinghA. (1994). The optimal degree of competition and dynamic efficiency in Japan and Korea. European Economic Review, 38(3–4), 941–951. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-2921(94)90130-9
5.
AndersonC. L. (1987). The production process: Inputs and wastes. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 14(1), 1–12.
6.
BadunenkoO., & KumbhakarS. C. (2017). Economies of scale, technical change and persistent and time-varying cost efficiency in Indian banking: Do ownership, regulation and heterogeneity matter? European Journal of Operational Research, 260(2), 789–803.
7.
BakshiS., ChawlaA., & ShahM. (2015). Regional disparities in India: A moving frontier. Economic & Political Weekly, 50(1), 44–52.
8.
BankerR. D., & MoreyR. C. (1986). Efficiency analysis for exogenously fixed inputs and outputs. Operations Research, 34(4), 513–521.
9.
BatteseG. E., & CoelliT. J. (1988). Prediction of firm-level technical efficiencies with a generalized frontier production function and panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 38(3), 387–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(88)90053-X
10.
BehrensK., & ThisseJ.-F. (2007). Regional economics: A new economic geography perspective. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 37(4), 457–465.
11.
BhattacharyaS., & KesarS. (2020). Precarity and development: Production and labor processes in the informal economy in India. Review of Radical Political Economics, 52(3), 387–408.
12.
Binswanger-MkhizeH. P., & D’SouzaA. (2015). Structural change and agricultural performance at the state level in India: 1980-2010. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 28(1), 27–38.
13.
BoschmaR. (2021). The role of non-local linkages for innovation. Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning.
14.
BresnahanT. F., BrynjolfssonE., & HittL. M. (2002). Information technology, workplace organization, and the demand for skilled labor: Firm-level evidence. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(1), 339–376.
15.
BrownP., & BallR. (1967). Some preliminary findings on the association between the earnings of a firm, its industry, and the economy. Journal of Accounting Research, 5, 55–77.
16.
CammishR., & KeoughM. (1991). A strategic role for purchasing. The McKinsey Quarterly, 3, 22–40.
DavidssonP. (1989). Entrepreneurship—And after? A study of growth willingness in small firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 4(3), 211–226.
19.
DeliosA., & BeamishP. W. (1999). Geographic scope, product diversification, and the corporate performance of Japanese firms. Strategic Management Journal, 20(8), 711–727.
20.
DevereuxM. P., GriffithR., & SimpsonH. (2007). Firm location decisions, regional grants and agglomeration externalities. Journal of Public Economics, 91(3–4), 413–435.
21.
DholakiaR. H. (2003). Regional disparity in economic and human development in India. Economic & Political Weekly, 38(39), 4166–4172.
22.
DudhaniS., SinhaA. K., & InamdarS. S. (2006). Assessment of small hydropower potential using remote sensing data for sustainable development in India. Energy Policy, 34(17), 3195–3205.
23.
EckD. L. (2012). India: A sacred geography. Harmony.
24.
EswaranM., KanemotoY., & RyanD. (1981). A dual approach to the locational decision of the firm. Journal of Regional Science, 21(4), 469–490.
25.
FujitaM., & KrugmanP. (2004). The new economic geography: Past, present and the future. In Fifty years of regional science (pp. 139–164). Springer.
26.
FujitaM., & ThisseJ. F. (2009). New economic geography: an appraisal on the occasion of Paul Krugman’s 2008 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences. Regional science and Urban Economics, 39(2), 109–119.
27.
GarretsenH., & MartinR. (2010). Rethinking (new) economic geography models: Taking geography and history more seriously. Spatial Economic Analysis, 5(2), 127–160.
28.
GhaniS. E., GoswamiA. G., & KerrW. (2013). Highway to success in India: The impact of the Golden Quadrilateral Project for the location and performance of manufacturing (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 6320).
29.
GreeneW. (2005). Reconsidering heterogeneity in panel data estimators of the stochastic frontier model. Journal of Econometrics, 126(2), 269–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2004.05.003
30.
GriffinR. C., MontgomeryJ. M., & RisterM. E. (1987). Selecting functional form in production function analysis. Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, 12(2), 216–227.
31.
GroshenE. L. (1991). The structure of the female/male wage differential: Is it who you are, what you do, or where you work?Journal of Human Resources, 26(3), 457–472.
32.
HaqR., KlarsfeldA., KornauA., & NgunjiriF. W. (2020). Diversity in India: Addressing caste, disability and gender. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 39(6), 585–596.
33.
HasanbeigiA., & PriceL. (2012). A review of energy use and energy efficiency technologies for the textile industry. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(6), 3648–3665.
34.
HavinalV. (2009). Management and entrepreneurship. New Age International.
35.
HeK., & WangL. (2017). A review of energy use and energy-efficient technologies for the iron and steel industry. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 1022–1039.
36.
JainM., & JehlingM. (2020). Analysing transport corridor policies: An integrative approach to spatial and social disparities in India. Journal of Transport Geography, 86(June), 102781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102781
37.
JohnK., KnyazevaA., & KnyazevaD. (2011). Does geography matter? Firm location and corporate payout policy. Journal of Financial Economics, 101(3), 533–551.
38.
KangK. H., LeeS., ChoiK., & LeeK. (2012). Geographical diversification, risk and firm performance of US casinos. Tourism Geographies, 14(1), 117–146.
39.
KhanJ. I., MajeedM., & MushtaqS. O. (2021). An efficiency analysis of micro units in a fragile zone: A panel study of the firms in J&K, India. Review of Market Integration, 13(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/09749292211044847
40.
KrugmanP. (1991a). History and industry location: The case of the manufacturing belt. The American Economic Review, 81(2), 80–83.
41.
KrugmanP. (1991b). Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99(3), 483–499.
42.
Lahiri-DuttK. (2016). The coal nation: Histories, ecologies and politics of coal in India. Routledge.
43.
LevitskyS., & WayL. (2005). International linkage and democratization. Journal of Democracy, 16(3), 20–34.
44.
MajeedM., KhanJ. I., & MushtaqS. O. (2021b). An analysis of MSME’s efficiency: A study of two comparable northern Indian regions. SEDME (Small Enterprises Development, Management & Extension Journal), 47(3), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/09708464211038717
45.
MajeedM., KhanJ. I., MushtaqS. O., & RatherZ. G. (2021a). The industrial research and development profile of the MSMEs sector in India. SEDME (Small Enterprises Development, Management & Extension Journal), 48(3), 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/09708464211043391
46.
MandalR. K. (2009). Emerging scenario of trade potentialities of north-east India: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Global Economy, 5(1), 68–86.
47.
MarshallA. (1898). Distribution and exchange. The Economic Journal, 8(29), 37–59.
48.
MartinP., & OttavianoG. I. P. (1999). Growing locations: Industry location in a model of endogenous growth. In Firms and workers in a globalized world: Larger markets, tougher competition (pp. 3–24). World Scientific.
49.
MascarenhasB., KumaraswamyA., DayD., & BavejaA. (2002). Five strategies for rapid firm growth and how to implement them. Managerial and Decision Economics, 23(4–5), 317–330.
50.
McCannP., & SheppardS. (2003). The rise, fall and rise again of industrial location theory. Regional Studies, 37(6–7), 649–663. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340032000108741
51.
MillerD. R. (1970). Differences among cities, differences among firms, and costs of urban bus transport. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 19(1), 22–32.
52.
MoSPIG. (2018). Instruction manual (concepts, definitions and procedures).
53.
MunS. G., & JangS. S. (2018). Restaurant operating expenses and their effects on profitability enhancement. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 71, 68–76.
54.
MurugesanT. K., KumarB. S., & KumarM. S. (2012). Competitive advantage of world class manufacturing system (WCMS)—A study of manufacturing companies in south India. European Journal of Social Sciences, 29(2), 295–311.
55.
NachumL. (2004). Geographic and industrial diversification of developing country firms. Journal of Management Studies, 41(2), 273–294.
56.
NagarajR., & KapoorR. (2022). What is ‘formalisation’ of the economy?India Forum, 1–14.
57.
NaiduN. V. R. (2010). Management and entrepreneurship. IK International Pvt. Ltd.
58.
NormanG. (2014). Partial equilibrium analysis. In Dictionary of industrial organization. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
59.
OttavianoG. (2003). Regional policy in the global economy: Insights from new economic geography. Regional Studies, 37(6–7), 665–673.
60.
PandaA., & GuptaR. K. (2004). Mapping cultural diversity within India: A meta-analysis of some recent studies. Global Business Review, 5(1), 27–49.
61.
PatraJ. (2016). Review of current and planned adaptation action in India(CARIAA Working Paper #10).
62.
PhelpsN. A. (1992). External economies, agglomeration and flexible accumulation. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 17(1), 35–46.
63.
RajasekarT., AshrafS., & DeoM. (2014). An empirical enquiry on the financial distress of Navratna Companies in India. Journal of Accounting and Finance, 14(3), 100.
64.
RouyerA. R. (1994). Explaining economic backwardness and weak governing capability in Bihar state in India. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 17(2), 63–89.
65.
SaezE., SchoeferB., & SeimD. (2019). Payroll taxes, firm behavior, and rent sharing: Evidence from a young workers’ tax cut in Sweden. American Economic Review, 109(5), 1717–1763.
66.
SaitluangaB. L. (2013). Globalisation, urbanisation and spatial inequality in India with special reference to North East India. Space and Culture India, 1(2), 21–34.
67.
SchmutzlerA. (1999). The new economic geography. Journal of Economic Surveys, 13(4), 355–379.
68.
ShenfieldA., & FlorenceP. S. (1944). The economies and diseconomies of industrial concentration: The wartime experience of Coventry. The Review of Economic Studies, 12(2), 79–99.
69.
SinghS. N. (2013). Mizoram: Historical, geographical, social, economic, political and administrative.
70.
SodhiJ. S. (2013). Trade unions in India: Changing role & perspective. The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 49(2), 169–184.
71.
SridharK. S., & WanG. (2010). Firm location choice in cities: Evidence from China, India, and Brazil. China Economic Review, 21(1), 113–122.
72.
SykesJ. (1950). Diversification of industry. The Economic Journal, 60(240), 697–714.
73.
The Collection of Statistics Act, 1(1953).
74.
The Factories Act, 100(1948) (Testimony of Ministry of Law GOI).
75.
The Jammu and Kashmir Collection of Statistics Act (1961) (testimony of GoJ&K).
76.
VenablesA. J. (2010). New economic geography. In Economic growth (pp. 207–214). Springer.
77.
WeberA. (1909). Über den Standort der Industrien, translated by CJ Friedrich (1929). Alfred Weber’s theory of the location of industries.
