In interviews the PMC attributed variation to the complexity of the project and the speed of obtaining clearances and financing. Environmental clearances in particular were said to lengthen completion time by approximately a year. What the data shows is a small positive correlation of average completion time with total cost, but no significant relationship was found with the size of businesses in the park (proxied by average land area per entrepreneur) or with the size of parks (in terms of land area).

There was some variance across states, with Gujarat, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh faring best, and West Bengal worst. However, the statistical evidence is relatively weak given the small number of parks. Moreover, variations within states were at least as wide as those between states. For example in Tamil Nadu average completion time was close to the national average (6.7 years versus 6.4 years in the 32 IL&FS parks), but ranged from 4 to 9 years within the state. However controlling for states did not yield any additional significant results in terms of correlation between completion time and park attributes such as complexity (project cost), size (in acres) or the average size of businesses in the parks. **Exhibit 2** summarizes this time-to-delivery data.

While these gestation periods may seem long in some contexts, for industrial parks in India this pace of delivery is at the least respectable. There is a common perception that the speed of implementation, of “getting things done”, is a constraint on India’s growth, and long project timelines are common for general as well as industrial infrastructure.<sup>30</sup> Moreover, there is some evidence that the early years of the program represented a natural learning period, as stakeholders adjusted to an innovative policy and its arrangements. With the stakeholder system having achieved learning by doing, there are some indications momentum is building. The policy will be extended commencing this year, and 45 Detailed Project Reports (DPRs) are already on the Ministry’s table. The strongest evidence for the SITP’s ability to avoid type (i) and type (ii) failures, though, comes from a comparison with other industrial park schemes attempted in India in the last few years.

First, and probably the highest profile such attempt, was the SEZ scheme. This was launched to much fanfare in 2005, with the passage of the SEZ Act. Being enacted by national legislation, with wide coverage, and widely supported by public land acquisition, it attracted vastly greater interest than the SITP: 580 SEZs have been approved, but only 380 notified (i.e., land has been acquired), and of those only 124 were operational at the time of writing, a conversion ratio of 21%. The vast majority of the operational SEZs were IT office parks. In manufacturing, only 44 non-IT SEZs were in operation in mid-2011. This is roughly comparable to SITP parks, despite the significant fiscal and regulatory advantages offered by SEZs, the much wider sectorial scope of the policy and the broad support it has received from both states and Centre (including again through cheap government land).<sup>31</sup> Moreover, while SEZ approvals have been declining rapidly, and private sector interest waning, interest in SITP parks is only growing, despite the absence of tax breaks or similar instruments. **Exhibit 3** summarizes comparative figures between realizations under the SEZ Act of 2005 and under SITP.

Previous textile cluster schemes were also less successful than SITP, despite offering sometimes much higher levels of support. In those, the states or their agencies were responsible for most implementation steps, from location selection (1) to dimensioning (4), and from infrastructure provision (6) to park operation and maintenance (8), with monitoring (9) remaining mostly with the central government. TCIDS<sup>32</sup> , which offered assistance of 50% of costs capped at Rs. 20 crores, saw

> 30 12th Five-Year Plan, Government of India. 31 World Bank (2012)

> 32 Textile Centers Infrastructure Development Scheme

17