Latest Analysis

Researchers across the globe often face a dilemma of ambiguity about and inadequacy of funding for their projects. In India too, despite the increase in the overall amount of research funding over the years, it continues to remain insufficient and difficult to utilise by university-based researchers.

Many of these issues point towards the lack of well-defined processes and procedures to capitalise on the country's research funding model. In order to enhance India's overall investment in research, we need to study each component of the Science and technology ecosystem that contributes to the performance of Research & Development (R&D). This report attempts to focus on India’s universities and innovative young minds therein who form the essential staple for the research ecosystem.

The report examines project-based R&D funds received by India’s leading higher education institutions through five major government research funding agencies (DST, DBT, SERB, ICMR, and CSIR) and compares the model with the funding models of top R&D performing countries. It aims to bring to light some of the pressing issues, often ignored, that obstruct the country’s higher education sector from improving its performance in the R&D ecosystem.

The first half of the report, ‘India in spotlight’, deep-dives into the schemes & programs of five of the above-mentioned agencies. A detailed analysis has been undertaken in order to understand their application procedure, selection & eligibility criteria, components (permitted grant utilisation), duration and institutions funded. This is followed by the ‘India vs International Models’ section which provides a cross-country analysis of relevant statistics, the national research funding models for those countries and, provides a nuanced look at the individual traits of research funding across these countries. In addition to India, this section of the report analyses models of seven of the top countries known for their contribution to STEM research, namely Japan, USA, UK, South Korea, China, Germany and Israel.

The report brings forth the latent cry of decades of researchers and scientists in India. It argues that India's research funding model can only produce better results if we tackle the issues of transparency, lack of feedback mechanisms, ambiguous guidelines (both on description of the grant and utilisation of the grant) and have a rigorous monitoring & evaluation process. Significantly, it points towards the lack of consolidated data in the public domain that could be utilised by researchers and civil society to study and produce reports, make recommendations and to understand the higher education sector’s role in R&D. For a country poised to become Atmanirbhar in this decade, periodically publishing granular data and statistical evidence on the R&D contribution of the higher education sector will give the much needed impetus to public participation and private investment in university-based research.

READ FULL TEXT

Street vendors constitute nearly two percent of India’s urban population (Bhowmik 2005). Together vendors play a pivotal role in the urban economy by providing access to essential goods. Until 2014, no national legislation existed to help regularise their informal economy. This often led to rent-seeking actions by local authorities or police officials (Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs 2011).

The Street Vendors Act (hereafter, referred to as The Act), passed in 2014, marked a watershed moment in the fight for the right to dignified livelihoods in India. The Act sought to formalise street vending through a rights-based approach. However, up until 2019, state governments had not implemented the law, effectively rendering it toothless (Centre for Civil Society 2019).

Most street vendors have since continued to face the same hardships and harassment at the hands of the local authorities as they did before. Among them, particularly hard hit are the women street vendors, roughly one million in number. These women do not just bear the burden of economic hardships, but also of gender-based violence and other oppressive social norms (Chakraborty and Ahuja 2021).

With the onset of COVID-19, and in response to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) global call to take “urgent and aggressive action” (WHO 2020), India prepared to curtail a broad gamut of rights in the name of public health safety. However, WHO noted that “countries must strike a fine balance between protecting health, minimizing economic and social disruption, and respecting human rights” (WHO 2020).

To strike this “fine balance”, the powers of the executive must be closely guided and limited. However, empowered by the Parliament, the executive ordered closure of markets, imposition of curfews, and prohibition of movement. These COVID-19 restrictions beset vendors with additional adversities. Already living precarious lives, women vendors, especially, moved closer to poverty and severe economic and social vulnerabilities (Majithia 2020).

This policy brief evaluates the bearing of COVID-19 restrictions on women street vendors. In particular, it outlines: i) the approach adopted by the government to regulate street vending amidst the pandemic; (ii) areas of excesses and its impact on vendors; and iii) international best practices that could guide the government's future approaches in crises.

The National Education Policy 2020 (NEP 2020) was launched in July, 34 years after the last National Education Policy in 1986. It aims to address the country's development imperatives and proposes to revamp the education structure, including education governance. This monograph examines the key reforms pertaining to school education under the NEP 2020. These include extension of the right to education, changes in the medium of instruction, learning assessments and outcomes, early childhood care and education, and strengthening foundational literacy and numeracy. The monograph also sheds light on the proposed regulatory framework for schools and the fee regulation norms. Some of our key insights are listed below.

Expanding the right to education: Though the NEP 2020 takes a progressive step by expanding the ambit of compulsory education, it does so without fully considering the reasons for current pitfalls in compulsory schooling. The policy offers solutions for dropouts without examining the reasons for high dropout rate. It offers to bring in social workers, without outlining a sustainable strategy for their recruitment. Finally, it remains silent on the implementation challenges of Section 12 of the Right to Education Act.

Three-language formula: NEP recommends a three-language formula and provides flexibility to the states. But, it fails to reconcile the need for regional medium instruction with the demand for English medium education. Further, it fails to outline how the needs of micro regions with considerable linguistic diversity within the state would be accomodated.

Education technology: Although the NEP sends a positive signal by acknowledging the need for strengthening education technology, it falls short in providing a concrete ed-tech policy to bridge the digital divide.

Foundational skills and Assessments: The NEP takes a holistic approach to testing and incorporates elements consistent with its vision. It proposes a formative, holistic report card and emphasises that the purpose of standardised tests is the improvement of the school and education system. However, it fails to address the pitfalls that earlier policies faced while implementing holistic report cards in the form of Continuous Comprehensive Evaluation. Further, though the NEP does well by aiming to achieve universal foundational skills at the earliest its reliance on informal ways, such as community volunteers and “each one, teach one”-approach, leave much to be desired.

Early childhood care: The policy hits the mark by including Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) under the ambit of free and compulsory education and emphasising on providing opportunities for early learning. However it ignores the Nurturing-care framework, fails to treat early childhood care as a set of goals that necessitate a separate program, and does not sufficiently engage with other dimensions of strong ECCE support (such as responsive caregiving, and safety and security).

Regulatory framework for schools: The policy has taken big steps towards a progressive regulatory regime. The decision to separate the regulatory and provisionary functions of the government is a welcome move. It will aid in creating a level playing field for the private sector and hold the system accountable to improve.

Fee regulation: The policy does not go far enough and abolish fee regulation mechanisms. Fee controls keep the prices artificially low and incentivise schools to seek regulation instead of competition, thereby discouraging innovation.

Overall, the NEP 2020 has made considerable strides with what it wants to achieve as well as governance reforms. However, the policy does not sufficiently outline specific challenges it would have to overcome to meet its target or how it would sustainably finance the interventions.

READ THE FULL TEXT IN ENGLISH OR READ THE FULL TEXT IN HINDI