Journal of Finance and Economics
ISSN (Print): 2328-7284 ISSN (Online): 2328-7276 Website: Editor-in-chief: Suman Banerjee
Open Access
Journal Browser
Journal of Finance and Economics. 2015, 3(2), 36-43
DOI: 10.12691/jfe-3-2-2
Open AccessArticle

Relationships among Per Capita GDP, Agriculture and Manufacturing Sectors in India

M. R. Singariya1, and Narain Sinha2

1Lecturer in Economics, Govt. College Jaitaran (Raj)

2Department of Economics, University of Botswana, Gaborone (Botswana)

Pub. Date: April 21, 2015

Cite this paper:
M. R. Singariya and Narain Sinha. Relationships among Per Capita GDP, Agriculture and Manufacturing Sectors in India. Journal of Finance and Economics. 2015; 3(2):36-43. doi: 10.12691/jfe-3-2-2


The objective of the present paper is to examine causal relationship among per capita GDP, agriculture and manufacturing sector output in India using time series data collected from CSO for the period 1970 to 2013. The study conducts an econometric investigation by applying methodologies, viz., Stationary tests, and Johansen’s Cointegration test, Johansen’s Vector Error Correction Model (VECM) in VAR and Impulse Response Function and Variance Decomposition Analysis. We have carried out the ADF and KPSS unit root tests. According to AIC and HQC criteria, the appropriate lag length is 2. Both the variables in log terms being I (1), Johansen’s co-integration test confirms one long run relationships among the variables at 5% significance level. It reveals that there exists bidirectional causality between agriculture sector and per GDP, while the unidirectional causality between the manufacturing sector and per capita GDP and between the agriculture and manufacturing sector. As the VECM involve selection of appropriate lag length. According to AIC criterion and Hannan-Quinn criterion; two lag lengths is considered to the present analysis. The signs of both the coefficients of the cointegrated equations are as expected and their magnitudes are responsible. However, results based on vector error correction model indicate a weak association between the sectors in the short run. Dynamic causality results show that the agriculture sector affects Per Capita GDP and manufacturing sector, while Per Capita GDP affects manufacturing sector strongly in the long run, thus causality seems to run from agriculture to PCGDP and manufacturing and from PCGDP to Manufacturing sector. It is also evident from impulse response function that any innovation in agriculture sector increases its own growth as well as growth of manufacturing sector in India. In consistence with the above finding, the present study argues that shocks originated from agriculture sector spill over to Per Capita GDP and Manufacturing sector in long run in India.

agriculture manufacturing sector Cointegration and Vector Error Correction Model Impulse Response Function and Variance decomposition analysis

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit


[1]  Bosworth, B, S. M. Collins and Y Chen (1995), “Accounting for Differences in Economic Growth”, Paper for Conference on ‘Structural Adjustment Policies in the 1990s: Experience and Prospects’, Institute of Developing Economies, Tokyo, Japan. October 5-6.
[2]  Chakravarty, S. and A. Mitra (2009), Is Industry still the engine of growth? An econometric study of the organized sector employment in India, Journal of Policy Modeling 31, 22-35.
[3]  Dasgupta, S. and A. Singh (2005). “Will Services be the new Engine of Indian Economic Growth?” Development and Change 36(6): 1035-57.
[4]  Devnath, Avijit and Niranjan Roy (2012), “Structural Change and Inter-sectoral Linkages: The Case of Northeast India”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XLVII, No.6. Pp. 72-76, 11 February.
[5]  Engle, R.F. and C.W.J. Granger (1987), “Co-integration and Error-Correction: Representation, Estimation and Testing”, Econometrica, Vol. 55, pp. 251-276.
[6]  Fagerberg, J. and B. Verspagen (1999). ‘Modern Capitalism in the 1970s and 1980s’, table 9.1, in M. Setterfield ed., Growth, Employment and Inflation, Houndmills, Basingstoke, MacMillan.
[7]  Fagerberg, J. and B. Verspagen (2002). ‘Technology-Gaps, Innovation-Diffusion and Transformation: an Evolutionary Interpretation’, Research Policy 31, 1291-1304.
[8]  Fagerberg, J and B. Verspagen (2007). ‘Innovation, Growth and Economic Development: Have the Conditions for Catch-up Changed?’, International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, Vol 1, (1).
[9]  Johansen, S (1988), “Statistical Analysis of Cointegration Vectors”, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Vol. 12, pp. 231.54.
[10]  Kanwar, Sunil (1996), “Does the Dog Wag the Tail or the Tail the Dog: Cointegration of Indian Agriculture with Non-agriculture”, CDE Working Paper No. 35, Delhi School of Economics, Delhi.
[11]  Litterman, R. (1979). “Techniques of forecasting using Vector Auto Regression”, Working Paper No. 115, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
[12]  Rodrik, D. (2009). Growth after the Crisis, Harvard Kennedy, School, Cambridge, MA. 02138.
[13]  Szirmai, A. (2009). Industrialisation as an Engine of Growth in Developing Countries, 1950-2005, UNU-MERIT working paper, 2009-10, february, 2009).
[14]  Thomas, J.J. (2009). Why is Manufacturing Not the Engine of India’s Economic Growth, Examining Trends, 1959-60 to 2008/9, mimeo, 2009
[15]  Timmer Marcel P. and Gaaitzen J. de Vries (2009). "Structural change and growth accelerations in Asia and Latin America: a new sectoral data set", Cliometrica. vol. 3(2), 165-190, June
[16]  Tregenna, F. (2007). ‘Which Sectors Can be Engines of Growth and Employment in South Africa?: An Analysis of Manufacturing and Services”, Paper presented at the UNU-WIDER CIBS Conference on Southern Engines of Global Growth, Helsinki, 7-9September, 2007.