NOTES
Market Concentration in Indian Manufacturing Sector: Measurement Issues
Pulak Mishra, Divesh Mohit, Parimal
facilitating greater competition in Indian industry for efficient functioning of market forces. On the one hand, removal of entry and licensing barriers are expected to expose the domestic firms to international competition and to compel them to improve their efficiency and productivity by introducing new products, processes and practices. On the other hand, reforms in
The article attempts to examine the accuracy of the conventional additive measures of market concentration by using the criteria as suggested by Ginevicius and Cirba. It is found that the GRS Index of Ginevicius and Cirba is a more accurate measure of market concentration. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, the most widely used measure of market concentration, deviates far from accuracy. Hence, examining market concentration on the basis of the conventional indices may result in misleading conclusions and hence guide policy formulations in wrong directions.
The authors are thankful to Rakesh Basant and Bhagirath Behera for their useful comments and suggestions.
Pulak Mishra (pmishra@hss.iitkgp.ernet.in) is at the department of humanities and social sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur. Divesh Mohit and Parimal were final year students of MSc (Statistics and Informatics) when this article was written.
T
n
the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), price-cost margin (PCM), profitability, etc. In the Indian context also, past studies largely used these measures to examine the state of market concentration. For example, while Kambhampati (1996) assessed the structure of the market on the basis of CR, Ramaswamy (2006), Mishra
n
and Behera (2007), and Mishra (2008) used HHI as the measure of market concentration in the Indian industry sector. On the other hand, Basant and Morris (2000) and Mishra (2005) used n-firm concentration, the HHI and PCM to substantiate the findings. However, Pushpangadan and Shanta (2008) examined the dynamics of competition in terms of the persistence of profit rates.
While the conclusions on market concentration are likely to be influenced by the measures used, very little attention is given to examining the accuracy and appropriateness of a particular measure in a given context or for a given industry. This, on many occasions, may result in contradictory findings on market competition. This article is an attempt to fill this gap. In other words, its basic objective is to examine the accuracy of various alternatives measures of market concentration by using the criteria as suggested by Ginevicius and Cirba (2009). Addressing this issue is very important in the present context as the current regime of deregulation aims at
december 3, 2011
trade policies are aimed at facilitating these firms import materials, components and technology of better quality, in addition to bringing in import competition in the domestic marketplace. Since the effectiveness of these policy measures are judged in terms of the prevailing and/or changing state of market competition, use of an accurate and appropriate index is very important in measuring the degree of the seller’s concentration in the marketplace.
Alternative Measures of Market Concentration
Although there are several measures of market concentration, we consider some of those measures that take into account all the firms in a market. It should be mentioned that although it is very simple to compute and interpret, we do not consider the n-firm concentration ratio as the defining measure of market structure. The n-firm concentration ratio is highly sensitive to the choice of “n”. Further, we define these indices in terms of market shares of the firms. We assume that a measure of market concentration is a function of the combined market share of all the firms in the industry.
Herfindahl-Hirschman Index: The HHI of market concentration is defined as the sum of the squares of the relative sizes (expressed as proportions of the total size of the market) of the firms in the market. It is measured by using the formula,
n 2
HHI = si
i=1
Here, si stands for the market share1 of the ith firm in the industry. The value of the index declines with the increase in the number of firms and increases with the rising inequality among any given number of firms. The maximum value of this index is 1 when only one firm
vol xlvi no 49
EPW
NOTES
occupies the whole market. It is the most market players when compared with the commonly used measure as it is simple HHI. The Horvath Index is also known and combines both the number and size as a “comprehensive concentration index” distribution of firms in the industry, the as it accounts for market share of the important requirements of a measure of largest firm in a discrete manner and that concentration to be consistent with the of other firms in a weighted form. The value theory of oligopoly. of the index ranges between 3n2 – 3n + 1
n3
(for n 2) and 1, i e, 3n2 – 3n + 1 +25
n3
Horvath Index: The Horvath (1970) Index with n being the number of firms in of market concentration is defined as, the industry.
Q
+25 V ¦VL (2 – si)
L Entropy Index: The Entropy Index is Here, s1 represents market share of the defined as,
n
largest firm in the industry. The Horvath 1
ENT = si ln
Index assigns larger weights to all the i=1 (si ) The Entropy Index generally
Table 1: Criteria Used for Decision on Level of Market Concentration
Criteria Decision measures the degree of uncer
Cj C + 2ı c Moderate market concentration in industry j
C C – 2ı Low market concentration in industry j for HHI, tainty faced by a firm in the
jc
HOR, GIN and GRS
marketplace. In case of mono-
High market concentration in industry j for ENT
poly there is no uncertainty in
C– 2ı
c the market and the index takes
Cj C + 2ı c High market concentration in industry j for HHI, HOR, GIN and GRS the value zero. On the other Low market concentration in industry j for ENT
hand, when there are “n”
C– ı CC + ı Indecision on market concentration in industry j
cj c number of firms and all of
Table 2: Level of Market Concentration in Major Industries of Indian Manufacturing Sector across Various Measures | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Period | Level of | Measure of Market Concentration | ||||
Concentration HHI | HOR | ENT | GIN | GRS | ||
1992-94 | High | Polymers | Polymers | Nil | Alkalis | Polymers |
Moderate | Beverages and tobacco; | Beverages and tobacco; | Automobile ancilliaries; | Electricity; food | Beverages and tobacco; | |
cosmetics, toiletries, soaps | cosmetics, toiletries, soaps | cosmetics, toiletries, soaps | products; paints | cosmetics,toiletries, soaps and | ||
and detergents; paints and | and detergents; cotton textiles; | and detergents; cotton | and varnishes; | detergents; cotton textiles; | ||
varnishes; petroleum products | drugs and pharmaceuticals; | textiles; drugs and | diversified; paints and | |||
electrical machinery; food | pharmaceuticals; electrical | varnishes; petroleum products; | ||||
products; paints and varnishes; | machinery; electricity; | plastic products | ||||
petroleum products; | food products; paints | |||||
plastic products | and varnishes; petroleum | |||||
products; polymers | ||||||
1999-2001 High | Cosmetics, toiletries, soaps | Cosmetics, toiletries, soaps and | Nil | Alkali | Cosmetics, toiletries, soaps | |
and detergents; polymers | detergents; petroleum products; | and detergents; polymers | ||||
polymers | ||||||
Moderate | Beverages and tobacco; paints | Alkali; beverages and tobacco; | Alkali; automobile ancilliaries; Petroleum | Beverages and tobacco; food | ||
and varnishes; petroleum | cotton textiles; drugs and | cosmetics, toiletries, soaps | products; | products; petroleum products | ||
products | pharmaceuticals; electrical | and detergents; cotton textiles; polymers; tyres | ||||
machinery; food products; paints | drugs and pharmaceuticals; | and tubes | ||||
and varnishes; plastic products | electrical machinery; | |||||
misc manufacturing; paints | ||||||
and varnishes; petroleum | ||||||
products; polymers; tyres | ||||||
and tubes | ||||||
Low | Nil | Nil | Food products | Nil | Nil | |
2006-08 | High | Beverages and tobacco; | Nil | Nil | Alkali; | Beverages and tobacco; |
polymers | other textiles | polymers | ||||
Moderate | Alkali; cosmetics, toiletries, | Alkali; automobile ancilliaries; | Alkali; automobile ancilliaries; | Polymers; tyres | Alkali; cosmetics, toiletries, | |
soaps and detergents; cotton | beverages and tobacco; | beverages and tobacco; | and tubes | soaps and detergents; cotton | ||
textiles; paints and varnishes; | cosmetics, toiletries, soaps | cosmetics, toiletries, soaps | textiles; diversified; | |||
petroleum products; tyres | and detergents; cotton textiles; | and detergents;cotton textiles; | non-ferrous metals; | |||
and tubes | drugs and pharmaceuticals; | drugs and pharmaceuticals; | paints and varnishes; | |||
electricity; food products; | ferrous metals; food products; | petroleum products | ||||
misc manufacturing; non-ferrous | misc manufacturing; | |||||
metals; petroleum products; | non-ferrous metals; paints | |||||
polymers; tyres and tubes | and varnishes; petroleum | |||||
products; plastic products; | ||||||
polymers; tyres and tubes | ||||||
HHI: Herfindahl-Hirschman Index; HOR: Horvath Index; | ENT: Entropy Index; | GIN: Ginevicius Index | ||||
Source: Prowess, CMIE. | ||||||
Economic Political Weekly | december 3, 2011 | vol xlvi no 49 | 77 |
them are equal in size, there are uncertainties in the market and the index takes the value ln(n).
Ginevicius Index: The Ginevicius Index is given by the formula
n
siGIN =
()
i=1 1 + n(1 – si)
This index is intended to assess two basic market indicators, the number of firms in the industry and their market share in a balanced way. It is based on the assumption that larger the number of suppliers, greater is the competition hence higher is the uncertainty in the market. The degree of this uncertainty depends on market shares of the firms when there is monopoly GIN = 1. On the other hand, as n ĺ , GIN ĺ . In other words, as the number of firms in the industry increases, the degree of seller’s concentration in the market declines. Hence, *,1

NOTES
Table 3: Ranking of Industries by Market Concentration across Various Measures (1989-2008) of market shares of the firms therein. The
Industry Measure of Market Concentration CV of Ranking
GRS Index suggested by Ginevicius and
HHI HOR ENT GIN GRS
Cirba (2009) is an attempt to overcome
Alkali 7 1 34 26 34 0.76 Automobile 14 10 9 23 27 0.48 the weighting problem and thereby to pro-
Automobile ancillaries 27 33 29 7 7 0.61 vide a more accurate measure of market
Beverages and tobacco 29 14 5 32 12 0.63 concentration. In this index, the weights
Cosmetics and toiletries* 23 8 3 33 31 0.69 to different firms are assigned in such a
Cotton textiles 28 30 28 3 3 0.77
Diversified | 4 | 16 | 33 | 1 | 9 | 1.01 from 0 to 1, i e, *56, (ii) if all firms | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Drugs and pharmaceuticals Dyes and pigments Electrical machinery Electricity Electronics | 22 8 24 12 25 | 29 11 27 3 22 | 31 19 24 2 12 | 4 16 6 28 17 | 4 18 1 30 11 | 0.73 0.33 0.73 0.89 0.35 in the industry have equal market share, i e, if 1 si = n , 1GRS = n , and (iii) it gives a more accurate measure of market concentration. Accordingly, the index is defined as, | |
Ferrous metals | 33 | 25 | 6 | 27 | 15 | 0.50 n n2s1 + 0.3s2 iGRS = si() | |
Fertilisers | 3 | 12 | 30 | 11 | 14 | 0.71 i=1 n2 + 0.3ns1si | |
Food products Information technology Inorganic chemicals Misc manufacturing Non-electrical machinery Non-ferrous metals | 30 11 16 26 34 2 | 34 6 18 31 32 9 | 32 4 23 22 10 11 | 2 30 13 8 24 20 | 2 32 17 6 13 19 | 0.82 0.81 0.21 0.60 0.48 0.61 | Here, s1 stands for market share of the largest firm in the industry. The GRS Index is based on Taylor’s series.2 The GRS Index satisfies all the three conditions mentioned above. |
Non-metallic mineral products Organic chemicals | 31 18 | 26 19 | 18 17 | 10 15 | 8 16 | 0.53 0.09 | Market Concentration |
way that (i) the value of the index ranges
Other chemicals | 20 | 21 | 14 | 21 | 22 | 0.16 in Manufacturing | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Other textiles | 32 | 28 | 15 | 22 | 20 | 0.29 This section of the article attempts to | |
Paints and varnishes | 6 | 5 | 8 | 29 | 29 | 0.81 examine market concentration for 34 major | |
Pesticides | 9 | 13 | 20 | 18 | 24 | 0.35 industry groups of the Indian manufactur- | |
Petroleum products | 5 | 2 | 7 | 31 | 28 | 0.94 ing sector. Market concentration is meas- | |
Plastic products | 21 | 24 | 25 | 5 | 5 | 0.63 ured for each of the five indices discussed | |
Polymers | 15 | 4 | 1 | 34 | 33 | 0.90 | |
Readymade garments | 10 | 17 | 26 | 12 | 23 | 0.39 above to see if the findings are consistent | |
Rubber and rubber products | 19 | 15 | 13 | 25 | 26 | 0.30 across the measures. We use values of | |
Synthetic textiles | 13 | 23 | 27 | 9 | 10 | 0.49 total sales of goods as a measure of size of | |
Textile processing | 17 | 20 | 21 | 14 | 21 | 0.16 | a firm. Decision on the level of market |
Tyres and tubes | 1 | 7 | 16 | 19 | 25 | 0.70 | concentration3 in a particularly industry |
*Includes soaps and detergents Source: Prowess, CMIE.
A More Accurate Measure of Market Concentration: GRS Index
A critical review of various measures of concentration discussed above suggests that the HHI assigns greater weight to the larger firms and a lower one to the smaller firms. This not only raises the importance of the larger firms in the index, it also reduces the effects of the smaller firms even if they are very large in number, giving a distorted measure of market concentration. Such a measure also limits the scope for understanding the role of the smaller firms in market competition. The Entropy Index differs widely from the HHI in terms of the weights that are assigned to the firms. It uses the logarithm of the market share rather than its value as the weight. As a result, the importance of the larger firms decreases, while that of the smaller ones relatively increases. As compared to the HHI, the Horvath Index, on the other hand, assigns larger weights to all the firms in the industry. Besides, the division of the measure into discrete and additive parts as well as the weights assigned to the firms are arbitrary. Although the Ginevicius Index emphasises both the number of firms in the industry and their market share, it fails to represent the true scenario of market concentration, parti cularly when the distribution of market share is highly skewed towards a few firms.
Thus, the weights assigned across the measures of market concentration are neither consistent nor theoretically justified. Hence, these measures are likely to provide a distorted state of market competition and the extent of distortions depend on the nature of the industry and the distribution
december 3, 2011
is made by applying the criteria as mentioned in Table 1 (p 77). The necessary data are collected from the Prowess database of the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE), Mumbai.
Table 2 (p 77) presents the level of market concentration in the major industries of the sector during three time periods, viz, 1992 to 1994, 1999 to 2001 and 2006 to 2008 across different measures. We use the average value of each of the concentration measures in each period to examine the level of market concentration. It is observed that in each period, the level of market concentration in different industries is not consistent across the measures. For example, according to the HHI, Horvath Index and the GRS Index, polymers was a highly concentrated industry during 1992 to 1994, but it is alkalis that was highly concentrated during the same period as per the Ginevicius Index. Interestingly,
vol xlvi no 49
EPW

Table 4: Change in Market Concentration in Major Industries by Measures of Concentration (1993-2008) | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Industry | HHI | HOR | ENT | GIN | GRS | ||||||||||
1993-2000 | 2001-08 | C | 1993-2000 | 2001-08 | C | 1993-2000 | 2001-08 | C | 1993-2000 | 2001-08 | C | 1993-2000 | 2001-08 | C | |
Alkali | 0.14 | 0.18 | + | 0.38 | 0.46 | + | 0.97 | 0.88 | + | 0.080 | 0.095 | + | 0.23 | 0.31 | + |
Automobile | 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.36 | 0.33 | - | 1.13 | 1.16 | 0.024 | 0.022 | - | 0.24 | 0.22 | - | ||
Automobile ancillaries | 0.03 | 0.02 | - | 0.15 | 0.10 | - | 1.89 | 2.05 | - | 0.006 | 0.004 | - | 0.12 | 0.08 | - |
Beverages and tobacco | 0.23 | 0.24 | + | 0.49 | 0.51 | + | 1.05 | 1.06 | - | 0.020 | 0.020 | N | 0.45 | 0.47 | + |
Cosmetics and toiletries* | 0.36 | 0.29 | - | 0.62 | 0.55 | - | 0.79 | 0.91 | - | 0.040 | 0.030 | - | 0.58 | 0.50 | - |
Cotton textiles | 0.02 | 0.02 | N | 0.08 | 0.08 | N | 2.10 | 2.07 | + | 0.004 | 0.003 | - | 0.06 | 0.06 | N |
Diversified | 0.05 | 0.06 | + | 0.18 | 0.20 | + | 1.44 | 1.33 | + | 0.025 | 0.026 | + | 0.04 | 0.04 | N |
Drugs and pharmaceuticals | 0.02 | 0.02 | N | 0.10 | 0.12 | + | 1.95 | 1.91 | + | 0.004 | 0.004 | N | 0.07 | 0.08 | + |
Dyes and pigments | 0.07 | 0.08 | + | 0.23 | 0.26 | + | 1.31 | 1.28 | + | 0.024 | 0.024 | N | 0.13 | 0.16 | + |
Electrical machinery | 0.02 | 0.03 | + | 0.11 | 0.14 | + | 1.88 | 1.82 | + | 0.005 | 0.005 | N | 0.08 | 0.09 | + |
Electricity | 0.19 | 0.07 | - | 0.19 | 0.07 | - | 0.97 | 1.42 | - | 0.046 | 0.014 | - | 0.33 | 0.19 | - |
Electronics | 0.05 | 0.06 | + | 0.18 | 0.23 | + | 1.64 | 1.54 | 0.006 | 0.005 | - | 0.11 | 0.14 | + | |
Ferrous metals | 0.10 | 0.06 | - | 0.32 | 0.24 | - | 1.68 | 1.81 | - | 0.003 | 0.002 | - | 0.29 | 0.20 | - |
Fertilisers | 0.06 | 0.08 | + | 0.22 | 0.28 | + | 1.30 | 1.22 | + | 0.022 | 0.024 | + | 0.12 | 0.20 | + |
Food products | 0.01 | 0.01 | N | 0.08 | 0.08 | N | 2.25 | 2.25 | N | 0.002 | 0.002 | N | 0.06 | 0.07 | + |
Information technology | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.29 | 0.24 | - | 1.42 | 1.61 | 0.013 | 0.003 | - | 0.23 | 0.16 | - | ||
Inorganic chemicals | 0.06 | 0.06 | N | 0.23 | 0.21 | - | 1.40 | 1.42 | - | 0.021 | 0.019 | - | 0.16 | 0.14 | - |
Misc manufacturing | 0.03 | 0.02 | - | 0.14 | 0.10 | - | 1.90 | 2.00 | - | 0.004 | 0.003 | - | 0.11 | 0.08 | - |
Non-electrical machinery | 0.06 | 0.07 | + | 0.25 | 0.26 | + | 1.69 | 1.68 | + | 0.005 | 0.004 | - | 0.22 | 0.23 | + |
Non-ferrous metals | 0.09 | 0.15 | + | 0.28 | 0.41 | + | 1.23 | 1.06 | + | 0.017 | 0.017 | N | 0.16 | 0.28 | + |
Non-metallic mineral products | 0.04 | 0.03 | - | 0.17 | 0.15 | - | 1.77 | 1.79 | - | 0.004 | 0.004 | N | 0.12 | 0.11 | - |
Organic chemicals | 0.06 | 0.05 | - | 0.21 | 0.20 | - | 1.51 | 1.48 | + | 0.012 | 0.013 | + | 0.14 | 0.13 | - |
Other chemicals | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.30 | 0.20 | - | 1.34 | 1.47 | 0.016 | 0.013 | - | 0.24 | 0.13 | - | ||
Other textiles | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.27 | 0.19 | - | 1.54 | 1.69 | 0.010 | 0.008 | - | 0.23 | 0.15 | - | ||
Paints and varnishes | 0.20 | 0.23 | + | 0.49 | 0.53 | + | 0.86 | 0.80 | + | 0.057 | 0.058 | + | 0.33 | 0.38 | + |
Pesticides | 0.11 | 0.06 | 0.33 | 0.22 | - | 1.20 | 1.37 | 0.026 | 0.022 | - | 0.24 | 0.14 | - | ||
Petroleum products | 0.30 | 0.23 | - | 0.60 | 0.54 | - | 0.69 | 0.76 | - | 0.045 | 0.037 | - | 0.48 | 0.39 | - |
Plastic products | 0.02 | 0.03 | + | 0.10 | 0.11 | + | 1.88 | 1.87 | + | 0.006 | 0.005 | - | 0.07 | 0.07 | N |
Polymers | 0.39 | 0.29 | - | 0.65 | 0.58 | - | 0.71 | 0.81 | - | 0.063 | 0.042 | - | 0.61 | 0.49 | - |
Readymade garments | 0.05 | 0.05 | N | 0.18 | 0.20 | + | 1.43 | 1.50 | - | 0.023 | 0.013 | - | 0.11 | 0.14 | + |
Rubber and rubber products | 0.11 | 0.07 | - | 0.34 | 0.23 | - | 1.22 | 1.40 | - | 0.025 | 0.018 | - | 0.25 | 0.15 | - |
Synthetic textiles | 0.03 | 0.05 | + | 0.14 | 0.20 | + | 1.63 | 1.53 | + | 0.012 | 0.013 | + | 0.09 | 0.14 | + |
Textile processing | 0.04 | 0.05 | + | 0.17 | 0.20 | + | 1.61 | 1.49 | + | 0.013 | 0.015 | + | 0.12 | 0.13 | + |
Tyres and tubes | 0.13 | 0.16 | + | 0.37 | 0.43 | + | 1.01 | 0.94 | + | 0.047 | 0.045 | - | 0.22 | 0.26 | + |
*Includes soaps and detergents; C stands for change, + for increase, - for decline, and N for no change.
Source: Prowess, CMIE.
according to the Entropy Index, none of the industries was highly concentrated during this period.
Similarly, when the HHI was used, market concentration was observed to be moderate in beverages in tobacco, cosmetics and toiletries including soaps and detergents, paints and varnishes, and petroleum products during 1992-94. But, in case of the Horvath Index and the Entropy Index, the level of concentration was moderate also in industries like cotton textiles, drugs and pharmaceuticals, electrical machinery and food products during this period. Such inconsistencies across the measures were observed during 1999-2001 and 2006-08 as well. Interestingly, according to the Ginevicius Index, market concentration was moderate only in a very few industries during the entire period under consideration, while in case of other measures it was moderate in many of the industries considered.
Economic Political Weekly
EPW
Further, only in the case of the Entropy Index was market concentration low during 1999-2001.
Ranking of the major industries of the sector by average market concentration during 1989 to 2008 is presented in Table 3 (p 78). It is observed that the ranking of the industries in terms of market concentration varies considerably across various measures. For example, according to the Horvath Index, alkalis appears to be the most concentrated industry, but the level of concentration in the industry is very low as per the Ginevicius Index and the GRS Index and the least when the Entropy Index is considered. On the other hand, in tyres and tubes market concentration is the highest according to the HHI and very high if we go by the Horvath Index. But, market concentration in the industry is quite low when we consider the other indices. Similarly, in paints and varnishes,
vol xlvi no 49
and petroleum products, the level of market concentration is very high if we go by the HHI or the Horvath Index or the Entropy Index, whereas it is very low when the Ginevicius Index or the GRS Index is used. Such wide variation in ranking across the measures is reflected in a high coefficient of variation of ranks by measures in many of the industries like alkalis, automobile ancillaries, cotton textiles, cosmetic and toiletries including soaps and detergents, drugs and pharmaceuticals, electrical machinery, electricity, food products, fertilisers, information techno logy, polymers, petroleum products, paints and varnishes, plastic products, and diversified manufacturing (Table 3). Only in organic chemicals, inorganic chemicals, other chemicals, rubber and rubber products, and dyes and pigments the ranking, to some extent, appears to be consistent across
NOTES
Table 5: Ranking of Measures by Accuracy across Industries (1989-2008) share as per the formula of the the HHI can result in misleading conclu-
Industry Measure of Concentration
concentration measure. A con-sions and hence formulation of policies in
HHI HOR ENT GIN GRS
centration measure is the most wrong directions. This is very important
Alkali 4 5 2 3 1
accurate when R = and hence particularly when the level of market Automobile ancillaries 4 5 3 2 1 it ideally reflects the market concentration is compared across various Beverages and tobacco 4 5 3 2 1 situation. However, since in all industries and industry-specific competi-Cosmetics and toiletries* 4 5 3 2 1 the cases the difference between tion policies are formulated accordingly.
Cotton textiles 4 5 3 2 1 Automobile 4 5 3 2 1
the relative value of market As the smaller difference between the
Diversified 4 5 3 1 2
concentration and their value relative value of market share and its rela-
Drugs and pharmaceuticals 4 5 3 2 1
according to the formula of the tive value calculated by the formula of an
Dyes and pigments 4 5 3 2 1
concentration measure are dif-additive measure gives a more accurate
Electrical machinery 4 5 3 2 1
ferent, R is likely to be greater measure of market concentration, the GRS
Electricity 4 5 3 2 1
than zero. Hence, in the present Index may be used for this purpose. How-Ferrous metals 4 5 3 2 1 context, we are interested for ever, any definite conclusion in this regard Fertilisers 4 5 3 2 1 a more accurate measure of requires further research on the issue.
Food products 4 5 3 2 1 Electronics 4 5 3 2 1
market concentration, and not
Information technology 3 5 4 2 1
the most accurate one. We as-Notes
Inorganic chemicals 4 5 3 2 1
sume that the smaller the total 1 Although the market share of a firm may be
Misc manufacturing 4 5 3 2 1
defined in terms of production or sales or employ
difference between the relative
ment, we have defined as the ratio of the firm’s value in the market and their sales to total industry sales.
Non-electrical machinery 4 5 3 2 1
Non-ferrous metals 4 5 3 2 1
2 For the details on derivation of this index see
relative value in formula, the
Non-metallic mineral products 4 5 3 2 1
Ginevicius and Cirba (2009). more accurate is the measure
Organic chemicals 4 5 3 2 1 3 Here, market concentration is levelled as high, medium and low in relative sense, i e, in com-
Other chemicals 4 5 3 2 1 of market concentration.
parison with other industries in the sector to
Other textiles 4 5 3 2 1 From Table 5 it appears that
examine the ambiguities in inter-industry comthe GRS is the most accurate
Paints and varnishes 4 5 3 2 1 parison of it.
Pesticides 4 5 3 2 1
measure of market concentra-
Petroleum products 4 5 3 2 1
tion followed by the Ginevicius References
Plastic products 4 5 3 2 1
Index. In case of all the indus-Basant, R and S Morris (2000): Competition Policy in
Polymers 3 4 5 2 1
India: Issues for a Globalising Economy, project re
tries except information techno
port submitted to the Ministry of Industry, Govlogy and polymers, the Herfin-ernment of India, New Delhi.
Readymade garments 4 5 3 2 1
Rubber and rubber products 4 5 3 2 1
Ginevicius, R and S Cirba (2009): “Additive Measure
dahl-Hirschman ranks fourth
Synthetic textiles 4 5 3 2 1
ment of Market Concentration”, Journal of Busi-Textile processing 4 5 3 2 1 out of the five indices consid-ness Economics and Management, 10(3), 191-98. Horvath, J (1970): “Suggestion for a Comprehensive
Tyres and tubes 4 5 3 2 1 ered as far as the accuracy of
Measure of Concentration”, Southern Economic
* Includes soaps and detergents.
the measure is concerned. This Journal, 36, 446-52. Kambhampati, U S (1996): Industrial Concentration
measures. Such wide variations in deci-means that HHI is not a very accurate
and Performance: A Study of the Structure, Consions on market concentration across the measure of market concentration and, duct and Performance of Indian Industry (New Delhi: Oxford University Press).
measures create the necessity of examin-therefore, assessing the state of market
Mishra, P (2005): “Mergers and Acquisitions in the ing their accuracy and the next section is competition solely on the basis of this in-Indian Corporate Sector in the Post-Liberalisation Era: An Analysis”, unpublished doctoral thesis,
an attempt in this direction. dex, as it widely done in empirical re-
Vidyasagar University, West Bengal. Further, for many of the industries the search, may be misleading resulting in – (2008): “Concentration-Markup Relationship in Indian Manufacturing Sector”, Economic Politi
nature of change in market concentration wrong policy directions. As it is observed
cal Weekly, 43(39), 76-81. is also different across the measures in Table 5, the GRS Index, the Ginevicius Mishra, P and B Behera (2007): “Instabilities in Market Concentration: An Empirical Investigation in
(Table 4, p 79). Index and the Entropy Index provide bet-
Indian Manufacturing Sector”, Journal of Indian ter measure of market concentration as School of Political Economy, 19(3), 419-49. Accuracy of Measures Pushpangadan, K and N Shanta (2008): “Competition
compared to the HHI.
and Profitability in Indian Manufacturing Sector”, In order to examine the accuracy of the Indian Economic Review, 43(1), 103-23.
Conclusions Ramaswamy, K V (2006): “State of Competition in In
measures of market concentration we use
dian Manufacturing Industry” in P S Mehta (ed.), the criterion as suggested by Ginevicius Hence, although the HHI is widely used in A Functional Competition Policy for India (New
Delhi: Academic Foundation).
and Cirba (2009). In this criterion, both empirical research to measure market actual and calculated market share are concentration, from the discussion here we
used. According to this criterion, | can say that it is not a very accurate measure | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
n R = _si – s * i_ i=1 Here, R stands for accuracy of a concentration measure, s for calculated market share, and s * for the relative value of market | of market concentration, parti cularly, in comparison with the alternative measures like the Entropy Index, the Ginevicius Index or the GRS Index. Hence, examining market concentration on the basis of | available at K C Enterprises 3-6-136/6, Street No 17, Himayathnagar Hyderabad 500 029, Andhra Pradesh Ph: 66465549 | ||
80 | december 3, 2011 | vol xlvi no 49 | Economic Political Weekly |

Comments
EPW looks forward to your comments. Please note that comments are moderated as per our comments policy. They may take some time to appear. A comment, if suitable, may be selected for publication in the Letters pages of EPW.