• Democratic Institutions and Politics
• International Relations, Science and Security
• Markets and Methods
• Management and Leadership
• Social Policy

Calestous Juma on the Role of Science and Technology in Development

How developing nations can best harness advancements in science and technology is the focus of research by Calestous Juma, professor of the practice of international development at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Juma is coordinator of the Task Force on Science, Technology and Innovation of the United Nations Millennium Project. A new Task Force report outlines key areas for national and international policy action to accelerate economic growth and social progress in developing countries.

Q: How can developing countries integrate science and technological innovation into effective public policy?

Juma: I think the first thing that they need to do is to define strategic programs that specifically place technology at the center of economic development. Essentially they need to recognize that they can neither compete internationally nor meet basic needs without significant investment and utilization of science and technology. So that's really the first step. Secondly, they should mainstream and realign their public institutions, particularly the machinery of government, to ensure their goals that involve the application of science and technology are aligned with a structured government. And, thirdly, they will need to create some new institutions and possibly some new incentives as well whose main focus would be to promote the role of science and technology in development.

Q: How can and should the international community help in this regard?

Juma: I think the international community has a very important role to play. The first is to provide a certain degree of leadership by demonstrating that they themselves believe that science and technology can play a role in development and the best way to do that is to place science and technology at the center of their development assistance programs. And secondly they need to revisit their own policies towards developing countries which currently do not take into account the importance of technology.

I think it's a question of ideas and imagination, and it is a question of inertia in that we've got these institutions that were created before technology became an important force in development and we haven't readjusted institutions to bring them into line with the current thinking.

Q: What are the biggest hurdles standing in the way of implementing these goals?

Juma: I think the most important obstacle is how to manage change. For example, if you think about the role of technology development as being central to economic planning, this requires presidents and prime ministers to start thinking differently about sources of economic growth and that process in itself requires to some degree a certain investment in public awareness. And secondly, in changing the way leaders think about development. We've recommended in the report that in fact presidents should have science and technology advisors to brief them on a regular basis on the significant role that technology plays in development. It's a question of how to manage change and adapt to the modern world rather than simply a matter of financial resources. Funding matters greatly, in fact if you don't have the funding you won't make a difference. But funding alone is not sufficient.

Q: What are the most compelling case studies you can point to that illustrate best (and possibly worst) practices for instituting effective policy when it comes to science and technological innovation in developing countries?

Juma: I think the worst practices include doing nothing and accepting the status quo, which is what is what most developing countries have come to accept, particularly to depend on the position and the view that their role in the global economy involves mainly exporting raw materials. This is probably the worst form of policy strategy. Secondly, many of them have not recognized the role of technical training and higher education as being central to development and they continue only to focus on primary education. So there are a lot of bad ideas out there that need to be revised.

But there are a lot of good ideas originating from developing countries themselves. A good example is the role of the Kagali Institute of Science and Technology in the transformation and reconstruction of Rwanda after the genocide. This has taken place in the last five to seven years. This single institution has played a very important role in the recovery of the country. We have similar examples of cases where similar institutions have played a significant role in the diversification of economic activities in developing countries. For example, the Chile Foundation has been responsible for helping to facilitate the economic transformation of Chile from being a mineral-based economy to being an exporter of significant products like wine, fisheries products and timber products. We have a number of examples where the impact has arisen largely from civil institutions rather than seeking to transform the entire economy.

Q: How has the Task Force report been received?

Juma: The report has been very well received. In fact, a number of governments started implementing some of the recommendations before the report was finalized, when it was still in draft form. We think that the most important role this report has played is to reconfirm to governments, both in developed and developing countries, that innovation matters for development. As a consequence we are starting to see some countries already translating the report and adopting it as a standard text for the universities. We also have industrialized countries that have implemented some of the recommendations. We're very happy with the way the report has been received. It's most likely going to change the dialogue and the policy discourse of development for quite a while to come.

Answers to questions submitted via e-mail:

Questions submitted via e-mail for Calestous Juma:

Q: To what extent is [institutional] inertia due to people having generally been trained for centuries to think and organise un-integratively based on the mistaken view that we live in a world of parts that can be managed into a stable state and from one stable state to another? How can we start to overcome this inertia which tends to stop ideas and imagination from sources other than existing institutions being even considered, let alone adopted? In light of the recent huge advances in communications and other technology and our currently more accurate scientific understanding that our brains, bodies and minds tend to be integrative and that we live in a world that tends to be self-organising, is it time to use this knowledge to address directly other ways of training the minds of individuals and of organising?

- Graham D.
Ipswich, Australia

Juma: There are three possible strategies for dealing with institutional inertia. The first is to wait until a catastrophic event sweeps away old ideas and creates space for new ones. But such opportunities don't come that often. However, the sweep of democracy in Africa and other developing countries and the periodicity of elections are creating opportunities for reinventing government and bringing on board some new ideas. The second involves incessant reform in existing institutions through incremental steps aimed at adapting to change. The third is to see crises as opportunities to induce the creation of new institutional structures. These and other strategies involve a high degree of institutional entrepreneurship. It is largely what government usually is not. So the challenge for poor countries might well be how to make government entrepreneurial.



Q: I agree that the way leaders and country adopt and adapt to change is as crucial as financial investment. In the case of Africa for instance, if countries were to adopt a proactive policy, should they choose a particular sector where they may have a competitive advantage or concentrate in supplying the local markets or an intra-African market, considering that many of these countries are of small size and the international market is already crowded and very competitive?

- Tawat M.
England

Juma: Individually, most of the African countries are too small to make effective use of existing technologies. Larger markets-whether domestic or foreign-are a critical element in promoting technological innovation. Independent national African markets are too small to either benefit from scale economies or serve as a incentive for the consolidation of domestic investment finance. There are hopeful signs though. The creation of the East African Community (comprising Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and subsequently Rwanda and Burundi) offers a unique opportunity to explore how technological innovation could be used to deepen economic productivity and expand the prospects for growth. The creation of regional markets, however, are not a substitute for the identification of areas of product specialization. East Africa, for example, could be a world player in fields such biomedical research of relevance to the tropics. The requisite capacity exists in the sub-region but the policy environment and incentive structure needed to move from research to commercialization need to be significantly improved.



Q: A recent paper by Cory Doctorow of the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) suggests that policy-makers in the developing world are making an error in judgment by supporting World Trade Organization (WTO) treaty agreements around science and technology. The paper is also supported by a few NGOs.

The heart of Doctorow's position, which is becoming more common in the blogosphere, is that existing technology regulatory regimes supported by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries exact a terrible cost to the public of OECD countries and to developing countries, while delivering little in return. He views this as a danger to long term growth in developing countries.

My question is: Can you suggest seminal literature references which shed additional light on this debate?
- Stephen P.
Kirkland, Washington

Juma: The findings of our study suggest that the impact of the international protection of intellectual property rights depends on a country's level of development and nature of the technologies used in the economy. Meeting the basic needs of most of the developing countries and boosting economic productivity can be done using technologies that are publicly available. In other words, it is more strategic for poor countries to devise institutions that enable them to use technologies that are readily available than to focus on newly patented inventions. A focus on new inventions is of more policy relevance to advanced developing countries. The challenge for the rest of the developing nations is how to make effective use of publicly available technologies. Patent offices are a key source of information on the availability of such technology, so respect for intellectual property rights is essential in building capacity to use technologies that are not covered by patents. This argument, however, may not hold for new technological fields such as genomics and biotechnology. Either way, investing in technical training to enhance the capacity to master existing technologies is a critical starting point. Fighting against strict patent protection is of secondary importance.

For further information, see Archibugi, D. and C. Pietrobelli, 2003. 'The Globalisation of Technology and Its Implications for Developing Countries', Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 70(9), pp. 861-883.



Q: Do you see e-government as a field where developing countries should concentrate to help in developing public institutions and their economies? If so, in what aspects do you think it may have a major impact?

- Juan A.
Barcelona, Spain

Juma: Aligning government structures to reflect technological imperatives includes facilitating access to the best available technological innovation and business opportunities. In addition, it includes efforts to simplify government procedure and introduce a measure of transparency in the functioning of government. E-government will achieve little unless it is guided by management and operational principles that enhance efficiency. Probably the most important contribution of e-government is through providing timely and relevant information needed for making decision on market opportunities and technological options. Equally important is the role of e-government in enhancing efficiency and reducing corruption though better systems of accountability. E-government should therefore complement government realignment, and not serve as a substitute.