The Impact of Government Policies and export promotion

schemes on Steel Exports in India: A Comparative Study

Dissertation by

Ankita Yadav

Candidate Number: 259633

Submitted to: University of Sussex
Course: Masters of Business Administration (MBA)
Sussex Business School

Supervised by
Dr. Rishika Nayyar

Submission date: 24/08/2023

 Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................... 2
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 3

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ....................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Theoretical Linkages ............................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Empirical Studies .................................................................................................................. 6
2.3 Hypothesis ............................................................................................................................. 8
2.4 Policies Examined ...................................................................................................... 11
Direct Policies
Indirect Policies

3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 13
3.1 Data collection & sampling ........................................................................................ 13
3.2 Operationalization of Variables ........................................................................................ 14
3.3 Analytical Techniques ................................................................................................. 15

4. RESEARCH FINDINGS.......................................................................................................... 16
4.1 Visualization of Trends................................................................................................. 16
4.2 Analysis of Direct Policies ............................................................................................ 18
4.3 Analysis of Indirect Policies .......................................................................................... 20
4.4 Comparative Analysis .................................................................................................. 23

5. CONCLUSION & LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................ 25

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................... 27

LIST OF FIGURES:

Figure 1: Trends in Steel Exports .................................................................................................... 17

Figure 2: Trends in GDP Growth Rate ............................................................................................. 17
Figure 3: Trends in Annual Exchange Rate ..................................................................................... 18

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Regression Results for Direct Policies ................................................................................ 19

Table 2: Regression results for Indirect Policies .............................................................................. 21
Table 3: Comparative Analysis ........................................................................................................ 23

Page 1 of 29
ABSTRACT:

The Indian steel industry, historically significant in its growth and

modernization, has positioned India as a global leader in steel production. This research delves
into the influence of government interventions, both direct and indirect, on the trajectory of
India's steel exports. Drawing upon the theory of comparative advantage and the role of policy
frameworks, the study hypothesizes the pronounced impact of direct policies on steel exports.
Through quantitative analysis covering data from 1993 to 2022, the findings underscore the
substantial positive association of direct policies, especially the DFIA (2006), with steel
exports. The National Steel Policy (2005), an indirect policy, also demonstrates a positive
impact on exports. The direct policies in comparison to indirect policies, consistently show a
more immediate and significant effect on steel exports. This research contributes to academic
discourse and offers valuable insights for future policy design and strategic orientation in the
Indian steel sector.

Page 2 of 29
 The Impact of Government Policies and export promotion
schemes on Steel Exports in India: A Comparative Study

1. INTRODUCTION

The Indian steel industry has, over the years, emerged as a bedrock of the nation's
economic ascendancy, interlinking several industrial sectors, and charting a noteworthy trail
on the global scene (Ghosh, 2019). With its historical roots stretching back to the pre-
independence era, the steel sector has chronicled an impressive journey through phases of
growth, modernization, and global integration (Kumar & Singh, 2017). It stands as a testament
to India’s relentless efforts in infrastructure advancement, job generation, and the harnessing
of foreign exchange. According to recent statistics from the World Steel Association (2022)
and the Ministry of Steel (2022), in 2021 alone, India produced a prodigious 106.5 million
tonnes of crude steel, capturing 5.9% of global production. Not only does this establish India
as the world's second-largest steel producer, trailing only China, but with a year-on-year export
increase of 25.1%, the nation also solidified its position as the ninth-largest steel exporter
worldwide (Rajeshwari, 2021). Such monumental achievements underscore the sheer
magnitude and economic significance of steel exports within the broader tapestry of India's
trade and industry landscape.

The trajectory of India's steel industry hasn't been solely a product of market
dynamics; it has been significantly influenced and shaped by targeted government interventions
(Suresh & Paul, 2018). Since the 1991 economic liberalization, the Indian government has
unfurled a plethora of policies and export promotion schemes, aiming to catapult the nation to
the forefront of the global steel market (Sharma, 2015). These interventions sought to
invigorate exports, establish competitive advantages, and ensure sustained growth. However,
despite such significant governmental involvement, academic discourse appears to lag in
providing an in-depth understanding of the actual impact of these policies on the industry's
export performance (Dutta, 2020). There's a discernible gap in the literature, particularly
regarding how these myriad interventions correlate with, and possibly amplify the steel export
surge. This gap warrants rigorous exploration, given its ramifications for future policy-making
and industrial strategy.

While broad economic studies have often highlighted the role of export promotion initiatives
in fostering economic growth (Friedman & Weiner, 1991; Krueger, 1990; Romer, 1994), a

Page 3 of 29
niche exploration focusing explicitly on the Indian steel sector’s export performance in
response to governmental interventions remains relatively underexplored. Bridging this
knowledge gap is the primary impetus behind this research. The objective of the current study
is to meticulously analyze the interplay between government policies, export promotion
initiatives, and their consequent effects on India's steel exports. Stemming from this objective,
the study poses two central research questions:

1) How have governmental policies and schemes influenced the trajectory of steel exports
from India?

2) How do direct and indirect policies compare in terms of their effectiveness in driving
steel exports?

These questions, quintessential in their nature, aim not only to fill the scholarly void but also
to provide actionable insights for future policy design and strategic orientation. To address
these pivotal research questions, the study takes a systematic approach. In this paper, we will
dissect both direct policies, which explicitly incentivize exports through mechanisms like the
FPS (Focus Product Scheme) and DFIA (Duty-Free Import Authorization), and indirect
policies, which focus on curbing production costs. The analytical scope encompasses a three-
decade span, from 1993 to 2022, utilizing secondary data from reliable sources such as
government reports, industry publications, and academic journals. This long-term view offers
a comprehensive perspective on trends and policy impacts. The methodology will primarily be
quantitative, employing tools like the OLS regression to interpret the data and draw meaningful
conclusions. By comparing the outcomes of various direct and indirect policies, the study aims
to provide a clearer understanding of which strategies have had the most pronounced effect on
steel exports from India.

In summation, our research findings indicate a pronounced impact of direct policies on

steel exports in India. Such policies, tailored to specifically bolster exports, appear to offer
more potent outcomes compared to broader, indirect strategies. The findings of this research
not only enhance our academic understanding of the subject but also have tangible implications
for the steel industry and policymaking in India. The practical outcomes, deeply intertwined
with the strategic decisions and the future trajectory of the Indian steel sector, will be elaborated
upon in subsequent sections of this paper. Through this detailed exposition, we aim to provide
valuable insights and recommendations that can potentially shape the industry's roadmap and
inform future governmental interventions.

Page 4 of 29
This paper is structured as follows: after this introduction, Section 2 presents the literature
review and the Hypothesis. Section 3 presents the data used, the empirical specification, and
the research method. Section 4 presents the research findings & interpretation. Finally, Section
5 presents the conclusions and limitations of the study.

2. REVIEW OF LITERARURE

The Indian steel industry stands as a cornerstone in the nation's economic edifice,
playing a pivotal role in its developmental narrative. Its growth and trajectory are significantly
molded by a myriad of governmental policies and export promotion strategies, reflecting the
sector's strategic importance. In the paper ahead we will discuss deep into the vast empirical
literature and theoretical linkages to the present-day study, aiming to unravel the nuanced
interplays between these governmental interventions and their tangible outcomes on India's
steel exports. Rooted in time-tested trade theories and underpinned by insights from industrial
policy dynamics and export promotion paradigms, we further navigate the intricate tapestry of
policy frameworks and their ramifications. By meticulously analyzing seminal literature and
empirical findings, our objective is to offer a granular perspective that not only enlightens
policymakers but also bestows readers with a comprehensive understanding of the various
governmental strategies sculpting the landscape of India's steel exports.

2.1 Theoretical Linkages:

At the heart of international trade lies the principle of comparative advantage.

Conceived by Ricardo (1817), the theory of comparative advantage postulates that nations
stand to gain when they specialize in the production of goods and services in which they have
a relative cost advantage. In doing so, countries can trade with one another, leading to increased
economic welfare and efficiency for all involved parties. Smith (1776) further expanded on
this, emphasizing that trade allows nations to harness the benefits of specialization, leading to
increased productivity and economic growth. Thus, exports, as a component of trade, play a
pivotal role in the prosperity and development trajectory of nations.

The dynamics of industries and their evolution are not solely determined by market forces.
Institutions, especially governmental entities, play a defining role in shaping industry
trajectories. The institutional theory, as elaborated by North (1990) and Scott (2001), posits

Page 5 of 29
that institutions provide the frameworks that influence organizational behavior. They create the
"rules of the game" - be it through regulations, norms, or cultural tenets - which industries and
firms must navigate. In the context of India's steel industry, the role of governmental
institutions becomes even more pronounced. These bodies not only set regulations but also
introduce policies and schemes aimed at fostering growth, sustainability, and global
competitiveness.

The steel industry's significance transcends its tangible outputs. As noted by Ghosh (2019) and
Kumar & Singh (2017), the steel sector is intrinsically linked with multiple facets of India's
economy - from infrastructure development to employment generation. Given its multifaceted
importance, the sector warrants focused attention and support from the government. This
perspective aligns with the broader industrial organization theory, which suggests that
industries central to a nation's economic well-being often necessitate government intervention
to ensure their optimal performance and contribution (Tirole, 1988). In the case of India, this
has manifested in the form of various policies and export promotion schemes aimed at
galvanizing the steel sector (Ministry of Steel, 2017).

2.2 Empirical Studies:

Export promotion programs have long been touted as instrumental in driving export
growth. A plethora of studies affirm the positive correlation between these programs and
enhanced export performance. For instance, Lederman et al. (2010) underscored that export
promotion efforts can significantly bolster a nation's export diversification and growth.
Similarly, a comprehensive study by Volpe Martincus and Carballo (2008) across multiple
Latin American countries revealed that firms that availed of export promotion programs were
more likely to enter new export markets and maintain their overseas presence. Central to the
discourse on exports is the consensus that Export Promotion Programs (EPPs) significantly
influence a firm's international performance. A myriad of studies champion the role of EPPs in
not just shaping export volumes but also in molding the export strategies of firms. Czinkota
(1996) and Francis and Collins (2004) have extensively underlined the pivotal role EPPs play
in refining firm competencies, strategic direction, and overall performance. Adding to this
narrative, Ahmed et al. (2006) highlighted the effectiveness of national EPPs in nations like
Lebanon, showcasing their profound influence on both the tangible aspects, like export volume,

Page 6 of 29
and the intangible facets, such as managers' perceptions and export knowledge (Shamsuddoha
& Ali, 2006).

However, these studies often bear certain limitations. A recurring theme is their broad focus on
national exports, largely overlooking industry-specific nuances. For example, while Sharma
(2015) delved into India's export schemes, the research predominantly revolved around
overarching export trends rather than specific industries like steel. Another limitation pertains
to the methodologies employed in these studies. Many rely heavily on aggregate data,
potentially masking micro-level variations and firm-specific dynamics.

India, given its vibrant trade landscape and burgeoning steel industry, provides a fertile
ground for the examination of EPPs and their ramifications. The significance of export
activities in bolstering national economies and individual firm performance has been
extensively acknowledged in academic literature (Abou-Stait, 2005; Ahmed et al., 2006;
Morgan and Katsikeas, 1997). Particularly in the realm of steel exports, a strategically
important sector for many nations, the interplay between government policies and export
outcomes remains a compelling area of study. A slew of research has delved deep into the
impact of various export promotion mechanisms on India's steel exports. For instance, Vashisht
and Gupta (2016) provided insights into the Market Access Initiative (MAI) and the Market
Development Assistance (MDA) schemes, both of which have displayed a positive influence
on India's export landscape. In parallel, the efficacy of the Export Promotion Capital Goods
(EPCG) scheme in enhancing exports was confirmed by studies from Das and Aggarwal (2014)
and further echoed by Mehta and Khetarpal (2016) in their exploration of the Focus Product
Scheme (FPS) and the Duty Entitlement Passbook (DEPB) scheme. The methodologies
backing these findings, such as fixed-effect panel regression and multiple regression analyses,
lend credence to their conclusions.

Beyond broad-stroke policies, specific interventions have been pivotal in shaping the
trajectory of India's steel exports. Rastogi and Kambhampati (2015) emphasized the role of
tailored policies, like the New Industrial Policy (NIP), in fostering export diversification and
overall growth. Their findings resonated with the observations of Sangwan and Singh (2017),
who embarked on an in-depth exploration of the determinants underpinning the steel industry's
export performance. This intricate mosaic of influences ranged from factors like capacity
utilization and production costs to specific export promotion schemes.

Page 7 of 29
 Despite its significant achievements, India's steel industry faces its share of challenges.
Infrastructure constraints, particularly in transportation, pose significant hurdles, as highlighted
by Biswas and Ghosh (2017). Additionally, the growing presence of global competitors,
especially China, combined with internal production cost concerns, underscores the need for
strategic recalibrations. The steel sector, being a mainspring of industrialization, has been the
subject of numerous empirical investigations, especially in the context of government
interventions. Suresh & Paul (2018) highlighted the myriad policies introduced by the Indian
government to foster the growth of the steel sector. Their findings elucidate the sector's
trajectory, marked by phases of growth, modernization, and global integration, greatly
influenced by these policy interventions.

Yet, there's a noticeable gap in the literature specific to steel exports. While studies like those
by Rajeshwari (2021) shed light on the prominence of the Indian steel sector on the global
stage, they often don't delve deep into the intricacies of governmental policies and their direct
impact on steel exports. Given the paramount importance of the steel sector in spurring
economic growth, coupled with the burgeoning global demand for steel, India's role is
indisputable. With the nation being a significant player in the global steel market,
understanding the effects of governmental interventions on steel exports becomes imperative.
This is especially true in light of recent statistics, such as those from the World Steel
Association (2022), which place India as the world's second-largest steel producer.

The synthesis of the aforementioned empirical studies underscores a pressing need for focused
research. As the global steel demand surges, and with India being poised to play a central role,
understanding the nuances of governmental interventions on steel exports is no longer a mere
academic endeavour; it's an economic imperative. This present study, thus, seeks to bridge the
gaps in existing literature, offering insights that could guide policymakers and industry
stakeholders alike.

2.3 Hypothesis:

The concept of comparative advantage, a cornerstone of international trade theory,

underscores that nations prosper most effectively when they specialize in producing and trading
goods for which they hold a relative cost advantage (Ricardo, 1817). This pivotal idea suggests
that countries, by leveraging their inherent strengths and efficiencies, can maximize
production, foster international trade, and bolster overall economic growth. India, with its rich

Page 8 of 29
history of steel production, epitomizes this principle of comparative advantage. As one of the
global frontrunners in steel manufacturing, India has the innate potential to command a
dominant position in the steel export market. Capitalizing on this relative advantage not only
offers the promise of substantial economic inflows but also catalyzes ancillary industries,
creates employment opportunities, and stimulates technological advancements. However,
inherent strengths alone do not dictate a nation's export trajectory. The role of institutional and
policy frameworks is paramount. Governments and overarching institutions sculpt the
economic tapestry of a country, influencing trade dynamics and determining export pathways
(North, 1991). Their policies, be they direct interventions or indirect strategies, can invigorate
or constrain international trade, thereby shaping a country's global trade stature.

Within the realm of India's steel industry, a synergy is evident. The nation's natural
comparative advantage in steel production dovetails seamlessly with strategic governmental
interventions. Policies, meticulously crafted to enhance domestic capacities, facilitate exports,
and foster international collaborations, amplify India's intrinsic strength in steel production
(Ministry of Steel, 2022). This symbiosis of comparative advantage and astute policymaking
paves the way for an in-depth exploration into the multifaceted relationship between
governmental strategies and the dynamics of India's steel exports. With this backdrop, we segue
into a series of hypotheses, each dissecting and elucidating facets of the intricate interplay
between policy interventions and steel exports.

The Influence of Direct Government Policies on Steel Exports in India

The direct impact of government policies on industrial exports has been a prominent
theme in trade literature. For the steel industry, this relationship becomes even more crucial
given the sector's strategic importance. Direct governmental policies, specifically tailored for
exports, are believed to have a tangible influence on export outcomes. The Exim Bank, for
instance, stands as a testament to such direct interventions, providing tailored financial support
aimed at enhancing exports (Shamsuddoha & Ali, 2006). Moreover, schemes like the Duty
Drawback and the Rebate system have been instrumental in refining the export competencies
of firms and shaping their strategic international direction (Czinkota, 1996).

Hypothesis 1: Direct interventions, such as financial incentives from the Exim Bank, Duty
Drawbacks, and Rebates, among other export promotion schemes, have a positive and
significant impact on steel exports in India.

Page 9 of 29
Indirect Policies and Their Ripple Effect on Steel Exports

Beyond the immediate scope of direct policies lie indirect interventions, which, while not
explicitly export-oriented, can have significant implications on exports. Policies like the
National Steel Policy (NSP) of 2005 and the Steel Scrap Recycling Policy of 2019, while
primarily focused on fostering overall growth and ensuring efficient recycling, respectively,
indirectly create an ecosystem conducive to exports (Ministry of Steel, 2005). Previous
empirical literature, such as findings by Sterlacchini (2001), suggest that broader industrial
policies can have cascading effects on exports by influencing factors like production costs,
quality, and industrial competitiveness.

Hypothesis 2: While not directly aimed at exports, indirect policies such as the NSP 2005 and
the Steel Scrap Recycling Policy 2019 create an infrastructure and environment that indirectly
boost the steel exports of India.

Direct vs. Indirect Policies - Dissecting Their Impact

The dynamic between direct and indirect policies offers a rich tapestry for exploration. While
both are fundamentally crafted with the industry's growth in mind, their immediate objectives
and mechanisms vary. Studies by Vashisht and Gupta (2016) highlight the pronounced impact
of direct interventions, such as the Market Access Initiative (MAI) and Market Development
Assistance (MDA), in shaping the export landscape. In contrast, broader industrial policies like
the NSP, while not directly tailored for exports, set the stage for a robust industry, which, as
posited by Tirole (1988), can lead to enhanced export outcomes given the right conditions.

Hypothesis 3: Direct policies, given their explicit export-centric focus, are likely to have a
more immediate and pronounced effect on steel exports when compared to the longer-term,
infrastructural benefits provided by indirect policies.

Governmental interventions, including policies and export promotion schemes, are

believed to bolster steel exports within India. The hypothesis posits that direct export-centric
policies exert a greater influence on steel exports compared to indirect policies primarily aimed
at reducing steel production costs. This notion stems from the understanding that direct
policies, such as export promotion programs, Duty Drawbacks, Rebates, and support from the
Exim Bank, offer focused support specifically tailored to enhance industry exports. On the

Page 10 of 29
other hand, indirect policies, encompassing measures like tax breaks, infrastructural
advancements, and subsidies on land and utilities, cater to a broader economic landscape and
may or may not directly amplify export performance to the same extent.

To validate this hypothesis, our study will scrutinize secondary data, charting the impacts of
both direct and indirect export promotion policies on India's steel exports over the past three
decades. Employing rigorous statistical methodologies, we aim to juxtapose the effects of these
policies and discern their relative efficacies in propelling steel exports. Should the data
corroborate our hypothesis, it would furnish pivotal insights for sculpting policy measures that
can further invigorate the steel sector's global competitiveness.

2.4 Policies Examined in the Study:

a) Direct Policies:

Focus Product Scheme (FPS 2006) / MEIS (2015):

The main objective of this scheme is to incentivize the export of certain products including
Steel, which have high employment intensity and other advantages. Launched in 2006, this
scheme provided exporters with duty credit scrips to facilitate imports without the burden of
customs duty. Although merged with the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) in
2015, its legacy reflects the government's commitment to offsetting infrastructure and
marketing costs for exporters.

Duty-Free Import Authorization (DFIA 2006):

This scheme, grounded in the Standard Input and Output Norms (SION), allows exporters to
import a range of essentials without incurring the standard customs duty, which are physically
incorporated into an export product. In addition to any inputs, packaging material, fuel, oil,
and catalyst which is consumed/utilized in the process of production of export product, is also
allowed. The scheme covers steel manufacturer exporters or merchant exporters tied to
supporting manufacturer(s). The DFIA scheme is distinctive in its focus on quality and
quantity, with its eligibility criteria emphasizing a value-addition threshold of 20%.

Incremental Export Incentivisation Scheme (IEIS Scheme 2012):

The Incremental Exports Incentivisation Scheme was announced in 2012. Under this scheme,
the exporters of specific products including Iron and Steel finished products, were eligible for
a 2% duty credit scrip on the FOB value of exports to specific countries, on the incremental

Page 11 of 29
growth during the current year period compared to the previous year period. The IEIS scheme
stimulated exports, particularly from rural and semi-urban regions, and created avenues for
duty-free import. Beyond its numeric targets, this policy aimed at reducing import
dependencies, fostering employment, and diversifying India's export portfolio.

b) Indirect Policies:

The National Steel Policy (NSP) 2005:

The Ministry of Steel introduced the NSP in 2005 to catalyze the country's economic
development through the steel sector. The National Steel Policy was framed to provide a
direction for the sustained and efficient growth of the steel sector in India This policy set
ambitious targets like achieving an annual steel production of over 100 million tonnes by
2019-20. It also stressed the importance of modernizing the sector, meeting domestic demand
for specialized steel, and positioning India as a global steel powerhouse through rigorous
R&D initiatives.

Steel Scrap Recycling Policy (2019):

This Policy aims to promote the 6Rs principles of Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Recover,
Redesign, and Remanufacture through scientific handling, processing, and disposal of all
types of recyclable scraps including non-ferrous scraps, through authorized centers/facilities.
By promoting a circular economy, reducing dependency on scrap imports, and emphasizing
waste stream management, this policy not only ensures quality in steel production but also
indirectly strengthens the export potential by ensuring consistent raw material availability.

Policy for preference to Domestically Manufactured Iron and Steel Products (DMI&SP
2017):
The Government notified on 8th May 2017 and subsequently revised in May 2019 a Policy
for providing preference to domestically manufactured iron & steel products in Government
procurement (DMI&SP Policy). It aims to reduce import reliance, invigorate the domestic
steel industry, and foster employment opportunities, especially in rural and semi-urban areas.
The policy mandates a minimum of 15%-50% value addition for Iron & Steel products. Each
Ministry or Department of Government and all agencies/entities under their administrative
control will be under the purview of the DMI&SP order as notified by the Ministry of Steel.

Page 12 of 29
 3. METHODOLOGY:

The study analyses the impact of various direct and indirect policies or schemes
implemented by the Indian government to drive steel exports in India and compares their
effectiveness. The methodology used in the study employs a robust approach to assessing the
impact of government policies on steel exports. Through careful data selection, meticulous
operationalization of variables, rigorous reliability and validity checks, and the deployment of
appropriate statistical tools, the study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of how
direct and indirect policies have shaped India's steel export landscape over the past three
decades.

3.1 Data Collection and Sampling Procedures

For this study, we acquired the time series data spanning over 30 years (1993-
2022), focusing on steel exports’ FOB value as the dependent variable. The independent
variables selected, based on a detailed review of government interventions over this period,
encompass three direct export promotion policies and three indirect policies. Given the
potential for other macroeconomic factors to influence steel exports, we also incorporated two
confounding indicators, namely, annual exchange rate and annual GDP growth, which will be
controlled for in our analyses.

Data was sourced from reliable governmental databases, industry reports, and published
financial statements, ensuring a holistic representation of the scenario. The government's
records provided unadulterated and comprehensive data on steel exports and policy
implementations. The industry reports offered insights into industry-specific trends,
challenges, and responses to governmental policies, giving context to the quantitative data. In
addition, the published statements from key steel players in the country supplemented our data
with micro-level industry trends. A stratified sampling method was used to ensure that the data
adequately represented the variability of government policies and schemes across the entire
timeframe. We formed separate datasets for each policy examination. Three separate datasets
for each direct policy and three datasets for each indirect policy. Each individual time series
dataset consisted of columns; (i) ‘Year’ representing the number of observations (from 1993 to
2022), the annual ‘(ii) FOB exports value in USD’ as the dependent variable, a ‘(iii) Dummy
variable’ for the policy as the independent variable, and the two confounding indicators; ‘(iv)
Exchange Rate’ and ‘(v) Annual GDP Growth %’ as the control variables.

Page 13 of 29
3.2 Operationalization of Variables

To analyze the presence or absence of the identified policies, we employed a dummy

variable approach. This involves coding a '1' to signify the presence of a given policy and a '0'
for its absence in a particular year. Such binary coding enables the straightforward
incorporation of these variables into regression models. The operationalization of each direct
and indirect policy examined in the study is as follows:

• National Steel Policy (2005) variable named Indirect_POLICY 1_Dummy and coded a
‘1’ for the period of 2005 to 2016 to show the years of its presence and a ‘0’ for the
remaining years of its absence in the time series dataset.
• DMI&SP Policy (policy for preference to Domestically Manufactured Iron & Steel
Products) named Indirect_POLICY 2_Dummy and coded a ‘1’ for the period 2017 to
2022 to mark its presence and coded ‘0’ for the remaining years to indicate its absence.
• Steel Scrap Policy is named Indirect_POLICY 3_Dummy in the dataset and coded a ‘1’
for the years 2019 to 2022 and a ‘0’ for the remaining years to show its absence.
• For the FPS & MEIS Policy variable we named it Direct_POLICY 1_Dummy and
coded a ‘1’ for the period of 2006 to the year 2020 to show the presence of the policy
and coded ‘0’ for the remainder years.
• The DFIA (Duty-Free Import Authorization Scheme) Policy is named Direct_POLICY
2_Dummy and coded a ‘1’ for the years 2006 to year 2022 to indicate its presence and
a ‘0’ for the remaining years.
• The IEIS (Incremental Export Incentivisation Scheme) Policy examined in the study is
named Direct_POLICY 3_Dummy and coded a ‘1’ for the years 2012 to 2014 to show
the years of its presence and a ‘0’ for the remainder of years for its absence in the
dataset.

To ascertain the reliability of our methodology, we undertook the test-retest reliability and
validity check. A subset of the dataset was randomly sampled and tested twice to ensure
consistency in the regression results. To ensure the results accurately reflect reality, convergent
validity was established by cross-referencing the findings with qualitative assessments and
industry reports on the impact of these policies. Furthermore, the potential threat of omitted
variable bias was addressed by incorporating confounding indicators.

Page 14 of 29
3.3 Analytical Techniques:

Before delving into complex statistical models, we begin by describing the structure of
the data and have a visual exploration of our dataset. The dataset was visualized to discern
trends in steel exports, GDP growth, and exchange rate fluctuations over the years. This
provided a comprehensive overview of the macroeconomic landscape and its implications for
the steel industry.

Multiple Regression Analysis: The OLS regression model serves as the primary statistical
method to assess the individual impact of each policy on steel exports. By modeling steel
exports as a function of our policy variables, along with control variables like GDP growth and
exchange rate, we can ascertain the extent to which each policy predicts export performance.

To prevent overfitting and multicollinearity issues, we performed separate regression tests for
each policy, as it allows for a granular understanding of each policy's impact and facilitates
comparison between direct and indirect policies. The general equation estimated for each
policy is:

Steel_Exportst = β0 + β1 x DirectPolicy_Dummy1t +…..+ βn x Controlnt + ϵt

Where:

• β0 is the intercept.
• β1,β2,... are coefficients representing the average change in steel exports associated
with a one-unit change in the respective predictor, holding all other predictors constant.
• ϵt is the error term.

Post performing the separate OLS regression test for each policy dataset, a subsequent
comparative analysis of the OLS results enabled us to determine which category of policies has
a greater influence on steel exports in India. In the comparative analysis, the magnitude and
significance level of the coefficients (β-values) from each regression will be contrasted. This
comparison will be instrumental in discerning which set of policies, direct or indirect, had a
more pronounced impact on steel exports.

This study assumes that all other potential influencing factors, outside of the ones identified,
remained constant over the study period. Though our inclusion of confounding indicators seeks
to control for broader economic conditions, there may still be externalities not accounted for.

Page 15 of 29
 3 RESEARCH FINDINGS

The ensuing findings shed light on the intricate interplay of policy decisions, export
strategies, and their tangible impact on the steel export dynamics in India. As we navigate
through the findings, readers will be equipped with empirical insights that not only validate
existing knowledge but also introduce fresh perspectives on the subject.

Let's delve deeper into the detailed results to understand the nuances of the policies' impact on
steel exports.

4.1 Visualization of Trends in the Data:

a) The Trend of Steel Exports (FOB value in USD) Over the Years:

Figure 1: graph representing Steel Exports Trends

(Referring to Figure 1): The visualization paints a vivid picture of India's steel exports over
the past few decades. From the onset of the period under study, there is a discernible upward
trajectory in steel exports, denoted by the FOB value. However, it's imperative to note that this
growth hasn't been linear. The journey showcases several fluctuations, indicative of the various
challenges and boons faced by the steel industry. Particularly striking is the pronounced surge
in exports post-2010. This suggests that the last decade has been instrumental in bolstering

Page 16 of 29
India's position in the steel export domain, potentially due to favorable government policies,
global demand, or advancements in production techniques.

b) Annual GDP Growth Rate in India Over the Years:

Figure 2: graph representing trends in GDP Growth Rate

(Referring to Figure 2): Diving into India's GDP growth rate offers a roller-coaster ride of the
nation's economic fortunes. The bar chart reveals periods of robust economic growth
interspersed with phases of stagnation or even contraction. The early 2000s and the time around
2010 are remarkable for their heightened economic activity, hinting at times of prosperity,
increased production, and perhaps successful economic policies. However, it's equally crucial
to acknowledge the troughs, most notably post-2010 and nearing 2020. These dips possibly
signify economic slowdowns triggered by global financial crises, internal economic challenges,
or geopolitical tensions.

Page 17 of 29
 c) Annual Exchange Rate (LCU per US$) in India Over the Years

Figure 3: graph representing the trends in Annual Exchange Rate

(Referring to Figure 3): Navigating through India's exchange rate against the US Dollar
provides insights into the country's financial dynamics on the global stage. The chart,
characterized by a general ascending trend, signals a progressive depreciation of the Indian
Rupee (INR) relative to the US Dollar. In layman's terms, it means that over the years, it has
become progressively more expensive for India to purchase a dollar in terms of its local
currency. The periods of rapid incline, especially post-2010, underscore faster rates of
depreciation. Such trends could be the outcome of various factors, ranging from trade
imbalances, and shifts in monetary policies, to broader global economic conditions.

4.2 OLS Regression Analysis for Direct Policies

Table 1 below represents the OLS regression results of the direct policies containing Model 1,
Model 2, and Model 3. Where;
Model 1 shows test results for the Focus Product Scheme dataset.
Model 2 shows test results for the Duty-Free Import Authorization Scheme dataset, and
Model 3 shows results for Incremental Exports Incentivization Scheme (IEIS) dataset.

Page 18 of 29
 Table 1: OLS Regression Results for Direct Policy
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
PARAMETERS
(FPS&MEIS) (DFIA Scheme) (IEIS Policy)

R- Squared 0.827 0.910 0.742

Policy Variable
Coefficient 2.508e+09*** 3.964e+09*** 2.408e+09**
Standard Error (5.46e+08) (4.94e+08) (1.02e+09)
T Value 4.597*** 8.021*** 2.370**
P > |t| 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.025**
Exchange Rate
Coefficient 1.487e+08*** 8.618e+07*** 1.785e+08***
Standard Error (2.03e+07) (1.84e+07) (2.29e+07)
T Value 7.306*** 4.684*** 7.791***
P > |t| 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000***
GDP Growth
Coefficient 1.454e+08 6.521e+07 1.042e+08
Standard Error (8.97e+07) (6.5e+07) (1.1e+08)
T Value 1.620 1.003 0.951
P > |t| 0.117 0.325 0.350
Note: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1

Summary of the regression results for Table 1:

Model 1, which accounts for 82.7% of the variance, indicates that the FPS&MEIS (2006)
policy is linked to a statistically significant boost in steel exports by approximately 2.508
billion USD, when controlling for other factors. Furthermore, a one-unit increment in the
exchange rate is tied to a 148.7 million USD rise in exports. Although GDP growth was not
statistically significant at the 0.05 threshold (p-value = 0.117), its coefficient was 1.454×10^8.

In Model 2, which explains 91.0% of the variance, the presence of the DFIA (2006) policy is
correlated with a notable increase of about 3.964 billion USD in steel exports. Meanwhile, a
unit increase in the exchange rate is related to an 86.18 million USD surge in exports. However,

Page 19 of 29
the GDP growth variable didn't demonstrate a significant impact on steel exports, having a p-
value of 0.325.

Lastly, Model 3, explaining 74.2% of the variance, suggests that the IEIS Policy (2013-14)
potentially increased steel exports by around 2.408 billion USD, a result deemed statistically
reliable given its p-value of 0.025. The exchange rate's impact remained consistent, with a one-
unit rise corresponding to a 178.5 million USD growth in exports. GDP growth, similar to the
other models, did not significantly influence steel exports.

Overall, these analyses underscore the pronounced positive effect of policy interventions on
steel exports from India. In addition, the exchange rate consistently emerges as a significant
determinant across all models, whereas GDP growth's influence appears more ambiguous.

From the OLS results represented in Table 1, we can conclude that among the
direct policies, the DFIA (2006) has the strongest positive association with steel exports, with
an effect of approximately +3.964 billion USD. This is closely followed by the FPS&MEIS
(2006) and IEIS Policy (2012), which also show strong positive associations. This validates
our Hypothesis 1 statement ‘’Direct interventions, such as financial incentives from the Exim
Bank, Duty Drawbacks, and Rebates, among other export promotion schemes, have a positive
and significant impact on steel exports in India.’’

4.3 OLS Regression Analysis for Indirect Policies

Table 2 below represents the OLS regression results of the direct policies containing Model 4,
Model 5, and Model 6. Where,

• Model 4 shows test results for the National Steel Policy (2005) dataset,
• Model 5 shows test results for the Duty-Free Import Authorization Scheme dataset,
• Model 6 shows results for Incremental Exports Incentivization Scheme (IEIS) dataset

Page 20 of 29
 Table 2: OLS Regression Results for Indirect Policies
Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Parameters
(National Steel Policy) (DMI&SP Policy) (Steel Scrap Policy)

R- Squared 0.835 0.691 0.689

Policy Variable
Coefficient 2.453e+09*** -8.026e+08 -5.757e+08
Standard Error (5.06e+08) (1.32e+09) (1.41e+09)
T Value 4.851*** -0.607 -0.409
P > |t| 0.000*** 0.549 0.686
Exchange Rate
Coefficient 1.812e+08*** 2.053e+08*** 1.968e+08***
Standard Error (1.81e+07) (3.81e+07) (3.34e+07)
T Value 10.018*** 5.393*** 5.900***
P > |t| 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000***
GDP Growth
Coefficient 1.053e+07 1.001e+08 1.005e+08
Standard Error (9.02e+07) (1.24e+08) (1.29e+08)
T Value 0.117 0.808 0.781
P > |t| 0.908 0.426 0.442
Note: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1

Summary of regression results of Table 2:

Model 4 accounts for 83.5% of the variance. Here, the National Steel Policy (2005-16) appears
to increase steel exports by an estimated 2.453 billion USD, a result that's statistically
significant given its p-value. Additionally, every unit increase in the exchange rate augments
exports by about 181.2 million USD, a statistically significant finding. However, GDP growth
in this model doesn't exhibit a significant impact on exports.

Model 5, explaining 69.1% of the variance, indicates that the DMI&SP Policy (2017-22)
correlates with a decrease of about 802.6 million USD in steel exports. Yet, this association
isn't statistically significant. The exchange rate remains influential, where each unit increase is
tied to a statistically significant rise of 205.3 million USD in exports. GDP growth, similar to
the previous model, doesn't show a significant relationship.

Page 21 of 29
In Model 6, accounting for 68.9% of the variance, the presence of the Steel Scrap Policy (2019)
is linked to a decline of roughly 575.7 million USD in exports, although this isn't statistically
supported. The exchange rate's consistent influence is evident, with a unit rise translating to a
significant uptick of approximately 196.8 million USD in steel exports. GDP growth, once
again, remains statistically insignificant.

In essence, while specific policies exhibit varying degrees of impact, the exchange rate
consistently emerges as a significant factor in determining steel exports across all models in
Table 2. Conversely, GDP growth does not consistently affect steel exports in the presented
models.

By analysis of Table 2 regression results, we can conclude that among the Indirect Policies,
only the National Steel Policy (2005) shows a statistically significant positive association with
steel exports. Additionally, the exchange rate remains a significant factor, with every unit
increase leading to a rise of around $181.2 million in steel exports. Both these variables are
statistically significant, reinforcing the substantial role played by the NSP 2005 in shaping the
steel export landscape.

On the other hand, the DMI&SP (2017) and Steel Scrap Recycling Policy (2019) present a
more nuanced picture. Model 5 and Model 6 suggest that the presence of these policies
correlates with a decrease in steel exports. However, this result is statistically insignificant,
indicating that we cannot conclusively attribute this drop to the policies itself. Other variables,
such as GDP growth rate, also fail to produce statistically significant results, hinting at the need
for further research or consideration of other external factors. Two possible considerations that
could be potential indicators for the insignificant results are:

i. Short Implementation Period: Policies, especially those that aim at transforming large
sectors like steel, often require time to manifest their full effects. If the Steel Scrap
Recycling Policy (2019) and DMI&SP (2017) were only recently introduced, their
potential long-term benefits might not be immediately observable. Policies can have
lagged effects, especially when they're aimed at structural changes within an industry.

ii. COVID-19 Pandemic: The pandemic introduced unprecedented challenges to global

economies, including disruptions in supply chains, diminished demand, and operational
challenges in manufacturing sectors. These disruptions might have overshadowed or
counteracted the potential positive effects of the policies. Specifically for India, the

Page 22 of 29
 pandemic led to significant lockdowns and disruptions in the manufacturing sector in
2020, which would have directly impacted steel production and exports.

Given these considerations, the insignificance of the DMI&SP Policy and the Steel Scrap
Recycling Policy (2019) in the results could be attributed to their short presence combined with
the overwhelming external effects of the pandemic. The policy's real impact might become
clearer in a post-pandemic world, once the steel industry and exports stabilize, and the policy
has had more time to influence the sector.

To summarize, our analysis underscores the pivotal role of the National Steel Policy (2005) in
bolstering India's steel exports. While other indirect policies exhibit potential impacts, their
effects are statistically inconclusive, warranting further investigation. The lack of statistical
significance suggests caution in drawing direct conclusions. Their potential benefits, possibly
currently masked by external challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic, might become more
evident in a stabilized post-pandemic environment.

4.4 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS:

To compare the effectiveness of direct and indirect policies in boosting exports, we’ll consider
the regression coefficients of each policy dummy variable from the models we've run. The
magnitude and sign of these coefficients indicate the average change in steel exports associated
with the presence of each respective policy, holding all else constant.

Table 3 shows a comprehensive comparative analysis,

TABLE 3: Comparative analysis of all the policy results

Coefficient Significance (p- R-
Model Policy Type
(Effect) in USD value) squared
Model 1 Significant (p <
Direct +2,508,000,000 82.7%
FPS&MEIS Scheme 0.05)
Model 2 Significant (p <
Direct +3,964,000,000 91.0%
DFIA Scheme 0.05)
Model 3 Significant (p <
Direct +2,408,000,000 74.2%
IEIS Scheme 0.05)
Model 4 Significant (p <
Indirect +2,453,000,000 83.5%
National Steel Policy 0.05)
Model 5
Indirect -802,600,000 Not Significant 69.1%
DMI&SP Policy
Model 6
Steel Scrap Recycling Indirect -575,700,000 Not Significant 68.9%
Policy

Page 23 of 29
Summary of Table 3 Analysis:
Direct Policies: All the direct policies (FPS&MEIS, DFIA, and IEIS Schemes) show a positive
association with steel exports. The coefficients are substantial, indicating an increase in exports
by billions of USD. These results are statistically significant, as indicated by p-values less than
0.05. The models also have high R-squared values, indicating that these models explain a
significant proportion of the variance in steel exports. FPS&MEIS Scheme contributes to an
increase of $2.508 billion in steel exports. DFIA Scheme has the highest positive effect among

direct policies, contributing to an increase of $3.964 billion. IEIS Scheme contributes to an

increase of $2.408 billion.

Indirect Policies: The results are mixed. National Steel Policy shows a positive effect,
increasing steel exports by $2.453 billion, and the result is statistically significant. However,
DMI&SP Policy and Steel Scrap Policy both show a negative association, potentially
decreasing steel exports by $802.6 million and $575.7 million, respectively. These results are
not statistically significant, suggesting that the observed negative effect might not be a genuine
consequence of these policies. The R-squared values for indirect policies are lower compared
to direct policies, suggesting that these models explain less variance in steel exports.

Based on the above analysis, direct policies consistently show a significant positive
effect on steel exports. They not only increase the exports by billions of USD but also have
models that explain a significant portion of the variance in steel exports. On the other hand,
while the National Steel Policy (an indirect policy) has a positive effect, the other two indirect
policies potentially decrease exports, although their results are not statistically significant. This
suggests that while some indirect policies may benefit steel exports, they are not consistently
positive and may even have a detrimental effect.

Overall, the direct policies appear to have a more pronounced and consistent positive
association with steel exports compared to the indirect policies based on the datasets provided.
Exchange rates consistently played a pivotal role, emphasizing the broader economic
landscape's role in shaping export dynamics. This validates Hypothesis 3 that ‘’direct policies,
given their explicit export-centric focus, have a more immediate and pronounced effect on steel
exports compared to the longer-term, infrastructural benefits provided by indirect policies.’’

Page 24 of 29
 5 CONCLUDING REMARKS

The Indian steel industry, a linchpin of the nation's economic fabric, has been under the
microscope in recent years due to its escalating global prominence. As the world's second-
largest steel producer and a burgeoning exporter, understanding the drivers behind India's steel
export growth is not just academically significant but has profound implications for policy
formulation and strategic direction. Our study embarked on a mission to dissect the intertwined
relationship between government policies – both direct and indirect – and steel exports in India.
The findings underscore the robust influence of direct policies like the DFIA (2006-22),
FPS&MEIS (2006), and the IEIS Policy (2012). These policies, explicitly crafted to enhance
exports, have been pivotal in propelling India's steel export trajectory, validating Hypothesis 1.
On the contrary, while some indirect policies like the National Steel Policy (2005) have shown
a positive association with steel exports, others such as DMI&SP (2017) and Steel Scrap
Recycling Policy (2019) presented inconclusive results, necessitating a deeper dive into their
real-time impacts in future studies.

The tangible success of direct policies accentuates the need for continued governmental
support in this direction. Policymakers should consider expanding and refining direct export-
promotion schemes, keeping the evolving global market dynamics in perspective. Furthermore,
the positive effects of the National Steel Policy (2005) hint at the potential merits of indirect
policies that cater to the broader ecosystem of the industry. However, the inconclusive impacts
of recent indirect policies stress the importance of regular policy reviews, ensuring they align
with the overarching goal of boosting exports. Institutions, especially those in the steel sector,
can leverage these insights to align their strategies with policies that have shown positive
results. Additionally, they can advocate for more comprehensive research and impact
assessments of policies, ensuring a feedback loop that aids in refining future governmental
interventions.

One of the principal strengths of this research lies in its broad chronological scope,
covering an impressive three decades. This extensive time frame affords a holistic view of the
policy landscape and its evolving impact on steel exports. Further adding to the robustness of
the study is the rigorous quantitative methodology employed, specifically the use of OLS
regression. This approach provides both statistical strength and a nuanced understanding of the
intricate relationship between government policies and export dynamics. Moreover, by

Page 25 of 29
juxtaposing a myriad of both direct and indirect policies, our research stands out as one of the
few that offers such a comprehensive analysis of governmental interventions in the steel sector.

However, as with any research endeavor, our study has its limitations. The omnipresent shadow
of external variables, such as the unprecedented disruptions caused by the COVID-19
pandemic, might have influenced the export dynamics in ways not fully captured in our
analysis. Additionally, the exclusive reliance on secondary data, while practical, might
overlook certain on-ground nuances that primary data collection could reveal. A noteworthy
observation from our research is the statistically inconclusive impacts of some recent policies.
These results hint at the potential of lagged effects or the influence of external factors not
accounted for in our current models.

Given the aforementioned limitations, there emerges a compelling case for future research in
this domain. Subsequent studies could delve deeper into the nuanced impacts of the policies
that presented inconclusive results in our research, possibly employing longitudinal analyses
to discern their long-term effects. Furthermore, integrating primary research methods, like
expert interviews or industry surveys, can supplement the secondary data, providing a richer,
more detailed perspective on policy impacts. In essence, while our study sheds valuable light
on the policy-export dynamics, it also paves the way for more granular investigations in the
future, emphasizing the continued relevance and importance of this research area.

____________________________________________

Page 26 of 29
 6. BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Sterlacchini, A., 2001. The determinants of export performance: A firm-level study of Italian
manufacturing. Review of World Economics, 137, pp.450-472.

2. Pandey, R. K. (1989). Export Promotional System in India: Need for A New Strategy. Foreign
Trade Review, 24(1), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0015732515890102

3. Shahid, M.N., 2013. Export-Led growth strategy: Tool for economic development in
India. Indian Journal of Commerce and Management Studies, 4(1), pp.58-62.

4. Jagannarayan, N., Pawar, S. and TA, J., 2020. Determinants of Export, Import and Total Trade
of Indian Iron and Steel Industry. International Journal of Advances in Engineering and
Management (IJAEM) Volume, 2, pp.401-406.

5. Pointon, T., 1978. Measuring the gains from government export promotion. European Journal
of Marketing, 12(6), pp.451-462.

6. Mota, J., Moreira, A. and Alves, A., 2021. Impact of export promotion programs on export
performance. Economies, 9(3), p.127.

7. Spence, M.M., 2003. Evaluating export promotion programmes: UK overseas trade missions
and export performance. Small Business Economics, 20, pp.83-103.

8. Wang, X., Chen, A., Wang, H. and Li, S., 2017. Effect of export promotion programs on export
performance: evidence from manufacturing SMEs. Journal of Business Economics and
Management, 18(1), pp.131-145.

9. Dhar, S., Pathak, M. and Shukla, P.R., 2020. Transformation of India's steel and cement
industry in a sustainable 1.5 C world. Energy Policy, 137, p.111104.

10. Ghosh, S., 2006. Steel consumption and economic growth: Evidence from India. Resources
Policy, 31(1), pp.7-11.

11. Naidu, G.M., Cavusgil, S.T., Murthy, B.K. and Sarkar, M., 1997. An export promotion model
for India: Implications for public policy. International business review, 6(2), pp.113-125.

12. Nayyar, R. and Mukherjee, J., 2020. Home country impact on Outward FDI from
India. Journal of Policy Modeling, 42(2), pp.385-400.

13. Pal, S., 2012. Comparative study of financial performance of Indian steel companies under
globalization. International Journal of Accounting and Financial Management Research, 2(4),
pp.1-8.

14. Kumar, U.T.T.A.M., 2017. Trade policy of India since 1991: A critical evaluation and
comparative study between pre and post reform periods. Ranchi University, Ranchi Jhakhand,
India.

Page 27 of 29
15. De Carvalho, A. and Sekiguchi, N., 2015. The structure of steel exports: Changes in
specialisation and the role of innovation.

16. Farhad, U.A. & Brennan, L. 2019, "An institution-based view of firms’ early
internationalization: Effectiveness of national export promotion policies", International
Marketing Review, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 911-954.

17. Firoz, A.S., 2014. Long term perspectives for Indian steel industry. Ministry of Steel,
Economic Research Unit mimeo, New Delhi, May.

18. Anonymous2019, Jul 17. India: Export Promotion Scheme. MENA Report.

19. Seyoum, B. (2013). Export-Import Theory, Practices, and Procedures. United

Kingdom: Taylor & Francis.

20. Ghemawat, P., & Murali Patibandla. (1998). India’s Exports since the Reforms. Economic
and Political Weekly, 33(20), 1196–1198. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4406781

21. Mitra Debnath, R. and Sebastian, V.J. (2014), "Efficiency in the Indian iron and steel industry
– an application of data envelopment analysis", Journal of Advances in Management Research,
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 4-19.

22. Balassa, B. (1982). Development strategies in semi-industrial economies. World Development,

10(6), 373-394. DOI: 10.1016/0305-750x(82)90064-4

23. Brander, J. A., & Spencer, B. J. (1985). Export subsidies and international market share rivalry.
Journal of International Economics, 18(1-2), 83-100. DOI: 10.1016/0022-1996(85)90031-3

24. C. Veeramani. (2007). Sources of India’s Export Growth in Pre- and Post-Reform Periods.
Economic and Political Weekly, 42(25), 2419–2427. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4419731

25. Kolluru, S., 2005. A Study of Performance of Indian Steel Companies during 1999-2003. The
IUP Journal of Applied Economics.

26. Mazhar, S.S. and Farooque Sr, A., An Analytical Study on Schemes of Concessions for
Exporters in India-A Tool for Export-Led Growth. i-Explore International Research Journal
Consortium.

27. Kumar, S., 2021. Structural changes and competitiveness of the steel industry in India:
Assessed by productivity growth post economic reforms. International Journal of Global
Business and Competitiveness, 16(1), pp.39-50.

28. Labson, B.S., 1997. Changing patterns of trade in the world iron ore and steel market: An
econometric analysis. Journal of Policy Modeling, 19(3), pp.237-251.

Page 28 of 29
29. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism
and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-
160. DOI: 10.2307/2095101

30. Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests (4th ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

31. Bernard, A. B., & Jensen, J. B. (1999). Exceptional exporter performance: Cause, effect, or
both? Journal of International Economics, 47(1), 1-25. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-1996(98)00067-1

32. Edwards, S. (1998). Openness, productivity, and growth: What do we really know? The
Economic Journal, 108(447), 383-398. DOI: 10.1111/1468-0297.00293

33. Krugman, P. (1979). Increasing returns, monopolistic competition, and international trade.
Journal of International Economics, 9(4), 469-479. DOI: 10.1016/0022-1996(79)90017-5

34. Kumar Chaturvedi, D.S. and Tripathi, S., 2019. Government policy and FDI Triggering growth
Opportunities of Iron and Steel in India. Journal of Management, 6(2).

OTHER SOURCES:
o https://steel.gov.in/
o https://worldsteel.org/
o https://www.oecd.org/india/
o https://data.worldbank.org/
o https://www.dgft.gov.in/CP/
o https://comtradeplus.un.org/TradeFlow
o https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IND/india/economic-growth-rate
o https://www.trademap.org/Index.aspx
o https://www.fieo.org/
o https://ghgprotocol.org/Third-Party-Databases/IISI

___________________________________________________________

Page 29 of 29