Trade Liberalisation and Productivity Growth in Manufacturing: Evidence from Firm-Level Panel Data

By P. Balakrishnan, K. Pushpangadan, M. S. Babu. 2000

168 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Heterogeneous MNC subsidiaries and technological spillovers: Explaining positive and negative effects in India (2010, methodology): “The number of sample firms used in the final analysis is similar to earlier studies (Balakrishnan et al., 2000; Topalova 2004) pertaining to Indian manufacturing using the PROWESS. ii.”
The Long-Term Effects of Management and Technology Transfers (2019, methodology): “To estimate its value at replacement cost, I use the R factor suggested by Balakrishnan et al. (2000): R = [(1 + g) 1](1 + ⇡) [(1 + g)(1 + ⇡) 1] g{[(1 + g)(1 + ⇡)]⌧+1 1} (C.”
Trade Liberalization and Firm Productivity: The Case of India (2004, unknown): “The standard approach to estimating the effects of trade liberalization is to estimate the coefficient of an indicator variable for post-reform period (Tybout et al. (1991), Krishna and Mitra (1998), Balakrishnan et al. (2000) , and Aghion et al. (2003)).”
Barriers to Competition and Productivity: Evidence from India (2009, background): “…of generally focused on a few selected industries and come to contrasting conclusions of the effect of trade reform on productivity (e.g. Krishna and Mitra (1998) find a positive effect of trade liberalization, while Balakrishnan et al (2000) find a negative effect; see review by Epifani (2003)).”