National Manufacturing Innovation Survey 2021- India

 

The 3-year effort produced 6 reports and a comprehensive overivew is captured in the #NMIS 'Summary for Policymakers'. Download reports: https://lnkd.in/gpa8weDZ

Conclusions:

• Innovation performance (output) lags behind presence of enablers and absence of barriers (input)
• Presence of enablers has greater impact on performance than the absence of barriers
• Innovation is beneficial to business success in manufacturing
• At least 70 percent of the firms are innovation-inactive
• Aspiration for topline growth drives innovation, but it could also be at odds with innovation 
• Activities exclusively focused on innovation correlate to higher innovation success 
• Firms with more than basic innovation capabilities demonstrate higher success in innovation.
•  Basic ecosystem enablers are essential but insufficient on their own to help firms increase their ability to innovate.
• Finance is the most cited barrier to innovation in Indian manufacturing
• Frequencies of innovation barriers differ by region in India

The report recommended  ‘Innovate to Make in India’ as a manufacturing innovation strategy'. The survey findings demonstrate that despite proven business benefits, manufacturing firms showed high-risk aversion and limited entrepreneurial appetite to engage with innovation. Predominantly, it was observed that firms were responding to the immediate demands in the market, instead of competing for new products that are needed to compete in the future. In this context, a long-term manufacturing innovation strategy is critically urgent. Thus, to make innovation a priority for manufacturing firms, a concrete step forward would be to complement the ‘Make in India’ with an “Innovate to Make in India” strategy. This may then include broad based awareness, promotional measures and investment incentives, along with sectoral sub-strategies with concrete innovation targets or roadmaps.

Report: http://www.nstmis-dst.org/NMIS/assets/pdf/Assessment%20of%20Firm-Level%20Innovation%20in%20Indian%20Manufacturing.pdf

Macroeconomic Effects of Public R&D-IIPP

Abstract: The direct public funding of R&D investment to stimulate technological innovation has a strong theoretical case and has gained renewed attention in the recent policy debate as a way to address the long-term challenges of modern society such as pandemics, climate change, and the transition to a low-carbon economy. We estimate the dynamic macroeconomic effects of government R&D investment and we find that it is very effective in fostering the total national innovation effort, crowding in private R&D investment, and in raising aggregate output in the long run. We also find that the public stimulus goes beyond private R&D activities and involves a very strong expansion of overall economic activity since the early periods. Finally, we uncover a strong positive impact of the private sector’s anticipation of public R&D spending, which can be interpreted as a confirmation of the importance of managing expectations to reduce the uncertainty inherent to R&D activities.

Paper: De Lipsis, V., Deleidi, M., Mazzucato, M. and Agnolucci, P. (2023) Macroeconomic Effects of Public R&D. UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose, Working Paper Series (IIPP WP 2023-02). https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/wp2023-02.

Tamilnadu R&D policy- thrust on private sector R&D and Global Capacity Centres

While the Government of India is waiting approval of draft 5th National Science, Technology and Innovation policy, Tamilnadu sate quietly released state R&D policy. It is remarkable in two ways, first most of funding for R&D comes from central government departments and second focus on R&D investment by commercial firms.

Highlights on incentives:

One of the key policy objectives is to boost private R&D expenditure. Private businesses engage in R&D activities mainly to increase the competitiveness of their products and services and hence innovation is intrinsic to their growth. Private sector participation in R&D is vital to create an impetus for innovation-led growth for the State. The Government of Tamil Nadu recognizes the private sector as the engine of growth of R&D in the State and hence shall support the business initiatives related to establishment and expansion of R&D Centres and GCCs through various targeted incentives.

4.2.1. Land Cost Incentive for Standalone R&D Projects R&D projects shall be given an incentive of 50% of the cost of purchase or lease of land for up to 20 acre, subject to a ceiling of Rs. 50 lakh/acre. 

4.2.2. R&D Training Incentive R&D Training Incentive of Rs. 10,000 per person per month can be availed for 12 months for the residents of Tamil Nadu. This incentive is intended for employees engaged in core R&D who have an undergraduate degree in technology/sciences and a work experience of 7 years, or a post-graduate degree in technology/sciences and a work experience of 5 years, or a doctorate in sciences/technology.

4.2.3. Enhanced Quality Certification Incentive Projects obtaining certifications like ISO, ISI, BIS, FPO, BEE, AGMARK, and ECOMARK or any other national or international certification shall be given a subsidy of 50% of the total cost incurred for obtaining the certification, as certified by the Chartered Accountant, limited to Rs. 1 cr. for the period of investment. 

4.2.4. Enhanced Intellectual Property Incentive The Government will reimburse 50% of the expenditure incurred by the Project subject to a maximum of Rs. 1 cr. for the period of investment for in-house R&D for a patent, copyright, trademarks, and Geographical Indicators registration and up to Rs 5 cr. for standalone R&D assets.

Also read Hindu article -The untold story of silent revolution.

Innovation Strategy- India and UK: Wish list Vs Pragmatism

The draft Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy, 2020 is a non-starter as a policy on innovation and went into a limbo. When authorities try to give a new avatar the team can benefit from UK policy paper `UK Innovation Strategy: leading the future by creating it'

A recap of India's draft:

Broad vision- To double the number of Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) researchers, Gross Dimestic Expenditture on R&D (GERD) and private sector contribution to the GERD every 5 years. Open Data Policy for Publicly Funded Research: All data used in and generated from public-funded research will be available to everyone (larger scientific community and public) under FAIR3 (findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable) terms. Wherever applicable, exceptions will be made on grounds of privacy, national security and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). Transforming existing R&D institutions to research universities. This will foster better linkages between research and education and also enable effective utilization of research infrastructure. Foreign MultiNational Companies (MNCs): Foreign MNCs play an integral role in boosting India’s economy. To gainfully measure and assess the contributions made by foreign MNCs in the STI financing landscape, innovative methods to capture them will be developed. Boosting fiscal incentives for industries investing in STI through incremental R&D based tax incentives, tax credit for investing in facilities for commercialization, tax holidays, tax waivers, target-based tax incentive for specific domains, tax deduction, expatriate tax regimes, remodelling of patent box regime etc. There will be a reassessment of the possibility of reviving weighted deduction provisions (of expenditure incurred on in-house R&D).Flexible mechanism for supplier development programmes for public procurement in all sectors (especially earmarked for Small & Medium Enterprises - SMEs and Start-ups).Reassessment of regulatory control on STI landscape to promote innovative enterprises. It is recommended that the Central Government re-examine and widen the scope of R&D expenditure. Further, the government may determine the right mix of loan, equity and grants to assist Indian industries for technology up-gradation and commercialization. Further, to attract Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in STI, reduction in corporate tax rates for foreign MNCs, fast track clearances, easing land acquisitions, adequate means for incorporating FDI etc. will be explored on a need basis. To undertake efficient governing mechanisms for the STI funding landscape, a national STI Financing Authority will be created.Modification/waiver of General Financial Rules, for large scale mission mode programmes and projects of national importance will be explored. A new model for funding, implementation and monitoring of such programmes will be developed, either as an overarching mechanism or through obtaining cabinet approvals in respect of individual programmes. In addition, certain GFRs will be required to be amended for funding of R&D projects to facilitate ease of doing research.

Summery: A great compilation of wish list. There is something for every stakeholder.  STI Financing Authority , modification/ waiver of GFR are radical proposals in Indian context.

UK Policy paper focus is comparitively narrow, pragmatic and more likely will be acted upon.  They talk of innovation by business which is diffrent from business innovation , favouraite of Unicorns.

Vision is for the UK to be a global hub for innovation. Strategy set out plans against 4 key pillars, which will support the achievement of that vision:

• Pillar 1: Unleashing business – we will fuel businesses who want to innovate
• Pillar 2: People - we will make the UK the most exciting place for innovation talent
• Pillar 3: Institutions and places - we will ensure our research, development and innovation institutions serve the needs of businesses and places across the UK
• Pillar 4: Missions and technologies – we will stimulate innovation to tackle major challenges faced by the UK and the world and drive capability in key technologies

Indian draft is for ease of doing research by government funded researchers of government funded institutes where as thrust of UK policy paper is on innovation by commercial enterprises.

Innovation-public policy interface

Learning from the book: 

Impact of public policy instruments on supply and demand of innovation are conditioned by competition and contagion conditions the firms face. How much competition is appropriate to create an an optimal mix of invention, innovation and diffusion? One study quoted by the author says that an increase in competition leads to a significant increase in R&D investment by `neck and neck’ firms i.e firms that operate at the same technological level.However, increased competition decreases R&D investments by firms that are lagging behind, in particular if the time horizon is short. This explains Indian firms strong R&D in Pharma and weak R&D in electronic sector. Large technology gap discourages innovation efforts in the presence of import based competition.

The contagion effect (imitation potential) increases with large pools (supply) of knowledge to learn from and firms may undertake technological activity to benefit from these contagion effects. Innovative regions like Silicon valley create both competition and contagion effects. Firms in clusters often get locked into specific products and technologies and policies aim at bringing technological dynamism with global value chains. Location of MNC R&D centers in India is not only used for its low cost of operation but also for developing technologies for markets like India. Both for performing R&D and for solving research problems these MNC R&D centres seek more support from their global business units than local units thereby limiting knowledge spill over and contagion effect.

The challenge for the policymakers in the globalized world of open and distributed knowledge networks is the need to identify a policy package that can simultaneously facilitate international linkages for accessing knowledge, incentivize domestic intramural R&D to build absorptive as well as inventive capacity and help create domestic networks for knowledge accumulation and diffusion.

This book by eminent author provides theological inputs and conceptual clarity on contents of my book on `Demand side innovation policy'

UK Innovation Strategy- call of surge in Business led Innovation.

UK Government in its policy document UK Innovation Strategy: leading the future by creating it, terms innovation  as the “lifeblood of business” and sees procurement as a vital component of innovation. The document calls for surge in Buisness led Innovation with focus on public procurement, regulations and standards.

Read the strategy paper to understand how UK is planning to survive divorce from EU.

Free E Book on Innovation

Kindle E Book free to read.

Regulations that impact innovations

How nations leverage state procurement to promote local innovations

The fine art of supporting pre-commercial Reserach

https://www.slideshare.net/indiainvents/promoting-innovations-with-state-procurement-of-rd?fbclid=IwAR13zmvvfJJoWpYDcnoa056GzrczHPbiTKKJZsWb7l20fjYSEWWYFlflFIw

Demand side innovation policy

Demand side innovation policy is now considered imperative for nations economic growth. It needs to be coupled with more traditional supply side innovation policies. While , supply side is taken care in most developed nations, catching up economies still struggle for want of knowledge capabilities and funds. Demand side is more tricky and less articulated. Compatibility with WTO, multilateral, bilateral agreements is one issue. More daunting is the systems and mindset that comes in the way of picking winners. Training public procurers needs long term commitment of policy makers, bureaucrats and other stake holders of a National Innovation System.

This compendium addresses this new topic listing several best practices.
Available at:
Amazon India
Amazon USA
Amazon UK
Flip Kart
Notion Press
iBook
Kindle
Kobo
Google Play

Are there patents in 1st Industrial Revolution? (IS INDIA READY FOR 4TH INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION-PART2)

I raised this query in my bog post dated 19^th February 2018 and VK Varun, Scientist from DSIR, Ministry of Science & Technology commented  

During First Industrial Resolution, As per USPTO, 4695 patents were granted during 01/Jan/1790 to 31/12/1840 and its distribution is as follows:

1790-1800 [117]; 1801-1810 [084]; 1811-1820 [177]; 1821-1830 [595]; and 1831-1840 [3722].

Thank u Varun. There were indeed many patents and this was discussed in the working paper: Patents and the first industrial revolution in

the US,France and Britain, 1700-1850 by Sean Bottomley.

Some interesting aspects:

Between 1660-1760, few patents were awarded in England; it was unusual for more than a dozen to be granted in any one year. number of patents increases rapidly so that in 1800, 96 patents were awarded and in 1850, 513. Out of 72 'superstar' inventors born between 1660 and 1830, 81% obtained at least one patent in the course of their careers. 

Patent agents appeared in the third quarter of the eighteenth century. Agents offered an extremely valuable service; by 1849, virtually all inventors employed an agent (even if they resided in the capital). 

International patents: In the 1820s, Britons obtained, at the very least, 170 patents in France (6.3 %) of the total awarded) and in the 1830s, 415 (7%)  of the total awarded. Henry Bessemer worked on the problem of manufacturing cheap steel for ordnance production from 1850 to 1855 when he patented his method. He sold an exclusive licence to the Spanish  for his steel converter for £5,000. 

Patent infringement: Work on patent cases in the Court of Chancery between 1714 and 1758, shows that there were, at the very least, forty one cases instigated by patentees. The Court of Chancery offered patentees a variety of legal remedies – most importantly, injunctions.

Patent licensing : Between 1770 and 1845, around 30 percent of English patents were assigned in full and another 25 percent were either assigned in part and/or licensed as well. Many inventors licensed their patent. By selling a portion of the patent as part of a partnership agreement, inventors could obtain access to manufacturing plant and/or capital. Without sufficient capital, it is difficult to turn an invention to profit.

Many inventors made money : silk-winding machinery patented by Thomas Lombe in 1718 and worked in partnership with his half-brother John and his cousin William. Over the course of the patent term (1718-1732,  Thomas made £80,000, and when he died in 1739, he was able to leave his family £120,000, a colossal fortune by the standards of the day.

All inventors did not make money : there were many inventors during the industrial revolution who failed to reap any rewards from their endeavours and ended their days in poverty – John Kay, James Hargreaves and Richard Trevithick to name but three. Moreover, Kay, Hargreaves and Trevithick all chose to patent their most important inventions (respectively, the flying shuttle, the spinning jenny and the first high-pressure steam locomotive), but to no avail.

Patenting is not a new subject, only we cannot continue to ignore them for 4th industrial revolution too. in Part 3 we will discuss about pitfalls of leap-frogging.

AP government offers commercial orders (post-project) to innovators

India Innovators often complain that for all their efforts, they often get awards but no rewards. Public procurement still has no place for commercial products/ solutions developed by Indian innovators. AP Govt now offers start-ups the lifeline in the form of preferential market access, valued upto Rs 50 crores annually. As per the policy:
Eligibility: (Any Startup/ MSME/Enthusiastic First Generation Technocrats/ Entrepreneurs from Andhra Pradesh, with an annual turnover between Rs 50 lakhs and Rs.25 cr, in Electronics and IT sectors can apply with suo moto proposals.
subjects/themes:  Identity and Access Management, e-Service Delivery, Cloud services, Knowledge Management, Software Defined Networks, Social Benefits Management Systems, Project Portfolio Management, Location Based services, Disaster Management, GIS-based applications in the areas of Urban Development, Agriculture & Rural Development, Water Resources Management, Mines & Minerals, Forest & Environment, Disaster Management, Tourism Development, Development of GIS Databases & Layers, Traffic Management, Management of Utilisation of various assets through the use of GIS, Government/ Community lands Management (Section D6 of the Blueprint) , Localization Products and Tools namely, content development in Telugu and thereby bridging the digital divide, development of language technologies for text to speech and speech to text, voice recognition, machine translation, voice web, to enable language independent delivery of services. (Section D3 of the Blueprint), Use of Social Media by Government agencies in lines with the Framework and Guidelines by GoI.(Page 37 of the Blueprint).

AP INNOVATION & START-UP POLICY

AP govt has placed on web its draft policy promoting innovation and startups in the new state. TePP Outreach centers established in ANU, Guntur and SPMV, Tirupath several years back are probably the only active incubators in the state.

Innovation policy is a part of blueprint on IT Policy and action plan inviting proposals to manage incubators at Visakhapatnam,  Kakinada and Tiruathi. 

Highlights:

• the objective is - an entrepreneur in every family,
• the incubator at Visakhapatnam is a 3 story building with 50,000 sq.ft.
• the fiscal incentives for IT promotion  include patent cost reimbursement to the companies having their headquarters in Andhra Pradesh, subject to a limit of Rs. 5 lakh (0.5 mil) per domestic patent awarded and Rs. 10 lakh (1 Mil) per international patent awarded. 
• The targets -100 Incubators & Accelerators, 5,000 Companies & Start Ups to be incubated, One million sft of Incubation Space to be developed, Venture Capital of Rs 1000 cr to be mobilized for Innovation.
• Colleges shall offer 20% relaxation in attendance and 5% Grace marks for those students who join an incubator,
• distribute Rasberry Pi & Start-up boxes to ignite the imagination of students,
• Innovation and Transformation academy would be established in Tirupati. 
• The government will create an Innovation Fund of Rs.100 crore (1 billion) for entrepreneurs and businesses. The Fund will be in the nature of Fund of Funds. It does not invest directly into startup companies. It shall paricipate in the Capital of Venture Capital Funds, upto 15%. The VC Fund in turn is free to invest in startups located in AP, basing on its own criteria. 
• Government would host a cloud sever that would connect all the incubation centers across the state. This server would be beneficial to all the start-ups at low or nominal costs. Based on the requirement, Government would procure Enterprise versions of key software required for testing and other purposes. These software and Labs can be utilised by the companies in the incubation space at low or nominal charges. 
• An empowered ‘Andhra Pradesh Innovation Council (APInC)’ would be formed with the representatives of industry and the other stakeholders. 

'Innovation without Research': Concept for comments

Framework of concept paper given below for comments. This deals with technological innovations.

a)    Corporate R&D started weaning away researchers from universities by offering better facilities and freedom. In-house research centers blossomed with hundreds of highly qualified and competent scientists and researchers working in frontier areas of Science &Technology. During the boom period returns on investment in R&D  was not an issue, firms spent a percentage of their turnover benchmarking the spend with industry average.

b)    Despite large budget and acclaimed outcome, many a time firm noticed they could not compete with fast moving players. Categorization into small r, capital D followed, proving space for catch up work. It is expected that capital D projects, smal duration projects aimed at bettering competition would derive strength from capital R work. The pool of competences developed with capital R projects could be harvested for both capital R and capital D projects, where the firm is the industry leader but also for capital D projects benchmarking competitors product in the market place, with faster response. Portfolio of R & D projects, all marshaled with internal resources was in order for many years.

c)    Sponsored research was always an integral part , researchers generally continued working with alumni institute. Strategic alliances was an acknowledgement of limitation of doing everything in-house and complex strategies evolved for managing strategic alliance with shadow teams, IP sharing , market segmentation etc. acquisition of start-ups for their IP was more smoother operation.

d)    Open innovation and crowd sourcing  was a disruptive practice, firms looked at the vast pool of global talent and shifted focus from ownership to access. The complexity of innovation challenges and multiple teams accepting those challenges call for redefining the contours of global stock of knowledge.

e)    Globalization had seen relative decline in competitiveness of OECD nations and most analysts agree the only way these nations can continue to save jobs is to invest in R&D. With the result, we had seen larger number of talented people working on commercial research than ever before in human history.

f)     The pipeline taking research to market bellowed at the research end leading to a jump in global stock of knowledge. Considering the large ownership base, it can be said this stock of knowledge is publicly owned. This worked wonders for crowd sourcing of ideas, innovation challenges.

g)    And this also provides an unique opportunity for catching up economies like India to improve their innovation score without proportionate increase in national R&D budget. India , a poor nation more on R&D than Australia, Finland etc. Historically , most of spending was by government for scientific and research projects. Whereas, the industry garnered market and developed technological competences based on imported technology. Thus there was a significant disconnect between government funded research institutes and commercial firms. Globalization and IT widened  the rift to disconnect of minds. Collapse of joint ventures ended the inexhaustible source of competitive technology with most technology suppliers setting up their own Indian operations. New generation entrepreneurs smelled better success in IT enable services and largest number of engineers today work in IT firms rather than assembly lines. The  so called Indian human resource strength ends  with students graduation , still Indian government continues to increase their budgets for research by government funded institutes, calling industry to take the fruits of that public spend.

h)    India is a large country needing jobs in all categories and there is revival of interest in manufacturing mainly due to market demand and IT players are looking for value addition beyond labour arbitrage.

Hypothesis 1

Indian government can get better returns by funding proposals in capital D category based on globally sourced capital R.

Hypothesis 2

India firms need to practice and learn to use Open innovation Platforms. 

STI Policy (2013): review by Sunil Mani

The new Science, Technology and Innovation Policy of 2013 makes all the right noises, but how do we know that it will not go the way of  the 2003 policy when it comes to implementation? There are indeed some interesting ideas in STIP 2013 but none show that they have been thought through...Sunil Mani in EPW

Democratizing Research : Opportunity under STI policy 2013 ( part 3)

How much we spend on promoting Science, Technology and Innovation? NSTMIS of DST collects some data every year on R&D. The objectives of STI can be broadly grouped under 3 heads: RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGY, INNOVATION and let us look at major opportunities in each group.
Research;

As anywhere in the world, majority of the funding for research in India comes through the government.  Both DBT as well as DST, have various extramural funding schemes. Other agencies that fund extramural grants include Department of scientific and Industrial research- DSIR, Department of Atomic Energy- DAE, Department of Ocean Development and Earth Sciences and Department of space – to name a few. 

Many of the funding bodies including DST and DBT, have autonomous research institutes/universities under their umbrella. These institutions receive their core funding through one of the agencies. Each also routes core/intramural funding towards autonomous institutions that fall under the umbrella of a particular agency. For example the IISERs are all MHRD institutions while the NISERs are DAE funded. Similarly ICAR, ICMR and CSIR fund over 20 institutions each all around India. Apart from funding research, the agencies also award small grants for Symposia and workshops. They also award travel grants for attending conferences.

Opportunity area 1: Give autonomy for centrally funded institutes

Institutions like the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), Indian Institute of Science (IISc) and the Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research (IISERs); Central Universities; institutions under the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Indian Council for Agricultural Research and Indian Council for Medical Research; and those supported by the Department of Science and Technology, the Department of Biotechnology and the Ministry of Earth Sciences are all designed to be autonomous. The governing bodies of a number of them are chaired by eminent scientists or scholars. 

These institutes get direct funding from administrative ministry as well as indirect funding from scientific departments under various programs. They often complain of bureaucratic processes of scientific departments managing the promotional programs. Combining direct and indirect funding and transferring the total as budgetary support would bring more transparency and improve the accountability of the funded institutes.  

Opportunity area 2: providing a lifeline for non-government research and academic institutes

How much money is available for non-government institutes? A cursory look at the data of NSTMIS for extra mural research in Engineering and Technology for the year 2009-10 shows the total budgetary support to all private institutes in the nation is less than Rs 10 crores. Not surprising considering the system of expert evaluation where the same expert looks both at proposals of IIT/ IISc/CSIR and an upcoming private educational institute. Excluding the centrally funded institutes as highlighted in opportunity area 1 would provide for fair competition to thousands of researchers not drawing salary from treasury.

Technology

Opportunity area 3: Use money collected as R&D Cess for technology development

The government collects R&D cess @5% on imported technology and supposed to spend it on technology development. Statistics available on TDB site for the period 1967-2003 shows that out of Rs 625 crores collected only Rs 333 crores were transferred to TDB. The current figures are not available. There has been a jump on technology payments since liberalisation and  relative decline in TDB funding, it may be assumed that total funds released to technology development programs like TDB, TDDB, NMITLI, SIBRI etc is much less than collected from industry. 

Instead of planning commission allocating budget for various technology promotion programs seperately, the R&D cess collected from Industry may be transferred fully to TDB to fund only technology development programs of Industry.

Innovation

Opportunity Area 4: give tax concession for crowd funding of start-ups

There are few programs directly supporting innovators like TePP, Incbation support etc with meager allocations. The Indian public can invest several times more in new technology ventures if only investment in start-ups prior to IPO entitles individual investor to tax concession like Rajiv Gandhi Equity Scheme. Is Rs 100 crore tax concession too much to ask for a nation with trillion dollar budget?

Democratizing Research : Opportunity under STI policy 2013 ( part 2)

Difference between Science policy and technology policy

 This can be best understood by looking at the Clinton-Gore Technology Policy  In 1992 Clinton & Gore team announced USA’s technology policy. As a policy document it was an important statement for its clarity and lucidity. First they say why a technology policy is necessary, is not a science policy adequate?

 Clinton-Gore Technology Policy

 After world war II, Vannevar Bush defined the framework for US Science policy. It made the United states a world leader in science; made America’s university education and research system the best in the world. In introducing a technology policy they enlisted the various challenges faced by their nation and reasoned Science policy alone does not address those issues. To quote:

` in essence, science policy is a supply –push policy in which the government supports science education, basic research and some applied R&D that relates to specific nations missions. During the cold war, this policy worked well because US industry dominated world markets and massive US defense spending for high tech weapons systems provided a big demand for leading edge technology. Today, however, US industry faces intense international competition and the global civilian market not the department of Defense is the testing ground for most of the new technologies. Technology policy picks up where science policy leaves off. It is not limited to just research and development. It also focuses on the rapid application of new ideas. The absence of a coherent technology policy is one of the key reasons why America is trailing some of its major competitors in translating its strength in basic research into commercial success and why America is losing its lead in technology. Even in the technologies where we still lead, we face the challenge of translating the world’s best research into the worlds best jobs for American workers’.

The Clinton-Gore technology policy consisted of 6 broad initiatives that together would restore America’s technological leadership. They were: Building a 21^st century technology infrastructure, Establishing education and training programs for a high skill   workforce,             Investing in technology programs that empower America’s small businesses,              Refocusing federal R&D program on critical technologies that enhance industrial performance,                Leveraging the national R&D investment, Creating a world class business environment for private sector investment and innovation.

Science policy is concerned with building infrastructure to take care of supply of qualified scientists and researchers. Technology policy deals with networking and managerial infrastructure. The role of state in S&T does not end with providing S&T infrastructure, like universities or research institutes. The state has to play a critical and leading role in providing S&T policy and management infrastructure. The economic development from technology comes along with increasing human skills and most critically that it is cooperation and not competition that ultimately encourages science and technology based economic growth. 

Technology policy ,1983

 In 1983 the Government of India, enunciated the Technology policy emphasizing technological self-reliance. The basic objective of the technology Policy was the development of indigenous technology and efficient absorption and adaptation of imported technology appropriate to national priorities and resources. Its aims are:

a)        Attain technological competence and self-reliance, to reduce vulnerability, particularly in strategic and critical areas, making the maximum use of indigenous resources;

b)        Provide the maximum gainful and satisfying employment to all strata of society, with emphasis on the employment of women and weaker sections of society;

c)         Use traditional skills and capabilities, making them commercially competitive;

d)         Ensure the correct mix between mass production technologies and production by the masses;

e)         Ensure maximum development with minimum capital outlay;

f)          Identify obsolescence of technology in use and arrange for modernisation of both equipment and technology;

g)         Develop technologies which are internationally competitive, particularly those with export potential;

h)         Improve production speedily through greater efficiency and fuller utilisation of existing capabilities and enhance the quality and reliability of performance and output;

i)          Reduce demands on energy, particularly energy from non-renewable sources;

j)          Ensure harmony with the environment, preserve the ecological balance and improve the quality of the habitat; and

k)         Recycle waste material and make full utilisation of by-products.

S&T policy 2003

 Recognizing the changing context of the scientific enterprise and to meet present national needs in the new era of globalisation, Government enunciated the following objectives of its Science and Technology Policy:

a)         advance scientific temper and integrate S&T with all spheres of national activity.

b)         Ensure food security  .

c)         Use S&T capabilities for poverty alleviation, generation of employment etc.

d)         Foster scientific research in universities.

e)         Encourage innovation in areas of relevance for society like soil and water management, human and animal nutrition, fisheries, renewable energy, communication, transportation.

f)          Strengthen enabling mechanisms that relate to technology development from concept to commercialisation.

g)         Establish an Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) regime and encourage domestic commercialisation of such patented inventions in the public interest.

 (to be continued)

Democratizing Research : Opportunity under STI policy 2013 ( part 1)

India announced Science , Technology and Innovation Policy (2013) during the Science congress. A look at past policies before commenting on opportunities for democratizing research under the new policy.

India is the first among developing countries to come up with a science policy. The scientific policy recognized the utility of science for development and articulated the aims clearly. The scientific policy resolution of 1958 stated that:

` the dominating feature of the contemporary world is the intense cultivation of science on a large scale, and its application to meet a country’s requirements. It is this, which, for the first time in man’s history, has given to the common man in countries advanced in science, a standard of living and social and cultural amenities, which were once confined to a very small privileged minority of the population. Science has led to the growth and diffusion of culture to an extent never possible before. It has not only radically altered man’s material environment, but, what is of still deeper significance, it has provided now tools of thought and extended man’s mental horizon. It has thus influenced even the basic value of life and given to civilization a new vitality and a new dynamism’.

Accordingly the government decided the aims of scientific policy as under.

i)          To foster, promote and sustain, by all appropriate means, the cultivation of science, and scientific research in all aspects- pure, applied and educational;

ii)         To ensure an adequate supply, within the country , of research scientists of highest quality, and to recognize their work as an important component of the strength of the nation;

iii)        To encourage and initiate , with all possible speed, programmes for the training of scientific and technical personnel, on a scale adequate to fulfil the country’s needs in science and education, agriculture and industry and defence;

iv)        To ensure that the creative talent of men and women is encouraged and finds full scope in scientific activity;

v)         To encourage individual initiative for the acquisition and disssemination of knowledge and for the discovery of new knowledge, in an atmosphere of academic freedom;

vi)        and, in general, to secure for the people of the country all the benefits that can accrue from the acquisition and application of scientific knowledge.

Excellent centers of learning were established like Indian Institute of Technology at Bombay, Chennai, Kharagpur, Kanpur, Delhi and over hundred Research laboratories and agriculture extension centers were set up.

Good, Bad, Ugly and Self Destructive features of TRAI recommendations to support Indian Telecom Manufacturing

Policy prescriptions can be classified as Good, Bad, Ugly or Self Destructive using Stephen J. Ezell and Robert D. Atkinson (WWW.ITIF.ORG) narration. When both India and trading partners are winners, then that policy is Good, Bad when both India and  the world lose, Ugly when only India wins and Self destructive when India loses but competing nations win.

Policy Recommendations- Good

•  Set up an International standard Testing and Certification Agency by way of converting TEC into an Autonomous Agency. 
• To remove the comparative tax disadvantage on domestic manufactured products. 
• The requirement for “provenness” be waived for domestic manufactured products provided  the product meets the requirement of quality, technical specifications and standards and are certified by the testing and certification organisation. 
• Ten telecom clusters be identified immediately. 
• A Telecom Research and Development Park should be established. 
• Set up Telecom Research and Development Fund(TRDF) . 
• Create a Telecom Manufacturing Fund(TMF) for providing venture capital to indigenous manufacturing.

Policy Recommendations- Bad

·         Subsidy for capital and working capital , deferring the payment of Excise/Sales Tax/VAT/GST, Income Tax holiday, exemption from countervailing duties,  Excise duty etc

Policy Recommendations- Ugly

·         Set up a second fab unit with government funding.

Policy Recommendations- Self Destructive

·         Preferential market access to domestic manufacturers in procurement by the Government and Government Licensees, with incentives and penalties.

What is your view?