Towards pro-poor innovation

Putting public value into science and technology

We live in a rapidly changing world. Technological advances are increasing productivity and income, quality of life and life expectancy… in the developed world, that is. The truth is that technological development is focused on meeting the wants of rich consumers. Scant attention is paid to the vital needs of people in the developing world.

The arrival of new technologies often results in a wider gap between the rich and the poor. Yet some innovations fail to be applied in developing countries where there is a real need. As E.F. Schumacher observed, 'new technologies are developed only when people of power and wealth back the development'.

The International Council for Science argues, as do many other people, that developing countries lack an infrastructure base for exploiting technology and suggests increased investment in universities. Low income countries are not only poor in terms of measures of human wellbeing but also in terms of indicators of technology. They spend a small proportion of GDP on research and development: less than 1 percent, compared to high income countries that spend around 2.5 percent. The number of scientists in low income countries is less than 50 per 100,000 people, compared to over 3,000 per 100,000 in high income countries.

Jonathan Porritt argues that to enable sustainable development people need to work with the market system and not against it. This means understanding market mechanisms, understanding innovation processes, and then working with key stakeholders to enable business models that will deliver on human need rather than on consumer want. With existing technologies this is a challenge because the business models, including the supply chain logistics, are already well established. In the case of new technologies there is a window of opportunity, before products are released into the market, to negotiate new business models.

Many topical issues — for example sustainable development, climate change and democracy — are all influenced by the role of science and technology in society. A major challenge is to release public value from science and technology and to channel that public value into developing countries to help reduce poverty. The concept of public value used here refers to value generated by science and technology that is not solely reaped by the market. Releasing public value from science in a global context is one of the most significant and challenging issues facing societies worldwide.

The challenge might be re-framed as 'how do we enable new science-led technologies to deliver products which fulfil human needs rather than consumer wants?'. Each article in this issue of id21 insights provides some evidence, from recent research, which casts light on this challenge. It is presented below in relation to key questions that will continue to be a useful guide to research.

How can new technologies deliver social and economic progress? This is discussed in relation to China by James Wilsdon. Technology has failed to meet the needs of the poor, with 1.2 billion people living on less than one US dollar per day. At the centre of these deliberations is the essence pointed out by Jeffrey Sachs that 'the single most important reason why prosperity spread, and why it continues to spread is the transmission of technologies and the ideas underlying them'. But is the scale of economic growth implicit in this approach appropriate to a world challenged by climate change?

How can science-led new technologies be made available to poor people? There is often an assumption that benefits from growth will trickle down to the poor. Ian Scoones, however, concludes his study of biotechnology in Bangalore by saying that there is 'no substantial evidence of new products being developed for Indian settings and local needs'.

How can we develop new business models or processes that support the development of science-led new technologies that fulfill a real need? Andrew Adwera Ochieng discusses the 'social entrepreneurship' model based on experience in Kenya and finds that by combining new technologies with a business package, income can be generated and poverty reduced. Gordon Wilson discusses the role of public private partnerships. He stresses the importance of incentives in both the public and private sectors, as well as the 'professional challenge' as a key motivator.

To what extent can the provision of information and an accompanying model for work facilitate the adoption of new technologies in developing countries? Gordon Wilson also draws attention to the importance of knowledge networks and the need to respect local knowledge whilst harnessing new knowledge.

What inhibits the uptake of new technologies in developing countries? Sharad Rai discusses participatory innovation development based on a case study in Nepal and focuses on the human, social and economic factors that inhibit and promote pro-poor innovation.

How do we move on from pilot projects? Many science-led new technologies, especially those using Information Communication Technologies (ICTs), are tested using donor funding for limited time periods. The challenge is to capture the learning, adapt the business model and implement sustainable change. Paul Matthews and John Young discuss recent ODI research suggesting there is a need for content owners and other local stakeholders to form productive partnerships with technology providers.

The research discussed above all contributes to our understanding of a more fundamental question about the nature of the drivers of science. Can we re-frame the drivers of science so that the ultimate outcome is public value? (See the box on the nano-dialogues article).

The key policy implications include:

• Collaborate rather than compete, ensuring the continued involvement of scientists and local communities.
• The assessment of the appropriateness of new technologies will need to take account of the risks and costs in addition to the opportunities for real benefits to poor people.
• Alternative business models, such as social entrepreneur, should be encouraged.
• Local communities should choose the technologies they wish to adopt and participate in the process of innovation.
• Upstream dialogues between scientists and local communities should be encouraged as a way of engaging scientists in the provision of needs based development.

David J Grimshaw
Practical Action, Schumacher Centre for Technology & Development, Bourton on Dunsmore, Rugby CV23 9QZ, UK
T +44 (0)1926 634 473
F +44 (0)1926 634 401
David.Grimshaw@PracticalAction.org.uk

See also

The Role of New Technologies in Potable Water Provision, A Stakeholder Workshop Approach, by David J Grimshaw, Jack Stilgoe, and Lawrence D Gudza, Practical Action, October 2006
http://practicalaction.org/docs/ia4/nano-dialogues-2006-report.pdf

The Public Value of Science: or how to ensure that science really matters, by James Wilsdon, Jack Stilgoe, Brian Wynne, Demos: London, September 2005
www.demos.co.uk/files/publicvalueofscience.pdf

Views expressed on these pages are not necessarily those of DFID, IDS, id21 or other contributing institutions. Copyright remains with the original authors but (unless stated otherwise) any article may be copied or quoted without restriction, provided both source (id21, insights) and authors are properly acknowledged and informed. Copyright © 2006 id21. All rights reserved.