)
The India entry of US-based research body Brookings Institution, which primarily relies on private funding, has stirred the funding landscape for think tanks in India. After securing greater fund flows through their own activities, these institutions are now trying to secure corporate and private assistance.
A look at the latest funding pattern of four major Indian think tanks — National Institute of Public Finance and Policy (NIPFP), National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER), Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (Icrier) and Centre for Policy Research (CPR) — shows though these are no longer predominantly dependent on government grants, their quest for private funding remains elusive.
NIPFP’s annual report for 2011-12 says its total income that year was Rs 19.04 crore, against Rs 13.12 crore in 2010-11. Of this, grants from the central and state governments stood at Rs 7.82 crore, against Rs 7.48 crore in 2010-11. Income from academic activities was Rs 9 crore, compared with Rs 3.89 crore the previous year, while interest earned on investments was Rs 1.22 crore, against Rs 8.9 crore in 2010-11. In 2011-12, as in 2010-11, its other income was less than Rs 1 crore.
Clearly, NIPFP’s income from academic activities is substantial. Insiders, however, say many research activities of think tanks are government-sponsored.
According to NCAER’s 2011-12 annual report, its total income that year was Rs 20 crore, against Rs 20.70 crore in 2010-11. Against Rs 15 lakh of grants-in-aid in 2010-11, there were none in 2011-12. Also, there was no membership subscription, against Rs 2.82 lakh in 2010-11. Receipts from research activities stood at Rs 17.97 crore, compared with Rs 18.54 crore the previous year. Receipts from International Development Research Centre (IDRC)’s Think Tank Initiative grant stood at Rs 97.75 lakh, while interest income on investments was about Rs 1 crore.
In 2011-12, Icrier’s income was Rs 10.29 crore, while the contribution of grants was Rs 6.82 crore. Income on investments stood at Rs 2.35 crore and interest transfer from the building fund was about Rs 1 crore. Other income stood at Rs 65 lakh.
Icrier has been able to nurture an autonomy by establishing an endowment fund, income from which helps support administration expenses and research on fields in which project grant is not immediately available. Prominent donors to the fund are American Express Foundation, Bharat Forge, Bharti Airtel, Citi Bank, Deutsche Bank, DLF, DSP Merrill Lynch, Essar Group, Ford Foundation, among others.
Of late, CPR has emerged as a strong brand. Capitalising on this, the Centre is trying to attract private funding to the institute. According to its 2011-12 annual report, it received grants of Rs 53 lakh in 2010-11 from the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR). While CPR’s gross corpus in 2010-11 stood at Rs 7.21 crore, gross expenditure (including capital expenditure and specific project research expenditure, but excluding depreciation) was Rs 11.91 crore. In 2010-11, ICSSR’s recurring grant was only 3.53 per cent of CPR’s receipts of Rs 15.09 crore.
The human resources development ministry’s June 2011 report on ICSSR funding vividly portrays the funding scenario of think tanks. From 2005-06 to 2009-10, the grants to ICSSR rose only 22 per cent in nominal terms — from Rs 41.8 crore to Rs 51 crore.
There seems an urgency for Indian research institutions to seek private funding. However, this appears tough to come by. A corporate leader lists three reasons for the reluctance of the Indian business community: First, a philosophy that money should be kept for the next generation; second, those willing to give money want think tanks to be associated with their name or international brand; and, there is a notion of ‘what would I get out of it’.
Senior CPR economist Rajiv Kumar, who earlier headed Icrier and was Ficci secretary-general, says: “Indian companies are largely unwilling to fund Indian think tanks. Brand value and quality may be the main reasons. Indian think tanks will have to raise quality. This they can’t do without the funding needed to attract talent.”
He adds CPR is making an effort to create a brand name, one that the Indian corporate sector thinks is good enough.
Sanjaya Baru, director for geoeconomics and strategy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, UK, says: “Now, there is greater willingness among companies to fund geopolitical and geoeconomic research and policy work. That has helped think tanks find resources. Now, the challenge is to find people with experience, both in research and policy.”
Sadanand Dhume, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, says: “The US has a unique ecosystem in which the government, business and think tanks nourish each other. This makes think tanks more relevant to the policy debate here than in India and, as a consequence, more attractive to fund.”
