Economy

The Lackadaisical Position of India on Knowledge Economy Condition of India’s Knowledge Economy

India2 is primarily and agrarian economy, as per the 2018 Economic Survey of India, 50% of India’s Total Workforce is employed in the Agricultural Sector, however this sector only contributes 17 to 18 % of the Country’s GDP (Sunder, 2018). At the same time, India’s network of high-quality educational institutions generates 200,000 professionals in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) based fields, but the economic benefit of this addition is not realised as the employment opportunities for the same are not abundant. i.e., there is a mismatch between the number of Knowledge Makers and Knowledge Takers. The dependence of India’s population on agriculture is a cause for worry as agriculture is sector that is heavily dependent on natural conditions that humans cannot control in an effective manner. Thus, there is a strong reason to shift a portion of the agrarian workforce over to more productive sectors and knowledge economy centric activities. Doing so will: - Reduce dependence on Agriculture Sector

2 The authors propose that a knowledge economy is composed of 3 essential pillars:

1. Knowledge Makers: Those that generate new knowledge

This encompasses universities, think tanks, independent researchers, and other bodies that convert intellectual inputs into intellectual outputs. 2. Knowledge Holders: Those that store, distribute and

disseminate knowledge

This encompasses schools, universities, experts and communities as a whole, people or groups of people that have a large amount of knowledge on specific topics and have the ability to use it as capital.

Knowledge holders also become a point of contact for the next pillar.

3. Knowledge Takers: Those that utilise, purchase or apply existing, or soon to exist knowledge

Commercial Entities, universities and other community members that are willing to exchange knowledge for some monetary amount and then apply it or implement it.

100

Regulatory Sovereignty in India: Indigenizing CompetitionTechnology Approaches, ISAIL-TR-001

- Improve Knowledge Based Sectors - Reallocate Human Capital to more productive sectors The following conditions make India a prime candidate for the development of its knowledge economy (World Bank Finance and Private Sector Development Unit and South Asia Region And the World Bank Institute, 2005): 1. Large Number of skilled, multi-lingual knowledge workers – Especially in STEM Fields 2. One of the largest domestic markets for knowledge in the world a. Presence of entrepreneurial dynamism b. Presence of Start-Up Culture c. Presence of strong financial sector 3. Diverse Population – allowing the creation of valuable knowledge linkages and networks 4. Strong STEM Infrastructure 5. High level of demand for productivity solutions in unproductive fields like Agriculture These pre-existing conditions set the stage for India to boost its power as an influential knowledge economy. While research originating in India is making an impact at the global scale, only a small part of the population is engaged in it.

India’s current education system is highly competitive due to the sheer size of its population, this accompanied with the country’s lack of opportunities creates a rat race in which students are forced to compete. Further the system is plagued by certain biases and unequal status given to different streams and subjects. 1. It glorifies a set of careers that not all individuals are capable of, and are already oversaturated, this results in: - Low quality educational institutions being approved due to the high demand of certain careers and creating varying qualities of graduates across the country - Large number of graduates that cannot find a place to apply their skills properly, resulting in lost potential to contribute to economy and extremely low returns on educational investment

2. There is not an emphasis on the development of essential skills that are important for today 's workspace:

- In 2021, the world is moving more and more towards solution-oriented careers, such as programming, marketing, etc. However, the main skills required to excel in such an economy are not present in the Indian classroom.

Skills like communication, team work and effective resource sharing are not taught and even discouraged due to the high level of competition. - Further, as more and more work move online, India’s education system fails to keep up with the needs of the modern workplace. Basic computer education is a luxury in most schools across the country and those that do provide it are usually out of date or under resourced.

3. There are gaps in the accessibility of education - Universal and compulsory education for all citizens has remained a goal for India since the inception of its constitution, however this goal stands unachieved half a century later. The recent recognition of Education as a fundamental right is a clear reflection of the State’s acknowledgement of this fact. - Government schools set up in several states across India are under staffed or under equipped - There are reports of teachers in government schools being corrupt or inattentive

4. Research based careers in India are making an impact on the world and country but only a small amount of the total population is engaged in research work. - Due to the competition and societal culture in India, students are primed and encouraged to learn in order to earn money instead of learning for learning’s sake (SiliconIndia, 2021). - The glorification of high paying careers has driven hundreds of thousands of students to expensive coaching institutions and universities that specialise in making better workers and exam takers instead of better thinkers, learners and teachers that can contribute to the development of the field (Nanda, 2019; Press Trust of India, 2017).

102

Regulatory Sovereignty in India: Indigenizing CompetitionTechnology Approaches, ISAIL-TR-001

- Further government interference in areas like curriculum design and research approvals have hindered the willingness of PhD Professionals to work in those roles within India. - Students opting for PhDs do not get the returns on the investment of time and money that can be expected from such a degree in other countries (Parishwad, 2019). This results in: o Overqualified employees doing unfulfilling jobs, their economic potential not being achieved o Brain Drain (Citizens moving to other countries in order to better utilise skills)

5. Although there exist top-quality universities in the country like IITs, IIMs and more, regulation and quality assurance is not up to the mark. o Standards should be upheld. These institutions should not be reduced to rubber stamps that only have value within the country (Kalra, 2019) o The curriculum in most universities is designed through long bureaucratic processes which creates a gap between what is being taught and what the world readily needs, o Further, many Indian Universities were designed first by emulating western universities , and the same has continued since then, without optimisation and restructuring to better suit the Indian Context (EPW Engage, 2019).

Knowledge Economy in the age of Disruptive Technologies

New inventions, discoveries and more are occurring on a much larger scale in shorter periods of times. Theoretically, Political Scientists and economists have remarked that the modern economy has seen ‘hockey stick growth’ (that is rapid growth after a period of linear growth). With the rise of disruptive technologies and their application in fields that was previously unheard, many believe that we are the nook of the hockey stick, i.e., our prosperity and progress is about take extremely tight turn towards the ceiling (Wait But Why, 2015). However, it is

important to note that the current revolution is being led by private companies and countries that are outside India. Further, India still does not have strong legislations for issues like intellectual property infringement on the internet, thus having a strong policy to deal with field altering technologies is not expected. Both the issues of India’s lack of meaningful participation in the impending incline of progress, and the inability to pass meaningful legislation stem from the issue of India having a weak knowledge economy.

Effect of Poor knowledge economy in the age of DT

On the development front: As mentioned above, India generates a large number of potential Knowledge Makers every year, however these knowledge makers are either underutilized or leave the country in search of better opportunities. The lack of incentive and emphasis on research but high-quality employees have led to India being renowned for technologically capable citizens, but technologically lacking itself. The development of a domestic knowledge economy will lead to India carving out a better niche for itself. India has been ranked as a promising hub for global innovation in the past, and the development of stronger Knowledge Economy will only cement and support this fact. On the legislative front: In his paper, Roger Brownsword states the following: “Those who have regulatory responsibilities need to be able to think through the regulatory noise to frame questions in the right way and to respond in ways that are rationally defensible and reasonable.” (Brownsword, 2018 p. 1). Legislators cannot form

effective legislations on issues that they do not understand because they do not understand what these technologies can do and how they can impact the Indian society. If reliable, comprehensive and India centric information on these new developments is made available to the policy and decisionmaking bodies then a better, more informed and more comprehensive legislation can be formed for the benefit of India and its position in the rest of the world. The result of poor policy on disruptive technologies will result in citizens either being harmed by, or inefficiently using newer technologies.

104

Regulatory Sovereignty in India: Indigenizing CompetitionTechnology Approaches, ISAIL-TR-001

The issue however does not end with a clear legislation as there needs to be clarity of approach on all 3 fronts towards an issue where disruptive technology is an important asset. This clarity can be achieved through the creation and establishment of a “Regulatory environment” instead of a regulatory document. While this environment will fundamentally be rooted in law and lawmakers it will also require the co-operation of private actors and the citizen body at large. Once again, such an environment will be better served when the members of the environment have the physical and mental tools and infrastructure to balance conflicting interests. The task of providing such tools and infrastructure will fundamentally depend on the knowledge economy.

Analysis of the impact of poor knowledge economy in relation to disruptive technology at 3 different levels

The following analysis will assess the impact of the poor knowledge economy in relation to disruptive technology at 3 different levels: 1. State Level 2. Private Actors 3. Individuals

State level

India has 29 different states that are spread across a vast and varied geographical area. These geographical differences as well as other factors have shaped the development of immensely different cultures, which have led to different positions and abilities to deal with different contemporary issues. Thus, leading a disproportional distribution of knowledge resources throughout the country. While Bengaluru receives international praise for being a Silicon Valley in itself (Saraogi, 2019), cities in Northern India are still under 75% literacy rates (Khurana, 2020). This discrepancy is largely due to the difference in the state’s knowledge economies. While Karnataka has been historically opted for technology-based industry like aerospace and engineering, northern states are more dependent on the agricultural sector. Apart from the obvious economic implications, a lack of a strong knowledge economy can result in detrimental social and legal

outcomes. In her report for the Brookings Institution, advocate Melissa Whitney writes that as AI grows and becomes more and more involved with daily life and affairs, the possibility of legal disputes will rise until it is as normal as human disputes, and because of these reasons it is necessary to equip judges and other judicial bodies (juries, in the context of the report) with the ability to educate themselves as to specifics of never-seen-before technologies. One of the most important suggestions the author focuses on is the incorporation of ‘Technology Tutorials’ (TT) into the court room when judges and juries are tasked with making a decision on a matter arising out of a complex and disruptive technology.

A TT will be a session, seminar or other mode of information dissemination which will help the decision makers understand the technology that has been used, how it has been used and what the matter at hand is. There is a necessity that this information should remain neutral, as any taint on the information will definitely impact the final decision. These TTs can be prerecorded sessions but the author recommends that they be live in order to facilitate the asking and answering of questions by the decision makers to ensure that proper understanding is achieved (Whitney, 2019).

Along with TTs the author also recommends the incorporation of ‘technical advisors’ that can help the court understand an issue that may seem out of its depth. Such advice can be availed through motion by either side of the case or the judge on the bench. A similar system already exists in India, in which the court illicit the help of Amicus Curie, or ‘Friends of the court’.

The need of these elaborate systems to help judicial decision makers learn about these technologies is much larger than ensuring aggrieved parties get justice, but also because the narrative and regulation of future technologies will be formed through the decisions of these courts. This narrative will be fundamental for the future development, adoption and promotion of these technologies. By educating judicial decision makers in these unforeseen realms, the system effectively takes the responsibility of narrative shaping from the hands of the lawyers

106

Regulatory Sovereignty in India: Indigenizing CompetitionTechnology Approaches, ISAIL-TR-001

and into the hands of a more responsible and accountable party. Further, it also reduces the scope of inconsistent and conflicting decisions given by different judges in different states, thus lending the judgements to the individual thought processes of judges. In a country as large as India’s this is a problem that is seen and realised frequently. The major barrier between present day Indian courts and the implementation of these suggestion is the lack of experts that can provide the expertise and information at the scale that is required by the Indian Legal System.

Poor knowledge economies are also inconducive to the nation’s larger strategy of self-reliance and self-sustenance. In order to reach a state of self-reliance India must be able to compete with the outside world, especially in emerging areas such as disruptive technology and knowledge-based assets. Countries that are leading these fields have a ‘head start’ over India because of their existing infrastructures, however merely recreating infrastructures will not be enough, in order to improve the country’s competency there must be increased emphasis on the development of a population that can leverage this infrastructure properly.

Private Actors

Private actors refer to independent bodies that aim to leverage disruptive technologies in the form of goods or services in order to earn a profit. Private actors have greater incentives to invest in R&D because patents and other proprietary rights allow private actors to establish monopolies over their developments. However, Private actors also incur greater risk because, unlike the government, private actors do not have unlimited resources in the form of public revenue, private actors are thus continuously involved in efforts to reduce their investment while getting better returns.

Disadvantage to local knowledge workers and firms

It is important to note here that only those developments can be monopolised that classify as inventive or novel, and therefore the maximum return on R&D investment is obtained when something novel is created. This can only happen through the

efforts of high-quality knowledge makers. In its present condition, private actors in India have incur significant investment to equip knowledge workers with the sufficient skills and knowledge that will enable them to become effective novel knowledge makers. In his book Deep Work, Computer Science researcher Cal Newport writes that in the present age of remote work and the experts-for-hire freelance economy, many businesses may prefer to pay a premium to hire a single person or group of people that can help the business achieve its goals in a shorter period of time, with high quality results, even if the said person or team is located somewhere across the world (Newport, 2016). Thus, the lack of a strong knowledge economy forms a disadvantage to domestic firms and knowledge workers and an advantage to foreign ones.

Creation of ‘knowledge vacuums’

When a disruptive technology is created, but no local firm is able to leverage the technology properly, it creates a disproportionate ratio between demand and supply. While there is always a high demand for disruptive technologies, the lack of appropriate supply will create opportunities for foreign players to bring in their own products and services. This situation can be termed as a knowledge vacuum.

A strong knowledge economy will be able to inform policy makers and other regulators to better regulate newer technologies that are introduced in India, the aim of the regulations should be allow citizens access to those technologies without the technologies posing a risk to the country or its people, and without depriving local firms of the opportunity to compete.

A similar situation was observed in the mid-1900s in regard to the computer company – IBM. IBM held 80% of India’s computer technology market and was thus in a position to regulate the future of the country’s growth and development. IBM was refurbishing old products sold in the USA and other western countries and selling them in India, this put the Indian computer space at a disadvantage. After investigation and the subsequent removal of IBM’s operations in India, there was a group of highly

108

Regulatory Sovereignty in India: Indigenizing CompetitionTechnology Approaches, ISAIL-TR-001

talented computer engineers and operators that helped develop the Indian IT Space further (Sharma, 2011).

Responsibility and accountability

Private actors cannot effectively be held accountable by the users of technology or citizens. Private actors developing disruptive technologies or their implementations have the goal to earn a profit and thus they may not prioritise safety and other measures unless regulated to do so (World Economic Forum, 2020). In the absence of a strong knowledge economy that can be turned to rapidly and accurately review and perceive the implications and effects of a particular type of technology, technologies that are detrimental or inconsistent with the broader national strategy may find their way into India without the proper safeguards and security checks (Sloane, 2015). Also taking into consideration the IBM Example, giving the responsibility of developing a particular field or realm into the hands of private companies may prove detrimental to the country’s overall performance on the same.

Individual

The collection of data by private technology companies has been a hotly debated issue for quite some time now, and the rise of disruptive technologies and their implementation in day-to-day life, like management, healthcare and policy related works has just raised the concerns and apprehensions.

Whether one illicit the goods or services provided by these companies is still an individual choice, however the problem is that a large part of the populace does not understand the implications of the choices they make on the internet and while interacting with these technologies. In such a case a poor knowledge economy has the following implications: 1. What, and how an individual’s data is being used is a subject of concern from the perspective of privacy rights 2. The supreme will of the platform over what goes on the platform may potentially stifle the voices of entitled citizens if not properly governed.

3. The lack of knowledge in the minds of the general population can render them unable to differentiate between beneficial and harmful technologies that they may be required to choose between, and how they can be negatively impacted by the same 4. The lack of knowledge can lead to the lack of safeguards and protections for individuals.

The Need to Indigenize Knowledge Economy

There is an emerging need to have indigenous actors, who develop the curriculum as well as knowledge systems central to Indian needs, and Indian realities. Let us deconstruct and propose what does it really mean: • The need of scholarship and policy salience matters for every country when it comes to their knowledge economy. It defines their overarching risk and order management structures. It also defines their economic, knowledge, legal and other approaches. • India as a civilization has been a key centre in South Asia, when it comes to developing various knowledge systems, through various dissenting and consensus-based schools of philosophy. The contributions of various scholars in the fields of natural sciences, governance, logic, ethics, and warfare especially have had an impressive role to play in the multilingual Indian societies. As a nation-state, the Indian knowledge economy is composite, versatile, and diverse in representation. • Now, the Indic knowledge systems vary in languages and epistemic plus ontological constructs, which shows that embracing cultural heritage by means of skill-based education, and cultural entrepreneurship is needed, to not just foster cultural diplomacy successfully, but also to develop a region and knowledge-centric space for developing more culturally intelligent approaches in various fields, from management sciences to law, to ethics, to commerce, economics, and others. Of course, objective assessments are necessary, and the manoeuvrability of the knowledge proposals must be effectively put on test with an open-ended

110

Regulatory Sovereignty in India: Indigenizing CompetitionTechnology Approaches, ISAIL-TR-001

approach proving pragmatic effectiveness regardless of the un-Indian aspects of the “objective” systems put under challenge. In the domain of competition policy, there are two important perspectives that are required to be understood, when it comes to Indic knowledge systems: 1. Indian competition law’s policy is a mixture of American capitalism – which means the free markets policy of neoliberalism to reduce unnecessary compliances & the Asian model of a big state – where like Japan, China, Singapore,

Republic of Korea etc., India also needs a stronger regulatory regime with much government representation, and accountability. Thus, having a clear anthropomorphic

mosaic of both policies can work, where state-guided markets can work, provided the strategic interest of the governments and courts should be clear – to ensure that entrepreneurship at the level of MSMEs is boosted, with better returns, better redressal mechanisms and freedom to create global supply chains, with a sense of economic

resilience under a legal structure. Of course, flipping should be avoided and any factors that discourage companies from leaving India must be scrutinized in the long run. 2. The second aspect to competition policy comes from estimating how these knowledge proposals from the Indic philosophical and ontological fold, with of course some epistemic basis, be practically transformed into real solutions as knowledge systems. This also has a lot to do with the field of knowledge management, where ventures adopt their strategic approaches to utilize and beyond utilizing – adding value to the knowledge and their biproducts cum precursors and the overarching system(s) of knowledge management in line with their corporate governance policies. The

coherentist nature of the Indian legal system would surely resist. However, in the coming future, it is expected that the submergence of the system into the newly practical Indic knowledge systems (both government-led and decentralized (generally crafted by private actors)) would become possible, once the economic, financial, social and even the rights-centric

backing would turn out to be convincing. That

convenience would take time to counter digital coloniality, which at least in the domain of economy for starters, can fluctuate and impact the digital sources and platforms of income and reputation for the emerging MSMEs and other start-ups. The rights-based approach therefore should be coherent in making economic and ecological imperatives decided through effective dispute resolution mechanisms, which we have tried to cover in the further sections of this report. Self-exploiting the rights-based approach by arbitrarily expanding the scope of constitutional law and competition law principles should be avoided completely. The germination of positive legal notions and principles would have to accept nuances, and be clear with the realities, thereby making their transformation steeper.

112