Evaluation Study MSE Cluster Development - Ministry of Micro ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter No: 5– The Special Purpose VehcileTable No.-5.2: COMPOSITION OF, AND PARTICIPATION IN SPVsSl ClusterComposition1. Leather GoodsClusterShantiniketan2. Plywood ClusterPerambavoor3. Rice MillingCluster Kalady4. Rubber ClusterChengnacherry5. Bell MetalCluster Hazo6. Brass UtensilCluster Pareo7. Foundry ClusterAhmadabad8. Plastic ClusterAluva9. SurgicalInstrumentsClusterBaruipur10. Wet GrinderClusterCoimbatore11. White WareCluster KhurzaDominanceof OneCaste/Community/Religion√√√√√√√√√√Mixed Castes/Communities/Religion√Participation by largeunits only√√√√ParticipationParticipation by Unitsof all Sizes√√√√√√√5.6 Perceptions Regarding Reasons for Non-Participation in SPVsIn order to enhance our understanding and clarity on various issues, and to design ourfield instruments for canvassing the relevant data we organized a few pilot field visit tosome clusters. One of the important issues that emerged from our observations anddiscussions with SPV functionaries and individual cluster unit owners/managers was thelack of involvement and participation in the SPV while the SPV functionaries had theirown perceptions regarding the matter, so did many individual cluster units. While therewere common perceptions among these different respondents there were alsoperceptions that were contradictory and at variance with each other. It may bementioned that the field instruments were canvassed among the functionaries of the 11SPVs that had been formed, and also among the units in these 11 clusters where SPVshad been formed. The individual units owners/managers were those that were aware ofthe scope and functions of the SPV but were not SPV members, these were often thosethat consisted of the more ‘peripheral’ and dissident units usually quite small in theirscale of operations. We covered 31 such units across the 11 clusters, which hadregistered SPVs and were at various stages in the implementation of ‘hard interventions’.98
Chapter No: 5– The Special Purpose VehcileAs seen in Table 5.3, we have carefully identified eight major factors that affectparticipation and involvement and compiled the responses obtained on these factors.These factors include risk aversion, financial constraints, awareness regarding thebenefits, lack of contact, skepticism regarding the viability and sustainability of the CFC,fear of the monopoly and dominance of strong and more influential players, the free riderproblem, and the appropriateness of the CFC.Table No.-5.3: PARTICIPATION AND INVOLVEMENT IN SPVsSl. Factors AffectingParticipation% Distributionof ResponsesResponses ofSPVsResponsesof ClusterActors1. High Risk Aversion 10 90.90 29 93.54% Distributionof Responses2. Financial Constraints 9 81.81 26 83.873. Lack of Awareness 7 63.63 23 74.19regarding Benefits4. Lack of Contact 5 45.45 15 48.385. Skepticism andDoubts regardingViability6. Fear of the Monopolyand Dominance of afew7. Free Rider Syndrome(or benefitting bythe effort of others)8. Common Facility NotAppropriate (notevolved on the basisof concerns)11 100.00 28 90.323 27.27 25 80.658 72.72 14 45.162 18.18 23 74.19As seen in the table there is a fairly high degree of agreement among the two sets ofrespondents on some factors such as risk aversion, financial constraints, lack ofawareness, skepticism regarding viability, and the free rider problem. The highestdegree of agreement on the above issues is on factors such as skepticism regardingviability, risk aversion, the free rider problem, and the lack of awareness regardingbenefits. The highest degree of disagreement is seen to exist on factors such as theappropriateness of the CFC and the fear of monopoly and dominance of a few strongplayers. The identification of these factors should enable the policy makers tospecifically direct efforts that will effectively lower the impact of such factors, if notremove them altogether. The most feasible policy strategy to effectively solve some ofthese rather intractable problems would be to permit and support the formation of subclusters and SPVs in order to lower the effects of homogeneity based on size and scale ofindividual units. However this would only apply to large and dense clusters with a highdegree of viability and sustainability. It should also be emphasized that the guidelinesand norms related to the SICDP and particularly those related to the role and functionsof the SPV in the creation, management and sustenance of the CFC should be99
Page 1 and 2:
EVALUATION STUDY OF MICRO & SMALLEN
Page 3 and 4:
2.12 PROGRESS AND PRESENT STATUS OF
Page 5:
INDEX OF TABLESTable No.- 1.1: CLUS
Page 9:
COMMONLY USED ABBREVIATIONSBDSBusin
Page 13 and 14:
31 million persons spread over 12.8
Page 15 and 16:
Nevertheless, it is expected that t
Page 17 and 18:
4. Role of the schemes in bringing
Page 19 and 20:
Table No. - 1.1 (contd.)East/ North
Page 21 and 22:
ANNEXURE - 1.1 Guidelines for Clust
Page 23 and 24:
• Approval of budget and leveragi
Page 25 and 26:
14. Contribution of the Ministry of
Page 27 and 28:
Chapter No:2 - The General Profile
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48: Chapter No:2 - The General Profile
Page 63 and 64: Chapter No: 3 - The Cluster Develop
Page 77 and 78: Chapter No: 4 - Soft Interventions
Page 91 and 92: Chapter No: 5- The Special Purpose
Page 97: Chapter No: 5- The Special Purpose
Page 105 and 106: Chapter No: 6 - Hard Interventions
Page 115 and 116: Chapter No: 7 - Conclusions nd Reco
show all

Evaluation Study MSE Cluster Development - Ministry of Micro ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?