Keeping in mind the importance of telecommunications sector for India especially post the reform of 1991, the study seeks to study the causal relationship between telecommunication and economic growth for selected panel of 17 Indian states by implicitly taking into account panel heterogeneity. Using Hurlin–Venet causal mechanism, the study investigates homogeneous causality (HC) as against heterogeneous causality (HEC). Homogeneous non-causality and HC hypothesis both of which assume homogeneity are rejected in both the directions thereby implying that Indian panel is made up of heterogeneous cross sections. After this HEC tests are conducted namely heterogeneous non-causality (HENC) and HEC for each and every cross section. The results from HENC and HEC test show that six states show up unidirectional causality from economic growth to telecommunication, four states show unidirectional causality from telecommunications to economic growth, four states show up bidirectional relationship and three states show up no causality. The results are robust to different lags for both our dependent as well as independent variables. This implies that state level differences are very much relevant for India and thus policies suitable for each state would be guided majorly by direction of relationship that is true in a particular state economy.
AkkemikK. Ali, GöksalKoray, & LiJia. 2012. ‘Energy Consumption and Income in Chinese Provinces: Heterogeneous Panel Causality Analysis’. Applied Energy99: 445–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.05.025
2.
BarmanHemanta, DuttaMrinal Kanti, & NathHiranya K.. 2018. ‘The Telecommunications Divide Among Indian States’. Telecommunications Policy42 (7): 530–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2018.05.003
3.
BeilRichard O, FordGeorge S., & JacksonJohn D.. 2005. ‘On the Relationship Between Telecommunications Investment and Economic Growth in the United States’. International Economic Journal19 (1): 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/1351161042000320399
4.
BreuschT. S., & PaganAdrian. 1980. ‘The Lagrange Multiplier Test and its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics’. The Review of Economic Studies47 (1): 239. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
5.
BrynjolfssonErik, & YangShinkyu. 1996. ‘Information Technology and Productivity: A Review of the Literature’. Advances in Computers43 (C): 179–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2458(08)60644-0
6.
ÇaE.2013. ‘Identifying Tourism and Economic Growth Nexus: Hurlin–Venet Approach’. The Empirical Economics Letters12 (4).
7.
CroninFrancis J., ParkerEdwin B., ColleranElisabeth K., & GoldMark A.. 1991. ‘Telecommunications Infrastructure and Economic Growth. An Analysis of Causality’. Telecommunications Policy15 (6): 529–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-5961(91)90007-X
8.
OlalekanDavid Oladipo. 2019. ‘Nexus Between Telecommunication Infrastructures, Economic Growth and Development in Africa: Panel Vector Autoregression (P-VAR) Analysis’. Telecommunications Policy43 (8): 101816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2019.03.005
9.
DuttaAmitava. 2019. ‘Telecommunications and Economic Activity: An Analysis of Granger Causality’. Journal of Management Information Systems17 (4): 71–95.
10.
ErdilErkan, & YetkinerI. Hakan. 2005. ‘A Panel Data Approach for Income-Health Causality’. In The Economics of Health Reforms, edited by J. N. Yfantopoulos, 701–724. ATINER. https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sgc:wpaper:47
11.
GhoshSajal, & PrasadRohit. 2012. ‘Telephone Penetrations and Economic Growth: Evidence from India‘. NETNOMICS: Economic Research and Electronic Networking13 (1): 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11066-012-9067-z
12.
HurlinChristophe, & VenetBaptiste. 2001. ‘Granger Causality Tests in Panel Data Models with Fixed Coefficients’. Cahier de Recherche EURISCO.
13.
ImKyung So, Hashem PesaranM., & ShinYongcheol. 2003. ‘Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels’. Journal of Econometrics115 (1): 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7
14.
KatejaAlpana, & JhaDebajit. 2008. ‘Exploring the Casual Relationship Between Telecommunications and GDP Growth in India’. Artha Vijnana3: 195–208.
15.
KumarRonald Ravinesh, KumarRadika Devi, & PatelArvind. 2015. ‘Accounting for Telecommunications Contribution to Economic Growth: A Study of Small Pacific Island States’. Telecommunications Policy39 (3–4): 284–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2014.08.005
16.
LatifZahid, mengkeYang, DanishShahid Latif, XimeiLiu, PathanZulfiqar Hussain, SalamShafaq, & JianqiuaZeng. 2018. ‘The Dynamics of ICT, Foreign Direct Investment, Globalization and Economic Growth: Panel Estimation Robust to Heterogeneity and Cross-sectional Dependence’. Telematics and Informatics35 (2): 318–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.12.006
17.
GaryMadden, and SavageScott. 1998. ‘CEE Telecommunications Investment and Economic Growth’. Information Economics and Policy10 (2): 173–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6245(97)00020-6
18.
MahalingamBrinda, & OrmanWafa Hakim. 2018. ‘GDP and Energy Consumption: A Panel Analysis of the US’. Applied Energy213: 208–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.01.036
19.
PesaranM. Hashem. 2007. ‘A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in the Presence of Cross-section Dependence’. Journal of Applied Econometrics22 (2): 265–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae
20.
PradhanRudra P., MallikGirijasankar, & BagchiTapan P.. 2018. ‘Information Communication Technology (ICT) Infrastructure and Economic Growth: A Causality Evinced by Cross- country Panel Data’. IIMB Management Review30 (1): 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2018.01.001
21.
PradhanRudra P., ArvinMak B., NormanNeville R., & BeleSamadhan K.. 2014. ‘Economic Growth and the Development of Telecommunications Infrastructure in the G-20 Countries: A Panel-VAR Approach’. Telecommunications Policy38 (7): 634–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2014.03.001
22.
PradhanRudra Prakash, BeleSamadhan, & PandeyShashikant. 2013. ‘The Link Between Telecommunication Infrastructure and Economic Growth in 34 OECD Countries’. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management13 (3): 278–293. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTPM.2013.054915
23.
Lars-HendrikRoller, and WavermanLeonard. 2019. ‘Telecommunications Infrastructure and Economic Development: A Simultaneous Approach’. The American Economic Review91 (4): 909–923.
24.
ShiuA, LamPL (2008) Causal relationship between Telecommunications and Economic Growth: A study of 105 countries. Journal of Regional Studies42(5): 705–718.
25.
SridharKala Seetharam, & SridharVaradharajan. 2009. ‘Telecommunications Infrastructure and Economic Growth Evidence from Developing Countries’. Applied Econometrics and International Development2: 91–116.
26.
Vodafone Group Plc. 2009. ‘India: The Impact of Mobile Phones (Issue 9)’. https://www.vodafone.com/content/dam/vodcom/sustainability/pdfs/public_policy_series_9.pdf
27.
VuKhuong M.2011. ‘ICT as a Source of Economic Growth in the Information Age: Empirical Evidence from the 1996–2005 Period’. Telecommunications Policy35 (4): 357–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2011.02.008
28.
WesterlundJoakim. 2007. ‘Testing for Error Correction in Panel Data’. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics69 (6): 709–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x
29.
World Bank. 2016. ‘World Development Report: Digital Dividends’. World Bank Publications.
30.
YooSeung Hoon, & KwakSeung Jun. 2004. ‘Information Technology and Economic Development in Korea: A Causality Study’. International Journal of Technology Management27 (1): 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2004.003881
31.
ZhangChuanguo, & XuJiao. 2012. ‘Retesting the Causality Between Energy Consumption and GDP in China: Evidence from Sectoral and Regional Analyses Using Dynamic Panel Data’. Energy Economics34 (6): 1782–1789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2012.07.012
