Rashtriya Avishkar Abhiyan (RAA) Launched by Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam

Rashtriya Avishkar Abhiyan (RAA) Launched by Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam

Rashtriya Avishkar Abhiyan (RAA) Seeks to Develop Scientific Temper Among School Children

Dr. A.P.J Abdul Kalam, former President of India launched the Rashtriya Avishkar Abhiyan (RAA) today in New Delhi. While launching the Abhiyan, Dr. Abdul Kalam focused on developing the spirit of innovation and experimentation among students. He further laid stress on four qualities of uniqueness: Great Aim, Quest of Knowledge, Hard Work, and Perseverance. Emphasising the value of learning he added “we learn to live, we learn to think and we learn to learn”. He concluded his speech by stressing upon attaching highest value to Science.

Rashtriya Avishkar Abhiyan is a unique concept developed by the Ministry of Human Resource Development that aims to inculcate a spirit of inquiry, creativity and love for Science and Mathematics in school children.

Smt. Smriti Irani, Union Minister for Human Resource Development addressed the gathering through video conferencing and highlighted the fact that RAA is an initiative by Ministry of HRD to encourage students to learn sciences beyond the classrooms. It is an effort to take forward the Prime Minister’s vision of Digital India, ‘Make in India’ and ‘Teach in India’. She also emphasised the fact that more and more women should be encouraged to participate in the field of science and technologies. She talked of efforts made by INTEL for nurturing scientific temper among girl students. She also mentioned Google India’s initiative of Code to Learn Contest which will enable students to learn in the Google campus and announced that Phase II of RAA will be launched in January, 2016 for higher education under which model science labs will be established in all districts of the North Eastern States.

Under Rashtriya Avishkar Abhiyan, government schools will be mentored by Institutes like IITs/ IIMs/ IISERs and other Central Universities and reputed organisations through innovative programmes, student exchanges, demonstrations, student visits, etc to develop a natural sense of passion towards learning of Science and Maths.

The launch event also saw some exhilarating moments with a laser show on science and maths which enthralled the audience.

Two students, Ms. Jaya and Mr. Arsh winners of Initiative for Research and Innovation (IRIS) Award, 2014 & 2015, shared their innovative projects and their journey through the wondrous world of science.

A play presented by students of Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow spread the message of how science is woven in every aspect of life and is not limited to classrooms.

The audience also got to hear and interact with scientists like Dr. Tessy Thomas, Project Director AGNI IV and Smt. Nandani Harinath, Deputy Operations Director, Mars Orbiter Mission.

A Science exhibition showcasing some innovative models from school children which have been represented at various national and international forums was also organised at the venue.

The event was also attended by Dr. Harsh Vardhan, Union Minister for Science and Technology & Earth Sciences; Dr. Jitendra Singh, Minister of State (Independent Charge) Development of North-Eastern Region; Prof. Ram Shankar Katheria, Minister of State (Higher Education), Ministry of Human Resource Development; Shri Vinay Sheel Oberoi, Secretary, Higher Education and Dr. Subhash Chand Khuntia, Secretary, School Education and Literacy. Thousands of school children, senior policy makers and heads of higher education institutions and scientists were also present at event. 

From Tejas to AMCA

This fortnight, the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), which is responsible for the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) project, will brief its new boss on a project that will shape the future of the Indian Air Force (IAF) — the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), an indigenous “fifth-generation” (Gen-5) fighter more advanced than anything on the IAF’s inventory. After briefing Dr S Christopher, the new Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) chief who is also ex-officio director-general of ADA, the AMCA proposal will be taken to Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar, who has specifically asked for a briefing. After Mr Parrikar’s green light, the DRDO will seek $4 billion (currently Rs 25,000 crore, but this would fluctuate with the rupee) to design and develop the AMCA, build and test-fly prototypes, and give the IAF a Gen-5 fighter within 15 years.

Knowledgeable insiders say the AMCA will be a single-pilot, twin-engine, medium (20-25 tonnes) fighter with a highly stealthy design. This would be invaluable in the first days of a major war for targeting enemy war-waging infrastructure — roads, railways, airfields, radars, headquarters and depots — when conventional, non-stealthy fighters would be detected by the enemy’s air defence radars and shot down by fighters, missiles and guns. In such a “dense air defence environment”, stealth fighters would be able to degrade the enemy’s air defences, opening the window for our non-stealthy fighters, like the Sukhoi-30MKI, to strike with large loads of externally mounted ordnance and fuel. Stealth is central for a Gen-5 fighter, and is achieved by shaping aircraft surfaces to scatter radar waves, using radar absorbent materials and paints, and using internal fuel tanks, sensors, antennae and weapons carriage and ordnance.

Alongside stealth, a Gen-5 fighter incorporates super-cruise (flying supersonic without an afterburner); super-manoeuvrability (with thrust vectoring engines and an unstable design); advanced avionics architecture and sensors that enhance the pilot-vehicle interface (allowing a single pilot to fly and fight the aircraft); and extended target detection and engagement ranges. In an ideal combat engagement, a Gen-5 fighter would detect an enemy fighter and fire his long-range missile well before the adversary’s radar detects the stealth aircraft.

“Ho-hum! ADA can never do this,” the import lobbyists will say — self-appointed patriots who see no irony in their advocacy of expensive foreign weaponry at the expense of Indian R&D and defence industry. Their critique of the Tejas is well worn. Arguing (fallaciously) that the DRDO has taken 33 years to deliver the Tejas, they will (incorrectly) extrapolate that the more complex AMCA will take even longer! Their persistent allegations about the Tejas’ performance shortfalls are now being exposed. As flight-testing expanded the Tejas’ flight envelope, it became evident the LCA far outperforms the MiG-21BISON, the most advanced of the fighters it was built to replace, as well as any Pakistani fighter except the latest F-16 Block 50/52. The upcoming Tejas Mark II — with a more powerful engine, upgraded avionics and better air-to-air missile — could be built cheaply, overwhelming even more sophisticated opponents with numbers. This would require Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) to galvanise its production line, but that is a management issue, not a delay-inducing technology challenge.

With the Tejas’ performance now demonstrated, critics have shifted their fire to delays in the project, a more credible complaint. Even so, it is false to date the start of the LCA project to 1983, as is commonly done; the project really began a decade later. In 1983, the LCA was allocated Rs 560 crore for “feasibility studies and project definition”, and for creating developmental infrastructure. Only in 1993 was development funding allocated (Rs 2,188 crore, including the Rs 560 crore allocated in 1983). This was for building two “technology demonstrators”, the first of which flew in 2001. Taking 1993 as the base year, the Tejas took just eight years to fly, and will have taken 23 years for “final operational certification” (FOC) which is anticipated by March 2016. This is comparable with international timelines for fighter aircraft development, including the Rafale and the F-35 Lightning II.

Encouragingly, the AMCA will enjoy an impetus the LCA never got, now that the IAF has thrown its weight and support behind the AMCA programme. While the IAF stood aloof from the LCA, participating only as a critic, it has joined hands with ADA in formulating the AMCA’s configuration, and is deputing pilots and engineers to work alongside ADA as it designs the fighter. It is unclear what is driving this dramatic change in the IAF’s approach to indigenisation. It could be the realisation — stemming from the Rafale fiasco — that India simply cannot afford to import sizeable numbers of modern fighters. It could be the positive example of the navy, which has wisely steered the process of designing and building warships in India. Or, in an organisation that is shaped by the personality of the top man, it could just be that the current IAF chief favours indigenisation.

While the IAF will be praised if the AMCA meets its objectives, credit should really go to the unfairly vilified DRDO-HAL-ADA combine for leapfrogging three generations of technology in developing the fourth-generation Tejas fighter. In this process, the LCA project has catalysed an aerospace eco-structure, and a design experience, that will be the essential springboard to the AMCA.

A range of fighter aircraft technologies is already mastered. These include: a sophisticated “unstable configuration” for extra agility; quadruplex digital flight control system; light composite materials for the aero-structures; glass cockpit with digital instrumentation; an environment control system with an on-board oxygen generating system (OBOGS); and advanced avionics that allow the pilot to switch quickly between air-to-air and air-to-ground roles. With much of these Gen-4 technologies currently being refined for the Tejas Mark II, the AMCA team can focus on the Gen-5 challenges.

In sum, the LCA project has created Indian design expertise, design tools and test facilities. It has allowed ADA to gain expertise in the processes of flight testing and certification, and in prototype development. In designing, building and certifying the Tejas, ADA and the defence ministry have painstakingly woven together a countrywide network of technical and engineering institutions, laboratories and facilities. ADA calculates that 149 work centres in 28 cities have directly contributed to the LCA programme. These are now networked and available for the AMCA project. True, there are shortfalls, such as the fact that India has just one wind tunnel, essential for simulation studies in designing airframes and structures. Before the AMCA gets under way, ADA should holistically identify and make up such deficiencies as part of a national ecosystem for future aerospace projects.

The IAF’s future lies in its own hands. At the recent Paris Air Show, the Pakistan Air Force displayed its new Sino-Pakistani fighter, the JF-17 Thunder. Countries like Myanmar and Sri Lanka were reportedly making purchase enquiries. While significantly inferior to the Tejas in technologies and performance, the JF-17 was better in one crucial respect — it was steadfastly supported by its home air force. Perhaps the IAF could draw a lesson from that.

---

What is full employment?

In an important sense, the US economy is now at full employment. The relatively tight labour market is causingwages to rise at an accelerating rate, because employers must pay more to attract and retain employees. This has important implications for policymakers — and not just at the Federal Reserve.

Consider this: average hourly earnings in May were 2.3 per cent higher than in May 2014; but, since the beginning of this year, hourly earnings are up 3.3 per cent, and in May alone rose at a 3.8 per cent rate — a clear sign of full employment. The acceleration began in 2013 as labour markets started to tighten. Average compensation per hour rose just 1.1 per cent from 2012 to 2013, but then increased at a 2.6 per cent rate from 2013 to 2014, and at 3.3 per cent in the first quarter of 2015.

These wage increases will soon show up in higher price inflation. The link between wages and prices is currently being offset by the sharp decline in the price of oil and gasoline relative to a year ago, and by the strengthening of the dollar relative to other currencies. But, as these factors’ impact on the overall price level diminishes, the inflation rate will rise more rapidly.

Accelerating wage growth implies that the economy is now at a point at which increases in demand created by easier monetary policy or expansionary fiscal policy would not achieve a sustained rise in output and employment. Instead, this demand would be channelled into higher wages and prices.

There are, of course, other definitions of full employment. Some would say that the US is not at full employment, because 8.7 million people — about 6 per cent of those who are employed — are looking for work. There are millions more who would like to work but are not actively looking, because they believe that there are no available jobs for people like themselves. And an additional 6.7 million are working part-time but would like to work more hours per week.

In many cases, these unemployed and underemployed individuals are experiencing real hardship. By that indicator, the US economy is not at full employment. But, for the Fed, it is, in the sense that excessively easy monetary policy can no longer achieve a sustained increase in employment. At the same time, other types of policies that change incentives or remove barriers can lead to increasedemployment and higher real incomes, without raising wage and price inflation.

Consider, for example, the high rate of non-employment among men aged 25 to 54, a group too old to be in school and too young to retire. More than 15 per cent of men in this age group are not employed. Among those in this age range who have less than a high school education, 35 per cent are not employed. Programmes to provide market-relevant education and training should be able to raise employment among this group.

Or consider the employment experience of men and women over age 65. This group is eligible for Social Security (pensions) and Medicare (health insurance), and the majority are retired. But experience shows that the decision to retire or to work fewer hours is influenced by the compensation that members of this group receive. And this amount partly reflects the fact that employed people who collect Social Security and Medicare are subject to the payroll tax that finances them.

The payroll tax paid by employees is 6.65 per cent (employers pay the same rate), and is in addition to the personal income tax. Moreover, because of the complex rules that govern the level of Social Security benefits, the older worker who pays this payroll tax is likely to receive no extra benefits.

For many older workers, the choice is not whether to work, but how much. We now have less than full employment in the sense that the payroll tax encourages older workers to work fewer hours than they otherwise would.

The Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) also reduces hours worked, in two different ways. First, for some individuals, working fewer hours reduces incomes enough to entitle them to a larger government subsidy for health insurance. Second, some employers are being incented to reduce the number of working hours for individual employees, because, above a specified number, Obamacare imposes a larger burden on them.

Or consider minimum-wage legislation, which reduces employers’ willingness to hire low-skilled workers. As the minimum wage is increased, employers’ incentive to substitute equipment or more skilled employees strengthens. This reduction in the demand for low-skilled workers could be offset by taking into account the hourly equivalent of transfer payments when calculating the minimum wage.

For example, someone who receives $8,000 a year in transfer payments (such as food stamps, housing assistance, and the Earned Income Tax Credit) might be deemed to have received the equivalent of $4 an hour toward meeting the minimum wage. That individual’s combined income would be achieved with a lower cost to the employer, increasing the individual’s ability to find employment.

How rural India gained 86 million illiterate people

About 86 million more rural Indians have been counted asilliterate than the 2011 census data found.

This is revealed by the Socio Economic and Caste Census(SECC), which counted 315.7 million Indians in rural areas as illiterate in 2011, the same year as the census and the highest number of illiterates of any country in the world.

Put another way, rural India has more illiterate people than the population of Indonesia–the world’s fourth-most populous country–and twice the population of Pakistan.

Released last week, the SECC, which focused on rural India, counted more people (literate and illiterate) than the census: 35.73% of Indians in rural areas as illiterate, as against 32.23% counted by census 2011.

Source: Census 2011, SECC; Figures in million

The new data have also revealed the low levels of literacy in rural India.

Those who are literate can barely read or count

As many as 14% (123 million people) of literate Indians in rural areas have not studied past class five, while 18% (157 million) have completed primary education, or class five.

Given that educational levels in India do not reflect real learning, 280 million literate Indians in rural areas are only nominally literate.

As IndiaSpend reported earlier, only a fourth of all children in Standard (Std.) III can read a Std. II text fluently, a drop of more than 5% over four years. With math, a quarter of children in Std. III could not recognise numbers between 10 and 99, a drop of 13% over four years, according to the 2014Annual Status Report on Education (ASER).

Only 3% (three million) of Indians in rural areas have completed graduation or a higher level of education.

Source: SECC; Figures in million

Central India reported the highest illiteracy rate of 39.20%. East India reported an illiteracy rate of 38.79%, followed by West India (35.15%), North India (32.87%), North Eastern (30.2%) and South India (29.64%).

Union territories fared the best with less than 15% of the population illiterate.

Source: SECC

Rajasthan reported the worst illiteracy rate: 47.58% or 25.88 million people, followed by Madhya Pradesh with 44.19% or 22.80 million illiterate people, Bihar with 43.85% or 42.89 million illiterate people and Telangana with 40.42% or 9.5 million illiterate people.

Source: SECC

The surprises are the presence of the southern states of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in the top 10 state for illiteracy.

Kerala is another surprise in the SECC analysis. While state surveys and the census have repeatedly claimed a literacy rate of more than 90%, the SECC report says 11.38%, or 3 million Keralites, are illiterate.

Among union territories, Dadra & Nagar Haveli reported the highest illiteracy rate, 36.29%.

New data for rural households revealed by the Socio Economic and Caste Census (SECC) represent a grim reminder of the state of rural India. In over 90 per cent of households, the main earning member makes less than Rs. 10,000 a month. Over half the households are landless and a similar share of them rely on casual manual labour for the larger part of their income. Just 20 per cent of households own any kind of a motor vehicle. These numbers should come as a reality check for those who talk of India’s unbridled growth, and arrival on the global stage as a superpower. The countryside remains unable to find jobs that can pull families out of poverty. Agriculture remains at subsistence levels, with low mechanisation, limited irrigation facilities and little access to credit. Just over 3 per cent of rural households have a family member who is a graduate, so skilled jobs are going to be hard to get. Female-headed households, and Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe households are the worst off. The eastern and central States of Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Odisha have the poorest indicators. Even in the developed southern States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, family incomes are low and dependence on casual manual labour is high. Meanwhile, early results from the urban SECC suggest that levels of deprivation, while lower in cities, are still shockingly high.

What the government chooses to do with the data is as yet unclear. While commissioning the SECC, the UPA government had spoken of creating flexibility to enable States to draw up their own combinations of indicators to create tailor-made definitions of poverty. The Narendra Modi government is yet to make its intentions clear on the SECC, especially with regard to the thorny issue of where to draw the line. Instead of a fresh round of unseemly wrangling over precisely where to set India’s poverty line, the government would be well-advised to expand and universalise its social protection schemes, and leave some space for States to innovate. It would also be wise for the government to release caste-wise information on socio-economic indicators collected by the SECC but not yet put in the public domain. Those numbers would allow, for the first time since 1931, for the relative socio-economic status of various caste groups to be compared while framing policies of affirmative action. This government stands accused of suppressing vital new information on the status of malnutrition among children, contained in a survey commissioned by the previous government through UNICEF. It should not make a habit of suppressing inconvenient data. The Indian public might hotly contest some of these numbers, particularly those relating to caste, but even angry debates represent a democratic right that must not be curtailed.

Why everyone loves ‘good governance

Democracy without politics and citizenship without rights are the twin pillars of ‘good governance’.

India is in the throes of a fierce passion for governance. Not just any governance but ‘maximum governance’; preferably in a combo with ‘minimum government’. We are the only country in the world that officially celebrates Christmas as ‘Good Governance Day’. Nobody speaks of the need for a good government anymore – only good governance.

Behind this mass enthusiasm for the virtues of ‘good governance’ is none other than the prime minister himself. His own website says so: “It is due to Narendra Modi that governance has become the talking point all over the country; from the conversations teenagers have over a cup of coffee to heated debated in newsrooms.”

While the degree to which adolescents obsess about good governance may be a matter of debate, there is no doubt that it occupies pride of place in the publicity spiels of the Modi regime — so much so that it’s now a truism that the Modi mandate of the 2014 polls is “a mandate for good governance” (http://tinyurl.com/pwyotg2)

But what exactly does ‘good governance’ mean? According to Mr. Modi, “good governance is putting people at the centre of the development process”.

Well, if that is what it is, then some obvious questions pop up, such as: Is it good governance to eliminate the need for people’s consent in land acquisition, as the NDA’s land bill amendments want to do?

Mr. Modi has also said that good governance must be ‘pro-people’ and ‘pro-active’. If so, then is pro-actively cutting public expenditure on health and education, as has been done in this year’s budget, good governance? Or, for that matter, is the dilution of the rights of industrial workers, which is what the proposed labour reforms seek to do, good governance?

The short answer to all these questions is a resounding yes. For the long answer, we need to visit the history of the concept of governance itself, and how it has come to occupy such a central place in development discourse.

A brief history of ‘governance’

The term ‘governance’ was first used — in the sense in which it is deployed today — by the World Bank in a 1989 report on African economies. Trying to account for the failure of its Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs), the World Bank put the blame on a “crisis of governance.”

But ‘crisis of governance’ doesn’t convey much unless one defines ‘governance’. The World Bank initially defined it simply as “the exercise of political power to manage a nation’s affairs”. This early definition is quite indicative of the animating logic and future discursive career of governance: it is silent on the legitimacy or otherwise of the political power in question. So whether the Bank’s client was a democracy or a dictatorship didn’t matter. What mattered for governance is that efficient management must trump politics. Efficient management, just to be clear, means the withdrawal of the state in favour of the market.

Over the years, the World Bank expanded its ‘governance’ model to include elements of a liberal democracy, such as a legal framework for enforcement of contracts, accountability, etc. At the same time, it brokered a marriage between governance and development. Nations deemed to be in need of ‘development’ could now be told that the only way to get ‘development’ is through ‘governance’ — that is, by embracing the free market.

But for this, it was necessary to first create a demand for good governance. That meant identifying the markers of ‘bad governance’. Unfortunately, what constitutes ‘bad governance’ in the neo-liberal text book — an activist state trying to even out socio-economic disparities through distributive justice — is rather popular among the masses, especially the poor. In an electoral democracy, a direct attack on welfare was never going to resonate beyond the rich and middle-classes, as successive governments in India have found to their cost.

Corruption and governance

Enter corruption, the godfather of good governance. ‘Corruption’ is not an ahistorical, value-neutral descriptor. Even in the short span of India’s post-independence history, it has been deployed in different ways in the service of different political agendas. Matthew Jenkins, a historian of corruption, has written about how, for instance, in JP Narayan’s movement for ‘total revolution’ in the 1970s, corruption denoted something very different from what it did in the Anna Hazare-led anti-corruption agitation of 2011.

For Narayan, corruption was a moral evil. As Jenkins puts it, Narayan “viewed the capitalist system itself as corrupt”. He cites Narayan’s famous quote that “wealth cannot be amassed except by exploitation.” But the anti-corruption discourse that grew around the Hazare movement did not share Narayan’s reservations about the corrupting influences of the profit motive. Corruption as a morally charged idea had disappeared altogether. What replaced it was a narrow, technical idea of corruption as bribery, which went well with the economistic notion of man as a rational agent who responds to incentives.

Overnight, the entire political class, the bureaucracy, and social infrastructure (such as the public distribution system, for instance), began to be deemed as hotbeds of corruption and held solely responsible for the state’s failures to deliver the benefits of economic growth. Conversely, any government engaged in the delivery of socially critical economic goods was held to be offering incentives for corruption.

In other words, it is not neo-liberal economic polices but corruption that is to blame for the benefits of economic growth not trickling down — or not trickling down enough — to the masses.

Now that corruption had been identified as the biggest hurdle to economic development, the stage was set for its antidote: good governance. This trajectory – of aspirations first raised and then betrayed by economic reforms, leading to mass discontent, which zeroes in on corruption as the problem, with good governance presented as the solution – is very evident in recent Indian history. But it is by no means unique to India. As Jenkins points out, the “international anti-corruption consensus” has been a powerful vehicle for manoeuvring recalcitrant nations onto the neo-liberal track.

With the UPA II regime showing no signs of progress on the second wave of economic reforms, the demon of corruption was summoned to boot it out. And in its place, we now have the NDA, which is good governance incarnate, and invested with the mandate to roll out the next phase of reforms that its predecessor could not.

Elements of good governance

So, what’s definitely out is welfare expenditure, for not only is it a bad idea economically, it also represents what everyone hates – corruption. Also out is political interference in policy-making – which can lead to distortions to please vote banks. Major policy measures shall be decided by unelected experts, who don’t have to worry about winning the next election.

What’s in are accountability, transparency, empowerment, and citizen participation – all of which are key elements of Mr. Modi’s ‘good governance’ agenda. On the face of it, these don’t seem like bad ideas. But like development, they all have a dual meaning – one in the context of social transformation, another in the neo-liberal vision of good governance.

So if we take, for instance, accountability, good governance doesn’t mean accountability to the people – it is about accountability to business and to investors, who are risking their money with expectations in return.

Similarly, transparency doesn’t necessarily mean that the state should render its decision-making transparent to its citizens — if that were the case, a regime going gaga over good governance wouldn’t have kept the post of Chief Information Commissioner vacant for nine months. Again, the transparency in question is with regard to business, especially foreign investors, who are tired of trying to find their way through the intricate webs of political patronage (also known as corruption) and often lose out to domestic capital, which enjoys a cultural advantage (so-called crony capitalism).

As for empowerment, the good governance version of it, which imagines the state giving power to the disempowered, say, through technology (e-governance, m-governance), is a cruel joke on the original meaning of the term.

In human history, there has never been an instance of a powerful political group voluntarily giving up its power. Which is why real empowerment is always an outcome of political confrontation and struggle – the civil rights movement, the women’s rights movement, and all other rights-based movements are examples of attempts to empower people through the institution of legally enforceable rights. The good governance model of empowerment is allergic to any rights-based empowerment. It conceives of empowerment in individualistic-consumerist rather than collective terms. It offers little scope, for instance, to remedy the social disempowerment caused by caste.

Finally, we come to citizen participation. In social movements, citizenship was a powerful tool for obtaining political and economic rights for the marginalised, such as refugees, or the displaced. But in the good governance model, citizenship essentially means ‘market citizenship’ – the individual’s acquisition of the legal and other paraphernalia required for accessing the market.

Participation means participation in the market – as a wage-earner, consumer, producer. It could also mean participation in the limited domain of project implementation, which serves the purpose of conferring a sheen of democratic legitimacy on development projects decided and designed by an elite. It certainly does not mean participation in the sense of political contestation – of having a say on the model of development to be adopted.

To sum up, good governance is today a major discursive tool enabling the global transition of democracies to a form of government that some academics have labelled “soft authoritarianism”. A more accurate description would be “authoritarianism with a democratic face”.

Good governance entails the substitution of politics – which is what democracy is all about — with management. It seeks to insulate policy-making from the chaotic pressures of democracy.

So what kind of a government does good governance mandate? Given that there is only one model of development possible in the good governance framework – market-led development – a government that upholds good governance will have to cease being a guarantor of the citizens’ socio-economic rights. It would instead function as a facilitator and enabler of the market, which would deliver these goods and services to those who can afford them.

As for those who can’t afford them, if they behave well, they might get the carrot of cash/credit, which is essential to function as a market citizen. If they misbehave, the stick of repression is an ever-present threat. Democracy without politics, and citizenship without rights — these are the twin pillars of good governance as it’s advocated today. The beauty of it is that everyone seems to love it.

crowdfunding

As SEBI tries to regulate equity crowdfunding, the Internet promises to play disrupter.

Roughly a year ago, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) issued a consultation paper setting out its proposal to regulate equity-based crowdfunding in India. Comments were solicited from the public. Earlier this week, SEBI announced that it was working on the norms and that a decision may be taken soon.

A quick review of the SEBI paper gives us pointers to what the possible regulations could be. Under the proposed terms, three entities, namely, the crowdfunding platform, the investor, and the issuing company, would be regulated. The issuing company is restricted in terms of its size, the amount of funds to be raised and its age. The investor is restricted in terms of its accreditation, minimum net worth and, in case of eligible retail investors, the maximum investment that may be made overall or in a single crowdfunding event. Crowdfunding platforms are also restricted in terms of who may set them up and the checks and balances to be put in place.

While certain concepts such as accredited investors and maximum caps on investment in a single crowdfunded venture have been transplanted from the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act in the U.S., others are homegrown. Largely, SEBI’s proposed regulations do not give an exemption to small companies to access public funds, as in the case of the JOBS Act. Perhaps a major reason for the lack of exemption stems from the fact that Indian corporate finance markets are simply not as developed or sophisticated as the ones in the U.S. and other developed economies.

The proposed regulations require that equity crowdfunded companies follow the requirements in Section 42 of the Companies Act, 2013. This means that companies may offer their securities to a maximum of 200 persons and may have up to 50 shareholders, without being required to undertake a public issue. Thus, the act of crowdfunding, under the SEBI, cannot include an offer for shares and can be used only to garner interest in the company seeking funds.

Cross-border crowdfunding

However, SEBI’s paper does not take into account one critical aspect — that of cross-border crowdfunding. A number of countries have passed regulations, falling largely into two categories. The first is the U.S. model, which creates an exemption as described previously. Other countries that fall into this category include Australia, Italy, Japan, New Zealand and Singapore. The second category includes countries that do not offer an exemption, such as India, Hong Kong and Malaysia.

Of particular interest is the crowdfunding law in New Zealand. It specifically allows intermediary service providers, such as crowdfunding portals, to be licensed. This licensing regime is intended to facilitate suitably regulated ‘peer-to-peer lending’ and ‘crowdfunding’ services to operate. With regard to the fund-seeking company, the upper limit for raising funds is capped at NZ$2 million, but there are no upper limits on investment, nor is there a distinction between sophisticated and retail investors, making New Zealand one of the most crowdfunding-friendly jurisdictions.

There are two ways we may consider the case for cross-border crowdfunding in the Indian context. First, a company seeking funds from non-resident investors. Second, a company set up outside India seeking funds from investors around the world, including India. In the first case, the provisions of Section 42 of the Companies Act, 2013 would continue to apply.

Therefore, the question arises whether it would be possible to have a foreign company raise funds in India and for foreign investors to participate in crowdfunding activities in India, subject to extant inward and outward bound investment regulations and policies. But given the nature of both crowdfunding and the global reach of the Internet, it is possible that Indian investors may be involved in crowdfunding activities in other jurisdictions.

Overseas companies

The ability of Indian residents to invest in overseas companies, coupled with crowdfunding-friendly laws in other countries, come together to create an interesting scenario. Assume that a company incorporated in India is unable to raise funds from the crowd. It simply sets up a parent in a crowdfunding-friendly jurisdiction, which then seeks crowdfunding from investors around the world. An Indian retail investor, who was hitherto unable to participate in the equity of the Indian company, is now able to do so, subject to the Overseas Direct Investment regulations. The funds raised by the parent company are then invested in the Indian subsidiary. This possible scenario brings to light the global nature of Internet-based corporate fundraising. The cross-border aspect of the platforms and, more particularly, the uncertainty surrounding contract law application in different jurisdictions has yet to be dealt with effectively. This has been acknowledged by the International Organization of Securities Commissions.

Thus, we see that in jurisdictions where crowdfunding activities are not regulated, or have minimal regulations, it would be easier to raise funds and then invest in an Indian company. The opportunities arising from the resultant regulatory arbitrage could then be used by fund-seeking companies in India. This regulatory arbitrage has been used in other modes of financing as well. It is not unusual to see companies offer a minimal IPO in India only to undertake a substantially higher fundraising exercise through a GDR issue in a listing-friendly jurisdiction, such as Luxembourg.

How does a securities regulator deal with this then? One option would be to completely ban overseas investment by individuals unless they conform to the crowdfunding regulations. A more elegant — albeit difficult — solution, in my opinion, requires securities regulators across the world to work together to remove possible avenues of regulatory arbitrage.

Having said that, however, we may expect that some jurisdictions will see in this as an opportunity to begin a ‘race to the bottom’ in terms of crowdfunding regulations. Coupled with low capital gains taxes, a jurisdiction with a relatively low level of crowdfunding regulation would certainly attract fund-seeking companies.

While the Internet has acted as an enabling development in almost all industries without fail, it has its disruptive effects from time to time as well. The traditional boundaries of corporate finance are breaking down. It is time to shed older notions of corporate finance within the frameworks of political confines and instead address the issue of the world being better connected, even within the realm of corporate finance.