High-tech exports serve as a critical driver of economic growth and global competitiveness for nations. In an era marked by rapid technological advancements and globalization, the ability of a country to expand its high-tech exports hinges significantly on its investment in research and development (R&D). By fostering innovation, enhancing product quality, and improving production efficiency, R&D plays a pivotal role in determining a country’s success in the high-tech export sector. This essay explores the significance of R&D in driving high-tech exports, highlighting its impact on product innovation, international competitiveness, and economic sustainability. Figure 1 compares High-Tech Exports among India, Malaysia and Sri Lanka. (See Graph 01)

The Link Between R&D and High-Tech Exports

R&D is the backbone of high-tech industries, enabling firms to develop cutting-edge products and services that cater to evolving global market demands. Technological innovations, resulting from R&D investments, enhance the quality, efficiency, and uniqueness of products, making them more attractive to international buyers. Countries with robust R&D ecosystems, such as the United States, Germany, and South Korea, have consistently led the world in high-tech exports. Their ability to create and commercialize innovative technologies underscores the direct correlation between R&D spending and export growth in the high-tech sector. Figure 2 compares High-Tech Exports and Research and Development expenses among India, Malaysia and Sri Lanka. (See Graph 2)

Figure 3 shows a comparison of High-Tech Exports and Research and Development expenses of Sri Lanka with Germany, Malaysia and the US. (See Graph 03)

Other Factors Influencing High-Tech Exports

While R&D is the primary driver of high-tech exports, several other factors also influence a country’s ability to compete in global technology markets. These include:

* Infrastructure and Logistics:

Efficient infrastructure, including transportation networks, digital connectivity, and advanced manufacturing facilities, is crucial for exporting high-tech products. However, without strong R&D, infrastructure alone cannot drive technological advancements.

* Trade Policies and Regulations:

Favourable trade policies, such as low tariffs, export incentives, and intellectual property protections, facilitate high-tech exports. Yet, without continuous innovation from R&D, trade policies alone cannot sustain competitiveness.

* Human Capital and Skilled Workforce:

A highly educated and technically skilled workforce is essential for high-tech industries. While talent is important, it must be complemented by R&D investments to create and commercialize innovations.

* Foreign Direct Investment (FDI):

FDI brings capital, expertise, and market access, enhancing a country’s ability to export high-tech products. However, nations that do not invest in R&D risk becoming mere assembly hubs rather than innovation leaders.

* Access to Capital and Financial Support:

Access to venture capital, government funding, and financial incentives supports high-tech industries. Yet, financial resources alone do not guarantee technological progress without active R&D efforts.

Why R&D is the Most Powerful Factor

Despite the influence of these factors, R&D remains the most powerful driver of high-tech exports because it is the source of continuous innovation and competitive advantage. Infrastructure, policies, human capital, and financial support can facilitate high-tech exports, but without groundbreaking research and new technological developments, a country risks stagnation in global markets. Nations that lead in high-tech exports—such as the US, Japan, and China—have consistently prioritized R&D, enabling them to pioneer new technologies and set industry standards.

Enhancing International Competitiveness

A strong R&D culture equips businesses with the ability to maintain a competitive edge in global markets. By developing proprietary technologies and advanced manufacturing processes, firms can reduce production costs, improve product functionality, and increase overall efficiency. This, in turn, enhances their competitive standing in international markets, allowing them to secure long-term trade relationships. Additionally, R&D-driven innovation fosters brand reputation and consumer trust, leading to increased demand for high-tech exports.

Economic Sustainability and Knowledge-Based Growth

Investing in R&D facilitates long-term economic sustainability by transitioning economies from resource-based models to knowledge-driven ones. High-tech exports contribute significantly to GDP growth, employment generation, and foreign exchange earnings. Countries that prioritize R&D in their high-tech sectors experience increased productivity, reduced dependency on traditional industries, and higher value-added output. Moreover, R&D fosters entrepreneurship and the development of start-ups, further strengthening the high-tech export ecosystem.

The Role of Government Policies and Industry Collaboration

Governments play a crucial role in fostering R&D through policy frameworks, financial incentives, and strategic collaborations. Public-private partnerships, tax incentives, and funding for research institutions are essential mechanisms that stimulate innovation. Additionally, collaboration between universities and industries facilitates technology transfer and the commercialization of research outcomes, leading to the development of exportable high-tech products.

The most appropriate and suitable types of R&D for driving high-tech exports include:

1. Applied Research

Applied research is crucial for fostering high-tech exports as it focuses on developing new technologies with immediate commercial applications. Unlike basic research, which is theoretical in nature, applied research is directed toward practical outcomes that enhance global competitiveness. For example, advancements in nanotechnology and artificial intelligence (AI) have significantly contributed to the global expansion of semiconductor and automation industries. Furthermore, applied research helps in bridging the gap between scientific discovery and market implementation, ensuring that new technologies can be effectively utilized in high-tech exports.

2. Product Development R&D

Product development R&D plays a key role in creating innovative products with unique features, enabling firms to differentiate themselves in international markets. It involves activities, such as prototype testing, performance enhancement, and feature innovation, which contribute to the competitive advantage of high-tech firms. For instance, the global smartphone industry continuously invests in R&D to develop new functionalities, improve user experience, and introduce cutting-edge designs, thereby sustaining consumer demand in highly competitive markets. The strategic focus on product innovation allows firms to maintain premium pricing and brand loyalty in high-tech sectors.

3. Process Innovation R&D

Process innovation R&D enhances production efficiency and cost-effectiveness, making high-tech exports more competitive in price-sensitive markets. This type of R&D focuses on improving manufacturing techniques, reducing waste, and integrating automation to optimize resource utilization. For example, the use of additive manufacturing (3D printing) in aerospace and biomedical industries has resulted in cost reductions and faster production cycles, leading to improved market penetration of high-tech exports. Companies that invest in process innovation are able to achieve economies of scale and maintain long-term cost advantages in global markets.

4. Collaborative R&D

Collaborative R&D, involving partnerships between academia, industry, and government, accelerates the commercialization of new technologies. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) facilitate knowledge exchange, reduce R&D costs, and increase the likelihood of successful innovation. A notable example is the European Union’s Horizon 2020 programme, which funds cross-border collaborative research to enhance industrial competitiveness and technological leadership. Additionally, collaboration between multinational corporations and research institutions has led to breakthrough innovations in biotechnology, renewable energy, and telecommunications. By leveraging diverse expertise and shared resources, collaborative R&D enhances the scalability and global reach of high-tech exports.

5. Market-Driven R&D

Market-driven R&D aligns research efforts with global consumer trends and regulatory requirements to maximize export potential. Unlike traditional R&D approaches that focus solely on technological advancements, market-driven R&D emphasizes consumer needs, sustainability, and compliance with international standards. For example, the increasing demand for environmentally friendly products has prompted R&D investments in electric vehicles (EVs) and sustainable packaging solutions, ensuring market acceptance and regulatory approval in various regions. Companies that integrate market intelligence into their R&D strategies are better positioned to develop products that meet international demand, enhance brand reputation, and drive high-tech export growth.

Conclusion

R&D stands as a cornerstone in driving high-tech exports, shaping a nation’s ability to compete in the global economy. While factors such as infrastructure, trade policies, human capital, FDI, and financial support play a role in high-tech exports, they are secondary to the fundamental necessity of continuous innovation. By fostering technological advancements, enhancing competitiveness, and promoting economic sustainability, R&D investments serve as the ultimate catalyst for high-tech export growth. Countries aiming to strengthen their high-tech export sectors must prioritize R&D policies and create an ecosystem that supports innovation, ensuring long-term prosperity in an increasingly technology-driven world.

Investing in different types of R&D is essential for fostering high-tech exports. Applied research drives technological advancements, product development R&D ensures market differentiation, and process innovation R&D enhances cost efficiency. Additionally, collaborative R&D accelerates innovation through strategic partnerships, while market-driven R&D ensures alignment with global consumer trends and regulatory standards. A comprehensive approach that incorporates all these R&D types will enable firms to sustain their competitive advantage and expand their presence in the global high-tech market.

(The writer, a senior Chartered Accountant and professional banker, is Professor at SLIIT University, Malabe. He is also the author of the “Doing Social Research and Publishing Results”, a Springer publication (Singapore), and “Samaja Gaveshakaya (in Sinhala). The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the institution he works for. He can be contacted at saliya.a@slit.lk and www.researcher.com)

by Jehan Perera

The Batalanda Commission report which goes into details of what happened during the JVP insurrection of 1987-89 has become the centre of public attention. The controversy has long been a point of contention and a reminder of the country’s troubled past and entrenched divisions that still exist. The events that occurred at Batalanda during the violent suppression of the JVP-led insurgency, remain a raw wound, as seen in the sudden resurfacing of the issue. The scars of violence and war still run deep. At a time when the country is grappling with pressing challenges ranging from economic recovery to social stability, there is a need to keep in focus the broader goal of unity for long-term peace and prosperity. But the ghosts of the past need also to be put to rest without continuing to haunt the present and future.

Grisly accounts of what transpired at Batalanda now fill the social media even in the Tamil media, though Tamils were not specifically targeted at that time. There was then a ceasefire between the government and LTTE. The Indo-Lanka Accord had just been signed and the LTTE were fighting the Indian peacekeeping army. The videos that are now circulating on social media would show the Tamil people that they were not the only ones at the receiving end of counter-terrorist measures. The Sinhalese were in danger then, as it was a rebellion of Sinhalese against the state. Sinhalese youth had to be especially careful.

It appears that former president Ranil Wickremesinghe was caught unprepared by the questions from a team from Al Jazeera television. The answers he gave, in which he downplayed the significance of the Batalanda Commission report have been viewed differently, depending on the perspective of the observer. He has also made a statement in which he has rejected the report. The report, which demands introspection, referred to events that had taken place 37 years earlier. But the ghosts of the past have returned. After the issue has come to the fore, there are many relatives and acquaintances of the victims from different backgrounds who are demanding justice and offering to come forward to give evidence of what they had witnessed. They need closure after so many years.

MORE POLARISATION

The public reaction to the airing of the Al Jazeera television programme is a reminder that atrocities that have taken place cannot be easily buried. The government has tabled the Batalanda Commission report in parliament and hold a two-day debate on it. The two days were to be consecutive but now the government has decided to space them out over two months. There is reason to be concerned about what transpires in the debate. The atrocities that took place during the JVP insurrection involved multiple parties. Batalanda was not the only interrogation site or the only torture chamber. There were many others. Former president Ranil Wickremesinghe was not the only prominent protagonist in the events that transpired at that time.

The atrocities of the late 1980s were not confined to one location, nor were they the responsibility of a single individual or group. The JVP engaged in many atrocities and human rights violations. In addition to members of the former government and military who engaged in counter-terrorism operations there were also other groups that engaged both in self-defence and mayhem. These included members of left political parties who were targeted by the JVP and who formed their own para-military groups. Some of the leaders went on to become ministers in succeeding governments and even represented Sri Lanka at international human rights forums. Even members of the present government will not be able to escape the fallout of the debate over the Batalanda Commission report.

If the debate becomes a battleground for assigning blame rather than seeking solutions, it could have far-reaching consequences for Sri Lanka’s social and political stability. Economic recovery, governance reform, and development require stability and cooperation. The present storm caused by the Batalanda Commission report, and the prospects for increased polarisation and hatred do not bode well for the country. Rather than engaging in potentially divisive debates that could lead to further entrenchment of opposing narratives, Sri Lanka would be better served by a structured and impartial approach to truth-seeking and reconciliation.

NATIONAL HEALING

Earlier this month at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, the government rejected the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights assertion that the external evidence gathering unit would continue to collect evidence on human rights violations in Sri Lanka. This evidence gathering unit has a mandate to collect information on a wide range of human rights violations including intimidation and killings of journalists but with a focus on the human rights violations and war crimes during the course of the LTTE war and especially at its end. The government’s position has been that it is determined to deal with human rights challenges including reconciliation through domestic processes.

Addressing the High-Level Segment of the 58th Regular Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva in February this year, Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath said: “The contours of a truth and reconciliation framework, will be further discussed with the broadest possible cross section of stakeholders, before operationalisation to ensure a process that has the trust of all Sri Lankans. Our aim is to make the domestic mechanisms credible and sound within the constitutional framework. This will include strengthening the work towards a truth and reconciliation commission empowered to investigate acts of violence caused by racism and religious extremism that give rise to tensions within Sri Lankan society.”

The concept of a truth and reconciliation commission was first broached in 2015 by then prime minister Ranil Wickremesinghe’s government. In 2019 after winning the presidential elections, former president Gotabaya Rajapaksa too saw merit in the idea, but neither of these two leaders had the commitment to ensure that the process was completed. Promoting reconciliation in Sri Lanka among divergent political actors with violent political pasts requires a multi-faceted approach that blends political, social, and psychological strategies.

Given the country’s complex history of armed conflict, ethnic tensions, and political polarisation, the process must be carefully designed to build trust, address grievances, and create a shared vision for the future. A truth and reconciliation process as outlined in Geneva by the government, which has teeth in it for both punishment and amnesty, can give the country the time and space in which to uncover the painful truths and the path to national healing.

Our universities are characterized by hierarchies. They manifest in formal and informal ways, reinforcing power asymmetries based on class, ethnicity and gender, and placing inordinate authority in those with higher status. In medicine, a ‘hidden curriculum’ orients undergraduates to hierarchies from their early days in training, placing professors over lecturers, ‘clinical’ over ‘non-clinical’ teachers, consultants over medical officers, and so on. While hierarchies are needed at universities (and hospitals) to streamline decision-making, dysfunctional hierarchies create unhealthy learning environments and a culture of fear that discourages students from asking questions and voicing concerns. They also legitimize mistreatment, humiliation, bullying, and other abuses of power. A few months ago, when I invited a medical student to participate in a session on ragging and harassment for incoming students, she asked me (quoted with permission), “What’s the point of doing a programme like that if ragging happens in official level by teachers with everyone knowing, Madam?” Her question led me to explore the avenues available at state universities for undergraduates to counter abuses of power by teachers and university administrations.

What can undergrads do?

The University Grants Commission (UGC) and all state universities have established mechanisms for reporting complaints of ragging and sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV). The UGC’s online portal entertains complaints on “all forms of ragging; sexual harassment; sexual or gender based violence; threats and intimidation; bullying; and harassment.” Complaint procedures for ragging and SGBV are described in detail on the websites of each university, as well as the websites of some faculties. Students may also take any complaints directly to the Dean, student counsellors, academic advisors/mentors, and teachers. In addition, many faculties have portals to submit online complaints on ragging and harassment, while others rely on informal mechanisms, like complaint boxes, to protect anonymity. While these systems are used by students to some extent, rarely do they function as checks and balances against abuses of power by teachers and others at the pinnacle of the university hierarchy.

Anyone who works at a state university would know that students (and the university community more broadly) have very little confidence in existing complaint and grievance procedures. While the minority of incidents that get reported may make it to the inquiry stage, the complaints are often withdrawn under threat and intimidation from the authorities or simply brushed under the carpet. More recently, certain universities and faculties have worked towards establishing formal student grievance procedures outside the SGBV/ragging reporting systems.

Newer grievance mechanisms

Sabaragamuwa University appears to be the only university with a university-wide policy for grievance redressal. The protocol described in the standard operating procedure (SOP) requires that students submit their complaint in writing to the Dean or Deputy Senior Student Counsellor of the relevant faculty. On receiving a complaint, a Committee will be set up by the Dean/Deputy Senior Student Counsellor to conduct an inquiry. The Committee will comprise five senior staff members, including “two independent members (one representing another department, and one may represent the Gender Equity and Equality Cell of the Faculty where relevant)…” The SOP further states that “any student can oppose to have his/her mentor and/or any faculty member to be in the five-person team handling his/her issue.” However, this information is available only to the discerning student who is able to navigate the university’s complex website, hit the Centre for Quality Assurance tab, view the list of documents and click ‘best practices’.

Several faculties of medicine appear to have introduced grievance mechanisms. The Grievance Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Colombo, considers complaints regarding “a decision or action that is perceived to adversely affect the grievant in her or his professional academic capacity.” The procedure requires that students submit the grievance in writing to the Dean. The Committee comprises “persons who are not current employees of the Faculty of Medicine” and the complainant may request the presence of a member of the Medical Students’ Welfare Society. The Faculty of Medicine, Ruhuna, implements a grievance policy that is more expansive in scope, covering concerns related to “organizational changes in the teaching and learning environment, decisions by academic staff members affecting individuals or groups of students, changes in the content or structure of academic programmes, changes in the nature and quality of teaching and assessment, supervision of students undertaking research projects, authorship and intellectual property, [and the] quality of student services and access to university facilities and resources.” While the policy notes that incidents related to harassment, discrimination and bullying, come under the jurisdiction of the university’s SGBV policy, it does not entertain complaints about examinations. The medical faculty of the University of Sri Jayewardenepura (SJP), has an online grievance system that investigates complaints related to “any physical, psychological, academic or any other problem related to the University life”. The system commits to maintaining confidentiality, pledging that “information will not be divulged to members outside the Student Grievances Committee without the student’s permission.”

Gaps in existing systems

The university-wide SGBV/ragging reporting system could be used to address harassment and intimidation of all kinds. Sadly, however, undergraduates appear to be unaware of these possibilities or reluctant to use them. It is unclear as to whether the newer grievance mechanisms at universities and faculties have managed to achieve the desired outcome. Are they used by students and do they lead to constructive changes in the learning environment or do they simply exist to tick the check box of quality assurance? None of the websites report on the number of cases investigated or the kinds of redressal measures taken. If these mechanisms are to be used by students, they must fulfill certain basic requirements.

First and foremost, all students and staff must be made aware of existing grievance mechanisms. Policies and procedures cannot simply be included under a tab buried in the faculty/university website, but need to be placed front and centre. Students should know what steps the institution will take to ensure confidentiality and how those who come forward, including witnesses, will be protected. They should be confident that swift action will be taken when any breaches of confidentiality occur. Inquiries need to be conducted without delay and complainants kept informed of the actions taken. All in all, universities and/or faculties must commit to ensuring integrity and fairness in the grievance process.

Second, the independence of inquiries must be guaranteed. Some universities/faculties have SOPs that require the inclusion of ‘independent’ members in grievance committees—members who are currently non-faculty, academics from other faculties and/or student representatives. Whether the inclusion of non-faculty members would be sufficient to safeguard independence is questionable in fields like medicine where there is a tendency to cover up professional misconduct at all levels. Permitting complainants to have a say in the makeup of the inquiry committee may help to increase confidence in the system. It may be advisable for inquiries to be handled by ombudspersons or others who do not have a stake in the outcome, rather than by academic staff who are part of the university hierarchy.

Third, grievance mechanisms must address the very real possibility of retaliation from university administrations and teachers. The TOR of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Ruhuna, states that the Committee must ensure “students do not suffer any victimization or discrimination as a result of raising complaints or grievances,” but provides no guidance on how this might be accomplished. Any grievance mechanism must address what recourse to action complainants (and witnesses) have in the event of retaliation. At present, there are no regulations in place to ensure that persons alleged of misconduct are not involved in examination procedures. Neither do universities provide any guarantee that complainants’ academic/employment prospects will not be compromised by coming forward. This is especially concerning in medicine where practical assessments of clinical skills and interview-based examinations (viva) are common, and those at higher rank are usually trainers at the postgraduate level.

Going forward

Student grievance mechanisms provide a structured process for students to voice concerns and seek redress when they feel they have been treated unfairly or unjustly by university staff or policies. The mechanisms currently in place at state universities appear to be weak and insufficient. The UGC could call for universities to participate in a consultative process aimed at developing a policy on handling student grievances in ways that promote fairness in academic matters, faculty conduct, and administration at state universities. While such a policy could foster supportive learning environments, build trust between university administrations and students, and protect students from bullying, intimidation and harassment, it must be accompanied by efforts to address and undo dysfunctional hierarchies within our universities.

(Ramya Kumar is attached to the Department of Community and Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Jaffna.)

Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.

By Ramya Kumar