Excerpts from the speech of President.
National Policy for Skills Development and Entrepreneurship in 2015
Vision:- “create an ecosystem of empowerment by skilling on a large scale, at speed with high standards, and to promote a culture of innovation based entrepreneurship, which can generate wealth and employment, so as to ensure sustainable livelihoods for all citizens in the country”
Excerpts:-
In India, we have a large eco-system of 4,500 start-ups – the third largest in the world. Even then, it is not easy to start a new venture in India. Access to funding and mentorship remains a hurdle. In key parameters such as ease of doing business and R&D investment, there is scope for much improvement.
To achieve centre-stage in innovation, we need to work relentlessly in aspects such as creation of a favourable business atmosphere; improving the quality of education and skills training; and expanding the IT infrastructure including high speed internet connectivity.
Our policies like Start-up India and Atal Innovation Mission are geared to support the start-up environment. The public and private sectors both have to play a catalytic role in further developing such an eco-system.
The investor community – the angel investors and venture capitalists – has a crucial role to play in the transformation of innovative ideas into successful business models. Every start-up may not turn successful.
Studies have indicated that ninety percent of new ventures that don’t attract investors fail within three years.
Investors prefer a proven business model before investing and scaling it up. Innovation-based projects have uncertain outcomes. Their returns are often skewed as they have to confront the “valley of death”.
It is that early phase comprising the ‘seed’ and ‘start-up’ stages in which: (i) a novel idea or a concept is developed; (ii) its technical feasibility, market potential and economic viability are determined; (iii) a product prototype is designed; and (iv) a formal business organization is established. These early stage activities involve sunk costs resulting in negative cash flows for the new firm.
Investors are often shy to fund innovation start-ups as they are not sure of their success. But one must understand that even though nine out of ten ventures that an investor may fund, may fail; still, the one venture that will succeed, will make good the loss incurred on the rest.
Such are the rules of the game. Our investors must have an eye for sifting the good ideas from the ordinary ones. They must have the risk taking ability and appetite to nurture innovative ideas into successful products and services.
Remember these words of the famous management guru Late Peter Drucker:
“In every success story, you will find someone who has made a courageous decision” .
Death Valley Curve
It refer to the period of time from when a startup firm receives an initial capital contribution to when it begins generating revenues. During the death valley curve, additional financing is usually scarce, leaving the firm vulnerable to cash flow requirements.
The name “death valley” refers to the high probability that a startup firm will die off before a steady stream of revenues is established. After a firm receives its first round of financing, it incurs a lot of initial costs. Offices are usually built, staff is hired and operating costs are incurred; meanwhile, the firm is not earning significant income. Unless a firm can effectively manage itself through the death valley curve, it will fall victim to negative cash flows.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
Steve Ovett, the famous British middle-distance athlete, won the 800-metres gold medal at the Moscow Olympics of 1980. Just a few days later, he was about to win a 5,000-metres race at London’s Crystal Palace. Known for his burst of acceleration on the home stretch, he had supreme confidence in his ability to out-sprint rivals. With the final 100 metres remaining,
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]Ovett waved to the crowd and raised a hand in triumph. But he had celebrated a bit too early. At the finishing line, Ireland’s John Treacy edged past Ovett. For those few moments, Ovett had lost his sense of reality and ignored the possibility of a negative event.
This analogy works well for the India story and our policy failures , including during the ongoing covid pandemic. While we have never been as well prepared or had significant successes in terms of growth stability as Ovett did in his illustrious running career, we tend to celebrate too early. Indeed, we have done so many times before.
It is as if we’re convinced that India is destined for greater heights, come what may, and so we never run through the finish line. Do we and our policymakers suffer from a collective optimism bias, which, as the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman once wrote, “may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases”? The optimism bias arises from mistaken beliefs which form expectations that are better than the reality. It makes us underestimate chances of a negative outcome and ignore warnings repeatedly.
The Indian economy had a dream run for five years from 2003-04 to 2007-08, with an average annual growth rate of around 9%. Many believed that India was on its way to clocking consistent double-digit growth and comparisons with China were rife. It was conveniently overlooked that this output expansion had come mainly came from a few sectors: automobiles, telecom and business services.
Indians were made to believe that we could sprint without high-quality education, healthcare, infrastructure or banking sectors, which form the backbone of any stable economy. The plan was to build them as we went along, but then in the euphoria of short-term success, it got lost.
India’s exports of goods grew from $20 billion in 1990-91 to over $310 billion in 2019-20. Looking at these absolute figures it would seem as if India has arrived on the world stage. However, India’s share of global trade has moved up only marginally. Even now, the country accounts for less than 2% of the world’s goods exports.
More importantly, hidden behind this performance was the role played by one sector that should have never made it to India’s list of exports—refined petroleum. The share of refined petroleum exports in India’s goods exports increased from 1.4% in 1996-97 to over 18% in 2011-12.
An import-intensive sector with low labour intensity, exports of refined petroleum zoomed because of the then policy regime of a retail price ceiling on petroleum products in the domestic market. While we have done well in the export of services, our share is still less than 4% of world exports.
India seemed to emerge from the 2008 global financial crisis relatively unscathed. But, a temporary demand push had played a role in the revival—the incomes of many households, both rural and urban, had shot up. Fiscal stimulus to the rural economy and implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission scales had led to the salaries of around 20% of organized-sector employees jumping up. We celebrated, but once again, neither did we resolve the crisis brewing elsewhere in India’s banking sector, nor did we improve our capacity for healthcare or quality education.
Employment saw little economy-wide growth in our boom years. Manufacturing jobs, if anything, shrank. But we continued to celebrate. Youth flocked to low-productivity service-sector jobs, such as those in hotels and restaurants, security and other services. The dependence on such jobs on one hand and high-skilled services on the other was bound to make Indian society more unequal.
And then, there is agriculture, an elephant in the room. If and when farm-sector reforms get implemented, celebrations would once again be premature. The vast majority of India’s farmers have small plots of land, and though these farms are at least as productive as larger ones, net absolute incomes from small plots can only be meagre.
A further rise in farm productivity and consequent increase in supply, if not matched by a demand rise, especially with access to export markets, would result in downward pressure on market prices for farm produce and a further decline in the net incomes of small farmers.
We should learn from what John Treacy did right. He didn’t give up, and pushed for the finish line like it was his only chance at winning. Treacy had years of long-distance practice. The same goes for our economy. A long grind is required to build up its base before we can win and celebrate. And Ovett did not blame anyone for his loss. We play the blame game. Everyone else, right from China and the US to ‘greedy corporates’, seems to be responsible for our failures.
We have lowered absolute poverty levels and had technology-based successes like Aadhaar and digital access to public services. But there are no short cuts to good quality and adequate healthcare and education services. We must remain optimistic but stay firmly away from the optimism bias.
In the end, it is not about how we start, but how we finish. The disastrous second wave of covid and our inability to manage it is a ghastly reminder of this fact.