12 years of ‘Make in India’ in 12 metrics — Low and patchy impact on growth, employment & global share
While recent incentive schemes by the government have seen some success, those gains are limited to a handful of sectors
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
The initiative, launched in September 2014, has completed 12 years. However, an analysis of 12 key metrics indicates that its overall impact on increasing the manufacturing sector's share in GDP, employment generation, and boosting global exports has been limited and uneven. While targeted interventions like (PLI) schemes have shown success, these gains remain concentrated in specific sectors rather than driving broad-based industrial transformation.
UPSC Perspectives
Economic
The campaign aimed to transform India into a global design and manufacturing hub, with the ambitious goal of increasing manufacturing's share of GDP to 25% and creating 100 million additional jobs by 2022 (later revised). However, the manufacturing sector's contribution has stagnated at around 16-17% of Gross Value Added (GVA). This highlights the persistent challenge of premature deindustrialization, where an economy shifts to services without fully developing its manufacturing base. The failure to significantly boost the global export share underscores structural bottlenecks such as high logistics costs, complex regulatory compliance, and skill deficits. UPSC questions frequently ask to critically evaluate such flagship schemes, requiring candidates to contrast the stated objectives with actual outcomes using macroeconomic data.
Governance
A critical aspect of the initiative was improving the ease of doing business. While India's ranking in the World Bank's Ease of Doing Business index (now discontinued) improved significantly, ground-level implementation challenges persist. The introduction of (PLI) schemes represents a shift from broad-based policy to targeted interventionism, focusing on strategic sectors like electronics, pharmaceuticals, and automobiles. This sector-specific success, contrasted with the broader stagnation, points to a need for more comprehensive structural reforms, including land acquisition easing, labor law rationalization, and infrastructure development, rather than relying solely on fiscal incentives. Candidates should understand this shift in industrial policy strategy and analyze the effectiveness of PLIs in driving self-reliance ().
Social
The sluggish growth in manufacturing employment is a significant concern given India's demographic dividend. The manufacturing sector, particularly labor-intensive industries like textiles and footwear, has traditionally been the crucial bridge for moving surplus labor out of agriculture into more productive sectors. The failure of to generate the promised 100 million jobs exacerbates the challenge of jobless growth. This forces a larger portion of the workforce back into low-productivity agriculture or the informal service sector, widening economic inequality. From a social perspective, analyzing the employment elasticity of manufacturing growth is essential. UPSC Mains often explores the linkage between industrial policy, employment generation, and poverty alleviation.