Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
EPW
Research (CSIR) (10%), and the Department of Science and Technology (DST)
(8.3%), leaving 10% or less for educational
institutions and others.1 The third is
R&D as in-house activity in the industry,
both in the private and public sectors.
This was nearly non-existent at the
time of Independence. The progress in
this respect thereafter is surveyed in
detail here.
A Brief History
At the beginning of the 20th century, India
was looked upon by the British rulers as
a cheap source of raw materials (cotton,
iron ore, coal, etc) for the industry in
Britain, which in turn exported finished
goods to the captive markets in India.
Huge cotton production led to the establishment of British textile mills in India.
The one exception was the setting up of
a steel mill in Jamshedpur by Jamsetji
Tata in the early 20th century. An Englishman light-heartedly challenged Tata
saying that if Tata really produced steel
in India, he would eat every bit of it!
(Mashelkar 2011).
Later, there were technology imports,
which did not call for any innovation or
in-house R&D. Then policy moved to
substitution of imported products by reverse engineering, again with little or no
in-house R&D. Only once global competition started to hurt, did Indian companies begin to establish some minimal inhouse R&D facilities, directed more at
troubleshooting and quick fixes for minor
production problems than any real advances in technology for new products
or for improvement of efficiency in production or energy use. Thus at the time
of Independence, there were minimal
R&D activities in Indian industry, with
some notable exceptions such as Tata
Steel and Hindustan Lever.
Since Independence, a number of R&D
facilities have been established in the
public (e g, Bharat Heavy Electrical, Steel
Authority of India, Bharat Electronic,
Hindustan Aeronautical, etc) and private
(e g, pharmaceutical, Tata Motors, Tata
Steel, etc) sectors, whose goal was to
develop new and improved products
appropriate to the expanding Indian
87
NOTES
market, and also to improve productivity and energy efficiency of manufacturing industry.
Thus, there are now about 1,500 R&D
units in Indian industry registered with
the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). Indian industry
operated in a protected market till economic liberalisation started in 1991. This
and the drive for exports from India
started to change the mindset of Indian
industry about R&D, resulting in a sevenfold increase in R&D spending as a percentage of sales revenues from 0.071 in
1991 to 0.28 in 1995, 0.30 in 2000 to 0.51
in 2004 (Department of Company Affairs,
GoI). By 2009-10, it grew to 0.61 (private
sector 0.27 and public sector 0.82) (see
Note 1). But it still is low by international
standards.2 Only three Indian companies (Ranbaxy, Dr Reddys Laboratories
and Tata Motors) are among the worlds
top 1,250 companies in terms of R&D
investment (see Note 2). The reasons for
only limited expansion of industrial R&D
are many, including finances, R&D manpower, government incentives and the size
of the Indian manufacturing companies.
The two largest steel companies in India,
Tata Steel and Steel Authority of India,
are ranked 11 and 28 in terms of steel
production in 2012 globally. However,
the growth of Indian manufacturing industry, e g, steel and motor vehicles in
recent years is indeed very impressive,
as shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Crude Steel Production (million tonnes)
Motor Vehicle Production (millions)
Rank Country
1
2
3
4
World
China
Japan
US
India
2011
1980
1990
2010 2010
1,351 1,490
495 683
120 108
98
89
54
72
2007
39
0.2
11
8
0.1
49
1.5
13
10
0.3
58
2
10
13
0.8
78
18
10
8
3.5
EPW
NOTES
EPW
India
Year
1990-91
1995-96
2000-01
2005-06
2010-11
China
2009
Japan
2009
South Korea 2008
US
2009
24.3
27.5
23.2
32.6
34.9
71.7
75.3
72.9
59.6
75.7
72.5
76.8
67.4
65.1
23.4
17.7
25.4
31.3
164
913
5,300
3,732
4,618
India
China
Japan
South Korea
US
709(1,171)
2041(1,331)
35,524(128)
8,789(49)
81,912(307)
6
15
278
179
267
Per Cent of
Total World
Publications
2.5; 3.5(2010)
9.4
6.3
2.8
26.5
89
NOTES
2000
2005
2010
US
China
India
139
30
18
140
70
30
140
135
40
EPW
NOTES
EPW
NOTES
Padmini Swaminathan
The notion of work and employment for women is complex. In India, fewer women participate in employment compared
to men. While economic factors determine mens participation in employment, womens participation depends on
diverse reasons and is often rooted in a complex interplay of economic, cultural, social and personal factors.
The introduction talks of the oppression faced by wage-earning women due to patriarchal norms and capitalist relations
of production, while demonstrating how policies and programmes based on national income accounts and labour force
surveys seriously disadvantage women.
This volume analyses the concept of work, the economic contribution of women, and the consequences of gendering
of work, while focusing on women engaged in varied work in different parts of India, living and working in dismal
conditions, and earning paltry incomes.
Authors:
Maithreyi Krishnaraj Maria Mies Bina Agarwal Prem Chowdhry Ujvala Rajadhyaksha, Swati Smita Joan P Mencher, K Saradamoni Devaki
Jain Indira Hirway Deepita Chakravarty, Ishita Chakravarty Uma Kothari J Jeyaranjan, Padmini Swaminathan Meena Gopal Millie Nihila
Forum against Oppression of Women Srilatha Batliwala Miriam Sharma, Urmila Vanjani J Jeyaranjan
www.orientblackswan.com
MumbaiChennaiNew DelhiKolkataBangaloreBhubaneshwarErnakulamGuwahatiJaipurLucknowPatnaChandigarhHyderabad
Contact: info@orientblackswan.com
92
june 28, 2014 vol xlIX nos 26 & 27 EPW Economic & Political Weekly
NOTES
EPW
(c) Improve intellectual property protection by creating a cell for this specific
purpose and to enable faculty to exploit
the patents by setting up enterprises, or
to market the patents to others.
(d) Undertake joint projects with industry to deliver results in the form of new
products/processes.
(e) Employ experienced industry people
as adjunct faculty or on sabbaticals.
(3) Government should lower their traditional blinkers about private sector
companies.
(a) Funding of joint projects with
academia and industry as partners with
a goal of taking innovations into industry as new products and improved/novel
processes, making fuller and imaginative use of the National Science and
Engineering Research Board, TIFAC and
Technology Development Board (TDB).
(b) Review and revise the incentives to
in-house R&D units and reward companies for successful exploitation of Indian
innovations from their own R&D as
well as from academia and government
laboratories, with an active role played
by TIFAC and TDB.
(c) Strengthen R&D and innovation by
focused funding in selected projects of
national importance or cutting edge
technology in selected institutions on intense enough scale to include the cost of
technology transfer and risk-taking, to
achieve quick economic results.
Likely Benefits
If the road map sketched here is implemented quickly with all seriousness, the
industry is sure to reap benefits in the
form of improved top- and bottom-lines
of the balance sheet by enhanced sales in
India and, equally importantly, globally.
The percentage of GDP invested in R&D,
which remained abysmally small at or
below 1% for 60 years will grow to 2% or
above as in the case of advanced economies at present. This will have a direct
impact on the growth of GDP. It will create more employment at all levels and
start shifting manpower from agriculture to industry and a host of related activities. Equally importantly, it will lift
the image of India in international economic circles and find a solid, well-earned
place among the top global economic
References
Abramson, B (2007): Indias Journey toward an
Effective Patent System, Policy Research Working Paper, World Bank.
Agarwal, P (2009): Indian Higher Education, Envisioning the Emerging Future, Sage Publications.
Bose, Kunal (2012): In Search of R&D Directions
for Steel, Business Standard, 15 May, CSIR
compiled from TIFAC database, see also http://
www.USPTO. gov/taf/asgstca/inx-sta.htm
BIS (2010): R&D Scoreboard, Department of
Business Innovation and Skills (BIS), Government of UK (www.bis.gov.uk).
Deloitte (2007): A Report on Summit on Indian
Manufacturing Competitiveness, by Deloitte
Research, Indian School of Business, New York
University and Purdue University with support
from US National Science Foundation.
Dutz, M A, ed. (2007): Unleashing Indias Innovation:
Towards Sustainable and Inclusive Growth,
World Bank.
Grueber, M and T Studt (2011): 2012 Global R&D
Funding Forecast, Battelle and R&D Magazine
(www.rdmag.com).
Gupta, H (2012): Fourty Years of Innovation in
India, Industrial Products Finder, September,
280-86.
INAE (2012): International Conference towards a
Better Innovative Ecosystem, New Delhi, 20-21
September.
Mashelkar, R A (2011): Re-inventing India (Pune:
Sahayadri Prakasan).
NSF (2012): Science and Engineering Indicators
(www.nsf.gov/ statistics/ indicators/2012).
Ramarao, P (2012): Higher Technical Education in
India: Prospects, Challenges, and the Way
Forward, INAE Silver Jubilee Distinguished
Lecture, New Delhi.
(2013): Higher Technical Education in India:
The Prospects, the Challenges and the Way
Forward, INSA Public Lecture, New Delhi.
Subbarao, E C (1995): Industry-Defined R&D: An
Indian Case Study in S Chandrasekhar (ed.)
Proceedings of International Conference on
Physics and Industrial Development: Bridging the
Gap, Wiley Eastern: 175-85.
(2008): An Eye for Excellence: Fifty Innovative
Years of IIT Kanpur, Harper Collins.
(2013): Indias Higher Engineering Education:
Opportunities and Tough Choices, Current
Science, 104(1): 55-66.
PTI (2013): Indian Companies Top Global Charts
for Investment in R&D, The Times of India,
20 January.
Yadav, V G and G D Yadav (2010): Fuelling the Indian
Education Engine by Retooling Indian Technical
Education, Current Science, 98(11): 1442-57.
UNESCO (2010): UNESCO Science Report 2010,
United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organisation.
93