The Science and Technology Policy Instruments (STPI) project was an extensive research project organised by the International Development Research Centre on the implementation of science policy in developing countries, elaborated over seven years and resulted in more than 200 papers and reports.  The STPI project studied the role of science and technology in economic development, particularly in the industrialization process, and looked at: mechanisms of policy formulation, decision making, and policy implementation; factors affecting technological change; and industrial administration.  Ten countries were involved, including: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, India, South Korea, Mexico, Peru, Venezuela, and Yugoslavia.  Various participants in the country projects later took prominent government positions, extending the influence of the project lessons into several national policy-making efforts. (Oldham, pers comm)

Geoffrey Oldham, who worked for IDRC at the time and helped initiate the STPI project, described the birth of the idea at a meeting in Peru where various Latin American participants pointed out that they had established science policies, and though these policies had been ‘successful’ – in strengthening scientific institutional infrastructure, training scientists and developing research programmes, the impact had still not been significant in terms of economic benefit to the broader population.  The STPI project was conceived to better understand why this had happened, and then to explore policy instruments that would enable implementation of science and technology policy toward broader social and economic goals.  Each national team studied the situation in their own country, and the results were fed immediately into their own national policy process.   (Oldham, G. pers. comm.)

There were two main lessons from the project.  First, there was a need to pay attention to the demand for scientific and technological resources (both products and services), whereas previously most policy efforts had emphasised the supply – for science and technology policy to generate infrastructure and human resources.  Without demand coming from throughout the economy, the science and technology supply was largely left unused and wouldn’t make the leap to economic benefit. 

The project showed that the various national science councils were effective at stimulating research on topics of national relevance, but not good at ensuring the research was used. “National leaders were well aware of the problems caused by the absence of adequate links between the local scientific apparatus (supply) and industry (demand).” (Fleury, no date) Francisco Sagasti, coordinator of the STPI project, pointed out that “national researchers complained they were not being consulted, because most of the technologies used in their countries were imported”  highlighting the missing linkages between the developing countries’ research and development resources and their industries. (Sagasti, quoted in Fleury, no date.)  Furthermore, it became clear that economic planners often had a low appreciation for science and technology, tended to prefer foreign over local technology, focusing more on short-term investments than on longer-term capabilities for technological change (building local competence). (Oldham, 1985) 

Secondly, the results of the study showed that it was the implicit S&T policies, embedded in the country’s economic and fiscal policies (not explicitly intended to direct the development of science and technology), that in fact had a huge influence on the direction and development of science and technology.  For example, the general tax policy influenced decision-makers in firms in terms of technology research and development, training, and other investments. In contrast, the explicit S&T policies were having very little impact compared with these implicit policies. Sometimes these policies even functioned at odds with one another, not even pulling in the same direction. (Oldham, Pers. Comm.)

In other words, the study showed that “in most countries indirect instruments had overtaken direct instruments. Moreover, the indirect instruments, such as industrial financing, use of government purchasing power, and the setting up of tariff barriers, were applied to all industrial activity, without taking into account the fact that some industries are doubtless more important than others to the development of a country. For their part, the direct instruments, including research laboratories and training programs for scientific personnel, [had] had a much lower impact than had been expected of them.” (Fleury, no date)

Instead of treating all developing countries as if they were identical, the study stressed “the importance of stimulating demand for the services of national experts and research centres […] through instruments such as use of local consultant firms, redefinition of standards and norms in the context of local conditions, programs of loans for innovation, and control of foreign investments.” (Fleury, no date) The study helped recognise that each country needs its own science and technology research and policy analysis, which should be integrated with policy-making and adapted to local objectives, priorities, history and geography.  It was emphasised that these might be based on a review of other countries’ experience but must be analysed in light of the domestic context. (Oldham, 1985)

The report also acknowledged that a few countries were restoring their local technological capabilities, namely: India, Brazil, and Korea. And the report recommended that countries should consider, where appropriate, importing foreign technology, suggesting that “scientific and technical expertise that is capable of determining whether or not the importing of a given technology is in line with national objectives should be the favoured instrument.” (Fleury, no date)

Geoff Oldham points out that ultimately the project had a significant impact due to mass dissemination efforts and especially in several countries (Korea and Argentina) where research team leaders went on to take prominent government positions in their countries, taking with them the lessons of the research project.  The coordinator of STPI, Francisco Sagasti, became head of strategic planning in the World Bank and contributed to the next major UN Conference on science and technology in Vienna, helping to coordinate the G77’s position in that conference, influenced by the STPI project results. (Oldham, Pers. Comm.)

For a personal take on the STPI project, listen to this sound clip from Geoffrey Oldham. [insert link to clip]

 

Sources:

Fleury, J-M. No date. ‘Linking Science and Industry’, Science and Technology Dossier, Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, p 14. Available online: http://idrinfo.idrc.ca/Archive/ReportsINTRA/pdfs/v7n4e/109622.pdf

Oldham, G. Personal Communication (Interview March 2009).

Oldham, C.H.G. (1985) ‘Science and Technology Policies for Third World Development: Past Promises and Future Prospects’, Paper presented at the 16th AAAS Symposium, Los Angeles, CA USA, 31 May, Brighton, UK: Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex

See also:

Sagasti, F.R. and Araoz, A. (1976) Science and Technology Policy Implementation in Less-Developed Countries: Methodological Guidelines for the STPI Countries, Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.  Download
 
IDRC (1978) Science and Technology for Development: Main Comparative Report of the STPI Project, Ottawa: International Development Research Centre (IDRC-109e). Download

Sagasti, F.R. (1977) ‘Science and Technology Policy Implementation in Less-Developed Countries: Gearing Science and Technology to Development – the Problem of Policy Implementation’, Working paper prepared for the Dissemination Meeting of the Science and Technology Policy Instruments (STPI) Project, held at Nairobi, Kenya, 14-19 December 1977.  Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.  Download

IDRC (1979) Science, Technology and Development: Planning in the STPI Countries, Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, STPI Project. Download

IDRC (1980) Science and technology for development: a selection of background papers for the main comparative report of the STPI (Science and Technology Policy Instruments) project. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. Download