EUSPRIForumConferenceApril10122013

SPECIALTRACK Theme:Science,TechnologyandInnovationPolicyinDevelopingCountries:Rationalesand Relevance Coordinatedby:StefanKuhlmannandGonzaloOrdonez,UniversityofTwente,Netherlands. CallforExtendedAbstracts/Papers InahistoricalUNconferenceheldin2000,theleadersof189countriesagreeduponasetof eightmajorambitiousdevelopmentgoalstobeattainedby2015toreduceextremepoverty, hunger, illiteracy and disease. Recently, the WBIMF 2011 Global Monitoring Report concluded that the targets set for hunger and primary education completion will probably not be met by 2015, and that the targets on most healthrelated issues such as child and maternal mortality and access to sanitation will certainly not be met by then. Furthermore, accordingtothereport,ifcurrenttrendcontinuesthenumberofpeoplelivingindeveloping countries on less than $1.25 will be over 800 million by 2015. This means that if labor demand does not grow enough to meet the increasing supply in these countries, this additional labor force will have to be absorbed at a falling relative wage, therefore reducing therateatwhichgrowthdecreasespoverty. TheagreedrecipewastoencourageScience,TechnologyandInnovation(STI)progressgiven its potential to contribute to increase productivity, create markets, protect jobs, reduce the consequencesofextremepoverty,preventandtreatlocaldiseases,andcontainandreverse the continuing loss of environmental resources among other problems currently facing developingcountries. However, the best performing countries (in terms of R&D investment), have substantially improved their innovative capacity (as observed by the number of patents and scientific publications),butextremepoverty,increasedinequalityandsocialexclusionpersist. The dominant perspective among the STI policy community in these countries is that such situation results from the fact that STI policies implemented are simply ineffective given structural problems: basic needs such as good health services, access to education, good livingandproductiveinfrastructure,lackofemployment,insecurity,etc.,keepsgovernments
1

and companies from investing more on STI activities. From this point of view, governments shouldkeeptryinghardasthingscouldbeworstifcurrentpolicyorientationchange. Fromamoreradicalperspective,itcanbearguedthatthecausesaretobefoundelsewhere, that is, that STI policies are inspired on the wrong models, aim at solving the wrong policy problems, are too narrowly defined, too poorly managed and implemented, and/or lack the necessarysupportiveconditionsfromsocietyduetohistorical,culturalandpoliticalreasons. Fromthisperspective,moneyisnotthe(main)problem. Based on an adaptation of the systemic perspective of the Innovation Policy Dance metaphor proposed by Kuhlmann, Shapira, and Smits (2010), the proposed Special Track attempts to contribute to a better a understanding of the ways STI theory, policy and practice,interactinthecontextofdevelopingcountries. In particular, the Special Track aims at discussing about the challenges and dilemmas these countries currently face. For this purpose we welcome contributions questioning STI policy rationalesandrelevance,whereatleastoneofthefollowingissuesisaddressed: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. UnderliningassumptionssupportingSTIpoliciesinthesecountries STIPolicymakingprocesses STIPolicydilemmas STIGovernancechallengesintheframeworkofpovertyandglobalization Cultural, historical or political contexts explaining the STI process, policies and governance 6. DeterminantsofSTIpolicychange,failureoreffectiveness 7. Roleofindigenousknowledge 8. Role of international aid/cooperation organizations, NGOs, multinational corporations,universitiesormedia 9. Roleoflocalmanagement/leadershipcapabilities/entrepreneurship 10. Roleofinstitutions,normsandvalues 11. Roleofcorruption 12. Ideology 13. Other?

Thecontributionsareinvitedtoconsideroneormoreofthefollowingdimensions: A. Theoretical failure: the theory inspiring the design and implementation of policies aiming at encouraging STI in these countries is wrong with respect to the role assumed of STI in development, the role assumed of governments and markets, the perceived main STI policy challenges, and the demarcation criteria forgoodandbadperformance. B. Government Failure: Policy agendas are defined arbitrarily and narrowly without suitable planning, ignoring local capacities, needs and barriers, and following rationales that undermine public goods. Policy implementation takes place by scleroticinstitutionslackingleadership,workethicsandresources. C. Social Capital Failure: STI activities (broadly defined to include creativity and capacity building) are performed and managed in the framework of
2

marginalization, social stigma, lack of entrepreneurship and of long term vision, generalizedlackoftrust,informality,andhighlevelsofuncertainty. Timeline Extended Abstracts and Full Papers presented to this theme should follow the general procedureanddatesestablishedintheCallforPapers. FurtherinformationaboutthisSpecialTrack:s.kuhlmann@utwente.nl FurtherinformationabouttheConference:www.eusprimadrid2013.org