steps manifesto small file

8/7/2019 Steps Manifesto Small File

1/15

A New

Innovation, Sustainability, Development:


2/15

STEPS Centre (2010) Innovation, Sustainability,Development: A New Manifesto, Brighton: STEPS Centre

First published i n 2010 STEPS 2010Some rights reserved see insid e back cover forcopyright license details

ISBN 978 1 85864 925 0

The STEPS Centre (Social, Technological andEnvironmental Pathways to Sustainability) is aninterdisciplinary global research and policyengagement hub that unites development studies withscience and technology studies. Based at the Instituteof Development Studies and SPRU Science andTechnology Policy Research at the University of Sussex,with partners in Africa, Asia and Latin America, we arefunded by the Economic and Social Research Council.

The Innovation, Sustainability, Development: A NewManifesto project has drawn on contributions fromacross the Centres membership, but in particularMelissa Leach, Andy Stirling, Ian Scoones, Adrian Ely(Project Convenor), Elisa Arond (Project Assistant),Julia Day (Communications Manager) and Harriet

Le Bris (Administrative Co-ordinator). The advice ando o Go Om M B ogo the project have been greatly appreciated. Design byMcGillan Eves Design www.mcgillaneves.com

STEPS Centre, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RE

Tel: +44 (0) 1273 915673Email: [email protected]: www.steps-centre.org

01/24

A NewManifesto

Global annual spending on research and devel-opment exceeds a trillion dollars. Military andsecurity-related applications are the singlelargest area of expenditure. Yet every day inpoorer parts of the world, thousands of childrendie from waterborne diseases, more thana billion people go hungry and more than athousand die in pregnancy and childbirth. Atthe same time, future generations face hugesocial, environmental and economic challeng-es from threats such as climate change. Yetglobal governance, economics and politicsfrequently work against the interests of poorercountries and people, worsening inequalities.

Meeting these interlinked global challengesof poverty reduction, social justice and envi-ronmental sustainability is the great moraland political imperative of our age. Science,technology and innovation of many kindshave essential roles to play in this. But alongwith many others, the STEPS Centre believes

that this imperative can only be fulfilled ifthere is a radical shift in how we think aboutand perform innovation. By innovation,we mean new ways of doing things. Thisincludes not only science and technology, but crucially the related array of new ideas, institutions, practices, behaviours and socialo oog-cal patterns, purposes, applications and out-comes. Central to this, is a move away fromog m b o o

change about who is ahead or behind insome presumed one-track race. Instead,attention must focus on the many alternativedirections for scientific, technological andassociated institutional change. In short, weneed a new politics of innovation. This is notabout being pro or anti science or technol-ogy, but about addressing real questions ofchoice: which science?, what technology?and, especially, whose innovation? and what

We live in a tiMe Of unprecedented advances inscience and technOlOGy. the WOrld is ever MOre

GlOBalised and intercOnnected. yet pOverty isdeepeninG, the envirOnMent is in crisis and

prOGress tOWards the MillenniuM develOpMentGOals has stalled.

Detailed examples and multimedia on the New Manifesto website http://anewmanifesto.org/


3/15

kinds of change? In other words, we need tofoster more diverseand far more fairly distrib-utedforms of and directionsfor innova-tion, towards greater social justice.

A radical shift isneeded in how wethink about and

perform innovation

At the heart of this shift in the global innova-tion agenda is a greater respect for culturalvariety, regional diversity and democratic ac-countability. Such a shift is possible. Indeed, ininspirational initiatives in many places aroundthe world, it is already happening. But these ef-forts are often fragmented, poorly supportedand resisted by unequal power relations. Tochallenge these forces means promotinginnovation that really works for currentlymarginalised people and jeopardised environ-ments. This requires the opening up of newpolitical spaces, drawing in social movements,smaller businesses and excluded voices. Theresult will be more vigorous deliberation andargument over the many possible styles anddirections for research and innovation. It alsomeans radically changing the ways in which in-novation is shaped, through: agenda setting,funding, capacity building, organisational ar-rangementsand monitoring, evaluation andaccountability. We take up each of these spe- g o ommo.

This New Manifesto lays out a political posi-tion, as seen from the particular vantage pointof a single research centre concerned withthese challenges. Yet our purpose is not to as-sert a single view. Most importantly, we hope

to help catalyse and provoke more vibrant andexplicitly political debate over global patternsand directions of innovation. In this spirit, weprovide a host of links to more detailed exam-ples and analysis on the associated New Mani-festo website .anmanifsto.org.

While not pretending to achieve a repre-sentative synthesis, the production of thisManifesto has also learned much from andowes much to many colleagues, collabora-tors and critics. Most valuably, this include s thehundreds of participants in 20 roundtables incountries from China to Venezuela, India toZimbabwe, Nigeria to Sri Lanka. As part of ourwider New Manifesto initiative, the STEPSCentre is committed to assisting furtherprocesses of dialogue and argument about in-novation, using our own website as a platformfor divergent voices including those criticalo o ow . O m o o o o

debate, but to catalyse action. This will inevita-bly take contrasting forms in diverse places.O o og w m o

parallel initiatives worldwide this will helpresult in more diverse and equitably distributedforms and outcomes of innovation.

02/24

Meeting the interlinkedglobal challenges of povertyreduction, social justice and

environmental sustainability isthe great moral and political

imperative of our age

03/24

Detailed examples and multimedia on the New Manifesto website http://anewmanifesto.org/ Anti-poverty campa igners, Kenya / Sven Tornn / Panos


4/15

04/24

Why is the steps centre prOducinG a neW ManifestO

nOW? this is nOt the first tiMe that Our hOMeinstitutiOns at the university Of sussex have

sOuGht tO cOntriBute tO pOlitical deBate OverinnOvatiOn fOr develOpMent.

In 1969 the United Nations commissioned astudy which became known as the SussexManifesto, published the following year. Thisargued that science and technology wereoverwhelmingly stee red by the interests of theglobal rich rather than the poor. With the late1960s witnessing the moon-landing, the bur-geoning Green Revolution and a global small-pox eradication programme, this was a time ofgreat interest in the potential for science andtechnology to address the most stark of hu-mankinds development challenges.

Forty years ago the Sussex Manifesto fo- o oo o

and technological activity. This earlier mani-festo was of its t ime; it distinguished betweenso-called developing and advanced nationsin a way that is today problematic. It arguedthat research agendas needed to focus on theworlds developing countries and theirneeds, with advanced nations urged to de-vote 5% of their own expenditure on research

and development to problems in developingcountries. It put forward challenging fundingtargets for government spending on research om o-logical services. It said developing countriesshould increase the proportion of gross na-tional product spent on research and develop-ment from 0.2% to 0.5% over the 1970s. Inaddition, advanced countries were urged todedicate 5% of their total aid budgets to ca-pacity building including direct, financialand technical assistance to the build-up of in-digenous science in the developing coun-tries. Recognising that it would be folly ifthere were no reform of the institutions forcarrying out these activities, the Sussex Man-ifesto highlighted the importance of organisa-tional reform.

The precise impacts and implications ofthe original manifesto are diverse and con-tested. However, along with a number of oth-er related initiatives during this period, this

05/24

From Scaleto Diversity

Detailed examples and multimedia on the New Manifesto website http://anewmanifesto.org/Wooden plough, Kenya / Sally Brooks / STEPS Centre


5/15

06/24

earlier manifesto did help to advance broadlyprogressive aims for building indigenous ca-pabilities in science and technology. Sincethen, there have been significant achieve-ments. The share of global research and de-

velopment expenditure in developing coun-tries has increased from 2% in 1970 to roughly . how, m o o

in a few rapidly industrialising economies, in-cluding China, India and Brazil. Expenditure onresearch and development across develop-ing countries has risen to approximately 1% ofaggregate gross domestic product. Yet, out-side the emerging innovation centres in rap-idly industrialising economies, levels of re-search and development as a percentage ofgross domestic product remain at around1970 levels in some countries especially inparts of Africa. Moreover, and crucially, suchggg g og bo di-

rection of innovation pathways, the distribu-tion of innovative activities within countries,or the outcomes actually achieved for thepoorest and most marginal people in their di-versityof settings and situations.

Forty years on, we are again witnessing co-o o o o o gob

problems using science and technology. Mod- o o mo om

than ever, and private sector and philanthrop- oo om g-cantly to the potentials. Two arguments arenow put forward in favour of this persistentemphasis on science and technology as thecore solution to development challenges. In , oog o-tions are seen as routes to national economicgrowth in a highly competitive global economy.

This is held also to lead indirectly to povertyreduction and capacities to deal with environ-mental protection in line with general trick-le-down models of economic development.Yet, while scientific and technological

advance has undoubtedly contributed togow , b

sometimes risks have been very unevenlydistributed.

The second argument responds to thisproblem through focusing more directly onparticular poverty and environmental chal-lenges. The assumption here is that targeted oog oo -

bullets - can be rolled out and applied at scale.In particular, new philanthropic and public-private investments have massively expandedthe scope for addressing challenges that wereonce neglected because addressing themw ob. ag, -ed successes vaccines for childhood diseas-es, and crop technologies directed towardslow-income countries agricultural challeng-es. But these have not been realised every-where; these initiatives often founder in theface of the diversity and dynamism of localsocial and ecological realities.

In different ways, both these argumentsabout innovation for development focus quitenarrowly on science an d technology. Equally,they emphasise the scaleand paceof innova-tive activity, over its direction, distribution ordiversity.

07/24

Detailed examples and multimedia on the New Manifesto website http://anewmanifesto.org/ Satellite dish, Lao / oneclearvision


6/15

08/24

We are moving from narrow preoccupationswith research and development to broader un-derstandings of innovation systems encom-passing policy practices, institutional capabili-ties, organisational processes and socialrelations. There is acknowledgement of thecrucial roles of a wider set of institutions andinteractions, including laboratories, firms,funders, governments, international agenciesand civil society organisations. This helps moveus away from a simple model of technicalprogress, to an acceptance of a broader range

of interactions behind innovation of all kinds ranging across local and global scales.However, a further array of questions re-

mains typically unaddressed in policy debates.t bo , o o-litical directionsfor change: what is innovationfor?; which kinds of innovation, along whichpathways? and towards what goals? Takingthese questions seriously requires us to exam-ine much more sharply questions of distribu-tion. For any given problem: who is innovat ionfor?; whose innovation counts? and whogains and who loses? In turn, this raises further

questions about diversity: what and howmany kinds of innovation do we need to ad-dress any particular challenge? This emphasison direction, distribution and diversity is at thecentre of a new 3D agenda for innovation.

Direction

Asking the question what is innovation for?includes but goes beyond issues of priori-o o o, m-

tary, health or energy. It also requires us tothink about the particular directions ofchange that are supported in any given sector.e ow o ow bo -ity production, for instance, a host of alterna-tive directions for innovation pathways exists.These include those alternatively emphasis-ing: small-scale distributed renewable ener-gy; large-scale, centralised renewables incontinent-spanning infrastructures; nuclearo, o w bo

and storage. None of these strategies can bepursued to their full potential without detract-

09/24

in Other areas Of cOnteMpOrary pOlicy deBate, discussiOn is shiftinG frOM science and technOlOGy alOne,

tO a deeper appreciatiOn Of innOvatiOn.

A New3D Agenda


We are movingto broader understandingsof innovation systems

encompassing policy practices,institutional capabilities,

organisational processes andsocial relations

Water fountain, Ivory Coast / Sean Warren


7/15

ing from support for others. This inevitablyinvolves political choices and trade-offs.Some pathways like highly specialised, capi-tal-intensive, centralised, large-scale and longlead-time nuclear infrastructures cancrowd out alternatives. Where pathways aredifficult to reverse, choices require evenstronger democratic scrutiny.

Even where choices are settling around anassumed optimal pathway, this can be mislead-ing. Alternatives are often obscured by politicalinterests and the exercise of power. For exam-ple, it is sometimes assumed that high-input,industrial agriculture presents the ideal solu-

tion to problems of food supply and hunger. Yet o om -lar perspectives, strongly pushed by powerfulcommercial and institutional interests. In real-, ow- oo

m g. lw, health sector, innovation activity centres onoptions like the development of pharmaceu-ticals which maximise private benefitsthrough intellectual property rights. This is re-inforced by the interests and practices of pow-erful companies and regulators, which margin-alise attention to open source public healthmeasures. It is in these ways that politics comein at every level of decision making over the di-rection of innovation.

Citizen initiatives andsocial movements have

key roles to play inopening up hidden

innovation pathways.

Direction matters because it shapes the distri-bo o b, o om o-tion. In many low-income country settings, in-dustrial agriculture can work well for those whocan afford the inputs, but of ten marginalisessmall farmers in riskier and more resource-poorsettings. Intellectual property-driven pathwaysfor innovation in health notoriously result in onlyten per cent of the world health research budgetbg o

cent of the worlds population. Issues of direc-

tion therefore go beyond merely questioningthe implementation of technology or conven-tional critiques of the failure of innovation ben- o ow. Mg go

also lose out both from the negative conse-quences of lock in to dominant pathways andbecause the alternative pathways that meettheir own needs are obscured, excluded, andpushed aside crowded out. These are the rea-sons actively to challenge the directions ofdominant pathways and to recognise and sup-port alternatives.

Distribution

Because marginal people and places so oftenlose out, the appraisal of alternative innova-o w o o o

bo o b -o o o , .

Social arrangements for appraisal need to beinclusive and deliberative and take place con-tinuously from the earliest stages of innova-o w. O w w

bo b bo o band impacts, with serious attention paid to g o

experiences in the real world by place andcircumstance, gender and generation, iden- . O mo

here, are the many cases w here marginalisedwomen and men are innovating for them-, mog oo

political-economic situations, by making useof indigenous knowledges and technologies,rooted in local cultures, histories and practic-es. Examples include innovations by farmers

in crop and livestock production, by slum-dwellers to secure water supplies and byhealth practitioners to combine local and bio-medical approaches in new, creative ways.Such local innovations do not offer simpleremedies, but recognising and supportingthem can contribute in important ways to theredistribution of power and resources neededfor greater social justice. Likewise, growth indemand among relatively low income groupsnear the bottom of the pyramid worldwidepresents a massive and still under-recog-nised opportunity for innovation processeslinked to small businesses to foster moreequally-distributed economic growth.

Further approaches that actively link sciencewith the interests of excluded communities canhelp shift the distributional outcomes of inno-vation towards the needs of the poorest groups.Participatory approaches to plant breeding, forexample, start with the concerns of the mostroutinely marginalised groups such as womenand resource-poor farmers, involving them indesigning and implementing the selection andtesting of different plant varieties. Such ap-

o bg o process and allow for context-sensitive adapta-tion and shaping of technologies paying at-tention to their social as well as technical dimen-sions. A simple example here is where theuptake of bednets in western Kenya rose dra-matically when the colour was changed fromthat of burial shrouds. Citizen initiatives and so-cial movements have key roles to play in open-ing up hidden innovation pathways. These canhelp, both in generating locally-rooted forms ofoo g b o

all forms of innovation are more widely shared.

10/24 11/24

Avian u operation / Lisa Vanovitch


8/15

12/24 13/24

An emphasis on direction,distribution and diversity is atthe centre of a new 3D agenda

for innovation

Peri-urban Delhi / Bhagwati Prasad / Sarai


9/15

Examples abound of the crucial roles played bysocial movements, ranging from the origins ofglobal industries like windpower to their crucialroles in urban sanitation, slum improvement,alleviating energy poverty and securing accesso ob m .

While such bottom-up, distributed initiativesdo not present panaceas, far more serious atten-tion to these kinds of innovation including atthe highest levels of policy are required in or-der to address the challenges of social justiceand equitable distribution.

Diversity

In many sectors,protecting creative

experimentation in diverseniches ... allows for newmarkets and innovation

pathways to emerge.To take direction and distribution seriouslymeans recognising the importance and de-liberately pursuing a diversity of innovationpathways. It is only in this way that we can re-sist the processes of concentration and lock-in that, as noted above, close down the direc-tions taken by innovation pathways and crowdout the paths favoured by more marginalgroups. Likewise, attention to diversity ena-bles sensitivity to varied ecological and eco-

nomic contexts and disparate cultural set-tings. And designing policies that deliberatelyenhance diversity provides a crucial means tofoster resilience hedging against our uncer-tainty and ignorance about the future. For ex-

ample, in approaches to crop development inAfrica, actively enhancing agro-biodiversitywith multiple crop types and varieties re-sponds to varied agronomic and social con-, w og

to global markets and climate change.i m o, og -

tive experimentation in diverse niches in-og ombo o , b-nesses and applications allows for newmarkets and innovation pathways to emerge.Many features of mainstream sustainablehousing, for instance, have arisen out of justthese kinds of diverse niches, initially sup-o o o mg. O-go-ing links between experimental niches andthe housing industry continue to foster learn-ing and innovation, showing how diversity canbreed diversity.

Fostering diversity also means paying at-tention to the social and organisational aswell as technical dimensions of innovation.For example, in community-led approaches tototal sanitation, the focus is no longer thetechnical challenge of latrine-building. Rath-er, an innovative participatory process leadsto diverse local solutions that combine socialarrangements and technological innovations.Likewise, innovative organisational arrange-ments can connect technological innova-tions in new ways. For instance, the Honey BeeNetwork in India links a broader movement ofgrassroots entrepreneurs inventors of a vast

14/24

range of technologies from palm tree climb-ing equipment, to bicycle-powered washingmachines to an institutionalised form ofopen source information sharing. This allowspeople across India and indeed the world to gain access to, and build on, product devel-opment and marketing support.

However, an argument for diversity does notmean that anything goes. In plural societiesthere will always remain irreconcilable inter-

ests, perspectives, priorities and choices. Asw , o ow m opromote the particular directions for innova-o mo m o

the poorest women and men. This requires amuch more deliberate focus on the politics oftechnological diversity. Informed by inclusivesocial appraisal, political debate must criticallym ow oo w o

o o og. i g o o -ample, there needs to be a hard look at whichlow carbon options are compatible and where m -o. d m-

scale renewables and gas turbines integratedinto locally-distributed electricity systems canwork well together to reduce carbon emis-sions. This can also be achieved using diverselarge-scale nuclear, carbon capture and stor-

age, hydroelectric and centralised renewableoog. B wo o

diverse portfolios do not dovetail with one an-other so easily. The question is: which diversity?Just like the earlier examples of choices be-tween individualinnovation pathways, so toodoes society face major choices between a lter-native portfoliosof innovation pathways.

Fostering diversitymeans paying attention

to the social andorganisational as well

as technical dimensionsof innovation

The politics of technological diversity thusbring us back to questions of direction and dis-tribution: focusing on which diverse portfolios and which particular options within them present the best ways to address imperativesand uncertainties of poverty alleviation, socialjustice and environmental sustainability.

15/24


Collecting Water, Delhi / Bhagwati Prasad / Sarai


10/15

O o wo w o-ogy work more directly for social justice, povertyalleviation and the environment. This requiresinnovation which is transformative reshapingsocial and power relations to allow innovation innew directions. It means challenging the domi-nance of pathways driven simply by privateo m m . i m oo o

sustainability, paying attention to ecological in-tegrity and diverse environmental and social. i m b o oo

are widely and equitably shared, and not cap-

tured by narrow, powerful interests. It meansencouraging open and plural forms of innova-tion pathway social and technical; high techand low tech; those which are currently hidden,as well as those which are more commonly rec-ognised. It means organising innovation in waysthat are networked, distributed and inclusive,involving diverse people and groups, includingthose who are poor and marginalised. And itmeans going beyond the technical elites in largeinternational, state and commercial organisa-tions to support and harness the energy, creativ-ity and ingenuity of users, workers, consumers,

citizens, activists, farmers and small businesses.As a result, this is a world where all feasible

o o , oog w-er social innovation are discussed as mattersfor legitimate political argument, just as in oth-er areas of public policy. It is no longer crediblefor politicians and business leaders to asserttheir own favoured directions for innovation asbeing somehow uniquely science based, pro-innovation, pro-development or pro-tech-nology as if there were no equally-valid alter-natives. It is a world where scepticism over

some particular innovation pathway can nomore be excluded as indiscriminately anti-in-oo ooo o o

is generally anti-policy. In this way whetherlocally, nationally or internationally science,technology and innovation for developmentare shaped, designed and regulated throughinclusive, democratic and accountable proc-esses. It is a world where a deliberate diversityo oo w o .

There are many worldwide who share andstrive for this kind of vision. The crucial ques-tion is: how can such a world be realised?

16/24

arisinG frOM the 3d aGenda, What is Our visiOn fOr science, technOlOGy and innOvatiOn fOr

develOpMent in the future?

A Vision forInnovation


17/24

Our vision is a world wherescience and technology workmore directly for social justice,

poverty alleviation and theenvironment

Windmill water pump / designbase


11/15

18/24 19/24

Our drivinG visiOn is aMBitiOus and General in scOpe.What it Means fOr particular cOntexts, places and

peOple Will, Of cOurse, Be enOrMOusly varied as Will Bethe Means tO achieve it. nevertheless, the fOllOWinG

BrOad recOMMendatiOns are int ended tO catalyse andprOvOke specific cOncrete actiOns in different places.

O ommo og o

o o

beginning of this Manifesto: agenda setting;funding; capacity building; organising; moni-toring, evaluation and accountability. Each setof actions addresses contrasting dimensions ofinnovation systems. They are therefore target- ow o ogo

who bear responsibility in each of these areas.

AgenDA setting

The setting of agendas for science, technolo-gy and innovation policy and investmentneeds to be informed by an explicitly politicalconsideration of innovation direction, distri-bution and diversity. The institutional archi-tectures for the setting of innovation priori-ties at national and international levelstherefore need reworking to enable diverse

interests and new voices, including those ofpoorer and marginalised people, to be in-volved in inclusive debate. In some countriesand settings this w ill involve building on exist-ing institutional arrangements; in others it willrequire establishing new fora.

Within countries, we recommend that gov-ernments establish and support Strategic In-novation Fora. Whatever they are called, thesestatutory bodies should be mandated to reviewfunding allocations, debate major investmentdecisions, deliberate on controversial areas ofscience and technology options and audit thebo o b om o

innovation pathways. These fora should also beinclusive: constituted by and bringing togeth-er diverse stakeholders with interests in sci-ence and technology futures, including citi-zens groups and social movementsrepresenting the most marginalised interests.These fora would address both public and pri-

Areas forAction

Detailed examples and multimedia on the New Manifesto website http://anewmanifesto.org/Selling palm oil seeds, Benin / Peeter Visimaa


12/15

cApAcity builDing

Capacity building for science, technology andinnovation must move beyond a focus on elitescience and so-called centres of excellenceto support science that works more directlyfor diverse social and environmental needs.As a vital complement to training scientistsand technology experts, this means extend-ing the scope of capacity building to otherplayers in the innovation system, including lo-cal entrepreneurs, citizen groups, small busi-nesses and others. A key challenge in improv-

ing innovation processes is linking between

groups, and facilitating inclusion of otherwiseexcluded people.

We therefore urge an extension of capaci-ty-building support towards bridging profes-sionals who are able to link technical exper-tise with particular social, ecological andeconomic contexts. We additionally recom-mend capacity building investments focusedon enhancing the ability of citizens and usersto engage actively in innovation processes,not just as passive recipients but as active us-ers, creators and inventors. We recommend

20/24

vate sector innovation activity, holding legalpowers to call evidence. They would report toparliaments (and through these, to wider civilsociety) on an annual basis.

At the international level, we recommend

the establishment of a Global Innovation Com-mission. Breaking the conventional model of acommission, this would be a broadly-consti-tuted deliberative body, widely networked(among other areas) into global civil societyand holding itself accountable to the most dis-empowered communities worldwide. It wouldoperate under a United Nations umbrella, butwith a formal role in trade bodies such as t heWo t Ogo. t commo

would facilitate open, transparent political de-bate about major investments with global ortrans-boundary implications, north-southtechnology transfers, and public and philan-thropic international aid geared to science,technology and innovation. In addition to an-nual reporting, each year a series of focused wo b o o o-ics, including in response to national StrategicInnovation Fora or concerted representationsby global civil society networks.

FunDing

The funding of science, technology and inno-vation whether from public, private or phil-anthropic sources needs to be geared muchmore strongly to the challenges of poverty al-leviation, social justice and environmentalsustainability. This requires that the needsand demands of poorer and marginalisedwomen and men as potential users of tech-

nologies, as well as the outcomes of innova-tion, are addressed in funding allocations.

We recommend therefore that all scienceand technology funding agencies (individual-ly or collectively), regularly review their por t-oo o g -ing proportion of their investments aredirectly focused on these challenges. Suchagencies should also progressively improvethe balance in investments across basic sci-ence, technology, engineering, design andscience services. They should demonstrate ashift towards increasing support for the social,cultural and economic dimensions of innova-tion systems. Transparent accounts linked tothese criteria should be produced an d madeavailable to public scrutiny, including by rele-vant Strategic Innovation Fora.

In order to encourage diversity in innova-o w, w omm -ing allocations to support experimentation inniches, and networking and learning acrossthese, involving the private sector, communitygroups and individual entrepreneurs. In orderto help democratise the process of innovationwe recommend that procedures are estab-lished directly to involve end users of scienceand technology including poorer and mar-ginalised people in the allocation of funding. And we recommend that incentives for the pri-vate sector to invest in forms of innovationgeared to poverty alleviation, environmentalsustainability and social justice such as ad-vance purchase agreements, technologyprizes or tax breaks are enhanced. Achieve-ments of this kind should be more deliberatelyrecognised and widely publicised: nationally,regionally and globally.

21/24

Seed selector, Kenya / Sally Brooks / STEPS Centre


13/15

also the support of civil society networks andsocial movements to facilitate the sharing oftechnologies, practices and wider experienc-es and learning. Capacity support should fur-ther enable such groups to engage with na-

tional and international political debatesabout science, technology and innovation for instance through memberships of Strate-gic Innovation Fora and the Global InnovationCommission.

This, in turn, will involve investment in newpriorities for training, including key reforms totertiary, further and higher education in thearea of science, technology and development.These will require new institutions (or refash-ioned old ones) that actively link science andtechnology to located needs and demands, andthe building of new learning platforms, virtualand face-to-face. They will also include greaterprovision for local community engagement intertiary, further and higher education as well aswiki spaces for innovation support of a kind thatenable more inclusive, networked and distrib-uted forms of innovation.

orgAnising

Ogg o oo g

and supporting social and institutional ar-rangements that enable technologies to workin particular contexts , and to meet the needs ofpoorer and marginalised women and men. Weomm m, b o- ogo og o-logical innovations invest in concrete plans toensure that these social, cultural and institu-tional aspects of application are addressed.

Further, local experiences with these organisa-tional aspects of innovation need to be sharedand learned from more widely. This requires anopen, distributed and networked approach,with active investment in linkages between

public, private and civil society groups.We therefore recommend that future in-

vestments by the public and private sectors should especially highlight bridging func-tions, connecting formerly separate organisa-tions and linking upstream and downstreamresearch and development activity. While inmany cases, new organisations will not be re-quired, strategic investment in facilitating andcoordinating bodies may be needed. Suchbodies must be complemented by support forlocal organisations, networks and move-ments, and the ability for informal, lateralg o oo. O, m

should extend its focus from basic science, toemphasise other aspects of the innovationsystem, including engineering, design, sci-ence services, and social entrepreneurship.Further, we recommend that support be in-creased for open source innovation plat-om, w m o ow-

property-based systems which impede com-petition and constrain innovative activity.

We propose that at national level, and led byStrategic Innovation Fora, a broad frameworkfor science and innovation policy is developedwhich puts poverty alleviation, social justiceand environmental sustainability at its core.The legal underpinnings, regulatory rules andinvestment priorities that emerge from such ao m o,

be overseen, reviewed and audited in a trans-parent and accountable way.

22/24 23/24

Monitoring, evAluAtionAnD AccountAbility

Increased accountability and full transparencymust be at the centre of democratised innova-tion systems across public and private sectorsand at local, national and international levels.This requires active engagement by citizens inpriority setting, monitoring and evaluating inno-vation activities.

We recommend that in all countries bench-mark criteria, relating to the priorities of pover-ty alleviation, social justice and environmentalsustainability, are set and so become the basisof indicators for monitoring innovation sys-tems. At the international level, overseen bythe Global Innovation Commission, similar cri-teria should be established for monitoring andannual reporting. Further, we recommend theimprovement of data collection systems andmethodologies, switching the focus from indi-cators such as publications, patents and aggre-gate levels of expenditure, to assessments ofthe wider development outcomes of innova-o o. a ogo w go-

ernment departments, philanthropic founda-tions, non-government organisations and o m g

country investing in research and develop-ment above a certain amount should be re-quired to report on expenditures in relation tothese criteria. Such data should be freely avail-able and open to public scrutiny.

Finally, we propose that the Strategic Inno-vation Fora (or similar bodies), should have astatutory obligation to report publicly both tonational parliaments and the Global InnovationCommission on a regular basis concerning

innovation direction, distribution and diversity,presenting full data from all research and devel-opment organisations.

No single prescriptive set of actions can be suf-, o o, o

vision pursued in this Manifesto. Success willnecessarily involve diverse contributions from

o . i w in power relations, culture, and values, as wellas institutions, procedures and practices,amongst many people and groups worldwide.The potential value of actions like those identi- o

enable this new politics: harnessing the energy,creativity and commitment of marginalisedgroups, small business and civil society aswell as existing organised innovation systems.O w m om o mo -verse and equally-distributed directions for in-novation be fully realised.


Water collection point, Delhi / Bhagwati Prasad / Sarai


14/15

24/24

Final word

What is needed is nOthinG shOrt Of a viGOrOus neW critical

GlOBal pOlitics Of innOvatiOn. as Much as Other areas Of

puBlic life, the directiOns taken By innOvatiOn are a

Matter fOr leGitiMate deMOcratic enGaGeMent and

challenGe. this requires fundaMental redistriButiOns Of

attentiOn, resOurces and pOWer. the result Will Be a

flOurishinG Of a MOre viBrant and creative diversity Of

pathWays scientific, technOlOGical, O rGanisatiOnal and

sOcial. it is Only in such Ways that huMan inGenuity May

truly rise tO the iMperatives Of pOverty alleviatiOn,

sOcial justice and envirOnMental sustainaBility.


STEPS Centre publications arepublished under a CreativeCommons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivative Works3.0 UK: England & Wales Licence.(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/legalcode)

Attribution: You must attribute thewo m b author or licensor.

Non-commercial: You may not usethis work for commercial purposes.

No Derivative Works: You may notalter, transfer, or build on this work.

Users are welcome to copy,distribute, display, translate orperform this work without writtenpermission subject to the conditionsset out in the Creative Commonslicence. For any reuse or distribution,you must make clear to others thelicence terms of this work. If you use

the work, we ask that you referencethe STEPS Centre website (www.steps-centre.org) and send a copy ofthe work or a link to its use online tothe following address for our archive:STEPS Centre, University of Sussex,Brighton BN1 9RE, UK or by email [email protected]


15/15

www.steps-centre.org

steps manifesto small file

Documents