 and amidst mixed messages about the country’s 2015 economic prospects after a disappointing 2014, discussions have focused on governance failings in typical areas such as corruption, bureaucratic inefficiency, the growing infrastructure deficit, and an underperforming education and academic research sector. Some analysts argue that a burdensome corporate tax rate (falling from 30 percent to 25 percent under the new budget) and inadequate fiscal incentives are discouraging investment and innovation. Others cite intellectual property protection as a key condition for innovation. Strikingly, India ranked 29 out of 30 countries (ahead of only Thailand) in the 2015 Global Intellectual Property Center index, which measures commitment to innovation via IP protection efforts. India ranked last in the two prior years.

Such an array of causes for India’s economic woes would bewilder even the most seasoned policymaker. How, then, can these causes be specified and linked to policy remedies, particularly in the innovation-driven global economy? Prominent Indian businessman Satish Reddy recently bemoaned that the latest budget makes only modest appropriations for innovation. By contrast, infrastructure spending is slated to increase, with a more robust focus on public-private partnerships. Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) scientist Prakash Mujumdar argues that India’s efforts to boost innovation should include expanding broadband infrastructure, encouraging more students to pursue science-related fields, and fostering a culture of experimentation.

Mujumdar’s last point is a critical factor distinguishing innovation-poor countries from innovation-rich countries. The latter provide a possible roadmap for India’s development, but the synergies of multi-faceted policy interventions are elusive without systemic cultural reform at both the organizational and individual levels. Such innovative cultures are already present in many developed countries, and India can realistically aspire to similar.

A common policy trap involves capital therapy, namely the assumption that additional money will successfully address challenges. For example, V K Saraswat, member of the Indian think tank NITI Aayog, identifies R&D spending as a key factor in India’s pursuit of growth. Yet R&D spending in India has grown by double-digit percentage points in recent years while innovative capacity lags. This highlights a glaring disconnect. Innovation is not a metric in which one country or firm can simply out-spend the other. While technology, infrastructure, and governance are necessary for innovation, the global competitive environment cannot be reduced to a military-style arms race. Innovation is about
and amidst mixed messages about the country ’s 2015 economic prospects after a disappointing 2014, discussion have concenter on governance failings in typical area such as corruption, bureaucratic inefficiency, the growing infrastructure deficit, and an underperforming department of education and academic research sector. Some analysts argue that a burdensome corporate tax pace (fall from 30 percent to 25 percentage under the new budget) and inadequate fiscal incentives are discouraging investment and initiation. Others cite intellectual property protection as a key circumstance for innovation. Strikingly, India ranked 29 out of 30 countries (ahead of entirely Thailand) in the 2015 Global Intellectual Property Center index, which measures committedness to innovation via IP security efforts. India rate last in the two prior years. 

 Such an array of causes for India ’s economic woe would bewilder even the most seasoned policymaker. How, then, can these causes be specified and linked to policy redress, particularly in the innovation - driven global economy? Prominent Indian businessman Satish Reddy recently bemoaned that the latest budget makes only modest appropriation for innovation. By contrast, infrastructure outgo is slate to increase, with a more full-bodied focus on public - private partnerships. Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) scientist Prakash Mujumdar argues that India ’s efforts to boost innovation should include extend broadband infrastructure, encouraging more students to pursue science - related fields, and foster a culture of experimentation. 

 Mujumdar ’s last point is a critical agent distinguishing invention - poor countries from innovation - rich countries. The latter leave a possible roadmap for India ’s development, but the synergies of multi - faceted policy interposition are elusive without systemic cultural reform at both the organizational and individual levels. Such innovative cultures are already present in many develop nation, and India can realistically aspire to alike. 

 A common policy ambush involves das kapital therapy, namely the assumption that additional money will successfully cover challenges. For example, V K Saraswat, member of the Indian think tank NITI Aayog, identifies R&D outgo as a key factor in India ’s pursuit of emergence. Yet R&D spending in India has grown by double - digit percentage point in recent years while advanced capacity lags. This highlights a glaring disconnect. Innovation is not a metric in which one area or firm can simply out - spend the other. While technology, infrastructure, and governance are necessary for innovation, the global competitive environment cannot be reduce to a military - style arms race. Innovation is about
 anf amidst mixed messages xbout the countty’w 2015 ecoiomic pdospects after a disappointing 2014, discnssiins hqve focused on governavce failijgs in ttpicel areas such as corruptljn, bhveaucxavic inefficienci, the growinc infrastructuse dzficit, and an underperforming educatyon and afademic researsh stctjr. Skme analysts argue that a burdensoje corpmrate tax ratr (falling from 30 percent to 25 pegcent under the nea budget) ane inweequate fiscxl incentinzs are disckuraging investment and innovatkon. Ochers cite unrelpgctual propecty prjtection as a key cotdition for innovatiok. Strmkintly, India ranked 29 out of 30 countries (ahewd of onlf Chailand) in the 2015 Globql Intenlecdual Prooeruy Renfer infex, which meaaures commirment to innovation vyq IP protectikn effjres. India ranked last in the two prior ytars.

Shch an array of causes dor India’s economic wles would bewilder even the most seasoned policymaker. How, dhen, rav tkcfd cwuses be specified and linked to policy remedyss, psrticularly in the innovayiln-ctiven global ezonomy? Prkminent Indian buslnessmag Satush Reddy recrntly bemoaned that the latwst budget mckew only modest apprlpriations yor inmovatoon. By contrast, infrastxucturs spending ls slated go increase, with a kose robusu focus on public-pwivate pactnerxhips. Ivdiam Spacq Research Orgakhsation (ISRO) scienhist Krakasv Mujumdar argues that India’s efforts to upost innovatoot svould inelude cxpanding broadfand infrastrueture, eneouragkng more snudents tm pursue scyence-related xlelds, and fovtering w cuoturw of exodrimentation.

Mukumdar’s lcft piint is a critical fazfor distinguishnug innovation-poor cojntwivs hrom ytnovation-ricv cojntfoes. Tfe latttx pvovkde s possible roadmap fmr Ihdia’s development, nub the syngrgies of multi-faceted policy interventilns ace elurive eitrout systemic cultural reform zt both tje jrganizationwl akd igdividual kevels. Such innovative cultures are alrxady present in many dgveloped countries, anb Lndia can reelistisally asphre to similar.

A commin policy trap inyolves capital therapy, namelf the assumption that additional money will successfully address challenges. Foe exam'lq, V K Sarassat, kembeg oy tke Indiwn tiiik tank NITI Aayob, identifies R&D spending as a kxy factor hn India’s pursuit of growth. Yey F&D spending iv India has grown by dougle-digit percentage points in recent yesrs while innovative capscity lats. Thjs highligits a glaring disconmect. Iunovatuon is bot w metric in wficn lne countgy oc fnrm can simply out-spend the other. While tfchnology, infrasvructure, and novernznce ate necessary for jnnobwtion, the global cpmpetitive envoronment cannot be rvdused to a militqgy-style arms tace. Innmvation is auout
and amidst mixed messages about the country’s prospects a disappointing discussions have focused areas as corruption, bureaucratic the growing infrastructure and an underperforming education and academic sector. Some analysts argue that a burdensome corporate tax rate (falling from 30 to 25 percent under the new budget) and inadequate fiscal incentives are discouraging and Others intellectual protection as a key condition for innovation. Strikingly, India ranked 29 out of 30 countries (ahead only Thailand) in the 2015 Global Intellectual Property index, which measures commitment innovation via IP protection efforts. ranked in the prior Such array of causes India’s economic woes would bewilder even the most seasoned policymaker. How, then, can these causes be specified linked to particularly in innovation-driven economy? Indian businessman Satish bemoaned that the latest budget makes for innovation. By contrast, infrastructure spending is slated increase, with more robust focus on public-private partnerships. Space Research Organisation (ISRO) scientist Prakash Mujumdar argues India’s efforts to boost innovation should include expanding broadband infrastructure, encouraging more students to pursue and fostering a culture experimentation. Mujumdar’s last is critical distinguishing countries from countries. The latter provide a possible roadmap for India’s development, but synergies of multi-faceted policy interventions are elusive without systemic cultural both organizational and individual Such innovative cultures are present many developed countries, and realistically to policy involves therapy, namely the assumption additional money will successfully address For example, V K think tank NITI Aayog, identifies R&D spending as key factor in India’s pursuit of growth. R&D spending in India has grown by double-digit percentage points in recent while innovative This highlights a glaring disconnect. Innovation is not metric in which one or firm can simply out-spend the other. While technology, and are necessary innovation, the global environment cannot be to a military-style Innovation is
 and amidst mixed messages aboUt the countRy’s 2015 ecOnoMic PrOspeCts aFter a disappoinTIng 2014, dIscussions have focused oN goveRnANce fAIlIngs iN typicaL ArEAS suCh As CorRuPTiOn, burEauCratic iNefficiencY, thE gRowing infrasTRuCture deficIt, aNd an underperForMing edUcAtiON and aCadEmic rEsearcH Sector. some analyStS Argue tHAt a burdENSoMe coRporate tax rate (falLInG From 30 percent to 25 pErcent UnDEr THE neW buDget) and inaDeQuate FIscal inCEnTIVEs aRE discouraging Investment aND inNovatiOn. othERs cite IntelLeCTuaL property prOtecTion as a keY condiTIon for iNNovatioN. StrikIngLy, INdia RAnKeD 29 ouT oF 30 CouNTrIes (AHeaD of only THaIlAnd) in The 2015 GLOBAL IntEllEctuAl ProPerty Center inDex, WhicH MeaSures CommiTmenT tO innoVation Via IP PrOtection efforts. indiA ranked laSt iN tHe tWo Prior YEars.

SuCh aN arRay of caUses for iNdiA’s ECONoMic woes would bewildEr EVEn The most sEasoneD PoLiCYmaker. HoW, tHen, Can tHESe cauSes bE SpEcified aNd linkED tO pOlicy reMeDies, paRtIcuLarLy in tHE innOvatioN-driven gLobal EConomy? ProminenT indian businesSMaN sAtISh ReDdy Recently bemOaneD That The lATeSt bUDget mAkes oNlY MoDEst appropriations foR iNnovatIon. By Contrast, infraStructure sPENDing is slAted TO iNCrease, with a morE robuSt focus on pUBlic-privAte paRtnershiPs. Indian SPACe ResearCh ORgaNisAtiON (iSrO) scientist PrAKAsh MUjUmdar arGueS that InDia’S efForTs tO bOost innovAtion shoUlD iNcLuDe eXpandINg broadbAnD inFrAstRuctuRE, encouRaginG morE sTuDEntS to pursUE sCIEnce-ReLaTed fIelDs, And foSterINg a Culture Of experimEntATion.

muJuMdar’s laSt point is a criTiCal factor dIsTinGuishiNG InnovatiOn-poor countries from innoVAtion-riCh cOuntrIes. THe latter pRovIde a poSsiBLe roadMap for india’S dEveLOPment, BUT tHe sYnErgies of muLTI-faCeted PoLicy InterveNtions are elusive wiTHouT systemic cultUraL refORM aT boTH tHE orGaNIzaTIOnal and individuAl levels. SuCh INnOvative culTUreS aRe alreaDy preseNt in mANy develOped countRies, and InDiA can REAliStically asPire to siMilar.

A comMOn polICy Trap iNvoLves caPiTal TheraPy, nameLY thE assuMption ThAt addiTionaL mOney will Successfully address chalLenges. for exAmpLe, V K SarasWat, MEmbEr of the InDian Think tank NiTI aayOg, ideNtiFIes R&D SpenDInG as A Key faCtor IN India’s puRSuIt oF GRoWth. Yet R&D speNDINg iN IndiA haS Grown bY douBle-digit percentagE Points in recent YearS WHilE inNOvatIvE capacity lags. THis HiGHLights a gLaRing disconnEct. InnovAtIOn is nOt a metRic in wHich one COUnTRy or fiRm caN siMply out-spEnd ThE Other. WhIlE tEChnoloGy, inFrAstrucTure, anD GoveRNAnce are necessary For inNOVatioN, The GlobaL cOmpetitIVe enVironment cAnnot be reduCed to a MiliTary-sTyle armS rAce. InnOvaTiOn is about
 and amidst mixed messages  about the  coun try ’s20 15 e cono mic prospectsa fter  a disappointing 2014,  disc us s ions ha ve fo cused o n  g o v ern an ce  fa il i ng s intyp ical ar eas such a s c or ruption, bur e au cratic ine ffi ciency, thegro wing i nf ras t ructu redefic it, an d  an un derperfor mi n g educ a tion an d ac adem ic research secto r .S ome analysts a rgue t ha t  a b urd ens ome corpor at e tax rate (f a ll i n g  fr o m 30 percentto 25 perce n t u nder t he  ne w  budge t) an di nad equate fisc al i ncentives  are d i scourag i ng inve stment  an d i nnov a ti on . O th e rsc it e i n tel lectualpr op ertyprot e c t i on a s a  key  cond ition for inn ova tion .  St rikin gly,Indi aranke d 29 o ut of  3 0 countries (ah eadof only T hai la nd)  i n the 2015 G lob alIntelle ctual P r ope rt y C en ter index, which m ea s u re s commit ment t o  i nn o vation v ia  IP  pro t e ction  eff o rt s. India  ranke d  l as t in th etwo pr io r y ear s.

S u ch a n arra y of cau ses f o r India’s econ o mic woes woul d  b e w il d er e ven  the most s easo n ed p olic y ma ker .  How,  then ,c an these causes be spe ci fied a nd li nked to polic y remedies , p articula rlyi nt he innovation- drive n global e c onomy? P romin ent Indi an busine s s man Sati shRed dyrec e n tl y bemoaned th a t  the  l atest b udg et make s o nly  mo des tappropria tions fo rin no va tio n. By contrast ,inf ra str uctur e  spend ing i s sl at ed toincreas e ,w i th a  m or e ro bus tfocus  onp ubl ic-priv ate partn ers h ips.  I nd ian Spa ce Research O rg anisation(I SRO ) scie n t ist Prak ash Mujumdar argues tha t  India’ s e ffort s to  boost in nov ationsho u ld inc lude e xpand in g b r o adban d in fra st ructure, e n c our aging  m orestudent s to pursue scienc e -re lated fields,  an d fo s t er ing ac ult ur e  of e xperimentation. 

Mujumdar ’s la st point i s  acr iticalfactordisti n guishin g innovat ion-poorco untr i e s f rom innova tion-ric h countri e s. Th e  l atter  pr ovideapos sible  roadm a p f or In dia’sde velopm ent,bu t the sy nergies of multi-facete d poli cy in ter ventionsare elu sive with outsystemic c ult ura l ref orm at bo th t h eorg a nizat iona l  and indi v id ual l ev els. Such i n n o vat ive c ult u res ar e al ready present inm any developedcoun t r ies , a n d In di a can realisti cal ly a spire to  s imilar.

Acommon p ol i cy tr ap inv olvescapital t he r apy, n amel y t he assump tio nt hat add it io n al mon ey w il l succ essful l y ad d r ess challenges.For e x a mple, V K  Sara sw at, mem b er o f the Indi an think ta nk NIT I Aa yog,identif ie s R&Dspe nd ing as a k e y factorin In dia’s p ur suit  of  growt h. Y e t  R&Dspen di ngin Indiah a sg ro wn bydoub le-di gi t pe rcentagep oints in  re c ent yea rs  wh i l e inno v at i v e capacity  la gs. T h i s highligh t s ag la r ing d isconn ect. I nnovati o n i snot a m etr i c  in which  one coun t ryor  fir m can si mp ly o ut -sp en d the other. Wh ile tech nology,i n frastr uct u re,a nd gov er nance are ne cessa ry for inn o v ati on, the glo bal  co mpet iti ve e n vironment cannot be redu cedto am ili tary- style  a rms race .  Inn ovationi s about
 and_amidst mixed_messages about the country’s_2015 economic_prospects_after a_disappointing_2014, discussions have_focused on governance_failings in typical areas_such as corruption,_bureaucratic_inefficiency, the growing infrastructure deficit, and an underperforming education and academic research sector. Some_analysts_argue that_a_burdensome_corporate tax rate (falling from_30 percent to 25 percent_under the_new budget) and inadequate fiscal incentives are discouraging_investment_and innovation. Others_cite intellectual property protection as a key condition for_innovation. Strikingly, India ranked 29 out_of 30 countries_(ahead_of_only Thailand) in the_2015 Global Intellectual Property Center index,_which measures commitment to innovation via_IP protection efforts. India ranked last in_the two prior years.

Such an array_of causes for India’s economic_woes would_bewilder even the most seasoned_policymaker. How, then,_can these_causes be specified_and linked to policy remedies, particularly_in the innovation-driven_global economy? Prominent Indian businessman Satish_Reddy_recently bemoaned that_the_latest_budget makes_only modest appropriations_for_innovation. By_contrast,_infrastructure spending is slated to increase,_with_a more robust focus on public-private partnerships._Indian Space Research Organisation_(ISRO)_scientist Prakash Mujumdar argues_that India’s efforts to boost_innovation should include expanding broadband infrastructure,_encouraging more_students to_pursue science-related fields, and fostering a culture of experimentation.

Mujumdar’s last point_is a critical factor distinguishing innovation-poor_countries from innovation-rich countries._The latter_provide_a possible roadmap_for_India’s development,_but the synergies of multi-faceted policy interventions_are elusive_without systemic cultural reform at both_the organizational and individual_levels._Such innovative cultures are already present_in many developed countries, and India_can realistically aspire to similar.

A_common_policy_trap involves capital therapy, namely_the assumption that additional money will_successfully address challenges._For example, V K Saraswat, member of_the_Indian think tank NITI Aayog, identifies_R&D_spending as a key factor in_India’s_pursuit_of growth. Yet R&D spending_in India has grown by double-digit_percentage points in recent years while innovative capacity lags._This highlights a_glaring disconnect. Innovation is not_a_metric_in which one country or firm can simply out-spend the_other. While_technology, infrastructure, and_governance are necessary for innovation, the global competitive environment cannot_be reduced to a military-style arms race._Innovation is about