For verification of this paper, please visit on http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/remarking.php#8

International trade is the exchange of capital, goods, and services across international borders or territories. Trading-partners reap mutual gains when each nation specializes in goods for which it holds a comparative advantage and then engages in trade for other products. When countries benefit from trade, they gain comparative advantage. The ability of one party to produce a certain commodity or service at a lower marginal and opportunity cost than another is referred to as comparative advantage in economics. Both countries will benefit from trade even if one country produces all goods more effectively than the other (has an absolute edge in all goods). More specifically, nations should import goods if doing so is more cost-effective than producing them domestically. The distribution of resources around the globe is made more effective through specialisation in accordance with comparative advantage. Both nations can now access larger outputs of both items. International commerce and specialisation result in a country having more and/or better resources or discovering new manufacturing methods. India’s export have seen a tremendous growth in exporting commodities around the world it is the 18th exporter of the world. It mainly exports products like cotton, cotton yarn, ready-made garments, engineering goods, jewellery, organic and inorganic chemicals etc. India exports to countries like USA, China, Hong Kong, UAE, Bangladesh, Germany etc.

Utilizing the Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA), Trade Specialization Co-efficient (TSC), Revealed Symmetric Comparative Advantages (RSCA), and Revealed Competitive Advantages (RCA) index, it is possible to analyse the revealed comparative advantages and trade competitiveness of various industries and countries. The RCA, TSC, RSCA, and RC indexes can be used to analyse a country's comparative advantage in exports and imports. Another name for the RCA index is Balassa's (1965, 1977) index. The TSC index is often referred to as Lafay's index (1992). As Vollrath's index, RSCA and RC (1991). The following are some important studies from both Indian and foreign scholars that have been presented:

The revealed comparative advantage (RCA) in merchandise trade that India possesses was evaluated by Burange and Chaddha (2008). From 1996 until 2005, ten years. Their study assesses the comparative advantage framework in India and changes to the environment over the course of the investigation. The author discovered that India has a comparative advantage in the export of goods that require a lot of manpower, like textiles, as well as goods that require a lot of scale, such chemicals and iron and steel. Additionally, attempts were made to assess India's RCA in exports and imports of various items, which were divided into production-based categories using the ideas of Ricardo, Heckscher-Ohlin, product-cycle goods, and others. According to the study's findings, India has a competitive advantage when it comes to exporting Ricardo and HO goods. PC products, meanwhile, have not demonstrated any.

Ruma (2011) used the revealed comparative advantage (RCA) and the comparative export performance (CEP) index to discuss India's comparative advantage in the trade of vegetables, fruits, and flowers in Asia, the EU, and North America as well as compared to other South East Asian countries. According to the author, India has a remarkable comparative advantage in the EU's fruit and vegetable markets, but a comparative disadvantage in the market for flowers. Indian horticulture will become more competitive on a worldwide scale as a result of additional recommended supply chains, improved access to services, and the development of favourable trading circumstances that will allow it to take use of its comparative advantage in various international markets.

Using the trade intensity index (TII) and revealed comparative advantages, Sarath and Sudarshan (2009) evaluated the trade structures between India and ASEAN nations like Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, Brunei, the Philippines, and Thailand (RCA) Balassa (1965), Revealed Competitive Advantage (RC) Vollrath (1991), and others use the 1990–2007-time frame for their studies. Competitiveness of has been assessed in those areas where it has been seen. Crustaceans, whether in shell or not, and molluscs, whether in shell, are the two marine exports where India has a competitive advantage over the other major ASEAN nations. Oceanic crust incorporates items for marine export. The trade-off between India's greater commerce with ASEAN and their lower tariffs is not great.

In his study of the major trends in bilateral trade, Tyagi (2014) also looked at issues relating to the volume, scope, and comparative advantage of trade between China and India. The results shed insight on China and India's growing trade deficits and have policy ramifications for potential trade and economic cooperation between the two emerging nations. Comparative advantage indices show which nation has the edge in a certain commodity. This chance must be taken advantage of. Furthermore, it was claimed that from a policy standpoint, exporting more goods to more regions is crucial if India wants to grow its share of bilateral trade. The study's policy implications demonstrated that India and China may coexist without endangering one another's interests.

Using RCA Balassa's framework, Redding and Witt (2010) examined the connections between aspects of Chinese society, its business system, industry choice, and potential comparative advantages in Chinese capitalism (1965). In order to examine the possibility of China matching the patterns of comparative advantage in either of these nations, the author also contrasted the institutional underpinnings of key areas of comparative advantage in the United States and South Korea with institutional conditions in China. They also stated that China does not currently have the institutional underpinnings to replicate US comparative advantages and that it is doubtful that China will develop these foundations over the course of the next one to two decades. To develop comparative advantages akin to those of South Korea, China would appear to be better positioned.

The changes in the relative advantages of several industries for Japan and the USA between 1967 and 1983 were assessed by Balassa and Noland in 1989. Using Balassa's (1965) index and TSC, the RCA of several industries in both countries has been analysed (TSC). The indices are intended for 57 core items and 167 manufactured products. These items have often been divided into 20 categories of commodities (17 manufactured products and 3 primary product groups). According to the study's findings, Japan increased its comparative advantage in industries that require a lot of human capital, while the USA honed its expertise in industries that require a lot of natural resources. It was further noted that both nations have succeeded in boosting their comparative advantages in high-tech goods.

Karambakuwa and Mzumara (2013) made an effort to explain Swaziland's apparent comparative advantage. It was also studied whether Swaziland has a competitive advantage in the goods it exports to the Southern African Customs Union (SACU), the Southern African Development Community (SADC), and the rest of the world. According to the findings of their investigation, Swaziland enjoys a comparative advantage in 449 product lines since it has RCA1. With an RCA index of 3106, chemicals, woodpulp, sulphite, and unbleached conifers have the highest value. Swaziland has a comparative edge in the production of both manufactured and agricultural goods. The author also stated that by luring foreign direct investment through transnational firms,

Research conducted by Johansson (2007) on R&D Accessibility and Comparative Advantages in Quality Differentiated Goods demonstrated that human capital and R&D accessibility have a strong favourable impact on the comparative advantages in high-quality goods manufacturing in Swedish regions. As the presence of multinational corporations boosts the region's specialisation in high-quality segments and robust over four different definitions of above-average product qualities, further study by the author offers evidence of technology spillovers from overseas. Additionally, as quality level is taken into account, the magnitude of projected R&D accessibility coefficients marginally increase.

Modifications to the RCA index created by Vollarth (1991), including Relative Trade Advantage, the relative export advantage logarithm, and Revealed Competitiveness, were employed by Ferto and Hubbard (2002). Additionally, they examine the competitiveness of the Hungarian agricultural sector using the EU as a benchmark. For the period 1992 to 1998, they used four different measures, such as RCA, RC, RSCA, and TSC, using the 4-digit level of SITC classification. Their findings imply that the pattern of revealed comparative advantage has remained constant during the research period despite changes to Hungary's agricultural landscape.

The empirical relevance of the Hillman requirement for revealed comparative advantage is evaluated by Hinloopen and Marrewijk (2005) using a large data set of annual bilateral trade flows for 1,056 4-digit SITC sectors between 183 countries over the period 1970–1997. Their findings looked at the necessary and sufficient conditions for the correlation between pre-trade relative pricing and the disclosed comparative advantage as determined by the Balassa (1965) index. Additionally, because the dataset is fully represented, the authors' conclusions regarding the empirical applicability of this Hillman condition are offered as stylized facts. Additionally, by limiting empirical investigations to those that focus on comparative advantages, it has been demonstrated that those industries that satisfy the Hillman criterion have the added benefit of serving as a screening mechanism for observations that are based on comparative advantages.

As innovative and renewable technologies will be helpful for energy security, Song, M., & Wang, S. (2018) recognised technical progress as a key technique within strengthening China's comparative advantages. To improve working conditions and industry output, technological innovation that is both productive and environmentally friendly is required. Therefore, the goal of this essay is to examine technical advancement in China under these challenging competitive conditions, as well as the kinds of technological advancement that can be encouraged, such as productive technological advancement or technological advancement in green technologies, and how technological advancement will impact China's competitive advantages.

Siddiqui, K. (2018) In his article looks at David Ricardo's trade theory, which emphasises that removing protection would cause resources to shift from high-cost to low-cost products, increasing productivity. His theory of comparative advantage in commerce promotes free trade, with the implicit justification of laissez-faire. The primary reasons for static and dynamic gains from trade liberalisation are discussed in this paper, which examines their apparent lack of theoretical and empirical support. Additionally, a brief discussion of free trade's effects on the industrial and agricultural sectors as well as their potential long-term effects on local industrialization, food security, employment, and general well-being of the populace in emerging nations will be included. This piece developsFree trade theory, which has wide support among international financial institutions, namely, the IMF (International Monetary Fund), World Bank, WTO (World Trade Organisation) draws on David Ricardo’s theory. The study has found that free trade policy will deepen further the process of uneven development and unequal exchange.

Park, S. (2020) his paper empirically investigates whether the quality of transport infrastructure and logistics is a source of comparative advantage in industries for which logistics services are important, building on the well-established empirical findings on the importance of transport infrastructure and logistics for trade. Logistics and transportation infrastructure are crucial components in providing commodities to other countries and locating intermediaries. We measure export performance by value added in exports rather than gross exports, as was done in the empirical studies on the sources of comparative advantage, to take into account the emergence and proliferation of Global Value Chains (GVCs), which have significantly altered how production and distribution of goods are organised. The findings hold up well against many alternative requirements as well as an alternate measure of the quality of the transportation infrastructure. The standard of logistics and transportation infrastructure continues to be a key factor in determining comparative advantage, notwithstanding changes in the sample of participating nations. These results imply that transportation strategies to raise the level of logistics and transportation infrastructure support gaining competitive advantage.

Comparative Advantage between India and USA

India is the largest producer of cotton globally. It is a crop that holds significant importance for the Indian economy and the livelihood of the Indian cotton farmers. Cotton grows over 11.7 million hectares in India compared to 31.2 million hectares globally. 

The Central Zone (which comprises of states like Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Madhya Pradesh) is the biggest producer of cotton in India, with Gujarat being the highest producer of the Central Zone and the country at 8.516 million bales.

As per estimates provided by Committee on Cotton Production and Consumption (COCPC), India's total cotton exports stood at 7.8 million bales in 2020-21 growing strongly from 4.7 million bales of exports witnessed in 2019-20.

India’s major cotton exporting destinations include Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Vietnam and Pakistan.

USA is one of the highest cotton exporting countries. It ranks third in the major cotton producing countries. Almost all of the cotton fibre growth and production occurs in southern and western states, dominated by Texas, California, Arizona, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Cotton production is a $21 billion-per-year industry in the United States, employing over 125,000 people in total,^[1] as against growth of forty billion pounds a year from 77 million acres of land covering more than eighty countries.

U.S. cotton production in 2021 is projected at 17.8 million bales this month, 800,000 bales higher than the June projection and 3.2 million bales (22 percent) above the 2020 crop.

Its major cotton exporting destinations include Mexico, the Dominion Republic, Gulf and south Atlantic. 

Let us look at a comparative analysis between India and USA’s cotton exports

Export value of cotton in India		Export value of cotton in USA
Year	Export value in billion US dollar	Year	Export value in billion US dollar
2020	5.9	2020	7.1
2019	6.15	2019	8.2
2018	8.18	2018	8.5
2017	7.1	2017	7.71
2016	6.49	2016	5.85
2015	7.71	2015	6.17
2014	9.17	2014	6.8
2013	11.3	2013	7.87
2012	8.87	2012	8.55
2011	8.45	2011	11.3
2010	7.49	2010	7.62

Analysis

Here, in the above table we can see export values of cotton in India and USA.

The export value of cotton in India has reduced in the recent years. It is seen that in the initial years from 2010 to 2013 the value is increasing, but it started decreasing from the year 2014 to 2016. It increased again in the following years but is reduced in the years 2019 and 2020.

Many fluctuations are seen in the export value of USA, in the initial years in 2010 and 2011 a sudden rise is observed which reduced and kept fluctuating in following years. IN the recent years the export value stands at 7 to 8 billion US dollars.

If we compare the export values of India and USA we observe that in the initial years from 2010 to 2012 the export value of cotton in USA is more than in India which means in the year 2010, 2011 and 2012 USA is having a comparative advantage over India. In the years 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 the export value of cotton in India is more which suggests India is having a comparative advantage over USA. In the recent years from 2017 to 2020 the export value in USA is increasing due to which it gains comparative advantage.

Here both the countries are enjoying comparative advantage over each other in different years. So we can say that both the countries are better off by trade.

Comparative Advantage between India and Brazil

India is the 7^th largest country exporting steel. Companies like TATA Steel, JSW Steel and Essar contribute the most in exporting steel. The exports of finished steel from India jumped over 25 per cent to 13.49 million tonne (MT) in 2021-22

UAE, Nepal, Belgium and Vietnam are the countries which import steel from India.

Brazil is the tenth-largest steel exporter in the world. In 2018 (through June Brazil exported 6.9 million metric tons of steel, down 6 percent from YTD 2017 levels. Brazil's exports represented about 3 percent of all steel exported globally in 2017.

The major countries importing steel from Brazil includes Russia and Mexico.

Both India and Brazil are large exporter of steel. Let’s compare India and Brazils Steel export in last 10 years.

Export value of Iron and steel in India		Export value of iron and steel in Brazil
Year	Export value in billion US dollar	Year	Export value in billion Us dollar
2020	10.8	2020	8.99
2019	10.2	2019	11.4
2018	10.8	2018	12.3
2017	12.5	2017	11.6
2016	7.06	2016	8.32
2015	7.1	2015	9.59
2014	10.1	2014	10.3
2013	10.7	2013	8.82
2012	8.33	2012	11.6
2011	8.82	2011	13.2
2010	7.69	2010	9.11

Analysis

Here, it is seen that India’s export are fluctuating throughout the past years. In the initial years the export of steel in India is increasing till 2014 but suddenly reduced in the year 2015 and 2016. It increased in the year 2017 and for the rest three years it is seem stagnant.

As per Brazils export value it is observed that from an early stage it is highly fluctuated with man ups and downs. The highest export value was in the year 2011 with the export value 13.2.

Comparing both the countries we can observe that in the years 2010 to 2016 Brazil is having a comparative advantage over India. And in recent years India’s exports are increasing and its export value is more than Brazil. So we can say that India is having a comparative advantage over Brazil.

Here, by looking at the overall data we can conclude that Brazil is having a comparative advantage over India.

Comparative advantage between India and Turkey:

India is among the top chemical exporting countries in the world. India exports inorganic and organic chemicals, tanning and dyes, agrochemicals, plastics, synthetic rubber, filaments, etc. In 2021-22, the Indian chemical exports hit a record high at US$ 29.3 billion. This was a 106% growth over 2013-14 exports.

Similarly, Turkey is the 27^th largest exporter of organic chemical in the world.

Let’s compare the export value of organic chemicals between India and Turkey:

Export value of organic chemicals in India		Export value of iron and steel in Turkey
Year	Export value in billion US dollar	Year	Export value in billion US dollar
2020	18.8	2020	9.46
2019	19.7	2019	11.3
2018	18.8	2018	12.1
2017	14.8	2017	8.85
2016	12.5	2016	6.59
2015	12.4	2015	7.1
2014	13.7	2014	10
2013	14.4	2013	10.8
2012	13.3	2012	12.2
2011	12.3	2011	12.4
2010	9.41	2010	10

Analysis

Here, India’s export value is seen increasing through the years. On the other hand the export value of Turkey is seen highly fluctuating.

By comparing the export value in both the country we can observe that India is having a comparative advantage in exporting organic chemicals over turkey as the export value of organic chemical in India is higher than that of Turkey.

1. Aksoy, M.A, Beghin, J.C. (2005) “Global AgriculturalTrade and Developing Countries”. Manas Publications, New Delhi. 2. Balassa, B. (1977) “'Revealed' Comparative Advantage Revisited: An Analysis of Relative Export Shares of the Industrial Countries,1953-1971”, The Manchester School of Economic & Social Studies, 1977, vol. 45, issue 4, pp. 327-44. 3. Balassa, B. (1986) “Comparative Advantage in Manufactured Goods: A Reappraisal”, the Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 68, No. 2, pp. 315-319. 4. Balassa, B. (1965), “Trade liberalization and „Revealed‟ comparative advantage”, ManchesterSchool of Economic and Social Studies, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 99-123. 5. Balassa, B. (1986), “Comparative advantage in manufactured goods: a reappraisal”, Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 315-319 6. Bano, S.Scrimgeour, F. (2012) “The Export Growth and Revealed Comparative Advantage of the New Zealand Kiwifruit Industry”International Business Research Vol. 5, No. 2; February 2012. 7. Batra, A. Khan, Z. (2005) “Revealed Comparative Advantage: An Analysis for India and China ICRIER Working Paper No.168.Bhatt, P.R. (2008). “India‟s Trade Competitiveness and Exchange Rate Policy”. The Journal of Applied Economic Research 2:3, pp. 247-264. 8. Bhatt T.P. (2014) “India Structural Changes in the Manufacturing Sector and Growth Prospect”Working Paper 173Institute for Studies in Industrial Development New Delhi. 9. Bhattacharya, R. (2011) “Revealed Comparative Advantage and Competitiveness: A case study for India Horticultural Products.”International Conference on Applied Economics – ICOAE 2011. 10. Burange, L. Chaddha, S.J. (2008). “India‟s revealed comparative advantage in merchandise trade”. 11. Working Paper UDE 28/6/2008. 12. Chandran, B.S, Sudarsan P.K. (2009) Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) and trade complimentary betweenIndia-Asean Trade: A Study reference to Fisheries Sectors. 13. Dalum, B.K. Laursen K. and Villumsen, G. (1998)“Structural change in OECD export specialization patterns: De-specialization and „stickiness‟”. International Review of Applied Economics,12: pp. 447-467. 14. Export Import Bank of India: Catalysing India‟s Trade and Investment-2015. 15. Ferto, I, Lionel J.H. (2002). “Revealed Comparative Advantage and Competitiveness in Hungarian Agri-Food Sectors”. Institute of Economics, Hungary Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Discussion Paper Series 2002/8. 16. Francis, S. (2015) “India‟s manufacturing sectors export performance: A Focus on Missing Domestic Inter-sectoral Linkages” Working paper 182 ISID New Delhi. 17. Handbook on Foreign Trade Policy and Guide to Export &Import: The Institute of CharteredAccountants of India 18. Hinloopen, Marrewijk (2005) “Empirical Relevance of the Hillman Condition for Revealed Comparative Advantage: 10 Stylized Facts”Utrecht School of Economics Tjalling C. Koopmans Research Institute Discussion Paper Series pp.05-24. 19. Idrus. N.A. (2015) “Revealed Comparative Advantage of Bio-basedproducts: A Malaysian case study” Bio Economy Malaysia. 20. India‟s Foreign Trade Policy 1stSeptember 2004 -31stMarch 2009, 27thAugust 2009 - 31stMarch 2014, and highlights of trade policy 2015-2020: Government of India Department of Commerce Ministry of Commerce and Industry 21. Johansson, S. (2008) “R&D Accessibility and Comparative Advantages in Quality Differentiated Goods”CESIS Electronic Working Paper Series Paper No.107. 22. Karambakuwa.R, Mzumara, M. (2013)“The Revealed Comparative Advantage of Swaziland”Greener Journal of Economics and Accountancy ISSN: 2354-2357 Vol. 2 (2), pp. 068-073, June 2013. 23. Lim, Kang-Taeg (1997), Analysis of North Korea‟s Foreign Trade by Revealed Comparative Advantages, Journal of Economic Development, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 97-117. 24. Mahajan, V., Nauriyal, D.K, Singh, S.P. (2014), “Technical efficiency analysis of the Indian drug and pharmaceutical industry: a non-parametric approach”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 734-75. 25. Mahajan. V, Nauriyal D.K., Singh S P., (2015),"Trade performance and revealed comparative advantage of Indian pharmaceutical industry in new IPR regime", International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, Vol. 9 Iss 1 pp. 56 – 73. 26. Mukherjee S, Mukherjee, S. (2012) “Overview of India‟ Export Performance: Trends and Drivers” Working Paper No: 363 Indian Institute of Management Bangalore. 27. Prasad, Ananthkrishnan and Sonal J.C.(2005), The Impact on India of Trade Liberalization in the Textiles and Clothing Sector, Working Paper No. 05/214, International Monetary Fund, Washington, D.C. US. 28. Redding, G., Witt, M.A. (2008)“China‟s Business System and Comparative Advantage”Faculty & Research Working Paper, INSEAD the Business school for world. 29. Saripalle M. (2006)”Learning across policy regimes: A case study of the Indian Automobile Industry. “University of Connecticut 2006. MPRA Paper No. 60365, posted 3 December 2014 19:42 UTCInt. J. Automotive Technology and Management, Vol. X, No. Y, 0000https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/60365/. 30. Tyagi, S. (2011) “Composition, Intensity and Revealed Comparative Advantage in Sino-Indian Bilateral Trade: A Preliminary StudyICS Occasional Paper # 8 Institute of Chinese Studies. 31. Vollrath T.I. (1991), “A Theoretical Evaluation of Alternative Trade Intensity Measures of Revealed Comparative Advantage,” Review of World Economics, Vol. 127, No. 2, 1991, pp. 265-280. Doi: 10.1007/BF02707986. 32. www.wto.org/http://stat.wto.org/StatisticalProgram/WSDBStatProgramSeries.aspx?Language- Eassessed on 24th January 2016 33. Song, M., & Wang, S. (2018). Market competition, green technology progress and comparative advantages in China. Management Decision, 56(1), 188-203. 34. Siddiqui, K. (2018). David Ricardo’s comparative advantage and developing countries: Myth and reality. International Critical Thought, 8(3), 426-452. 35. Park, S. (2020). Quality of transport infrastructure and logistics as source of comparative advantage. Transport policy, 99, 54-62.