In 2007 World Bank released a report
`Unleashing INDIA’S Innovation’ and question thus arose; where is the `leash’? Is it low budget or structural holes or mind
set?
It is common refrain to say
that only 1 in 8 of innovations make money in the market. For government
departments, the accounting treatment of failed innovations is governed by the
rule book GFR. Unfortunately despite a series of announcements including INDIA INNOVATION DECADE, the GFR has not been updated to stimulate risk investment by
Government. The GFR condition amended in 2005 says:
Ministries
or Departments of Government sponsor projects or schemes to be undertaken by
Universities, Indian Institutes of Technology and other similar autonomous
organizations such as ICAR, CSIR, ICMR,etc., the results from which are
expected to be in national interest. Normally the entire expenditure on such
projects or schemes including capital expenditure, is funded by the Ministry or
Department. The funds released for such projects or schemes in one or more
installments are not treated as grants-in aid in the books of the implementing
agency. Apart from the requirement of submission of technical and financial
reports on completion of the project or scheme, a stipulation should be made in
such cases that the ownership in the physical and intellectual assets created
or acquired out of such funds shall vest in the sponsor.
R&D
Grants to Industry
There is no provision or bar
on funding R&D projects or innovations by commercial organisations. History
of R&D funding will thro light on this.
DSIR was the first to
provide R&D grants to Industry under TAAS (Technology Absorption and
Adaptation Scheme). This is influenced by the Japanese Model, where initial
technology was imported, absorbed and improved. MITI moulded the program in
Japan, the Indian version TAAI taken up by DGTD was resisted by industry due to
conditions on PMP (Phased Manufacturing Programme) to improve local content during
the initial 5 years of license. To motivate industry to take up technology
absorption , DSIR came up with TAAS and R&D grants were given to over 30
Public Sector Firms. GFR does not differentiate between Public Sector or
Private sector and this decision to restrict funding to Public sector was
primarily to play safe.
With liberalization and globalization,
the focus shifted to new product development. The literature is supportive of
government initiatives to support commercial firms at pre-commercial stage of
R&D and WTO also approved this subsidy. DSIR started PATSER as conditional
and matching grants scheme, attracting private capital to R&D and at the
same time not penalizing them for R&D failures. More than 150 R&D
projects were supported under this program and majority of the executing
agencies were private firms developing proprietary technology. Similar programs
taken up by TIFAC, DOE ran into rough weather as they were loan schemes with no
provision to write off failed Research.
TePP
New century shifted focus
again , this time to creativity, innovation and incubation. New ground was
covered under TePP as network program with slots to support idea at different
stages. Read: PPT on Freedom to perform in Government-case of TePP .
Is
GFR the leash that confined India to a narrow circle of achievements?
- · Under the same GFR, DSIR started TePP and PATSER programs giving grants to commercial firms for R&D at pre-commercial stage.
- · Under the same GFR, TDB started giving time much larger amounts to commercial firms as soft loans at Commercial stage.
- · Under the same GFR, TePP started giving small but significant grants direct to innovators for proving their novel ideas at concept stage.
- · The amount spent by Government of India on private R&D and Innovation is less than the R&D cess collected from Industry for technology transfer.
- · The grant amount is a tiny fraction of revenue foregone (Rs 6330 crores) by Government by way of fiscal incentives ( Deduction/weighted deduction for expenditure on scientific research (section 35 (1), (2AA) &(2AB))
· It is good if GFR is amended to keep with the
times, even otherwise the precedents created should form the base to charge
ahead with conviction..
No comments:
Post a Comment