assignment代寫范文
09-01, 2014
形成新產(chǎn)業(yè)的經(jīng)濟特區(qū)在印度出口政策自由化政權(quán)中是一個重要的組成部分。毫無疑問,在八十年代中國經(jīng)濟特區(qū)的成功吸引了很多人的注意力特別是在像印度這樣的發(fā)展中國家1。聯(lián)邦政府的政策在經(jīng)濟特區(qū)在印度2000年4月生效。這是到目前為止的出臺的最新對印度的出口政策,甚至可能代表未來的產(chǎn)業(yè)發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略方向。2005年,會議中通過了建立經(jīng)濟特區(qū)的開發(fā)和管理經(jīng)濟特區(qū)的法案。在2006年6月,有八個功能經(jīng)濟特區(qū)位于圣克魯斯(馬哈拉施特拉邦),科欽(喀拉拉邦)Kandla和蘇拉特(古吉拉特邦),欽奈(泰米爾納德邦),維薩卡帕特南(安得拉邦)Falta(西孟加拉)和諾伊達(dá)(北方邦)。至二零零七年五月,該國經(jīng)濟特區(qū)正式通過之后，在二零零五年經(jīng)數(shù)量已經(jīng)達(dá)到一百。
Formation of SEZs is an important constituent of the new industrial and export policies of India during the liberalized regime. Undoubtedly, the success of the Chinese SEZs in the 1980s has attracted the attention of the policymakers in the developing countries 1 like India. The Union government policy on SEZ in India came into effect in April 2000. It is the latest thinking so far on India’s export policy and may even represent the future of industrial development strategy. In 2005, the Special Economic Zones Act was passed in the parliament with the purpose of establishing, developing and managing SEZs in the country. By June 2006, there were eight functional Special Economic Zones located at Santa Cruz (Maharashtra), Cochin (Kerala), Kandla and Surat (Gujarat), Chennai (Tamil Nadu), Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh), Falta (West Bengal) and Noida (Uttar Pradesh) in India and eighteen more were approved, waiting to become functional. By May 2007, the number of notified SEZs in the country after the passing of the SEZ Act of 2005 had reached one hundred.
In addition to exemption from import and export duties, establishments in SEZs get sufficient incentives in terms of benefits in income tax, service tax and other obligations to the central and state governments. So it is not at all surprising that a large number of enterprises have queued up either to develop an SEZ or to enter an already established SEZ in India. It is argued that well-implemented and designed SEZ can bring about many desired benefits for a host-country: increases in employment, FDI attraction, general economic growth, foreign exchange earnings, international exposure, and the transfer of new technologies and skills. But the pertinent question remains: whether this procedure of industrialization would affect agriculture seriously. Such a dilemma has been observed in many predominantly agricultural countries that intend to industrialize using agricultural land. One can see for example: Bhaduri (2007), Fernandes (2007), Chaudhuri and Yabuuchi (2010) and Yabuuchi (2001) etc. The major question in this context is: can industry (SEZs) and agriculture grow simultaneously without hurting one another? Chaudhuri and Yabuuchi (2010) addressed this question in terms of a three-sector HarrisTodaro type general equilibrium model, but did not consider increasing returns brought about by positive externalities arising out of localization of similar industries in one region facilitated by SEZs. To consider this we incorporate increasing returns brought about by external economies of scale.
This has all usual properties of CRS production function. Therefore, at the level of ‘m’ and X 1 it is the usual 2 × 2 CRS Jones (1965) structure. Without any loss of generality, we can assume ‘m’ is more capital-intensive than X 1 . IRS sector 2 is imposed on Jones (1965) CRS structure. This is quite legitimate assumption as SEZs facilitate similar industries to be located together which creates positive externalities leading to consequent increasing returns (Yabuuchi, 2001).
Since more and more people shift to the higher wage paying industrial and service sectors, the money wage received by the remaining people in agriculture will increase, leading to increase in h. Now, there is increased government spending (assuming β<1) on modern advanced technology which will further improve workers’ efficiency.
So, industrialization aided by SEZs is likely to have a favourable effect on agricultural productivity. With industrialization, as more and more people shift to the industrial and the services sectors, pressure on agricultural land will fall and average landholding will increase as some of the emigrants going away from the rural sector will sell off their land to the people who would stay back. An increase in average landholding in the agricultural sector would, in turn, help consolidate fragmented pieces of landholding, which again would make possible the use of modern technology. Indeed, excessive fragmentation of land in India is one of the main constraints to the introduction of advanced methods of production. If land is consolidated, this constraint would be relaxed. It may be mentioned that in the advanced countries 2% to 4% of the population is engaged in agriculture. But this small fraction of people is able to feed the entire country. This is made possible by the very high levels of productivity of labour in the agricultural sector, which again is the result of advanced technology. If a similar pattern can emerge in India, the increase in the productivity of labour in the agricultural sector can indeed compensate for the loss of production due to shifting of resources away from agriculture to the industrial sectors aided by SEZ.
This paper shows that it is possible for both SEZ and agriculture to grow simultaneously if the subsidy policy is designed in an appropriate way. We have considered increasing returns brought about by external scale economies due to localization of similar industries in the industrial sector aided by SEZ and have taken Dixit-Stiglitz (1977) type production function absolutely tenable with IRS; while the resource used to produce each variety is produced itself using CRS technology. CRS also prevails in agricultural sector. In this model, we have seen that a significant part of the subsidy must be spent on the use of modern technology in agriculture to improve the productivity of the remaining sections of the workforce in the agricultural sector to achieve expansion in agriculture along with SEZ-led industrialization. The final outcomes, of course rely much on the political will of the government.
Formation of SEZs is an important constituent of the new industrial and export policies of India during the liberalized regime. Undoubtedly, the success of the Chinese SEZs in the 1980s has attracted the attention of the policymakers in the developing countries 1 like India. The Union government policy on SEZ in India came into effect in April 2000. It is the latest thinking so far on India’s export policy and may even represent the future of industrial development strategy. In 2005, the Special Economic Zones Act was passed in the parliament with the purpose of establishing, developing and managing SEZs in the country. By June 2006, there were eight functional Special Economic Zones located at Santa Cruz (Maharashtra), Cochin (Kerala), Kandla and Surat (Gujarat), Chennai (Tamil Nadu), Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh), Falta (West Bengal) and Noida (Uttar Pradesh) in India and eighteen more were approved, waiting to become functional. By May 2007, the number of notified SEZs in the country after the passing of the SEZ Act of 2005 had reached one hundred.
In addition to exemption from import and export duties, establishments in SEZs get sufficient incentives in terms of benefits in income tax, service tax and other obligations to the central and state governments. So it is not at all surprising that a large number of enterprises have queued up either to develop an SEZ or to enter an already established SEZ in India. It is argued that well-implemented and designed SEZ can bring about many desired benefits for a host-country: increases in employment, FDI attraction, general economic growth, foreign exchange earnings, international exposure, and the transfer of new technologies and skills. But the pertinent question remains: whether this procedure of industrialization would affect agriculture seriously. Such a dilemma has been observed in many predominantly agricultural countries that intend to industrialize using agricultural land. One can see for example: Bhaduri (2007), Fernandes (2007), Chaudhuri and Yabuuchi (2010) and Yabuuchi (2001) etc. The major question in this context is: can industry (SEZs) and agriculture grow simultaneously without hurting one another? Chaudhuri and Yabuuchi (2010) addressed this question in terms of a three-sector HarrisTodaro type general equilibrium model, but did not consider increasing returns brought about by positive externalities arising out of localization of similar industries in one region facilitated by SEZs. To consider this we incorporate increasing returns brought about by external economies of scale.
This has all usual properties of CRS production function. Therefore, at the level of ‘m’ and X 1 it is the usual 2 × 2 CRS Jones (1965) structure. Without any loss of generality, we can assume ‘m’ is more capital-intensive than X 1 . IRS sector 2 is imposed on Jones (1965) CRS structure. This is quite legitimate assumption as SEZs facilitate similar industries to be located together which creates positive externalities leading to consequent increasing returns (Yabuuchi, 2001).
Since more and more people shift to the higher wage paying industrial and service sectors, the money wage received by the remaining people in agriculture will increase, leading to increase in h. Now, there is increased government spending (assuming β<1) on modern advanced technology which will further improve workers’ efficiency.
So, industrialization aided by SEZs is likely to have a favourable effect on agricultural productivity. With industrialization, as more and more people shift to the industrial and the services sectors, pressure on agricultural land will fall and average landholding will increase as some of the emigrants going away from the rural sector will sell off their land to the people who would stay back. An increase in average landholding in the agricultural sector would, in turn, help consolidate fragmented pieces of landholding, which again would make possible the use of modern technology. Indeed, excessive fragmentation of land in India is one of the main constraints to the introduction of advanced methods of production. If land is consolidated, this constraint would be relaxed. It may be mentioned that in the advanced countries 2% to 4% of the population is engaged in agriculture. But this small fraction of people is able to feed the entire country. This is made possible by the very high levels of productivity of labour in the agricultural sector, which again is the result of advanced technology. If a similar pattern can emerge in India, the increase in the productivity of labour in the agricultural sector can indeed compensate for the loss of production due to shifting of resources away from agriculture to the industrial sectors aided by SEZ.
This paper shows that it is possible for both SEZ and agriculture to grow simultaneously if the subsidy policy is designed in an appropriate way. We have considered increasing returns brought about by external scale economies due to localization of similar industries in the industrial sector aided by SEZ and have taken Dixit-Stiglitz (1977) type production function absolutely tenable with IRS; while the resource used to produce each variety is produced itself using CRS technology. CRS also prevails in agricultural sector. In this model, we have seen that a significant part of the subsidy must be spent on the use of modern technology in agriculture to improve the productivity of the remaining sections of the workforce in the agricultural sector to achieve expansion in agriculture along with SEZ-led industrialization. The final outcomes, of course rely much on the political will of the government.
如果您有論文代寫需求，可以通過下面的方式聯(lián)系我們
點擊聯(lián)系客服