Session # 2560
Engineering and the
Millennium Development Goals
Dato’ Ir Lee
Yee-Cheong, President
World Federation of
Engineering Organizations
Russel C. Jones,
Chairman
WFEO Committee on
Abstract
This
paper outlines elements of a global action program to apply science, technology
and innovation (STI) to meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). For
purposes of the report, STI is used to mean the generation, use and diffusion of
all forms of useful knowledge as well as the evolution of associated
institutional arrangements. The
MDGs include: halving extreme poverty and hunger, achieving universal primary
education and gender equity, reducing under-five mortality and maternal
mortality by two-thirds and three-quarters respectively, reversing the spread of
HIV/AIDS, halving the proportion of people without access to safe drinking water
and ensuring environmental sustainability. They also include the goal of
developing a global partnership for development, with targets for aid, trade and
debt relief.
As a long-term vision, the idea is to see achieving the MDGs as steps towards
longer term targets for developing global learning mechanisms, which facilitate
the building of internal capacity in developing countries
such that the institutions for learning can in the long run act as an engine for
growth in these countries.
Introduction
At the Millennium Summit in September 2000 world
leaders passed the Millennium Declaration, which formally established the
Millenium Development Goals. Since then the MDGs have become the international
reference standard for measuring and tracking improvements in the human
condition in developing countries.
They have the advantage of (i) a political mandate agreed by the leaders of all
UN member states, (ii) offering a comprehensive and multi-dimensional
development framework, and (iii) setting clear quantifiable targets to be
achieved in all countries by 2015.
The full list of Millenium Development
Goals follows:
Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty
and hunger
Target 1:
Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is
less than one dollar a day
Target 2:
Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from
hunger
Goal
2: Achieve universal primary education
Target 3:
Ensure that, by 2015, children
everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of
primary schooling
Goal
3: Promote gender equality and empower women
Target 4:
Eliminate gender disparity in
primary and secondary education, preferably by 2005, and to all levels of
education no later than 2015
Goal
4: Reduce child mortality
Target 5:
Reduce by two-thirds, between 1990
and 2015, the under-five mortality rate
Goal
5: Improve maternal health
Target 6:
Reduce by three-quarters, between
1990 and 2015, the maternal mortality ratio
Goal
6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
Target 7: Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS
Target 8:
Have halted by 2015 and begun to
reverse the incidence of malaria and other major diseases
Goal
7: Ensure environmental sustainability
Target 9:
Integrate the principles of
sustainable development into country policies and programmes and reverse the
loss of environmental resources
Target 10:
Halve,
by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking
water
Target 11:
By
2020, to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100
million slum dwellers
Goal
8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development
Target 12:
Develop
further an open, rule-based, predictable, non-discriminatory trading and
financial system
Target 13:
Address
the Special Needs of the Least Developed Countries
Target 14:
Address
the Special Needs of landlocked countries and small island developing States
Target 15:
Deal
comprehensively with the debt problems of developing countries through national
and international measures in order to make debt sustainable in the long term
Target 16:
In
co-operation with developing countries, develop and implement strategies for
decent and productive work for youth
Target 17:
In
co-operation with pharmaceutical companies, provide access to affordable,
essential drugs in developing countries
Target 18:
In
co-operation with the private sector, make available the benefits of new
technologies, especially information and communications
Task
Force on Science, Technology and Innovation
A Task
Force on Science, Technology and Innovation has been established by the United
Nations to address appropriate portions of the Millenium Development Goals. The
aim of this Task Force is to outline elements of a global framework for
promoting the application of science, technology and innovation (STI) to meeting
the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) adopted by the United Nations in the
year 2000. The
MDGs include targets on issues such as poverty, hunger, primary education,
gender equality, child and maternal mortality, HIV/AIDS, malaria, TB and other
major diseases as well as access to essential medicines. In addition, the goals
stress sustainable development, safe water, upgrading slums, open, rule-based
trading systems and technology transfer. Implementing goals related to these
themes will require—among other measures—the generation, use and diffusion
of new knowledge as well as adjustments in related institutions.
An
analysis of Western economies and their history suggests that the prime
explanations for the success of today’s advanced industrialized countries lies
in their history of innovation along different dimensions: institutions,
technology, trade, organization, application of natural resources. Similar
factors explain the economic transformation of recently industrialized countries
in the developing world.
Thus, scientific and technological
innovations come about through a process of institutional and organizational
creation and modification; one does not precede the other neatly in time.
Certainly, defining characteristics of the Western growth rates have been the
institutionalization of private enterprise along with its financial and legal
rubric, along with constantly attaining to lower cost of production and
introducing new products on the market. There was also an exploitation of
opportunities provided by trade and natural resources. This was a tribute to not
just carrying through with new opportunities, but the abilities of the private
sector and the State alike, for recognition of the new opportunities and ways in
which to exploit them.
Technology
affects human development through two major paths. Through innovation, it can
directly affect human well being by increasing functionality of existing means
to reduce poverty and increase human capabilities. This is most evident through
technological innovations in human health, agriculture, and energy use and
information and communication technologies. Secondly, it can also indirectly
affect human well-being by enhancing productivity and thus economic growth and
incomes. This productivity enhancement may be seen
through increased output of workers, higher agricultural yields and heightened
efficiency of services, while the higher incomes can again help to meet basic
needs Thus STI helps directly, even
without direct income increases, although it can help the latter as well.
Importantly, it assists in overcoming the barriers of low-incomes and weak
institutions.
STI capacity has been shown to be
positively correlated to economic growth, although the extent to which the two
are linked is not clear. Many fields of science have little connection to
economic development, and many areas of economic growth do not rely on STI. Human
development itself strengthens technology development. One cannot talk about
competitiveness or increased capacity or productivity of industries, agriculture
or the services sector without referring to the critical components that make up
such systems: people and their knowledge.
In fact, when human development is coupled to the knowledge people have
and is encouraged to use to shape a better future, we can talk about
self-sustainable human development: a process that aims at the betterment of the
human condition, caring for the environment and building at present the
conditions for a robust development in the future.
An important driving force of the
adoption of technology, whether old or new, is higher income, but it is circular
to argue that technology depends directly on higher incomes, when in fact
technology may be a cause, not a result of increased uptake. An important
additional point is that innovation itself may not be necessarily driven by
higher incomes, but may fall out as a result of the adoption of certain
technologies, which in turn may not have directly to do with higher incomes.
In summary, while it may help to be
richer, the evidence is fuzzy about whether this is a result or a cause of
technology use and diffusion. Indeed, innovation may thrive on increased
resources being thrown at the problem, particularly finances, but it is no
guarantee that innovation will occur. However, in developing countries, without
funding, innovation through STI will hardly occur. In this sense, funding is
necessary, but it is certainly not sufficient. The specific institutional mix of
actors –individuals, firms, the State, other organizations, all serve to
determine the milieu in which an innovation occurs within a specific technology.
The mutually reinforcing thrusts of
human development and technology development serve to create a basis for a
relationship between certain technologies and specific aspects of human
development. For example, medical breakthroughs are linked to basic health,
cheaper medicines and lower mortality rates; higher food production through
better seeds, water sources and more efficient and less toxic fertilizers, is
linked to better nutrition (particularly since most poor families around the
world are farming families); ICTs serve to enhance information and participation
through telephone, radio, TV, fax and increasingly computers; and finally,
manufacturing technologies drive industrial expansion, employment and worker
incomes.
Yet,
in addition to this seeming one-to-one relationship between certain technology
advances and human development, each of the separate technology advances acts to
reinforce the others. This is especially visible in
medical technologies, where breakthroughs in genetics, coupled with computing
advances, has opened up the world of drug discovery, development and
manufacturing. Similarly, the advances in ICT technologies have themselves
fuelled further gains to the agricultural, the manufacturing and the services
sectors.
Innovation
The
process of technological innovation involves interactions between a wide range
of actors in society, forming a system of mutually-reinforcing learning
activities. These interactions and the associated components constitute dynamic
“innovation systems”. Innovation “systems” can
be understood by determining what varies in the institutional mixture, what is
local and what is external. Thus within countries, the innovation “system”
can have some common features, and also regional variations where technological
dynamism is visible. Regional variations in innovation levels, technology
adoption and diffusion and the institutional mix, are significant, even in the
most developed countries.
In addition to comparing the innovative
capacity of countries, attention is shifting to regions within countries.
While the it is unclear as to whether it
is the local state governments or the private entrepreneurs who have been more
relevant to this process, most people agree that the above two actors, large and
small firms, universities and government laboratories have all had a part to
play.
It has been advocated since long ago
that government, private sector, universities and research institutions are
important parts of a larger system of knowledge and interactions that allow
diverse actors with varied strengths to come together around common broad goals
for innovation. In many developing countries, the State and private sectors have
varying capacities. The State often has the greatest capabilities, built through
a history of import-substitution policies, when the public sector had a
predominant role. On the other hand, private sector capacity for adapting tacit
knowledge and mature technology and for absorbing new knowledge has varied by
country, region, and by sector.
Universities, on the other hand, have
largely languished across the developing world, with an unclear mandate, limited
funds and lacking the flexibility to metamorphose to meet either basic needs
(often dealt with by public research centers in “mission mode”) or
competitiveness (dealt with by the private sector or government training
institutes). Although they have not been in the vanguard of development in many
developing countries, they share with those of more advanced countries the new
wave of demands towards more social accountability and more direct service to
economic growth. It must be stressed, though, that in vast regions of the
developing world, namely Latin America, universities, and more specifically
public universities, are responsible for more than 75% of all R&D
activities.
However, they often lack both the
resources and the demand from a sound productive sector eager to benefit from
the knowledge they might create. They suffer, thus, from a “loneliness
syndrome” from which they cannot escape alone. To reverse this syndrome is one
of the real challenges for development, one that cannot be fulfilled by pushing
universities to change while everything else remains the same. A better approach
is to channel energies within the university environment to fulfil a combined
research, teaching and application mandate, with different types of universities
taking on different challenges and government and industries engaging in
effective interaction with them.
This is not a path without dangers,
however. One of them is that the pendulum (to mix metaphors) could swing too far
in the direction of making universities simply outposts for government or
private sector service functions, or engaged entirely in applied research.
Incentives need to be calibrated so, as universities continue to produce
knowledge, they also seek to transfer that knowledge for useful applications
where appropriate. Any informed
science, technology and innovation policy needs to account for the fact that
universities need continue to have local relevance while still fulfilling
broader mandates of education and knowledge acquisition and diffusion.
It is perhaps easier to identify what
does not make for innovation, rather than what does. Importantly, even if local
environments are important for technological innovations such as malaria
vaccines, wireless internet distribution and access, or using Global Positioning
System (GPS) technology for farming or fishing, they are all faced with the
challenge of keeping up with increasingly stringent global regulatory
environments.
In the pharmaceutical industry, for
example, this may be reflected in food and regulatory rules and certification
for manufacturing facilities and output quality that may be administered
differently by market and by new trading rules and WTO guidelines. In the
information technology and telecommunications industry, this may be pressure
from network externalities and the need to tie in to critical mass usage of a
certain system or standard. Thus, neither innovation alone, nor even cutting
edge technology, determines the eventual market uptake of the technology or the
ability to keep up with regulatory pressures.
Both the Western and East Asian successes are characteristic of the “right” mix of institutional, technological and organizational elements that have given rise to STI, product, process and institutional dynamism. The challenge for underdeveloped countries is to re-think this powerful approach to adapt it to their specific conditions while bearing in mind the factors that make it particularly well fitted for development purposes: it explicitly acknowledges the political as well as institutional and cultural aspects of innovation processes; it stresses the importance of interactions between actors and organizations; it takes into account multiple actors with different roles, allowing to go beyond the dichotomy “state or market”, making room for more “bottom-up” and associative networks; it highlights user-producer interactions, assigning an important role to usually neglected actors such as workers or consumers.
In
In
Undoubtedly, capital flight from the
region and the difficulty in attracting new investments has exacerbated existing
rigidities. Yet, countries like
Role
of industry
While learning occurs in a variety of institutions, enterprises are the most critical locus at which learning of economic significance takes place. In other words, technological capabilities of economic importance accumulate at the enterprise level. Even the most state-friendly explanations of economic development in the academic, empirical and policy literature acknowledge that while government acts as a facilitator of institutionalizing knowledge acquisition/learning, the locus of that learning rests in enterprises-public or private. The structure of industrial organization and the nature of the production process itself, provide returns to scale of varying amounts based on input factors of skilled labour, robust management practices, other factors of production. The returns to deliberate investments that build innovative capacity show varying returns based on resource-base, institutional environment, among others
Enterprises, particularly those involved in manufacturing, show great promise as centers of upgrading technology and organizational practices for developing countries. In addition, those enterprises that develop capabilities in design, R&D and product development, also establish themselves along a global value chain that allows for more opportunities for increased profit margins through innovation and product differentiation. Yet, manufacturing remains a core skill important to long-term enterprise learning. Historically, “industry has long been the main source, user and diffuser of technical progress and associated skills and attitudes…In this world the manufacturing industry is not just an ingredient of development-it is the essential ingredient” (UNIDO, 2002-2003). Both the fact that manufacturing can experiment with endless permutations of inputs in the production process as well as the fact that it can benefit from the increasing returns to scale of many industrial technologies, gives manufacturing a special place in the long road of economic development.
Furthermore, it is also a driver of innovation because relative to formal R&D processes, manufacturing actually affords a much greater opportunity for experimentation in engineering and production and also innovation on the procurement, quality and other management aspects of the organization. Furthermore, enterprises with manufacturing capability have been historically critically important not only for creating the new products, but also for diffusing new processes, organizational practices and learning opportunities for the labour force. In turn, enterprises act as a locus for spreading innovation outwards into the agricultural and service sectors.
At the outset, the scope of interest for enterprise is to master imported technologies and to gradually improve upon them in ways that benefit local production. This in itself, although called “imitation”, is not an entirely straightforward process of replication. It involves complex learning activities and interactions with other players in the economy, including the source of the original innovation.
Perhaps most important, from an institutional and learning standpoint, is the historical role played by manufacturing enterprises in spearheading institutional change, particularly financial and legal, to support production processes worldwide. The extent to which these national institutions conform or diverge from global practice or those from first-mover countries, also defines the extent of convergence of learning speeds and economic development across countries.
This is not to make the case that we
need homogeneity of institutions—in fact, evidence shows the opposite. To the
extent that these national institutions are compatible with or open to other
extra-national institutional changes, such as regulatory changes or trading
rules, the more likely it is that national governments and domestic enterprises
can make decisions that adapt local conditions quickly to the external economic
and geo-political climate. The modernizing environment that was created by
governments and firms alike in
However, the extent to which
enterprises, and particularly SME, can play their role in innovation and social
well-being is largely dependent on the internal skills they have at their
disposal. Those are not only important for internal R&D, but even more
important to make sound decision regarding imported technologies. One of the big
challenges for developing countries is the scarce participation of researchers
in enterprises: in
Technological
learning
Technological
learning involves bringing together a wide variety of disciplines, research
cultures and tradition. It is largely a product of convergence between different
technological traditions and therefore demands significant investment in
coordination and management. A major hurdle preventing
the commitment of the science, engineering and technology community to
sustainable development is the preoccupation with maintaining and strengthening
their own disciplinary turf. Achieving the MDGs requires cross-disciplinary and
holistic approach. Science, engineering and technology know-how is not created
within a single office or laboratory. An active process of sharing insights,
problems, issues, experimental approaches, and outcomes creates knowledge. This
occurs among people who have common interests, but they are not necessarily
people within the same field of science, engineering or technology.
In
fact, increasingly, the most interesting findings are emerging from the nexus of
two or more fields of science and technology. As STI institutions are created,
nurtured, and encouraged in developing countries, it is important to tie their
missions to specific problems and to enable a rich cross-sectoral exchange of
knowledge to occur. Care should be taken not to create a “physics center”
that is physically distant from the chemistry laboratory. The same is true for
biology and materials sciences. The sciences and the technologies emerging from
them grow by interaction. The social sciences are also an integral part of this
process, creating a context in which to understand the source, modes of creation
and dissemination and impact of STI.
Thus,
adjusting to the convergence across many areas of science, engineering and
technology means encouraging organization that enables the flows of information
across and among them. This can be done using ICT, as well as by pointing out
the success stories of universities and research institutions that have
“de-institutionalized” their departments and encouraged cross-sectoral
research. A specific way to adjust convergence across STI is to develop a
particular style and method of technology assessment like the one performed by
NOTA, the Netherlands Office of Technology Assessment, where social and economic
goals in need of innovation are translated into R&D programs.
The biggest obstacle to cross-sectoral
learning is the exaggerated pattern of narrow specialization that nowadays
characterizes the search and application of knowledge. Encouraging, in all the
possible range of stimuli and rewards, the organization of the research efforts
by problems and not by disciplines, both in developing and developed countries,
is a good way of fostering cross-sectoral learning. The problem is that
researchers usually do not know how their knowledge can be used for addressing
developmental problems; it is thus the responsibility of policy makers to devise
strategies to help them find out how best they can contribute to development.
One way to do this is to use a range of skills at their disposal and all
combinations of inter-connected learning institutions to achieve the practical
solutions of problems that can benefit the larger population.
Conclusion
This
Task Force addresses
MDG No.8 “Building Global Alliances for Development” and Target
18 “In cooperation with the private sector, make available the benefits of new
technologies, especially information and communications”. Its remit has been
broadened to how
science and technology can be enhanced and put to use to help all countries
achieve the MDGs. The mission of the Task Force is guided by the understanding
that most MDGs cannot be achieved without a strong contribution from a framework
of action that seeks to place science and technology at the center of the
development process.
Science and technology offers tools for solving acute problems, as well as for encouraging growth. It can also include earthquake detection, weather tracking, and disaster mediation. This use of science or technology can and should include a collection of experts from anywhere in the world. The aid they provide can help meet the Millennium Development Goals over the short term. The extent to which any country can solve acute problems often involves collective action. We expect that other MDG task forces will identify the ways in which STI can address acute needs such as these.
However, if long-term goals will be achieved, and growth and problem solving is to become indigenous and sustainable, then STI capabilities need to become a localized resource for developing countries. This latter goal is our focus, and it is one that requires a particular approach to STI as a system of interconnecting capabilities, each of which need attention. Governance is one, but education, institutions, advice, collaboration, and many other factors are also needed.
Acknowledgement
This draft
paper quotes from an interim report of the Task
Force on Science, Technology and Innovation of the United Nations Millennium
Project. Full reports from this Task Force and the overarching Millenium Project
are available on the World Wide Web:
“Investing
in Development: A Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals”,
Jeffrey D. Sachs, Director, UN Millennium Project, http://unmp.forumone.com/
, 2005
“Innovation:
applying knowledge in development”, Calestous Juma and Lee Yee-Cheong, Task
Force on Science, Technology and Innovation, http://unmp.forumone.com/eng_task_force/ScienceEbook.pdf,
2005
_______________________________________________________________________
Academician
DATO’ IR. LEE YEE CHEONG, is President 2003-2005, of the World Federation of
Engineering Organisations. During his career he has served with the National
Electricity Board
Russel C. Jones is
a private consultant, working through World Expertise LLC to offer services in
engineering education in the international arena. Prior to that, he had a long
career in education: faculty member at MIT, department chair in civil
engineering at