Evolution of Science Technology and Innovation policies of India: Assessing the role of the domestic and international milieu

Abstract

Science, technology, and innovation (STI) policies are crucial for addressing a nation’s anguishes and aspirations. In today’s era, countries worldwide recognize the significance of innovation for their economic survival. With aspirations to be a global power in innovation, India has emphasized incubation, innovation, startup ecosystems, and triple helix linkages. This paper examines the evolution of India’s STI policies, highlighting the influence of domestic and international events on their development. The study focuses on three policy types: direct innovation policies, five-year plans, and national-level educational policies, to trace the milestones in India’s policy journey. The authors conclude that changes in the domestic and international landscape significantly impact a nation’s STI policies, as exemplified by India. The recent Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy of India 2020 draft reflects an effort to adapt to the evolving global scenario.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Table 1. Features of technology policy statement-1983.

Table 2. Aims and visions of Science and Technology Policy 2003.

Table 3. Features of 2013 STIP.

Table 4. Science Technology Innovation Policy 2020 draft important provisions.

Notes

1 Bengt-Åke Lundvall and Susana Borrás, “Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy,” in The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, edited by Jan Fagerberg, David C. Mowery, and Richard R. Nelson, 1st ed. (Oxford: University Press, 2005), 599–631.

2 Cristina Chaminade and Bengt-Åke Lundvall, “Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy: Old Patterns and New Challenges,” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management, (May 2019), doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.179.

3 Joseph A. Schumpeter, The Theory of Economic Development: An Enquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle, 1st ed. (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1934).

4 Jorge Niosi, “Building National and Regional Innovation Systems: Institutions for Economic Development,” Science and Public Policy 40, no. 2 (2013): 279–80.

5 Jorge Niosi, “Rethinking Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) Institutions in Developing Countries.” Innovation-Management Policy & Practice 12, no. 3 (2010): 250–68.

6 Paul A. Sabatier and Hank C. Jenkins Smith, “The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Assessment,” In Theories of the Policy Process, edited by Paul A. Sabatier, 1st ed. (Westview Press, 1998), 117–66.

7 Jorge Niosi, Innovation Systems, Policy and Management (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2018).

8 Jan Fagerberg, “Innovation Policy: Rationales, Lessons And Challenges.” Journal of Economic Surveys 31, no. 2 (May 2016), doi:10.1111/joes.12164.

9 Franco Malerba, “Moving Forward in Sectoral Systems Research: Taxonomies, Evolution and Modelling,” In Innovation Policy and Innovation Systems, edited by Jorge Niosi (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 27–52.

10 Jakob Edler and Jan Fagerberg, “Innovation Policy: What, Why, and How,” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 33, no. 1 (2017): 2–23.

11 Bengt-Åke Lundvall, National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovationand Interactive Learning (London: Pinter Publishers, 1992).

12 Roy Rothwell and Walter Zegveld, Innovation and the Small and Medium Sized Firm: Their Role in Employment and in Economic Change (London: PinterEBooks, 1982), https://publications.tno.nl/publication/34616267/cPTXOL/rothwell-1982-innovation.pdf (accessed December 11, 2022).

13 Lundvall and Borrás, “Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy,” 599–631.

14 Ibid.

15 Jan Fagerberg and Bart Verspagen, “Innovation Studies—The Emerging Structure of a New Scientific Field,” Research Policy 38, no. 2 (2009): 218–33.

16 Lundvall and Borrás, “Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy,” 599–631.

17 Ruud Smits and Stefan Kuhlmann, “A System-Evolutionary Approach for Innovation Policy.” In The Theory and Practice of Innovation Policy, edited by Ruud E. Smits, Stefan Kuhlmann, and Philip Shapira (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2010), 417–48.

18 Chaminade and Lundvall, “Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy,” 2019.

19 Ibid.

20 Adam B. Jaffe and Benjamin F. Jones, The Changing Frontier: Rethinking Science and Innovation Policy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015).

21 Lundvall and Borrás, “Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy,” 599–631.

22 Niosi, “Rethinking Science,” 254.

23 Chaminade and Lundvall, “Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy,” 2019.

24 Clemens Blümel, “Innovations in Innovation Policy: Reconstructing the Emergence, Legitimation and Dynamics of Cluster Policies in Germany,” Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 34, no. 4 (2020): 533–59.

25 Lundvall and Borrás, “Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy,” 599–631.

26 Chaminade and Lundvall, “Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy,” 2019.

27 Philip Shapira, Jan Youtie, and Luciano Kay. “National Innovation Systems and the Globalization of Nanotechnology Innovation,” The Journal of Technology Transfer 36, no. 6 (2011): 587–604.

28 Ibid.

29 Arun Teja Polucumpally, “Science and Technology Policy of France and Germany,” ResearchGate, last modified February 8 2021, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.14402.09925 (accessed November 15, 2022).

30 Venni Venkata Krishna, “Scientific Communities in the Developing World: A Portrait of the Scientific Community,” In India: Historical Growth and Contemporary Problems, edited by Venni Venkata Krishna, Roland Waast, and Jacques Gaillard (Delhi: Sage Publications India, 1997), 11–52.

31 Swapan Kumar Patra and Mammo Muchie. “Science in Pre-Independent India: A Scientometric Perspective,” Annals of Library and Information Studies 64, no. 2 (2017): 125–36.

32 Krishna, “Scientific Communities in the Developing World,” 1997.

33 “Science Policy Resolution 1958,” Government of India, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiarvqhz6GAAxVyxzgGHXicCg8QFnoECB0QAQ&url=https%3A//indiabioscience.org/media/articles/SPR-1958.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3Ds9CCBihfCDgqu20DEVzG&opi=89978449 (accessed December 2, 2022).

34 “Technology Policy Statement 1983,” Government of India, https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAIQw7AJahcKEwj4tuKm0KGAAxUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A//thesciencepolicyforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/tpS-1983.pdf&psig=AOvVaw2OKjolPZVIoqQOdwIiByW4&ust=1690091851637959&opi=89978449 (accessed November 18, 2022).

35 Aditya Kaushik, B. Chagun Basha, and Lakshmi Ganesan, “Science Technology and Innovation (STI) Policies in India: A Flashback.” IndiaBioscience, last modified January 2, 2020, https://indiabioscience.org/columns/indian-scenario/science-technology-and-innovation-sti-policies-in-india-a-flashback (accessed November 20, 2022).

36 Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, “Science and Technology Policy 2003,” last modified 2003, https://www.india.gov.in/science-and-technology-policy-2003-department-science-and-technology (accessed October 19, 2022).

37 Department of Science & Technology (DST), Government of India, “Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy 2013,” https://dst.gov.in/sites/default/files/STI%20Policy%202013-English.pdf (accessed December 10, 2022).

38 Ibid.

39 Planning Commission, “The First Five Year Plan 1951-1956,” Government of India, last modified 1951, http://14.139.60.153/bitstream/123456789/7205/1/The%20First%20five%20year%2.plan%20a%20draft%20outline%20Planning%20commission%20July%201951%20.SL-IO016212.pdf (accessed September 9, 2022).

40 Planning Commission, “The Fifth Five Year Plan 1974-1979,” Government of India, last modified 1974, http://14.139.60.153/bitstream/123456789/327/1/PlanReport%20of%20the%20Fifth%20Five%20Year%20Plan%20197479%2C%20Govt%20of%20India%20Planning%20Commission%2C%20D00655.pdf (accessed September 11, 2022).

41 Planning Commission, “The Sixth Five Year Plan 1980-1985,” Government of India, last modified 1980, https://business.mapsofindia.com/india-planning/sixth-five-year.html (accessed September 11, 2022).

42 Planning Commission, “The Eighth Five Year Plan 1992-1997,” Government of India, last modified 1992, http://14.139.60.153/bitstream/123456789/2056/1/EIGHTH%20FIVE%20YEAR%2.PLA %201992-97_D-7346.pdf (accessed September 8, 2021); Planning Commission, “The Ninth Five Year Plan 1997-2002,” Government of India, last modified 1997, http://14.139.60.153/bitstream/123456789/959/1/Approach%20paper%20to%209th.20five 20year%20plan%20%281997-2002%29.pdf (accessed September 15, 2022).

43 Planning Commission, “The Tenth Five Year Plan 2002-2007,” Government of India, last modified 2002, https://megplanning.gov.in/plan/tenplan/2002-07/gi/4.pdf (accessed September 17, 2022).

44 Bhawna Bawa, “Kothari Education Commission (1964-66),” Your Article Library, last modified March 10, 2016, https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/education/kothari-education-commission-1964-66/76816 (accessed September 30, 2022).

45 “National Policy on Education 1968,” Ministry of Education, Government of India, https://www.education.gov.in/en/national-policy-education-1968 (accessed September 17, 2022).

46 “National Policy on Education 1986,” MHRD, Government of India, last modified 1986, https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/upload_document/npe.pdf (accessed November 5, 2022).

47 “National Education Policy 2020,” MHRD, Government of India, last modified 2020, https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/NEP_Final_English_0.pdf?ltclid (accessed November 22, 2022).

48 Ibid.

49 Ibid.

50 “Science Policy Resolution 1958,” https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiarvqhz6GAAxVyxzgGHXicCg8QFnoECB0QAQ&url=https%3A//indiabioscience.org/media/articles/SPR-1958.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3Ds9CCBihfCDgqu20DEVzG&opi=89978449.

51 Ramachandra Guha. “Gandhi and Science,” The Telegraph, 4 February 2006, https://ramachandraguha.in/archives/gandhi-and-science-the-telegraph.html (accessed August 28, 2022).

52 Tenzin Ngawang, Naresh Singh, and Namesh Killemsetty, “Analyzing India’s Science and Technology Policy – A Comparative Perspective,” Jindal Journal of Public Policy 6, no. II (2022): 28–41.

53 Goutam Das. “At 0.7% of GDP, India’s R&D Expenditure in Science Is Less than BRIC Nations.” Business Today, November 22, 2019, https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/world/story/india-gdp-randd-expenditure-in-%20science-is-less-than-bric-nations-239968-2019-11-22 (accessed August 17, 2022).

54 Anu Unny,”Historical Narrative of India’s STI Journey: Challenges and Opportunities,” Journal of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy 6(1) (2021): 16–23.

55 G. D. Sandhya, “India’s Science, Technology and Innovation Policy: Choices for Course Correction with Lessons Learned from China,” STI Policy and Management Journal 3, no. 1 (2018), doi:10.14203/stipm.2018.131.

56 Taeyoung Park and Junyun Kim, “Innovation Policy in Asia” (Asian Development Outlook 2020, Seoul, 2020), https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-document/575671/ado2020bp-innovation-policy-asia.pdf (accessed October 20, 2022).

57 Kaushik, Chagun Basha, and Ganesan, “Science Technology and Innovation.”

58 Department of Science & Technology (DST), Government of India, “Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy 2013.”

59 Ngawang, Singh, and Killemsetty,” Analyzing India’s Science and Technology Policy,” 28–41

60 The draft of new STIP was published in 2020 and even after three years, it has not been approved by the Parliament of India.

61 Department of Science & Technology (DST), Government of India, “Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy 2020,” last modified 2020, https://dst.gov.in/sites/default/files/STIP_Doc_1.4_Dec2020.pdf (accessed October 17, 2022).

62 Ibid., 6.

63 “About Open Science,” UNESCO, last modified November 2021, https://www.unesco.org/en/natural-sciences/open-science (accessed November 20, 2022).

64 Heidemarie Hanekop, “Wandel Des Wissenschaftlichen Publikationssystems Durch Das WWW? Die Wirkung Wissenschaftlicher Suchportale Und Suchmaschinen,” Kommunikation @ Gesellschaft 15 (2014): 28. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-378492.

65 “About Open Science,” https://www.unesco.org/en/natural-sciences/open-science.

66 Department of Science & Technology (DST), Government of India, “Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy 2020.”

67 Ibid.

68 Brendan Galbraith, Rodney McAdam, Judith Woods, and Theresa McGowan, “Putting Policy into Practice: An Exploratory Study of SME Innovation Support in a Peripheral UK Region,” Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 29, no. 7–8 (2017): 668–91.

69 Gee Abraham, “The Importance of Science Communication,” Metallography, Microstructure, and Analysis 9, no. 1 (2020): 3–4.

70 Pierre-Bruno Ruffini, “Science and Diplomacy – A New Dimension of International Relations,” ResearchGate, last modified 2017, https://hal-normandie-univ.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-0297 (accessed November 27, 2022).

71 Department of Science & Technology (DST), Government of India, “Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy 2020,” last modified 2020, https://dst.gov.in/sites/default/files/STIP_ Doc_1.4_Dec2020.pdf (accessed October 17, 2022).

72 Lundvall and Borrás, “Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy,” 599–631.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jeffin Thomas Mammen

Jeffin Thomas Mammen ([email protected]) is a research scholar, Department of Political Science, University of Kerala, Trivandrum.

Nirupama A. K.

Nirupama A.K. ([email protected], [email protected]) is a research scholar, Department of Political Science, University of Kerala, Trivandrum.