, Volume 102, Issue 1, pp 169–194 | Cite as

Role of bilateral institution in influencing collaboration: case study of CEFIPRA—a bilateral S&T institution established by India and France

  • Sujit Bhattacharya
  • Arshia Kaul
  • Shilpa
  • Praveen Sharma


International collaboration has become a strategic policy initiative for building scientific competency in different countries. This is driven by increasing realisation that no country possess all the wherewithal to address complexities of scientific research, dedicate huge funding, and confront global challenges. Varied institutional mechanisms have been created by different countries for strategising international collaboration such as signing bilateral agreements, initiating dedicated programs with partner countries in different S&T areas. Some countries have further deepened their relationship by creating bilateral S&T organisations/specialised centres. The role of bilateral organisation in strengthening inter-country research and innovation partnership is not explicitly underscored in collaboration studies. The present study addresses this issue by taking up the case study of a bilateral organisation IFCPAR/CEFIPRA (Indo-French Centre for Promotion of Advanced Research/Centre Franco-Indien pour la Promotion de la Recherche Avancée) which was established by India and France in 1987 to support their science and technology partnership. Through this case study the paper draws insight of inter-country collaboration in S&T and show how its dynamics and structural aspects are affected by a bilateral organisation.


S&T collaboration Bilateral organisation India France CEFIPRA 

JEL Classification

O30 O31 



The authors thank IFCPAR/CEFIPRA for supporting the study “CEFIPRA 25: Strengthening bilateral collaboration and cooperation in science, technology and innovation between India and France”. The paper is derived from this study. We especially thank Director CEFIPRA Dr. Debapriya Dutta for providing us access to feedbacks of PIs, minutes of the meetings and other internal documents of CEFIPRA. Discussion with him enriched our understanding of this organisation. We thank Mr. V. V. Rao and Ms. Sathidevi of CEFIPRA for their support. We thank Mr. Varun Srivats, Ms. Noklenyangla and Mr. Fayaz Ahmad Sheikh for their helpful comments. We thank both the referees for critical reading of our manuscript and very useful comments.

An early draft of this work from which abstract was developed was accepted in the ‘9th International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics’ and published in the proceeding of the said conference ( We thank COLLNET ‘9th International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics’ for publishing our work in the proceeding. The authors could not attend the conference and hence could not present their work in the said conference.


  1. Adams, J. (2013). Collaborations: The fourth age of research. Nature, 497(7451), 557–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altenburg, T., Schmitz, H., & Stamm, A. (2008). Breakthrough? China’s and India’s transition from production to innovation. World Development, 36, 244–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balaram, P. (2008). Scientometrics: A dismal science. Current Science, 95(4), 431–432.Google Scholar
  4. Bhattacharya, S., Shilpa, & Bhati, M. (2012). China and India: The two new players in the nanotechnology race. Scientometrics, 93(1), 59–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhattacharya, S. (2013). Science, Technology and Innovation Policy: Some Critical Thoughts In India Science and Technology, CSIR-NISTADS. In S. Bhattacharya, K. C. Garg, N. Kumar, K. Mandal, K. Mehra, P. Nath, S. Pohit, R. Raina (Ed.).New Delhi: Cambridge University Press India Pvt. Ltd.Google Scholar
  6. Bound, K. (2007). India: The uneven innovator. The atlas of ideas: Mapping the new geography of science ( London: The Good News Press.
  7. Bound, K. (2008). Brazil the natural knowledge economy. The atlas of ideas: Mapping the new geography of science ( London: The Good News Press.
  8. Braun, D. (1993). Who governs intermediary agencies? Principal-agent relations in research policy-making. Journal of Public Policy, 13(2), 135–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caswell, C. (1998). Social science policy: Challenge, interactions, principals and agents. Science and Public Policy, 25, 286–296.Google Scholar
  10. Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. CSIR-NISTADS (2007). Evaluation and Assessment of Indo-US Science and Technology Forum Program Portfolio. Indo-US S&T Forum.Google Scholar
  12. CSIR-NISTADS (2011). Analysis of India’s S&T Research Capabilities and International Collaboration Strength, 20042009. DFG India/German Research Foundation.Google Scholar
  13. Curien, H., and Ramanna, R. (2000). Audit Report, Indo-French centre for the promotion of advanced research.Google Scholar
  14. Diamond, A. M. (1985). The money value of citations to single authored and multiple-authored articles. Scientometrics, 8, 312–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elsevier, B. V. (2012). Bibliometric study of India’s Scientific Publication outputs during 2001–2010. Study commissioned by Department of Science and Technology—NSTMIS, India.Google Scholar
  16. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamic of innovation: From national systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Evidence. (2011). A bibliometric study of India’s research output and collaboration. Study commissioned by Department of Science and Technology—NSTMIS, India.Google Scholar
  18. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Goffman, W., & Warren, K. S. (1980). Scientific information systems and the principle of selectivity. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  20. Haustein, S., Tunger, D., Heinrichs, G., & Baelz, G. (2011). Reasons for and developments in international scientific collaboration: Does an Asia-Pacific research area exist from a bibliometric point of view? Scientometrics, 86, 727–746. doi: 10.1007/s11192-010-0295-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hayashi, T. (2003). Effect of R&D programmes on the formation of university–industry–government networks: comparative analysis of Japanese R&D programmes. Research Policy, 32, 1421–1442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huggins, R., & Izushi, H. (2007). Competing for knowledge: Creating, connecting, and growing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Kaplinsky, R., & Messner, D. (2008). The impact of Asian drivers on the developing world. World Development, 36(2), 197–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Katz, J., & Hicks, D. (1997). How much is a worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics, 40(3), 541–554.Google Scholar
  25. Kostoff, R. N., Briggs, M. B., Rushenberg, R. L., Bowles, C. A., Pecht, M., Johnson, D., et al. (2007). Comparisons of the structure and infrastructure of Chinese and Indian Science and Technology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(9), 1609–1630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leydesdorff, L., & Wagner, C. (2008). International collaboration in science and the formation of a core group. Journal of Informetrics, 2(4), 317–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Luukkonen, T., Tijssen, R. J. W., Persson, O., & Silvertsen, G. (1993). The measurement of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 28, 15–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. Muller, E., Zenker. A., and Heraud, J. A. (2009). France: Innovation System and Innovation Policy. Fraunhofer ISI Discussion Papers Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis, No. 18. Fraunhofer, ISI.Google Scholar
  30. Narin, F., Stevens, K., & Whitlow, E. S. (1991). Scientific co-operation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers. Scientometrics, 21, 313–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Panat, R. (2014). On the data and analysis of research output of India and China: India has significantly fallen behind China. Scientometrics,. doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1236-4.Google Scholar
  32. Price, D. J., & Beaver, D. B. (1966). Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist, 21(1), 1011–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Royal Society. (2010a). The Scientific Century: Securing our future prosperity. UK: Royal Society Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Royal Society. (2010b). New frontiers in science diplomacy. UK: Royal Society Publishing.Google Scholar
  35. Royal Society. (2011). Knowledge, network and nations. UK: Royal Society Publishing.Google Scholar
  36. Tripathi, S. M., & Padmavati, M. (2013). Legal basis of Innovation Systems in India. India Science and Technology, CSIR-NISTADS. In S. Bhattacharya, K. C. Garg, N. Kumar, K. Mandal, K. Mehra, P. Nath, S. Pohit, R. Raina (Ed.).(pp. 119-121)New Delhi: Cambridge University Press India Pvt. Ltd.Google Scholar
  37. Wagner, C. (2008). The new invisible college: Science for development. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  38. Waldschmidt, M. (2010). Indo-French cooperation in mathematics. Special Issue on Mathematics Newsletter, 19(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
  39. Webb, M. (2007). Korea: Mass Innovation Comes of Age. The atlas of ideas: Mapping the new geography of science ( London: The Good News Press.
  40. Wilsdon, J., & Keeley, J. (2007). China: The next science superpower? The atlas of ideas: Mapping the new geography of science ( London: The Good News Press.

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sujit Bhattacharya
    • 1
  • Arshia Kaul
    • 1
  • Shilpa
    • 1
  • Praveen Sharma
    • 1
  1. 1.National Institute of Science Technology and Development StudiesNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations