IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/112061.html

A Relative Study of Average Investment Returns between Manufacturing Sector and Service Sector of CPSEs in India

Author

Listed:
  • Ghosh, Sudipta
  • Aithal, Sreeramana

Abstract

Purpose: In India, CPSEs were established to achieve socio-economic objectives of the nation. Both manufacturing sector and service sector occupies an important position in the development process of an economy. In this context, a comparative study is performed between manufacturing sector and service sector of Indian CPSEs from 2010-11 to 2019-20. Design/Methodology/Approach: Based on resultant data, investment ratios are employed to compute investment returns of the CPSEs. Moreover Fishers ‘t’ test judge the differences (if any) in investment returns between manufacturing sector and service sector. In addition, linear regression equations are employed to inspect the impact of sector-wise investment returns on the aggregate investment returns. Findings/Result: Based on average investment returns, no noteworthy difference is observed between manufacturing sector and service sector in terms of ROCE and ROE. However, there exists important distinction among the same for ROA which implies that manufacturing sector has better utilization of their total assets in generating returns than that of the service sector. ROCE of the manufacturing sector contributes positively to the overall profitability of the CPSEs, while ROCE of the service sector contributes negatively to the overall profitability of the CPSEs. It further observed that the rate of negative influence by the service sector is more than that of positive influence by the manufacturing sector, thereby reducing the overall profitability of the CPSEs at aggregate level. Originality/Value: To identify the important sector in the liberal economic environment, the present study compares average investment returns between manufacturing sector and service sector of the CPSEs in India through ROA, ROCE, and ROE.

Suggested Citation

  • Ghosh, Sudipta & Aithal, Sreeramana, 2022. "A Relative Study of Average Investment Returns between Manufacturing Sector and Service Sector of CPSEs in India," MPRA Paper 112061, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:112061
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/112061/1/MPRA_paper_112061.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Priya Mandiratta & G.S. Bhalla, 2017. "Pre and Post Disinvestment Performance Evaluation of Indian CPSEs," Management and Labour Studies, XLRI Jamshedpur, School of Business Management & Human Resources, vol. 42(2), pages 120-134, May.
    2. Jeffry M. Netter & William L. Megginson, 2001. "From State to Market: A Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 39(2), pages 321-389, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Baird, Matthew & Chari, A.V. & Nataraj, Shanthi & Rothenberg, Alexander & Telhaj, Shqiponja & Winters, L. Alan, 2019. "The public sector and the misallocation of labor: evidence from a policy experiment in India," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 102605, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Shrabana Tripathi & Bhanu Pratap Singh, 2025. "Does disinvestment affect stock prices? An event study approach on the Indian public sector stocks," Journal of Social and Economic Development, Springer;Institute for Social and Economic Change, vol. 27(2), pages 408-421, August.
    3. Johan Willner, 2003. "Privatisation and Public Ownership in Finland," CESifo Working Paper Series 1012, CESifo.
    4. Ashantha Ranasinghe & Xuejuan Su, 2023. "When social assistance meets market power: A mixed duopoly view of health insurance in the United States," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 61(4), pages 851-869, October.
    5. Lu, Yao & Zhan, Shuwei & Zhan, Minghua, 2024. "Has FinTech changed the sensitivity of corporate investment to interest rates?—Evidence from China," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    6. Richard Bozec, 2004. "L’analyse comparative de la performance entre les entreprises publiques et les entreprises privées : le problème de mesure et son impact sur les résultats," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 80(4), pages 619-654.
    7. Carlo Cambini & Yossi Spiegel, 2016. "Investment and Capital Structure of Partially Private Regulated Firms," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 487-515, April.
    8. Simon Fink, 2013. "Policy Convergence with or without the European Union: The Interaction of Policy Success, EU Membership and Policy Convergence," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(4), pages 631-648, July.
    9. Josse Delfgaauw & Robert Dur, 2008. "Incentives and Workers' Motivation in the Public Sector," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 171-191, January.
    10. Michael Böheim, 2011. "The Privatisation of Public Assets as an Economic Policy Instrument: Private versus Public Ownership of Companies – Empirical Evidence and Considerations for Industrial Location Policy," Austrian Economic Quarterly, WIFO, vol. 16(4), pages 244-255, December.
    11. Andres, Luis & Foster, Vivien & Guasch, Jose Luis, 2006. "The impact of privatization on the performance of the infrastructure sector : the case of electricity distribution in Latin American countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3936, The World Bank.
    12. Alberto Chilosi, 2014. "The Economic System as an End or as a Means, and the Future of Socialism: An Evolutionary Viewpoint," Palgrave Studies in the History of Economic Thought, in: Riccardo Bellofiore & Ewa Karwowski & Jan Toporowski (ed.), Economic Crisis and Political Economy, chapter 1, pages 10-28, Palgrave Macmillan.
    13. Jens K. Perret, 2015. "Comments on the Impact of Knowledge on Economic Growth across the Regions of the Russian Federation," EIIW Discussion paper disbei207, Universitätsbibliothek Wuppertal, University Library.
    14. Ullah, Barkat, 2021. "Does innovation explain the performance gap between privatized and private firms?," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    15. Lu, Susan Feng & Dranove, David, 2013. "Profiting from gaizhi: Management buyouts during China’s privatization," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 634-650.
    16. Birgitte Grøgaard & Asmund Rygh & Gabriel R. G. Benito, 2020. "Correction to: Bringing corporate governance into internalization theory: State ownership and foreign entry strategies," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 51(8), pages 1351-1352, October.
    17. Carvalho, Augusto & Guimaraes, Bernardo, 2018. "State-controlled companies and political risk: Evidence from the 2014 Brazilian election," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 66-78.
    18. Ding, Mingfa, 2014. "Political Connections and Stock Liquidity: Political Network, Hierarchy and Intervention," Knut Wicksell Working Paper Series 2014/7, Lund University, Knut Wicksell Centre for Financial Studies.
    19. Ming Lu & Zhao Chen & Shuang Zhang, 2008. "Paying for the Dream of Public Ownership: Case Studies on Corruption and Privatization in China," Transition Studies Review, Springer;Central Eastern European University Network (CEEUN), vol. 15(2), pages 355-373, September.
    20. Li, Jiaming & Li, Yuheng & Zhang, Wenzhong & Yu, Jianhui, 2018. "Imbalanced ownership transformation and land use within an urban area: a case study of Beijing," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 240-247.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • A1 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics
    • A19 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Other
    • O1 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:112061. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.