India's Story of Success
Promoting
the Information Technology Industry
India, a nation of over one billion people, has long been working toward a strategy of development. Plagued by problems of poverty, overcrowding, and poor healthcare, the country has a per capita income just one-tenth of countries in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).1 Amidst this seemingly dismal situation, however, a glimmer of hope has emerged in the last decade a new industry that, some say, will transform India into a global superpower. This industry, known as Information Technology or more commonly as IT, has given birth to the skyscrapers now anchoring the skylines in cities like Hyderabad and Bangalore. IT has exploded in India, becoming one of the largest sectors of the Indian economy. IT output, once estimated at $50 million in 1990-1991,2 is projected to reach $50 billion by 2008 if the American economy returns to its past levels.3 These figures are dependent upon America’s economy because the main source of India’s budding prosperity is the outsourcing of jobs in information technology from the United States to India. Outsourcing and offshoring are synonyms that refer to the substitution of foreign for domestic labor. Companies in the offshoring country benefit because of lower labor costs and companies in the destination country benefit from the economic boom caused by new industries. Because outsourcing holds the opportunity to advance goals of development through economic growth, India has aggressively pursued policies to encourage the IT industry.
The dramatic increase in the size of the industry over the last decade is not merely coincidental. While factors like the skilled Indian workforce arguably would have attracted American corporations to the country eventually, growth on a scale like that which has occurred in India would have been nearly impossible without involvement from national institutions. Lacking promotion from the Indian government, the IT industry could not have grabbed a foothold in India. If India’s example can be replicated, other developing countries facing similar conditions may be able to copy the Indian government’s initiatives to promote their own development goals.
The question then prompted is: what specific policies has the Indian government undertaken to promote outsourcing in the IT industry? In this paper, I argue that the Indian government has identified and tried to harness the resources in three segments to encourage the industry: an integrated science and technology bureaucracy to coordinate government administration; software technology parks to encourage cooperation between government, business, and universities; and a set of policies that exploit connections with the successful Indian diaspora. By incorporating these three strategies into national policy, India has been able to reap the economic benefits of the IT industry.
The paper first explores the background behind India’s IT industry and offers definitions relevant to the case. Each of the three subsequent sections highlights one of the policies outlined above and describes how it has specifically helped promote the IT industry. To conclude, I generalize about the implications of my research on both India and other developing countries and suggest further directions for inquiry.
Background and Data
The history of India’s development in IT begins with the story of a national-turned-international enterprise. Various cities in the United States have taken their turn as the heart of the computing industry as its constituent parts evolved: mainframe, minicomputing, and finally the personal computer. After New York and Boston played host to the industry, Silicon Valley took over in the mid-1980s. As the IT industry expanded, it followed in the footsteps of the manufacturing industry and began to look for low-cost labor overseas. The two branches of computing relevant to this discussion are hardware and software, both of which American companies looked to produce offshore. Hardware is defined as “the mechanical, magnetic, electronic, and electrical devices which make up a computer, while software is the instructions, programs, or suite of programs which are used to direct the operations of a computer or other hardware.”4 While producing hardware in the 1980s was part of the manufacturing sector, the high technology jobs of the 1990s and present require a sophisticated enough skill set to write software and maintain computer systems. Only a few select countries have a ready supply of workers who are both technically trained and proficient in English to accept the opportunity American companies offer. For such reasons, China, Russia, and Vietnam are also prime locations; India, however, by far has become the leader of what has come to be known as the “outsourcing” revolution, as it captures a commanding 70% of the total spending on outsourcing.5
Outsourcing has been defined by two types of activities: (1) foreign companies launching “liaison, project, or branch” offices in India that retain the name of the founding corporation; and (2) foreign companies contracting out stages of their production processes to already-formed Indian companies as “a joint venture or wholly-owned subsidiary.”6
It is important to distinguish between these two types of outsourcing because the requirements that foreign companies pursuing offices in India must meet differ significantly from those placed upon multinational partnership firms. These types of offices are limited in scope and Indian law specifically prohibits branch offices of foreign companies from carrying out manufacturing activities on its own. Rather, it encourages the subcontracting of these manufacturing tasks to established Indian manufacturers.
Foreign companies looking to partner with existing Indian companies have several advantages over those wanting to launch an entirely new company in India. Foreign investors can utilize the contacts, financial resources, and pre-established marketing strategies of the Indian company. Companies achieve this type of strategic alliance by subcontracting parts of the production process to Indian companies. For example, several American high technology companies have moved software development and support operations to companies in India. There is a significant cost advantage in doing so, as hiring a programmer in Silicon Valley costs approximately $78,000 annually including benefits while an Indian programmer costs only $8,000.7
Setting aside government promotion for a moment, two key factors have facilitated these forms of outsourcing. The first is the low cost of skilled labor in India. For an hour’s worth of project work, American IT professionals typically charge between $80-$120, whereas Indian software engineers can be paid $40 for the same work due to currency exchange rates and the customary absence of employee benefits to Indian workers.8 Because of the recent downturn in the American economy, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 500,000 information technology professionals have lost their jobs in the United States since 2001, a figure expected to reach one million by the end of 2004.9 American companies are looking to cheaper sources for production, and the Indian IT industry has filled this need.
This transnational work is made possible by technology. High-speed data connections and software tools have allowed for great distances to be bridged, making possible the collaboration between geographically disparate groups. This technology also changed the structure of the production process; rather than a few large vertically-integrated corporations in which hardware and software are produced together, a “more fragmented industrial structure” now allows for production processes to be performed in different locations.10 Global communication has thereby assisted the growth of the IT industry.
To show how the government has in fact encouraged the IT industry in India, we can examine the counterexample of China. In quantitative measures, China exceeds India in geographic area, population, gross national product, and measures of well-being such as life expectancy. China has gleaned more foreign investment and holds a larger share of the world’s exports. This domination is not replicated in the IT industry, though, as Indian software exports far exceed those of China. In mid-2002, the ratio of India’s exports to China’s was 13:1.11 Impressed by India’s business models in this industry, China has sent delegations to India both for purposes of cooperation and reconnaissance. While Indian officials say they learn from the Chinese as well, the air between the two nations is rank with competition and secrecy.12
Since 1984 under the rule of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, India has been pursuing liberalization policies that have helped the IT industry develop. On the other hand, the People’s Republic of China provided little state support for this endeavor until the late 1990s.13 Now lagging behind, China is trying to catch up by replicating India’s model. Thus, we see that India’s proactive government played an instrumental role in encouraging the IT industry.
The National Association of Software and Service Companies, known as NASSCOM, provides figures about the growth of the IT industry in India. In 1980, the gross Indian software export earnings were only US $4 million, but by 1995, that number had grown to US $480.9 million.14 Between 1997 and 2002, the IT market in India grew 229%.15 NASSCOM reports that the 2000-2001 export industry totaled $4.2 billion and by the end of 2002,
that number was likely to grow to $8.5 billion.16 The components of the IT market included in the data are hardware, peripherals, networking, domestic and exports markets for software and services, and IT enabled services. The software export industry accounted for 2.4% of India’s GDP and 20.4% of exports in 2002-2003.17
As the statistics tell us, the magnitude of the Indian IT industry has increased significantly in the last thirty years. Though part of this growth can be attributed to venture capitalists and aggressive individual investors, government policies have clearly expedited the process. Specifically, policies on three different levels have served as an overall beneficial strategy. The rest of this paper will discuss these three initiatives: the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology, software technology parks, and policies that mobilize the Indian diaspora.
The Ministry of Information Technology
On the broadest of the three levels, in 2000 India set up a science and technology bureaucracy to coordinate government-administrated projects relating to information technology. A number of different government agencies, formerly under the Ministry of Science and Technology that are concerned with IT, were brought together into an integrated Ministry of Information Technology (also referred to as MIT). It has since undertaken a large number of projects aligned with its vision of “making India an IT Super Power by the year 2008.”18 Among the objectives identified are “creation of wealth, employment generation, and IT-led economic growth.”19 As a policymaking body, the organization’s leadership consists of a minister, a minister of state, a secretary and additional secretary, a controller, and several group coordinators and senior directors.20 This ministerial hierarchy fills a previous void in the Indian government; until the Ministry of Information Technology was formed, there was no “single apex institution or focal point for formulating national policies and strategies for the IT sector…and the lack of any central oversight and a critical mass of in-house expertise in the public sector often hinder[ed] the sharing of information…and the development of information standards and protocols and common information infrastructures.”21 It is further recognized that “in general, the institutional framework [was] underdeveloped for dealing with systemic problems of computer and software requirements, planning, procurement, coordination among agencies, and IT diffusion.”22 The Ministry of Information Technology has been India’s solution for strengthening that framework.
The work of Martha Finnemore, a professor of international affairs at George Washington University, helps cast a theoretical light on India’s decision to form the Ministry of Information Technology. Finnemore describes three prerequisite conditions for the formation of science policy bureaucracies: issue-specific, developmental or modernizing, and security conditions.23 All three conditions apply to India. First, Finnemore posits that a situation in the new issue-area prompts creation of an administrative organization; certainly, the impetus of the growing IT industry was catalyst enough for the organization to form. Recognizing that India had the potential to exploit its reservoir of highly-skilled software engineers that existed before the outsourcing boom, the government’s installation of a government body that coordinated projects specifically toward this end was a logical step. It has continued to do so, as India graduated 375,000 engineers compared to America’s 70,000 in 2003.24 Second in Finnemore’s analysis is the argument that, as a developing economy progresses, “it will become more technology-intensive and so require more scientific support.… Indicators of economic development, such as per capita gross domestic product (GDP) should predict the creation of a science policy organization.” Overall GDP for the country began an upward trend in 1980, when the IT industry was nascent. It has since increased every year. Though Finnemore’s hypothesis is meant to apply to countries where other sectors of the industry demand more technology as they expand, India is unique in that it was the technology sector that experienced the most growth, thus fueling its own administrative institution.
Third, Finnemore argues that security conditions prompt science policy bureaucracies. Though this argument focuses on military power, we can view security as the guarantee of foreign investment in a developing nation. At a time when the developing nations of the world continually compete for foreign investment, demonstrating that one country has a comparative advantage in production of a certain good provides the nation with economic benefits. Forming a national administrative institution specifically to promote that industry in India’s case, information technology displays commitment to that industry and to development in the country as a whole. Therefore, the Ministry of Information Technology helped India gain security despite global competition for foreign investment.
Taken more literally, a strong IT industry can help a country maintain security during a time of information warfare. The “ability to attack and disable the military and civilian communications networks of potential adversaries” is a potentially significant technological tool in modern warfare and an organization that can oversee such technology serves both to bolster the national security of the country itself and to properly direct the use of the technology should this type of warfare be necessary.25 India’s Ministry of Information Technology seems to satisfy all three prerequisite conditions for a science policy bureaucracy.
This institution coordinates the activities of several other bureaucratic organizations so that the promotion of IT can occur in a more directed, integrated fashion than before MIT’s formation. The formation of an umbrella institution, however, is not the end in itself; the body must actually propose policies and implement projects to gain legitimacy. One of the most successful projects MIT has spearheaded is the development of software technology parks as areas where American companies can build and flourish. Thus, the second policy to be examined as part of India’s three-part model of development of the IT industry is the creation of Software Technology Parks of India.
Software Technology Parks of India
The website of Software Technology Parks of India is subtitled “Catalyst to the IT Industry Growth.” This description is quite accurate if one examines government policies that have spurred the IT industry to its current levels. The concept of software technology parks (STPs), which provide the technical infrastructure necessary for IT development, emerged from a growing problem that policymakers began to notice in the early 1980s. The New Computer Policy of 1984 and the 1986 Policy on Computer Software Export, Software Development, and Training set out the objective of expanding the Indian software export and development through data communication links. The policies’ aim was to develop software in India using Indian expertise on sophisticated computers that were being imported duty-free. Protectionist policies had, until then, stunted the growth of the industry by imposing duties of up to 200% on the imported hardware needed for advancement of both the hardware and software components of the industry.26
The next and more significant difficulty firms faced was the high cost of the data communication links needed for software development. The poor telecommunications infrastructure India had at the time was inadequate. Foreign corporations were looking to expand their global production networks to India because the country offered a skilled, English-speaking workforce, but the corporations could not be accommodated at a reasonable cost. Though companies were allowed by law to establish the data communication link through their own initial investment, few companies could pay the high price without other incentives. From this necessity, the idea of software technology parks was born. The Ministry of Information Technology developed the concept of STPs and lists the following as the objectives of the project:
“To establish and manage infrastructure resources such as Data Communication facilities, Core Computer facilities, built-up space and other common amenities; to provide ‘single window’ statutory services such as project approvals, import certification, software valuation, and certification of exports for software exporters; to promote development and export of software services through technology assessments, market analyses, market segmentation and marketing support; to train professionals and to encourage design and development in the field of software technology and software engineering.”27
Though these are lofty ambitions, the STPs now serve as intersections where a viable business model, strong Internet infrastructure, and government interface come together for a successful enterprise: “The infrastructure facilities include modern, high-speed, broad-band telecom links, powerful computers and network systems beyond the reach of individual firms, consultancy, and training support.”28 The first of these parks were established in 1991 at Bangalore, Pune, and Bhubaneswar; by 1999, over twenty-one cities in the country housed STPs. In nearly all of the literature on the subject STPs have been heralded as one of the most profitable institutional initiatives for developing the IT industry.
While software parks have proven to be successful in practice, the STP model has theoretical underpinnings grounded in the triple helix model of development. This model consists of a triadic relationship between government, industry, and universities. Central to the model is the principle of incubation, which refers to the special roles each of the triad participants plays in encouraging research, investment, and development. In the original theory of incubators, physical proximity of the participants was not considered a crucial feature; but in the contemporary incubator model, “a common physical space where cross-fertilization among companies can more easily take place” has become much more important.29 Software technology parks in India fill this requirement well, offering places where several different companies can come together and engage in the networking activities that spur innovation in both business models and actual products. Governments have the unique catalytic ability to push collaboration among public, private, academic, and foreign agencies; the Indian government has chosen to achieve these ends through STPs, where shared infrastructure and support services encourage firms to learn from each other.30 Software Technology Parks of India now boast 350 clients including Texas Instruments, Motorola, and Microsoft most of which are software companies taking advantage of the high speed data connectivity provided by satellite earth stations and international private-leased circuits.31 The profit of this government branch was 125 crore in Indian Rupees in 2001-2002, which is an increase from 1999 profits of 78.06 crore in Indian Rupees.32 These figures reflect the success of the policy that instituted the software technology parks.
This initiative of the Indian government has helped to expand the IT industry in India by providing physical space and technology that allow firms to flourish and take advantage of the human capital the country offers. The third, and final, set of policy ideas I will examine is one which serves to rein in the large potential of that human capital by mobilizing the global Indian diaspora.
Government-Diaspora Partnership
India is one of the world’s leaders of developing countries for human capital. India’s colleges, universities, and university-level institutions have produced about 200,000 science and technology graduates per year since 1985, mostly because of a cultural emphasis on higher education, especially in technical fields.33 The nation’s elite institutions of technology educate these students, but that education does not come without cost. The operating costs per student are around $2,000 per year, or $8,000 for a four-year degree program. According to the United Nations Human Development Report 2001, spending on fixed capital at the Indian Institutes of Technology, based on the replacement costs of physical facilities, brings the total cost of training each student to $15,000-$20,000.34 This cost would not pose as much of a problem if not for the increasing phenomenon of “brain drain,” which refers to the migration of highly trained professionals to other countries. The depletion of this skilled sector is one of the most significant problems India faces as it tries to encourage its IT industry. Lacking workers, the industry has little chance of developing. Estimates predict that the Indian domestic IT industry will fall short by over 500,000 people in the next four years.35 The United States expects that over 100,000 people will emigrate from India each year for the next three years.36 These estimates bring the total cost to the Indian government to a loss of $2 billion a year.37
While the Indian government is considering policies that encourage its citizens to stay within the country, it has also chosen to acknowledge that the problem is one that may be more easily mitigated by engaging with the individuals who decide to leave the country. From this idea evolved the concept of “brain circulation,”38 which is broadly defined as making use of the knowledge of non-resident Indians in various ways to promote the domestic IT industry.
Particularly helpful in this endeavor have been the Indians who have emigrated to Silicon Valley in the United States. The managerial and entrepreneurial proclivity of these Indians is evident in their success in the industry:
“By 2000 Indian engineers were at the helm of 972 Silicon Valley-based technology companies, which accounted for approximately $5 billion in sales at 25,811 jobs. Moreover, the pace of Indian entrepreneurship accelerated rapidly in the 1990s: while Indians were running only 3 percent of the technology companies started between 1980 and 1983, they were running 10 percent of those started between 1995 and 2000.”39
The success of these former Indian nationals is evident, and the Indian government recognizes that connections with these individuals can help promote the domestic market for IT. The Indian diaspora of IT professionals in Silicon Valley has established social networks like The Indus Entrepreneur (TiE) and the Silicon Valley Indian Professionals Association. The existence of these organizations shows that Indian immigrants maintain close ties to those of their own origin and value the professional connections that such a network can offer. To address the effects of brain drain, then, the Indian government began with mechanisms that strengthened the ties between the diaspora and its roots.
India’s Ministry of Science and Technology formed a High Level Committee on the Indian Diaspora in 2000 in order to facilitate communication and interaction between the expatriates and their home nation. The organization’s 2002 report recognizes that scientists of Indian origin abroad “are keen to contribute to their country of origin.” One obvious way in which these immigrants can contribute to outsourcing in the Indian IT industry is to encourage their companies to partner with Indian firms for software development or other production processes, thus alleviating the effects of brain drain. If individuals hold leadership positions within their corporations and make managerial decisions, there is no better way to encourage outsourcing than to engage it firsthand. Of the companies in Silicon Valley, Sun Microsystems, run by Indian national Vinod Khosla, has adopted this method.
Another way of exploiting the connections with the diaspora is through organizations like The Indus Entrepreneur. The organization currently has established chapters in Bangalore, Bombay, Delhi, Hyderabad, Calcutta, and Chennai. The global connections have paid off, as the non-resident Indians “in turn invested in promising start-ups and venture funds and have begun to serve as role models and advisors for local IT entrepreneurs.”40
The question that remains is: what initiatives has the government taken to facilitate the interaction between non-resident Indians and their home country to promote outsourcing, besides forming the High Level Committee on the Indian Diaspora?
The government is pursuing a number of different bilateral programs simultaneously. The first of these programs is an exchange program called “The Transfer of Knowhow Through Expatriate Nationals” (TOKTEN). The concept, formed by the United Nations Human Development Program (UNDP), encourages expatriate nationals to undertake short-term consultancies in their home countries. In India, TOKTEN has enabled 650 professionals to visit 250 institutions from 1980-2001. The alumni networks of the government-funded Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) have been another method of encouraging interaction. Alumni from America have recently given 60 crores in Indian Rupees to IIT Kanpur and 30 crores in Indian Rupees to IIT Karagpur “for upgrading infrastructure and human resource development” and “tracking…alumni to other Indian premier academic-cum-research institutes.”41 Investing in the IITs can alleviate the problems caused by the shortage of computer professionals that has been predicted for the next several years.
Two other notable initiatives have been taken by the government to connect with the diaspora. One of these is advisory panels with eminent non-resident Indians that have spurred investment and led to several IT joint ventures. The next is the placement of many non-resident Indians in honorary fellowships at universities, funded by professional scientific and technical societies.
Through these various programs and incentives, India has found a viable method for fighting the “brain drain” which could so easily strip the country of one of its most valuable resources, a skilled labor force. Short of working extremely hard to entice Indian nationals back to the country, fruitful interaction with the Indian diaspora is an excellent way to push the IT industry in India to even higher levels and mitigate the shortage of IT professionals there.
Nancy Birdsall, Special Adviser to the Administrator of UNDP, observes that “in a global market, people with the right skills will naturally migrate to high-tech, high-wage frontier, wherever it is. But we do see signs that when countries create the right conditions including openness to new investment and new ideas they can recapture some of what they have lost.”42 India’s government has taken advantage of this opportunity to promote outsourcing to its production facilities and its IT industry in general.
Discussion and Conclusion
The evidence is clear that outsourcing to the Indian IT industry has grown rapidly in the last two decades. We can attribute this increase to the policies the government of India has instituted to promote the industry after it realized the potential that the industry held for economic development in the nation. Initiatives on three different levels served and continue to serve as the backbone of the government’s approach. The first of these is the Ministry of Information Technology, formed as an umbrella organization to coordinate the activities of the multiple government agencies that deal with the information technology. The second is the implementation of software technology parks where business, government, and academia can come together both for networking and production. Last, there is the set of initiatives that urge communication and interaction with the global Indian diaspora with hopes of encouraging investment in the country from those who have emigrated and become successful in other nations.
This paper is not comprehensive of the efforts taken by the government of India to promote outsourcing in the IT industry for I realize that a myriad other public policies and private initiatives have fueled the growth of the sector as well. Nor does this paper attempt to argue that the three policies discussed are the best or most successful institutional projects with regards to promoting outsourcing. Rather, studying these three specific policies sheds light on potential components of a model that possibly could be replicated in other developing countries operating under similar conditions to those India faces. By attacking on three fronts, the government of India spread its influence and likely pushed the IT industry more than if it had neglected any of the policy areas discussed.
Another important consideration is whether lessons we can learn from India’s success can be applied to other developing countries. India’s skilled and English-speaking workforce was a clear contributory factor in the development of the IT industry. A starting point for other countries may be to launch education programs that teach their citizens marketable skills for this and other industries, while being careful to distribute training among industries in case there are economic changes.
Furthermore, an interesting future area of research into this subject could examine if the growth of a white-collar industry has ramifications for India: drastic poverty, poor healthcare, and widespread hunger. If such growth is found to have positive effects, other developing countries would be well-advised to study the policies the Indian government has undertaken and emulate them within the contexts of their own national goals. Though information technology is certainly not a panacea for the problems of developing countries, it may be a good first step.
ENDNOTES
1 (2002). India’s per capita income catches up with rich countries: UNDP. Indo-Asian News Service.
2 Parthasarathi, A. (2002). “Brain drain.” Science and Public Policy 29(2): 129-136.
3 (2003). Software Superpower in India is Well Placed, Says US Report. India Business Insight. June 20, 2003.
4 Meadows quoted in Heeks, R. (1996). India’s Software
Industry: State Policy, Liberalisation and Industrial
Development. New Delhi, Sage Publications: 26.
5 (2003). Software Superpower India is Well Placed, Says US Report. India Business Insight. June 20, 2003.
6 (2003). Tata Telecom. Setting Up an IT Company. <http://www.tatatelecom.com/outsourcing/Partner/setting.asp>
7 Bureau of Labor Services quoted in Economic Policy Institute Issue Guide “Offshoring.”
8 Nowlin, S. and T. Poling (2003). More white-collar workers become casualty of outsourcing. San Antonio Express-News. San Antonio, TX: 1L.
9 Ibid.
10 Saxenian, A. (2002). “Transnational Communities and the Evolution of Global Production Networks: The Cases of Taiwan, China and India.” Industry and Innovation,
Special Issue on Global Production: 3.
11 Franda, M. (2002). China and India Online: Information
Technology Politics and Diplomacy in the World’s Two Largest Nations. Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers: 27.
12 Rai, S. (2002). Chinese Race to Supplant India in Software. The New York Times. New York: 1, Column 3.
13 Franda, M. (2002). China and India Online: Information
Technology Politics and Diplomacy in the World’s Two Largest Nations. Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers: 27-28, 30-31.
14 Annual Report of Ministry of Information Technology.
2003. <http://www.mit.gov.in>
15 Nasscom Website. <http://www.nasscom.org/artdisplay.
asp?cat_id=314>. Accessed December 3, 2003.
16 Rai, S. (2002). Chinese Race to Supplant India in Software. The New York Times. New York: 1, Column 3.
17 Annual Report of Ministry of Information Technology
2003.
18 Ministry of Information Technology Website.
<http://www.mit.gov.in>. Accessed December 3, 2003.
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid.
21 Hanna, N. (1994). Exploiting Information Technology
for Development: A Case Study of India. World Bank Discussion Papers. Washington, D.C., World Bank: 44.
22 Ibid.
23 Finnemore, M. (1993). “International Organizations
as Teachers of Norms: The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization and Science Policy.” International Organization 47(4): 568-569.
24 “The IT Industry in India” report by the National Association of Software and Service Companies (NASSCOM), 2004 quoted in Economic Policy Institute
Issue Guide “Offshoring.”
25 Bristow quoted in Franda, M. (2002). China and India Online: Information Technology Politics and Diplomacy
in the World’s Two Largest Nations. Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers: 31.
26 Dedrick, J. and K. Kraemer (1993). “Information Technology in India: The Quest for Self-Reliance.” Asian Survey XXXIII(5): 478.
27 Software Technology Parks India Website. <http://www.soft.net>
28 Parthasarathi, A. (2002). “Brain drain.” Science and Public Policy 29(2): 129-136.
29 Etzkowitz, H. (2002). “Business incubators.” Science
and Public Policy 29(2): 115-128.
30 Hanna, N. (1994). Exploiting Information Technology
for Development: A Case Study of India. World Bank Discussion Papers. Washington, D.C., World Bank: 59.
31 Software Technology Parks India Website. <http://www.soft.net>
32 Ibid.
33 Science and Technology - India. Country Studies. Washington, D.C., United States Library of Congress.
34 Pages 92-93.
35 Luce, E. and K. Merchant (2002). Outsourcing gives India a bigger slice of the pie. Financial Times.
52 Stanford Journal of International Relations London, England: 13.
36 (2001). United Nations Human Development Report. Human Development Reports, United Nations Development Programme: 92-93.
37 Ibid.
38 Though I am unsure of who originally coined the term “brain circulation,” I use it in the same sense that Anna Saxenian does in her work “Transnational Communities and the Evolution of Global Production Networks,” p. 11.
39 Saxenian, A. (2002). “Transnational Communities and the Evolution of Global Production Networks: The Cases of Taiwan, China and India.” Industry and Innovation,
Special Issue on Global Production: 12
40 Saxenian, A. (2002). “Transnational Communities and the Evolution of Global Production Networks: The Cases of Taiwan, China and India.” Industry and Innovation,
Special Issue on Global Production: 13.
41 (2002). Report of the High Level Committee on the Indian Diaspora. New Delhi, India, Government of India: 476.
42 (2002). TOKTEN, Brain Drain, and the Human Development Report 2001.
WORKS CITED
Economic Policy InstituteIssue Guide on Offshoring. <http://www.epinet.org/issueguides/offshoring/epi_issue_
guide_on_offshoring.pdf>. Accessed November 22, 2004.
Science and Technology - India. Country Studies. Washington, D.C., United States Library of Congress. <http://countrystudies.us/india/101.htm>. Accessed December 3, 2003.
(2001). United Nations Human Development Report. Human Development Reports, United Nations Development
Programme: 92-93.
(2002). Report of the High Level Committee on the Indian
Diaspora. New Delhi, India, Government of India: 473-480. January 2002.
(2002). TOKTEN, Brain Drain, and the Human Development
Report 2001. <http://www.undp.org/lb/tokte/braindrain.html>. Accessed December 3, 2003.
(2002). India’s per capita income catches up with rich countries: UNDP. Indo-Asian News Service. <http://in.news.yahoo.com/020724/43/1sloi.html>. Accessed December 3, 2003.
(2003). The new geography of the IT industry. The Economist. July 19, 2003.
(2003). Software Superpower India is Well Placed, Says US Report. India Business Insight. June 20, 2003.
(2003). Tata Telecom. Setting Up an IT Company. <http://www.tatatelecom.com/outsourcing/Partner/setting.asp>
(2003). Annual Report of Ministry of Information Technology. <http://www.mit.gov.in> Accessed November
22, 2004.
(2003). Ministry of Information Technology Website. <http://www.mit.gov.in>
(2002). Software Technology Parks India Website. <http://www.soft.net>
Baark, E. and J. Sigurdson (1981). India-China Comparative Research: Technology and science for development. Studies on Asian Topics No. 3. London, Scandinavian Institute on Asian Studies.
Balasubramanian, D. (2001). Dispersing diasporical
science. The Hindu. Hyderabad, India. <http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/2001/09/13/stories/08130005.htm> Accessed December 3, 2003.
Dedrick, J. and K. Kraemer (1993). “Information Technology
in India: The Quest for Self-Reliance.” Asian Survey XXXIII(5): 463-492.
Drori, G., J. Meyer, et al. (2003). Science in the Modern World Polity: Institutionalization and Globalization.
Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press.
Etzkowitz, H. (2002). “Business incubators.” Science and Public Policy 29(2): 115-128.
Finnemore, M. (1993). “International Organizations as Teachers of Norms: The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization and Science Policy.” International Organization 47(4): 565-597.
Franda, M. (2002). China and India Online: Information
Technology Politics and Diplomacy in the World’s Two Largest Nations. Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Hanna, N. (1994). Exploiting Information Technology for Development: A Case Study of India. World Bank Discussion Papers. Washington, D.C., World Bank.
Heeks, R. (1996). India’s Software Industry: State Policy, Liberalisation and Industrial Development. New Delhi, Sage Publications.
Winter 2005 53
Luce, E. and K. Merchant (2002). Outsourcing gives India a bigger slice of the pie. Financial Times. London,
England: 13.
Nowlin, S. and T. Poling (2003). More white-collar workers become casualty of outsourcing. San Antonio Express-News. San Antonio, TX: 1L.
Parthasarathi, A. (2002). “Tackling the brain drain from India’s information and communication technology
sector: the need for a new industrial, and science and technology strategy.” Science and Public Policy 29(2): 129-136.
Rai, S. (2002). Chinese Race to Supplant India in Software.
The New York Times. New York: 1, Column 3.
Saxenian, A. (2002). “Transnational Communities and the Evolution of Global Production Networks: The Cases of Taiwan, China and India.” Industry and Innovation,
Special Issue on Global Production.
Subramanian, C. R. (1992). India and the Computer: A Study of Planned Development. Delhi, Oxford University
Press.