3. PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
3.7 POLICY INTERVENTIONS
3.7.10 The Ten Year Innovation Strategy
The South Africa TYIP (2008-2018), is the latest innovation policy for the NSI. According to the DST (2008:2-3), the knowledge-based economy rests on four interconnected, interdependent pillars: (i) innovation; (ii) economic and institutional infrastructure; (iii) information infrastructure;
and (iv) education. The TYIP and the NRDS identifies key strategic areas for priority research, development and innovation for South Africa as shown in Table 3.7.10-1.
Table 3.7.10-1: Priority areas from the Ten-Year Innovation Plan and NRDS TEN-YEAR INNOVATION PLAN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
Bio-economy
Space science
Energy security
Science and technology for global change
Human and social dynamics for development
Science and technology for poverty alleviation
Advanced manufacturing
Technologies for resource-based industries
ICT
Nanotechnology
Source: Collated from South African Department of Science and Technology (2011:34)
82
From the international context, among the strategic priorities are five of what are known as National Critical Technologies: (i) Next-Generation Super Computer (ICT); (ii) Ocean and Earth Observation System (Environment; Social Infrastructure; Frontiers); (iv) Space Transportation System (Frontiers); X-Ray Free-Electron Laser (Nanotechnology/Materials); and Fast Breeder Reactor (FBR) cycle technologies (Energy) (Stenberg & Nagano, 2009:50).
The TYIP is designed to steer the resource-based economy towards a knowledge-based economy, by overcoming five main ‘Grand Challenges’; namely: (i) the Farmer to Pharma value chain to strengthen the bio-economy; (ii) space S&T; (iii) energy security; (iv) global-change science with a focus on climate change; and (v) human and social dynamics. In this research context, the shift will have to include a diversification from South Africa's traditional reliance on the minerals and energy complex, reconfiguring the manufacturing base and indeed all human activities towards a green economy.
However, this research notes that the TYIP did not include poverty elimination as one of the
‘Grand Challenges’. Rather, in mentioning the SA TYIP (DST, 2008:5) states that “the government’s investments in S&T also help to eliminate poverty”. The OECD (2005b; 2007b) supports the contribution of knowledge-intensive sector for Innovating ‘Out of Poverty’.
According to the SA DST Ministerial Review Committee (2012:23), the NSI also appears to be inadequate in its contribution to alleviating poverty and providing jobs.
Nevertheless, from this research perspective the TYIP draft sends a strong signal to the public of the government’s commitment to building a comprehensive and sustainable research sector in support of a knowledge economy. Creative metaphors, such as “organisational learning” or
“continuous improvement,” can be used to assist the [NSI actors] members visualise the new paradigm (Sackmann 1989:466).
The new paradigm is characterised as the transition from a “control-based” to a “commitment- based” system (Cummings & Worley, 2001:258). Kuhn (1962:23) defines a ‘paradigm’ “as a set of assumptions, theories and models that are commonly accepted and shared within a particular field of activity at a point in time”. From this research context, the shift will, by definition, involve a discontinuous and restructuring of the NSI. Some studies such as Edwards and Lawrence (2006), Arora and Ricci (2006), Lorentzen (2006), Rodrik (2006) and Altman (2007) have expressed the importance of a dual strategy in South Africa. This research views the STI policy as an important part in undertaking a dual strategy, which should involve supporting both resource- and
83
knowledge-based economy to achieve South Africa’s SD in LDC through research based on the NSI objectives.
Table 3.7.10-2 outlines South Africa’s vision in the knowledge economy and indicators of achieving the plan. Thoms and Kerwin (2004:1018) define a vision “…as a cognitive image of the institution that is positive enough to followers to provide motivation and elaborate enough to provide direction for planning and goal setting.” Communicating a positive vision is a common thread between the various leadership theories, namely: the contingency and universal theories.
Table 3.7.10-2: Innovation towards a knowledge-based economy: the transformation
INDICATOR MEASURE 2018
SA
positioned as knowledge based economy
Economic growth attributable to technical progress (10% in 2002) 30%
National income derived from knowledge-based industries >50%
Proportion of workforce employed in knowledge-based jobs >50%
Proportion of firms using technology to innovate >50%
GERD/GDP (0.87 in 2004; short-term 2008 target was 1%) 2%
Global share of research outputs (0.5% in 2002) 1%
High- and medium-tech exports/services as a percentage of all
exports/services (30% in 2002) 55%
Number of South African-originated US patents (100 in 2002) 250 Research and
technology enablers
Matriculates with university exemption in math and science
(3.4% in 2002) 9%
SET tertiary students as percentage of all tertiary students 30%
Number of PhD graduates per year (963 in 2002) 2 200
Gross availability of SET graduates to economy (235 438 in 2002) 450 000 Number of full-time equivalent researchers (was 8 708 in 2002) 20 000
Total researchers per 1 000 people employed 5%
Source: DST South Africa (2008)
Thoms and Kerwin (2004:1015) define leadership as the process of influencing others to understand what needs to be done and how it can be done. In this research context, dealing with the “wicked” challenges will require a model of leadership and conditions that will foster NSI collaboration. The SA DST Ministerial Review Committee (2012:84) states that “it goes without saying that a weakness in the area of sound and strategic management information will continue to hamper efforts to provide a coherent and coordinated NSI”, which remains the overarching objective of this research. Therefore, NSI leadership will have an effect on achieving the vision outlined in Table 3.7-3. Similarly, Kaplan (2011) maintains that the DST has very few staff with any knowledge of business, with the situation mirroring the DTI’s IPAP, which shows limited understanding of the importance of the science component of the research and innovation system.
84
According to the DST (2008), PhD graduates, either as staff or as post-doctoral fellows, will be the dominant drivers of knowledge production; HEIs should produce more than 100 PhD graduates per million of the population. Furthermore, the DST (2008) argues that it is essential to increase the number of African and women postgraduates, especially PhDs, to improve research and innovation capacity and normalise staff demographics. Since 1994, some of the transformation has been achieved as indicated by the ten year innovation policy of 2008. However, this research notes the number of African, female and disabled postgraduates still lag behind.
Some of the major constraints facing the realisation of the TYIP 2008 include: (i) the stuttering pipeline of knowledgeable, skilled and trained and human resources at all levels of the NSI; (ii) the inadequate investment in the existing research framework and sites; (iii) inability to keep up with the required knowledge infrastructure; and (iv) inability to incentivise private investment in innovation, both within and from outside the South African economy (OECD, 2007b:9-18). Within the South African NSI, both immigration policies and IP regimes need to be judiciously calculated to enable systemic openness for planned and fortuitous chemistries of innovation (SA DST Ministerial Review Committee, 2012:130). Notably, this research identified that the TYIP appears as more of a proposal, rather than a strategic plan to be implemented. Edquist et al. (2009:6) suggest that a ‘strategy’ consists of five dimensions namely: (i) a plan, in which a vision, goals and adequate measures are presented; (ii) legitimate forum for cooperation; (iii) a way to raise collective awareness and create shared lines of action and thought; (iv) the means of communication; and (v) the trigger for new processes. In addition, according to the SA DST Ministerial Review Committee (2012:62), the TYIP (2008), as originally disseminated, read more as an elaborate ‘vision statement’ than a fully developed action plan. In adopting Edquist et al.
(2009:21) terminology the TYIP can be viewed “as a strategic plan, the new innovation strategy is conceptually fuzzy and, it does not contain a clearly articulated vision, strategy, and adequate measures for the future. The conceptual fuzziness is reflected in a whole variety of interpretations of its meaning and significance”. The SA DST Ministerial Review Committee (2012:70) recommends that the mismatch between the intentions of the NGP, the TYIP and the Twelve Outcomes of government and their associated Delivery Agreements can be addressed through the establishment of the National Council on Research and Innovation, along with the Industrial Research and Innovation Funds, where the more detailed work of specifying demand, ensuring supply, and allocating resources will be articulated. The degree of mismatch between identified strategic priorities and implemented programmes suggests that the South African government should revisit the National Strategy and consider the effectiveness of existing coordination and NSI governance mechanisms. Revisiting the 2002 South African government strategic priorities
85
might appropriately be located in the tradition of the South African innovation system perspective, which should commence from innovation strategy, rather than R&D strategy.
Nonetheless, the notion of the five 'Grand Challenges' discussed in the SA DST TYIP, (2008:11- 24) has entered the discourse of the NSI community, especially the science councils. The TYIP, however, does not directly address the structural challenges of achieving the five Grand Challenge outcomes which, according the SA DST Ministerial Review Committee (2012), has been occasioned by the lack of systematic authority invested in the DST and NACI. The DST is also unlikely to achieve some of the outlined output targets for a number of reasons, the main one being the lack of alignment within government structures (National Advisory Council on Innovation (NACI, 2010:9). Oakland (2000:245-255) recommends instituting ‘change programmes’ by concentrating on ‘process alignment’, rather task alignment. The proposed knowledge-based economy will entail the use of ‘active’ systems that have clearer targets, policies, well-coordinated rather than ‘passive’ systems for the structural transformation to be effective (Viotti, 2002:655).
This research is of the view that the TYIP transition should be managed carefully, through aligning SD, research and innovation policies for the growing knowledge economy as the key mandate of the South African government. Undertaking periodical research will promote the basis for benchmarking South Africa’s performance in the knowledge economy transition.
South Africa can usefully establish a Nordic-style innovation agency (discussed in later Chapters) to realise the TYIP. Characteristics of Nordic agencies include (i) an innovation systems approach, for explicitly tackling institutional development, both in industry and in the knowledge infrastructure; (ii) technically and scientifically qualified staff in project and NSI programme management functions; (iii) strong internal strategic intelligence and dense networks with industry and the knowledge infrastructure for bottleneck analysis and programme design; and (iv) correspondingly, a strong de facto role in strategy and portfolio development within the responsible ministries. This research now turns to the literature review of SD policies mainly from a South African perspective.