blogs.commons.georgetown.edu · Web viewIn order for India to take advantage of its vast assets, including an educated middle class, a semi-democratic government, widespread human

Khadijah QamarUdomsaph – INAF 383

Dec. 21st, 2012

Indian Firms’ Technological Capabilities within the National Innovation System

I. IntroductionIn 1993, economist Richard Nelson attempted to define the ‘national innovation system.’

He prophetically asserted that the idea of ‘nation’ becomes irrelevant in an increasingly transnational economic landscape. His definition of ‘system”, as a set of institutions whose interactions drive the innovative performance of national firms and individual entrepreneurs, sought to erase a misconception. He wrote, “although to some it connotes something that is consciously designed and built…there should be no presumption that these institutions are consciously designed or even work together smoothly” (Nelson). In a sense, these institutions likely take on some characteristics of the innovation process itself: spontaneous, independent, and risk-taking. Nelson goes on to state that identifying the institutional players is key to understanding a nation’s innovation system. His broad framework ably described the U.S. innovation system at the time, but has applications even now for an altogether different country – India.

Although the same framework may be applicable, the political and economic development of India, and thus also the development of a strong national innovation system, is markedly different from that of the United States. First, India must develop its innovation system amidst tough competition from the United States and other emerging economies, including China, Brazil, Russia, and South Africa. It has the potential to leapfrog over established technological advances but the standard for breakthrough innovation is also much higher. Most challenging, India, although described as a democracy, is in reality a very messy, corrupt and bureaucratic federalism, one that has trouble keeping peace in all of its fractured states. As such, India does not have a strong national innovation system yet, but it is nonetheless innovating.

This paper focuses on firm innovation and outlines a technological capabilities index (TCI) framework to analyze a firm’s innovation potential, specifically a firm’s skills, knowledge and experience to accumulate new technologies and use them efficiently. It asks: What factors improve firms’ technological and innovation capacity? However, Nelson’s assessment of a national innovation system still holds – firms alone do not and cannot define a country’s innovation potential. For that reason, this paper provides a brief assessment of other institutional players, government and institutions specifically, and touches on the larger issues that hinder India’s business environment. As a result, this paper understands firm technological capabilities that engender innovation in the context of the larger national innovation system. Although Indian firms cannot yet claim strong technological capabilities, India’s national innovation system is on the rise and will provide the right business environment to bring India to the world’s economic stage.

II. Literature ReviewWhat ingredients make up a national innovation system? Economist Robert Solow

identified R&D as a foundational economic innovation force in his 1987 acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize in Economics. His idea of growth theory revolutionized classical economic thinking. He argued “technology remains the dominant engine of growth” and that technological advance signifies a healthy innovation system (Solow). Struggling to quantify the power of technological advance, he eventually identified R&D as the critical component of a strong


Dec. 21st, 2012national innovation system. Within his growth theory model, technological innovation is treated as exogenous to the classical economic system. But Stanford economist Paul Romer argued to the contrary and expanded on Solow’s initial growth theory model. He posits that “the stock of human capital determines the rate of growth” and thus, since human capital is endogenous to the economic system, so is growth theory (Romer). He contends that human capital is the direct input generating technological advance and, that without a critical mass of human capital, R&D is incidental. In addition to Solow’s R&D, Romer identifies human capital as a critical input in a strong national innovation system.

According to famed economist Richard Nelson, an innovation system is best understood by identifying the primary actors. These actors, all contributors to R&D and human capital, include component and systems producers, upstream and downstream firms, universities, industry, and government (Nelson). But Nelson also stresses that technological advance does not occur through the existence of these actors alone, but rather proceeds from their interactions. Consequently, R&D and human capital are not enough to merit a strong innovation system; rather, the way in which they effectively interact and innovate technological advance determines the strength of a national innovation system. In his article “The Connected Science Model for Innovation – The DARPA Model”, Professor William Bonvillian provides further insight into this interaction, “it is not enough to have the ingredients of R&D and human capital, they have to come together in an effective way for a highly productive innovation system. We’ll call this third factor innovation organization” (Bonvillian). With Bonvillian’s addition, innovation organization, human capital, and R&D comprise the three pillars of innovation.

Economist Sanjaya Lall came to a similar conclusion regarding the three components of an innovation system. Specifically, she quantified innovation through a technological capabilities index, remarking that innovation in traditional literature has been treated as a completely distinct activity from “gaining mastery of technology or adapting it to different conditions.” To the contrary, innovation on the firm level may well be defined as a process of adopting, mastering and then improving technological knowledge. In addition, Lall explicates that technological knowledge is not shared equally among firms and that resources, investment, and drive on the part of the firm determine the firm’s technological capabilities. For that reason, it is useful to assess technological capabilities on the firm level, called FTC, and divide them according to three functions, investment, production, and linkages. These three functions have a direct correlation with human capital, R&D, and innovation organization, respectively. Combining the concepts, this paper comes to a fuller understanding of the three pillars of a national innovation system.

Lall describes investment capabilities as “the skills needed to identify, prepare, obtain technology for, design, construct, equip, staff, and commission a new facility (or expansion).” This paper expands on investment capabilities and includes indicators that point to investment in the factors of production, primarily, human capital, such as education levels of management and employees and external and internal training. Production capabilities is defined as a “range from basic skills such as quality control, operation, and maintenance, to more advanced ones such as adaptation, improvement or equipment “stretching,” to the most demanding ones of research, design, and innovation.” In this paper production capabilities include efforts to engage in R&D as well as adoption of new technologies or production techniques. Finally, linkages is defined as “the skills needed to transmit information, skills and technology to, and receive them from, component or raw material suppliers, subcontractors, consultants, service firms, and technology institutions.” Linkage capabilities include all components of firms’ interactions, including use of


Dec. 21st, 2012e-mails and websites as well as partnership with other firms, reflecting Bonvillian’s concept of “innovation organization.”

These three functions characterize the types of factors that spur innovation. Utilized in a 2006 World Bank Report titled “Thailand: Investment Climate, Firm Competitiveness, and Growth” this approach offers insight in answering the question, “What factors improve Indian firms’ innovation capacity, or technological capability?” In addition to this approach, this paper supplements previous qualitative explanations of India’s efforts to generate a knowledge economy with a quantitative analysis of which factors specifically will help India reach its innovation potential fastest. Based on this analysis, this paper presents several policy proposals that may help India’s government, institutions, and firms maximize technological capabilities. At the same time, it would be useful to examine previous targeted efforts to identify which programs had the highest impact. It is especially true of economic policy that theory always differs from reality and for that reason, new policy recommendations without successful examples must be taken with a grain of salt. In the next section, an overview of the India’s national innovation system, specifically the role of government and institutions, provides the necessary context for an in-depth analysis of FTC.

III. India’s National Innovation System In order for India to take advantage of its vast assets, including an educated middle class,

a semi-democratic government, widespread human talent, aptitude for science and technology development, a niche in information services and a booming population, India will need to strengthen its financial and institutional regimes, invest heavily in education, and most critically, channel talent through an efficient national innovation system. A formal national innovation system requires significant government R&D, private-public partnerships, high-tech research laboratories, and strong national innovation institutions that foster innovation. Though India has promising beginnings in each of these categories, the establishment of a strong national innovation system will require more investment from the government and private firms. The below diagram provides a visual summary of the current status of India’s formal innovation system (Dahlman and Utz).

Figure 3.1: India’s Scorecard on Innovation


Dec. 21st, 2012

This scorecard demonstrates that India does well in its availability of venture capital, costs to enforce a contract, and cluster development (like the information technology haven in Bangalore) but that it has a seriously underdeveloped manufacturing sector, lack of strong innovation institutions, and unremarkable Gross Foreign Direct Investment, although that is improving. India spends only .78% of its GDP on R&D, less than its most able competitors, Brazil, China, and Russia (Dahlman and Utz). In contrast to the U.S., the majority of R&D is government funded, suggesting that private firms have not engaged with the financial structure for innovation. Nonetheless, their share in the R&D pie is growing and multinational corporations increasingly flock to India to take advantage of the cheap technical workforce. In addition, the government is taking notable steps towards this challenge – in 2010 the government proposed a new $1 billion venture capital fund to foster inclusive innovation-oriented start-ups (MyDigitalFC).

Of course, if the government hopes to be an effective backer of innovative firms, it must first fend off its own devils, the most threatening of which is energy management. India’s government needs a major overhaul on its energy and water policy. Frequent electricity outages, sometimes as long 20 hours during the summer, seriously impede good business – it is cited as the number one business obstacle by managers, with an overwhelming percentage at 35.2%. Water, more specifically dams, is a huge source of energy for India but it is rapidly dwindling as India moves closer to a water-scarce future. Better management, specifically in irrigation


Dec. 21st, 2012practices, could extend the life of India’s rivers and consequently, also make energy production more efficient. Corruption is no small obstacle for India either. Although there is evidence that corruption can act to grease the wheels of a messy bureaucracy, corruption as a whole has a negative impact on firm innovation and is cited as the third greatest business obstacle for firms. Though its effects on innovation are difficult to quantify, India also struggles with establishing rule of law in all of its states, especially places like Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Assam and Jammu & Kashmir. In a messy democracy where states sometimes have more power than the federal government, India faces major challenges in arousing a business environment oriented towards innovation.

Figure 3.2: 10 Business Environment Constraints from the India 2006 Enterprise Survey

In an effort to organize innovation, the government created the National Innovation Foundation (NIF) and the Grassroots Innovation Augmentation Network (GIAN) but a non-governmental organization called The Honey Bee Network (HBN) may be more impressive than the former two. Developed by Dr. Anil Gupta sixteen years ago, the Honey Bee Network is a self-described “crucible of like-minded individuals, innovators, farmers, scholars, academicians, policy makers, entrepreneurs and non-governmental organizations (NGOs)…[promoting] a philosophy of discourse which is authentic, accountable and fair” (SRISTI). To discover the ingenuity of village entrepreneurs whom Dr. Gupta describes as “oddballs, crazy people” he and a team of academics, students and technicians travel by foot across regions of India twice a year. The results of these visits are then catalogued on an online database that compiles innovations from marginalized communities (the majority in India) in order to spread ideas, but also preserve the intellectual property of the original inventors, oftentimes uneducated laborers.

The Honey Bee network partners with NIF and GIAN to try to patent some of these ideas and push them into commercialization. This is well-motivated in theory, but further investigation reveals that they often fail to bridge the “valley of death,” turning research into profitable applications, even after a prototype is at their fingertips. One prominent example is the story of Remya Jose who invented an efficient pedal-powered washing machine that, although promoted proudly in international media, has yet to be effectively marketed or find appropriate investment (Brown). In reality, the NIF and GIAN receive more patents than they can successfully market


Dec. 21st, 2012but also don’t have the right tools to cross the “valley of death,” including visionary management, capable project teams, and an expedited production pipeline.

Once again, India’s lack of R&D and innovation organization threatens to stifle the potential of its human talent. India’s government and young innovation institutions face several challenges as they establish the right business environment for innovation, especially among manufacturing firms, as depicted in the next section.

IV. Data AnalysisDrawing on Lall’s approach, a 2006 World Bank Report on “Thailand: Investment

Climate, Firm Competitiveness, and Growth,” offers a quantified framework for evaluating a firms’ innovation potential. FTC divides innovation indicators across the three functions, investment, production, and linkages. Table 4.1 depicts the evaluation of the final FTC score, which matches questions from the 2005 World Bank Enterprise Survey in India onto the FTC taxonomy developed by Lall. The method for choosing these questions draws on Lall’s definitions but also expands on those definitions to fit into the broader factors that spur innovation, such as human capital and network creation. For example TCI encompasses 18 separate technical activities and each technical activity garners one point; for high levels of technical activity in some areas, distinguished by a participation percentage of more than 30% or 50%, firms can receive an additional point. As a result, firms are ranked out of a total technological capability score of 22. Results are normalized to give a value between 0 and 1 for each type of FTC.

Table 4.1: FTC Evaluation from the India 2005 World Bank Enterprise SurveyINVESTMENT PRODUCTION LINKAGES

What is the highest level of education completed by

owner/majority shareholder? (r2_5)a. Did not complete secondary

school (=1)b. Secondary School (=2)

c. Vocational Training (=3)d. Some university training (=4)

e. Graduate degree (BA, BSc etc.) (=5)

f. Post graduate degree (Ph D, Masters) (=6)

[No graduate degree ≤4 = 0][Graduate degree ≥5 = 1]

What percent of the workforce at your establishment have not

completed primary school (6 years)? (r14_11a) [None=2]

[>0 and <50 Percent=1][≥50 Percent=0]

What are your establishment’s intentions over the next two years?a. Expand capacity: If expand, by

What share of your plant machinery and equipment is:

a. <5 years old ____% (r4_2a)

[None=0][>0 and <50 Percent=1]

[≥50 Percent=2]

Does your establishment use technology licensed from a foreign-

owned company? (r4_4)

[Yes=1] [No=0]

Has your establishment received an internationally recognized quality

certification (e.g. ISO 9000, 9002 or 14,000, or sectors specific

certifications such as HACCP for food, AATCC for textiles, etc.)?

(r4_6)

[Yes=1] [In Process=1] [No=0]

Has your establishment undertaken any of the following initiatives in the

last two years?

Does your establishment regularly use e-mail in its interactions with

clients and suppliers? (r6_7a)

[Yes=1] [No=0]

Does your establishment regularly use a website in its interactions with

clients and suppliers? (r6_7b)

[Yes=1] [No=0]

Has your establishment undertaken any of the following initiatives in the

last two years?c. Agreed to a new joint venture

with foreign partner (r4_7c)

[Yes=1] [No=0]

d. Outsourced a part of the production activity that was

previously conducted in-house (r4_7d)

[Yes=1] [No=0]


Dec. 21st, 2012what percent? (r4_5b)

[None=0][>0 and <50 Percent=1]

[≥50 Percent=2]

In the last year, did you offer any of the following formal (beyond “on

the job”) training to your permanent employees:

i. Internal training (offered within the walls of your establishment)?

(r14_6a1)

[Yes=1] [No=0]

ii. External training (offered at a location outside your

establishment)? (r14_6a2)

[Yes=1] [No=0]

Total = 7

a. Developed an important new product line (r4_7a)

[Yes=1] [No=0]

b. Upgraded an existing product line (r4_7b)

[Yes=1] [No=0]

Has your establishment acquired new technology over the last two

years that either substantially changed the way

the main products are produced or allowed the production of new

products? (r4_8a)

[Yes=1] [No=0]

Does your firm engage in R&D? (r4_10)

[Yes=1] [No=0]

What percent of your workforce regularly uses a computer in their

jobs? (r4_11)[None=0]

[>0 and <30 Percent=1][≥30 Percent=2]

Total = 10

Does your firm subcontract R&D projects to other companies or

organizations? (r4_10a)

[Yes=1] [No=0]

Total = 5

On a larger scale, kernel density analysis suggests variation and correlation in TCI scores of manufacturing firms in India across industry, size, ownership, export status, and market locality. Market locality is a dummy variable for the question “How would you characterize the market where your firm conducts business?” and divides locality between local, regional, national, and international.

Figure 4.1: “FTC by Industry” and Table 4.2 allow for comparisons across nine Indian industries and suggest that auto components, machinery and electronics score highest respectively and retain a higher mass density on the right while the metal products, food processing and plastic products score lowest respectively and retain a higher mass density on the left. This allows for division of industry into “high tech” and “low tech” and is relatively predictable. Advanced technology industries include capital-intensive manufacturing such as auto components and electronics and consequently require a higher level of TCI. At the same time, the medium score of drugs, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics is surprising because drug and pharmaceutical development requires extensive R&D and highly skilled employees. This industry’s low score suggests that India has sub-par development and investment in its drugs and pharmaceuticals industry, a serious concern for its nearly one billion person population.


Dec. 21st, 2012Figure 4.1: FTC by Industry

In addition, although auto components, electronics, and machinery have a relatively high score, the mean scores for these industries are still very low. Table 4.2 provides an exact breakdown of the TCI means by industry and suggests that no industry is outstanding and that in fact all industries are operating at low innovation and technological capability. Table 4.3 confirms this assessment by providing a frequency distribution of TCI scores. The majority of firms do less than half of the 18 technological activities. In fact, zero firms have a high TCI score range (scores above 0.8). In the worst-case scenario, India is far behind in TCI but in the best-case scenario, India has high potential for growth in innovation and technological capability. This paper goes on to explain which factors of TCI will have the highest impact for India, and thus, where India should make the most immediate investments.

Table 4.2: FTC Score Means by IndustryIndustry FTC Score Mean

Food Processing .2794721Textiles .3621966

Garments and Leather .3319875Drugs, Pharmaceuticals and

Cosmetics.3514799

Plastic Products .2887481Metal Products .2617034

Machinery .3732427Electronics .3670232

Auto Components .3958944Total .3364437

Table 4.3: Descriptive Statistics of FTC in Indian Manufacturing (n=2,158)


Dec. 21st, 2012

Overall TCI Investment TCI Production TCI Linkages TCIMean .33 .43 .29 .25Std. Dev. .14 .17 .15 .23

Frequency distribution of TCI

Overall TCI 0≤TCI≤0.2 0.2<TCI≤0.4 0.4<TCI≤0.6 0.6<TCI≤0.8 0.8<TCI≤1Percentage 20.2 47.2 31.1 1.5 0

Investment TCI 0≤ITCI≤0.2 0.2<ITCI≤0.4 0.4<ITCI≤0.6 0.6<ITCI≤0.8 0.8<ITCI≤1Percentage 10.7 19.7 61.7 6.0 1.9

Production TCI 0≤PTCI≤0.2 0.2<PTCI≤0.4 0.4<PTCI≤0.6 0.6<PTCI≤0.8 0.8<PTCI≤1Percentage 21.0 45.8 28.8 4.5 0

Linkages TCI 0≤LTCI≤0.2 0.2<LTCI≤0.4 0.4<LTCI≤0.6 0.6<LTCI≤0.8 0.8<LTCI≤1Percentage 32.8 27.1 25.3 11.1 3.7

Kernel density tables provide more insight into firm characteristics that engender technological capability. Specifically, Figure 4.2: “TCI by Size” indicates that large firms have significantly higher TCI scores than micro, small, and medium size firms (SMEs), and a large part of the disparity can be attributed to differences in Investment TCI scores, suggesting that employees in large firms are better educated and receive formal training more often. Figure 4.3 depicts that firms that are more than 10% foreign-owned have a significantly higher TCI score, suggesting that foreign expertise or management generates stronger innovation capacity. Surprisingly, government-owned firms perform better than private domestic firms indicating that private firms have not engaged with the national innovation system. As a result, the government must actively incentivize innovation in private firms through targeted programs. Figure 4.4 predictably affirms that exporting firms have higher TCIs, supplementing the idea that export-quality products are better manufactured and must meet higher quality standards in order to meet the demands of the international market. Figure 4.5 underscores the same idea and most likely incorporates endogeneity with Figure 4.4; exporting firms also consider their markets to be international and vice-versa.

Figure 4.2: TCI by Size Figure 4.3: TCI by Ownership


Dec. 21st, 2012

Figure 4.4: TCI by Export Figure 4.5: TCI by Market Locality

But do these correlations still stand against robust regression analysis? Drawing on the equation from the 2006 Thailand World Bank Report, this paper utilizes an equation to demonstrate statistical and economic significance of TCI factors. This equation examines characteristics such as large, exporter, foreign, market locality, foreign establishments and workers’ education. keeping in mind fixed effects for industry and state. Foreign establishment is a dummy variable for the question “Does your firm have holdings in other countries (ex. plants/factories)?” and firms receive one point for “Yes” and zero points for “No.” Workers’ education is a dummy variable for the percentage of firm employees who completed primary school.

TCIi = a + b1 LARGEi + b2 EXPORTERi + b3 FOREIGNi + b4 MARKET_LOCALITYi + b5 FOREIGN_ESTABLISHMENTSi

+b6 WORKERS’ EDUCATION +∑xk INDUSTRYki + ∑l1 STATEli + eit

Table. 4.4 shows that the coefficients for LARGE, FOREIGN, FOREIGN ESTABLISHMENT and EXPORTER are positive and highly significant as well economically significant. Coefficients for MARKET LOCALITY and WORKERS’ EDUCATION are positive


Dec. 21st, 2012and highly significant although not economically significant. In addition, TCI is strongly correlated with TFP and in India this relationship is being driven by Production TCI. The results in Column 1 of Table 4.5 show that the coefficient on TCI is 0.408 and statistically significant at the one percent level. Therefore, a 10 percent increase in TCI is associated with a 4.01 percent increase in TFP; moving to 1 from 0 on the TCI scale is associated with a 40.8 percent increase in TFP, holding all other covariates constant. The results in Column 2 of Table 4.8 show that the coefficient on Investment TCI is 0.153 not statistically significant whereas the coefficients on Production TCI is 0.471 and on Linkages TCI is .235 and are both statistically and economically significant. A 10 percent increase in Production TCI is associated with a 4.71 percent increase in TFP; moving to 1 from 0 on the Production TCI scale is associated with a 47.1 percent increase in TFP, holding all other covariates constant. A 10 percent increase in Linkages TCI is associated with a 2.35 percent increase in TFP; moving to 1 from 0 on the Linkages TCI scale is associated with a 23.5 percent increase in TFP, holding all other covariates constant. Regression analysis indicates that the specific components of TCI that are most correlated with higher TFP, statistically and economically, are computerization (r4_11), new technology acquirement (r4_8a) and international quality certification (r4_6), respectively.

Table 4.4: Descriptive Statistics of TCI in Indian Manufacturing (n=1,715)


Dec. 21st, 2012

Table 4.5: TFP Regression Estimates (n=1,184)


Dec. 21st, 2012

V. Conclusion and Policy RecommendationsIndia has built its reputation as an IT giant and through it, has maintained a high growth

rate between 5-8% over the past decade (Dahlman and Utz). If it hopes to sustain that growth rate and also be considered a “knowledge economy” it must make serious investments in manufacturing. Specifically, the Indian government, institutions, and private firms must enhance technological capabilities. Large, foreign, and exporting firms have higher FTC scores and consequently, higher TFP – private domestic firms must adopt the characteristics of these firms in order to increase their own innovation capacity. Specifically, utilizing computers in the work


Dec. 21st, 2012space has a high correlation with higher FTC, indicating that computerization is a strong technological skills generator. In addition, adopting new technologies and meeting international quality standards has a significant correlation with FTC. However, private firms are not engaging with the national innovation system. For that reason, the government must implement targeted programs to engender technological capabilities in private domestic firms:

1) Computerization – Governments must foster computer skills at all levels, from early education to advanced technology firms. For example, the government should subsidize the “Hole-in-the-Wall” campaign, an educational campaign that installs computers in low-income communities to foster technical skills. The initial experiment yielded unexpectedly positive results with young schoolchildren accessing the Internet and learning basic English within a few weeks.

2) Advanced Technology Innovation Institute - India does not have any major research grant schemes or any institution resembling DARPA in the United States (Dahlman and Utz). DARPA is the primary governmental vehicle for high-tech innovation and development, in all fields of science. In addition, DARPA serves to contract assignments out to private firms in the rest of the U.S. which builds private-public partnership while also enabling private firms to conduct higher level R&D with a confirmed market: the U.S. government. Similarly, in India this kind of institution could serve to catalyze private domestic firms in their innovation efforts, which judging by the TCI scores, are currently very low.

3) Exchange Programs for Business Managers and Researchers – India’s government should utilize its strong relations with the U.S. to foster a more involved exchange program where Indian business managers and researchers can visit and train in U.S. firms. This would take quick advantage of the correlation between foreign-owned firms and higher TCI. By adopting foreign practices and policies, Indian firms would have an improved and more nuanced understanding of business management as well as high-impact methods of R&D. On the other hand, the U.S. could also benefit from learning more about Indian firms, as well as tapping into the one billion person Indian consumer market.

These policy implementations will generate higher technological capabilities among firms and hopefully put India on the path to a knowledge economy. At the moment, Indian manufacturing firms have low innovation capacity but India has the right foundation for a strong national innovation system: large stock of human capital, aptitude for science and technology development and a niche in information services. As it transitions its strengths to its manufacturing sector, it must also address the larger issues that effect innovation, such as electricity outages and corruption. Most importantly, it needs to invest in R&D and build effective innovation organization. With smart policy and strong drive, India promises to be a competent economic force in the near future.


Dec. 21st, 2012

References

Nelson, Richard R., “National Systems of Innovation”, Oxford University Press, pp. 3-21, 505-523, 1993.

Radjou, Navi, Jaideep C. Prabhu, and Simone Ahuja. Jugaad Innovation: Think Frugal, Be Flexible, Generate Breakthrough Growth. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2012. Print.

Solow, Robert M., “Growth Theory, An Exposition”, Oxford Univ. Press, New York, Oxford, 2nd

edition 2000, pp. ix-xxvi.

Romer, Paul, “Endogenous Technological Change”, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 98, pp. 72-102, 1990.

Bonvillian, William B., “The Connected Science Model for Innovation – The DARPA Model”, 21st Century Innovation Systems for the U.S. and Japan National Academies Press, pp, 206-237, May 2009.

Stokes, Donald E., “Pasteur’s Quadrant”, Basic Science and Technological Innovation, Brookings Institution Press, Wash. D.C., pp. 1-25, 45-57, 58-89, 1997.

Dahlman, Carl J., and Anuja Utz. India and the Knowledge Economy. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2005. Print.

"$1b Govt-backed VC to Foster Poor-centric Startups | Mydigitalfc.com." Indian Finance News, Stock Market Updates, Live Indian Stock Market News Updates, Latest Business News from India. Web. 21 Apr. 2012. <http://www.mydigitalfc.com/opportunities/1b-govt-backed-vc-foster-poor-centric-startups-261>.

"A Chat with Honey Bee Network Founder Dr. Anil Gupta." SRISTI. Web. 21 Apr. 2012. <http://www.sristi.org/anilg/news-more.php?articleid=149>.

Rahul, Brown. "NIF and the Honey Bee Network." Ponticulus Indica. Web. 21 Apr. 2012. <http://rahulbrown.wordpress.com/2008/05/23/indias-national-innovation-foundation-and-honeybee-network/>.

Documents

blogs.commons.georgetown.edu · Web viewIn order for India to take advantage of its vast assets, including an educated middle class, a semi-democratic government, widespread human