The article presents differences in firm-level total factor productivity in the information technology (IT) service firms in India over the period 2000–2016. It is an attempt to study whether technological efforts contribute to productivity differences in the firms in conjunction with several other firm specific characteristics. Controlling for endogeneity in inputs, the estimation of productivity through semi-parametric techniques indicates considerable heterogeneity in productivity across firm types. Technological efforts of firms have a significant impact on the productivity of IT firms. Both embodied technology imports and in-house R&D contribute to higher productivity. While the Indian firms are observed to be more productive compared to their foreign counterparts, the technological efforts also differ due to ownership factors and that contributes to changes in productivity.
AbramovitzM. (1956). Resource and output trends in the United States since 1870. The American Economic Review, 46(2), 5–23.
2.
AmitiM., & WeiS. (2004). Services outsourcing, production and employment: Evidence from the US (CEPR Discussion Paper No. 5475). CEPR.
3.
AroraA., & AthreyeS. (2002). The software industry and India’s economic development. Information Economics and Policy, 14(2), 253–273.
4.
AroraA., ArunachalamV. S., AsundiJ., & FernandesR. (2001). The Indian software services industry. Research Policy, 30(8), 1267–1287.
5.
AthreyeS. (2005). The Indian software industry and its evolving service capability. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(3), 393–418.
6.
AwB. Y., ChenX., & RobertsM. J. (2001). Firm-level evidence on productivity differentials and turnover in Taiwanese manufacturing. Journal of Development Economics, 66(1), 51–86.
7.
BangaR., & GoldarB. (2007). Contribution of services to output growth and productivity in Indian manufacturing: Pre- and post-reforms. Economic and Political Weekly, 42(26), 2769–2777.
8.
BartelsmanE. J., & DomsM. (2000). Understanding productivity: Lessons from longitudinal microdata. Journal of Economic Litera-ture, 38(3), 569–594.
9.
BasantR., & FikkertB. (1996). The effects of R&D, foreign technology purchase, and domestic and international spillovers on productivity in Indian firms. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 78(2), 187–199.
10.
BaumC. F., SchafferM. E., & StillmanS. (2003). Instrumental variables and GMM: Estimation and testing. The Stata Journal, 3(1), 1–31.
11.
BernardA. B., EatonJ., JensenJ. B., & KortumS. (2003). Plants and productivity in international trade. American Economic Review, 93(4), 1268–1290.
12.
BhagwatiJ., PanagariyaA., & SrinivasanT. N. (2004). The muddles over outsourcing. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(4), 93–114.
13.
BottassoA., & SembenelliA. (2004). Does ownership affect firms’ efficiency? Panel data evidence on Italy. Empirical Economics, 29(4), 769–786.
14.
CavesR. E. (1974). Multinational firms, competition, and productivity in host-country markets. Economica, 41(162), 176–193.
15.
ChawlaI. (2012). A note on the methodology for measuring labour input from company Databases. Economic and Political Weekly, 47(3), 69–76.
16.
DasD. K., ErumbanA. A., AggarwalS., & DasP. C. (2017). Measuring productivity at the Industry Level The India KLEMS Database, Data Manual, Reserve Bank of India.
17.
de GrootH., & MöhlmannJ. (2013). The effects of outsourcing on firm productivity: Evidence from microdata in the Netherlands (CPB Discussion Paper No. 250). Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
18.
DomsM. E., & JensenJ. B. (1998). Comparing wages, skills, and productivity between domestically and foreign-owned manufacturing establishments in the United States. In R. E. Baldwin, R. E. Lipsey, & J. D. Richardson (Eds.), Geography and ownership as bases for economic accounting (pp. 235–258). University of Chicago Press.
19.
DriscollJ. C., & KraayA. C. (1998). Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4), 549–560.
20.
DunningJ. H. (1977). Trade, location of economic activity and the MNE: A search for an eclectic approach. In B. Ohlin, P. Hesselborn, & P. M. Wijkman (Eds.), The international allocation of economic activity (pp. 395–418). Palgrave Macmillan.
21.
EggerH., & EggerP. (2006). International outsourcing and the productivity of low-skilled Labour in the EU. Economic Inquiry, 44(1), 98–108.
22.
FerrantinoM. (1992). Technology expenditures, factor intensity, and efficiency in Indian manufacturing. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 74(4), 689–700.
23.
GirmaS., & GörgH. (2004). Outsourcing, foreign ownership, and productivity: Evidence from UK establishment-level data. Review of International Economics, 12(5), 817–832.
24.
GirmaS., GreenawayA., & KnellerR. (2004). Does exporting increase productivity? A microeconometric analysis of matched firms. Review of International Economics, 12(5), 855–866.
25.
GörgH., HanleyA., & StroblE. (2004). Outsourcing, foreign ownership, exporting and productivity: An empirical investigation with plant level data. Globalisation, productivity and technology research paper (No. 2004/08). The University of Nottingham.
26.
GoldarB., & MitraA. (2002). Total factor productivity growth in Indian industry: A review of studies. In B. S. Minhas (Ed.), National income accounts and data systems (pp. 218–237). Oxford University Press.
27.
GoldarB., DasD. K., AggarwalS., ErumbanA. A., SenguptaS., DeK., & DasP. C. (2014, June). Estimates of productivity growth for the Indian economy (Study No. 15). DRG, RBI.
28.
GoodD. H., NadiriM. I., & SicklesR. C. (1996). Index number and factor demand approaches to the estimation of productivity (NBER Working Paper No. w5790). National Bureau of Economic Research.
29.
GreenawayD., & KnellerR. (2007). Industry differences in the effect of export market entry: Learning by exporting?Review of World Economics, 143(3), 416–432.
30.
GriffithR., ReddingS., & ReenenJ. V. (2004a). Mapping the two faces of R&D: Productivity growth in a panel of OECD industries. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(4), 883–895.
31.
GriffithR., ReddingS., & SimpsonH. (2004b). Foreign ownership and productivity: New evidence from the service sector and the R&D lab. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 20(3), 440–456.
32.
GrilichesZ. (1979). Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. The Bell Journal of Econom-ics, 10(1), 92–116.
33.
GrilichesZ., & JorgensonD. (1966). Sources of measured productivity change: Capital input. The American Economic Review, 56(1/2), 50–61.
34.
HarrisR., & RobinsonC. (2003). Foreign ownership and productivity in the United Kingdom estimates for UK manufacturing using the ARD. Review of Industrial Organization, 22(3), 207–223.
35.
HasanR. (2002). The impact of imported and domestic technologies on the productivity of firms: Panel data evidence from Indian manufacturing firms. Journal of Development Economics, 69(1), 23–49.
36.
IBEF. (2018, July). Indian IT, ITeS & BPM industry analysis. Indian Brand Equity Foundation.
37.
IBEF. (2019, July). Indian IT and ITeS industry analysis report. Indian Brand Equity Foundation.
38.
JavorcikB. S. (2004). Does foreign direct investment increase the productivity of domestic firms? In search of spillovers through backward linkages. American Economic Review, 94(3), 605–627.
39.
JosephK. J., & AbrahamV. (2005). Moving up or lagging behind? An index of technological competence in India’s ICT sector. In A. Saith, & M. Vijayabaskar (Eds.), ICTs and Indian economic development (pp. 131–153). SAGE Publications.
40.
KapurD. (2002). The causes and consequences of India’s IT boom. India Review, 1(2), 91–110.
41.
KathuriaV. (2001). Foreign firms, technology transfer and knowledge spillovers to Indian manufacturing firms: A stochastic frontier analysis. Applied Economics, 33(5), 625–642.
42.
KathuriaV., RajR. S. N., & SenK. (2013). Productivity measurement in Indian manufacturing: A comparison of alternative methods. Journal of Quantitative Economics11(1/2), 148–179.
43.
KhannaK., & SharmaC. (2018). Testing the effect of investments in IT and R&D on labour productivity: New method and evidence for Indian firms, Economic Letters, 174, 30–34.
44.
KhannaT., & PalepuK. (2000). Emerging market business groups, foreign intermediaries, and corporate governance. In R. K. Morck (Ed.), Concentrated corporate ownership (pp. 265–294). University of Chicago Press.
45.
KhannaT., & RivkinJ. W. (2001). Estimating the performance effects of business groups in emerging markets. Strategic Management Journal, 22(1), 45–74.
46.
KhannaT., & YafehY. (2007). Business groups in emerging markets: Paragons or parasites?Journal of Economic Literature, 45(2), 331–372.
47.
KumarN. (2001). Indian software industry development: International and national perspective. Economic and Political Weekly, 36(45), 4278–4290.
48.
LallS. (2000). Skills, competitiveness and policy in developing countries (QEH Documento de trabajo, 46). Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford.
49.
LallS. (2001). Competitiveness, technology and skills. Edward Elgar.
50.
LaminA. (2013). Business groups as information resource: An investigation of business group affiliation in the Indian software services industry. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1487–1509.
51.
LevinsohnJ., & PetrinA. (2003). Estimating production functions using inputs to control for unobservables. The Review of Economic Studies, 70(2), 317–341.
52.
MukherjeeS. (2018). Services outsourcing and productivity growth: Evidence from Indian manufacturing firms. South Asia Economic Journal, 19(2), 192–209.
53.
NarayananK., & BhatS. (2009). Technological efforts and export performance of IT firms in India. In N. S. Siddharthan, K. Narayanan (Eds.), Indian and Chinese enterprises: Global trade, technology and investment regimes (pp. 241–269). Routledge.
54.
NarayananK., & BhatS. (2011) Technology sourcing and outward FDI: A study of IT industry in India. Technovation, 31(4), 177–184.
55.
NASSCOM. (2019). Strategic review: IT-BPM sector in India 2019: Decoding digital. National Association of Software and Service companies.
56.
NelsonR. R. (1981). Research on productivity growth and productivity differences: Dead ends and new departures. Journal of Economic Literature, 19(3), 1029–1064.
57.
OlleyG. S., & PakesA. (1996). The dynamics of productivity in the telecommunications equipment industry. Econometrica, 64(6), 1263–1297.
58.
ParthasarathyB. (2010). The computer software as a vehicle of late industrialisation: Lessons from the Indian case. Journal of Asia Pacific Economy, 15(3), 247–270.
59.
ParthasarathyB., & AoyamaY. (2006). From software services to R&D services: Local entrepreneurship in the software industry in Bangalore, India. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 38(7), 1269–1285.
60.
PatibandlaM., KapurD., & PetersonB. (2000). Import substitution with free trade: Case of India’s software industry. Economic and Political Weekly, 35(15), 1263–1270.
61.
PatibandlaM., & PetersonB. (2002). Role of transnational corporations in the evolution of a high-tech industry: The case of India’s software Industry. World Development, 30(9), 1561–1577.
62.
PavcnikN. (2002). Trade liberalization, exit, and productivity improvements: Evidence from Chilean plants. The Review of Economic Stud-ies, 69(1), 245–276.
63.
RadhakrishnanK. G. (2006). India’s adolescent software industry. Far Eastern Economic Review, 169(4), 34–39.
64.
RautL. K. (1995). R&D spillover and productivity growth: Evidence from Indian private firms. Journal of Development Economics, 48(1), 1–23.
65.
RathB. N. (2018). Productivity growth and efficiency change: Comparing manufacturing-and service-based firms in India. Economic Modelling, 70, 447–457.
66.
RovigattiG., & MollisiV. (2018). Theory and practice of total-factor productivity estimation: The control function approach using Stata. The Stata Journal, 18(3), 618–662.
67.
SatpathyL. D., ChatterjeeB., & MahakudJ. (2017). Firm characteristics and total factor productivity: Evidence from Indian manufacturing firms. Margin: The Journal of Applied Economic Research, 11(1), 77–98.
68.
SahooB. (2013). Total Factor Productivity of the Software Industry in India (Working Paper No. 331). Institute of Economic Growth.
69.
SahuS., & NarayananK. (2011). Total factor productivity and energy intensity in Indian manufacturing: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 1(2), 47–58.
70.
SchwörerT. (2013). Offshoring, domestic outsourcing and productivity: Evidence for a number of European countries. Review of World Economics, 149(1), 131–149.
71.
SiddharthanN. S. (1992). Transaction costs, technology transfer, and in-house R&D: A study of the Indian private corporate sector. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 18(2), 265–271.
72.
SiddharthanN. S., & NollenS. (2004). MNE affiliation, firm size and exports revisited: A study of information technology firms in India. The Journal of Development Studies, 40(6), 146–168.
73.
SharmaC. (2014). Imported intermediate inputs, R&D, and productivity at firm level: Evidence from Indian man-ufacturing industries. The International Trade Journal, 28(3), 246–263.
74.
SolowR. (1957). Technical change and the aggregate production function. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 39(3), 312–320.
75.
SyversonC. (2011). What determines productivity?Journal of Economic Literature, 49(2), 326–365.
76.
TemouriY., DriffieldN. L., & HigónD. A. (2008). Analysis of productivity differences among foreign and domestic firms: Evidence from Germany. Review of World Economics, 144(1), 32–54.
77.
TopalovaP., & KhandelwalA. (2011). Trade liberalization and firm productivity: The case of India. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(3), 995–1009.
78.
XuB., & WangJ. (1999). Capital goods trade and R&D spillovers in the OECD. Canadian Journal of Economics, 32(5), 1258–1274.
