3. PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
3.6 INNOVATION POLICY
This section reviews literature on the South Africa’s innovation policy for SD within the NSI. The literature is used to assess the innovation policy reforms and implementation and the directions policy should take to become more systematic. The argument advanced in this thesis is that an innovation policy cannot compensate for seriously flawed framework conditions. The designated policy coordinator of the NSI, as a whole, is the DST, whereby on the one hand, is the private- sector and state-owned enterprises and on the other hand is the public HEIs and science councils, all of which are the key performers of research.
The proposal that government shapes innovation strategy and policy for socio-economic development has been supported by scholars and prominent organisations, such as, Buys (2004), OECD (2007a) and Soares and Podcameni (2014). The foundation of the NSI central policy matrix should be that of a clearly articulated and shared purpose, custom-designed organisational structures and dedicated resource flows (SA DST Ministerial Review Committee, 2012:87-88).
Adapting from Edler (2009:6) the definition of ‘demand innovation policy’, an innovation policy refers to “a set of public measures to increase … innovations, to improve the conditions for then uptake of innovations and/or to improve the articulation of …[innovation] in order to spur innovations and the diffusion of innovations”. Innovation policy is also about market creation, as governments can play a role by actively supporting breakthroughs (basic research, product standards, public procurement) (Lafferty et al., 2005:263). For the purpose of this research innovation policy has been defined according to the Finnish Country Review Commission (2009:13) “as a set of actions by public organisations that influence the development and diffusion of innovations”.
Table 3.6-1 presents some important a national S&T policy, regulatory functions and executing mechanisms of the NSI. The innovation policy agenda requires a broader, cross-ministerial
75
attention, greater interrelatedness of innovation systems and innovation policy is no longer simply the purview of S&T institutions (OECD, 2005d:17).
Table 3.6-1: Policy and regulatory functions and executing Mechanisms POLICY AND REGULATORY FUNCTIONS EXECUTING MECHANISMS
Mechanisms to formulate policies, and, in some
countries, plans for S&T Financing functions for research and for technological development
Organisations to gather, analyse and disseminate
information, including statistical information Mechanisms for evaluating and acquiring technologies
A capacity for forecasting and foresight, and for
assessing the likely directions of technical change Institutions to execute research Programmes Capacities to regulate complex technologies Mechanisms to link R&D outputs to practical use Mechanisms for identification and protection of IP Facilities for the education and training of S&T Policies and programmes to maintain the vitality of
the national S&T community Mechanisms for the provision of technical services (such as, metrology, standardisation, calibration) Source: IDRC (1993:20)
The South African DST performs a majority of the functions outlined in the White Paper on S&T (1997) and subsequent policy documents. The benefits of country’s STI policies, including specific policy instruments, cannot be adequately assessed outside the specific context of the national innovation system for which they are designed (OECD, 2005a:7).
Innovation policies and governance are context-dependent (Tsipouri & Papadakou, 2005:13), for example innovation policies for SD (Moors & Mulder, 2002; Foxon, Makuch, Mata & Pearson, 2004; Smith, Stirling & Berkhout, 2005). From this perspective of this research, the dominant rationale for the South African NSI innovation policies should be defined in terms of the three pillars of SD. The science and innovation policy documents in South Africa include: (i) White Paper of S&T (1995 - 1996); (ii) Green paper (1996) (iii) National Research and Technology Audit (1997); (iv) SETI Review (1997); (v) NACI Act (Act 55 of 1997); (vi) DACST94-Foresight Study (1998 - 1999); (vii) NRF Act (Act 23 of 1998); (viii) NRTF study (2000); and (viii) NRDS (2002).
A number of other important strategies implemented by the South African policy makers include:
(i) the National Skills Development Strategy for South Africa by the DoL in 2004; (ii) towards a Framework for the M&E of South African Higher Education by the DoE in 2004; (iii) Advanced
76
Manufacturing Technology Sector (AMTS); (iv) IKS Policy (DST, 2005); and (v) Nanotechnology Strategy and Higher Education Qualifications Framework (HEQF) by the DoE in 2004. In summary, this research supports the view that a viable national S&T policy should encompass: (i) the training of human resources at all levels; (ii) funding of R&D systems and institutions and networks; (iii) appropriate forms governance and accountability for the S&T institutions; (iv) healthy links among the NSI actors; (v) the stimulation of both radical and incremental change;
(vi) establishment of a vigorous role for the research; (vii) the promotion of unimpeded flows of knowledge and information; (viii) effective integration of a government’s S&T policies with other policies; and (ix) the management of overall policy strategy S&T (IDRC, 1993:20-21). The first two generations of innovation policy were linked to S&T as a linear process for innovation from basic research via applied R&D to market introduction of the resulting products or technologies.
The second generation of innovation policy was based on the NSI approach and was basically developed through the 1990s (OECD, 2002a; 2005:18). In both the first and second generation codified scientific knowledge is seen as the basis for pull/demand and push/supply driven high- tech policy approach (Edquist, Luukkonen & Sotarauta, 2009:14).
The third generation of innovation policy involves a broader focus in which innovation is stimulated across a number of governmental or policy areas and builds upon the horizontal role of providing a strategic framework across ministerial and institutional boundaries (Lengrand & Louis, 2002:6). In the third generation of innovation policy, integrated, co-ordinated, strategic actions are critical for the development of coherent policy framework (OECD, 2005a:19).
In this research context, the third generation of innovation policy aims to ensure that the acquisition, application and adaptation of clean and efficient technologies for SD. However, the challenge is for South Africa to evolve from a traditional first-generation innovation policy to an explorative third-generation innovation policy.
The ‘appetite for innovation’ for South Africa should be fostered by well-designed and well- executed innovation policy, which should be well communicated. Figure 3.6-1 presents five different communication strategies that the South African government as the leading NSI actor, can use to communicate policies (SD, research and innovation) to other NSI actors, namely: (i)
‘spray and pray’; (ii) ‘tell and sell’; (iii) ‘underscore and explore’; (iv) identify and reply, and (v)
‘withhold and uphold’.
77
This study supports the ‘underscore and explore’ communication strategy where joint involvement and collaboration takes place in formulating and implementing [policy] change (Cornelissen, 2008:205). An open climate influences stakeholder’s trust, commitment and willingness to change (Poole & McPhee, 1983:11). Cornelissen (2008:113) recommend that the communication strategy and medium to be used should be ‘zero based’, rather than a pre-fixed standard that worked in the past.
Figure 3.6-1: Exploration of five different communication strategies Source: Adapted from Cornelissen (2008:96-118)