Motivation & Overview

India’s services sector is internationally renowned and has helped propel the country’s economic growth. Indeed, in recent years, a majority of the value added to India’s GDP has been concentrated in services. Especially noteworthy are India’s software and computing services, which include large multinational conglomerates like Infosys and Tata Communications Services. 

Yet as Indian software has flourished, the growth of its computer hardware and manufacturing has been sluggish. Tellingly, India is still a net importer of hardware and other electronics. At first glance, this divergence is puzzling because both the software and hardware sectors should have benefited from India’s educated labor pool and infrastructure. How can these different sectoral outcomes be explained?
 

Image

Fig. 1: Electronics production value compared to software and software service revenues.
 

In “Comparing Advantages in India’s Computer Hardware and Software Sectors,” Dinsha Mistree and Rehana Mohammed offer an explanation in terms of state capacity to meet the different functional needs of each sector. Their account of India’s computing history emphasizes the inability of various state ministries and agencies to agree on policies that would benefit the hardware sector, such as tariffs. Meanwhile, cumbersome rulemaking procedures inherited from British colonialism impeded the state’s flexibility. Although this disadvantaged India’s hardware sector, its software sector needed comparatively less from the state, building instead on international networks and the efforts of individual agencies.

The authors provide a historically and theoretically rich account of the political forces shaping India’s economic rise. The paper not only compares distinct moments in Indian history but also draws parallels with other landmark cases, like South Korea’s 1980s industrial surge. Such a sector-based analysis could be fruitfully applied to understand why different industries succeed or lag in emerging economies. 

Different Sectors, Different Needs

In order to become competitive — both domestically and (especially) internationally — hardware manufacturers often need much from the state, what the authors call a “produce and protect regime.” This can include the construction of factories and the formation of state-owned industries (SOEs), as well as tariffs to reduce competition or labor laws that restrict union strikes. Perhaps most importantly, manufacturers need a state whose legislators and bureaucrats can coordinate with each other in response to market challenges. Such a regime is incompatible with excessive “red tape” or with the “capture” of regulators by narrow interest groups. Because customers tend to view manufactured goods as “substitutable” with each other, firms will face intense competition as regards price and quality.
 

Image

Fig. 2: Inter-agency coordination required for sectoral success.
 

The situation is very different for service providers, whose success depends on building strong relationships with customers. States are not essential to this process, even if their promotional efforts can be helpful. Coordination across government agencies is similarly less important, as just one agency could provide tax breaks or host promotional events that benefit service providers. Compared with manufacturing, customers tend to view services as less substitutable — they are more intangible and customizable, which renders competition less fierce. Understanding India’s computing history reveals that the state’s inability to meet hardware manufacturers’ needs severely constrained the sector’s growth. 

The History of Indian Computing

Although India inherited a convoluted bureaucracy from the British Raj, the future of its computing industry in the 1960s seemed promising: political elites in New Delhi supported a produce-and-protect regime, relevant agencies and SOEs were created, and foreign computing firms like IBM successfully operated in the country. 

Yet by the 1970s, some bureaucrats and union leaders feared that automation would threaten the federal government’s functioning and India’s employment levels, respectively. Strict controls in both the public and private sectors were thus adopted, for example, requiring trade unions — which took a strong anti-computer stance — to approve the introduction of computers in specific industries. The authors make special mention of India’s semiconductor industry. It arguably failed to develop due to lackluster government investment, the need for manufacturers to obtain multiple permits across agencies, decision makers ignoring recommendations from specialized panels, and so on.

Meanwhile, implementing protectionist policies proved challenging. For example, decisions to allow the importation of previously banned components required permission from multiple ministries and agencies. After India’s 1970s balance-of-payments crisis, international companies deemed inessential were forced to dilute their equity to 40% and take on an Indian partner. IBM then left the Indian market. At the same time, SOEs faced growing competition over government contracts and workers, owing to the growth of state-level SOEs.

The mid-1980s represented a partial turning point as Rajiv Gandhi became Prime Minister and liberalized the computing industry. Within weeks, Rajiv introduced a host of new policies and shifted the government’s focus from supporting public sector production to promoting private firms, which would no longer face manufacturing limits and would be eligible for duty exemptions. Changes to tariff rates and import limits would not require approval from multiple agencies. Meanwhile, international firms reengaged with Indian markets via the building of satellite links, facilitating cross-continental work, such as between Citibank employees in Mumbai and Santa Cruz.

However, this liberalizing period was undermined and partially reversed after 1989, when Rajiv’s Congress Party (INC) lost its legislative majority and public policy became considerably more fragmented. Anti-computerization forces, especially the powerful Indian trade unions, worked to stymie Rajiv’s reforms. Pro-market reformists were forced out of their positions in Indian bureaucracies. Rajiv was assassinated in 1991, after which Congress formed a minority government with computer advocate P. V. Narasimha Rao as PM. Yet all of this occurred at a delicate time, as India was at risk of defaulting and had almost completely exhausted its foreign exchange.

By the late 1990s, both the hardware and software sectors should have benefited from the rising global demand for computers, yet India’s history of poor state coordination hindered manufacturers. Meanwhile, software firms were able to take advantage of global opportunities given their comparatively limited needs from state actors and political networks — for example, helping European Union banks change their computer systems to Euros. Ultimately, the Indian state has powerfully shaped the fortunes of these different sectors.

*Research-in-Brief prepared by Adam Fefer.

Introduction

Generative AI has become an incredibly attractive and widespread tool for people across the world. Alongside its rapid growth, AI tools present a host of ethical challenges relating to consent, security, and privacy, among others. As Generative AI has been spearheaded primarily by large technology companies, these ethical challenges — especially as viewed from the vantage point of ordinary people — risk being overlooked for the sake of market competition and profit. What is needed, therefore, is a deeper understanding of and attention to how ordinary people perceive AI, including its costs and benefits.

The Meta Community Forum Results Analysis, authored by Samuel Chang, James S. Fishkin, Ricky Hernandez Marquez, Ayushi Kadakia, Alice Siu, and Robert Taylor, aims to address some of these challenges. A partnership between CDDRL’s Deliberative Democracy Lab and Meta, the forum enables participants to learn about and collectively reflect on AI. The impulse behind deliberative democracy is straightforward: people affected by some policy or program should have the right to communicate about its contents and to understand the reasons for its adoption. As Generative AI and the companies that produce it become increasingly powerful, democratic input becomes even more essential to ensure their accountability. 

Motivation & Takeaways

In October 2024, the third Meta Community Forum took place. Its importance derives from the advancements in Generative AI since October 2023, when the last round of deliberations was held. One such advancement is the move beyond AI chatbots to AI agents, which can solve more complex tasks and adapt in real-time to improve responses. A second advancement is that AI has become multimodal, moving beyond the generation of text and into images, video, and audio. These advancements raise new questions and challenges. As such, the third forum provided participants with the opportunity to deliberate on a range of policy proposals, organized around two key themes: how AI agents should interact with users and how they should provide proactive and personalized experiences for them.

To summarize some of the forum’s core findings: the majority of participants value transparency and consent in their interactions with AI agents as well as the security and privacy of their data. In turn, they are less comfortable with agents autonomously completing tasks if this is not transparent to them. Participants have a positive outlook on AI agents but want to have control over their interactions. Regarding the deliberations themselves, participants rated the forum highly and felt that it exposed them to alternative perspectives. The deliberators wanted to learn more about AI for themselves, which was evidenced by their increased use of these tools after the deliberations. Future reports will explore the reasoning and arguments that they used while deliberating.
 

Image

^{The participants of this Community Forum were representative samples of the general population from five countries - Turkey, Saudi Arabia, India, Nigeria, and South Africa. Participants from each country deliberated separately in English, Hindi, Turkish, or Arabic.}

Methodology & Data

The deliberations involved around 900 participants from five countries: India, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and Turkey. Participants varied in terms of age, gender, education, and urbanicity. Because the deliberative groups were recruited independently, the forum can be seen as five independent deliberations. Deliberations alternated between small group discussions and ‘plenary sessions,’ where experts answered questions drawn from the small groups. There were around 1000 participants in the control group, who did pre- and post-surveys, but without deliberating. The participant sample was representative with respect to gender, while the treatment and control groups were balanced on demography as well as on their attitudes toward AI. Before deliberating on the proposals, participants were presented with background materials as well as a list of costs and benefits to consider.

In terms of the survey data, large majorities of participants had previously used AI. There was a statistically significant increase in these proportions after the forum. For example, in Turkey, usage rates increased from nearly 70% to 84%. In several countries, there were large increases in participants’ sense of AI’s positive benefits after deliberating, as well as a statistically significant increase in their interest. The deliberations changed participants’ opinions about a host of claims; for example, “people will feel less lonely with AI” and “more proactive [agents] are intrusive” lost approval whereas “AI agents’ capability to increase efficiency…is saving many companies a lot of time and resources” and “AI agents are helping people become more creative” gained approval. After deliberating, participants demonstrated an improved understanding of some factual aspects of AI, although the more technical aspects of this remain challenging. One example here is AI hallucinations, or rather, the generation of false or nonsensical outputs, usually because of flawed training data.
 

Image

Proposals

Participants deliberated on nineteen policy proposals. To summarize these briefly: In terms of whether and how AI remembers users’ past behaviors and preferences, participants preferred proposals that allowed users to make active choices, as opposed to this being a default setting or only being asked once. They also preferred being reminded about the ability of AI agents to personalize their experience, as well as agents being transparent with users about the tasks they complete. Participants preferred that users be educated on AI before using it, as well as being informed when AI is picking up on certain emotional cues and responding in “human-like” ways. They also preferred proposals whereby AI would ask clarifying questions before generating output. Finally, when it comes to agents helping users with real-life relationships, this was seen as more permissible when the other person was informed. Across the proposals, gender was neither a significant nor consistent determinant of how they were rated. Ultimately, the Meta Community Forum offers a model for how informed, public communication can shape AI and the ethical challenges it raises.

How do aging populations reshape health and innovation policies in Asian economies? What role can the private sector play in public health service delivery, and how do individual preferences affect the development of emerging technologies? Mai Nguyen and Jinseok Kim, the 2024-25 Asia health policy postdoctoral fellows at APARC, focus on these questions as part of their research into health care service adaptation and behavioral economics.

At a recent joint seminar, “Health, Aging, Innovation, and the Private Sector: Evidence from Vietnam and Korea,” they offered a comparative look at how Vietnam and South Korea navigate aging populations, rising healthcare demands, and rapid technological change. While Nguyen focuses on health system design in Vietnam and Kim explores innovation diffusion in Korea, they both use discrete choice modeling to understand how individuals make decisions within systems influenced by age, infrastructure, and policy.

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive updates from our scholars >

Nguyen and Kim’s work is supported by APARC’s Asia Health Policy Program (AHPP), which offers a postdoctoral fellowship each year to an early-career scholar conducting original research on health policy in the Asia-Pacific, particularly in low- and middle-income economies across the region. The fellowship demonstrates the program’s commitment to fostering the next generation of Asia-focused health policy researchers.

Vietnam’s Mixed Health System and the Role of Patient Choice

Mai Nguyen’s research centers around the role of private healthcare providers in Vietnam, especially for patients managing chronic diseases such as diabetes. She studies how patients choose between public and private healthcare providers, and what attributes of care they value most.

To analyze these preferences, she uses a method known as the Discrete Choice Experiment, which allows her to quantify the relative importance of various service attributes — such as appointment flexibility, doctor choice, quality of care, drug diversity, and cost coverage — in influencing patients’ decisions.

Nguyen’s interest in this topic began while she worked at Vietnam’s Ministry of Health. “That earlier work highlighted the growing contribution of the private sector in filling service delivery gaps, particularly in urban areas and for non-communicable diseases such as diabetes,” she says.

Her findings suggest that Vietnam’s private sector has become a necessary complement to public healthcare. “Despite potential downsides, such as increased costs, equity concerns, and profit-driven service delivery, my study finds that private healthcare helps relieve pressure on the public system and meets diverse patient needs.”

At APARC, Nguyen has sharpened the focus of her research under the mentorship of AHPP Director Dr. Karen Eggleston, a leading expert on public and private roles in Asian health systems. Nguyen also values her collaboration with Jinseok Kim. “Dr. Kim’s expertise provides valuable insights into how Korea is addressing the challenges of a rapidly aging population through innovative policy and service delivery models,” she notes.

Her time at Stanford has also broadened Nguyen’s horizons beyond traditional health economics. “I have developed a strong interest in the application of artificial intelligence to enhance the delivery of medical services,” she says. Looking forward, she plans to expand her research to Asian American populations in the United States, exploring how AI and digital health can improve diabetes care while also addressing barriers related to equity and access.

Innovation Adoption and the Aging Consumer in South Korea

Jinseok Kim investigates how aging affects new technology adoption and consumer behavior in South Korea, a country facing one of the fastest demographic shifts in the world.

“My current research involves looking at population aging and innovation diffusion, specifically in the context of the rapid aging trend in Korea,” Kim says. He studies how age influences consumer preferences in choosing new technologies such as electric vehicles, telemedicine, and generative AI platforms like ChatGPT.

Understanding these preferences, Kim argues, is critical for both policy and market strategy. “By working out the relationship between consumer choice and population aging, I forecast the effect of the population aging trend on the diffusion of innovative products and provide the potential policy and marketing implications for government policy and corporate management.”

The challenge, he says, lies in making sense of a wide range of behaviors across age groups and product types. “The biggest challenge I had in my studies was finding the overarching trend in the relationship between consumer choice for particular innovative products and population aging and then translating this finding into meaningful implications for society and the economy.”

Kim credits his time at APARC, especially participating in the Stanford Next Asia Policy Lab (SNAPL) meetings, with broadening his perspective. “Working as a member of SNAPL gave me insights and perspectives I didn’t have before,” he says.

SNAPL, directed by Professor Gi-Wook Shin, is an interdisciplinary research initiative housed within APARC addressing pressing social, cultural, economic, and political challenges in Asia through comparative, policy-relevant studies. The lab cultivates the next generation of researchers and policy leaders by offering mentorships and fellowship opportunities for students and emerging scholars.

Kim sees APARC’s model as effectively bridging academia and policy. “There are so many opportunities to interact with other scholars, policymakers, and practitioners,” Kim says. “Scholars here not only research and write, but they also get to share their voice and research findings in real-world policy.”

His advice to early-career researchers is straightforward. “Be more down-to-earth with your studies and thinking,” Kim says. “Sometimes scholars tend to get caught up in their way of thinking and perspective, but it may not be practical in real life. That is why I think it is important to just get outside and observe real consumer choice and behavior.”

Kim plans to continue researching questions related to innovation and demographic change to help governments and businesses adapt to aging populations and shifting consumer needs.

Ground-Level Data, Big-Picture Impact

Mai Nguyen and Jinseok Kim approach shared societal challenges through distinct yet complementary lenses. Nguyen’s research reveals how patient preferences can guide more effective public-private collaboration in healthcare, ultimately shaping systems that are more responsive to real-world needs. Meanwhile, Kim examines how patterns of technology adoption — especially among older adults — can influence the trajectory of innovation in aging societies.

Both scholars emphasize the value of ground-level data in addressing large-scale issues. By centering real behaviors and preferences, their work helps inform smarter, more adaptive policy, whether in designing patient-centered care or planning for technology's role in future societies. At APARC, their research bridges theory and practice, offering fresh insight into how Asian countries can navigate the twin forces of demographic change and rapid innovation.