The U.S.-India Relationship: Cross-Sector Collaboration To Promote Sustainable Development

8/20/2019 The U.S.-India Relationship: Cross-Sector Collaboration To Promote Sustainable Development

1/533

Dr. Michael J. FratantuonoDr. David M. Sarcone

John Colwell, Jr.Editors Carlisle Barracks, PA and

UNITED STATES

ARMY WAR COLLEGE

PRESS

THE U.S.-INDIA

RELATIONSHIP:CROSS-SECTOR COLLABORATION

TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT


2/533

The United States Army War College

U.S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE

CENTER for

STRATEGIC

LEADERSHIPand

DEVELOPMENT

The United States Army War College educates and develops leaders for serviceat the strategic level while advancing knowledge in the global application

of Landpower.

The purpose of the United States Army War College is to produce graduateswho are skilled critical thinkers and complex problem solvers. Concurrently,it is our duty to the U.S. Army to also act as a “think factory” for commandersand civilian leaders at the strategic level worldwide and routinely engagein discourse and debate concerning the role of ground forces in achievingnational security objectives.

The Strategic Studies Institute publishes nationalsecurity and strategic research and analysis to inuencepolicy debate and bridge the gap between militaryand academia.

The Center for Strategic Leadership and Developmentcontributes to the education of world class seniorleaders, develops expert knowledge, and providessolutions to strategic Army issues affecting the national

security community.

The Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Instituteprovides subject matter expertise, technical review,and writing expertise to agencies that develop stabilityoperations concepts and doctrines.

The Senior Leader Development and Resiliency programsupports the United States Army War College’s lines of

effort to educate strategic leaders and provide well-beingeducation and support by developing self-awarenessthrough leader feedback and leader resiliency.

The School of Strategic Landpower develops strategicleaders by providing a strong foundation of wisdomgrounded in mastery of the profession of arms, andby serving as a crucible for educating future leaders inthe analysis, evaluation, and renement of professionalexpertise in war, strategy, operations, national security,

resource management, and responsible command.

The U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center acquires,conserves, and exhibits historical materials for useto support the U.S. Army, educate an internationalaudience, and honor Soldiers—past and present.

U.S. Army War College

SLDRSenior Leader Development and Resiliency


3/533

STRATEGICSTUDIES

INSTITUTE

The Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) is part of the U.S. Army WarCollege and is the strategic-level study agent for issues relatedto national security and military strategy with emphasis ongeostrategic analysis.

The mission of SSI is to use independent analysis to conductstrategic studies that develop policy recommendations on:

• Strategy, planning, and policy for joint and combinedemployment of military forces;

• Regional strategic appraisals;

• The nature of land warfare;

• Matters affecting the Army’s future;

• The concepts, philosophy, and theory of strategy; and,

• Other issues of importance to the leadership of the Army.

Studies produced by civilian and military analysts concerntopics having strategic implications for the Army, the Department ofDefense, and the larger national security community.

In addition to its studies, SSI publishes special reports on topicsof special or immediate interest. These include edited proceedingsof conferences and topically oriented roundtables, expanded trip

reports, and quick-reaction responses to senior Army leaders.The Institute provides a valuable analytical capability within theArmy to address strategic and other issues in support of Armyparticipation in national security policy formulation.

i


4/533


5/533

iii

Strategic Studies Instituteand

U.S. Army War College Press

THE U.S.-INDIA RELATIONSHIP:CROSS-SECTOR COLLABORATION TO

PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Dr. Michael J. FratantuonoDr. David M. Sarcone

John Colwell, Jr.Editors

September 2014

The views expressed in this report are those of the authors anddo not necessarily reect the ofcial policy or position of theDepartment of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S.Government. Authors of Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) and

U.S. Army War College (USAWC) Press publications enjoy fullacademic freedom, provided they do not disclose classiedinformation, jeopardize operations security, or misrepresentofcial U.S. policy. Such academic freedom empowers them tooffer new and sometimes controversial perspectives in the inter-est of furthering debate on key issues. This report is cleared forpublic release; distribution is unlimited.

*****

This publication is subject to Title 17, United States Code,Sections 101 and 105. It is in the public domain and may not becopyrighted.


6/533

iv

*****

Comments pertaining to this report are invited and shouldbe forwarded to: Director, Strategic Studies Institute and U.S.Army War College Press, U.S. Army War College, 47 AshburnDrive, Carlisle, PA 17013-5010.

*****

All Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) and U.S. Army WarCollege (USAWC) Press publications may be downloaded freeof charge from the SSI website. Hard copies of this report mayalso be obtained free of charge while supplies last by placingan order on the SSI website. SSI publications may be quotedor reprinted in part or in full with permission and appropriatecredit given to the U.S. Army Strategic Studies Institute and U.S.Army War College Press, U.S. Army War College, Carlisle, PA.Contact SSI by visiting our website at the following address:www.StrategicStudiesInstitute.army.mil.

*****

The Strategic Studies Institute and U.S. Army WarCollege Press publishes a monthly email newsletter to updatethe national security community on the research of our analysts,recent and forthcoming publications, and upcoming confer-ences sponsored by the Institute. Each newsletter also providesa strategic commentary by one of our research analysts. If youare interested in receiving this newsletter, please subscribe on theSSI website at www.StrategicStudiesInstitute.army.mil/newsletter.

ISBN 1-58487-636-0


7/533

v

CONTENTS

Foreword ......................................................................ix

Acknowledgements ....................................................xi

List of Participants ....................................................xix

1. Introduction. The U.S.-India Relationship:Cross-Sector Collaboration to PromoteSustainable Development—Rationale forthe Workshop and Overview of the Volume .....1

Michael J. Fratantuono

PART I: WORKSHOP PAPERS ANDDISCUSSANTS’ COMMENTS ................................. 25

Section 1: Theoretical Frameworkand Key Concepts ...................................................... 27

2. Designing and Strategically ManagingCross-Sector Collaborations................................31

John M. Bryson, Barbara C. Crosby,and Melissa Middleton Stone

3. Seeking to Extend the Model: Cross-SectorCollaboration to Tackle SustainableDevelopment in Transnational and GlobalSettings with the Military as a Partner .............89

David M. Sarcone

4. Keynote Address: Sustainable

Development and the U.S.-India StrategicRelationship ....................................................... 103

Chandrashekhar Dasgupta


8/533

vi

Section 2: Cross-Sector Collaboration:Implications for Strategic Leaders .........................113

5. Preparing for the Future: Brcko, Kabul,Baghdad, and Beyond ...................................... 119

Jeffrey D. McCausland

6. Strategic Cross-Sector Collaboration:The United States and India ............................149

Vijay Kumar Singh

7. Discussant Comments ......................................177 Jack Clarke

Section 3: Environmental Security andTransnational Challenges in South Asia ...............185

8. Environment and Security: TransnationalChallenges, Transnational Solutions ..............189

Richard Matthew

9. How Sustainable is U.S.-India Cooperationin Central and South Asia? ..............................203

Stephen Blank

10. Discussant Comments ......................................247 Leif Rosenberger

Section 4: Prospects for Collaborationin the U.S.-India Strategic Relationship ................267

11. From the Nitisara to the Hitopadesha:

Ancient India’s Impact on ModernIndia’s Statecraft ................................................271

Andrew Salamone


9/533

vii

12. Principle versus Pragmatism:

The Evolving State of the U.S.-IndiaDefense Trade Relationship .............................295

Rahul S. Madhavan

13. The U.S.-India Strategic Partnership:Compelling Connections? ................................301

Namrata Goswami

14. Discussant Comments ......................................323Ivan Welch

Section 5: Sustainable Development as aNational Security Concern in India .......................329

15. Breaking out of the Greenhouse:

Indian Leadership in Times ofEnvironmental Change ....................................333

Dhanasree Jayaram

16. Sustainable Development and NationalSecurity Strategy for India:2020 and Beyond ...............................................351

Krishnappa Venkatshamy

17. Discussant Comments ......................................401 Michael D. Beevers

PART II: CASE STUDIES OF CROSS-SECTOR COLLABORATION ................................ 417

18. Cross-Section Collaboration toPromote Sustainable Development ................ 419

David M. Sarcone


10/533

viii

19. Case Study 1: Forging Collaborations

to Nurture Enterprises: The Journey ofBharatiya Yuva Shakti Trust ...........................423

Rajesh Chakrabarti, Santosh Srinivas

20. Case Study 2: Collective Impactand the Global Alliance for ImprovedNutrition ............................................................459

Lalitha Vaidyanathan

21. Case Study 3: The ALLARM Approach:A Collaborative Process for SuccessfulCommunity Based EnvironmentalMonitoring ........................................................ 467

Julie Vastine

22. Case Study 4: The Hershey Company:Committed to Social Responsibilitythrough Collaboration .....................................477

Todd Camp

23. Case Study 5: The HumanitarianEngineering and Social EntrepreneurshipProgram at Pennsylvania State University:An Academically Driven Model ofCross-Sector Collaboration to CreateSustainable Value for DevelopingCommunities .....................................................487

Khanjan Mehta

24. The U.S.-India Relationship: Cross-Sector

Collaboration to Promote SustainableDevelopment— Insights from the Workshop;Possible Next Steps ...........................................497



11/533

FOREWORD

Over the past 2 decades, the global system has beensubject to a range of forces which have reconguredrelationships among individuals, organizations, andnation-states. As an aspect of that changing structureand rising interdependence, many security challengeswhich confront today’s strategic leaders are groundedin concerns about economic, social, and environmen-tal sustainability, and, in turn, about political stability.Furthermore, with increasing frequency, many ob-servers are concluding that those types of challengescannot be addressed by stakeholders from any singlesector. That insight has prompted calls for collabora-tive efforts involving citizen groups; for-prot andnot-for-prot companies; local, regional, and nationalgovernments; and intergovernmental organizations.

Nevertheless, initiating and managing a cross-sector collaborative initiative is a difcult undertak-ing. It requires a broad range of skill sets, includingthe ability to think in system terms; help various par-ticipants articulate their respective interests and ndcommon ground; marshal resources; create processesand structures that will enable collaboration; establishbaselines; and celebrate progress. Acquiring thosetypes of skills is relevant to strategic leaders in all pro-fessions, including those in the defense and securitycommunities.

This volume reects the proceedings of a work-shop held in Carlisle, PA, in March 2013, that broughttogether a diverse group of scholars and practitionersfrom India and the United States who were both deep-

ly knowledgeable and highly experienced in theirrespective elds; who regarded sustainable develop-ment as a critical challenge for the future; and who, at

ix


12/533

x

some level, had begun to experience the challenges ofparticipating in cross-sector collaborations. The pur-

pose of this volume is to summarize the ideas sharedby those professionals, in hope they will serve as astimulus to further conversation and research aboutan increasingly important set of matters.

DOUGLAS C. LOVELACE, JR. Director Strategic Studies Institute and U.S. Army War College Press


13/533

xi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This volume reects the insights that emergedduring the 3-day workshop entitled “The U.S.-IndiaRelationship: Cross-Sector Collaboration to PromoteSustainable Development,” which took place at Dick-inson College on March 12-14, 2013. We are professorsat Dickinson College, and had the privilege of orga-nizing and co-directing the workshop in conjunctionwith members of the Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) ofthe United States Army War College (USAWC).

As one might imagine, an initiative that entailedcollaboration between two organizations that are eachdedicated to research and learning but nonethelesshave somewhat different missions and clientele, andthat brought together experienced and inuentialgovernment ofcials, military ofcers, business peo-

ple, and scholars from India and the United States wasa complex undertaking that required the hard workand good will of many individuals and parties. Wewould like to take this opportunity to recognize thosecontributions.

In August 2011, Colonel (Retired) Dr. Jeff Mc-Causland, former Dean of the USAWC and visitingProfessor of Security Studies at Dickinson College,encouraged us to consider shaping a proposal for acompetitive grant under the Academic EngagementProgram of the SSI that might somehow focus on In-dia. He had recently returned from a visit, and, whilethere, had sensed eagerness among members of thesecurity community in that country to exchange ideas.He also noted that India was of increasing importance

to U.S. strategic interests. We decided to explore sucha possibility. Over the next 2 months, we shaped aproposal that did indeed focus on the U.S.-India re-


14/533

lationship, but—as reected in the title of the work-shop—also incorporated our professional interests

in cross-sector collaboration and Dickinson College’score competency in sustainability education.

As we prepared our proposal, we relied on theexpert advice from Mr. Glenn Peterman, Director ofSponsored Projects and Research Compliance in Dick-inson College’s Ofce of Corporate, Foundation, andGovernment Support. He helped us to think throughthe logistics that would be required and the costs thatwould have to be incurred to stage the workshop. Fur-thermore, Mr. Peterman shared our proposal with ourProvost, Dr. Neil Weissman. In turn, Dr. Weissmanwon authorization from the President’s DiscretionaryFund of Dickinson College to provide resources thathelped support the project. That support includedfunds for administrative assistance, and for one course

of released time from teaching, and for a modest buthelpful stipend that we shared. Thus, we were ableto build those contributions into our proposal, whichsignaled our College’s willingness to be an equallyinvested partner to the SSI.

While we were drafting our proposal, we spokewith Professor Amy Gaudion, Assistant Dean forAcademic Affairs of the Dickinson School of Law ofthe Pennsylvania State University, the third majoreducational institution located in Carlisle. ProfessorGaudion expressed strong interest in the project, andindicated that if we won the grant from the SSI, shewould be very willing to make available the facilitiesof the School of Law.

We submitted our application in autumn of 2011. In

August of 2012, we learned that we had been awardeda grant from the SSI to stage the workshop in Marchof 2013.

xii


15/533

xiii

Once we heard the good news, we met with Pro-fessor Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Director of the SSI,

and with his colleague, Colonel Michael (Scott) S.Weaver, Director of Academic Engagement. Theyboth expressed their pleasure about the initiative andpledged the general support of the SSI. We also metwith Dr. Steven Blank, at the time the leading expertat the SSI in the area of South Asia, who indicatedhis willingness to write a paper, to participate in theworkshop, and, based on his work in previous suchinitiatives, to provide general advice. As well, we metwith Lieutenant Colonel John D. Colwell, Jr., DeputyDirector of Academic Engagement of the SSI, who wasdesignated as contract ofcer and our counterpart forthe project.

As the months unfolded, we visited the SSI to de-liver a few progress reports. But just as important, we

developed a wonderful working relationship withLieutenant Colonel Colwell—we met on several occa-sions to exchange ideas and coordinate activities. Hewas instrumental to the success of the project.

Meanwhile, during the autumn of 2012, we wereable to gradually build the roster of workshop par-ticipants. We were delighted to nd that, while ourproposed topic was a step off the main path of whatare traditional security-related matters, it had never-theless sparked interest in several quarters. As part ofour outreach, we drew upon some of our own profes-sional contacts. But we certainly benetted from thenetworks of others. We received important introduc-tions to people who eventually joined the workshopfrom Dr. McCausland; Professor Gaudion; Ms. Connie

Jeffrey, Director of Communications at Dickinson Col-lege; Dr. Neil Leary, Director of Dickinson’s Centerfor Sustainability Education; and Dr. Michael Beevers,


16/533

xiv

Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies at Dick-inson College. We also benetted from the outstand-

ing reputation of the SSI—once the SSI posted theworkshop as a scheduled event on their website, wereceived important inquiries of interest from membersof the U.S. security community.

We received important help from the AcademicTechnology Department of Dickinson College, includ-ing Ms. Pat Pehlman, Director of Academic Comput-ing; Mr. Andy Petrus, Multimedia Specialist; andMs. Brenda Landis, Multimedia Specialist. They metwith us on a few occasions to provide advice aboutthe approach we could take to record the workshopproceedings effectively. Mr. Ryan Burke, Web De-velopment Specialist, helped us set up the workshopwebsite that we used to share information and orga-nize the papers that would be submitted by workshop

participants. Following the workshop and once againin the summer of 2013, Mr. Thomas Smith, Techni-cian for Academic Computing, provided expert assis-tance to us and to our research assistant, as we beganto work with the digital recordings of the workshopproceedings.

We also note that we received nancial supportfrom Dickinson College’s Department of GlobalEducation and from Dickinson College’s Committeeon Research and Development, which enabled us totravel to India in January 2013, in order to engage inDickinson-related business and to present a paperat an international conference in New Delhi. As anadded benet, while in India, we were able to meet inperson for the rst time a few of our Workshop partic-

ipants. These included Air Commander KrishnappaVenkatshamy of the Institute for Defence Studies andAnalyses; Ms. Dhanasree Jayaram and her superior,


17/533

xv

General (Retired) Jasjit Singh of the Centre for AirPower Studies; Ambassador (Retired) Chandrashek-

har Dasgupta of The Energy Resource Institute (TERI);and Dr. Chakrabarti. In each instance, we were greet-ed with enthusiasm. Given those initial meetings,when the workshop started, we already had a bit of aworking relationship with participants, which helped jump-start proceedings.

In autumn of 2012, we asked Ms. Tammy Hakento serve as administrative assistant on the project. Ms.Haken had already completed her J.D. from the Dick-inson School of Law and, at that point, was in the nalstages of earning a Master’s Degree in InternationalAffairs from Pennsylvania State University. She waswonderfully helpful, and took the lead in coordinat-ing website creation with Ryan Burke and in postingthe drafts of papers submitted by workshop partici-

pants. She was the point of contact for participantsregarding their respective travel plans and accommo-dations while in Carlisle. She also helped us edit theworkshop proceedings during the summer of 2013.

We should also note that during the workshop,Ms. Haken took the lead in supervising a team of veDickinson College students, who served as our as-sistants. That is, with some of the in-kind funds thathad been provided by Dickinson College, we askedMs. Anna Leistikow, Ms. Rachel Williams, Mr. Hunt-er Smith, Ms. Carmen Mann, and Ms. Sitong Chen toperform tasks that ranged from driving participantsto and from airports in the region, to helping thoseparticipants navigate the campus and town, to takingnotes and digitally recording the workshop sessions,

and to serving as goodwill representatives of our Col-lege during receptions, meals, and break-out sessions.We are very proud of the work they did and the posi-tive impressions they made on our guests.


18/533

xvi

In virtually all respects, the Workshop unfoldedwithout a hitch. That success was due in large part to

the efforts of many people at Dickinson College. Weoffer thanks to Ms. Dottie Warner, Director of EventPlanning and her team, especially Mr. William Trego,who arranged all the classroom and meeting spacesand provided audiovisual support for presentationsmade during receptions and meals.

We also offer thanks to Mr. Keith Martin, former-ly Director of Dickinson College’s Dining Services;Ms. Jenn Acuna, Catering Manager; and Mr. JackO’Donnell, Executive Chef, for providing stellar mealsat reasonable cost. We certainly express our deepestgratitude to the United States Army War CollegeFoundation, which provided the funds to cover allthe meal-related expenses associated with the 3-dayworkshop.

Throughout the many months of project planningand management, we also had wonderful help fromDickinson College’s Ofce of Financial Operations,including Ms. Joanne Gingrich, Director of Global andSponsored Programs Accounting; Ms. Kristy Holmes,Assistant Director of Global and Sponsored ProgramsAccounting; and Ms. Jenna Kinsler, Global and Spon-sored Programs Accounting Associate.

As we noted previously, at an early stage of theinitiative, Professor Gaudion had offered her support,and during the workshop, we greatly benetted fromthe rst-rate teleconference capabilities that are housedin the Carlisle campus of the Dickinson School of Law.On the afternoon of the second day of the workshop,participants were able to enjoy “face to face” conver-

sations with Dr. Rajesh Chakrabarti and Mr. SantoshSrinivas, who spoke to us from the Mohali Campusof the India School of Business, and then immediatelyfollowing, with Ms. Lalitha Vaidyanathan, Managing


19/533

xvii

Director of the consultancy FSG, who spoke to us fromSan Francisco. We thank Mr. Matt Gardner, Assistant

Dean for Technology Policies; and Mr. Tom Dennis,Technical Services Coordinator, both of whom are af-liated with Pennsylvania State University and whomade those conversations technically possible.

In spring of 2013, we were fortunate to win a grantfrom Dickinson College’s Center for SustainabilityEducation to support the full-time efforts of a researchassistant during 8 weeks of summer of 2013. We re-ceived applications from 15 very talented students.We chose Mr. Tim (Ted) Dressel (Dickinson class of2014) to serve in that capacity. He read through allthe papers that had been submitted, in order to helpMs. Haken and us with the editorial process. He alsostudied the 3 days of recorded proceedings, and thenworked to “cut and paste” segments of the recorded

proceedings into relatively short, annotated, manage-able sections that would permit interested parties tohear and watch various participants share conceptsrelevant to a particular theme. He helped us createtranscripts of the oral presentations and videoconfer-ence interviews for which there were no supportingwritten papers. Simply speaking, Mr. Dressel’s workon our project was exceptional, in all respects.

In August of 2013, we submitted to John Colwellthe nal versions of the Section Introductions andChapters 1 to 24 of the Manuscript. He then completedthe prefatory items and navigated the book throughthe next steps in the process. In March of 2014, welearned that the manuscript had been approved forpublication. From that time to this writing in August

of 2014, we have benetted from the expertise and nework of Dr. James G. Pierce, Ms. Rita A. Rummel, andMs. Jennifer E. Nevil, who shaped the book into itscurrent format.


20/533

Finally, we thank all of the workshop partici-pants. Individually, each and every one shared ideas

in a forthright fashion and made serious-minded andmeaningful contributions to the success of the initia-tive. Collectively, they brought an enormous amountof insight and expertise to the topic at hand. As is re-ected in the papers that have been included in thisvolume, they also established a foundation for furtherresearch in what we believe is an important arena.

xviii


21/533

xix

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Ms. Stephanie Balmer, Vice President of Enroll-ment and Communications and Dean of Admissions,Dickinson College.

Dr. Michael Beevers, Assistant Professor, Depart-ment of Environmental Studies, Dickinson College.

Dr. Stephen Blank, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S.Army War College.

Dr. John Bryson, McKnight Presidential Professorof Planning and Public Affairs, Hubert H. HumphreyInstitute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota.

Dr. Kent H. Butts, Professor of Political-Military

Strategy, Center for Strategic Leadership, U.S. ArmyWar College.

Mr. Todd H. Camp, Director, Corporate Social Re-sponsibility, The Hershey Company.

Dr. Rajesh Chakrabarti, Executive Director, Bhar-ti Institute of Public Policy and Clinical AssociateProfessor, India School of Business.

Dr. Jack Clarke, Associate Fellow of the FuturesStrategy Group and Professor of Defense Managementand Strategic Studies and Director of the Programon Civil Security at the Marshall Center, Garmisch,Germany.

Professor Rick Coplen, U.S. Army Peacekeepingand Stability Operations Institute, U.S. Army WarCollege.


22/533

xx

John Colwell, Jr., was the Deputy Director of Aca-demic Engagement at the Strategic Studies Institute,

U.S. Army War College, from 2012 to 2014. He recent-ly retired from active service as a U.S. Army lieuten-ant colonel in July 2014. His prior assignments includeU.S. Forces-Afghanistan J-5 Plans, U.S. Army-PacicG-5 Plans, and Assistant Professor, Department ofDefense and Strategic Studies, United States MilitaryAcademy. He is currently pursuing a career in theenergy and industrial automation sectors. LieutenantColonel Colwell holds a B.S. degree in history fromWest Point, NY; and a M.A. in diplomacy and militarystudies from Hawaii Pacic University.

Dr. Barbara C. Crosby, Associate Professor,Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs,University of Minnesota.

Ambassador (Retired) Chandrashekhar Das-gupta, Distinguished Fellow, The Energy ResourcesInstitute (TERI) New Delhi; Prime Minister’s Councilon Climate Change; Member of the UN Committee onEconomic, Social and Cultural Rights; and Co-Chair ofthe India–European Union (EU) Round Table.

Dr. Michael Fratantuono, co-editor of this volume,is Associate Professor, Department of InternationalBusiness and Management, Department of Interna-tional Studies, Dickinson College. His previous assign-ments were in the Dickinson Economics Department;Visiting Professor, Department of National Securityand Strategy, United States Army War College; and the

rst Department Chair for the newly created programin International Business and Management. He is cur-rently a member of this new Department and as wellthe International Studies Department. His teaching


23/533

xxi

and research interests include: the changing structureof the global economic and political system; the rising

interdependence among state and nonstate agents inthe global system; and the strategies being pursued bystrategic leaders from various sectors as they navigatethose changing circumstances. Dr. Fratantuono haspublished a range of case studies and journal articles,and served as a consultant to both for-prot and non-prot organizations. Dr. Fratantuono holds a Ph.D. in international economics from the University ofWashington.

Professor Amy C. Gaudion, Assistant Dean forAcademic Affairs, Dickinson School of Law, Pennsyl-vania State University.

Dr. Namrata Goswami, Research Fellow, Insti-

tute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi In-dia, and currently Jennings Randolph Senior Fellow,United States Institute of Peace, Washington, DC.

Mr. Brian K. Hedrick, Deputy National Intel-ligence Ofcer for South Asia, National IntelligenceCouncil.

Ms. Dhanasree Jayaram, Associate Fellow, En-ergy, Environment and Resource Optimisation Pro-gram, Centre for Air Power Studies, New Delhi.

Dr. John Kemelis, Professor, School of Interna-tional Affairs, Pennsylvania State University.

Dr. Neil Leary, Director, Dickinson Center for Sus-tainability Education, Dickinson College.


24/533

xxii

Professor Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Director, Stra-tegic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College.

Mr. Rahul S. Madhavan, Senior Manager (PolicyAdvocacy), Aerospace and Defense and Infrastruc-ture, U.S.-India Business Council.

Dr. Richard Matthew, Professor of Internationaland Environmental Politics in the Schools of SocialEcology and Social Science at the University of Cali-fornia Irvine, Founding Director of the Center forUnconventional Security Affairs.

COL (Retired) Dr. Jeff McCausland, Formerly theDean of the USAWC, Founder and CEO of Diamond6Leadership; Visiting Professor, Department of Inter-national Studies, Dickinson College.

Dr. Khanjan Mehta, Director, the HumanitarianEngineering and Social Entrepreneurship (HESE) Pro-gram at Pennsylvania State University.

Dr. Melissa M. Stone, Gross Family Professor ofNonprot Management and Professor of Public Af-fairs and Planning at the Humphrey School of PublicAffairs, University of Minnesota.

Dr. Leif Rosenberger, Economic Advisor to U.S.Central Command.

Mr. Andrew Salamone, Research Fellow at theCenter for Strategic Intelligence, National Intelligence

University.


25/533

xxiii

Dr. David Sarcone, Associate Professor, Depart-ment of International Business and Management,

Director Health Studies Program, Dickinson College.He is a co-editor of this volume. Prior to joining theDickinson faculty in 2001, he held senior managementroles in several leading regional health care systemsand specialty provider organizations over a healthcare career spanning 25 years. He was instrumentalin the design and development of a collaborative,multi-disciplinary health studies certicate programat Dickinson College and has served as the program’scoordinator. He also served as the Chair of the Inter-national Business and Management Department. Hisresearch interests broadly include interorganizationalrelationship theory topics as they relate to sustainabil-ity and health care management issues. His currentprojects include the analysis of a failed cross-sector

community sustainability initiative and the devel-opment of a community cross-sector health partner-ship. Dr. Sarcone holds a master’s in business ad-ministration from the University of Pittsburgh and aPh.D. from the School of Public Affairs, PennsylvaniaState University.

Ambassador Arun K. Singh, Deputy Chief of Mis-sion, Embassy of India.

General (Retired) Vijay Kumar Singh, formerChief of Staff of the India Army.

Mr. Santosh Srinivas, Associate Director, theWadhwani Centre, India School of Business.

Ms. Lalitha Vaidyanathan, Managing Director ofthe consultancy FSG.


26/533

Ms. Julie Vastine, Director Alliance for AquaticResource Monitoring (ALLARM), Dickinson College.

Group Captain Krishnappa Venkatshamy, In-stitute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA),New Delhi.

Dr. Neil Weissman, Provost Dickinson College.

Dr. Ivan B. Welch, Foreign Military Studies Ofce,U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command Intelli-gence Support Activity, Foreign Area Analyst (South-east and South Asia).

xxiv


27/533

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION.THE U.S.-INDIA RELATIONSHIP:

CROSS-SECTOR COLLABORATIONTO PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT—

RATIONALE FOR THE WORKSHOP ANDOVERVIEW OF THE VOLUME


In August 2012, my colleague, David Sarcone,and I learned that a proposal for a workshop entitled,“The U.S.-India Relationship: Cross-Sector Collabora-tion to Promote Sustainable Development,” that wehad submitted to the Strategic Studies Institute (SSI)of the U.S. Army War College (USAWC) had been se-

lected for funding under the Academic EngagementProgram of SSI. The workshop, which we coordinatedand directed in conjunction with SSI, was held at ourhome institution, Dickinson College, from March 12-14, 2013. The roster of participants was diverse andimpressive: It included leading scholars, military of-cers, government ofcials, and representatives fromthe for-prot and not-for-prot sectors from India andthe United States. The purpose of this volume is toshare formal contributions made to the workshop byparticipants, and to convey some of the insights thatsurfaced during workshop sessions.

FOCUS AND RATIONALE FOR THE WORKSHOP

The Workshop participants were asked to addressthe following overarching questions. Within the con-text of the U.S.-India strategic relationship and in light


28/533

2

of the vital national interests shared by both countries,what factors will contribute to the success of cross-

sector collaborative initiatives intended to addresschallenges associated with sustainable development?What implications do those insights have for strategicleaders in different sectors?

Those questions were motivated by a set of sixhigh-level global developments.

1. Over the past 2 decades, the global system hasbeen characterized by rising interdependence andchanging structure, which in turn has led to increas-ing attention in many quarters to sustainability-re-lated dimensions of national security.

For the past 2 decades, the U.S. National SecurityStrategy has been based on four overarching nationalinterests: defense of the homeland; economic prosper-ity; promotion of U.S. values; and a favorable world

order. While U.S. national interests have not changed,in the current era strategic leaders in government, themilitary, business, and civil society are confronted bycomplex challenges that have multiple causes and of-ten lie at the intersection of matters related to global-ization, sustainability, and security, and by forces thatwill shape the intermediate-term future of the globalsystem. Developments of that sort have inuencedthinking about national security issues in a range ofarenas, such as featured essays in inuential journals;1 the content of university courses about internationalrelations and security studies;2 and the focus of high-prole conferences.3

Perhaps most important, they have been includedin government assessments. In particular, the chang-

ing features of that external environment are pro-vocatively described by the U.S. National IntelligenceCouncil (NIC) in its fourth and most recent analysis ofkey trends and factors in the global system.4 Relative


29/533

3

certainties identied by the NIC include but are notlimited to: the relative rise of new state powers, such

as China and India, and increasing relative power ofnonstate organizations; a shift in wealth and econom-ic power from West to East; increasing demand forfood, water, and energy resources; rapid populationgrowth in so-called youth bulge states; and increas-ingly dangerous capabilities in the hands of terrorists.Key uncertainties include, among others, the extent ofan energy transition away from oil and gas; the speedof climate change; the possibility that Russia and Chi-na will advance toward democracy; whether nucleararms in Iran will trigger a regional arms race; whetherthe Middle East will become more stable; and whethernation states continue to engage in multilateral initia-tives to meet challenges and shape change.

The relative certainties and key uncertainties de-

scribed in the NIC analysis lead one to think aboutthe notions of “sustainability” and “sustainable devel-opment.” For some authors, sustainability remains a“contested concept,” as are other powerful ideas suchas “liberty, social justice, and democracy.”5 Neverthe-less, for the Workshop, we dened “sustainability” as“the capacity to improve the human condition in thisand future generations without degrading the natu-ral world,” a denition which is currently being usedin various discussion groups at Dickinson College. Inturn, we dened “sustainable development” as “de-velopment which meets the needs of the present with-out compromising the ability of future generations tomeet their own needs,” the denition expressed in the1987 report of the United Nations (UN) Brundtland

Commission. Those simple yet broad denitions areconsistent with the types of certainties and uncertain-ties included in the most recent report of the NIC, asdescribed earlier.


30/533

4

New, system-level challenges have also helpedshape the most recent articulation of U.S. national

strategy issued in May 2010 by the administration ofPresident Barack Obama.6 In the opening paragraphof his cover letter to National Security Strategy, Presi-dent Obama says:

Time and again in our Nation’s history, Americanshave risen to meet—and to shape—moments of transi-tion. This must be one of those moments. We live in a

time of sweeping change. The success of free nations,open markets, and social progress in recent decades hasaccelerated globalization on an unprecedented scale.This has opened the doors of opportunity around theglobe, extended democracy to hundreds of millionsof people, and made peace possible among the majorpowers. Yet globalization has also intensied the dan-gers we face—from international terrorism and thespread of deadly technologies, to economic upheavaland climate change.

2. A range of factors have contributed to the rise ofIndia, the geopolitical and geostrategic importanceof India, the challenges still confronting the leadersof India, and India’s national security objectives.

The Ministry of Defense of the Government of In-

dia makes the following observations on its web site.7

India’s national security objectives have evolvedagainst a backdrop of India’s core values; namely,democracy, secularism and peaceful co-existence andthe national goal of social and economic development.These are: defending the country’s borders as denedby law and enshrined in the Constitution; protectingthe lives and property of its citizens against war, ter-rorism, nuclear threats and militant activities; pro-tecting the country from instability and religious andother forms of radicalism and extremism emanating


31/533

5

from neighboring states; securing the country againstthe use or the threat of use of weapons of mass de-struction; development of material, equipment andtechnologies that have a bearing on India’s security,particularly its defense preparedness through indige-nous research, development and production, inter-aliato overcome restrictions on the transfer of such items;promoting further co-operation and understandingwith neighboring countries and implementing mutu-ally agreed condence-building measures; and pursu-ing security and strategic dialogues with major pow-

ers and key partners.

To complement that statement of objectives, therehas been much active research and sometimes intensedebate about India as a rising power, the internalstresses and strains confronting the country’s leader-ship, the external challenges confronting the country,the possible role India will play in shaping the evolv-ing global system, and the purpose of India’s nationalstrategy and foreign policy. For example, Pratap Bha-nu Mehta recently argued that India lacks an over-arching national strategy.8

As observed by Rohan Mukherjee and David M.Malone, there is general consensus that over time, In-dia’s foreign policy orientation has passed through a

series of stages; that is, periods of idealism and non-alignment in the 1950s and 1960s; of hard realismand alignment with the Soviet Union in the 1970sand 1980s; and a period of economically motivatedpragmatism from 1991 forward.9 The third stage com-mands interest. In 1991, India was faced with difcul-ties in its external nancial obligations. As a quid proquo for multilateral concession, under the coordina-tion of then Finance Minister Manmohan Singh, Indiapursued a series of externally-oriented liberalization


32/533

6

measures, such as reductions in tariff rates.As noted by Gurcharan Das, those measures

helped stimulate forces that had been set in play dur-ing the early-1980s, and collectively have contributedto the rapid growth that India has enjoyed for nearly20 years. That is, from 1980 to 2002, the economy grewat an average annual rate of more than 6 percent,and from 2002 to the present, has grown at roughly arate of 8 percent. That growth implied that, in the 25years leading to 2005, India rose to be the fourth larg-est economy in the world; the size of the middle classquadrupled; and, when coupled with a reduction inbirth rates from 2.2 percent to 1.7 percent per year,resulted in a rise in per capita income, based on pur-chasing power parity, from roughly $1,200 to $3,000.10 Despite that success, progress on the economic frontwill continue to be a policy priority. For example, La-

vanya Rajamani indicates that “India currently ranks128th on the Human Development Index, 34.3 per-cent of its population lives on less than U.S.$1 a day,and an estimated 44 percent does not have access toelectricity.”11

Meanwhile, Das points to a range of other economicconcerns that have resulted in widespread discontentwith the central bureaucracy and a movement in Indiafor an active civil society to work around governmentto nd solutions to social ills. To elaborate, Das arguesthat India has progressed along an un-trodden path ofeconomic development, in that it has relied on “its do-mestic market more than exports, consumption morethan investment, services more than industry, andhi-tech more than low-skilled manufacturing.” As a

result of those features, gains in employment have notbeen widely dispersed throughout the country, andthere is pervasive poverty in rural areas. Success has


33/533

7

been based on the efforts of entrepreneurs. Further-more, “rather than rising with the help of the state,

India is in many ways rising despite the state.” Manycomplain that the central bureaucracy has impededthe efforts of small business, has for too long main-tained rigid labor laws that benet small segmentsof the workforce and has failed to deliver good per-formance in critical areas such as public education orhealth care.

Mukherjee and Malone elaborate a range of otherinternal and external national security concerns for In-dia. The country is faced with political fragmentation,which makes consensus more difcult and slows theprocess of policy formation. Far more serious, Indiais coping with domestic insurgencies and secessionistmovements that are prompted by uneven economicdevelopment and by the tensions between the central

government and regionally based ethnic and religiousgroups, and are often manifested in politically moti-vated violence. India has regional security challenges:based on one measure, India counts as neighbors sixof the “top 25 dysfunctional states in the world.” Itis engaged in tricky bilateral relationships with Paki-stan, China, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka,and Nepal. At a global level, India is threatened byinternational terrorism, as vividly illustrated by the2008 incidents in Mumbai; it is currently a concernedparticipant in debate about the nuclear proliferationregime; and, is in the process of redening its relation-ship with the United States.


34/533

8

3. Over the past few years, the relationship be-tween India and the United States has become both

deeper and broader.Stimulated by rising interdependence and chang-

ing structure in the global system and by what havebeen perceived as “common interests” and “commonvalues,” there has been bipartisan support in the Unit-ed States and India for a closer bilateral relationship.Ties have indeed grown stronger. For example, theadministrations of U.S. President George W. Bush andIndia Prime Minister Manmohan Singh took a largestep forward in 2008 by nalizing an agreement be-tween the two countries regarding India’s access tocivilian-use nuclear power technology.

From the outset, President Obama and his teamhave continued to build on that foundation, and with-in the past 2 years, the two countries have announced

a range of initiatives to address shared national secu-rity concerns. Some of those initiatives call for state-to-state or military-to-military cooperation to addresswhat one might regard as traditional security chal-lenges. Other initiatives call for cross-sector collabora-tion—i.e., collaboration involving some combinationof representatives from the state, military, private(for-prot) business, and civil (nonprot) sectors—toaddress newly emerging security challenges, includ-ing those that are sustainability-related—i.e., thosethat contribute to social, economic, and environmen-tal outcomes that are favorable, equitable, and wide-spread in the current period and in the future.

• In July of 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clin-

ton travelled to India, and at the conclusion ofher visit, she and External Minister Somanahal-li Mallaiah Krishna committed themselves and


35/533

9

their respective ofces to strengthening the bi-lateral relationships between the two countries,

and indicated that they would co-chair a U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue that would meet on anannual basis.

• In November of 2009, President Obama hostedPrime Minister Manmohan Singh at the WhiteHouse, the rst state visit during his term inofce.

• In the National Security Strategy of May 2010,President Obama notes that the relationshipbetween the United States and India is “under-pinned by our shared interests, our shared val-ues as the world’s two largest democracies, andclose connections among our people.”

• In June 2010, Secretary Clinton and MinisterKrishna successfully concluded the rst round

of the U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue.• In November of 2010, President Obama visited

India, and during an address to Parliament, heasserted, “it is my rm belief that the relation-ship between the United States and India . . .will be one of the dening partnerships of the21st century.” He also endorsed India’s call fora permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council.

• In July of 2011, Secretary Clinton and Minis-ter Krishna successfully concluded the secondround of the U.S-India Strategic Dialogue.In ofcial comments, they restated or an-nounced a number of cooperative initiativesbetween the two countries that fell under fourmajor headings.

Security Partnership for the 21st Century: in-cludes efforts to address counterterrorism,maritime security, cyber security, peace-keeping, and defense cooperation.12

—


36/533

10

Shared Interests in Asia: includes efforts byboth countries to engage countries of East

Asia in dialogue and institution building;to advance prosperity in Afghanistan; todevelop a shared vision for regional inte-gration; and to develop a global strategicpartnership.13 Cooperation in Science, Technology and In-novation: includes efforts by both countriesto jointly promote science and technologyresearch; to exchange insights about inno-vation; to develop an open source platformthat will provide citizens of each countrywith access to e-government capacities, andto then share that platform with other coun-tries; and to establish capacities to engage inspace exploration and earth observation.14

Prosperity: includes efforts to promote bi-lateral investment ows between the twocountries; to cooperate on aviation safety; toenhance productivity in the agriculture sec-tor and efciency in water utilization; andto promote conditions leading to generalhealth.15

Looking beyond those recently launched initia-tives, in September 2011, the Council on ForeignRelations and the Aspen Institute India released thedocument, The United States and India: A Shared Strate- gic Future.16 It was the product of a Joint Study Groupwhich the two organizations had cosponsored. The Joint Study Group consisted of 17 highly inuential

and knowledgeable individuals from the national se-curity communities of the United States and India.

At the outset, the Report of the Joint Study Groupasserted that “an ever more powerful and inuential

—

—

—


37/533

11

India” is in the interests of the United States, “a Unit-ed States that maintains its power and inuence in the

international arena, especially in Asia,” is in India’snational interest; and that close:

policy collaboration between India and the UnitesStates . . . is increasingly important to both nations,helps sustain a favorable balance of power in Asia andbeyond, and promotes international peace and stabil-ity beginning in Asia writ large.

The Report went on to enumerate six vital nationalinterests that are common to both countries: (1) Slowthe spread of weapons of mass destruction and ensurethe safe and responsible stewardship of nuclear weap-ons and ssile material; (2) Reduce threats from inter-national terrorism; (3) Maintain a balance of power inAsia and in Europe that promotes peace and stability;

(4) Promote the security of the global energy supply;(5) Cooperate in the management of the global econo-my; and (6) Effectively address climate change.

4. Cross-sector collaboration has in the past fewyears become an increasingly more relevant way totackle complex issues.

Cross-sector collaboration is becoming an increas-ingly important theme in the business literature. Theacademic literature in the eld of organizational the-ory from the 1980s and 1990s tended to concentrateon relationships between organizations in the samesector. As described by James E. Austin at the turn ofthe century, the focus had shifted toward cross-sectorcollaboration, such as that between nonprot organi-

zations (nonprots) and for-prot companies (busi-nesses).17 By mid-decade, the focus had broadenedfurther. For example, John Selsky and Barbara Parkerexplore a large range of literature, categorized accord-


38/533

12

ing to whether partnerships are either between theBusiness and Nonprot, Government and Business,

Government and Nonprot sectors, or exist among allthree sectors together.18

In that context, John M. Bryson, Barbara C. Crosby,and Melissa Middleton Stone dene cross-sector col-laboration as:

[T]he linking or sharing of information, resources,activities, and capabilities by organizations in two

or more sectors to achieve jointly an outcome thatcould not be achieved by organizations in one sectorseparately.19

In similar fashion, Mark Gerencser and colleaguesfrom the consultancy Booz Allen Hamilton assert thatin the contemporary age, complex problems will re-quire the collaborative efforts of “megacommunities”;

that is, “communities of organizations whose leadersand members have deliberately come together acrossnational, organizational, and sectoral boundaries toreach the goals they cannot achieve alone.” In theirview, megacommunities take on:

goals that are ongoing and mutable over time. Mostimportantly, megacommunities demand a change in orien-tation from the leaders of the various organizations involved[italics included by Gerencser et al.].20

5. President Obama has called for meaningfulcross-sector collaboration in addressing challengesto U.S. national interests.

In the May 2010 National Security Strategy released

by his Ofce, President Obama turns time and againto the notion of cross-sector collaboration, both with-in the United States and across national boundaries,


39/533

13

as a means of responding to different dangers andchallenges.

. . . we will pursue engagement among peoples—not just governments—around the world. The UnitedStates Government will make a sustained effort to en-gage civil society and citizens and facilitate increasedconnections among the American people and peoplearound the world—through effort ranging from pub-lic service and educational exchanges, to increasedcommerce and private sector partnerships. In many

instances, these modes of engagement have a power-ful and enduring impact beyond our borders, and area cost-effective way of projecting a positive vision ofAmerican leadership (p. 12).

. . . our international order must recognize the in-creasing inuence of individuals in today’s world.There must be opportunities for civil society to thrive

within nations and to forge connections among them.And there must be opportunities for individuals andthe private sector to play a major role in addressingcommon challenges—whether supporting a nuclearfuel bank, promoting global health, fostering entrepre-neurship, or exposing violations of universal rights. Inthe 21st century, the ability of individuals and non-governmental actors to play a positive role in shapingthe international environment presents a distinct op-

portunity for the United States (p. 13).

New skills are needed to foster effective interaction toconvene, connect, and mobilize not only other govern-ments and international organizations, but also non-state actors such as corporations, foundations, non-governmental organizations, universities, think tanks,and faith-based organizations, all of whom increas-

ingly have a distinct role to play on both diplomaticand development issues (p. 14, emphasis added).


40/533

14

6. In the near future, strategic leaders from vari-ous sectors will need the skill sets to engage in high-

level cross-sector collaboration.As explained by Peter G. Northouse, people who

serve as principal decisionmakers in organizationsare confronted with the need to perform two distinctyet related sets of activities: management and leader-ship. Management produces order and consistency byplanning and budgeting, organizing and stafng, andcontrolling and problem solving. Leadership produc-es change and movement by establishing direction,aligning people, and motivating and inspiring.21

In recent years, decisionmakers have found it in-creasingly difcult to perform those two critical activi-ties. In 2010, the IBM Institute for Business Value andIBM Strategy & Change reported the results of theirfourth biennial survey of more than 1,500 chief ex-

ecutive ofcers (CEOs), general managers, and seniorpublic sector leaders around the world.22 In the execu-tive summary, the authors observed the following.

In our past three global CEO studies, CEOs consistent-ly said that coping with change was their most press-ing challenge. In 2010, our conversations identied anew primary challenge: complexity. CEOs told us they

operate in a world that is substantially more volatile,uncertain and complex. Many shared the view that in-cremental changes are no longer sufcient in a worldthat is operating in fundamentally different ways.

The authors reported four major ndings:

Today’s complexity is only expected to rise, and more

than half of CEOs doubt their ability to manage it;Creativity is the most important leadership quality,according to CEOs; The most successful organiza-tions co-create products and services with customers,and integrate customers into core processes; and Bet-


41/533

15

ter performers manage complexity on behalf of theirorganizations, customers and partners.

The survey results suggest the need for collabora-tion to creatively carry out the tasks of leadership andmanagement in a complex environment.

When the idea of cross-sector collaboration isadded to the entire set of ideas identied here—thoseranging from the increasing interdependence andchanging structure of the global system, including the

rise to prominence of India; to the key certainties anduncertainties envisioned in the NIC Report; to the no-tion that sustainability-related matters are critical tonational interest of both the United States and India;to proposed collaborative initiative in the U.S.-Indiastrategic relationship—one cannot avoid the idea thatstrategic leaders must become comfortable with par-

ticipating in and managing networks, with the notionof co-evolution of organizations within networks, andwith systems-level frameworks of analysis.23

ORGANIZATION OF THIS VOLUME

This book consists of two major parts. Part I in-cludes the theoretical papers and transcribed com-

ments of workshop participants. It consists of ve sec-tions, each of which reects an important theme fromthe workshop.

Section 1, “Theoretical Framework and Key Con-cepts,” begins with a very important paper writtenby Drs. John Bryson, Barbara Crosby, and MelissaMiddleton Stone, three of the leading experts on

cross-sector collaboration. Their paper establishes thetheoretical framework for the entire workshop. Chap-ter 3, a response paper by Sarcone, provides com-


42/533

16

mentary on some of the key propositions of the leadpaper, and then poses some initial questions in order

to suggest ways to apply the concepts developed byBryson, Crosby, and Stone in a new setting; that is, incollaborations that are intended to promote sustain-able development and involve the military along withstakeholders from other sectors. Chapter 4 concludesthe section with the keynote address by Ambassador(Retired) Chandrashekhar Dasgupta discussing therelevance of sustainable development as a critical as-pect of national security and a central component ofthe U.S.-India relationship.

Chapters 2 through 4 explore a range of theorypapers and opinion pieces. Sarcone provides a briefsummary that links the important themes, ideas, andrecommendations of the various authors to relevantaspects of the model presented by Bryson, Crosby,

and Stone in Chapter 2. This is an important contri-bution to the volume, since it helps the reader betterappreciate the subtleties, complexity, and power ofcross-sector collaborations.

In Section 2, Chapter 5, “Preparing for the Future:Brcko, Kabul, Baghdad, and Beyond,” Dr. Jeff Mc-Causland describes the evolution of the strategic en-vironment and the missions undertaken by the U.S.Army over the past 20 years, the growing relevance ofcollaboration within that context, and the correspond-ing challenges those developments have for the Armywith respect to formal education, individual develop-ment, and organizational change. In Chapter 6, Gener-al (Retired) V. K. Singh rst describes the dynamics ofrelations among the United States, India, and China,

and then turns to the relevance of cross-sector collabo-ration to those relationships. In a rather bold way, heoffers his own insight as to the role a strategic leader


43/533

17

might play in a top-down initiated collaboration, pro-vides a Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats

(SWOT) analysis of the ability of South Asia to inu-ence China, and then proposes areas in which cross-sector collaboration might be employed as part of anEnds-Ways-Means approach to managing relation-ships. In Chapter 7, the conclusion for Section 2, Dr. Jack Clarke speaks to the necessity for clear commu-nication across cultures, professional development,and innovation in processes and structures as keys tosuccessful cross-sector collaboration.

In Section 3, Chapter 8, “Environment and Secu-rity: Transnational Challenges, Transnational Solu-tions,” Dr. Richard Matthew discusses the increas-ingly strong links between environmental forces andnational security concerns. Dr. Stephen Blank thenoffers a provocative, sweeping, and essentially criti-

cal analysis of the New Silk Road Strategy being pur-sued by the Obama administration in South Asia inChapter 9. In his commentary in Chapter 10, Dr. LeifRosenberger elaborates on the analysis provided byDr. Matthew by focusing on the prospects of innova-tion for overcoming Malthusian concerns regardingfood and water. He also offers a direct rebuttal to theopinions of Dr. Blank.

Section 4, “Prospects for Collaboration in the U.S.-India Strategic Relationship,” includes three contribu-tions. In Chapter 11, Mr. Andrew Salamone assessesthe unique strategic culture of India, which differsfrom that of the United States, and therefore impliesthe need for greater cross-cultural awareness amongparties in a collaborative initiative. He illustrates his

points by providing insights from classic Hindu texts,which he then links to comments by contemporaryIndian leaders. In Chapter 12, Mr. Rahul Madhavan


44/533

18

offers insights about trade in defense assets and tech-nologies between the two countries, an important as-

pect of the U.S.-India relationship. Dr. Namrata Gos-wami follows with Chapter 13, a condensed historyof the U.S.-India relationship from the end of WorldWar II to the present, providing essential backgroundfor those studying recent trends in the improvingU.S.-India strategic relationship. In his commentaryin Chapter 14, Dr. Ivan Welch weaves insights fromthese papers together and points to the implicationsfor cross-sector collaboration.

In Section 5, “Sustainable Development as a Na-tional Security Concern in India,” in Chapter 15, Ms.Dhanasree Jayaram traces the growing awarenessin the international community of the transnationalthreats posed by climate change, offers implicationsfor India’s national interests, and recommends re-

forms in the formation and conduct of economic andenvironmental policy in India to address these issues.Group Captain Krishnappa Venkatshamy provides afar-ranging discussion about the central role of sus-tainable development in India’s comprehensive na-tional security strategy in Chapter 16. In his responsein Chapter 17, Dr. Michael D. Beevers provides addi-tional insight on sustainable development and secu-rity and suggestions on how the different works com-prising Section 5 may serve as a point of departure foradditional research.

Part II of this volume includes ve case studies ofcross-sector collaborations that were presented dur-ing the workshop by researchers and practitioners.As with all case studies, we believe they provide a bit

of “data” for those interested in better understandingtheoretical constructs, which in this instance is that ofcross-sector collaboration. At the outset of the section,


45/533

19

Sarcone provides an overall summary of the variouscase studies and identies aspects of the model pro-

vided by Bryson, Crosby, and Stone relevant to each.With respect to the case studies, in Chapter 19, Dr.

Rajesh Chakrabarti and Mr. Santosh Srinivas providea full-bodied, retrospective description of the effortsof Lakshmi Venkatesan, a social entrepreneur whostarted the Bharatiya Yuva Shakti Trust (BYST) tohelp support entrepreneurship among disadvantagedyouth in India. In Chapter 20, Ms. Lalitha Vaidyana-than employs the Collective Impact Framework usedat the consultancy FSG to describe reasons for successof the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN).Ms. Julie Vastine details the efforts of the Alliance forAquatic Resource Monitoring (ALLARM) in helpingteach members of local communities in Pennsylvaniato monitor, gather, and analyze water supply data

in order to develop a more powerful voice in politi-cal arenas in Chapter 21. Mr. Todd Camp describesthe“Learn to Grow” initiative launched by the Her-shey Corporation in Ghana that strives to improvebasic educational opportunities for children in thatcountry, and in the process, to develop infrastructurethat could help disseminate information about agricul-tural techniques to local farmers engaged in growingcoca in Chapter 22. Finally, in Chapter 23, Dr. KhanjanMehta highlights a range of initiatives launched bythe Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepre-neurship (HESE) Program at Pennsylvania State Uni-versity. These initiatives have successfully introducedtechnologies to improve efciencies in the agriculturalchain, or in the delivery of health care, in communities

all over East Africa.


46/533

20

Following Part II, in Chapter 24, I offer someconcluding comments about the key insights from

the Workshop. First, the participants did offer somecharacterizations about cross-sector collaborations.They were quite mindful of the complexity of suchinitiatives and tended to regard them as a subset of alarger construct—that of crossing boundaries. In or-der to make a collaborative initiative successful, theyrecognized the necessity of investing time and effortto understanding the partner. With respect to cross-sector collaborations and national security, they de-scribed the means that might be needed in order touse cross-sector collaboration as a way of achieving astrategic end. Second, the participants identied somepossible areas for follow-on activities and for futureresearch about the factors which might contribute tothe success of cross-sector collaborations that include

the military and are intended to promote sustainabledevelopment.

ENDNOTES - CHAPTER 1

1. For example, Foreign Affairs, the widely circulated publica-tion of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, has in the past fewyears featured a number of essays dedicated to such matters. A

few items illustrate the point. Citing the growing range of non-state agents with the capacity to inuence nation states, RichardN. Haass characterizes the current system as nonpolar, a structuremuch different from previous multipolar, bipolar, and unipolarcongurations. “The Age of Nonpolarity: What Will Follow U.S.Dominance?” Foreign Affairs, May-June 2008. Motivated by theopinion that the role a nation state will play in the global systemof the future will be in large part determined by its economic ca-pacity and vitality, Leslie H. Gelb argues that in pursuit of na-

tional interests, the United States has placed too much emphasison military instruments of power and insufcient emphasis oneconomic instruments of power. “GDP Now Matters More ThanForce: A U.S. Foreign Policy for the Age of Economic Power,”


47/533

21

Foreign Affairs, November-December 2010. Fresh from his postin the Obama Administration, Peter R. Orszag links the struc-tural issues associated with the U.S. healthcare system to U.S.national interests. “How Health Care Can Save or Sink America:The Case for Reform and Fiscal Sustainability,” Foreign Affairs, July-August 2011.

2. In a well-written textbook, Roland Dannreuther suggeststhat new areas of emphasis should include environmental secu-rity; access to resources such as water, food, and energy; migra-tion; the call for intervention by the international community incivil and intra-state wars to end atrocities; and the dynamics ofasymmetric power and asymmetric threats (including terrorismand the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction). Internation-al Security and the Contemporary Agenda, Cambridge, UK: PolityPress, 2007.

3. To illustrate, a large number of researchers and practitionersrecently gathered at National Defense University in Washington,DC, to talk about economic security, albeit from a predominantlyU.S. centric perspective. Major themes included the economicelement of power; the voices of industry and government; andthe fundamental importance of energy security, research anddevelopment, science and technology, and human capital forma-tion to national security. Institute for National Strategic Studies,“Economic Security: Neglected Dimension of National Security?”Washington, DC: National Defense University, Fort Lesley J. Mc-Nair, August 24-25, 2010.

4. See National Intelligence Council, Global Trends 2025: ATransformed World, Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOfce, 2008.

5. See Simon Dresner, The Principles of Sustainability, 2nd Ed.,London, UK: Earthscan, 2008.

6. Ofce of the President of the United States , National SecurityStrategy, Washington, DC: The White House, May 2010.

7. Ministry of Defense, “Security Environment: An Over-view,” New Delhi, India: Government of India.


48/533

22

8. See Pratap Bhanu Mehta, “Still Under Nehru’s Shadow?The Absence of Foreign Policy Frameworks in India,” India Re-view, Vol. 8, No. 3, July-September 2009, pp. 209-233.

9. Rohan Mukherjee and David M. Malone, “Indian ForeignPolicy and Contemporary Security Challenges,” International Af- fairs, Vol. 87, No. 1, 2011, pp. 87-104.

10. See Gurcharan Das, “The India Model,” Foreign Aff airs,Vol. 85, Issue 4, July-August 2006, pp. 2-14.

11. Lavanya Rajamani, “India and Climate Change: What In-dia Wants, Needs, and Needs to Do,” India Review, Vol. 8, No. 3, July-September 2009, pp. 340-374.

12. “Security Partnership for the 21st Century,” Fact Sheet,Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State, July 19, 2011, avail-able from www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/07/168744.htm.

13. “Advancing our Shared Interests in Asia,” Fact Sheet,Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State, July 19, 2011, avail-able from www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/07/168739.htm.

14. “U.S.-India Science and Technology Cooperation,” FactSheet, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State, July 19, 2011,available from translations.state.gov/st/english/texttrans/2011/07/20110719153242enaj4.087466e-02.html.

15. “Prosperity,” Fact Sheet, Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of State, July 19, 2011, available from www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ ps/2011/07/168741.htm.

16. Joint Study Group Report September 2011: The United Statesand India: A Shared Strategic Future, Washington DC: Council onForeign Relations and Aspen Institute of India , September 19,2011, available from www.cfr.org/india/united-states-india-shared-strategic-future/p25740.

17. See James E. Austin, “Strategic Collaboration BetweenNonprots and Business,” Nonprot and Voluntary Sector Quar -terly 2000, Sage Publications, 2000, pp. 69-97.


49/533

23

18. See John W. Selsky and Barbara Parker, “Cross-SectorPartnerships to Address Social Issues: Challenges to Theory andPractice,” Journal of Management, Vol. 31, No. 6, December 2005,pp. 849-873.

19. See John M. Bryson, Barbara C. Crosby, and Melissa Mid-dleton Stone, “The Design and Implementation of Cross-SectorCollaborations: Propositions from the Literature,” Public Adminis-trative Review, Special Issue, December 2006, pp. 44-55.

20. Mark Gerencser, Reginald Van Lee, Fernando Napoli-tano, and Christopher Kelly of Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., Mega-communities: How Leaders of Government, Business, and Non-ProtsCan Tackle Today’s Global Challenges Together, New York: Palgrave,MacMillan, 2008.

21. See Peter G. Northouse, Leadership: Theory and Practice,Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2007, Figure 1.2, p. 10. Inturn, Northouse indicates that his gure was adapted from J. P.Kotter, A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management,New York: Free Press, 1990, pp. 3-8.

22. IBM Institute for Business Value and IBM Strategy &

Change, “Capitalizing on Complexity,” 2010.

23. Toward that end, Michael Fratantuono believes thatthe insights of computer scientist John H. Holland, who in thelate-1980s described the global economy as a complex adap-tive system, translate very nicely to the full range of politi-cally, socially, and economically motivated entities that hewould include in a simple model of the global system, espe-cially if one replaces the word “units” in Holland’s originalstatement with the word “agent.” That is, Holland makes thefollowing observations.

The overall direction of the economy is determined by theinteraction of many dispersed units acting in parallel. Theaction of any given unit depends upon the state and actionsof a limited number of other units.


50/533

24

There are rarely any global controls on interactions—con-trols are provided by mechanisms of competition and co-operation between units, mediated by standard operating

procedures (SOPs), assigned roles, and shifting associations.

The economy has many levels of organization and interac-tion. Units at any given level typically serve as “buildingblocks” for constructing units at the next higher level. Theoverall organization is more than hierarchical, with all sortsof tangling interactions (associations, channels of communi-cation) across levels.

The building blocks are recombined and revised continuallyas the system accumulates experience—the system adapts.

The arena in which the economy operates is typied bymany niches that can be exploited by particular adaptations;there is no universal super -competitor that can ll all niches(any more than would be the case in a complex ecology suchas a tropical forest.)

Niches are continually created by new technologies and the

very act of lling a niche provides new niches . . . Perpetualnovelty results.

Because the niches are various, and new niches are continu-ally created, the economy operates far from an optimum (orglobal attractor). Said in another way, improvements arealways possible, and, indeed, occur regularly.

See John H. Holland, “The Global Economy as an Adaptive Pro-

cess,” in Philip W. Anderson, Kennth J. Arrow, and David Pines,eds., The Economy As An Evolving Complex System: A ProceedingsVolume in The Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complex-ity, Boston, MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Company, 1988, pp.117-124.


51/533

25

PART I:

WORKSHOP PAPERS AND

DISCUSSANTS’ COMMENTS


52/533


53/533

27

SECTION 1

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ANDKEY CONCEPTS

Moderator: Dr. Michael Fratantuono, AssociateProfessor, Department of International Business andManagement, Department of International Studies,Dickinson College.

Authors: Dr. John Bryson, McKnight PresidentialProfessor of Planning and Public Affairs, Hubert H.Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University ofMinnesota.

Dr. Barbara C. Crosby, Associate Professor, Hu-bert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, Univer-

sity of Minnesota.

Discussant: David Sarcone, Associate Professor,Department of International Business and Manage-ment, Director Health Studies Program, DickinsonCollege.

Convener: Dr. Neil Leary, Director, Dickin-son Center for Sustainability Education, DickinsonCollege.

Keynote Speaker: Ambassador (Retired) Chan-drashekhar Dasgupta, Distinguished Fellow, TheEnergy Resources Institute (TERI) New Dehli; PrimeMinister’s Council on Climate Change; Member of

the UN Committee on Economic, Social and CulturalRights; and Co-Chair of the India-EU Round Table.


54/533

28

In the paper they co-authored with Dr. MelissaMiddleton Stone, Drs. Bryson and Crosby provide a

theoretical framework for the Workshop. They rstdene the concept of cross-sector collaboration. Theythen describe what they term as a design science ap-proach to initiating and strategically managing cross-sector collaborations. Their comprehensive modelprovides a template that can be applied to wide rangeof collaborative initiatives. It includes six high-levelinterrelated activity areas. The authors also state 26propositions: each is informed by the academic lit-erature, suggests ways to more effectively completetasks in one of the six activity areas, and thus increasesthe chances of reaching the intended outcomes of thecollaborative initiative.

Despite the power of the model they describe, Drs.Bryson, Crosby, and Stone acknowledge that they

have not engaged in research either about initiatingand managing cross-sector collaborations that arededicated to promoting sustainability in developingcountries or involving the military as a participant.Nevertheless, in his response paper, Dr. Sarcone con-centrates on seven of the 26 propositions. For each,he offers commentary and also proposes discussionquestions, in order to promote further reection abouthow the model might inform thinking about this rela-tively unexplored terrain.

In his Keynote Address to the Workshop partici-pants, Ambassador Dasgupta emphasizes two over-arching themes. First, he describes the growing im-portance of the strategic relationship between Indiaand the United States, especially in light of the need

to create a balance of power in East and South Asiathat can accommodate the peaceful rise of China onthe global stage. Second, he dismisses the notion that


55/533

29

there must be a tradeoff between economic growthand sustainable development; acknowledges that in

coming decades, energy security will be critical to allcountries; and advocates that, in light of the shale-gasrevolution—and for reasons that reect both develop-mental and geopolitical considerations—U.S. policy-makers should liberalize controls on exports of natu-ral gas to various countries that are now in place.


56/533


57/533

31

CHAPTER 2

DESIGNING AND STRATEGICALLYMANAGING CROSS-SECTOR

COLLABORATIONS

John M. BrysonBarbara C. Crosby

Melissa Middleton Stone

An earlier version of this paper was presented atthe 7th Transatlantic Dialogue on Strategic Manage-ment of Public Organizations, co-sponsored by theAmerican Society for Public Administration and theEuropean Group on Public Administration, at theSchool of Public Affairs and Administration, RutgersUniversity, Newark, NJ, June 23-25, 2011.

The authors wish to acknowledge those who madeparts of this research possible. The Urban Partner-ship Agreement study was funded by the IntelligentTransportation Systems (ITS) School, a program ofthe University of Minnesota’s Center for Transporta-tion Studies (CTS). Financial support was providedby the U.S. Department of Transportation Researchand Innovative Technologies Administration (RITA).The views expressed in this paper are solely those ofthe authors. We wish to thank Stephen Page, EmilySaunoi-Sandgren, and Carissa Schively Slotterback fortheir comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

This chapter is a condensed version of the paper,“Designing and Strategically Managing Cross-SectorCollaborations: Propositions from the Literature and

Three Longitudinal Studies,” which was written forthe Workshop, “The U.S.-India Strategic Relationshipin the 21st Century: Challenges for Strategic Leaders;


58/533

32

Opportunities for Cross-Sector Collaboration To Pro-mote Sustainable Development,” Dickinson College,

Carlisle, PA, March 12-14, 2013. This paper updatesBryson, Crosby, and Stone’s 2006 propositional in-ventory based on a more recent literature review andan extensive, multiyear investigations of three cross-sector collaborations. The condensed version of thispaper focuses on the theoretical insights and the sys-tems design approach of the longer paper, but doesnot explicitly include the evidence from the longitudi-nal studies. Since its publication in 2006, the paper byBryson, Crosby, and Stone has had a signicant effecton subsequent cross-sector collaboration scholarship;it is is one of the most-cited articles in Public Adminis-tration Review.

Note that th

Date post:	07-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ssi-strategic-studies-institute-us-army-war-college
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

The U.S.-India Relationship: Cross-Sector Collaboration To Promote Sustainable Development

Documents