Innovation and technological change in South Africa

2021 ◽  
pp. 466-488
Author(s):  
Erika Kraemer-Mbula ◽  
Rasigan Maharajh
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Technological Change ◽  
South African ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
System Performance ◽  
Technology And Innovation ◽  
Science Technology ◽  
The Social ◽  
Science Technology And Innovation ◽  
Radical Transformation

This chapter explores the main achievements and remaining challenges in the governance of the South African science, technology, and innovation (STI) system. While reflecting on the inherited features from the apartheid period, it focuses on the period between the two White Papers in 1996 and 2019. The chapter discusses the main shifts in policy emphasis (intents) of these two policy/institutional developments and connects them to the STI system performance and its measurement. It shows that the drastic shift in policy orientation towards addressing social imperatives and the quantitative improvements in the STI outputs since 1994, have not materialized in a radical transformation of the economy or the social relations inherited from apartheid. The chapter argues that the assessment of the STI system needs to be expanded through an evolutionary lens in order to activate the needed systemic transformations.

scholarly journals Exploring the Prospects of Using 3D Printing Technology in the South African Human Settlements

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
3D Printing ◽  
South African ◽  
Human Settlements ◽  
Printing Technology ◽  
Technology And Innovation ◽  
3D Printing Technology ◽  
Science Technology ◽  
The World ◽  
Science Technology And Innovation

South Africa is a country with significant socio-economic development challenges, with the majority of South Africans having limited or non-existent access to basic infrastructure, services, housing and socio-economic opportunities etc. The urban housing backlog currently exceeds 2.4 million houses, with many families living in informal settlements. The Breaking New Grounds Policy, 2014 for the creation of sustainable human settlements, acknowledges the challenges facing human settlements, such as, decreasing human settlements grants allocation, increasing housing backlog, mushrooming of informal settlements and urbanisation. The White Paper on Science, Technology and Innovation (STI), 2019 notes that South Africa has not yet fully benefited from the potential of STI in addressing the socio-economic challenges and seeks to support the circular economy principles which entail a systematic change of moving to a zero or low waste resource-efficient society. Further to this, the Science and Technology Roadmap’s intention is to unlock the potential of South Africa’s human settlements for a decent standard of living through the smart uptake of science, technology and innovation. One such novel technology is the Three-Dimensional (3D) printing technology, which has produced numerous incredible structures around the world. 3D printing is a computer-controlled industrial manufacturing process which encompasses additive means of production to create 3D shapes. The effects of such a technology have a potential to change the world we live in and could subsequently pave the roadmap to improve on housing delivery and reduce the negative effects of conventional construction methods on the environment. To this end, the Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf), in partnership with the Department of Science and Innovation (DSI) and the University of Johannesburg (UJ) hosted the second virtual IID seminar titled: Exploring the Prospects of Using 3D Printing Technology in the South African Human Settlements, on 01 March 2021 to explore the potential use of 3D printing technology in human settlements. The webinar presented preliminary findings from a study conducted by UJ, addressing the following topics: 1. The viability of 3D printing technology 2. Cost comparison of 3D printed house to conventional construction 3. Preliminary perceptions on 3D printing of houses Speakers included: Dr Jennifer Mirembe (NDoHS), Dr Jeffrey Mahachi, Mr Refilwe Lediga, Mr Khululekani Ntakana and Dr Luxien Ariyan, all from UJ. There was a unanimous consensus that collaborative efforts from all stakeholders are key to take advantage of this niche technology. @ASSAf_Official; @dsigovza; @go2uj; @The_DHS; #SA 3D_Printing; #3D Print_Housing; #IID

The production and use of indicators in science, technology and innovation policy-making in Africa

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert Edgar Manyuchi ◽  
John Ouma Mugabe
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Innovation Policy ◽  
Institutional Arrangement ◽  
Policy Formulation ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Technology And Innovation ◽  
Science Technology ◽  
Innovation Surveys ◽  
Science Technology And Innovation

PurposeA growing number of African countries are starting to produce science, technology and innovation (STI) indicators. The purpose of this paper is to provide some lessons learnt in the production and use of STI indicators in Malawi and South Africa. It is compares the two countries’ efforts to conduct Research and Development (R&D) surveys and examines whether and how STI indicators are used in policymaking processes.Design/methodology/approachThe study approach is qualitative. The research methodology encompasses a thorough review of both policy and academic literature as well as some interviews.FindingsThe study demonstrates that South Africa has a relatively developed institutional arrangement for undertaking R&D and innovation surveys and developing related STI indicators. There is evidence that efforts are being made to use STI indicators to inform policymaking in the country. On the other hand, Malawi conducted its first R&D survey under the African Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators Initiative (ASTII) and has not established an institutional mechanism dedicated to producing STI indicators. There is no evidence that indicators are used in, or to inform, policymaking in the country.Research limitations/implicationsBecause of significant differences in STI policymaking histories, capacities and cultures of the two countries, it is not really useful to compare the STI production and use. Rather it is important to draw lessons from the efforts of the two countries.Practical implicationsThe results suggest that the production of STI indicators should be embedded in policy processes. To be useful and effective, STI indicators production needs to be explicitly linked to policy formulation, evaluation and monitoring activities without necessarily undermining the independence of producing STI indicators.Social implicationsCreating stand-alone programmes or agencies for R&D and innovation surveys without clear articulation with policymaking needs erodes opportunities of having evidence-based STI policy regimes.Originality/valueAlthough in 2005 only South Africa and Tunisia had national programmes dedicated to the generation of R&D statistics, by the end of 2010 at least 19 African countries had experimented with conducting R&D surveys under the auspices of the ASTII of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development. These countries accumulated different experiences and consequently build different kinds of institutional capacities. Through the Malawi and South Africa case studies, some important lessons for STI indicators production and use and STI policymaking can be drawn for developing countries in general and African countries in particular.

scholarly journals PRIORITIES AND POSSIBLE RISKS OF THE BRICS COUNTRIES’ COOPERATION IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 33-60
Author(s):  
V. Kiselev ◽  
E. Nechaeva
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Technology And Innovation ◽  
Brics Countries ◽  
Research Systems ◽  
Science Technology ◽  
New Knowledge ◽  
Innovation Cooperation ◽  
Legal Frameworks ◽  
Science Technology And Innovation

The viewpoint of most countries towards participation in programs and projects of international science and technology cooperation (ISTC) is based on the fact that collaboration in research and development allows them to increase the efficiency of national research systems and accelerate the inflow of new knowledge and technologies. The BRICS countries share this viewpoint; however, their aspirations go further, extending their concerns and expectations to cooperation in the sphere of innovation. BRICS – the association of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – was established in June 2006 at the St. Petersburg economic forum (South Africa a participant since 2011). Its results in establishing frameworks for cooperation in many sectors of their economies including science, technology and innovation demonstrate an unusually rapid growth. The BRICS countries’ cooperation in science, technology and innovation started in 2014; since then, the five countries have carried out important steps in bringing together their practical approaches to science, technology and innovation cooperation.This article is devoted to an analysis of the dynamics of the BRICS countries’ cooperation in science, technology and innovation, and the possible risks and problems in the organization and implementation of joint projects. The need to go further in elaborating legal frameworks for international science, technology and innovation cooperation that would support the transition of their cooperation activities from science and technology to innovation is underlined.

scholarly journals Considering the dilemma of societal alignment: A response

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Ribeiro ◽  
Philip Shapira ◽  
Paul Benneworth ◽  
Lars Bengtsson ◽  
Susanne Bührer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Control ◽  
Responsible Research And Innovation ◽  
Technology And Innovation ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Governance Of Science ◽  
Science Technology ◽  
The Social ◽  
Responsible Research ◽  
Science Technology And Innovation

The publication of our article “Introducing the dilemma of societal alignment for inclusive and responsible research and innovation” (Ribeiro et al., 2018) was accompanied by three commentaries (Guston, 2018; Nordmann, 2018; and Kuzma and Roberts, 2018). In the original article, we invoked Collingridge’s dilemma of the social control of technology to introduce a complementary dilemma of “societal alignment” in the governance of science, technology and innovation. Thoughtful and challenging critiques were presented in the three commentaries. In this paper, as completed in June 2019, we respond to those critiques and, in so doing, seek to further clarify and extend our arguments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document