India rising steadily in Global Innovation Index metrics: Soumitra Dutta, Founder, Portulans Institute

He is also the founder of two global technology and innovation indices: the Network Readiness Index (published for 16 years by the World Economic Forum) and the Global Innovation Index (published for 12 years by the World Intellectual Property Organization).

An engineering graduate from IIT Delhi, Prof. Dutta holds an M.Sc. in Business Administration and a Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of California, Berkeley.

Prof. Dutta spoke to indianexpress.com about the Global Innovation Index, India’s performance, city innovation clusters, and the opportunities and challenges shaping India and its innovation ecosystem. Edited excerpts:

Venkatesh Kannaiah: Tell us about the Global Innovation Index report and the indices that it tracks.

Soumitra Dutta: I created the Global Innovation Index (GII) in 2007 when I was a professor at INSEAD. I noticed that innovation was expanding in emerging markets, but a lot of activity was not being captured adequately by traditional metrics of innovation.

The traditional approach emphasised patents, publications, and PhD scientists, but was poor at capturing the grassroots innovation taking place in emerging markets.

So we framed an inclusive approach to innovation that included the traditional innovation metrics but also included metrics related to the political and regulatory context, the general infrastructure and market conditions, and also new forms of innovation such as those in the creative services sector (film and media) and at the bottom of the pyramid (micro-finance initiatives).

The global adoption of GII took place in 2011 when the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) came on board and became a co-publisher of GII. Over the last decade, it has had a robust research focus due to inputs from my colleagues at WIPO and my co-editors, Dr Sacha Wunsch-Vincent and Dr Lorena Rivera Leon.

GII is now being used by more than 100 countries to guide their innovation policies. It tracks the innovation capability and performance of around 130 economies on around 80 metrics, which are divided across five pillars of innovation inputs or enablers and two pillars of innovation outputs.

The key metrics we track as innovation enablers or inputs are institutions, human capital and research, infrastructure, market sophistication, and business sophistication. The innovation outputs tracked are Knowledge and Technology Outputs, and creative outputs.

Venkatesh Kannaiah: How has India performed over the years in these indices?

Soumitra Dutta: Over the past decade, India’s journey on the GII has been impressive. In 2015, it was ranked 81st, well behind its potential, despite a thriving IT services sector. What followed was a steady climb that reflected both structural reforms and the expanding innovation ecosystem. By 2016, India had broken into the mid-60s, and within two years, it had surged to 57th place, propelled by initiatives like Startup India and Digital India.

A breakthrough came in 2019, when India entered the top 60 at 52nd place, earning recognition as an “innovation over-performer” relative to its income level. In 2020, it crossed into the top 50 for the first time, driven by ICT services exports and a surge in scientific publications. Even during the pandemic years, India’s momentum remained strong: by 2021, it ranked 46th, helped by a booming unicorn ecosystem and record venture capital inflows.

From 2022 onward, India consolidated its position around the 40th mark, with Bengaluru, Delhi, and Mumbai emerging as global innovation clusters. By 2025, India reached its best-ever rank of 38th, cementing its place as the leading lower-middle-income economy worldwide.

Venkatesh Kannaiah: What are the opportunities and challenges in an Indian context?

Soumitra Dutta: India’s steady climb in GII reflects the strength of its ICT services exports, the dynamism of its startup and unicorn ecosystem, and the emergence of Bengaluru, Delhi, and Mumbai as global innovation clusters. Policy initiatives have created a fertile environment for entrepreneurship, while India’s growing output of patents, scientific publications, and creative industries has helped its reputation as an “innovation over-performer” relative to its income level.

The real challenge lies in comparison with global leaders. While India has consolidated its position in the top 40, countries like China have surged over the last decade into the global top 10, ranking 10th in 2025. China now leads the world in patent filings, ranks second in R&D expenditure, and hosts several of the world’s most powerful innovation clusters.

India’s R&D spending remains at just 0.7% of GDP, far below the 2-4% levels of innovation leading economies. Innovation is still concentrated in a few metros, leaving much of the country underrepresented.

Venkatesh Kannaiah: Tell us about city innovation clusters and how Indian cities have performed.

Soumitra Dutta: In recent years, GII has moved beyond national level rankings to study innovation clusters within countries – urban hotspots where patent filings, scientific publications, and startup activity converge to create an outsized impact.

Clusters allow governments to tailor innovation policies locally, rather than relying on broad national strategies. They also attract talent, capital, and corporate R&D, creating feedback loops of innovation. Globally, leading clusters like San Jose, Shenzhen, and Stockholm have shown how concentrated ecosystems can drive innovation. They benefit from strong university — industry linkages, dense VC networks, and mature startup infrastructure.

Bengaluru and Delhi are ranked 21st and 26th globally, while Mumbai, at 46th place, and Chennai are emerging as dynamic players. For Indian cities, the lesson is clear: innovation thrives not just on talent, but on the systems that connect it; IP pathways, scale-up support, and cross-sector governance.

To compete globally, Indian cities must move from generic startup branding to strategic cluster identities. That means defining sectoral strengths, like Chennai’s potential in deep-tech and manufacturing, and building on the same.

Venkatesh Kannaiah: Your report talks of ‘intangible asset intensity’ when referring to India. Can you explain the same?

Soumitra Dutta: In GII, intangible asset intensity measures how effectively a country creates, protects, and commercialises non-physical assets, such as trademarks, design rights, software, and creative content. These assets are crucial drivers of innovation in knowledge-based economies.

India ranks high in this domain, placed 7th globally in 2024, ahead of many wealthier nations. This reflects its strength in ICT service exports, trademark filings, and creative industries, like film, gaming, and digital media.

India’s leadership in ICT services, ranking first globally, demonstrates its ability to scale intangible outputs across borders. The rise in trademark and industrial design filings also shows growing awareness among Indian startups and corporates about the value of brand and design protection. The expansion of creative exports, from Bollywood to digital content, shows how cultural assets are being created for global influence.

India’s intangible asset intensity signals a shift from raw innovation inputs to mature commercialisation strategies.

Venkatesh Kannaiah: Your thoughts on the innovation ecosystem in India.

Soumitra Dutta: Though India ranks 38th in the Global Innovation Index 2025, it outperforms on innovation outputs – 32nd despite weaker inputs (52nd). These rankings for India are driven by a large engineering and developer talent pool, a vibrant startup ecosystem, and excellent ICT service exports. India also scores highly on intangible asset intensity, with strong trademark and design activity and expanding creative exports. Concentrated urban performance is evident: four Indian innovation clusters appear in the global top 100, led by Bengaluru and Delhi.

Business sophistication, infrastructure, and institutional quality are lagging, reducing the ecosystem’s capacity to absorb and scale R&D. Gross domestic expenditure on R&D remains modest, private sector R&D is low, and corporate–university translational mechanisms are weak. High-end laboratory capacity, industry-funded research, and IP commercialisation pathways need strengthening to move beyond software and services toward capital-intensive innovation.

India needs to raise the Gross Expenditure on Research and Development (GERD) by increasing private R&D through tax incentives, co-funding, and programmes targeting deep tech. It also needs to build shared labs, technology transfer offices, and industry-embedded PhD programs. It needs to focus on infrastructure and institutional reform, and expand regional VC networks and IP-backed financing.

Venkatesh Kannaiah: Tell us about themes/issues that are a low-hanging fruit for India to solve/resolve in an innovation context.

Soumitra Dutta: India can focus on five areas. First, there is a need to leverage IP faster by expanding fast-track trademark and design, and launching city-level IP clinics to turn creative output into protected and monetisable assets.

Second, unlock capital by deepening regional VC networks so patents, trademarks, and software become credible collateral for scale-up funding.

Third, boost private-sector R&D with targeted incentives: R&D tax credits for SMEs, matched co-funding for industry-led projects, and programmes that link support to commercialisation milestones.

Fourth, close university-to-industry translation gaps through shared labs, standardised technology licensing templates, and industry-embedded doctoral fellowships.

Fifth, have a national cluster strategy, defining clear targets such as VC density, patent conversion rates, and talent retention, and offering incentives to help cities replicate what works.

Venkatesh Kannaiah: How is AI going to change the rankings and the ecosystem? Will we see new winners?

Soumitra Dutta: AI is accelerating innovation by shortening development cycles, increasing returns to data, compute capacity, and talent. It is amplifying a winner-take-most dynamics where regions with key AI enablers will capture disproportionate value.

Countries that already combine scale in talent, data, and capital will consolidate their advantage because AI multiplies returns to scale. Middle-income overperformers with deep developer pools and strong services exports, including India, will climb faster than peers that lack talent or data infrastructure.

For India, intangible asset capture will matter more: algorithms, datasets, and software need clearer IP and valuation pathways to become tradeable assets. Urban clusters will accelerate as existing hubs such as Bengaluru and Delhi can scale into AI superclusters when compute, talent, and VC depth align.

New winners will emerge in the GII. Economies that quickly scale AI talent, unlock private R&D and VC, and implement pragmatic data and IP governance will climb the rankings.

Venkatesh Kannaiah: Tech for good innovation happens mostly as local experiments. How does your index capture the same?

Soumitra Dutta: GII captures innovation’s societal value indirectly by combining a broad set of input and output indicators, so that we can infer social outcomes from measurable ecosystem performance.

It also emphasises social-purpose innovation through thematic chapters and metrics that focus on social entrepreneurship, micro-finance entrepreneurship, and SDG relevance.

However, GII measures innovation capability and diffusion at the level of an economy rather than direct social outcomes at a project level, so local tech-for-good experiments can be invisible unless they scale, generate measurable outputs (patents, publications, revenues), or influence policy and institutions at the level of the economy.