Changing Structure of The Textile Industry After the MFA Phase-Out: A Study of Kerala’s Traditional Handloom Sector

Abstract: The termination of the Multi Fibre Arrangement (MFA) in 2005 marked a significant shift in global textile trade dynamics, introducing a quota-free regime that intensified competition. While India capitalized on expanded export opportunities, traditional sectors like Kerala's handloom industry faced substantial challenges. This study examines the post-MFA structural transformations within Kerala's handloom sector, focusing on institutional frameworks, market integration, and socio-economic impacts on weavers. The study adopts a descriptive and analytical research design based exclusively on secondary data sources. Findings reveal that despite institutional support, the sector grapples with issues such as limited market access, inadequate technological adoption, and declining youth participation. The study underscores the necessity for targeted policy interventions to revitalize this traditional industry.

Handloom Industry, Multi Fibre Arrangement, Kerala, Textile Sector, Globalization, Institutional Support

1. Anuradha, K. (2023). E-commerce and handloom: A missed opportunity? Indian Journal of E-Governance and Rural Development, 7(1), 88–97. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bhattacharya, R., & Shah, M. (2021). Digital empowerment and the Indian handloom sector: Post-pandemic resilience strategies. Journal of Rural and Industrial Innovation, 10(2), 134–150. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Chaudhary, A. (2011). Changing structure of Indian textiles industry after MFA (Multi Fibre Agreement) phase out: A global perspective. Far East Journal of Psychology and Business, 2(2), 1–15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Cowan, R., & Kamath, A. (2012). Informal knowledge exchanges under complex social relations: A network study of handloom clusters in Kerala, India. UNU-MERIT Working Paper Series, 2012-031. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Devi, C. S. L. (2014). An analysis of socio-economic status of handloom workers in India. International Journal of Business and Administration Research Review, 3(5), 17–25. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Eapen, M. (1991). HANTEX: An economic appraisal. Working Paper 242, Centre for Development Studies, Trivandrum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Ghosh, S., & Joseph, R. (2020). Post-MFA global trade and the crisis in India’s traditional textile sector. Indian Journal of Global Economic Studies, 12(3), 201–216. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Government of India. (2011). Economic Review: Textiles. Ministry of Textiles. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Kamath, A., & Cowan, R. (2012). Social capital and the resilience of handloom weavers in Kerala. Journal of Rural Development, 31(4), 453–470. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Kerala State Planning Board. (2010–2023). Economic Review (Various Issues). Government of Kerala. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Kurup, K. K. N. (2008). Traditional handloom industry of Kerala. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge, 7(1), 50–52. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Ministry of Textiles, Government of India. (2010–2023). Annual Reports. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Ministry of Textiles, Government of India. (2022). Handloom Census Report Highlights – Post-COVID Recovery and Digital Integration. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Narayanan, P., & Rao, T. (2021). Youth in loom: Re-engaging Kerala’s next generation with handloom. Journal of Contemporary Social Research, 6(2), 44–60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Niranjana, S., & Vinayan, S. (2001). Report on growth and prospects of handloom industry. Planning Commission of India. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Norris, L. (2013). Aesthetics and ethics: Upgrading textile production in northern Kerala. Geoforum, 50, 222–231. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Prachi. (2010). The growing popularity of Indian handloom. Indian & Desi, May 27. Retrieved from http://articles.desi.net [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. PTI. (2006). Handloom mark label scheme's reach to be increased. The Economic Times, September 29. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. PTI. (2007). Handloom sector presents a paradox! The Economic Times, December 25. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Roy, T. (2002). Acceptance of innovations in early twentieth-century Indian weaving. The Economic History Review, 55(3), 507–532. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Sivakkannan, M. (2005). The handloom industry has not prepared itself to face the post-WTO dispensation. The Hindu Business Line, November 13. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Sundararajan, P. (2011). Rs. 3000-crore package for handloom units. The Hindu, February 28. Retrieved from http://www.thehindu.com [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. TNN. (2011). Schemes to boost handloom industry. Times of India, March 13. Retrieved from http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Venkataraman, K. S. (1935). The handloom industry in South India. Supplement to the Madras University Journal. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Verma, A. (2022). Sustainable revival of Indian handlooms: Policy and practice in the age of global fashion. Textiles and Society, 15(1), 67–82. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Exploring the Concept of Generative Artificial Intelligence: A Narrative Review
• Design, Development, and Evaluation of a Critiquing-Based Mobile-Web Employment Recommender System
• Integrating Bhagavad Gita Principles with Modern Supply Chain Management: A Framework for Ethical and Resilient Operations
• Soilless Indoor Farming: A Systematic Review of Iot-Based Monitoring Systems and Physiochemical Characterization Methods for Lactuca Sativa
• Financial Awareness: A Survey of Students in Bhopal