IAS/UPSC Coaching Institute  

Article 2: Industrial Policy & Manufacturing Growth

Why in News: India’s smartphone Production Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme has emerged as a successful model of industrial policy, prompting debate on its replication across sectors.

Key Details

  • Smartphone PLI (launched 2020) led to production rising from $30 billion (2020) to ~$64 billion (FY 2025).
  • Exports surged from $3.1 billion to ~$24 billion, increasing global share from ~1% to ~8%.
  • Around 1.5–2 lakh jobs created, with strong participation of global firms.
  • New Electronics Component Manufacturing Scheme (ECMS) aims to deepen domestic supply chains.

Industrial Policy in India – Concept & Evolution

  • Definition & Objective: Industrial policy refers to government interventions to promote sectors through incentives, tariffs, and reforms, aiming at growth, employment, and competitiveness.
  • Historical Evolution: From the License Raj (pre-1991) to post-liberalisation reforms, India shifted from state-led control to market-driven industrialisation.
  • Contemporary Focus: Recent policies like Make in India, PLI schemes, and Atmanirbhar Bharat emphasise manufacturing, exports, and integration into global value chains.
  • Global Context: Countries like China and Vietnam have successfully used industrial policy to become manufacturing hubs, influencing India’s strategy.

Success of Smartphone PLI – Key Outcomes

  • Export-Led Growth: The scheme prioritised exports, leading to an 8-fold increase in smartphone exports, integrating India into global markets.
  • Investment & Production Surge: With about $1.2 billion incentive, production reached ~$64 billion, showing high multiplier effect of targeted subsidies.
  • Employment Generation: Labour-intensive assembly created 1.5–2 lakh jobs, including significant participation of women workers in manufacturing units.
  • Global Value Chain Integration: Entry of firms like Foxconn and Tata Electronics strengthened India’s position in electronics supply chains.

Export Orientation vs Import Substitution

  • Export-Led Strategy: Unlike traditional policies, smartphone PLI focused on exports rather than protectionism, ensuring global competitiveness.
  • Scale Advantage: India’s domestic demand is limited compared to global markets; exports enabled economies of scale and productivity gains.
  • Learning from East Asia: Countries like China followed an export-first model, which India is now replicating in electronics manufacturing.

Role of Downstream Assembly in Industrialisation

  • Assembly as Entry Point: Policy targeted final assemblers, which act as growth engines for industrial ecosystems.
  • Job Creation Potential: Large plants employ tens of thousands (e.g., Foxconn units), making assembly crucial for labour absorption.
  • MSME Linkages: Assemblers create demand for components, benefiting small and medium enterprises in supply chains.
  • Sequential Development Model: Like China and Vietnam, India is building assembly first, then moving upstream to components.

Supply Chain & Input Cost Rationalisation

  • Reduction in Import Duties: Lower tariffs on components improved cost competitiveness, avoiding policy contradictions.
  • Ease of Input Flow: Availability of raw materials and components ensured smooth production cycles.
  • Avoiding Policy Distortions: In many sectors, high tariffs negate incentives; smartphone policy avoided this, ensuring policy coherence.
  • Competitiveness Factor: Competitive input costs are essential to sustain exports in price-sensitive global markets.

Ease of Doing Business & Governance Support

  • Administrative Responsiveness: Quick expansion of infrastructure (e.g., airport cargo capacity) facilitated export logistics.
  • Centre-State Coordination: State governments acted as facilitators in resolving labour and operational issues.
  • Policy Stability: Predictable policies built investor confidence, attracting global manufacturers.
  • Consultative Approach: Continuous industry consultations ensured policies were practical and responsive.

Limitations of PLI in Other Sectors

  • Low Disbursement Rates: Only about 10% of allocated ₹1.97 lakh crore PLI funds have been utilised, indicating implementation gaps.
  • Lack of Export Focus: Many sectors remain inward-looking, limiting global competitiveness.
  • High Input Costs: Tariff barriers in other industries reduce effectiveness of incentives.
  • Structural Challenges: Issues like infrastructure gaps, logistics costs, and regulatory hurdles persist.

Way Forward for Industrial Policy

  • Export-Centric Approach: Focus on sectors with global demand like textiles, electronics, and toys.
  • Strengthening Supply Chains: Promote domestic component manufacturing through schemes like ECMS.
  • Labour-Intensive Manufacturing: Prioritise sectors generating large-scale employment.
  • Long-Term Policy Commitment: Sustained support (as seen in China spending ~2% of GDP) is needed for global competitiveness.

Conclusion

India’s smartphone success offers a replicable template for industrial policy, highlighting the importance of export orientation, supply chain integration, and ease of doing business. However, scaling this success requires policy coherence, sustained investment, and sector-specific strategies. A balanced approach combining competitiveness with employment generation will be key to transforming India into a global manufacturing hub.