IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/112061.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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. 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.
    2. 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.
    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. Johan Willner, 2003. "Privatisation and Public Ownership in Finland," CESifo Working Paper Series 1012, CESifo.
    3. 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.
    4. Ingrid Ott & Stephen J. Turnovsky, 2006. "Excludable and Non‐excludable Public Inputs: Consequences for Economic Growth," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 73(292), pages 725-748, November.
    5. Bozec, Richard, 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, Décembre.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Denisova, Irina & Eller, Markus & Frye, Timothy & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2012. "Everyone hates privatization, but why? Survey evidence from 28 post-communist countries," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 44-61.
    11. 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.
    12. N.F. Cruz & R.C. Marques & A. Marra & C. Pozzi, 2014. "Local Mixed Companies: The Theory And Practice In An International Perspective," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 85(1), pages 1-9, March.
    13. Luc Baumstark & Claude Ménard & William Roy & Anne Yvrande-Billon, 2005. "Modes de gestion et efficience des opérateurs dans le secteur des transports urbains de personnes," Post-Print halshs-00103116, HAL.
    14. Orietta DESSY & Massimo FLORIO, 2004. "Workers' earnings in the UK before and after privatisation: a study of five industries," Departmental Working Papers 2004-13, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    15. Mouna Mrad & Slaheddine Hallara, 2014. "The Relationship Between the Board of Directors and the Performance/Value Creation in a Context of Privatization: The Case of French Companies," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 83-108, March.
    16. Bortolotti, Bernardo & Fantini, Marcella & Siniscalco, Domenico, 2004. "Privatisation around the world: evidence from panel data," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(1-2), pages 305-332, January.
    17. O. Amerighi & G. De Feo, 2007. "Competition for FDI in the Presence of a Public Firm and the Effects of Privatization," Working Papers 605, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    18. S. I. Dolgikh & B. S. Potanin, 2023. "The Impact of Public Administration on the Efficiency of Russian Firms," Studies on Russian Economic Development, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 59-67, February.
    19. Yusuf, Shahid & Nabeshima, Kaoru, 2006. "Two decades of reform : the changing organization dynamics of Chinese industrial firms," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3806, The World Bank.
    20. Michael A. Crew & Paul R. Kleindorfer, 2013. "Privatization of postal operators: old arguments and new realities," Chapters, in: Michael A. Crew & Paul R. Kleindorfer (ed.), Reforming the Postal Sector in the Face of Electronic Competition, chapter 1, pages 1-19, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Investment Returns; CPSEs; Manufacturing Sector; Service Sector; ROA; ROCE; ROE.;
    All these 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.