Date post: | 19-Aug-2015 |
Category: |
Education |
Upload: | steps-centre |
View: | 834 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Science and innovation for development:
where have the politics gone?
Andy StirlingSPRU – science and technology policy research
presentation to ‘PolicyLab’ event Royal Society, London
14th June, 2010
Innovation for Development
Linked challenges of poverty reduction, social justice and environmental sustainability are the great moral and political imperatives of our age
Annual global spend on research and development exceeds $ 1 trillion
– but driven by imperfect incentives: private profit, IP, rich consumers
– military and security are the single largest area of expenditure Key aim: to better orient world innovation towards global imperatives
– requires radical shift in current practice and politics of innovation
opening more deliberate choices of which directions to pursue
Crucial problem: these debates presently marginalised or polarised
– current policy lacks needed arenas, institutions, metrics, language
New Manifesto: tries to help catalyse vibrant new politics of innovation
The Missing Politics of Direction
all technology is good…
all innovation is good…
“For the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy … pro-innovation action [is] a priority.”
- Council of Ministers
“[we need] more `pro-innovation’ policies …”- Gordon Brown
and determined solely by science…
“[there is] an anti-technology culture …a pro- technology culture must be created…”
- Council for Science and Technology
GM: “… this government's approach is to make decisions … on the basis of sound science
- Tony Blair
Chemicals: “ …sound science will be the basis of the Commission's legislative proposal…”
- European Commission
time
Politics-Denial in Technology for Development
PAST
FUTURE
‘linear’ technical understandings of innovation still dominate
eg:
“history is a race to advance technology” - UK Royal Academy of Engineering
GM critics are “‘anti-technology … members of the 'flat earth society’, opposed to modern economics, modern technology, modern science, modern life itself.” - United Nations
Fails to appreciate importance of non-technical forms of innovation
– creative (eg: music in UK &many sub-Saharan African nations)– cultural (eg: gender relations transforming livelihoods) – organisational (eg: new regulations or contractual forms for services)– behavioural (eg: energy use and mobility expectations)– political (eg: property rights, land tenure, educational access)
time
PAST
FUTURE
Treats innovation as homogeneous: no distinctions … no alternatives… no politics … no choice !
Politics-Denial in Technology for Development
‘linear’ technical understandings of innovation still dominate
eg:
“history is a race to advance technology” - UK Royal Academy of Engineering
GM critics are “‘anti-technology … members of the 'flat earth society’, opposed to modern economics, modern technology, modern science, modern life itself.” - United Nations
time
PAST
FUTURE
Treats innovation as homogeneous: no distinctions … no alternatives … no politics … no choice !
Scope for debate restricted to: yes or no? … how much? how fast? … who leads?
Politics-Denial in Technology for Development
‘linear’ technical understandings of innovation still dominate
eg:
“history is a race to advance technology” - UK Royal Academy of Engineering
GM critics are “‘anti-technology … members of the 'flat earth society’, opposed to modern economics, modern technology, modern science, modern life itself.” - United Nations
time
PAST
FUTURE
Treats innovation as homogeneous: no distinctions … no alternatives … no politics … no choice !
Scope for debate restricted to: yes or no? … how much? how fast?’ … who leads?
Seriously neglects questions over: which way? …what alternatives? says who? …why?
Politics-Denial in Technology for Development
‘linear’ technical understandings of innovation still dominate
eg:
“history is a race to advance technology” - UK Royal Academy of Engineering
GM critics are “‘anti-technology … members of the 'flat earth society’, opposed to modern economics, modern technology, modern science, modern life itself.” - United Nations
space of technologicalpossibilities
time
Technological Development as Optimisation
Mainstream policy represents innovation for development as:
- ‘sound science’ - material constraints - technical convergence - market equilibrium
many different starting points are seen to lead to the same ‘optimal’ technological and institutional configurations
diversity converges to function-specific optimality
Closing Down Choice in Technology Development
Common picture arising in all studies of technology in society –
it’s the other way around!
from any single starting point, there typically branch out many equally
possible (technically feasible and socially viable) developmental paths
…but:
multiple diverging directions
time
A diversity of processes ‘close down’ possible directions of change
development is ‘vector’ not ‘scalar’
economics: homeostasis (Sahal, 85) lock-in (Arthur, 89)
regimes (Nelson & Winter, 77) trajectories (Dosi, 82)
time
Closing Down Choice in Technology Development
A diversity of processes ‘close down’ possible directions of change
economics: homeostasis lock-in regimes trajectories
history: contingency (Mokyr, 92) momentum (Hughes 83)
path-dependence (David, 85) path creation (Karnoe, 01)
time
Closing Down Choice in Technology Development
development is ‘vector’ not ‘scalar’
A diversity of processes ‘close down’ possible directions of change
economics: homeostasis lock-in regimes trajectories
history: contingency momentum path-dependence path creation
philosophy/politics: autonomy (Winner, 77) closure (Feenberg, 91)
entrapment (Walker, 01) alignment (Geels, 02)
time
Closing Down Choice in Technology Development
development is ‘vector’ not ‘scalar’
A diversity of processes ‘close down’ possible directions of change
philosophy/politics: autonomy closure entrapment alignment
social studies: shaping (Bijker, 85) co-construction (Misa, 03)
expectations (Lente, 00) imaginaries (Jasanoff, 05)
time
Closing Down Choice in Technology Development
development is ‘vector’ not ‘scalar’
economics: homeostasis lock-in regimes trajectories
history: contingency momentum path-dependence path creation
QWERTY keyboards
… light water reactors …
… military systems …
Historic ‘Branching Paths’
Many examples of ‘lock-in’ and ‘crowding out’ of choices
time
development is ‘vector’ not ‘scalar’
Historic ‘Branching Paths’
Narrow Gauge Railways
… urban transport …
… internal combustion engine …
particulartrajectories ‘lock in’
time
Many examples of ‘lock-in’ and ‘crowding out’ of choices
Historic ‘Branching Paths’
VHS and Betamax
… media standards …
… Windows software…
Deliberately or blindly – societies choose their development paths
particulartrajectories ‘lock in’
time
Many examples of ‘lock-in’ and ‘crowding out’ of choices
Alternative ‘Sustainable Energy Strategies’
Many possible pathways to ‘sustainable energy’:
… which directions will we go?
property rights / resource access
demand restructuring?
behaviour change?
efficient end use?
service reform?
renewable energy?
carbon capture and storage?
nuclear power?
… which directions will we go?
Alternative ‘Sustainable Energy Strategies’
Many possible innovation pathways to ‘sustainable energy’:
centralised resources?
transport fuels?
low temperature heat?
distributed generation?
… which directions will we go?
Alternative ‘Sustainable Energy Strategies’
Many possible innovation pathways to ‘sustainable energy’:
property rights / resource access
demand restructuring?
behaviour change?
efficient end use?
service reform?
renewable energy?
carbon capture and storage?
nuclear power?
centralised resources?
transport fuels?
low temperature heat?
distributed generation?
small hydro?
osmotic gradient?
offshore wave?
subsea wave?
onshore wave?
tidal stream?
onshore wind?
offshore wind?
high altitude kites?
roof-integrated PV?
biomass CHP?
municipal waste CHP?
geothermal CHP?
Alternative ‘Sustainable Energy Strategies’
Many possible innovation pathways to ‘sustainable energy’:
All are technically feasible and potentially economically viable, but not all fully realisable together, especially in globalised world
property rights / resource access
demand restructuring?
behaviour change?
efficient end use?
service reform?
renewable energy?
carbon capture and storage?
nuclear power?
Implications for Distribution
Ensuring equitable spread in risks & benefits is hard enough – ‘trickle down’ for single technological path (eg: industrial agriculture)
But for different pathways: complexity and stakes rise massively
– GM crops; marker assist; industrial / eco / participatory breeding
Innovation paths of marginal people are the most excluded – co-ops; green housing; community sanitation; farmer first; Honey Bee
Existing innovation paths driven by particular interests & priorities
– private profit, military advantage, intellectual property, rich consumers
Falsity of linear technical understanding of innovation means this matters
‘One track race’ development rhetorics undermine least powerful – denies democratic challenge: accountability, criticism, alternatives
The Value of Diversity
‘Direction’: not about seeking single ‘optimal’ development path but variety of disparate pathways, addressing plural needs and contexts
Diversity in development pathways offers many benefits:
– defends against powerful forces of ‘lock-in’ and ‘crowding out’
– offers more space for addressing most marginalised needs
– hedges surprise and confers resilience under deep uncertainties
– allows more room for experimental niches and social learning
– encourages social and organisational, as well technical, innovation
– accommodates otherwise irreconcilable values and interests
– foster more socially robust processes of innovation itself
But diversity is not a panacea: – trade-offs, opportunity / transaction costs, foregone learning and scale
threatened by globalisation, harmonisations, standardisation
Which diversity? – still requires democratic accountable social choice
A ‘3D Agenda’: direction, distribution, diversity
for global innovation to directly address poverty & environment
Practical Policy Recommendations
– ‘agendas’: new open, inclusive national and international institutions
– ‘funding’: progressive rising share towards poverty and environment
– ‘capacity’: bridging professions for science, technology and practice
– ‘organisation’: networks linking public, private and civil society
– ‘accountability’: responsibilities for transparent reporting and monitoring