37. The Joint Sector – Business Environment

37

THE JOINT SECTOR

In this chapter, we study India's joint sector. We start with the proponents and opponents of the joint sector, the rationale, objectives, forms and options and types of joint sector enterprises and continue to study the evolution of Indian joint sector enterprises with foreign collaboration and finally evaluate of the joint sector. After reading this chapter, you will have a clear understanding of theory and practice of joint sector enterprises in India.

Both the public and private sectors played a significant role in the rapid industrialization of India after the country adopted the Five Year Plans in 1951. But over the next three decades or so some amount of conflict and friction between the two sectors appeared to be emerging; it underscored the general perception that the state ownership of PSUs served a social purpose, but they were inefficient, while private sector was better and more efficiently managed. In that perception was a subtle hint, why not marry the two? This perception and the developments that followed in the country ensured the emergence and growth of what has been described as the “joint sector”. The joint sector concept became more popular in India in the 1980s, with its success elsewhere in Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. The concept quickly got accepted and has grown both in dimension and importance in the last few decades. With disinvestment gaining momentum, the joint sector concept became significant in the development of many industrial segments, such as steel, automobiles, cement and banking. For the transportation sector too the joint sector is assuming considerable importance for the increased volume of inward and outward traffic that these offer. In the 1990s following economic reform and globalization with disinvestment as a focus, the state has been scouting for private sector participation in many state or central PSUs.

THE PROPONENTS AND OPPONENTS OF THE JOINT SECTOR

As in any socio-economic concept that touches the lives of different segments of people differently, the joint sector concept too evoked different reactions from different sections of civil society which are discussed in the following sections:

The Tata Memorandum on Industrial Growth

In the 1960s in his oft-quoted Tata Memorandum on Industrial Growth, J. R. D. Tata stated that: “The very fact that in any specific case the government favours a joint sector solution must surely indicate that it believes management by the private sector partner will be better than public sector management.”1 Thus, it could be surmised that the government believed in the comparative merits of both the public and private sectors, and wanted to ensure optimum growth through a synthesis of the two in certain individual projects and enterprises. Such a synthesis could be realized in the form of the joint sector, which would represent joint venture of entrepreneurship in both financing and management, in which both the public and private sectors will participate. In his Memorandum, J. R. D. Tata outlined his concept of the joint sector in what he called the “minimum broad agreement”. A joint sector enterprise, according to Tata's minimum broad agreement, is intended to be a form of partnership between the private sector and the government, in which state participation in capital will not be less than 26 per cent. Tata also suggested that the day-to-day management would normally be in the hands of the private sector exercised by a board of directors, on which the government should be adequately represented. In Tata's concept of the joint sector, the basic character of the private sector is intended to be retained, with additional financial capital-cover being provided by the government. According to J. R. D. Tata and T. A. Pai, even some public sector undertakings could be conveniently and advantageously converted to joint sector enterprises (JSEs) by transfer of a portion of equity capital to private entrepreneurship. Tata suggested that such profit-centre PSUs as the Shipping Corporation of India or the Indian Oil Corporation should be converted into such JSEs. He opined that if these PSUs were exposed to the “finesse and outlook” of the private sector, it would be beneficial for the economy. The government, however, did not concur with these views.

Industrial Policy Resolution, 1956

Though the Industrial Policy Resolution 1956 (IPR) did not pointedly use the expression “joint sector”, the concept of such joint sectoral pooling of resources was, however, envisaged by IPR in case of certain specific enterprises. With regard to Schedule C industries, the Resolution stated: “In suitable cases, the state may also grant financial assistance to the private sector. Such assistance, especially when the amount involved is substantial, will preferably be in the form of participation of equity capital, though it may also be in the form of debenture capital.”2

The policy resolution did not remain a mere expression of a good intention. It was translated in a limited way into reality. Several companies were floated with 50–75 per cent government participation in their equity capital.

The IPR, 1956 envisaged that the state would help the private sector in fulfilling the role assigned to it within the planning framework and the industrial policy in force from time to time. In doing so, the state will continue to foster institutions to provide financial aid to these industries, and special assistance will be given to enterprises organized on cooperative lines for industrial and agricultural purposes. In suitable cases, the state may also grant assistance to the private sector. Such assistance, especially when the amount involved is substantial, will preferably be in the form of participation in equity capital, though it may also be in part in the form of debenture capital.3

The Industrial Licensing Policy Inquiry Committee, 1969

The development of the joint sector, as it has now evolved, can, however, be directly related to the recommendations of the Industrial Licensing Policy Inquiry Committee (ILPIC), 1969. The Committee visualized the joint sector as the next best alternative to the public sector. The Committee recommended an expanded role for the public sector as (i) a major proportion of the cost of new projects was being met by public financial institutions; and (ii) the growth of large industrial houses in the country was unduly aided by these institutions through their financial support. The Committee, therefore, recommended that in the event of a considerable proportion of the cost of a new project is being met by public financial institutions either directly or through their support, these projects should be generally set up in the public sector. Private interests involved in large projects are likely to belong to the large industrial sector and should, thus, not be permitted to build up huge industrial empires and obtain the benefits emanating from them, even while using in large part of public funds and support for such development. On the other hand, the objection rose to permitting large projects to be developed, even though such a size might be necessary on techno-economic grounds, because of the fear that this would help build up a private industrial empire would become irrelevant. On both these grounds, therefore, it is necessary that such projects should be treated as belonging to the public sector.4

The ILPIC's recommendations covered many other aspects of industrial policy. Following these recommendations, the government issued a policy statement in February 1970, announcing that the “joint sector” concept was “accepted in principle”.5

The government issued the following guidelines on 8 February 1973 to put ILPIC's recommendations into practice:

  1. The State Industrial Development Corporations (SIDCs) shall hold at least 26 per cent in the equity capital of the companies promoted by them
  2. Prior approval of the central government is required if any private partner is likely to hold equity capital more than the SIDC's
  3. Prior permission of the central government is necessary if a large industrial house (LIH) or foreign majority company is likely to have any holding at all in the projects promoted by SIDCs6

The joint sector proposal, however, did not have a smooth sailing. It was opposed by the then Union Planning Minister, D. P. Dhar on the ground that it would delay vital expansion programmes. He was of a firm opinion that the joint sector was no answer to the problems of increasing industrial production and investment, and that while the government was interested in greater production, the joint sector experiment was not expected to secure a faster rate of industrial growth. In a different articulation of the proposal, the Dutt Committee recommended that a number of large private sector projects should be converted into JSEs in the interest of optimum development. Another critic, A. N. Oza, joined issue with the government on its espousal of joint sector concept and argued that the only thing novel about this idea was that it provided for contribution of public funds as equity capital instead of share in its profits with the private partners, which would imply that they (the government) “join the game of exploitation of the consumers and employees”.7

The concept of joint sector has thus been advocated, opposed and discussed threadbare by various forums and in diverse platforms before the government of India gave the green signal for starting them. As we have seen, the Tata Report, the IPR and ILPIC have espoused the cause of the joint sector. Besides, the Hazari Report, Memoranda submitted to the government by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and a number of other individual studies on the functioning of industrial licensing system in India are reflective of the scrutiny that the industrial regulatory mechanisms have received over the years. Moreover, the concept of joint sector is quite an old one in India. It was quite normal for many of the erstwhile princely states (the state of Baroda, Travancore-Cochin and Hyderabad to name only a few) to share risk capital in large industrial projects. At the international level, however, positive contribution by the Japanese government in promoting new commercial enterprises is only too well known.8

RATIONALE

The following are the factors that prompted economists and planners champion the cause of the joint sector:

  1. Integrates two diagrammatically opposite concepts: The joint sector evolves out of the two rather opposite concepts of the private and public sectors, but incorporates their merits.
  2. A third avenue of growth: The joint sector provides a golden mean for balanced industrial development, by complementing the growth in the other two sectors.
  3. An extension of mixed economy: The concept of a joint sector extends the concept of a mixed economy. In the joint sector, the representatives of the private and public sectors get close and become more inter-reliant. They work as a team within the same organization with a view of achieving optimum development.
  4. Pools costs and resources: When a large proportion of the funding of a new project has to be met by state-owned financial institutions, then the joint sector is an ideal organizational structure. A joint sector project is launched when the responsibility for mobilizing capital is to be shared jointly by the two sectors, by raising share or equity or debenture capital.
OBJECTIVES

The broad objectives of the joint sector as emanating from the various policy documents, research studies and comments of policy analysts can be summarized as follows:

  1. Acceleration of industrial growth and balanced regional development: From the standpoint of state-level promotional agencies, bringing about fast-track industrial growth and balanced regional development seems to be an important objective of the joint sector.9 Many states have rich natural endowments but lack the risk capital to commercially exploit the resources. The states were, therefore, expected to play an active role in promoting investment to these areas. The joining of SIDCs and the private sector could accelerate industrial growth in their respective states by pooling of resources to set up large projects. In the joint sector, due to the active role assigned to the state, the state could direct the JSEs to locate the units in industrially backward regions which would help in achieving balanced regional development.
  2. Resource mobilization: Public participation in industrial ventures can be ensured either through their direct participation in equity capital at the time of public issue or indirectly through financial institutions such as banks, insurance companies and mutual funds. But in the case of developing countries like India where the capital market is not well developed, mobilizing finance from the public by new and small entrepreneurs would not be an easy task. However, when government agencies participate to the extent of 26 per cent or more in the risk capital of JSEs, it would help build confidence with investors and, thus, enable the private promoters to mobilize resources from general public and others. Promotion of JSEs along with local entrepreneurs is also likely to encourage local people, businessmen and agriculturists to employ their savings with greater confidence in industrial ventures.
  3. Broad basing of entrepreneurship: Another objective which seems to have guided joint sector policy is broad basing of entrepreneurs with a view to assist technocrats, local businessmen and farmers to participate in joint ventures. New entrepreneurs tend to confine their manufacturing activities closer to their places of settlement in view of their limited experience, organizational skills and financial resources. Once the joint sector concept got on, it was expected that capital and technology would be funnelled by the private sector into government-supported JSEs. Therefore, by encouraging new and first-generation entrepreneurs and technocrats to form JSEs, it is likely to help not only in mobilizing local resources but also work towards balanced regional development. Such entrepreneurs may ultimately emerge as leading local industrialists. Moreover, promoting such entrepreneurs would indirectly keep away large industrial houses. It is an indirect way of keeping a check on the growth of monopolies and the concentration of economic power.
  4. Social control over industry: Direct involvement of the state in the ownership and management of JSEs provides the state an effective tool to control monopolies, concentration of economic power and business malpractices. The concept of joint sector is based on the experience that in most projects promoted by large industrial houses, a major share of funds is provided by the public sector institutions. It was expected to make the private sector socially responsive and be an effective check on concentration of economic power. The objective of social control over industry, by reducing the concentration of economic power in the hands of large industrial houses, and by converting major companies of the industrial houses into JSEs, were never liked by the private industry. The private sector's apprehension that JSEs are nothing but “back door nationalization” by the state should be seen in this light. It should be mentioned in this context that Section 27 of the MRTP Act, 1969 provided for breaking up large private sector companies in order to effectively deal with concentration of economic power. Joint sector could be considered as a mechanism for social control over industry, without adopting outright nationalization.
  5. Development of backward areas: Since the state has been assigned an active role in a socialistic pattern of society, in the context of its limited resources, it can enlist the support of the private sector in the realization of this objective. Thus, new joint sector enterprises can be located in relatively underdeveloped industrial regions which would help in ensuring balanced regional development. A cooperative effort in the formation of a joint sector will do a whale of good to these backward regions which are rich in natural resources but lack risk capital.
  6. Promotion of industrial growth: India's Five Year Plans visualized balanced growth of different regions of the country as a means of improving living standards of the people and reducing regional disparities. Moreover, the Industrial Policy Resolution of 1956 also emphasized the fact that, it is important that disparities in levels of development between regions should be progressively reduced, if industrialization has to benefit the economy of the country as a whole. The lack of industries in different parts of the country is very often determined by factors such as the availability of the necessary raw materials and other natural resources, but more importantly by entrepreneurial efforts. The joint sector concept can provide this.10 It was thought that the joint sector would widen the scope of the industrial scenario if it takes up the industries in both B and C Schedules. It would also encourage a new and growing entrepreneurship.
  7. As a tool for an egalitarian economic growth: The Indian government that had adopted a socialistic pattern of society was wedded to the achievement of egalitarian economic order. The government was apparently looking for a model or an apparatus in the emerging joint sector that could be put together the mechanism for ensuring an equitable and egalitarian economic growth and to provide additional support for the public and private sectors. This, in turn, will curb the growth of monopolies of large industrial houses and the resultant concentration of economic power and the political clout that follows it.
FORMS AND OPTIONS

The kind of government participation in JSEs may be of three types:

  1. Right to convert debt: The government will have the financial right to convert debt into equity and appoint directors.
  2. Restrictive practices: The government may appoint directors by virtue of the power enjoyed by it through the MRTP Act.
  3. Joint sector: The real joint sector entrepreneurship in which the government directly or through its agencies becomes a co-shareholder in an enterprise, and thereby also participates in the management.

Wherever such a joint sector industrial arrangement has been made, both as models of participatory management and as reflecting progressive financial outlook and budgetary control, the experiment has generally been highly successful.

The JSEs launched in India have the following arrangements:

  1. Equity capital: Government's participation in the majority share in equity capital.
  2. Government control: Government's participation in control and ownership through majority representation in the Board of Directors.
  3. Executive management: Government's participation in executive management in case of major undertakings through such majority representations, and in case of the rest, through nominees on the Board of Directors.
TYPES

The joint sector concept was supported by the Government of India in early 1970s. However, it was left entirely to the state governments to promote and develop it, according to their needs and the context. As they evolved over time, the following types of JSEs emerged on the industrial landscape:

  1. Joint ventures between two PSEs: In this type, the Government of India or a central public sector enterprise with the requisite expertise and experience may combine with a state government or state PSU to carry out some project, with or without the public joining them. To give an illustration, Madhya Pradesh Electricals Ltd was a joint sector company of Madhya Pradesh Audyogic Vikas Nigam Ltd, an industrial promotional organization in Madhya Pradesh and the NGEF Ltd, a Government of Karnataka PSE.
  2. Joint venture between CPSEs and state government with public participation: These are ventures of PSEs and/or state governments with no identifiable private promoter but with the participation of general public. Under this category, the public at large will participate in the risk capital along with the state government or state level public enterprises.
  3. Joint venture between PSEs and cooperatives or workers of an enterprise: In this form of joint venture, a part of equity is held by a cooperative society and the rest by the PSE or government. Similarly, part of the equity might be held by workers individually or an organization formed by them.
  4. Joint venture between public enterprises and domestic private entrepreneurs: In this category, the state government or state government undertakings, which are assigned promotional and developmental role, hold licenses for projects to be implemented under joint venture scheme, invite prospective private promoters to participate in the project. The equity pattern of the proposed enterprise would be such that state level promotional agencies will hold a minimum of 26 per cent, the private promoter 25 per cent and balance 49 per cent will be subscribed by the public at large.
  5. Joint venture between public enterprises and foreign collaborators: In this case, public enterprise jointly with foreign collaborators with or without an Indian private promoter may participate in the share capital to promote an enterprise as a joint venture. For example, Punjab Anand Lamp Industries Ltd. was promoted as a joint venture of Punjab State Industrial Development Corp. Ltd. (PSIDC) (26 per cent) and N.V. Phillips BV, Netherlands (25 per cent), and C.L. Anand (10 per cent) and the balance by the public.
THE EVOLUTION OF INDIAN JSEs

Supporting the concept of joint sector, Samuel Paul et al.11 attempted to explore the rationale and scope of joint sector, to indicate possible guidelines for the organization, management and control of JSEs and to spell out the nature of public-private collaboration for making the joint sector experiment successful. They opined that joint sector deserved to be encouraged because of the significant role it can play in the social control of private industry, promotion of industrial growth, mobilization of resources and broad-basing of entrepreneurship. It was further suggested that joint sector should not be restricted to the core sector or oligopolistic industries and may be permitted in all industries except industries reserved for state sector and small-scale sector.

Moreover, it was a popular belief that the state in the independent India would have to play a proactive role in providing financial and other support to new and small entrepreneurs. Air India International provides a notable example of private sector and the state coming together to establish business enterprises. The company was established by the Tatas in 1948. Government of India provided 49 per cent of the equity capital of the company.12 The government subsequently acquired an additional 2 per cent equity from Tata Sons Ltd to convert it into a government company. In spite of the government holding 51 per cent of the equity, the Air India continued to be under the management of the Tatas until it was fully taken over by the Government of India in 1953.

JOINT SECTOR WITH FOREIGN COLLABORATION

In a few cases, equity participation by foreign companies in PSEs was also allowed by the central government. For example, Madras Fertilizers Ltd. was established as a JSE in collaboration with Amoco Inc., USA and National Iranian Oil Co., Iran. Another, Madras-based JSE, Madras Refineries Ltd., too had these two foreign companies as partners in its business venture. Likewise, Cochin Refineries Ltd. was set up with the participation of the Phillips Petroleum Co. (USA) and Duncan Brothers Ltd.; Lubrizol India Ltd.; with the Lubrizol Corporation (USA); and yet another JSE; Triveni Structurals Ltd. was established with Voest Alpine, Austria.

A joint venture with Suzuki Motor Co Ltd., Japan is one of the earliest and most important cases where a foreign private corporation has been invited to join hands with the government. A feature of all these cases is that public sector holdings are of majority nature and these are managed by government-nominated boards with representation of the foreign collaborator on the board of directors. (In the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd., the government allowed Suzuki to increase its share to 50 per cent.)

There were 12 other undertakings in 1966–67, in which the central government had a substantial stake in equity capital without having direct managerial control.13

Table 37.1 lists the states and years when JSEs were started in India.

THE JOINT SECTOR: AN EVALUATION

From a detailed study of joint sector companies, it is seen that the joint sector was not specifically used as a mechanism to promote indigenous technology alone. One finds a large number of cases where foreign technology was employed. Out of the 162 JSEs, as many as 58 were based on imported technology. In the examples given above, one can even find foreign companies to have been directly involved as private promoters. While this is the general outline of the joint sector, there are many unanswered questions.

  1. It is difficult to say in how far the joint sector form has been used to pursue the objective of social control over private industry. There are a large number of enterprises in which the public sector holds substantial amount of equity capital often exceeding not only the combined share of private management, but also 50 per cent of the total risk capital.14
  2. The initial objective of creating a cadre of managers who can understand and participate actively in the decision-making process of JSEs appears to have not been seriously pursued, in as much as the policy has been to support the existing managements.
  3. Another objective of involving state governments in the promotion of joint sector and thus help in the development of hitherto underdeveloped regions also has not been achieved. There is no evidence to feel that the state governments take active interest in the management of JSEs. On the part of the central government too, its interest seems to wane with the issue of licences and letters of intent.
  4. It was also thought that with the involvement of forward-looking and state-of-the-art management provided by the government, the joint sector would leave aside outdated methods of production and the obsolete technology. It was also assumed that there would be an increase in the use of the cutting-edge technology, know-how, equipment, plant and machinery, production, maintenance and management practices. The joint sector, however, has not yet made its presence felt either in terms of the coverage of the industrial scenario, or its contribution to absolute economic growth. This, however, has not been due to any shortcoming on the part of the joint sector but due to the hesitant approach by both the state and private sectors in the adoption of the concept in the field.15

 

Table 37.1 Growth of Joint Sector Companies State-wise and Year-wise

 

Source: Institute for Studies in Industrial Development, available online at http://isid.org.in/pdf/wp2.pdf

It is important that the state releases a positive industrial statement on the joint sector, declaring it an objective-based tool for accelerated industrial development in step with the other two sectors.

When one analyses the growth and future prospects of the joint sector in India, especially when one is aware of the fanfare with which it was espoused and started, one is struck by its slow growth. There are several joint sector companies such as the Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd (IFFCO), Krishak Bharati Cooperative Limited (KRIBHO), Madras Fertilizers, etc. in the fertilizer industry. Equity of many other units which were floated as joint sector enterprises are increasingly being diluted as in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. According to the latest available data (2004–05), in which the joint sector is clubbed with the cooperative sector, there were 2,009 units, constituting 1.5 per cent of the total 136,353 industrial units. With just 1.8 per cent each of the fixed capital and the gross output, these units employed 256,000 people, constituting 3 per cent of the workforce in the organized factory sector.16 These data illustrate the fact that the joint sector in India forms a very small portion of the country's industrial structure. The present trend and the thinking of people involved in the industrial development of the country indicate that the present circumstances do not augur well for the growth of the joint sector in the future.

SUMMARY
  • The conflict and friction between the public and the private sectors underscored the general perception that the state ownership of PSUs served a social purpose, but were inefficient while the private sector was better and more efficiently managed, leading eventually to the development of joint sector enterprises.
  • The joint sector concept became popular in India in the 1980s, with its success elsewhere in Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. The concept quickly got accepted and has grown both in dimension and importance in the last few decades:
  • A joint sector enterprise, according to Tata, is intended to be a form of partnership between the private sector and the government, in which state participation in capital will not be less than 26 per cent. Tata also suggested that the day-to-day management would normally be in the hands of the private sector exercised by a board of directors, on which the government should be adequately represented. In Tata's concept of the joint sector, the basic character of the private sector is intended to be retained, with additional financial capital-cover being provided by the government. Though the Industrial Policy Resolution 1956 (IPR) did not pointedly use the expression joint sector, the concept of such joint sectoral pooling of resources was, however, envisaged by IPR in case of certain specific enterprises, especially with regard to Schedule C industries,
  • The policy resolution did not remain a mere expression of a pious intention. It was translated in a limited way into reality. Several companies were floated with 50-75 per cent government participation in their equity capital. The development of the joint sector, as it has now evolved, can, however, be directly related to the recommendations of the Industrial Licensing Policy Inquiry Committee (ILPIC), 1969. The Committee visualized the joint sector as the next best alternative to the public sector. The Committee recommended an expanded role for the public sector as (i) a major proportion of the cost of new projects was being met by public financial institutions; and (ii) the growth of large industrial houses in the country was unduly aided by these institutions through their financial support.
  • The ILPIC's recommendations covered many other aspects of industrial policy. Following these recommendations, the government issued a policy statement in February 1970, announcing that the “joint sector” concept was “accepted in principle”.
  • The joint sector proposal did not have a smooth sailing. It was opposed by the then Union Planning Minister, D. P. Dhar, on the ground that it would delay vital expansion programmes. Another critic, A. N. Oza argued that the only thing novel about this idea was that it provided for contribution of public funds as equity capital instead of share in its profits with the private partners, which would imply that they (the government) “join the game of exploitation of the consumers and employees”.
  • The following are the factors that prompted economists and planners to champion the cause of the joint sector: (i) Integrating two diagrammatically opposite concepts; (ii) A third avenue of growth; (iii) An extension of mixed economy and (iv) Pooling of costs and resources. The broad objectives of the joint sector as emanating from the various policy documents, research studies and comments of policy analysts can be summarized as follows: (i) Acceleration of industrial growth and balanced regional development; (ii) Resource mobilization; (iii) Broad basing of entrepreneurship; (iv) Social control over industry; (v) Development of backward areas; (vi) Promotion of industrial growth; and (vii) As a tool for an egalitarian economic growth.
  • The kind of government participation in JSEs may be of three types: (i) Right to convert debt; (ii) Restrictive practices and (iii) Joint sector.
  • The JSEs launched in India have the following arrangements: (a) equity capital; (b) government control and (c) executive management. The joint sector concept was supported by the government of India in early 1970s.
  • However, it was left entirely to the state governments to promote and develop it, according to their needs and the context. (i) Joint ventures between two PSEs; (ii) Joint venture between CPSEs and state government with public participation; (iii) Joint venture between PSEs and cooperatives or workers of an enterprise; (iv) Joint venture between public enterprises and domestic private entrepreneurs and (v) Joint venture between public enterprises and foreign collaborators. In a few cases equity participation by foreign companies in PSEs was also allowed.
  • A joint venture with Suzuki Motor Co Ltd., Japan is one of the earliest and most important cases where a foreign private corporation has been invited to join hands with the government. While this is the general outline of the joint sector, there are many unanswered questions. (i) It is difficult to say how far the joint sector form was used to pursue the objective of social control over private industry; (ii) The initial objective of creating a cadre of managers who can understand and participate actively in the decision-making process of JSEs appears to have not been seriously pursued; and (iii) Another objective of involving state governments in the promotion of joint sector and thus help in the development of hitherto underdeveloped regions, also has not been achieved.
KEY WORDS
ILPIC IPR pooling of costs
rationale resource mobilization SIDC
social control Tata memorandum  
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
  1. What is the need for joint sector when there are private and public sector to promote industries?
  2. Discuss the various agencies/others who espoused the cause of the JSEs.
  3. Discuss the various objectives of JSEs in India. Have they realized these objectives?
  4. Discuss the evolution of Indian JSEs. Also give some prominent examples of JSEs with foreign collaborations.
  5. What are the different types of JSEs? What is the ideal type of JSE in the Indian context?
SUGGESTED READINGS

Bharat Ram. “Concept of Joint Sector”, Lok Udyog VI(6) (September 1972): 7–9.

Das, Nabagopal. ‘The Joint Sector: The Logic of A Not-So-New Concept”, Lok Udyog VI(6) (September 1972): 11–2.

Ghose, Aurobindo. “Joint Sector and Control of Indian Monopoly”, Economic and Political Weekly IX(23) (8 June, 1974): 906–16.

Gupta, L. C. Corporate Management and Accountability—Towards a Joint Sector. Delhi: Macmillan, 1974.

Hegde, Shantaram P. “Approach to Joint Sector”, Lok Udyog VI(6) (September 1972): 15–8.

“Industrial Policy: Government Decisions”, Press Note dated 2 February, 1973 reproduced in Government of India, Ministry of Industry and Civil Supplies, Department of Industrial Development, Guidelines for Industries, Part-I, Policy and Procedures, Indian Investment Centre, November 1975, p. SII-14.

Kuchhal, S. C. “Joint Sector and Financial Management”, The Chartered Accountant 21, Part-2 (August 1972): 90–6.

Kuchhal, S. C. The Industrial Economy of India. eleventh edition. Allahabad, India: Chaitanya Publishing House, 1975, p. 324.

Lala, R. M. The Creation of Wealth: A Tata Story. Bombay: IBH Publishing House, 1981.

Mathew, M. O. and D. Amarchand, “Nominee Directors on the Boards of Joint Sector Companies”, Lok Udyog VII(12) (12 March, 1974): 29–31.

Meher, M. R. “Perspective for the Joint Sector”, Lok Udyog VI(6) (September 1972): 13–4.

Mehta, G. L. “Some Issues in Joint Sector Development”, Lok Udyog VI(6) (September 1972): 5–6, 27.

Paranjape, H. K. “Industrial Policy: Is a Revision Necessary?”, Mainstream 12(9) (27 October, 1973): 6–8.

———. “Joint Sector and Control of Indian Monopoly: A Comment”, Economic and Political Weekly IX(38) (1974): 1629–32.

———. “The Joint Sector”, Economic and Political Weekly VIII(15)(10 November, 1973): 2017–22.

Sandesara, J. C. “Joint-Sector: Alternatives and Implications”, in Dutt, R. C. and Raj K. Nigam (Eds.), Towards Commanding Heights, New Delhi: Standing Conference of Public Enterprises (SCOPE), 1975, pp. 386–401.

Sen, Mohit. “Mixed Economy and Joint Sector”, Mainstream 11(14) (2 December, 1972): 19–20.

Sharma, G. D. New Industrial Licensing Policy of Government of India, Chapter V. New Delhi: Press & Publications Agency, 1973.

Sharma, R. A. “The Joint Sector and Some Fundamental Issues”, Lok Udyog VI(6) (September 1972): 19–22.

Vepa, Ram K. Joint Ventures: A New Technique for Industrial Growth. New Delhi: Manohar Publications, 1980