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

The framework for India's trade policy is unambiguous, open, and made up of WTO commitments. With the goal of removing import barriers, establishing import preferential policies, and creating institutions to carry out WTO obligations, trade policy changes started in July 1991 and are still ongoing. Due to the sheer number of trade policies that have been implemented in the past, an effort has been made to compare and evaluate their effects. Industries in India are at a competitive advantage. Information for the Indian trade industries was gathered using trade statistics from the WTO, UNCTACD, IBEF, and EXIM-India. For the study, the years 2000 through 2014 were considered. Additionally, the RCA, TSC, RSCA, and RC indices were used to analyse the data. Results of the research indicate To produce 1 million of Agricultural Products, by India, the opportunity cost would be 3.10 million Agricultural Products of Brazil. Whereas Brazil has the opportunity of only 0.32 on 1 million. Hence, Brazil has comparative advantage in agricultural products. To produce 1 million of Fuel and Mining Products, by India, the opportunity cost would be 1.31 million Fuel and Mining Products of Brazil. Whereas Brazil has the opportunity of only 0.76 on 1 million. Hence, Brazil has comparative advantage in agricultural products. To produce 1 million of Manufacture Products, by India, the opportunity cost would be 0.51 million Manufacture Products of Brazil. Whereas Brazil has the opportunity of 1.95 on 1 million. Hence, India has comparative advantage in Manufacture Product.

1. To evaluate the applicability of comparative cost advantage between India and Brazil. 2. To check the level of comparative advantage on exports of agriculture products.

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.

The country profile of India and Brazil are given below:

	India	Brazil	Scale
Area	3287	8516	*1000 square kms
Population	1393.41	213.99	Millions
GDP(current price)	2751567	1809837	Millions USD
GDP(per capita)	2116	8755	USD

Source: UN Database

Following is the table showing total exports of India and Brazil between 2010 to 2020. Value in USD, current price in millions.

Year	Brazil	India
2010	200 434	226 351
2011	253 666	302 905
2012	239 953	296 828
2013	232 544	314 848
2014	220 923	322 694
2015	186 782	267 951
2016	179 526	264 542
2017	214 988	299 241
2018	231 890	324 778
2019	221 127	324 340
2020	209 180	276 410

Source: UNCTAD

The aggregate export of Brazil is 23,91,013 million USD, average of 217364.8 million USD per year.
The aggregate export of India is 32,20,888 million USD, average of 292808 million USD per year.
For Brazil, on an average, 12.01% of GDP is contributed by exports.
For India, on an average, 10.64% of GDP is contributed by exports.
 Comparative Advantage Study:
Export of Agricultural Products, Fuels and Mining Products and Manufactures by Brazil between 2010 to 2020. (In USD Million)

Year	Total Merchandise	Agricultural Products	Fuels And Mining Products	Manufactures
2010	200434	68655	56242	71112
2011	253666	86443	77797	84092
2012	239953	86656	65619	81899
2013	232544	90842	58653	84820
2014	220923	88156	54908	74874
2015	186782	79988	36452	68986
2016	179526	76904	32758	64503
2017	214988	87792	46850	74393
2018	231890	92906	58914	74691
2019	221127	89086	61605	66400
2020	209180	93237	58658	52064

Export of Agricultural Products, Fuels and Mining Products and Manufactures by India between 2010 to 2020. (In USD Million)

Year	Total Merchandise	Agricultural Products	Fuels and Mining Products	Manufactures
2010	226351	23106	54710	138005
2011	302905	34491	68355	184251
2012	296828	42395	64348	180146
2013	314848	46954	79937	187899
2014	322694	42897	72392	198705
2015	267951	34643	40316	181637
2016	264542	33064	35929	186061
2017	299241	38833	47674	205024
2018	324778	38927	59987	223265
2019	324340	37371	55978	229445
2020	276410	38872	40591	195416

Source: WTO                                                                     

The following tables show the proportion ( % ) of different products to Total Merchandise Exports:                                                

Brazil

	% Agricultural	% Fuels and Mining	% Manufactures
2010	34.25	28.06	35.48
2011	34.08	30.67	33.15
2012	36.11	27.35	34.13
2013	39.06	25.22	36.47
2014	39.90	24.85	33.89
2015	42.82	19.52	36.93
2016	42.84	18.25	35.93
2017	40.84	21.79	34.60
2018	40.06	25.41	32.21
2019	40.29	27.86	30.03
2020	44.57	28.04	24.89

India

year	% Agricultural Products	% Fuels and Mining Products	% Manufactures
2010	10.21	24.17	60.97
2011	11.39	22.57	60.83
2012	14.28	21.68	60.69
2013	14.91	25.39	59.68
2014	13.29	22.43	61.58
2015	12.93	15.05	67.79
2016	12.50	13.58	70.33
2017	12.98	15.93	68.51
2018	11.99	18.47	68.74
2019	11.52	17.26	70.74
2020	14.06	14.68	70.60

% = Individual Elements Exports / Total Merchandise Exports * 100

To produce 1 million of Agricultural Products, by India, the opportunity cost would be 3.10 million Agricultural Products of Brazil. Whereas Brazil has the opportunity of only 0.32 on 1 million. Hence, Brazil has comparative advantage in agricultural products. To produce 1 million of Fuel and Mining Products, by India, the opportunity cost would be 1.31 million Fuel and Mining Products of Brazil. Whereas Brazil has the opportunity of only 0.76 on 1 million. Hence, Brazil has comparative advantage in agricultural products. To produce 1 million of Manufacture Products, by India, the opportunity cost would be 0.51 million Manufacture Products of Brazil. Whereas Brazil has the opportunity of 1.95 on 1 million. Hence, India has comparative advantage in Manufacture Product.

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”. Working Paper UDE 28/6/2008. 11. Chandran, B.S, Sudarsan P.K. (2009) Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) and trade complimentary betweenIndia-Asean Trade: A Study reference to Fisheries Sectors. 12. 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. 13. Export Import Bank of India: Catalysing India‟s Trade and Investment-2015. 14.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.