Authors:
Aahee Saxena, Prabhakar V, Prabhjyot Kaur Oberoi, Tavishi Jasaiwal, Ananya Karthikeyan
Student, Banaras Hindu University, Uttar Pradesh
Student, Indira Gandhi National Open University, Tamil Nadu
Student, Gautam Buddha University, Uttar Pradesh
Student, Hindu College, University of Delhi
Student, Jain International Residential School, Karnataka
Abstract
India’s position in the rapidly evolving global trade landscape, in which supply chain diversification away from China is accelerating, is largely determined by its export potential. India’s potential to expand its manufacturing and trading capacity is still hampered by structural constraints, despite the existence of several legislative frameworks to promote export growth. With primary emphasis on themes such as logistical infrastructure, policy implementation, and global value chain integration, this study intends to investigate the core factors affecting India’s export performance.
This study adopts a mixed methodology, collecting data from both primary and secondary sources. This analysis made it evident that India’s export goals and its actual trade results are significantly distinct. India’s total exports have grown steadily, reaching about $860 billion in FY 2025–2026, although merchandise exports are still far behind services, and the country’s share of the global merchandise market is still low at 1.8%.
The study further demonstrated that, rather than showing signs of widespread manufacturing integration, India’s involvement in global supply chains was mostly complimentary rather than substitutive, with participation focused in certain industries like electronics and pharmaceuticals.
Overall, this study evaluates the importance of prioritizing hierarchical transformations, consistent implementation of policies, and value chain expansion prior to policy aspirations. Understanding the difference between export growth and export effect is essential to increasing India’s competitiveness in international trade.
Introduction
For decades, the global economy rested on the precarious belief that a centralised manufacturing hub could meet global demand. Recently, pandemic-driven disruptions and rising geopolitical friction have exposed the fragility of this system. At its peak, China was responsible for nearly 30% of global output- a massive scale perfectly capturing the logic of playing to your economic strengths. Now, that position is re-examined through the lens of systemic vulnerability. Globally, reliance on one hub creates a “chokepoint” risk. In the West, it leads to inflation and supply shortages. This study’s central Research Question explores this change: Can India balance its vast demographic potential and structural constraints to become a real alternative in the global supply chain?
The resulting shift has given rise to the “China Plus One” strategy, a move driven more by necessity than choice. Multinational corporations are pivoting away from a singular focus on offshoring, instead prioritizing “supply chain resilience” as the primary function of long-term operational stability. However, this transition is fraught with complexity. Firms are finding it challenging to replicate the integrated ecosystems of East Asia, creating a significant gap between the desire for diversification and the availability of ready-to-use industrial infrastructure.
India stands at a pivotal crossroads, wielding a massive demographic dividend and aggressive Production-Linked Incentive (PLI) schemes as its primary weapons of attraction. The assumption of a seamless transition for India is complicated by persistent institutional challenges that may temper the pace of its industrial integration. While government initiatives suggest a welcoming environment, the transition is hindered by a complex web of regulatory inefficiencies and high logistics costs, which average 14% of GDP—significantly higher than those of its global competitors. Consequently, the core of this paper evaluates whether these policy incentives are sufficient to outweigh the persistent “bottlenecks” in India’s manufacturing engine.
Understanding India’s trajectory is critical not just for regional economics but for the future stability of the Indo-Pacific trade corridor. A completed transition in India’s industrial sector would necessitate a global redistribution of economic influence, the ‘China Plus One’ strategy may remain confined to policy discourse rather than global supply architecture.
Literature Review
Amidst the growing hover around potential positioning of India in global diplomacy, India requires a substantial holistic strengthening of its concomitants. This research highlights the needs, problems and potentials of India that can register its place as a global exporter post-Chinese economic phase.
The literature presents two broad but competing interpretations. One group of studies argues that India’s export potential is expanding because global firms are diversifying supply chains away from China, while another group warns that India’s gains remain constrained by limited manufacturing depth, uneven policy execution, and relatively weak integration into global value chains. The present study is located within this debate and asks whether India’s recent export growth reflects genuine structural upgrading or only selective, sector-specific gains.
India Foundation conducted a research to show that India’s export potential has surged amid global supply chain diversification away from China, driven by policies such as “China Plus One” and domestic reforms, positioning the country as a complementary manufacturing hub. These opportunities can be tapped into high-tech sectors and persistent challenges in policy execution and competitiveness.
A central disagreement in the literature concerns the realism of India’s export targets under the Foreign Trade Policy 2023. Optimistic policy accounts treat the goal of raising exports to USD 2 trillion by 2030 as a feasible outcome of reforms, incentive schemes, and supply-chain diversification, but more cautious assessments suggest (moderate growth from FY2023 to FY2026 , averaging ~3-6% annually, far below the ~12.5% CAGR needed from FY2023’s baseline) that current export growth rates and industrial constraints make such a target difficult to achieve without major structural change. Rather than treating the target as proof of likely success, this study uses it as a benchmark to test the gap between ambition and actual export capacity.
The literature also differs on the effectiveness of policy intervention. Supportive accounts present Production Linked Incentive schemes as evidence (Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal emphasize sustained momentum with 11-12% merchandise CAGR and 18-19% services growth) that India can build export capacity in sectors such as electronics and pharmaceuticals, while critical accounts (Nisha Taneja et al. (2025); argue that these gains are concentrated in a few industries (medium-high tech like semiconductors and aircraft parts, versus primary goods) and are often assembly-led rather than driven by deep domestic manufacturing. Barclays economists project a more modest 12% overall growth to $1.6 trillion and 4% global share, citing import reliance in key exports. This study therefore treats PLI not as a general solution, but as a partial and uneven instrument whose effects must be judged sector by sector.
Trade theory helps explain why these disagreements matter. The Heckscher-Ohlin framework suggests that India should perform well in labor-abundant and skill-intensive activities, but it also implies limits where capital intensity and scale economies are essential. New Trade Theory adds that export success depends not only on factor endowments, but also on clustering, product differentiation, and industrial ecosystems. In this study, these theories are used together to interpret why India has gained in some export segments, yet still struggles to achieve broad-based manufacturing depth.
A further debate in the research concerns India’s role in global value chains. Some studies argue that China Plus One strategies have opened a window for India to become a complementary manufacturing hub, especially in electronics and selected high-tech products (BCG researchers (Amy Wunderlin et al. 2023) document a $23 billion (44%) surge in India’s US exports (2018-2022), attributing it to US-China tariffs driving manufacturing shifts); while others note that participation remains narrow and concentrated in assembly-oriented segments (Apple accelerated diversification post-2020, moving 10-15% of iPhone assembly to India via Foxconn and Tata. Initial yields lagged China’s 95% efficiency, but green corridors cut clearance to 6 hours, positioning India for 25% global share by 2028). Official and international trade data support the second view more strongly, since India’s merchandise export share remains relatively small compared with its scale, even though certain sectors have grown quickly. The evidence thus points to selective integration rather than full structural substitution of China.
Dr. Ketki Kaushik (2025) contrasts China’s systematic export framework (tax rebates, subsidies) with India’s fragmented incentives, exposing MSME vulnerabilities amid US 50% tariffs (2025). Her paper urges integrated policies for resilience, applying New Trade Theory to argue consistent support could elevate India’s 2.5% global share, mirroring China’s trajectory 30 years prior. NTT explains why similar countries trade intensively through economies of scale, product differentiation, and imperfect competition, rather than just factor endowments like in Heckscher-Ohlin.
The India-Vietnam comparison is useful only if it is treated analytically, not descriptively. Vietnam’s stronger export performance is not explained by low wages alone; it is linked to a more trade-intensive economy (studied further in case study), deeper external openness, and a policy environment that supports export-oriented manufacturing and FDI absorption. World Bank trade profiles show that Vietnam’s exports of goods and services are far more trade-intensive relative to GDP than India’s, which helps explain why Vietnam has integrated more deeply into global production networks. The key question for India is not whether Vietnam succeeded, but which of Vietnam’s institutional and regulatory conditions can actually be transferred to India’s larger and more complex economy.
Taken together, the literature shows that India’s export potential is real but contested. The unresolved debate is not whether India can export more, but whether it can move from selective, policy-driven gains to sustained and broad-based manufacturing competitiveness. This study contributes by comparing optimistic policy claims with official trade evidence and by using trade theory to explain why export expansion has not yet translated into full-scale global supply-chain leadership.
Research Methodology
To what extent does India have the structural and policy capacity to realize its export potential under a reconfigured global supply chain regime? Do ongoing economic and institutional reforms offer realistic prospects for India to emerge as a competitive manufacturing alternative in the post-China global economy?
This paper uses a descriptive and analytical research design to study India’s export potential in the context of changing global supply chains. The analysis is based on the larger transformation of the global economic system, i.e., the gradual motion away from China as the dominant manufacturing hub. A major concern of this study is to discover new emerging patterns of exports and sectoral shifts while studying structural constraints that may limit India’s ability to scale up its export capacity. It also tries to answer whether India is emerging as another complementary manufacturing hub rather than an outright replacement in global production networks.
To ensure more holistic understanding of the issue, a mixed-method approach has been employed; on one hand export data, trade volumes, growth trends by sector and FDI inflows are analyzed for certain period in order to identify measurable patterns in India’s export performance while at same time qualitative analysis looks at policy frameworks and institutional mechanisms as well as geopolitical developments like US–China trade tensions and supply chain diversification strategies. It is through these very approaches that this study can go beyond mere numbers to interpret them within some broader structural context.
This study mainly uses secondary data obtained from institutional sources. These include the Government of India, Economic Survey, and Ministry of Commerce. International databases will also be used for comparative insights; these are World Bank, IMF, and WTO. Reports from policy think tanks and industry bodies will help capture developments specific to sectors. The main indicators that this study will look at are export growth rates, sectoral composition, FDI inflows, and India’s share in global trade.
The study covers the period 2015-2025 for analyzing pre- and post-pandemic trade dynamics; it mostly focuses on India but uses comparisons with China and Vietnam to bring out relative performance. It also encompasses major export-oriented sectors: electronics, textiles, automobile components, and new high-technology industries.
A mix of analytical tools has been used to analyze the results such as trend analysis, comparative analysis, and sectoral evaluation. Also, gap analysis is used to look at the difference between India’s current level of exports and what they could be in more value-added sectors. Policy analysis is included to look at how well initiatives like the Production Linked Incentive (PLI) schemes are working.
Since this study is macroeconomic in nature, reliance on secondary data is appropriate but it has to be noted that firm-level challenges may not be fully captured through this approach. However limited the coverage may be though this mixed-method framework provides a fairly strong basis for analyzing India’s changing role in the global trade environment.
Case Study Framework: Potential of India vs the actualisation of the potential in Vietnam
This case study compares the potential of India vs the actualisation of the potential in Vietnam. We consider Vietnam for its similar cultural and political space while applying policies similar to what India aims at, providing a consequential comparison to the cause-effect relationship.
However, India and Vietnam entered the post-China trade realignment with different structural starting points: India has a much larger domestic market and a stronger services base, while Vietnam is far more trade-intensive and more tightly embedded in export-oriented manufacturing networks. World Bank trade profiles (figures 1 and 2) show that Vietnam’s exports of goods and services are exceptionally high relative to GDP, and its economy is more deeply integrated into international trade than India’s, as:
Vietnam’s Export Surge
From the early 2000s, Vietnam held ambitious targets (like FTP 2030) and met moderate success amid structural reforms and global shifts, yet fell short of tripling without deeper changes. Vietnam aimed to boost exports to $100 billion by 2015 (from $14.3 billion in 2000), achieving $183 billion by 2020 via FDI and FTAs, but averaged 15-20% CAGR initially before tapering to 8-10%, mirroring India’s 4-6% pace versus 12.5% needed for $2T.
Policy Triggers and Growth:
Vietnam’s Doi Moi reforms (1986 onward) and WTO accession (2007) echo India’s FTP push, attracting electronics/manufacturing FDI (Samsung alone 25% of exports by 2015) as firms diversified from China – similar to India’s “China Plus One” gains in mobiles (+44% FY24). Exports tripled from $20 billion (2005) to $70 billion (2010), hitting 90% GDP, driven by low-cost labor.
India’s strengths lie in services, pharmaceuticals, and selected technology-intensive niches, whereas Vietnam’s export base is more concentrated in manufactured goods that are assembled and re-exported through global value chains. This difference matters because export growth is not only about low costs; it also depends on whether a country can combine labor, logistics, supplier networks, and predictable rules into a functioning export ecosystem. Vietnam’s advantage is therefore structural, not merely wage-based.
Challenges and Shortfalls:
Structural hurdles akin to India’s like skill gaps, infrastructure deficits, over-reliance on FDI (70% exports foreign-owned) curbed diversification; high-tech share rose but primary goods persisted, vulnerable to US-China tariffs. But due to its ecosystem depth, Vietnam’s export profile shows deeper participation in internationally fragmented production, where imported intermediates are assembled into export goods with strong links to multinational firms and external markets. ELG hypothesis played out partially: exports fueled 6-7% GDP growth, but growth-led exports dominated as domestic demand surged, projecting only 10-12% CAGR to 2030 targets, not tripling from the 2020 baseline [prior ELG]. Critics note Vietnam’s success (9x growth 2000-2020) required “big bang” SEZs and currency stability.
The Heckscher-Ohlin model helps explain part of the divergence, but not all of it:
Vietnam has converted its factor advantages into export growth more effectively because its policy framework has been more consistently aligned with manufacturing-led trade expansion. This means the issue is not just factor endowments, but the policy and institutional environment that turns factor abundance into export performance. Whereas, India’s abundant labor should, in theory, support labor-intensive exports, yet the country still faces weak logistics, fragmented industrial coordination, and limited capital deepening relative to the needs of large-scale manufacturing.
Key takeaways for India:
Vietnam illustrates feasible acceleration (from 10% to 20% CAGR via FTAs/FDI) but warns of plateaus without value chain climb, aligning with India’s services strength over merchandise. To match, India needs Vietnam style export processing zones and 20+ FTAs by 2030, potentially bridging the 4-6% to 15% gap . This case synthesizes theories: H-O for labor leverage, ELG for spillovers, underscoring policy dynamism over ambition alone.
This comparison also clarifies what is and is not transferable to India. Vietnam’s model shows that export expansion can accelerate when industrial policy is consistent, customs procedures are efficient, and firms can plug into global supplier chains quickly. However, India cannot simply copy the Vietnamese path because it has a larger economy, a more complex federal structure, and a much more diversified domestic demand base. What India can transfer are the institutional principles – policy stability, export-processing efficiency, and regulatory predictability – not the exact scale or composition of Vietnam’s model.
Overall, the case study shows that Vietnam’s outcome is not a generic “success story” but evidence of how trade openness, manufacturing coordination, and GVC integration interact to produce export growth. India’s challenge is to move from selective gains to system-wide export competitiveness, which requires more than incentive schemes alone. The comparison therefore supports the paper’s broader argument: India has export potential, but without deeper institutional and structural alignment, it is more likely to remain a complementary supplier than a full alternative to China.
Key Findings
India’s exports in the analysis years, i.e. 2015-2025, show a pattern of growth that is even but moderate. Total exports are expected to be around $850-860 billion in FY 2025-26. An important new theme developing over this period is the structural imbalance in export composition. As Table 1 indicates, a large share of export growth has come from the services sector with merchandise exports not only being relatively small but also less competitive globally. This means that India’s export structure continues to be more oriented toward skill-intensive services rather than large-scale manufacturing, which relates directly to our study’s main question regarding India’s ability to become a manufacturing alternative.
Table 1: Composition of India’s Exports (Approximate Trends)
|
Category |
Share in Total Exports |
|
Services |
~55% |
|
Merchandise |
~45% |
Source: Compiled from Government of India trade data
A second recurring theme is sectoral asymmetry in export performance. Over time, export growth has been concentrated in specific industries rather than being broad-based. The electronics sector has emerged as the fastest-growing manufacturing segment, with mobile phone exports exceeding $20 billion, largely supported by policy interventions such as Production Linked Incentive (PLI) schemes and shifts in global supply chains. The pharmaceutical sector demonstrates relatively stable global competitiveness. In contrast, traditional sectors such as textiles have recorded comparatively slower growth, particularly when benchmarked against countries like Vietnam and Bangladesh. This uneven sectoral pattern suggests that India’s structural transformation remains partial and selective.
The third theme has to do with where India stands in the world trade systems. Table 2 shows that India’s part in global merchandise exports is still small, at around 1.8%. This relatively small share shows limitations in manufacturing size, value addition, and integration into global production systems, which are important for assessing India’s role in a newly organized global supply chain.
Table 2: Global Merchandise Export Share (Approx.)
|
Country |
Global Export Share |
|
China |
~14% |
|
India |
~1.8% |
Source: World trade estimates
The findings further highlight a theme of selective integration under global supply chain restructuring. The “China Plus One” strategy has led to increased investment inflows and partial relocation of production toward India. However, as observed across the period, these shifts remain sector-specific rather than economy-wide. Multinational firms appear to position India primarily as a supplementary manufacturing destination rather than a comprehensive alternative, which directly informs the research question regarding India’s substitutive versus complementary role.
This can be corroborated with Comparative evidence. Strong manufacturing FDI inflows and extensive trade agreements support Vietnam’s relatively higher export growth and deeper integration into global value chains. Bangladesh is still competitive in labour-intensive exports like textiles. India has a concentration of exports in services and selective manufacturing segments, which means that India has comparatively lower levels of integration into global production networks.
The last theme deals with structural constraints that persist on export scalability. High logistics costs are approximately 13-14% of GDP, infrastructure gaps, and regulatory inefficiencies continue to constrain export competitiveness. Policy initiatives like PLI schemes have had positive results in some sectors but their wider impact is uneven and there has been little diversification across the export basket.
In summary, it seems that even though India has gained from shifts in global supply chains, its exports grew slowly and selectively during the period under review. As Figure 1 shows, India’s present position is more of a supporting role in global supply chains rather than an alternative hub for dominant manufacturing.
Discussion
The key findings reveal a pattern of moderate but uneven export growth across the 2015–2025 period, with total exports reaching approximately $850–860 billion in FY 2025–26. These results can be further interpreted by applying recognised trade metrics, specifically the Economic Complexity Index (ECI) from the Harvard Growth Lab (2019) and the World Economic Forum’s (2020) Global Competitiveness framework. These frameworks indicate that a country’s trade opportunities are determined by its structural maturity and capacity for capital formation, rather than simple trade volume. In directly addressing whether India can balance its demographic potential against structural constraints, India’s relatively small 1.8% share of global merchandise exports reflects limited diversification and lower economic complexity, standing in stark contrast with China, which holds a dominant 14% share through advanced manufacturing and deeply interconnected supply chain networks. This gap immediately raises questions about the feasibility of India emerging as a real alternative in the global supply chain.
The sector-specific findings are consistent with NITI Aayog’s policy evaluations (2021), which emphasize the structural limitations India’s manufacturing industry endures despite strategic endeavors. The emergence of electronics as the fastest-growing manufacturing segment, with mobile phone exports exceeding $20 billion, suggests that certain industries have benefited from initiatives like the Production Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme, partially demonstrating India’s ability to convert its demographic dividend into productive manufacturing output. However, as emphasized by these evaluations, a substantial portion of this expansion remains driven by assembly-based processes rather than deep manufacturing, which limits value addition and diminishes India’s ability to export sophisticated goods and services. This finding is significant in the context of the research question, as it suggests that while India’s demographic potential is being partially mobilised, structural constraints continue to cap the depth and quality of its manufacturing integration.
India’s competitive edge is not consistent across industries, as the comparative evidence from Bangladesh and Vietnam makes clear. Both nations continue to surpass India in sectors such as ready-made garments and footwear, owing to their lower production costs and more developed manufacturing ecosystems. This aligns with the finding that India’s export concentration in services and selective manufacturing segments translates into comparatively lower integration into global production networks, unlike Vietnam, which has achieved deeper value chain participation through strong manufacturing FDI and extensive trade agreements. In the context of the research question, this comparative gap reveals that balancing demographic potential with structural constraints is not sufficient on its own. To become a real alternative in the global supply chain, India must also close the competitiveness gap in labour-intensive manufacturing where its regional peers currently hold a decisive advantage.
From the perspective of global supply chains, the observed trends are consistent with World Bank analyses (2020), which emphasize the increasing importance of supply chain diversification in response to disruptions such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the trade disputes between the US and China. While India has attracted greater foreign direct investment and certain production shifts under the “China Plus One” strategy, the findings indicate that these shifts remain sector-specific rather than economy-wide. Countries like Vietnam and Bangladesh have more rapidly integrated into export manufacturing networks, suggesting that India’s involvement in global value chains continues to be selective and supplementary rather than comprehensively integrated. This directly speaks to the research question, as it indicates that India has not yet fully leveraged the structural opportunity presented by global supply chain diversification to position itself as a genuine alternative hub.
These findings are further contextualized by official policy announcements. A national target of $2 trillion in exports by 2030 has been outlined by Piyush Goyal (2023), demonstrating bold ambitions alongside an implicit acknowledgment of present structural shortcomings. Similarly, Narendra Modi (2020) emphasized the significance of supporting domestic industry through initiatives like “Make in India” to increase global competitiveness. Nevertheless, the findings indicate that while certain sectors have recorded gains, the overall impact on export diversification remains limited and uneven. These constraints are further compounded by persistent infrastructure gaps, with India’s logistics costs sitting at approximately 13–14% of GDP, well above global benchmarks, which continues to negatively affect export scalability and efficiency according to the World Bank’s Logistics Performance Index (2023). Taken together, these policy and infrastructure realities suggest that the structural constraints identified in the research question remain formidable barriers that current initiatives have yet to fully overcome.
Overall, the discussion illustrates that India’s export potential is shaped by a combination of emerging opportunities and persistent structural constraints. Returning to the central research question, the findings suggest that while India demonstrates meaningful demographic potential and has recorded targeted sectoral gains, it has not yet achieved the balance required to emerge as a real and comprehensive alternative in the global supply chain. India’s present position remains largely supplementary rather than substitutive, and its transition into a major export powerhouse will therefore depend on broadening sectoral participation, improving economic sophistication, and systematically addressing the underlying structural challenges that continue to limit the scale and depth of its global trade integration.
Conclusion
The performance of exports in India is a complex interaction between the newly emerged opportunities and the long -standing barriers to export expansion in an evolving global economy. The restructuring of the global supply chains, following the COVID-19 pandemic and the development of the geopolitical tensions, has altered the position in which China has been taking the lead so far. Furthermore, the recent change towards the China Plus One approach by international companies leaves India and other rising economies with another chance to improve their portion in the global manufacturing and trade system. The present analysis shows that India’s exports have been quite stable in the past few years, and there have only been minor fluctuations in the growth rate. This study specifically examined whether India has the structural and policy capacity to emerge as a competitive manufacturing alternative in the evolving global supply chain framework, particularly under the ‘China Plus One’ stratergy.
The growth in the export figure has been spearheaded by the services sector. This growth trend implies that services, rather than manufacturing, are driving India’s exports. It also suggests that India’s manufacturing sector does not yet enjoy a similar level of global competitiveness, despite being competitive in skill intensive industries. But there has been a very positive development in the export of manufactured products. However, despite these positive developments, India’s share in the world merchandise trade continues to be limited. The key contribution of this study is that it moves beyond general discussions on export growth and highlights the gap between India’s export potential and its reality, in terms of limited value chain integration and uneven sectoral development.
In this sense, it will also require more policy coordination and consistency to meet its export goals, such as a substantial increase in export share by 2030. The exports have increased mostly in services rather than manufacturing due to structural constraints. The immense potential of the Indian population has resulted in partial success of policy incentives like Production Linked Incentive (PLI) schemes, although the impacts have not yet been evenly spread. The crucial factor is the depth of integration, value addition and consistency in policy implementation, which currently remain partial in India.
Overall, India’s export trajectory reflects both opportunity and contraints within a reconfiguring global economy. While supply chain diversification has created new openings, their effective realisation depends on sustained structural reforms, enhanced manufacturing capabilities and deeper integration into global value chains. The central question, therefore, is whether India can translate this potential into sustained competitiveness as a global manufacturing hub.
Limitations and scope of research
This study has some problems that come from the way the economy is set up and the way we did our research. We got most of our information from places like the World Bank, the WTO and the Government of India. These places are trustworthy. We did not go out and collect our own information from people on the ground. This means we missed some details about what individual manufacturing units are really dealing with. When we looked at the economy we found a problem. A lot of the growth in electronics is from putting parts together not from making the parts themselves. This means that India is not making complex or valuable things to export. It also means that India has to import a lot of equipment. The Heckscher-Ohlin analysis showed us that India has a lot of people who can work but not enough money to invest in technologies. This makes it hard for India to start making high-tech things. The electronics manufacturing in India is limited because of this. The study of electronics manufacturing in India is important to understand these issues.
The government has plans for the future but it is not clear if these plans will actually work. This study talks about the difference between what the government wants to do and what’s actually possible. The government wants to export two trillion dollars of goods by 2030 but other experts think this is not realistic. They think that the cost of moving goods and the fact that some parts of the country are not as developed as others will make it hard to reach this goal.
When we compare India to countries like Vietnam and Bangladesh we see that India is not joining the global economy as quickly as they are. This is because some parts of the country have an advantage over others and because there are still some problems with the rules that the government has not fixed yet. The study only looks at what will happen until 2025-26 so it does not know what will happen after that. This means that the study can only predict what will happen in the term and it cannot say what will happen in the long term. The India export target is a deal and the study is trying to figure out if the India export target is realistic. The India export target is two trillion dollars, by 2030. The study is looking at the India export target and trying to determine if it will be reached.
The scope of this research is clearly defined to cover ten years of change from 2015 to 2025. This period helps to analyze the trade situation before the pandemic, the disruptions caused by COVID-19 and the recovery that followed. The study mainly looks at India’s export performance. It also compares India with regional competitors, like China, Vietnam and Bangladesh to give a global view. The study focuses on India, China, Vietnam and Bangladesh.
The research looks at industries that have a lot of potential and export a lot of things like electronics and textiles and car parts and also new industries that use a lot of technology. The research uses a way of looking at things that combines numbers like how much we trade with countries, how much money is invested in our country and how fast our exports are growing, with what people think about the Production Linked Incentive schemes and the Foreign Trade Policy 2023. This helps us understand the Production Linked Incentive schemes and the Foreign Trade Policy 2023 and how they affect industries, like electronics and textiles and car parts and the new technology industries.
To overcome these identified limitations, the study advocates for a strategic pivot from a superficial “assembly-oriented” model toward a deeply integrated manufacturing ecosystem. This transition necessitates aggressive capital deepening and a focus on high-value technological innovation to move beyond low-margin exports and address the persistent skill mismatches within the labor force. By implementing “big-bang” reforms to slash high logistics costs and streamlining the regulatory web, India can enhance its competitiveness relative to more agile regional counterparts like Vietnam.
References
1.Gómez, A., & Téllez, J. (2016, June 4).
An alternative index for economic development.
Harvard Growth Lab.
2.NITI Aayog. (2020).
Export preparedness index 2020. Government of India.
https://niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2023-02/Digital_ExportPreparednessIndex2020_0.pdf
3.The Economic Times. (2025, January 6).
Working on strategy to push growth of exports in goods & services: Piyush Goyal.
4.India Brand Equity Foundation. (2026).
India achieves record US$860 billion exports in 2025–26 driven by trade resilience and global expansion.
5. Foreign Trade Policy. (2023)
Official pdf which details the $2 trillion export roadmap and decentralized export hub.
https://content.dgft.gov.in/Website/dgft_ftp_2023.pdf
6.Invest India- Production Linked Incentive (PIL)
Breakdown of the 14 sectors under the production linked incentive schemes.
https://www.investindia.gov.in/production-linked-incentive-schemes-india
7.Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018).
Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.).
SAGE Publications.
8.World Bank. (2023).
World development indicators.
https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators
9.Ohlin, B. (1933). Harvard University Press.
Interregional and international trade.
10.Balassa, B. (1978). Exports and economic growth: Further evidence.
Journal of Development Economics, 5(2), 181–189.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3878(78)90006-8
11.World Bank. (2023).
Logistics performance index 2023.
12.United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). (2023).
World investment report 2023.
https://unctad.org/publication/world-investment-report-2023
13.NITI Aayog. (2021).
India’s export strategy: Unlocking export potential.
Government of India.
14.Asian Development Bank. (2022).
Global value chain development report: Beyond production.
15.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2020).
Trade and global value chains in a post-COVID world.
16.World Bank. (2020).
Trading for development in the age of global value chains.
17.Kumar, S. (2024, June 4).
A new case for manufacturing and supply chains in India within the current geopolitical context.
18.Lam, A., Pagan, C., Luchnikava-Schorsch, H., De Lima, P., & Ranjan, V. (2025, May 20).
India’s manufacturing opportunity amid global trade uncertainty. S&P Global.
19.Dutta, S. (2024, September 13).
India needs to explore untapped $161 billion worth export potential with China: Study.
20. Policy Circle Bureau. (2024, May 14).
India-China trade: A shift in strategy is needed to bridge the deficit. Policy Circle.
21. World Bank. (2017).
A rebalancing China and resurging India: How will the pendulum swing for Russia?
22. Kumar, S. (2024, June 4).
A new case for manufacturing and supply chains in India within the current geopolitical context.
23. Goldar, B., & Gupta, I. (2020).
Export-led growth in India: Evidence from manufacturing sector (Working Paper No. 42).
Department of Economics, Ashoka University.
https://dp.ashoka.edu.in/ash/wpaper/paper42_0.pdf
24. WITS (2023)
Vietnam Trade statistics
https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/VNM/Year/LTST/Summary
25. Ministry of Commerce and Industry (29 Oct. 2025)
Press release – Minister Shri Piyush Goyal addresses the 4th AGM of Mobile and Electronic Devices Export Promotion Council
https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2183985®=3&lang=2
26. The World Bank, IBRD; Australian Aid
Vietnam – Trading up in a changing world, Pathways to a High-Income Future
27. Times of India (Mar 31, 2023)
India unveils Foreign Trade Policy 2023, eyes $2 trillion exports by 2030
