Performance of the Information Technology Industry in the world economy
The rapid growth of the Indian Information Technology Industry over the last decade was not simply a product of ‘begin neglect’ following the dismantling of centralized planning in India. Rather, it is rooted in government intervention during earlier years that favored domestic  industries over foreign companies.1 Indian Information Technology (IT) industry has tremendous potential to become an engine of growth and  productivity improvement for all sectors of the economy and for the country. Information Technology (IT) is also a means of efficient governance. It enhances access to information, protects consumers, provides access to government services, makes skill formation and training more effective, improves delivery health services, and promotes transparency. This paper is an attempt to provide an overview of Indian IT today. To assume a familiarity with the various Category/Segments of IT  Industry and its contribution to the Nation’s GDP. However, it also provides an insight into general structure and performance of the IT Industry in India. The remainder of the paper outlines the Growth of Indian IT Industry and Expected Industry Size, and Scenario of Global Growth Rates and Expected Industry Size.
Software industry entry strategies for developing countries: A “walking on two legs” proposition
Abstract Two themes run through the following analysis. First, countries without a relatively active and up-to-date software sector will find it increasingly difficult to “catch up” in terms of capital outlays, labor, skills, and the growing importance of technology changes, organization and management in software production. They will not have, for example, software management experience to undertake increasingly large and complex software development projects; a quality consciousness; and the institutional and support infrastructure for marketing and forming product development alliances with dominant international firms in the sector. Second, the learning curves for domestic and international market activities are quite different, the domestic software market being an important base for skills, experience and establishing a track record that may later be applied to exports. Two developing countries — India and Brazil — have used different development strategies for their software industries and, as could be expected, with disparate results. Both the Brazilian and the Indian software industries are trying to“walk on one leg,” the domestic leg in the case of Brazil and the export leg in the case of India. Both countries have at least some potential for moving to a two-legged model. Assessment of these two industries suggests that countries need to pay more attention to domestic opportunities, since these have high returns in terms of gaining experience and innovation in software production, and provide training that allows a broadening of software exports.
Aristocratic Century: The sinews of power: political
In his excellent book on the Secretaries of State, Mark Thomson offered ‘the paradox of continuing domination of the aristocracy and the simultaneous insignificance of the House of Lords, per se ’. It is true that, by the beginning of the eighteenth century, the supremacy of the House of Commons in financial matters was a wellestablished convention. The claims of the Commons to an undisputed control over money matters, which had been urged before the Civil War, were resumed immediately after the Restoration and a protracted dispute with the House of Lords began. In 1661 the Lords resolved that there were no precedents in history for this new claim by the House of Commons. In 1671, the Commons retorted that taxation ought not to be questioned by the Lords and in 1678 they reiterated that supply was ‘the undoubted and sole right of the Commons’ and ‘ought not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords’. The Lords' attempt in 1692 to assess their own taxes was also abandoned, though they retired under cover of a rather insubstantial smoke-screen that they maintained their power of amendment to be a ‘fundamental, inherent and undoubted right from which their lordships can never depart’. That established, they departed. Geoffrey Holmes quotes a nice example from 1702 when the bishop of Carlisle found himself the only peer answering to a money bill, ‘no other lord in the House regarded what was doing, this being only (pro forma) to preserve a seeming right to dissent from, or amend, any part of a money bill’.