Science, Technology and Inequality The Policy Environment

1
Science, Technology and InequalityThe Policy
Environment

• SALISES Workshop Barbados, October 2008
• Tiago Santos Pereira
• Centre for Social Studies, University of Coimbra
• WP1 Task Coordinators
• Susan Cozzens, TPAC, Georgia Tech
• Egil Kallerud, NIFU-STEP

2
WP1 Policy dimensions of the global knowledge
economy

• Main emphasis of work at the beginning of the
  project
• WP1 partners/contributors
• Susan Cozzens, TPAC,
• Egil Kallerud, NIFU STEP,
• Tiago Santos Pereira Coimbra University,
• Louise Ackers, University of Leeds,
• Bryony Gill, University of Leeds,
• Jennifer Harper, University of Malta,
• Noel Zarb-Adami, University of Malta

3
Objectives

• Provide a conceptual framework for describing how
  policy contexts for key ST policy processes
  affect the production, distribution and
  redistribution of knowledge resources, and for
  articulating alternative framings and policies
• i.e. locate ResIST within the broader science,
  technology and innovation (STI) policy agenda a
  birds eye view
• Provide an overview of key policy issues, actors
  and actions, as well as core vocabulary and
  conceptual framework to be used by the project
  

4
Framework

• The CARE Cycle
• Structural Inequalities
• Capacities
• Representational Inequalities
• Accountability
• Representational
• Distributional Inequalities
• Effects
• Policies and Case Studies

5
Policy Framework

• STI policy concepts, objectives and actors
• Knowledge Economy
• Competitiveness, growth, productivity
• Innovative firms
• STI policy and inequality
• Policy analysis
• Illustrations
• National / Regional / Global

6
STI Policy Framework

• Dominant, single-objective, framework
• retains its economy-bias from its Iindustry
  pre-history
• A transient moment of multi-objective STI
  policy
• Based on social priorities paradigm (Brooks
  Report, OECD, 1971)
• Short lived
• What unites conceptions of new economy,
  knowledge-based economy, and systems of
  innovation?
• focus on economic growth (aggregate),
  competitiveness, productivity
• economy-biased conceptions of STI policy shaped
  in the 1980s and 90s
• emphasis on selected sectors and activities
  (high-tech, RD)
• strong discursive framework

7
Re-emergence of inequality on the STI policy
agenda

• Response to evidence of
• extremely uneven distribution of the benefits of
  the growth
• the flipside of the US model of growth in the
  new economy
• persistent and exacerbated global inequalities
• in highly visible instances directly linked to
  the new, knowledge-based economy e.g., IPR
  protection and the AIDS vaccine issue
• The Social redefined as asset for innovation,
• social capital as innovative factor
• the Nordic model general welfare, social
  equality and security explains the flexibility,
  change-embracing and adaptive capability of
  Nordic economies and societies
• conception of mutually supportive objectives
  and win-win policies (model of environmentalist
  prevention pays notions?)

8
Integrating distributional and growth objectives

• Developing integrated, multi-objective STI policy
  proceeds by way of
• rejecting standard argumentative strategies for
  excluding social objectives from STI policy, such
  as
• tide that makes all boats rise
• value must be created before it can be
  distributed.
• developing STI policy frameworks which balance
  and integrate different, often opposite,
  objectives, building on some key framing
  assumptions
• How growth is created matters, taking
  distributional objectives and outcomes into
  account in the initial (upstream) stages of
  articulation of STI policy
• The qualitative content of growth matters (vs
  GDP)
• Who participates in the innovation process matter
• developing (more) needs based research policies
• making science and technology work for the
  poor
• importance of learning, competence building,
  distributed knowledge
• involving a wide set of actors, beyond private
  firms

9
Paradigms of STI policy

• A matrix for assessing and assisting the
  development of STI policy by setting up an
  analytic, ideal type or strawman opposition
  between two different paradigms of STI policy
• - KEPP the knowledge economy paradigm
• - SCPP the social cohesion paradigm

10
Knowledge Economy Policy Paradigm - KEPP

• economic objectives only (aggregate) growth,
  competitiveness, productivity,
• distribution of benefits through markets,
  demand-based innovation
• private firms as primary agents of innovation and
  assessor of systemic coherence
• private firms set the direction and pace of
  innovation (cfr Barcelona target)
• the main role of public policy is to facilitate
  innovation, redress systemic deficiencies and
  gaps,
• main focus on advanced (science-based)
  technologies, and on high-tech manufacturing,
• formal, science-/research-based STI forms of
  knowledge at the apex of the knowledge hierarchy
• preference for policy instruments which promote
  global (scientific cum economic) excellence,
  critical mass, concentration
• strong, standardized (one size fits all) IP
  protection

11
Social Cohesion Policy Paradigm - SCPP

• social objectives (welfare, income, education,
  health, housing, security, cohesion,
  environmental quality)
• focus on benefits and costs of innovation for
  individuals and social groups needs-based
  innovation
• private firm innovation shaped and directed by
  public policies
• emphasize social dimension and drivers of
  innovation, mobilize knowledge resources and
  innovative capacity of all members of society
  (cfr Sen equality as capacity)
• the innovative potential of traditional and
  experience based knowledge
• preference for policy processes and instruments
  which enhance and widen the distributive scope of
  STI systems
• Shared influence/power/participation,
• Inclusive approach to building knowledge/innovativ
  e capacity (Sen)
• Equitable sharing of benefits and costs of
  innovation/change

12
From KEPP to SCPP

• Support positions within KEPP which assign a key
  role for social/distributional issues
• Criticism of high-tech bias, emphasis on
  innovation in low-tech industries and services
• From science-based innovation to pervasive
  learning (Lundvall STI vs DUI knowledge)
• Add key dimensions that are neglected in KEPP
• Power, politics, goal conflicts, modes of
  accountability
• The directing (not only facilitating) role of
  public policies
• Select, review and re-describe experience of
  needs-based STI policy within the SCPP framework,
  by
• including social indicators
• emphasizing social STI policy priorities
• assessing good policy practice on
  distributional criteria
• addressing questions of participation

13
Do STI policies explicitly address
inequality? Illustrations

• National
• Not salient in developed countries (emphasis on
  innovation for competitiveness)
• Explicit and central in developing countries
  (e.g., Mozambique, Brazil integration of
  indigenous knowledge systems and ST policy
  social technologies, inclusion policies...)
• Regional
• Europe (EU) tensions and contradictions
  emphasis on competitiveness, but concern with
  cohesion (implicit) emphasis on centres,
  concentration (in)variable geometry mobility,
  but limited
• Alternative STI regional dynamics e.g. NEPAD
  (CARICOM?)
• Global
• Shift towards STI for development/poverty
  reduction development of local capabilities
  learning and not just technologies but also
  conflict (WTO, WIPO, TRIPS, Biofuels)

14
The Lisbon agenda as (unfulfilled) promise and
project of integrated, multi-objective STI policy

• The Lisbon strategy as indicator of the
  re-emergence of the social
• states the ambition and outline of a novel, if
  saliently ambiguous, multi-objective, STI policy
  agenda
• remains, however, largely locked to an
  economy-biased, single-objective STI policy
  framework
• Europe as the most dynamic and competitive
  knowledge-based economy in the world
• despite its explicit agenda for an integrated
  (?), multi-objective policy
• social cohesion, sustainability, quality jobs
• social cohesion (i.a.) and the European
  social model, as opposed to the US model of
  combined high aggregate growth and dramatically
  increasing social inequalities

15
Conclusions

• Concern with growing inequalities has reentered
  STI policies
• From this perspective we have identified two
  policy paradigms, differing in the extent and way
  they address inequality within STI policy
• Knowledge Economy Policy Paradigm
• Social Cohesion Policy Paradigm
• Although not fully distinct in practice,
  contribute to characterize national, regional and
  global practices
• STI policies have emphasised KEPP, but a broader
  approach is needed to address, explicitly, SCPP