Regional performance and characteristics of Indian manufacturing industry

This paper investigates the regional characteristics of Indian manufacturing industry. Its aim is to assess whether geography plays any major role in determining the performance or characteristics of Indian manufacturing firms, and in order to do this, it presents the results of cross-section regressions estimated on the basis of a balanced sample of 1607 firms across the 30 Indian states. The results suggest that firm performance and characteristics are related to many of the expected industrial organization variables. However, there is also evidence of significant region–state influences on both the performance and characteristics of Indian manufacturing industry. As such, the results demonstrate that analyses which focus solely on standard non-spatial industrial organization variables will fail to explain much of the cross-sectional variation in firm performance and characteristics. In particular, while there are no systematic simple centre–periphery variations in the Indian regional economic system, there is evidence to suggest that industrial spatial concentration, regional specialization, and regional market size play a key role in determining the performance and characteristics of Indian manufacturing industry.

Evaluation of modelled regional water balance using lake status data: a comparison of 6ka simulations with the NCAR CCM

Variations in lake area and depth reflect climatically induced changes in the water balance of overflowing as well as closed lakes. A new global data base of lake status has been assembled, and is used to compare two simulations for 6 ka (6000 yr ago) made with successive R15 versions of the NCAR Community Climate Model (CCM). Simulated water balance was expressed as anomalies of annual precipitation minus evaporation (P-E); observed water balance as anomalies of lake status. Comparisons were made visually, by comparing regional averages, and by a statistic that compares the signs of simulated P-E anomalies (smoothly interpolated to the lake sites) with the status anomalies. Both CCM0 and CCM1 showed enhanced Northern-Hemisphere monsoons at 6 ka. Both underestimated the effect, but CCM1 fitted the spatial patterns better. In the northern mid- and high-latitudes the two versions differed more, and fitted the data less satisfactorily. CCM1 performed better than CCM0 in North America and central Eurasia, but not in Europe. Both models (especially CCM0) simulated excessive aridity in interior Eurasia. The models were systematically wrong in the southern mid-latitudes. Problems may have been caused by inadequate treatment of changes in sea-surface conditions in both models. Palaeolake status data will continue to provide a benchmark for the evaluation of modelling improvements.