a good article on gap in research and policy in India

Bridging Research with Policy: the Case of India
Naresh C. Saxena



Contents
Research set up in India 2
Political decisions and research findings 2
Some positive examples of research influencing policy 3
Watershed Guidelines 3
Right to Information Act 3
National Advisory Council, 2004 3
Two Personal Examples 4
Forest Policy, 1988 4
Sanitation Policy, 1999 5
Examples of divergence 7
Lack of academic consensus 7
Nutritional needs for children upto 3 years 7
Subsidised loans for the poor 7
Constraints in influencing policy 8
Dissemination and advocacy of research findings 9
Government’s approach 10
How to improve capacity for policy advocacy? 10


Research set up in India
India has a vast ocean of trained researchers, social scientists and economists, within and outside the government, of whom any country can be proud. Although research capabilities of the Universities are not well developed, there are many competent professionals engaged in policy research outside the Universities. Institutions for social science and policy research can be broadly divided in three categories (these exclude the scientific or engineering institutions):
Research Councils (also called Directorates, Bureaus, etc.) located within central or state government.
Government funded but legally autonomous research institutions, such as those controlled by the Indian Council for Social Science Research. Lately, the better ones are able to attract donor funds too.
Private Consultancy firms, which conduct research on contract from government or external donors, mostly in evaluation and impact studies
It is generally felt that those researchers who join government to seek a long term career get reduced to glorified clerks and file pushers. Government system tames them well to become conformists soon. However many such institutions do large scale data collection that becomes the basis for analysis by others. At the other extreme, the best brains, especially in Economics, are busy doing consultancies, with little time or inclination left for long gestation primary research based on field work. This still leaves a large mass of committed researchers, mostly in autonomous institutions, who produce work of high calibre and credibility.
Political decisions and research findings
As in any democracy, policy decisions are often taken in India on purely political grounds, though later policy makers may find justification for them from research. Two examples may suffice to bring the point home. One, the government's decision on nationalisation of 14 private commercial banks in 1969 was not on the basis of any analysis of the functioning of private commercial banks to suggest nationalisation. But soon after that several papers emerged to show how the banks had in the past neglected the rural sector. Similarly, ceilings over agricultural land was reduced in 1972 with a view to find more land for the poor, but it soon found economic justification as academic research showed that productivity was inversely related to size.
Often, the immediate cause for a big policy push may appear as unrelated to knowledge within that Ministry, but Indian democracy being highly responsive to public opinion, government researchers make an effort to seek academic validation for their policies. For instance, the thrust towards liberalisation in the early nineties was more as a knee jerk reaction to the foreign exchange crisis of 1990-91. It was not directly linked to research findings on the mounting losses of the public sector enterprises, the real effective rate of protection to Indian industry and trade, the ridiculous controls over industries, and the internal contradictions of the Foreign Exchange legislations. But the Finance Ministry in the mid-nineties lost no time in linking the two and take credit for the new policies, especially when the rate of economic growth in India doubled; from 3-4% in the period 1951-80 to almost 7 per cent per annum in the mid-nineties.
A typically Indian Institution linking research with policy is the Planning Commission. Though it has lost its old glory, pride and prestige after the liberalisation phase, it still has a galaxy of distinguished personalities associated with it, mostly as members of various working groups. Besides the Planning Commission, the Government of India Ministries too organise seminars where researchers and policy makers exchange ideas on the same platform. Such an interaction is weak at the state level. However, despite Government seeking policy advice through committees and commissions in which social scientists play a major role, a generalist civil service dominates governmental administration. The policy process is dominated by the philosophy: experts on tap, not on top.
Some positive examples of research influencing policy
Watershed Guidelines
A positive example of research leading directly to policy is the Watershed Development Guidelines. In 1993 a Government of India Committee headed by Hanumantharao, a renowned agricultural economist (who had earlier worked as Member, Planning Commission, so knew government quite well) reviewed earlier programmes and recommended a new watershed programme emphasizing participation and unified, integrated development. The new scheme was launched in 1995 embodying principles that have been largely adopted in other similar schemes.
The distinguishing features of the watershed development programme are: decentralization, participation, productivity, equity, using local knowledge, and increasing self-reliance. These features are unprecedented in the history of rural development in India. Placing such confidence in the rural communities in a country divided by class, caste and other factions and entrusting them with large funds was a bold step, leading to community empowerment.
Right to Information Act
Another positive story of policy – research partnership is the setting up of a Working Group by Government of India in 1997 to examine the feasibility and need to introduce a full fledged Right to Information Act. This group was chaired by a retired civil servant, H.D. Shourie, who has been very active in taking up consumer causes and heads an NGO known as Common Cause. The other members of the group were eminent lawyers, researchers, and heads of government agencies that provide important services like railways or telecommunications. The group recommended a Freedom of Information Bill and asked the government to give its report wide publicity. This led to framing of an Act that was passed by Parliament in 2003.
National Advisory Council, 2004
A few months back, when the new Congress led government came to power, a National Advisory Council (NAC) was set up under the chairpersonship of Mrs Sonia Gandhi as an interface with Civil Society in the implementation of the National Common Minimum Programme (NCMP) of the Government of India.
The NAC comprises distinguished professionals drawn from diverse fields of development activity who serve in their individual capacities. Through the NAC, the Government has access not only to their expertise and experience but also to a larger network of Research Organizations, NGOs and Social Action and Advocacy Groups, with whom the NAC members interact very closely. The Council is expected to make detailed recommendations to the Government of India in the areas of priority identified in the NCMP and to provide independent feedback on the impact of action initiated in various sectors.
Two situations facilitate greater role for research in policy dialogue. One, when a key government official is positively inclined towards research, though such individuals are rare in government[1]. Two, when research is picked up by civil society or donors for dissemination and advocacy.
Two Personal Examples
I will briefly describe two policies with which I was associated as a civil servant.
Forest Policy, 1988
Forest policy in India since the early 20th Century was to use forests for timber and industry, and people were seen as a burden. Three set of factors have been at work in shaping this attitude. First, development until the mid-seventies was associated in the minds of planners with creating surplus from rural areas and its utilisation for value addition through industry. Hence output from forest lands was heavily subsidised to be used as raw material for industries. The impact of such policies on forests or forest dwellers was not considered to be serious, as the resource was thought to be inexhaustible. Second, tribals and other forest dwellers, with little voice or means to communicate were remote from decision making, and politically their interests were not articulated. Third, foresters were trained to raise trees for timber. Other intermediate and non-wood products were not valued, as indicated by their usual description as ‘minor products’, leading to adoption of technologies which discouraged their production. The combination of these forces led to perpetuation of a timber and revenue oriented policy that harmed both environment and the people, but was argued to be meeting the goals of the nation-state.
The new forest policy announced in 1988 was radically different from the past policy. According to this, forests are not to be commercially exploited for industries, but they are to conserve soil and the environment, and meet the subsistence requirements of the local people. The policy gives higher priority to environmental stability than to earning revenue. Derivation of direct economic benefit from forests has been subordinated to the objective of ensuring environmental stability and maintenance of ecological balance. It discourages monocultures and prefers mixed forests. The focus has shifted from ‘commerce’, and ‘investment’ to ecology and satisfying minimum needs of the people, providing fuelwood and fodder, and strengthening the tribal-forest linkages.
Such a radical policy shift could take place not only because the then Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, was pro-environment, but because the rural people had launched several environmental battles against the old forest policy, and were getting favourable press. Some such successes were scrapping of the Blue Pine Project in Bastar, withdrawal of the Forest Bill 1980, and cancellation of leases of common lands to a paper mill in Karnataka. From the early 1970s intellectuals and activists had picked up the long-standing grievances of forest-dependent communities. Consequently, in the last two decades the working of the Forest Department had come under close and critical scrutiny. In many places during the 1970s people on their own initiative started protecting forests, of which CHIPKO is a well-known example. It started in 1973 when a local village group was denied access to forests for making agricultural implements, whereas the same coupe was allotted to a sports goods company. This favouritism provoked the villagers who prevented the company from felling trees by hugging them. It spread throughout the hills in north India, forcing government to impose a ban in 1979 on all commercial felling in the hills above 1000 metres, which continues till date. Thus the increasing environmental awareness among the people backed by civil society action forced government in coming up with a new forest policy.
It is interesting to note that none of the major donors had any hand in the formulation of the new policy. On the other hand, forest policies of both the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank were very much timber and industry oriented at that time, which were changed to reflect people orientation only in 1993 and 1999 respectively.
Sanitation Policy, 1999
The other policy with which I was associated refers to rural sanitation in 1999. Up to the end of the 1970s little public investment was made to improve rural sanitation in India. The costs in terms of human suffering, disease and poverty has been immense: 180 million man-days per year are lost due to sanitation-related diseases, the equivalent of 12 billion Indian rupees per year.
In the 1980s, the Government of India undertook the Central Rural Sanitation Programme (CRSP) to encourage the construction of household toilets in the villages. Whatever the village’s geology, water supply situation or economic situation, central government promoted one design – the twin pit, pour-flush latrine with brick superstructure, which then cost Rs 2500. To encourage its construction, the government offered a substantial flat rate subsidy of Rs 2000. Due to the high level of subsidy, the government was only able to allot one or two latrines per village, which often went to the prominent members of the village.
The higher subsidy however did not result in more construction or better usage of toilet facilities. The physical coverage which was estimated to be around 17% of rural population in 1997 went up only by less than 3% in the next five years, against a target of 35% rural population coverage by the end of 2002. But the statistics do not convey the whole story. A study by MARG pointed out that only 3% of the government subsidised latrines were used for the purposes for which they were built: the people converted the latrines into storerooms or kitchens. Studies pointed out the following main causes for the CRSP’s failures:
Lack of demand from people who do not see the need or feel the desire for sanitation;
Lack of adequate water sources;
Lack of space;
Absence of choice on cost or technology;
Total absence of people’s participation –construction of the latrines was done centrally;
Hygiene promotion and marketing of the products were lacking;
Lack of supply chain – materials and skills were not locally available.
There was also evidence that over-reliance on a traditional supply-driven subsidy oriented government programme was hampering private initiative in rural sanitation. Conversely, there was strong evidence that in States where Centrally Sponsored Rural Sanitation Programme (CRSP) has not been taken up to any significant extent, the gap has been amply filled by private initiative. An evaluation (1998) by DFID did not find any evidence that the high level of subsidies being offered under current State Government policy was helping to promote uptake of latrines amongst the poor. Indeed, it appeared to reinforce the tendency to promote high cost options. It was thus felt that the subsidy be reduced and private initiative be provided a fillip.
Restructured CRSP - Keeping in view the lacunae brought out by research, the CRSP was restructured wef 1.4.99. The main features of the restructured Rural Sanitation programme are:
Ø Shift from high subsidy to low-subsidy regime - from Rs 2000/- to Rs 500/- per toilet (inclusive of both Central subsidy as well as State subsidy).
Ø Greater household involvement.
Ø Technology options as per choice of beneficiaries.
Ø Stress on Information, Extension, and Communication (IEC).
Ø Emphasis on school sanitation.
Ø Tie up with various Rural Development programmes.
Ø Involvement of NGOs and local groups.
The physical implementation is also now oriented towards felt-need using "vertical up-gradations" concept, wherein beneficiaries, individual or institutions get to choose from a menu of options that allow for subsequent upgradation depending upon their requirement and financial position. Rural sanitation is thus now being promoted as a total package consisting of safe handling of drinking water, disposal of waste water, safe disposal of human excreta including child excreta, solid waste disposal, domestic sanitation and food hygiene, personal hygiene and village sanitation.
It may be of interest to point out here that there was no political initiative for the new scheme, nor was there any hostility from them to the idea of reducing subsidy. However, both the World Bank and Unicef were supportive of the idea of greater demand oriented integrated approach with reduced subsidy, and helped the policy execution by holding advocacy workshops at the state level to carry the message to the field functionaries.
Examples of divergence
Despite some positive impact of research on policy, it must be admitted that it is not always easy to influence policy. New ideas require constant repetition like the chanting of a ‘mantra’ to make an impact. Then when one bureaucrat who can make a difference gets convinced, he is transferred. His replacement may not be willing to pick up the thread from where it was left and another round of convincing must begin. The bureaucrats alone do the actual processing of the research report and the researcher is not involved. Therefore knowledge of what was accepted or not accepted and why, is really not available. As ideas have diverse sources it is difficult to identify a specific study that has made difference to policy.
Lack of academic consensus
One sector where advocacy is urgently required is the growing distress and unemployment in the rural areas because of stagnant agricultural production. The most important intervention that is needed is lowering of MSPs combined with more investment in irrigation, power, and roads in poorer regions. A low output price will result in more labour than capital being used as input in agriculture, thus leading to market-led land reforms. This is because economies of scale will operate in favour of those who have more labour, and, thus they will start buying land from those who are short of family labour, generally rich farmers. However, there is no consensus amongst economists whether reducing capital intensity in agriculture and lower support price will affect only large farmers or will also be against the interest of all farmers, at least in the irrigated regions. It may be relevant to mention here that higher support prices were recommended by a policy research division, called Centre for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) headed by a left-wing economist, who is now Member of the Planning Commission.
There are other spheres of policy too where there is lack of academic consensus; for instance on religious minorities. Would the objective of national integration be served by following policies of assimilation or pluralism, and should the recognition of diversity be extended to providing reservation for Muslims in politics and administration is a subject on which there has been a lot of acrimonious debate in India, with no finality.
The most important category of cases (from a practical viewpoint of improving society) would be those where despite academic consensus, policy does not change because of political opposition or bureaucratic lethargy. Two examples are discussed below:
Nutritional needs for children upto 3 years
Almost half of children in India suffer from malnutrition. Although India runs the world’s largest community-based child development programme with a budget of one billion US $, called the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS), it focuses only on the age group 3 to 7 years, whereas the critical period for intervention to prevent malnutrition is the first 2 years of life, with emphasis on the first year. Even though the government acknowledges the importance of improving the nutritional status of the under-three age group, most supplementation has primarily benefited the older children among whom mortality is lower and stunting is already established and thus programmes have little change of preventing malnutrition.
If the programme is to target at behaviour change of poor mothers and improve feeding practices for the infants, the entire nature of programme would need to be changed from centre based to IEC and outreach based. Such an initiative from GOI would need a lot of advocacy from major donors and experts, otherwise sheer bureaucratic lethargy (and indifference) will prevent the suggested radical shift in the programme.
Subsidised loans for the poor
To promote self-employment amongst the poor government runs a programme of subsidizing bank credit by providing almost one-third of the credit as grant to the poor. The issue however is: should credit be subsidised to benefit the borrower, or should the grant funds be utilised in setting up a micro-finance organisation? Research from many districts in India shows that below-bank rate interest rates and related subsidies are not financially sustainable, nor do they provide for an operationally effective means of reaching women and the other underprivileged people.
Most of the demand by smallholders is for short-term and seasonal loans for the purchase of livestock, inputs and small agricultural equipment. However, despite subsidy banks are reluctant to participate in the programme because of wrong selection of beneficiaries, cumbersome processing procedures, the high cost of making small loans, the collateral requirements and the perceived high risks of small loans.
Thus, subsidised credit is not sustainable. Experience has shown that cheaper micro-credit runs the risk of being rationed and availed of largely by clients with easy access to field staff, local politicians, or the local Bank. The solution lies in credit retailing by financial intermediaries. However, below market interest rates do not provide the necessary spread margin to such intermediaries to cover even their operating costs, much less the costs of social intermediation, such as group formation and training of beneficiaries. This needs grant funds.
Subsidised credit effectively reduces, rather than enhancing the access of the poor to micro-credit. It does not help promote development of sustainable micro-credit delivery systems. It also does not encourage other banking institutions to enter the rural finance area because of high transaction costs and below-market interest rates. Government should therefore support/facilitate the setting up of micro-finance institutions and participation of the poor in their own organizations first, who should retail credit at market rates to eligible entrepreneurs. However, such a radical change would require overcoming bureaucratic lethargy and the fear of reduced credit disbursement, at least for the first few years.
Constraints in influencing policy
There are also shortcomings on the researchers’ side. These are summarised below.
Research institutions’ grants both from government and external donors are linked to producing reports in a short period of time, often in less than three to six months. This affects attention to detail, and collection of primary data.
Many subjects which may have a lot of potential for policy advocacy are not being taken up for research. Some examples are:
Comparative inter-state studies on delivery and success of programmes, such as comparing UP with Tamil Nadu in population control
Performance of district and block councils after decentralisation (many studies are available on village councils, but the other two tiers are not so well researched)
Community health workers as a compliment to health services at the village level
Many researchers, even while working on practical issues that have policy implications, are not interested in working further on influencing policy, or entering into a dialogue with policy makers, whom they find arrogant and least interested in research. They feel they have done their part and it is now for those interested in policy change to use their findings.
“Research” is narrowly defined to mean data collection and analysis, while in other instances the research may be more academic and less geared to meet the specific, immediate needs of policy makers and administrators. An example of the latter is the work of the Anthropological Survey of India which employs the largest number of anthropologist and does comparatively little policy oriented research.
A large number of the research studies conducted in the institutions centre on individual development projects. These may be feasibility studies, they may evaluate a project for its overall impact: an assessment may be made of how the benefits of a project are distributed on the project may be examined with a specific objective (e.g. employment) in mind. On the basis of the findings from these studies the project may be revised, terminated, extended or enlarged. Many of the research studies cited as contributions to policy are studies of this kind though they are not policy analysis in the broader sense.
Many studies are not comparative. They do not draw upon research done in other countries that are relevant to the specific policy areas being studied. Many of the studies do not present a systematic comparison with policies pursued by other underdeveloped and developing countries and how these might relate to India’s policy choices. There are no comparisons drawn with either the contemporary or historic experiences of more developed countries.
Another problem in the use of research in policy making is the language of communication. A social scientist is prone to use the language of his discipline which is ‘jargon’ and sometimes, unintelligible, to those outside the fraternity of his own discipline. That probably is one reason why an official finds a good research work ‘academic’ but not useful. This communication gap could be filled in by the social scientists in govt. departments who should interpret the findings in simple language.
Many a time the study reports are voluminous due to researcher’s urge as a social scientist to make the study self contained with the necessary historical, theoretical and methodological background, which may not be of concern to the policy makers.
The findings with policy implications may be tucked up in some part of the study in an inconspicuous manner. The policy maker has neither time nor inclination to go through the entire report, and therefore, a specific note on the relevant aspects at the study may prove useful.
Researchers say that the govt. system is so vast, so complex, so immobile – that any kind of change and innovation is difficult. The basic attitude of the administration is not helpful. Sometimes a few individuals in government are open minded and responsive to research, but the bureaucratic system as a whole is not. It is not responsive to innovation.
Dissemination and advocacy of research findings
A policy change needs not only research but its dissemination and advocacy through media and civil society. There are a few organisations that combine in themselves all the three roles; research, dissemination and advocacy. The Centre for Science and Environment is one such organization that has critically influenced the environmental policy. It runs a Journal, publishes state of the art research based monographs and carries on a crusade against policies that lead to environmental degradation. Its influence in reducing air pollution in Delhi, for example, is clearly discernible. Such organisations are rare though.
Donors can play an important role in building indigenous capacity for dissemination and advocacy. For this they should carefully choose some NGOs who aim at creating an enabling environment and facilitating changes in the larger policy and institutional frameworks within which direct interventions and empowerment processes are operating. These would include, for instance, opinion building and perspective building at multiple levels, research studies, platforms for collective analysis of the implications of research findings and initiatives to disseminate lessons learnt from programme implementation. However, policy advocacy requires selection of partners with calibre, intimate knowledge of the subject, power of articulation, communication skills, and access to media and the selection of such organisations with these skills has to be carefully done.
Secondly, donors should aim at long term relationship with the organisations that they select to work with. Understanding how policy decisions really impact on the lives of poor people and drawing conclusions from grassroots experience that can improve the policy making process is extremely challenging work – but that is what is being asked of civil society.
Government’s approach
Government too should not be sensitive on criticism, because if we are serious about development cooperation, not just charity, the enabling environment must permit civil society and researchers to look at policy distortions as well as institutional shortcomings so that appropriate lessons can be drawn and corrective action taken. A change in policy sets in a new set of chain reaction that may ultimately bring sustained benefits for millions of people, as opposed to direct intervention programmes that benefit only a few thousands.
The conservative idea that aid should only be charity and not look at policy issues is palpably wrong. The X Plan document (2002-07) of Indian government has clearly laid down the priority in this respect in the following words:
‘Past experience in the country has shown that availability of resources is no panacea for tackling poverty, disparities and backwardness. It is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition. The determining factor, it turns out, is the institutional capacity to formulate viable need-based schemes/projects with efficient delivery systems to utilise optimally the available resources.
Good governance is perhaps the single most important factor in ensuring that the objectives of the Tenth Plan are achieved. In view of the above, will be important that all the players are on board and that there is a realisation of the need and a willingness to undertake the reforms and other policy steps mentioned in this report. Steps will have to be taken to address issues relating to improved people’s participation, effective decentralisation of governance, involvement of civil society, especially voluntary organisations and the crucial Right to Information.
Role for the civil society has been defined by the Planning Commission, which is the nodal agency for NGOs, as, ‘They have thus to be recognised as partners in development. The strengths of the voluntary sector, namely their advocacy skills, organisational skills and being closer to the people should be used to the advantage of all concerned’.
How to improve capacity for policy advocacy?
Policy advocacy can take three forms. First, identify policies that are blatantly against the interest of the poor, women and, other marginalised sections of society. Second, one should identify macro-policies and programmes meant for the poor that are not working well because of design problems, and therefore need modification. These policies, especially in the sectors of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Development are critical for the welfare of the poor, more so because GOI has invested huge amount of funds to the tune of several billions in these sectors, and one cannot afford wastage here. Advocacy is also required for missing pro-poor policies, such as changing land laws, social control over natural resources, equitable utilisation of urban land, etc.
Third, where the design seems to be alright, but benefit is not reaching the poor either because of lack of attention, or inadequate M & E, or governance problems. Governance issues are difficult, but not impossible, to confront. The donors and large NGOs should continuously collect best practices that show how programmes have been better implemented without any radical change in the political economy of the country. Thus not only negative stories will come to light, but bureaucracy should get full credit for its positive achievements. Here too, many of the stand-alone experiments of grassroots intervention have contributed positively to sustainable development but have remained oasis of success. The challenge is to weave these successful stories into pro-active policies.
It is obvious that such efforts will have a high visibility, though requiring much less fund support. Donors should develop partnerships with activist and research organisations that are policy oriented, pro-poor, and can be trusted with quick but reliable results. It should also build the capacity of existing government and semi-government organisations for this task.
Unfortunately, due to pre-occupation of the donors and national governments with short term gains, the impetus to improve policies and build accountability from within government are quite weak; it would therefore require constant lobbying, advocacy and pressure from civil society. This alone will shift the focus from maximising the quantity of development funding to maximising of development outcomes and effectiveness of public service delivery. Researchers therefore need to reflect on how to use ground knowledge obtained from research to influence macro socio-economic policies.
To sum up, researchers and civil society should step up its engagement with the State. Space and attention to policy advocacy can be improved through the following operational suggestions:
Build the capacity of state governments and intermediate organisation to do better M & E (no advocacy is feasible without this, in addition it will improve programme performance).
Develop a good documentation base to support both M & E and advocacy. Time lag between doing a study and its availability on a Website should be minimum, and drafts in progress should also appear on Websites.
Advocacy cannot be done solely by one organisation. It requires a long term policy of networking among all donors and encouraging such intermediate organisations that have potential and have credibility.
Consider encouraging retreats (such as policy retreats tried by UNDP in 1993-94 in the context of reforms and liberalisation), where senior government officers interact face-to-face with policy researchers.
Select a few training and research centres, both within and outside government and elevate them in a given time frame to the international standards.
Facilitate lateral learning through exchange visits.
[1] It is said that one would find only three books in the house of a civil servant – a railway timetable because he is always on the move, a film magazine because that is all he reads and, of course, the civil list that describes how many in the system are senior to him!

INVITATION TO HELP US GUIDE US AND SUPPORT US

We invite you to guide us inspire us and tell us about your life, your struggle, and your achievements. Your path will be a guiding path for us in our journey. Your ideas will inspire us. Your mission will set an example for us.

AFTERSCHO☺OL
Address:
Sivakamu Veterinary Hospital Raod Bikaner
09414430763 ; 0151+3246329
http://www.afterschoool.tk/

we conduct Programme on Social / spiritual Entrepreneurship. Our programme is available for any student after class 12th / graduation. AFTERSCHO☺OL conducts PGPSE. PGPSE is a very rigorous programme, designed to give a comprehensive training in social entrepreneurship / spiritual entrepreneurship. This programme is aimed at those persons, who want to ultimately set up their own business enterprises which can benefit society substantially. PGPSE is a unique programme, as it combines industry consultancy, business solutions and case studies in addition to spirituality and social concerns.