The two points that I haven’t so far heard are one, the “who-whom” of knowledge economy and two, the guiding notions of knowledge economy in use by the professionals and policymakers. Professor Khanna reminded us not reduce knowledge to digital. The “who-whom” of the outcomes or the use values being gained need to objectively assess the possible contribution of digital economy in making. The contribution of IT enabled services are catering to our own economy in a limited way. They’re upgrading the US or UK economy. And the workforce has remained confined to low value-added activities. While the significance of high-tech activities is well understood, the outcomes need a critical evaluation. Take the investment in very large scale integration (VLSI) design activity going on in Bangalore. India has not been able to create a high-tech economy due to the lack of investment in the required complementary manufacturing activities. Is the state government in position to bring such complementary investments to Kerala?

Prof. Khanna drew our attention to the transient nature of trends like working from home, online education and other such services. However, we have opportunities and potential in the possibilities of upgrading the system of resources and knowledge of economic and medicinal plants. There is the possibility of upgrading the manufacturing capabilities associated with the development of traditional health systems. We have opportunities in the services and tourism industry as well.   Kerala will have to invest in the local system of education and competence building to further develop these resources and capabilities; a higher priority to the building of spaces for interactive learning to attain transformative innovation outcomes is the positive answer. This will ensure that the benefits are not confined to just a small section of the upper echelons of middle class.

The challenge of developing local resources and capabilities requires the relevant actors to co-produce knowledge and co-design solutions. System development rather than heroic approaches is the way forward. But the process of formulation of science, technology, and innovation policy (STIP, 2020) has completely bypassed the states. The STIP 2020 draft available for public discussion has been worked out without interacting with the states. A progressive government is in place in Kerala, and it is expected to make the investments in science, technology and innovation to serve the people. In the given context, the question is how the state government of Kerala should be investing in the local system of education and competence building to enhance the absorptive capacity of the state and formulate policy programmes for the upgrading of knowledge economy of Kerala.

The progressive tradition of promotion of collective action in Kerala is her strength. Local self-government capacity for the benefit of people’s planning has been attempted in Kerala. Kudumbshree, the largest woman solidarity and social economy programme of the world, is in place in the state of Kerala. How is the state government planning to link these components of the existing ecosystem with the upgrading of knowledge economy? How can the state government encourage these strengths to actively participate in the development of the knowledge economy?

There are the challenges of climate change requiring distributed capabilities but networked to undertake disaster management. Health and environmental challenges require the knowledge economy to contribute to build on the resilience shown during the COVID-19 crisis. Information and communication technology (ICT) skills and capabilities need to be harnessed for the benefit of disaster management and climate risk reduction. Can Kerala harness the ICT skills and competences to develop unique strengths and become the source of knowledge and capabilities? Can we create a platform economy for the benefit of providing producer services for climate risk reduction and agricultural services? In Kerala, the knowledge economy should be connected with the processes of people planning and the development of the role and contribution of local self-governments. Let us innovate to create a universal basic infrastructure capable for a sustainable urban economy.

The vibrant local self-governments can enable the social cooperatives to develop as social carriers of a circular economy in Kerala. Development of the nodes of a networked system of group enterprises is also the key to the development of universal basic infrastructure and a pro-people platform economy. Kerala should not be in the hands of Uber and Ola, Monsanto and Bayer and so on. The private parties could participate and contribute by following the rules of game to be determined democratically. The notion of innovation has been misused and abused to capture the direction of development process, and so also the notions of knowledge economy and knowledge society. Whose knowledge should count is not an unimportant question? Kerala can provide leadership in mobilizing the higher and secondary education system to participate in the tasks of mapping, analysis, planning and implementation activities. All over the world there are models available for the integration of education and economy, and we should be open to their import. However, we should be evaluating the “who-whom” of the proposed models.