scholarly journals Comparative Analysis for Science,Technology and Innovation Policy; Lessons Learned from Some Selected Countries (Brazil, India, China, South Korea and South Africa) for Other LdCs Like Iran

2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 211-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reza Salami ◽  
Javad Soltanzadeh
2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert Edgar Manyuchi ◽  
John Ouma Mugabe

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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
G.D. Sandhya

<p>A large number of developed and emerging economies have introduced S&amp;T reforms and some of them such as Japan, South Korea and later China have used them for gaining competitive advantage in science, technology and innovation through well crafted S&amp;T policies and appropriate strategies. So far, India has pronounced four major S&amp;T policies beginning with the Science Policy Resolution (SPR) in 1958, Technology Policy in 1983; S&amp;T Policy in 2003 and Science Technology and Innovation Policy in 2013. In a period of six decades India has created a huge S&amp;T infrastructure and made impressive achievements in space, defence and atomic energy, yet the feat is not as impressive in the industrial sector. In innovation competitiveness, R&amp;D and human resource, the indices related to global manufacturing, competition, innovation and knowledge, India has not performed as well in comparison to other BRICS countries. In this paper an attempt has been made to look at, how comprehensive India’s STI policies with regard to policy components; a roadmap; strategies for execution and boldness in terms of identifying and recognising the failures and recommend major structural changes. What is intended is to understand the relationship between the domain of S&amp;T policy and intended outcomes; the mismatch between the policy expectations and outcomes. An attempt is being made to identify possibility for correction  by taking lessons from other economies, such as China.</p><p> </p><p><strong>Keywords</strong>:   S&amp;T policies, Innovation policies, Innovation ecosystem</p>


2021 ◽  
pp. 466-488
Author(s):  
Erika Kraemer-Mbula ◽  
Rasigan Maharajh

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.


Author(s):  
Cristina Chaminade ◽  
Bengt-Åke Lundvall

Scientific advance and innovation are major sources of economic growth and are crucial for making development socially and environmentally sustainable. A critical question is: Will private enterprises invest sufficiently in research technological development and innovation and, if not, to what degree and how should governments engage in the support of science, technology, and innovation? While neoclassical economists point to market failure as the main rationale for innovation policy, evolutionary economists point to the role of government in building stronger innovation systems and creating wider opportunities for innovation. Research shows that the transmission mechanisms between scientific advance and innovation are complex and indirect. There are other equally important sources of innovation including experience-based learning. Innovation is increasingly seen as a systemic process, where the feedback from users needs to be taken into account when designing public policy. Science and innovation policy may aim at accelerating knowledge production along well-established trajectories, or it may aim at giving new direction to the production and use of knowledge. It may be focused exclusively on economic growth, or it may give attention to impact on social inclusion and the natural environment. An emerging topic is to what extent national perspectives continue to be relevant in a globalizing learning economy facing multiple global complex challenges, including the issue of climate change. Scholars point to a movement toward transformative innovation policy and global knowledge sharing as a response to current challenges.


2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 185-198
Author(s):  
Michiel Van Oudheusden ◽  
Nathan Charlier ◽  
Pierre Delvenne

Drawing on a documentary analysis of two socioeconomic policy programs, one Flemish (“Vlaanderen in Actie”), the other Walloon (“Marshall Plans”), and a discourse analysis of how these programs are received in one Flemish and one Francophone quality newspaper, this article illustrates how Flanders and Wallonia both seek to become top-performing knowledge-based economies (KBEs). The article discerns a number of discursive repertoires, such as “Catching up,” which policy actors draw on to legitimize or question the transformation of Flanders and Wallonia into KBEs. The “Catching up” repertoire places Flanders resolutely ahead of Wallonia in the global race toward knowledge, excellence, and growth, but suggests that Wallonia may, in due course, overtake Flanders as a top competitive region. Given the expectations and fears that “Catching up” evokes among Flemish and Walloon policy actors, the repertoire serves these actors as a flexible discursive resource to make sense of, and shape, their collective futures and their regional identities. The article’s findings underline the simultaneity of, and the interplay between, globalizing forces and particularizing tendencies, as Flanders and Wallonia develop with a global KBE in region-specific ways.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document