Technology Transfer and the Seed Innovation System in India Mr. Bajrang Lal*
Presented in “EU‐US Early Research Conference on Research and Innovation Studies”, STeHPS Universiteit of Twente, The Netherlands During 1 ‐ 4th July, 2008 under PRIME Network of Excellence ABSTRACT Science, Technology and Innovation are critical to the development and economic
growth strategies of both developed and developing countries. Scientific and technological
knowledge and information add value to existing resources, skill, knowledge and processes,
leading to new products, processes and strategies. These innovative changes that are expected
to lead improvement in socio-economic and environmental sustainability. Therefore,
innovation became central to development economic theory.
Over the last few decades there has been substantial debate over the best way for
science and technology to foster innovation in agriculture and its allied sectors. Current
changes at institutional, technological, market and policy level in modern Indian seed sector
makes it a suitable case for analysis through the lens of a sectoral system of innovation. Also,
intuitively the seed sector quite naturally lends itself, as it appeared in other sectors like
pharmaceutical, biotechnology and food processing, to be analyzed as a sectoral system of
innovation. The study to be documented is first in the Indian seed sector, though, country
like Canada have already applied this concept in the analysis of their seed sector.
The theoretical analysis suggested that it could be easily considered as a system or a
network because innovative activities involve directly or indirectly a large variety of actors,
including: diversity in seed firms, universities/R&D organizations, regulatory authorities and
laws, financial institutions, and users. All these actors are different in their knowledge base,
have different incentives and motivations, and different rules of action.
The study focuses on seed system of innovation and production as a set of new and
established products for specific use and set of agents carrying out market and non-market
interactions for the creation, production and marketing of the these varieties of generations
and selections. The objective of the study is to create an enabling environment that
encourages interaction and helps to put knowledge into socially and economically productive
use in the seed sector. It presents a good case for theoretical development in advancement of
knowledge in the area of seed innovation system.
•
Author is a Ph.D. Student in Centre for Studies in Science Policy, Jawaharlal Nehru University,
New Delhi 110067, Email [email protected]
1
1. INTRODUCTION India has one of the largest public National Agriculture Research System (NARS) in
the world. The country is also a biodiversity hotspot. India’s food, nutritional, livelihood and
socio-economic security depends largely upon agriculture and land resources. This situation
is not likely to change in the near future. However, the ability of the agriculture sector to
meet the changing demands of the growing population would require further technological
interventions in the sector. Of the various technological interventions seed is considered as
critical basic input for aiming sustained long term growth in agricultural production. The
availability of quality seed is necessary for attaining higher yield. Good quality seed acts as a
catalyst for realizing the potential of all other inputs in agriculture. Without good seed,
investment like fertilizer, water, pesticides and other input will not pay the desired dividends.
Scientifically speaking, seed is an “embryo”, a living organism embedded in supporting the
food storage tissue.
An improved seed is a most dynamic instrument for increasing
agriculture production and also economical input. The fact that a genetically pure seed alone
could increase crop production by 20 percent and provide resistance against several menace
states the importance of this basic input in agriculture.
Since, the advent of technological change find their meaning in a particular socioeconomic context, it becomes imperative to identify the way technology interacts to changing
demands within an organization/firm as well as outside it and in turn is influenced by
regulatory and similar other system. Though, technology has different meaning to industry
and farmers, as far as the farmer is concerned, all the scientific innovation would have to be
of little value unless he gets seed, which are genetically pure (true to type) and posses other
desired qualities namely, high germination percentage and vigor, high purity, sound health
etc. When the farmers do not get seeds possessing these qualities the yield they obtain may
not be satisfactory. Only seed with assured quality can be expected to respond to fertilizers
and other inputs in a desired manner. Otherwise as has been aptly said, “What is known as
the seed of hope may turn into seed of frustration?”
However, seed firms – an important agent in the innovation system - major concern is
in making profit out of investment on technology development. In this regard, the role of
policy in catering to the interest of various stakeholders as well as facilitating the overall
growth of the sector becomes crucial.
The response of technology developer and users in sub sector (seed and food
processing) has changed over a period of time. Earlier there was little or no focus to study the
2
seed sector on the pretext that there was scarcity of big business units in agriculture.
Transnational corporations in other input sector like fertilizer, chemical pesticide, were
considered as only profit makers. As a result there was little interest to study the market and
technological behaviors of the firms in the agriculture sector. While, in recent past,
multinational firms, like Monsanto, Pioneer, Syngenta, and Indian multinationals like
MAHYCO, JK Seed Bio-seed etc. has started making several incremental innovations and
has adopted new market strategies. The literature developed to capture this changing trend of
the evolution of new strategies in the Indian seed market is useful in this respect. Similarly, in
the case of research institutions the initial period was characterized by very weak linkages of
research establishments with other actors in the system. However, recently this trend has
changed although not impressively.
Against this background the starting point of the study will be the theoretical stands
emerging from the existing seed sector literature/case studies/media/research reports. If the
seed sector is characterized by techno-historical path, specific knowledge base, production
processes, regulations, complementarities and demand by seed firms then it raises following
concerns: does the sectoral approach open out the production function of seed? Innovation
systemic perspective emerged from both theoretical and empirical investigation of seed sector
that differs in various dimensions and network of linkages with other related
sectors/institutions. The technical and non technical dimensions of the seed sector in India
during last 20 years may require integrated approaches and methods both from an
interdisciplinary perspective as well from various interactions of players, such as industry,
R&D scientists, and farmers. Approaches are needed to respond adequately to the
opportunities and challenges offered by transformation processes. Also, set of tools, which
may not only strengthen knowledge production system and ensure linkages in various actors,
but also offer competitiveness to the Indian and other developing countries seed market, is
required in this context. In conclusion the study would suggest approaches and mechanisms
in which various agents interacts and influences the competiveness of seed sector.
3
2. CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF AGRICULTURE AND THE SEED INNOVATION SYSTEM Agricultural development depends to a great extent on how successful knowledge is
generated and applied. Investment in knowledge, especially in the form of science and
technology has featured prominently and consistently in most strategies to promote
sustainable and equitable agricultural development at national level. Although many of these
investments have been quite successful (development of technology in food crops varieties,
milk, oilseed etc), (World Bank, 2006), the context for agriculture is changing rapidly in the
processes of knowledge management. It is increasingly recognized that value of traditional
agricultural science and technology investment such as research and extension, although
necessary, but is not adequate to enable agricultural innovation. Moreover, the changing
needs and demands of end users i.e. farming community and other customers are not entirely
met by technology generated under existing national agricultural research system
(Swaminathan, 2004).
Consequently, agricultural research system has witnessed substantial debate over the
best way to develop and manage science & technology for innovation. Therefore, the
scientific innovation in agriculture has been seen as the inter-connections between various
actors working in a complex system. Various schools of thought emerged for innovation
management in agricultural research and production system. Broadly two distinct views may
be outlined.
The first school of thought argues that the scientific research is the main driver of
innovation, creating new knowledge and technology that can be transferred and adopted to
different situations. This view is usually described as the linear model or “transfer of
technology” model that is very fit in agricultural development (Biggs, 1989). But the proper
attentions were not paid by “know-how” of local preferences. On the other hand, researchers
are subscribing to the second view, while not denying the importance of research and
technology transfer recognizes innovation as an interactive process. Innovation involves the
interactions of individuals and organizations processing different types of knowledge within a
particular social, political, policy, economic and institutional policy environment.
The
second school of thought thus, increasingly discussed in terms of the “innovation system”
4
(Freeman, 1987; Nelson, 1992; Lundvall, 1992; Lundvall, 1993; Carlsson, 1995, Edquist,
1997).
Therefore, the innovation system is creating the evolutionary dynamics that often
create the new institutional forms that allow the creation and exploitation of new knowledge
and technologies. This process of institutional learning is the central feature of successful
innovation systems. Hence, the analysis of innovation system is more inclusive than the
narrower notion of research system. Then emerging framework of innovation system concept
thus seems viable option. There has been very little work applying this concept in agriculture
but there is an important sense in which it implicitly underlies recent debates. First is
regarding “technology”. Proposition amongst development analyst to regard technology as
resulting mainly to industry and by implication almost has little to do with agriculture.
Nothing could be further from truth. Technology, certainly in the sense used by economist1 is
a key factor in important problem associated with poverty and sustainability in the third
world agricultural development (World Development Report, 2007). But technological factor
is also important in agriculture as it’s important in industry (Chambers et.al, 1989; World
Bank, 2007). It is nevertheless true that it’s impinges in rather different way. Biggs and Clay,
1981 noted that in the early 1980s, agricultural production was inherently more unstable and
location specific than in case of industry and that is true, because it take place within the
context of natural (biological) system that continuously evolve over period of time and
space2. It is said that knowledge of agricultural technology primarily resides with farmers and
in their field. The management of technology at farming sector is something different from
other sectors. However, in changing perspective of market dynamic, management of
technological factor has also become an important component in agricultural sector. Second,
difference relates to the failure of market to allocate technological resources optimally in case
of agriculture. Unless the state intervenes, there will be under investment and everyone will
suffer. Thus, the small and marginal farmers have often a considerable fund of tacit
knowledge about the local environment but they have no position and money to invest in
formal R&D to improve production possibilities. For this reason, the investment of R&D
resources designed to upgrade the technological level of agriculture has traditionally been
seen as the business of public sector, research being conducted in centralized institutes and its
1
Technology mean by which resources are transformed into commodities that have value.
Note, there is no guarantee that a technology package that works in specific location in year one will be
equally successful 200 meters down the road in that year. Hence, the term of the production and dissemination
of usable knowledge, it is on the whole much more difficult to develop generic technology with universal
applicability than is the case with industry. That is not to say that industrial technology is completely invariant
across different contexts.
2
5
end result supposed to pass to the farmers by the means of network of extension/technology
transfer agencies. The major difference in developed and developing countries is high rate of
investment, extensive network of institutions and finally awareness of market and
technological knowledge among the farmers in the developed economies.
Clark, 2002 provided an understanding of the dynamic potential of innovation
systems in developing countries with the special focus on issue of agricultural poverty. He
suggests that in developing countries like Africa, India and China, there is a clear need for
institutional reform to accompany relevant technological change. Study by Hall, 2005 would
appear that innovation concept approach can integrate the issue of poverty and environment
into sector development planning by altering the role, and intonations of actors to develop
new patterns of alliance, governances and engage in new sectoral business model.
The concept needs to be further advanced in the sectoral system which provides the
multidimensional, integrated and dynamic view of sector. It is proposed that a sectoral
system of innovation and production is a set of new and established products for specific use
and set of agents carrying out market and non-market interactions for the creation, production
and marketing of the those variety generation and selection. Further, it may results in better
understanding about sectoral structure and boundaries, the agents and their interactions,
innovation and product processes, the transformation of sectors and the factors at the base of
the differential performances of firms (Utterback, 1994; Malerba-Orsengio, 1996; Malerba,
2000, 2002). At firm level, the development in new knowledge learning processes, which
flow from internal (from one domestic institution firm to other) as well as from external
sources (multinational to domestic firms) creates a kind of competitive environment. The
learning process may be seen in seed sectoral structure with the emergence of partnership
between transnational seed companies or firms with the Indian firms in technology
generation, transfer and marketing of their products (Mahadevappa, M., 2005).
In order to be aware of these dynamics of technology knowledge transfer related
strategies in sector by various agents (firms, institutions), we may require composite
intertwined system with regional, national and international level of integration of innovating
activities (Hozt-Harz, 2000). The international strategic S&T collaboration and relations
opening out the issues concerning how various spatial dimensions of innovation could
interact or could be combined for their strategic global business management(HotzHart,2000; Bunnel and Coe, 2001;
Bathelt and Depher, 2003;) also including sector
specialties (Malerba, 2002) becomes important. The S&T collaboration with more than 50
countries includes collaboration in the area of seed as well. This shows that the sectoral
6
systems of innovation though work within the national framework but is also influenced by
factors beyond the national boundaries or system.
However, much of the initiative stimulating these developments has come from both
public as well as private organizations, which needs to be analyzed. There are certain
limitations to the extent despite that the innovation system approach would contribute to
build innovative capabilities. Partially, this related to gap in demand-supply of seed, narrow
research focus, and linkage among various actors (public-private institutes and regulations),
which helped to recognize the institutional learning and generation of institutional
innovations to address these problems that are noticeable in the Indian seed sector.
The data on Seed Replacement Rate (SRR) and Seed Multiplication Rate (SMR)
revealed that for almost all major crops the SRR is not at all close to the recommended.
Ideally computed seed replacement of cross-pollinated crops of 30-33.3 percent or 20 percent
for self-pollinated crops have been adequate. Obviously in case of hybrid the SRR is 100
percent as beyond F1 generation there is loss in vigor and quality traits. The low SRR implies
that farmers use crop produce as a seed. This has resulted in low demand for quality seed and
hence an unsold stock of some seeds was observed as the major reason for low replacement.
Also farmers are generally not aware of the correct package of practices and replacement
schedule of seed (Telay et al, 1999). Most of the farmers either used seed for sowing meant
for consumption or obtained from their fellow farmer (Banerjee 1994). Thus, farmers are
aware about hybrid seed but do not have the proper accesses of technology knowledge,
know-how and know-where and also about replacement schedule. A case study of
agriculturally most developed state of Punjab (Sidhu, 1996; Sidhu, 1999), and Haryana
(Chauhan, Rai and Chamya, 2002) indicated that most of seed used for sowing are selfproduced. The low seed replacement rate due to lack of awareness and farmer’s linkage with
R&D institutions among the farmers therefore requires proper mechanism to transfer
knowledge form R&D to farmers. State policy implementation efforts are also needed to
strengthen proper technology transfer. Even so, the farmers also complained that the
companies are not in favor of their demand for neglected crop/orphan crop seeds. Also the
issue of spurious and fake seed and high price at time of pick season were major issues of
concern among the farming community.
Other similar studies showed that most of companies were involved in low volume
and high value crops3 in order to maximize their profit (Seed Association of India, 2006).
3
Crops like cereals, millets and pulses are consider as low value and high volume crop whereas, crops like
horticulture fruit, vegetable, cotton spices are consider as high value and low volume crops.
7
These findings showed that the companies are deviating their research & development
resources away from food crops to other high value commercial crops, where the economic
pay off is more. A study by the Bayer Crop Science internal estimate argued that top ten seed
companies holding increased from 70 to 90 % of private seed market in a decade time
(Gridhar, M., 2006). It shows the concentration of private seed market is rapidly growing in
India. This argument led that the untapped market has potential for the private sector.
Emergence of multinationals, internationalization of R&D, and protection regimes are
inducing processes of merger and acquisition (M&A) in the sector. The new pattern of
division of labour, collaboration among firms and other institutional actors like universities
and public research centre, testing laboratories and extension centre are creating opportunities
for multinational. These basic characteristics of system mentioned in the above literature
exhibit specific feature for an economic dynamic analysis, mainly; technical basis of
production that strongly depends on agro-climatic conditions which tend to learning of
technological change4. Learning processes, and transformation of sector and factors at the
base of the differential performance of firms, within national agricultural innovation system
may require to compensate or enhance natural resources use, technological, market
differences and minimize them since these advantage can also be enhanced and improved by
knowledge learning and building interaction among various actors.
4
Both space and time dimension are involved here as natural advantages of location benefit firms or producers
undertaking cultivation and the biological cycle that prevails in agriculture and within some limits are
responsible for a usually long production period.
8
3. SEED INNOVATION SYSTEM IN INDIA Since, national agricultural innovation and production has close links with scientific
research this is a useful analytic starting point. A traditional way oftenly used in setting out
the general conceptual issue is to think in terms of a division of labour between “knowledge
search and knowledge use”. In India the ICAR and state funded research institution carry out
pure seed research according to cannon of objectivity determined by the cognitive authority
of peer review. The net effect of all theses initiative has been to blur the distinction between
knowledge search and knowledge use and hence to make the notion of knowledge pipeline
increasingly untenable. Instead attention is now placed on more multifaceted idea like market
and non-market concerns, which is defined as the “network of economic agents together with
the institutions and policies that influences their innovative behavior and performances”5 on
how such a system should be organized to improve the dynamics of seed and other allied
sector. Consequently, it seems that agricultural production system comprises of various
sectors which may have interdependences with each other through backward and forward
linkages. To understand these sectoral dynamics, the theoretical review of seed offers some
widespread points, which is sustained by the Pavitt taxonomy (1984) on sectoral innovation.
His argument on sectoral specific taxonomy (specialized suppliers, science based,
scale intensives and suppliers dominated) is a good starting point to account of sector specific
features of the dynamics of competition within any industry. Under his classification
agriculture is considered as a supplier dominated sector6. Only supplier dominated features as
an approach focusing on innovation and competition would be misplaced in this regard.
However, as mentioned earlier, sector specific characteristics are not only acknowledged in
this approach but they provide the very basis. Agriculture should not be claimed as different
from other industrial sector justify a whole economic analysis or even a theory, for its own
use. But this is not to say that to analyze this sector as a supplier dominated one is enough.
5
See, Lundvall(1992) and Edquist (1999) for detailed discussion of this concept. There is actually a burgeoning
literature on the topic but these two sources provide a comprehensive review.
6
Like many industrial sectors under this heading most of market exhibits a very low degree of market
concentration, absence of oligopolistic structure, product homogeneity and high level of price concentration;
low rate of technological change and limited capacity of innovating by its own mean, with insignificant R&D
expenditures. Innovations technical changes in agriculture are almost entirely due to supplier industries, both
equipment manufacturing and input suppliers (fertilizer, seeds and pesticides). In addition the remarkable
presence of polices and pubic institutions providing research fund and carrying out research activities cannot be
overlooked ( Passes,et al ,1996).
9
Last but not the least, diversity being a very important issue in the sector is important to
understand its competitive dynamics from the theoretical point.
To understand sectoral specialties the dynamisms of sector, the fundamental wideranging circumstances observed in seed, may be needed to analyse the relationship opening
out among various actors carrying out market and non-market interactions. The agents
comprising the sectoral system are organizations (firms and non-firms) individuals, which are
characterized by specialized learning processes competence for the competitiveness. These
interactions are shaped by institutions (rule and regulation), over time, it may provide the
insights on undergone processes of change and transformation, which is expected to provide
future directions to sectoral dynamics of competitiveness.
3.1.
Innovation System Approach
The innovation system is an interactive process among various actors and agents. It
has stressed the points that firm do not innovate in isolation, so that innovation could be seen
as a collective and interactive process for knowledge learning for technologies and process
(Matcalfe, 1998; Dosi, 1997). In the innovation process firms interacts with other firms as
well as with non-firms organization such as universities, research centres, government
agencies financial institutions and so on. The interaction is shaped by institutions, (Nelson,
1992; Lundvall, 1993; Cowan, et al, 2000; Carlsson, 1995; Edquist, 1997). The strong
national innovation has been developed over the year in India to promote and support the
technological capabilities for the growth and competitiveness of seed businesses and industry.
3.1.1
Seed Science Technology infrastructure
The reviews of the literature on the Indian seed industry suggest its heterogeneous
nature. It has many dimensions. The product segment corresponds to all the major field crops,
horticulture and vegetable and plantation crop. The current structural infrastructure and
interaction of the seed industry for major players is shown in (Annex-1). The arrow indicates
the movement of technology, germplasm and seed among the organizations and Institutes of
Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR), State Agricultural Universities, private firms
and the International Agricultural Research Centre and Non-Governmental Organization
(NGO) conducting plant-breeding research and production of all three types of seed - breeder,
foundation and certified seed (Figure-1 and Table-1). The seed transfers through the
marketing and distribution network in the both public and private sector. The public sector
National Seed Corporation (NSC) and State Seed Corporation (SSC) distribute seed through
their own seed outlets, co-operatives. The private companies have their own system of
marketing consisting of dealers/dealer shops, sale and marketing officer at regional, district
10
and local level in country. Various study on the seed sector again raise issues that such a huge
system yet not efficient to supply quality seed at right quantity, time and cost to the user and
farming community. That can justify by the low seed multiplication and replacement rate in
except few commercial crop in country (See Annex-2).
Table- 1 Agriculture Science Technology Infrastructure in India
S.no. Research and education Institute
and technology transfer agencies/
ATMA/KVK
A
Research and Development
1
Sate Agricultural Universities
2
Research institutes
No
Activities undertaken
42
47
3
National Research Centre (NRC)
26
4
National bureau
5
5
6
B
1
2
3
4
Project directorates
International Linkage
Transfer agencies
ATMA
Agriculture extension KVKs
State Agriculture Department
Private Seed Companies
10
16
All
Region specific (crop, animal fish
water soil)
Various crops horticulture commercial
policy fish, poultry, water, soil etc
(Plant, animal, fish, soil and microorganism)
Crops water animal poultry etc.
CGIAR, FAO WTO, etc
547
28
Large, medium, small and others
>400
C.
1
2
3.
4
D.
1
2
E
F
Seed
Production/Distribution/Marketing
National seed corporation
1
State Seed Corporation
13
State Seed farm Corporation
2
Seed Companies
400
Regulatory agencies
PPV & FR authority
1
Plant quarantine
1
0
Marketing policy regulation body
0
Centralized authority
Source various reports, 2005-06, 2006-07
3.1.2
Apex public sectoral central agencies
Region specific
At national level
With regional office
Absent
Absent
Investments
The stagnation of the 1980s, which continued into early 1990s, was essentially due to
decline in public sector gross capital formation. Taking a cursory look at the prevailing
11
agriculture research system in India 90 percent of the agricultural research in India is publicly
supported. Yet, research investments account for barely 0.5 per cent of agricultural GDP. The
outlays allocation of expenditure indicated declining trend in research and education and an
increase in the share of extension (Table-2). The central component of the public R&D
system is the Indian Council of Agricultural Research accounts for more than 40 per cent of
the financial and around one-fifth of the manpower resources of the national agricultural
research systems (NARS). Though, the private investment is trying to compensate for the
relative decline in state-sponsored investment the nascent private sector accounted barely 1015 percent in seed research. After the reform period, the investment of private investment
increased both in number and volume. The number of firms conducting research increased
from 17 to 38 (Pray and Ramaswami, 2001). The private sector companies in India started
looking India as a strategic location for technology development, and managing flourishing
business in Asia subcontinent and against it very few Indian seed companies are able to
expand their business in other country at technology and marketing level. It would be
important to analyse how much of that increase is because of reforms? Economy theory
suggests that, in addition to policy changes major factor influencing firm’s research
investment decisions are expected sales of the product of R&D, the ability to capture the
benefit of research through Intellectual property rights or new innovative technical mean and
the expected cost of research. To identify the relative importance of the reform in increasing
research it is necessary to examine the pattern of deployment of institutional impact.
Table-2 Plan outlay of ICAR
Total
Shares in total expenditure, %
outlay
Rs. in
Research Education Extension
crore
V (1974-79)
153.6
60.7
43.2
4.6
VI (1980-85)
340.0
73.4
21.7
4.4
VII (1985-90)
425.0
74.6
16.7
7.5
VIII (1992-97)
1300.0
73.2
11.9
12.6
IX (1992-02)
2748.3
73.3
10.5
10.8
X (2002-07)
5368.0
57.2
16.4
19.6
Plan
Others
0.1
0.4
1.2
2.6
5.4
6.8
Soure Jha etal1995,ICAR budget books and DARE and ICAR(2001) tenth Five year Plan (2002-2007)
including Annual plan(2003-04)
3.1.3
Human Resources
The ICAR has articulated a normative ratio of 1:2:5 between principle scientist, senior
scientist and scientists. The census data from 2001-02 shows a deceleration in recruitment of
young scientists (1.0:3.1: 3.4), (ICAR, 2005). This is obvious and important; that the full
12
exploitation of resources similarly requires considerable size of expenditure, supportive
policy to private participation and scientific knowledge base.
In India plant-breeding training under public sector, the technical human resources
produced by these institutes absorbed in public as well as in private breeding programs. The
human resources developed in agriculture are around 11565 and 8650 Graduate and
postgraduate produced by agricultural universities in various disciplines of agriculture
(www.indiastat.nic/agri/data). Out of which only 1 percent candidate opted plant breeding at
master level, this number is less as compared with other nation.
Though, Agricultural universities are offering master PhD programme in plant
breeding in India. Consequently, most of these state agriculture universities (SAU) run by
state funding with partially assisted by central government. The decline trend in HR capacity
building may be due to the lack of research fund, infrastructure, and lack of employment
opportunities in academic research.
The number of research personnel’s in private sector increased substantially. This can
be seen as a new trend emerging in private resources capability building. The study suggested
that research scientist/researcher with PhDs went up from 31 to 111. The number with
M.Sc.’s increased from 45 to 140 and similar trend observed in research area in private sector
(Pray and Ramaswamy, 2001).
3.1.4 Supportive Infrastructure – Marketing and Distribution Networks
The public sector consists of the National Seed Corporation (NSC), the State Farm
Seed Corporation of India (SFSCI), and 13 State Seed Corporations and with supported by
107 seed testing facilities. The private seed sector consists of more then 200 seed companies.
Theses seed companies are classified in large, medium, small/unorganized local players on
the sale turn over (Table-3).
Table -3: Size of Private Seed Sector in India
S.No
1
2
3
No of Companies
Size of companies
Sales turn over (in
million Rs)
40
Large
>200
Small number
Medium
200
Large number
Local player and <20
unorganized
Sources: Seed Industry in AP- A profile, 2004
This classification is again not homogenously accepted other studies divided in
private seed sector in multinational, domestic and small seed companies (Singh, 2006;
Gadwall, 2003). Interestingly, one can observes that the share of multinational companies as
13
seed market is growing in compared with public seed sector. Thus, it is argued that the
companies both multinational and domestic corporations multiply and market varieties bred
by their own in-house R&D and the public sector institutions. But against it, argued that
global private player developing new innovative varieties in various agricultural important
crops in various global locations.
3.1.5 Seed Market Potentials
The analysis of the size of the global seed market is estimated to be US $ 28,376
million in 2007. The largest commercial market is USA (US $ 7000 million) followed by
China (US $ 4500 million) Japan (US $ 2500 million) and India (US $ 1300 Million) is
ranked seventh in commercial seed market (World Seed Trade Statistics, 2007) and (Table4). Against total seed business of world, the world seed export market estimated US $ 4904
Million; out of which USA is highest exporter (US$ 922 Million). The US share in world
seed export market is 19 percent and followed by Netherlands, France, Germany and the
Indian seed export market (US $ 16 million) is ranked 30th in year 2005. The import of
world seed market shows similar trend: USA tops the list with ( US $ 506 Million) followed
by Mexico (US $372 million ),France (US $332 Million), Netherlands( US $ 329 million)
and India is ranked 36th (US $ 26 million). Even in India, the overall import-export market is
merely 0.5 percent of world seed trade and 4.5 percent in domestic market7 (World Seed
Trade Statistics, 2007).
7
The data presented here are estimates prepared by the ISF Secretariat based on internal surveys, documents
obtained from the UN, WTO, APSA, GNIS, Rabobank, Per-capita and elsewhere, and information collected at
congresses and trips to various countries.
14
Table -4 Growth of International Seed Market
15
Source: - International Seed federation/www.worldseed.org/2008
The share of private to public sector participation in the Indian seed industry has gone
up around 60: 40 by volume of turnover (Table -5). The increasing share of domestic seed
market and flow of multinational in agro-biotech seed sector in India constitute global good
seed sector. Presently, the top world seed companies investing and managing their business
in India, which is globally and nationally dominated by big trans-national companies (TNC),
it also has seen an upsurge of smaller companies and other big companies eyeing this sector
(Table-6 and 7 ). Moreover, owing to rapid emergence of techniques and tools in the field of
biotechnology the organization which will overcome the lag (Cantwell, 1989, 1992), between
16
the wage increase following productivity increases, by adopting faster rate if innovation, will
create a niche for themselves in the market. Therefore, it is necessary to define the
technology strategies that will drive innovation. It may argue that the cheap resources,
adaptability of Indian germplam in Asian and African continents genetic resources,
geographical location of breeder seed production, large segment of market availability or may
be stagnation/saturation in other European seed market attracted MNC’s in Indian seed
market.
Table-5: Indian seed markets
Market size Rs (million)
Sector
1994
%
1998
%
2000
%
2004
%
Public
sector
4,000
40
5,200
27
5,500
25
NA
21*
Private
sector
(organized)
3,500
35
11,170 55
13,200
60
NA
60*
Unorganize
d
2,500
25
3.500
18
3,300
15
NA
15*
Total
10,000
-
20,190
-
22,000
-
39,000
*
Value of
seed
in
exports
-
1000*
Sources: Kapoor, Arvind. Private Sector role vital, The Hindu Survey of Agriculture
(1999).
* Agriculture Today, Industry source, 2004. NA – not available
17
Table -6:- Indian Seed Companies Concentration
Company
Holding structure
Turn over
Focus areas
Mahyco
Monsanto –26%
1000
All crops
HLL
Unilever –50%
00
All crops
Proagro
Aventis
600
All crops
Ankur
-
400
Cotton, Veg.
Namdhari seeds
-
500
Veg.
Advanta
Adventa
&ITC(50%each)
380
Sunflower,
millet
Syngenta
Synegenta
350
Sunflower, cotton, veg.
Indo-American
Family
300
Veg.
Mahindra
Hicks Muse Tate&Furst
300
Millets, Cotton
Spic PHI
POC-100%
250
Corn, sunflower
Cargill
Mansanto-100%
200
Sunflower, cotton
EID Parry
Family, mansanto-51%
10
Corn sunflower
Nath
Nath Group
-
Cotton, millets, corn
9000
-
Total
cotton,
Source- Seed Industry, Manage, 2005
Table 7: Top Ten Seed Companies India
S.No
Seed companies
Seed sale (US)
Seed sale (US) million s,
million s, 2004
1998
1
Monsanto (USA)
2,803
1,800
2
Dupont (USA)
2,600
1,835
3
Syngenta (Novartis)(SWD)
1,239
1,000
4
Groupe Limagrain(France)
1,044
733
5
KWs AG (Germany)
622
370
6
Land O’ lakes (USA)
538
370
7
Sakata (Japan)
416
349
8
Bayer crop science (Germany)
387
9
Taikii(Japan)
366
300
10
DLF Trifolium (Denmak)
320
Sources: Global seed concentration-2005- ETC and www.PANNA.org/resources
3.1.6
Policy
18
Despite the fact that, the economic liberalization may open up new opportunities as
well as challenges it is important that scientific innovation in “genetic engineering
technologies” is aligned with field crop seed product demands and increasing with other crop
inputs and rapidly entering in new value added agri-business supply chain. These techniques
hold enormous promise in developing crop varieties with higher level of tolerance to biotic
and abiotic stresses. Therefore the aims of new seed policy are …. “Provision of create an
appropriate climate for Indian seed industry to utilize available and perspective opportunities,
safeguarding of the interest of Indian farmers and conservation of agro-biodiversity. While
necessary regulation needs to be dismantled, it must be ensured that gullible farmers are not
exploited by unscrupulous elements. A regulatory system of new genre is, therefore, needed,
which will encompass quality assurance mechanism coupled with facilitation of vibrant and
responsible seed industry….”New Seed Policy’s (2002). Though, these relevant policy
reforms expected to provides the opportunity to the private sector to fill the gap.
Henceforward, it grew rapidly in the last decade and made its reputation in the farmer
community in various regions of country and the same time companies are complaining
against prejudiced policy reform for land acquisition and carry over seed8 etc. Whilst, the
interaction among various players for technologies development, transfer and seed
distribution yet not seem to be faceable to firms as well as farmers.
Innovation system approach should be considered as an interactive process among a
wide variety of actors - technology developer, suppliers and users. Innovation could be seen
as a collective process which guide systematic understanding of the nature of technological
change and corresponding trajectories how could go ahead the vibrant and competitive seed
sector in India.
3.2 Technological Change and Transformation
The nature of technological change (corresponding trajectories) and trends,
transformation evolves over a period of time in a phase manner in sectors. The argument
supported by industrial life cycle (Utterback, 1994; Klepper, 1996; Malerba and Orsenigo,
1996). The continuous development of key resources in seed (germplam and enabling
technologies) and emergences of new laws of regulation and shift chemical based R&D to
life science based technology. It may show the transformation phase and also promotes
viability of private seed sector.
8
The certified seed left unsold in the companies in growing season.
19
The advent of “technological changes” and transformation are influencing the seed
industry structure and functions. Until few decades ago, the modern seed industry was based
on farmer’s varieties, conventional varieties9, hybrid varieties10 or other varieties. The
varieties are developed and released by government of India are given in last fifty years
(Table-8).
Table-8: Number of Varieties/Hybrids Developed and Released for Cultivation in
India
S.No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Crops
No of Varieties released
Before 2000-04
All cereals/millets
1254
Pulses
466
Oil seed
400
Food Crops
92
Fiber Crops
216
Other Crops
20
Total
2442
Vegetables
372
Total
2814
Total from 2000-04
515
Total
3429
Source: Ministry of Agriculture, 2006 GOI India
In recent past the new technologies led “Round-Up” or GM technologies and “elite
germplasms” innovations (narrow and large) transform the seed sectors structure and
functioning (Joly and Ducos, 1993). Therefore, the advance applications of plant breeding
research, the research institutions/firms are rapidly shifting their R&D activities and business
from chemical to hybrid to transgenic varieties. Though, they also have organizational and
culture differences in their strategic management behavior in acquiring new technologies,
exploiting natural resources management of advancement of genomic based technology11.
9
“variety” means a plant grouping except micro organism within a single botanical taxon of the lowest known
rank, which can be - (i) defined by the expression of the characteristics resulting from a given genotype of that
plant grouping; (ii) distinguished from any other plant grouping by expression of at least one of the said
characteristics; and (iii) considered as a unit with regard to its suitability for being propagated, which remains
unchanged after such propagation, and includes propagating material of such variety, extant variety, transgenic
variety, farmers’ variety and essentially derived variety. (PPV&FR Act, 2001)
10
The hybrid variety is developed by the crossing of desirable character.
11
The large well-known companies also involved in combined business of pesticides/fertilizer and seed in
international markets. The long-term deleterious effect of chemical/fertilizer on land and natural resources raise
the issue health, other, and change consumers demand at global market. While, chemical based establishment
transform their preexisting strategies towards life science based research and development activities i.e. or
technology provider, technology solution providers at global long-term business strategies. While the hybrid
seeds will continue as the core product of the postmodern seed industry, the focus is rapidly shifting from
chemical to hybrid to biotechnology and transgenic varieties, which off course can also be hybrids.
20
These changes have taken place throughout the world and the Indian seed sector is also
getting influenced by these changes.
The re-examination of the seed industry with regulatory framework including other
factors mentioned above. But the deep-seated issue that needs to be addressed here is that
even if public-private partnership could be developed, will the resulting technologies ever get
to the marginal farmers? Private investment in plant breeding has a propensity to focus
moreover on selected crops that favour particular technological trajectories (e.g. dwarfs,
chemical responsive, resistance against diseases/pests and yield as opposed to quality). This
often reinforced by marketing decision and scale of economics which could promote a
portfolio of marginally differentiated varieties that map across a narrow set of characteristics
(Rangnekar, 2004). These transformations are paying attention on dry land farming and
neglected crops? There is may no assertion that the new biotechnological trends will fare any
better. The investment on technology will worthwhile, if the current dilemma which many
developing countries including India and African are facing that delivering conventional and
modern technologies to subsistence farmers can be reversed. And how much responsibility
should rest on the public sector for future technology development? What kinds of role can
the private sector playing in this respect? How far seed sector relied upon these changes to
meet the urgent productivity challenges? Yet, the different actor public and private seed
sector has difference focus on crop, is not essentially on these neglected crops. To accelerate
growth in seed technology one has to look into the inherent nature of technological change in
system and various internal and external barriers. The analysis of technology knowledge
generator and users and their interaction could provide the sustainable inclusive growth in
agriculture seed sector.
3.3
Strategic behavior of different agents –
The strategic behavior of different agent and response of seed unit to the market
signals and perspective opportunities are defined by the technological change. The new
competitive pattern and competitive strategies are emerging from the other firms/institutions.
In other word, Oosterwijk (2003) claim that such a combination would be appropriate. He
concluded in his research on telecommunication, agriculture/chemistry in Holland. His study
claim that the additions of a sectoral perspective to NIS approach gives a more precise and
deeper understanding of mechanism that constitutes an innovation in any given country. The
Joint, public-private tendencies have implied a sharp increase in the resources needed to
develop new seed. Equally important, this has led to redefinition of the nature and
21
complementarities between the fundamental sources of competitive advantages in seed
industry, namely R&D, innovative competencies, marketing and distribution capabilities.
The private seed sector make substantial investment in seed strategic research and
development while, the main focuses of private firm on the marketing of seed. A study
reported that the 38 seed firms which are all large private firms were actively involved in
R&D activities, which account only less than 1 percent of total R&D in development
activities in 1987 (Pray, Ramaswami and Kelley., 2001). The companies are investing more
R&D on vegetables and commercial crops then cereals, pulses and small millets with the high
expectation of return on innovation.
In vegetable, a study conducted by the South East and South Asia (AVRDC) has
highlighted that in recent past, out of total companies in South Asia region around 32 percent
of the seed companies have established research and development (R&D) budget below 5
percent of their total budget. The 55 percent seed companies are in range of 5 to 20 percent
and only one company has a budget above 20 percent. The allotted budget is mostly confined
to developing new varieties and hybrids for local and international vegetables market.
The data on sector wise distribution of patents in India showed that 3817 patents
granted in India given (Table-9). The highest number in drug pharmaceutical followed
computer, electronic design whereas the patent granted in seed sector or plant protestant (59)
and plant variety projection number is only 68. The most distinctive aspect is the share of
universities and research institutions which is less than two per cent. The patent granted to
foreign companies in India showed emerging partnership among different actors of Indians
and foreign inventors’ firm (Table -10).Over the period, partnership between Indian and
foreign inventors has gone up significantly. Other important component Foreign R&D Centre
concentration in India again increased significantly across the sector (Agarwal and Bajrang
Lal, 2008). Though some industry expert argued that some weird reasons, The firm find lack
of clarity in convention country regulation so that foreign firm hesitate to file application
plant protection authority of India (PPV&FR, 2003). In situation the Indians and foreign firm
have not cooperate much in filing patents except in collaboration with Indians. There is a
need to strengthen the partnership between Indians in India and abroad.
22
Table -9 Sectoral category-wise distribution of patents granted to Indians at USPTO
1976 – September 24, 2006
S.No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
CATEGORY
Drugs, herbal health formulations and nutriceuticals: cancer, antiinflammatory, cosmetic (skin, personal and hair care), antimicrobial,
antibiotic, cardiac, neurological, reproductive, etc.
Computer: software, data processing, debugging, integrated circuits,
visualization, graphics, printer, semiconductor, memory, hardware, image
analysis, etc.
Organic chemistry and compound
Data Processing: Structural design, measuring, software, artificial
intelligence, speech, design, management, etc.
Electrical: switch, circuit, chemistry, connectors, heating, measuring and
testing lamp, modeling, power management, transmission, x-ray tubes, etc.
Synthetic and natural resin: polymer, adhesives, leather, tyres, etc.
Molecular biology, biochemistry, biotechnology, molecular chemistry
Communications: telecommunications, radio, television, multiplex
communications, internet, pulse and digital communications, optical, etc.
Minerals & Hydrocarbon: chemistry, fuels, petroleum, gas separation,
lubricant, LPG, mineral oils, etc.
Electronics: Measuring, Circuit, Digital Thermostat, Documents, Switches,
Magnet, Cooling device, Amplifiers, Thermoelectric batteries, Fuse
Plants: variety, tissue culture, sexual reproduction, breeding, hybrid, genetic
engineering, etc.
Coating composition: paints, bleaching and dye, etc.
Agrochemicals and fertilizers: plant protectant, bio-fertiliser, fertilizer, herbal
plant protectants, etc.
Cleaning composition: detergent, bar, washing material, etc.
Design: Drug, Ornamental, Vehicles, Jewelry, Stones, etc.
Catalyst
Inorganic chemistry and compounds
Automobiles & Engines: tractors, brakes, clutches, tools, etc.
Others: Metallurgy & Alloys, Surgery and medical equipments, food
products, heat generation, refrigeration, air coolant, analytical processes and
chemistry, fluid dynamics, civil engineering, stock materials, liquid
purification, kitchen utensils, magnetic compositions, glass, paper, plastic,
nuclear, fabrics, textiles, etc.
Total
PATENT
677
522
480
360
259
167
125
171
80
89
68
60
59
54
61
43
49
45
448
3817
Source: Anil K Gupta, Vikas S Chandak and Manish Anand 2006, Do Patents
Matter: Review of Indian filings in US and in India and linking macro with micro
level understanding of innovation system in India 1
1
Paper prepared for presentation at the Management Development Programme for “Harnessing Intellectual
Property for Strategic Competitive Advantage” 26 – 28 September, 2006 at KLMDC, IIM-Ahmedabad. The
paper is written in first person by the first author for stylistic convenience though the work has been done
collectively.
23
Table-10 Distribution of Patents Granted to Resident indians at USPTO from 1976- sep. 24,
2006
Sr.
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Agencies
Foreign private Agencies & Organizations
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research
Other Public sector Companies, Labs. And Govt. Dept
Private sector Companies and Labs.
Individuals
Foreign Universities
Indian Universities and Institutions
Foreign State institutions
NGO
Patents
Granted
1701
868
170
515
276
102
69
50
5
3756
(%)
45.29
23.11
4.53
13.71
7.35
2.72
1.84
1.33
0.13
Sources Ibid
The private seed companies had to redesign their competencies and strategies in
changing market structure. In particular, the rising costs and the new logic of R&D and
technology
have
induced
processes
of
Mergers-Acquisitions
(M&A),
increasing
concentration internationalization of the R&D in seed industry (Mahadevappa, M., 2005)12.
At the same time, new patterns of R&D, collaboration among firms are emerging i.e. Publicprivate research centers in universities primacies, seed valley special economic zones that
provide the fiscal and non-fiscal initiatives to the seed firm that could be seen Hyderabad,
India and Canadian seed system. The new ways and strategies which are followed by
companies also have commitment to sustainable growth of seed sector in India.
3.4
Sectoral Interdependence, Boundaries and Links-
Conceptually, the boundaries of sectors should include interdependencies and links among
related industries (food processing, biotechnology other value add) these boundaries are not
fixed, but change over time. The dynamic complementarities among technology and activities
thus provide force and trigger mechanism of growth and innovation (Euduist, 1997; Nelson,
1995; and Nelson-Rosenberg, 1993). These types and structures of relationships, and network
differ from one sectoral system to other system, and consequences of these features of the
knowledge base, the relevant learning processes, the basic technologies, the characteristics of
demand, the key link and the dynamic complementarities play key role. The role played by
12
The companies like Monsanto the licensing agreement, Monsanto-Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company,
producing seed in India with Indian partners. (Zencea(UK) and ITC (Indian Tobacco Company) marketing or
thorough creation of Indian subsidiary (Proagro Seed Company Ltd and Plant Genetic System), marketing
without Indian partners (Seminis India Private Ltd), marketing through creating Indian Subsidiary (Bigo Zaden
BV (Netherlands) and (Bejo Sheetal), technology agreements; Agrevo (Germany and Nagarjuna Fertilizer) and
by mean of Acquisition (Emergent Genetics and Mahendra Hybrid Seeds Company ltd).
24
networks in sectoral system leads to a meaning of term “sectoral structure” different from the
one used in industrial economic. In industrial economic, structure is related mainly to the
concept of market structure and virtual integration and diversification. In sectoral system
perspective, on the contrary, structure refers to link among artifacts (technology) and to
relationships among agents (public, private, R&D centre) and market: it is therefore it far
boarder than the one based on exchange-competition-command. Thus, it could argue that
sectoral system is composed by webs of relationship among heterogeneous agents with
different competences and behavior, and that these relationships affect agents’ actions. These
are rather stable over time in seed sector. The advantage of the sectoral system can be
identified in a better understanding of the structure and the boundaries, agents, interactions,
learning, innovation and processes, which led transformation of the sectors and the factors at
the base of the differential performances of firms and countries in sector, Malerba, (2002),
the Edquist, (2004) argued that boundaries should be chosen explicitly for the sake of the
research purpose.
The approach of Sectoral system may prove useful tools in various respects. For a
descriptive analysis of the structure and organization of sector, for a full understating of their
working, dynamic and transformation, for the identification of the factor affecting innovation,
commercial performances and international competitiveness of firms and for the development
of new public policy indications.
3.5
Knowledge Learning by Different Agents
The learning processes play a central role in innovation and production system (Dosi, 1997;
Metcalfe, 1998 and Crown-David-Foray, 2000). The basic characteristics of agriculture
system which are under the above literature framework exhibit specific feature for an
economic dynamic analysis; mainly; technical basis of production strongly depends on agroclimatic conditions which tend to learning of technological change13. This innovation
approach may compensate or enhance natural, technological and market differences but
cannot eliminate them since these advantage can also enhanced by technical learning by
improvement.
In these contributions, knowledge becomes highly idiosyncratic at firm level, does not
diffuse automatically and freely among firms and it has to absorb by firm through their
differential abilities accumulated over time. The public–domain knowledge and the public
13
Both space and time dimension are involved here former natural advantage that benefit firms or produces well
located as to specific cultivation under a given technology. Later is related to biological cycle that prevails in
agriculture and within some limits are responsible for a usually long production period.
25
funding of research (Stephan, 1996; Pavitt, 2000). The knowledge need attention that does
the knowledge learning has positive productivity influence of change in the stock of
knowledge flowing from publicly funded research though collaboration, training, personnel
movement and others. Some studies argued that changes in the stock of knowledge generate
new techno-economic opportunities that stimulate and encourage the private sector to
undertake developmental research. Other similar studies found that the private sector
activities in from of a geographical clustering of private laboratories around key
universities/centre and key star scientist moved in private seed sector (Macmillan et.al, 2000).
Similar dynamic are exits in term of the use of publicly-bred lines and varieties in the
breeding of new cultivar by the private sector. The technology incubator centre in ICARIST
Hyderabad and number of companies concentrations around national crop research centre
show the way of learning in the sector.
The intricacies and dynamic of knowledge transfer from one firm to other firm are
essential. Thus, the studies suggest that the leading R&D firms in US and Europe making
their R&D activity more market driven over last few decades or so. The insight they found
form the interaction with universities scientist/seminars/conferences and farmers meeting
would provide more market centre approach.
Monsanto – a USA based company and leader in agriculture biotechnology and seed
business-case can provide insights on how to get competitive in the market by adopting the
technology management task and innovation strategy. In mid 1990’s Monsanto was a
relatively weak player in the pesticide business and non-existent
in the seed business. But
this weakness was compensated for by its key position in the newly emerging agro-biotech
industry. Until the commercialization of GM crops, Monsanto defined its strategy as a
technology provider (Joly and Ducos, 1993) appropriating value from its technology through
non-exclusive licensing agreements with seed companies. Monsanto quickly realized the
interdependencies between biotechnology and seeds (the value of genetic traits could only be
capturing in the seeds themselves) found its weaker position with respect to seed companies
like Pioneer. It went into a series of expensive take over of seed business. Pioneer, which was
the leader in seed market, was forced to make substantial investment in biotech research due
to the threat posed by biotech to the conventional seed business.
Comparing to their direct competitor, Monsanto and Pioneer adopted a technology
management and innovation strategy by focusing on narrow range of products. Monsanto
success in agriculture internationally depends on Round-up and related technologies, and
more recently, on the Round-up Ready and Bt technologies. The success of these products
26
has not only resulted from their technological characteristics but also from strategic
investment in the seed component. The combination of technology and seed has been crucial
for the market penetration of GM varieties.
3.6 Technology Transfer Management Strategies
Technology in agriculture is, by definition, multidisciplinary, since it involves
at the same time the management of physical, chemical and biological condition and also
effect of their interactions with one another and with local environment, which are primarily
demand base (Possas, 1996). Whereas the technology transfer refer to the process by which
science and technology are transferred from one individual or group to another that in
cooperate this new technology into a new or improved process, product, system or way doing
something( Marthniuk, Jain and Stone, 2003). Theories on international technology transfer
are often focused on the transfer of production activities (Tsang, E.W.K., 1997) but other
types of technology can also be transferred by unclassified mean. The general model of
technology transfer by Al-Hailani and Moor composed of six main activities viz., form of
technology transfer, field of application, types of technology that is transferred (related to
technology transfer cycle), channel of technology transfer, and factor affecting transfer
process and impact of technology on the user, environment (Fgure-2). Before technology
transfer, the technology forecasting and assessment must be made out.
The diffusion of technology occurs through different channels and involves various
markets actors i.e. (private companies, customer’s agents and other firms), as well as public
technology centre, government research lab and universities. Technology can be diffused
through technology transfer strategies, like catch up effort of firms, transfer of personnel
activities of professional societies, varied form of formal, informal knowledge trading and
practices such as reverse engineering as well as through standards commercial transactions
such as purchase and licensing agreement (Lile and Toman, 1997).
Because the processes of technology transfer as earlier mentioned, is somehow
complex than industrial processes it has sometime serious impact on the farmers and
environment. In the Indian seed sector multinational seed firms are involved in transfer of
technology through various strategies for technical competences in their core business. The
finding suggested that there are several barrier of innovation and technology transfer which
includes those difficulties encountered by innovation, including those arising itself in industry
(endogenous) or outside it (exogenous) and may come from any agent of economic activity society, environment and government policy. Qualitative and quantitative analysis revealed
by some study, which are important barrier to innovation and technology transfer and its
27
management in agriculture, are summarized in Table-11. The domestic and multinational
companies are involved in technology transfer processes but, there are few studies found in
literatures on strategies of technology transfer by firms in seed sector (Gisselquist, and Pray;
1980, Robert, and Westphal, 1995). Therefore, it presents a good case for carry out onward
research studies on technology transfer strategies in the Indian seed sector at firm level.
Figure : 2- Technology Transfer Model in Seed Sector
Application of
technology
-Field level
-Adaptation
(varieties and
package practices
Types of technology
transfer
-Technology processes
(life cycle)
-Need (seller and buyer)
parental line, gene
transfer and techniques
-Appropriate
Technology
Channel of technology
transfer
-FDI
- Venture
-R&D Collaboration
-Merger and acquisition
(MNC)
-State owned modes
Form of Technology
Transfer
-Embodied
s
-Disembodied
Technology
Transfer in Seed
Sector
Selection of technology
-Local requirement
-Social acceptance
-Businesses goal
-Environment
Impact of technology
-Economic
-Social
-Environmental
-Political
Factor affecting technology
transfer
-Stake holder
-Technology market
-Contract
-HR capabilities
-Regulation
-Culture
-IPR PPV&FR and -Biodiversity
-National Polices (agroeconomic polices)
Table-11 Factors affecting technology transfer and seed innovation management in
seed sectors
28
S.No. Barriers to innovation Reason
and Technology transfer
1
Technology knowledge Inadequate Infrastructure (in-house development, seed
Development
and storage ,processing)
Transfer
Dearth of techno-legal information (agreements)
Dearth of specialist HR(emerging technologies)
Absences
of
Interaction
of
interdisciplinary
approach(market integration)
Adequate
Technology
Transfer
facilities/(Facilitator/consultancy)
Understanding of technological change and package and
practices at farm level.
Center for industry, farmers etc.
2
Economic and Political
High transaction cost of technology(small and medium
farmers)
credit and price
Unequal distribution of resources
Lack of sufficient administrative management
3
Business
Risk aversion (Financial Support)
Excessive and costly regulation
Inadequate environment code and standards
4
Trade and policy related
Institutional and structural barriers
Lack of understanding of issue (globally as well as locally)
Licensing and IPR etc.
4. ANALYSIS To meet the seed industrial competiveness, the adoption of new technologies by both
private and public seed sector, international quality standards have reacted quite differently.
Companies had to redesign their complementarities. In particular, the new logic of
internationalization of R&D and marketing which induced processes of merger and
acquisition (M&A), increasing concentration has led to the globalization of the seed industry
in India. At the same time new pattern of division of labour, collaboration among firms and
other institutional actors like universities and public research centre, testing laboratories and
29
extension centre are emerging. The key competitive assets for individual seed firms and
country are increasingly related to knowledge structures as well as the degree of
competitiveness.
These competitive assets include, but are not limited to the availability of first rate
scientific research within universities and other public research centers. It has also changed
the structure of the seed science technology research in the private seed sector.
All changes show that the modern seed industry overlaps the lens of a sectoral system
of innovation. Intuitively, the seed industry quite naturally lends itself to be analyzed as a
sectoral system of innovation or as it appeared in pharmaceutical and food processing (see in
case of pharmaceutical, Galambos and Sewell14., 1996; Chandler 199915. and in case of food
processing, Essletzbichler and Winter16, 1999). However, earlier the seed industry in India
was quite differently analyzed as a sector or as network (Ramaswami, 2002; Pal and Robert,
(2002). Thus, precisely, it gives intuitive appeals of the notion of the “system” and system of
network for the seed industry in India. It is pertinent to make this notion more precise and
compelling in the seed sector innovation approach. The concept would need to be advanced
in the multi-dimensional integrated and dynamic view of the sector.
The above analytical and theoretical foundation of Indian seed industry can be easily
considered as a system or a network because innovative activities involve directly or
indirectly a large variety of actors, including: different types of seed firms(small, medium
large domestic and multinational), other research organizations (universities and public and
private research centers), regulatory authorities related to (biodiversity authority, Protection
of Plant Variety and Farmers’ Right Authority, Seed acts, New Seed Policy, 2002, Seed
Industry Associations), financial institutions( Banks), and consumers (farmers and farmer
association) and national socio-political environment.
All these actors are coupled together through a web of different relationships. Starting
from a standard economic approach, such relations are quite varied, as they include almost
market transactions, command and control, competition, collaboration and all sorts of the socalled “intermediate forms”. At this simplistic level of discussion, the Indian seed industry
looks quite interesting because some of it, if not most of these relationships: quality of a seed;
farmers who select a particular seed for specific geographical condition do not coincide with
those who pay for the particular seed, etc. Another obvious example is given by the
14
Study on pharmaceutical industry.
Agriculture allied sector biotechnology food processing.
16
Danish Food Processing Industry
15
30
relationships between agricultural research centre, universities and other research institutions
on the one hand and the private seed firms on the other. These agents follow different logics,
incentives and goals, which may often conflict. The interaction may affected by the actions of
regulatory authorities, e.g. Plant Variety Protection and Farmer’s Right Act, New Seed Acts,
Biodiversity, incentives to scientists to engage in commercial activities etc. In particular, in
the Indian seed industry, one observes the mix and partial overlapping of different selection
principles. One may argue the emergence of hybrid forms of selection and learning as one of
the most interesting features of seed industry study in recent years (Vom Brocke et al., 2003;
Mc Kelvey, 1997). Thus, the seed firms and public research institutions look land races in
farmers’ field and then modify them through use of innovative technologies according to
market demands, while the long run demand base research in seed sector does not seem to be
straightforwardly apparent.
Analytical arguments of the study are including institutions and incentives influencing
demand, supply and knowledge development together form the specific innovation
opportunities for seed sector. Moreover, the specific innovation opportunities for seed are
also shaped by the actions of groups of firms and institutions. Thus, firms also shape these
innovative opportunities through their forward looking decisions, strategies, actions as well
as past competencies. The combined approach with other system provides the understating on
various issues pertaining to competiveness.
All these require new approaches to respond adequately to the opportunities and
challenges which offer by transformation processes, a new set of tools requisite which may
not only strengthen knowledge production, transfer system and ensure linkages in various
actors also offer competitiveness to the Indian seed sector in the global world seed market.
The Sectoral system may prove useful tools in various respects. For a descriptive analysis of
the structure and organization of sector, for a full understanding of their working, dynamics
and transformation, for the identification of the factors affecting innovation, commercial
performances and international competitiveness of firms and for the development of new
public policy indications.
5. CONCLUSION The analysis of seed innovation system and the technology transfer strategies in
agricultural seed is relevant if, technology partnership in agriculture is to be encouraged as a
core methodology. In this regard the analytical principle of Seed System of Innovation (SSI)
31
has lot to offer. Not only can it provide an useful approach to analyze the barriers but also
more importantly, it can be used in the context of policy formulation to identify leverage
points where innovative performance can be improved and the way in which this would
benefit all stakeholders involved (institutions-industry-farmers). The suggestion here is not
that it should replace existing approaches, but rather that it supplements them. The innovation
and technology, which is more socially-economically embedded, involves interplay of
various factors and institutions as in case of food processing industry and agricultural
biotechnology. The participatory approach in, an appropriate technology knowledge transfer
and management context, will be key tool for increasing flow of technology knowledge
among farmers and other parts of the innovation system.
While, the SSI approach is now in mainstream, further research work is required to
develop its application context in agriculture taking seed system of innovation and production
as a node in the system.
32
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY Acharya, S.S., 2002: Indian Agricultural Policy at the Crossroad Direction for the Tenth Plan, Agricultural
Situation in India, MOA, GOI Delhi Vol. LIX. No. 5, 207-215.
Agraawal R.S., 1980: Seed Technology, Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi
Agarwal and Bajrang Lal, 2008. National Innovation System and Export Competitiveness: Indian Experience
Paper Accepted in International Conference in
“Confronting the Challenges of Technology for
Development: Experience from BRICS, Department of International Development (QEH), University
of Oxford, 29-30 May.
Ali. M., and Kumar, S., 2005: Pulses production in India, Hindu Survey of Indian Agriculture, The Hindu.
Anononumous, 2004: Agriculture Today, Industry source, AP.
Arthur, W.B.1988. Self-reinforcing in economics. In economy as an evolving complex system, P.W.
Anderson, K.J. Arrow, and D.Pines, eds. Redwood city, calif.,U.S.A.:Addison –Wesely.
Asokan, S.R. and Chokshi, S.N. 1998. Challenges of Marketing Seeds in India, Indian Journal of Agricultural
Economy, Vol. 53, No.3, p. 376.
Batelt, H. and Depner, H., 2003: Innovation, institution and region. Zur Diskussion uber nationale und
regionale innovationssyteme, Erduknde 57 (20 126-43, (Ed): Martina F.E. Effective linking
international national and regional innovation Systems; insights from India and Indonesia, Asian
innovation System in transition pp-75-99 (2004).
Bhalla, G.S., 2002: Toward Hunger Free India, Oxford IBH Publishing Co Pvt. Ltd. Delhi.
Bunnell, T. G. and Coe, N.M., 2001: ‘Space and scale of innovation’ Progress in Human Geography, 25, pp.,
569-89.
Callon, M., 1992: The dynamics of techno-economic networks. (Ed): Loombs, R., Saviotti, P., Walsh, V.
(Eds.), Technical Change and Company Strategies. Academy Press, London.
Cantwell, J. (1989) Technological Innovation and Multinational Corporations, Oxford: Blackwell.
Cantwell, J.1989. Technological innovation and multinational corporations, Blackwell Cambridge, Mass.,
USA
Cantwell, J.1993. The globalization of technology: what remains of the product cycle model? Cambridge
Journal of Economics, Vol.19. Pp. 155-174
Carlsson, B., 1995: Technological Systems and Economic Performance: The Case of Factory Automation.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Carlsson, B., Stankiewitz, R., 1995: On the nature, function and composition of technological systems. In:
Carlsson B. (Ed.), Technological Systems and Economic Performance. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht.
Chandler, A. D., 1990: Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Modern Capitalism, The Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Chataway ,J. J. Taits. 2000. Policy influence on technology for agriculture: Chemical, Biotechnology and
seeds
(
Monogragp
Annex
c11)
available
Http://technlogy.open.ac.uk/cts/pita/annc11-mono-monsanto.pdf.
33
on
world
wide
web
at
Cohen, W., Levinthal, D., 1989: Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. Economic Journal 99, 569–
596.
Cooke, P., Urange, M.G., Extebarria, E., 1997: Regional innovation systems: institutional and organizational
dimensions. Research Policy 4/5, 475–493.
Daft, R.L., 1978: A dual –core Model of Organizational innovation, Academy of management J., Vol -21,
193-210.
Damanpour, F., 1996: Organizational Complexity and Innovation: Developing and testing Multiple
Contingency Models, Management Science, Vol 42 NO. 5. May, 693-716.
Delouche, C., James. 1999: The changing Seed Industry: Implication for Asia Pacific, Presentation to Asia
seed, Bangkok, AS&PM magazine ,9: 6-9
Dosi, G.1988. Institutions and markets in dynamic world. The Manchester School LVI (2): 119-146.
Dosi. G., 1984: technical Change and industrial transformation: The theory and Application to the
semiconductor industry (Macmillion, London) (Ed), Possas, M. L., FIlho S.S. and Silveria J.M., 1996:
An Evolutionary Approach to technological innovation in Agriculture: Some preliminary remarks,
Research Policy, 25 933-945.
Edquist, C., Johnson, B., 1997: Institutions and organizations in systems of innovation. In: Edquist, C. (Ed.),
Systems of Innovation. Frances Pinter, London. Edquist, C. (Ed.), 1997. Systems of Innovation. Frances
Pinter, London.
Evenson, R.E. and Westphal, E.L., 1995: “Technological Change and Technology Strategy” Handbook of
Development Economic, Volume II.J. Behram and T.N. Srinivasan (Eds). Elsevier Science, pp. 2,2092299.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) and World Bank., 2000: Agricultural Knowledge and Information
System for Rural Development: Strategic Vision and Guiding Principle, Rome and Washington DC:
FAO and World Bank.
Fisher R A., 1950: Statistical Methods for Research Workers, University of Michigan.
Freeman, C., 1982: The Economics of Industrial Innovation. Frances Pinter, London. Freeman, C., 1987:
Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan, Frances Pinter, London.
Gadwall, V.R., 2003: The Indian seed industry: Its history, current status and future, Current Science, Vol. 84,
No. 3, 10 February.
Galambos, and Sewell, J.E., 1995: Networks of Innovation: Vaccine Development at Merck, Sharp & Dohme,
and Mulford, 1895-1995, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Gambardella, A., Orsenigo, L. and Pammolli, F., 2000: Global Competitiveness in Pharmaceuticals. A
European Perspective, Report prepared for the Directorate General Enterprise of the European
Commission.
Gingh, G.et al 1990. Seed Industry in India: A Management Perspective, Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt.
Ltd, New Delhi.
Girdhar, M., 2006: “Public Private Partnership in Seed Development” Head of BioScience India (Proagro),
Presentation National Seminar on Public-private partnership in Agriculture. Delhi, October 19.
Gisselquist, D. and Pray, C. E., 1999: Deregulating Technology transfer in Agriculture: Reform’s Impact on
Turkey in the 1980s. Policy Research working paper 2086. World Bank: Washington, Dc., March
34
Glenn Davis Stone, 2002: Biotechnology and Suicide in India, Anthropology News, Vol 43 No. 5, May
Gupta, Anil K., Chandak, V.S. and Anand, Manish, 2006, Do Patents Matter: Review of Indian filings in US
and in India and linking macro with micro level understanding of innovation system in India. Paper
prepared for presentation at the Management Development Programme for “Harnessing Intellectual
Property for Strategic Competitive Advantage” 26 – 28 September, 2006 at KLMDC, IIM-Ahmedabad.
Hall, A. J. Sulaiman, R. Clark, V., N.G., Tayler, S., and Bockett, G., 1998: “Institutional Development in
Indian Agricultural R&D Systems: Emerging Patterns of Public and Private Sector Activities”. Science,
Technology & Development, Vol. 16 No.3 pp.51-76.
Hall, A. J. Sulaiman, R. V., Clark, Sviamohan, M.V.S., and Yaganand, B.,2000: “Public and Private Sector
Partnership in India Agricultural Research: Emerging Challenges to Creating an Agricultural
innovation System. Paper Presented at XXIV international Conference of Agricultural Economists
Aug, 13-18 Berlin, Germany.
Hayami, Y. and V.W. Rutton., 1988: Desenolovimento Agricola teoria e Experincions Internacionais (Depto
de Publicoes De) EMBRAPA, Brasilia), 583 (Ed0 in Possas, M. L., FIlho S.S. and Silveria J.M., 1996:
An Evolutionary Approach to technological innovation in Agriculture: Some preliminary remarks,
Research Policy, 25 933-945.
Hotz-Harz, B., 2000: Innovation networks regions and globalization’ in G.L. Clark etal (eds0, the oxford
handbook of Economic Geography, oxford: Oxford university Press, pp. 432-50.
Hughes, T.P., 1984: The evolution of large technological systems. In: Bijker, W., ughes, T., Pinch, T. (Eds.),
The Social Construction of Technological Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Joly, P.B. and C. Ducos. 1993. Les artifices Du vivant: Strategies d’ innovation dans L. I’ndusrie des
semences. Economica, Paris, INRA Editions.
Kapoor, A., 1999: Private Sector role vital, The Hindu Survey of Agriculture (1999).
Kimbely , J. R., 1976: Organizational Size and Structuralist Perspective: A review, Cririque, and Proposal ,
Amin. Sci. Quarterly, 21 571-579.
Klepper, S., 1996: Entry, exit, growth and innovation over the product life cycle. American Economic Review
86, 562–583.
Lile, R. and Tomen, M., 1997: ‘Promoting international transfer of clean technology’ mutually beneficial
opportunities for technology transfer to promote international greenhouse gas reductions workshop,
Bejing, Chnia, Nov, 14-17.
Lindner, Bob. 2004. Privatized provision of essential plant breeding infrastructure. Australian Journal of
Agricultural & resources Economic 48. (2), 301-321.
Lundvall, B.A., 1993: National Systems of Innovation. Frances Pinter, London.
Lundvall, B.A., Johnson, B., 1994: The learning economy. Journal of Industry Studies 1 (2), 23–42.
Mahadevappa, M., 2005: Meeting the increased demand, The Hindu Survey of Indian Agriculture, The Hindu,
183-186.
Malerba, F., 1992: Learning by firms and incremental technical change. Economic Journal 102, 845–859.
Malerba, F., 1993: Italy. In: Nelson, R. (Ed.), National Innovation Systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Malerba, F., 2002: Sectoral systems of innovation and production, Research Policy 31 (2002) 247–264.
35
Malerba, F., Orsenigo, L., 2000: Knowledge, innovative activities and industry evolution. Industrial and
Corporate Change 9, 289–314.
Martyniuk, A.O., Jain R.K. and Stone, H.J., 2003: Critical success factor and barrier to technology transfer:
Case Studies and Implications, International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialization,
Vol, 2, No. 3, pp 306-337.
Mc Kelvey, M., 1995: Evolutionary Innovation: The Business of Biotechnology, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Metcafe,S., 1998: Evolutionary Economics and Creative Destruction, Rutledge, London.
Mokyr, Joel.1999. Science technology and knowledge: What historian can learn from an evolutionary
approach. Working paper. Department of Economics.: Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, eds.
Moore, B., 2002: The Austrian Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Third Edition, Austrian
National Dictionary Centre, Oxford University Press.
Mumann, J.P.2003. Knowledge Competitive Advantage. Cambridge University Press.
Nagarajan, L. and M.Smale., 2005: Local seed systems and village-level determinants of millet crop diversity
in marginal environments of India. Joint Publication of IFPRI/ICRISAT/FAO, Discussion Paper No.
135 (EPT Division, IFPRI). Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.
National Seed Policy, 2002: Seed Division, Ministry of Agriculture, GOI India
Nelson, R. R. (1988). "Institutions Supporting Technical Change in the United States." In G. Dosi, C.
Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, and L. Soete (eds.), Technical Change and Economic Theory.
London: Pinter Publisher.
Nelson, R., 1994: The co-evolution of technology, industrial structure and supporting institutions. Industrial
and Corporate Change. Rutledge.
Nelson, R., 1995: Recent evolutionary theorizing about economic change. Journal of Economic Literature 33,
48–90.
Nelson,R.R., and S.G. Wintwer.1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, Mass., USA.:
Belknap Press
New Policy on Seed Development, 1989: Draft, Ministry of Agriculture, GOI, India.
Niak, Gopal., 2006: Closing the yield Gap: Maize in India, (Ed)in Vandana Chanda ,2006 Technology
Adoption and Export: how some developing countries got it right, IBRD, World bank, Washington,
DC, 275-300.
Omamo,S.W. and A. Naseem.2005. Agricultural science and technology policy for growth and poverty
reduction. ISNAR Division Discussion Paper No.3. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy
Research Institute.
Orsenigo, L., Pammolli, F., Riccaboni, M., 2001: Technological change and network dynamics: the case of
the biopharmaceutical industry. Research policy 30, 485–508.
Pal. S., and R.Tripp., 2002: India’s Seed Industry Reforms: Prospects and Issues. Indian Journal of
Agricultural Economics. 57 (3): 443-457
Patel, P., Pavitt, K., 1994: Technological Competencies in the world’s largest firms: complex and pathdependent, but not too much variety. Research Policy 23, 533–546.
36
Patel., P And Pavitt, K.,1994: National Innovation Systems: Why They Are Important, And How They Might
Be Measured And Compared, Econ. Innov. New Techn., 1994, Vol. 3, pp. 77-95
Pavitt, K., 1984. Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy 13,
343–373.
Pingali, P.L., and Traxer, G., 2002: Changing locus of agricultural research: will the poor benefit from
Biotechnology and Privatization trends? Food Policy (27), 223-238.
Porter R., 1998: Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, in press, Harvard
Possas, M. L., FIlho S.S. and Silveria J.M., 1996: An Evolutionary Approach to technological innovation in
Agriculture: Some preliminary remarks, Research Policy, 25 933-945.
Pradey, P., Alston, J., and Beintema, N., 2006: Agricultural R&D Spending at a Critical
Crossroads, Farm
Policy, Journal, vol.,3 , No, 1 Feb-Quarterly.
Pradoa, R.S., 1999: Future of Agro- biotechnology, The Hindu Survey of Indian Agriculture The Hindu
Pray, C. E. 1992: Plant breeders’ rights legislation, enforcement and R&D: Lessons for Developing countries.
In Sustainable agricultural development: The role of international cooperation. Proceedings of the
Twenty-First International Conference of Agricultural Economists, (Ed). G. Peters and B. Stanton.
Tokyo, Japan, August 22-29, 1991. Brookfield, VT: Dartmouth.
Pray, C.E. and R.Basant: 1999: Agricultural research and technology transfer by the private sector in India.
Indian Institute of Management Working Paper No. 99-06-03. June, Ahemedabad, India: Indian
Institute of Management.
Pray, C.E., and B.Ramaswami., 2001: Liberalization’s impact on the Indian seed industry: Competition,
research, and impact on farmers. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 2 (3):407420.
Pray, C.E., B.Ramaswami, and T.Kelley., 2001: The impact of economic reforms on R&D by the Indian seed
industry. Food Policy 26: 587-598.
Ramanna, A., 2006: India’s Policy on Genetically modified Crops, Asian Research Centre Working Paper,15,
London School of Economic and Political Science,
Ramanna, A., and M.Smale: 2004: Rights and access to plant genetic resources under India’s new law.
Development Policy Review 22 (4): 423-442.
Ramaswami, M., 2005: A big gap to bridge, The Hindu Survey of Indian Agriculture, The Hindu, 180-182.
Rangnekar, D., 2004: Can TRIPs deter innovation? The anticommons and public goods in agricultural
research, Paper for the Second International Workshop on Governance, of biodiversity as a global
public good: bioprospection, intellectual property rights and traditional knowledge’, Centre de
philosophie
du
droit
at
the
Universitécatholiquede,Louvain,5-6,Feb
http://biogov.cpdr.ucl.ac.be/ipr/papers/rangnekar.pdf
Rodrigues, et, al, 1967: Report on wheat Quality Confers, UDDA, (Ed) in M.Ray, 1983.Heterosis Breeding
Kaylani Pub. Delhi.
Rosenberg, N., 1976: Perspectives on Technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rosenberg, N., 1982: Inside the Black Box. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rosenberg, N.,1976, On Technological expectation, Economic Journal, 86, 523-535.
Seed Association of India, 2005: Syndrome of Farmers’ Seed, India.
37
Seed Industry in Andhra Pradesh- A profile. 2002: Seedsman Association, Hyderabad.
Sen, S., 1974: The Reach Harvest, Tata Mc Graw – Hill Publishing Co. New Delhi.
Shiva, V. and T.,Crompton., 1998: Monopoly and monoculture: Trends in Indian seed industry. Economic
and Political Weekly. 33 (39): A-137- A151.
Simon, H.A. (1969) The Sciences of the Artificial (Cambridge MA. & London: MIT Press, 3rd edition,
Singh, P., 2006: Seed Industry in India: Poised for a leap, New Agriculturist more detail see online
athttp://www.new-agri.co.uk/01-2/focuson/focuson6.html
Stephan P.E., 1996: The Economics of Science, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol, XXXIV, 1199-1235.
Swaminathan, M.S. 2004. ‘Technological change and food production: implications for vulnerable sections’,
Working Paper 20, CPRC-IIPA, New Delhi.
Swaminathan, M.S., 2007: The crisis of Indian agriculture, Independence at 60, The Hindu, August, 15
The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act. 2001: Ministry of Law, Justice And Company
Affairs (Legislative Department), PPV&FR Authority, India.
The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Reulation. 2003: Ministry of Law, Justice And
Company Affairs (Legislative Department), PPV&FR Authority, India.
Tripp, R., and S.Pal., 1998: Information exchange in commercial seed markets in Rajasthan. AgREN Network
Paper No.83. London: ODI.
Utterback, J., 1994: Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Vom brocke,K. A.Christinck, E.Weltzien R., T.Presterl, and H.H.Geiger., 2003: Farmers’ seed systems and
management practices determine pearl millet genetic diversity patterns in semiarid regions of India.
Crop Science. 43:1680-1689.
World Bank., 2006: Enhancing Agricultural Innovation how to go Beyond the Strengthening of Research
Systems, Agriculture and Rural Development Washington, DC.
WorldBank., 2001: Enhancing Agricultural public-private partnership in agriculture,washington, DC. (Report)
Websites
http://www.wipo.org\publication/ipr
http://www.agricoop.nic.in
http://www.icar.org
http://www.indiastat.org
http://www.narm.org
http://www.nsc.org
http://www.cigar.org
http://www.sai.com
http://www.worldbank.org
http://www.plantauthority.in
Http://www.seedgov.nic.in
38