Department of Science and Technology (DST) Innovation for Inclusive Development (IID) Policy Seminars

Transcription

1 Department of Science and Technology (DST) Innovation for Inclusive Development (IID) Policy Seminars Purpose The Department of Science and Technology (DST) Policy Seminars are intended to ensure that research and evidence feed into active policy processes, and to serve as a vehicle for disseminating policy-relevant research results, sharing expertise and experience, facilitating policy dialogue, and building the capacity of researchers and policymakers in ways that bear on public policymaking. Making a contribution on this general objective is particularly timely in the area of Innovation for Inclusive Development (IID), as there is a strong and unmet demand for new knowledge generation, knowledge exchange and sharing of ideas in this field. With this in mind, HSRC is organising a series of DST IID Policy Seminars. The seminars will aim to inform and influence policymakers as well as facilitate access to leading thinkers drawn from government, academia, industry experts and active practitioners. Each seminar will focus on developing and interpreting five IID topics, establishing a common vocabulary, identifying and recommending opportunities for interventions. Correspondingly, the seminars will be based on a combination of master-class analysis and problem-solution debate. A committed and informed audience, including front line decision-makers from the government cluster system, have been invited and will be in attendance. The objectives of the IID policy seminars are to: Disseminate scientific research findings and transmit a body of new knowledge through an iterative process of critical dialogue and collegial critique; Provide an arena for the dissemination of knowledge, evidence and data on the IID and projects selected for discussions; Help educate the Science, technology and innovation (STI) policy and development communities about IID. Discuss the contributions of IID to the macroeconomic context and policy environment in South Africa linking the debates to major STI policy interventions as well as the National Development Plan (NDP). Examine, including through comparative perspectives, policy measures and interventions in the field of IID; Reinforce the visibility of IID research and policy implications; Enhance wider public understanding of the IID concept including the value and status of both individual and team-based research on IID. 1

2 Background to the proposed policy seminars STI are major factors in the generation of economic and social change and can contribute to growth and development. While this notion is widely held to be true, experts in the field of STI also acknowledge that innovation can lead to exclusion and inequalities in society (Cozzens, 2010), thereby making it necessary to consider ways in which innovation can be shaped to generate outcomes that do not result in deepening inequalities and structural barriers to mobility and social transformation. Empirical evidence suggests that the concept of inclusion is critical to development (Kraemer Mbula and Wamae, 2010; Marcelle et al., 2013; Marcelle, 2014; UNCTAD, 2014). IID in scholarly and policy literature is referred to by many terms, including grassroots innovation (Gupta et al., 2003; Gupta, 2012), frugal innovation (Zeschky et al., 2011), pro-poor innovation (World Bank, 2010; Iizuka and SadreGhazi 2011), innovation for social purposes, community-based and bottom-up innovation, (Fressoli, Smith et al. 2011); base/bottom of the pyramid (BOP) innovation (Prahaland and Hart, 2002; Prahalad, 2006; 2012), below the radar innovation (Chataway et al., 2009; Kaplinsky, 2011), reverse innovation (Agarwal and Brem, 2012) and many more. Consequently, substantial conceptual differences in the vocabulary, definition, terminology, narratives, understanding and framing of IID still exists, especially between the global North and South literature (Daniels, 2014a; Smith et al., 2014), resulting in nuances in policy focus and emphasis as well as in minimal conceptual clarity. In spite of these differences there is consensus that IID has the potential of addressing social and economic development challenges, especially for the poor, low-income citizens and the marginalised (Gupta, 2003; Lorentzen and Mohamed 2009; Cozzens and Sutz, 2012). Empirical evidence suggests that IID is driven by constraints (Aubert, 2005), does not readily lend itself to linear innovation models predominantly based on research and development (R&D) (UNCTAD, 2011), involves learning (Marcelle, 2004; Berdegué, 2005; Bell, 2007) and (formal and informal) knowledge creation (Gupta, 2003; World Bank, 2013). Inclusiveness as a notion is important in facilitating access for youth, women, ethnic minorities, citizens considered to have certain disabilities, and marginalized groups of the society (UNCTAD, 2011; Foster and Heeks, 2013). While a large percentage of innovation in the global South is performed in informal settings and the performers are low-income citizens, evidence suggests that work on mapping, measuring and analysing innovation has been plagued by a number of biases that renders innovation with these intentions and motivations subordinate to more economic and profit motivated innovation practices (Marcelle, 2012, 2014). This is in line with Pogue and Abrahams (2012), Sutz (2012) and Daniels (2014b) who found that there is need for further research on how innovation is conceptualised and measured in order to ensure that the results better account for the specific contexts, realities and perspectives of global South nations. 2

3 These complexities, that have contributed to the lack of conceptual clarity, have been promoted in part by the idea of national system of innovation framework (Freeman 1987; Lundvall 1992; Nelson 1993), which puts the attention on formal institutions and favours technologically intensive novelty as opposed to putting the meaning on value of innovation while also taking into account the role of informal institutions and actual innovation performers (Muchie et al., 2003; Adebowale, 2012; Ekboir and Vera-Cruz, 2012; Oyeyinka, 2012). This calls for a rethinking and reimagining of the definitions of (science, technology and) innovation so that they include problem solving, local knowledge and ways of doing; while also according value to wisdom and acknowledge that innovation always involves processes of learning, capability development (Oyeyinka, 2012) and policies responsive to innovation performers (Marcelle, 2014). Another important dimension and concern is the challenge of innovation that balances the desire for growth and development with conscious regard for effective management of the environment (Marcelle, 2012). Evidence derived from South Africa suggests that formal institutions that perform STI programming are not always mindful of how they should interact with communities and individuals in settings with different characteristics (Marcelle et al., 2013). Therefore, improving partnerships, bidirectional knowledge exchange and the ability of the higher education (HE) sector and science councils to engage with communities, the private sector and entrepreneurs becomes an important policy objective (Kruss, 2012; Kruss et al, 2013). In this regard, IID can be a very important tool in making innovation and science relevant for poor communities thereby fostering South Africa s socio economic development. IID, with its focus on affordability and availability (Prahalad, 2006) and facilitating access to essential goods and services by marginalized and excluded populations, has the potential of enhancing economic empowerment (Gupta, 2007; World Bank, 2013; UNCTAD, 2014). Consequently, achieving inclusive development through innovation is at the top of many governments agenda. The government of South Africa and the DST in particular, in addition to many other STI initiatives and projects, has a commitment to IID. Nevertheless, in spite of these potential interests and benefits outlined, global policy support for IID is still considered to be weak or non-existent in many countries (Gupta, 2013; Daniels, 2014a; Marcelle, 2014). The seminar series will contribute in this regard by helping identify key policy-relevant issues, policy options, and possible future research agenda. Participants for the policy seminars will be a small group of specialists, with a maximum of thirty for each seminar, drawn from relevant government institutions, science councils, academia and key IID stakeholder organisations. In addition, it will bring together researchers, scholars, funders, industry experts, policymakers, innovation at grassroots practitioners and decision-makers who work around the sector to which the topic relates. Participants will debate issues on IID with a view to improving South Africa s knowledge and understanding of the concept of IID, roles that innovation actors play, contribution of IID to socio-economic development, measurement approaches and policy support to promote inclusive development, amongst others. 3

4 These seminars will use the standard format of DST s policy dialogue, that is, a presentation about project or topic, followed by a group debate session. A detailed programme is provided. Expected results of the Policy Seminars The key outputs are: Briefing papers, keynote presentations and seminar reports produced after each seminar and distributed to delegates and other interested parties. Dissemination of the knowledge. Enhanced linkage between the IID community and the DST. Improved networking among researchers within the IID space. Identification of policy gaps, recommendations on policy measures and other possible interventions. Seminar topics In line with the objectives and background discussed above, the DST-branded IID policy seminars, to be held in Pretoria in March 2015, will focus on five areas: Seminar 1: Sectoral examples of IID built environment (Presidential Infrastructure Coordinating Commission and Innovative Building Technologies) In this seminar we will examine sectoral examples of IID. We draw specifically from the impact of the Presidential Infrastructure Coordinating Commission (PICC) council resolution to build socioeconomic infrastructure through the use of the Innovative Building Technologies (IBT), requiring 60% of government's social infrastructure building to be constructed from IBTs by We will discuss built environment, using examples such as clinics, schools and student residences, as outlined in the PICC council resolution. We debate the government's plan to roll-out Innovative Building Technologies for social infrastructure and similar projects, the innovation contributions that may be observed from such projects, their roles in fostering inclusive development and lessons that may be learnt. The fresh insights captured may shed light on the nation s innovation capabilities and innovation readiness, while also highlighting the impacts of this resolution on other inclusive development indicators such as poverty, inequality, job creation, employment and access to infrastructure, appropriate technologies and innovation. 4

5 Seminar 2: Sectoral examples of IID water and sanitation (the Accelerated Sustainable Water Service Delivery project) In this seminar we discuss and share the lessons learnt from the implementation of the Accelerated Sustainable Water Service Delivery (ASWSD) project which was designed to demonstrate how to expedite the provision of reliable safe drinking water (potable water) to underserviced, or unserved, communities living in remote rural areas through the application of science and technology (Marcelle et al., 2013, p.7). We explore how this and similar government commissioned projects may contribute in ways such as linking formal and informal STI sectors and knowledge sources thus promoting IID, enhancing co-creation, reducing poverty, inequality and unemployment, and providing access to S&T-centric innovation by marginalised rural communities and citizens. Issues of capabilities, scalability (where applicable), sustainability, directionality of innovation, participation, diffusion, learning and policy implications, amongst others, will the examined. The focus will be forward-looking with a view to accumulating fresh IID and policy-relevant insights, rather than an exante assessment of the ASWSD project itself. Seminar 3: Understanding the role of universities in IID, with reference to the Community University Partnership Programme and rural universities In this seminar we examine the role of universities in IID. Universities have been identified as a key actors in various innovation and development theories and frameworks such as the National System of Innovation (NSI), Triple Helix, political economy, and many others. We will examine the role of Universities in supporting IID and debate issues such as teaching and learning, capabilities for policy research, capacity development and production and dissemination of policy-relevant IID research and knowledge. In addition, the role of universities and Public Research Institutions (PRI s) in advancing theories, frameworks and concepts relevant to IID and innovation in the wider scheme of things will be discussed. This seminar will also be used to address other points that include universities positioning within South Africa s knowledge and innovation ecosystem, the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies, research and knowledge generation geared towards creativity and entrepreneurship. Furthermore, issues of bidirectional flow of knowledge, expertise and best practices; universities role in research on informal economy, IID measurement indicators and policymaking 1 methodologies of relevance to IID will be considered. This seminar builds on the ideas discussed in preceding topics and the emerging insights. It focuses on the partnerships between communities and universities in South Africa s innovation and IID landscape. Here we examine universities partnerships with IID communities and rural innovation performers, the role of universities as knowledge brokers and intermediaries between informal (grassroots) and formal institutions, universities roles in blending formal and informal (traditional) knowledge sources, sectors and IID actors; mobilising technological innovation at/from grassroots' 1 Formulation or design, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and review. 5

6 and democratising innovation. Specific examples of universities partnership programmes with rural communities, innovation practitioners and key institutions 2 or sectors will be examined to help identify gaps, key issues, policy options and possible research agenda. Seminar 4: Establishing conceptual clarity for innovation for inclusive development As discussed in the background section, there are still substantial ambiguities in the way IID is defined, conceptualised, studied and understood, both in the global North and South. While scholars in the global North (developed countries) consider inclusive innovation as a mechanism for growth, in the global South (developing countries), inclusive innovation is seen as a tool for development, a term understood to be broader and more encompassing. Another complexity which has bedevilled innovation for inclusive development in scholarly work, policy literature, development discourse and political debates is the various terminologies by which inclusive innovation has been characterised (Cozzens and Sutz, 2012). It is necessary and important to fill this conceptual gap (Chataway et al., 2013). Daniels (2014a) submits that the use of these terms and labels, sometimes contradictory, does disservice implying inferiority to important inclusive innovation, some with potential for significant contributions to socio economic development. Some of these terms include grassroots, social, frugal, pro-poor, imitative, base/bottom of the pyramid, below the radar, reverse, etc. innovation. In advancing research in this area, Daniels (2014a) using grassroots innovation cases, differentiates between four classes: innovation from grassroots, innovation for grassroots, innovation at grassroots, and innovation by grassroots. Currently these and other forms of innovation (e.g. social, frugal, jugaad, etc.) are all thrown into an innovation blackbox. This practice has contributed in great measure to lack of conceptual clarity thereby making it challenging for further research to adequately build on current outputs knowledge accumulation (Gupta, 2014). We observe that such differentiation (into e.g. IID for, from, at and by) helps illuminate the nature and characteristics of the innovation and actors involved thus revealing the uniqueness of each class. Furthermore, enhanced clarity on inclusive innovation is necessary for the development of measurement indicators and targeted public policies aimed at supporting and promoting IID in South Africa and the global South. This seminar will effectively explore these challenges with the aim of unpacking the conceptual differences that exists while providing a clear roadmap on the definition, terminologies, understanding and framing of IID as it relates to South Africa s STI ecosystems, development contexts and political perspectives. 2 Institutions in this specific instance refers to low income and IID communities and clusters, such as youth, women, unemployed, local farmers, artisans, entrepreneurs and others. 6

7 Seminar 5: Measuring the Impact of Innovation on Inclusive development We know that innovation occurs in South Africa, as evidenced by the empirical findings captured in the national R&D and innovation surveys. In this seminar we will explore issues related to measuring the impact of innovation on inclusive development. Building on preceding seminar topics, we note that establishing conceptual clarity on IID is an essential step towards the development of indicators useful in the measurement of the various aspects of the IID phenomenon. It is important to state here that a metric of prevalence for IID is fundamentally different from an impact study of IID on major socio economic phenomena. In this seminar therefore we discuss IID measurement indicators, metrics and other characteristics relevant to capturing the impact and contribution of IID to South Africa s socio-economic development. While discussions on these differences are beginning to emerge in scholarly works, there is considerable work to be done to take this further. This is an area of interest for the HSRC s CeSTII team. Consequently this seminar will aim to begin examination of approaches to investigating and assessing the prevalence, extent of a category or type of innovation. As well as deepening our knowledge and understanding of the various impacts resulting from innovation practices and policies on South Africa s inclusive development efforts and strategies, there will be specific attention given to understanding how these impacts may be measured. This seminar will also examine various measurement methodologies, criteria and indicators, the pros and cons of each methodology, ethical, logistical and policy implications will be debated. Measuring innovation in the global South currently faces various challenges. The Community Innovation Survey (CIS) standard practice and methodology for the measurements of innovation have been criticised for its inappropriateness to developing countries perspectives by scholars such as Salazar and Holbrook (2004), Schibany and Streicher (2008), and Srinivas and Sutz (2008). Weaknesses identified in CIS methodologies and benchmarks include the use of R&D as a measure of innovation, definition of the choice of measurement indicators, bias towards the manufacturing sector, high-tech firms, the private sector, and successful firms. Others include problems associated with industrial classifications, how to characterize the degree of novelty, use of firm as the unit of analysis; R&D and patents as innovation indicators and proxies; and the importance of normalization and international comparisons (Griliches, 1986, 1990; RICYT, 2001; Godin, 2002, 2005; Viotti, 2003, 2010; Salazar and Holbrook, 2004; Salazar-Acosta, 2006; Freeman and Soete, 2007, 2009; Gault, 2013; Daniels, 2014b). With grassroots and other forms of inclusive innovation occurring predominantly in the informal economy, there is therefore a need for exploring other measurement methodologies more suitable for capturing innovation activities in informal sectors. Multi-indicator approaches to innovation measurement and analysis (Lanjouw and Schankerman, 1999), is one methodology with the potential of enhancing the robustness of selected indicators (Grupp and Mogee, 2004). Furthermore, the ability to better capture innovation, a fuzzy concept (Godin, 2005), and the use of impact measures and productivity growth as an innovation indicator (Hall, 2011) and other STI measurement strategies will be considered and discussed in this seminar. 7

8 References Adebowale, B.O. A., Innovation policies, institutions and performance: why Malaysia overtook Nigeria in the oil palm industry. Int. J. of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, Vol. 5, Nos. 1/2. Agarwal, N. and Brem, A., Frugal and reverse innovation Literature overview and case study insights from a German MNC in India and China. 18th International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation June, Munich, Germany. Aubert, J. E., Promoting innovation in developing countries: A conceptual framework. Policy Research Working Papers. World Bank. Bell, M., Technological learning and the development of production and innovative capacities in the industry and infrastructure sectors of the least developed countries: what roles for ODA UNCTAD. The Least Developed Countries Report 2007, Background Paper No. 10. Berdegué, J. A., Pro-poor innovation systems: Background paper. International Fund for Agricultural Development. Chataway, J., Hanlin, R., Kaplinsky, R., Inclusive Innovation: An architecture for policy development. IKD Working Paper. Available at: Accessed: Chataway, J., N. Clark, et al., Below the Radar: What Does Innovation in the Asian Driver Economies Have to Offer Other Low Income Economies. Milton Keynes: The Open University. Cozzens, S. E., Innovation and Inequality, in The Co-Evolution of Innovation Policy: Innovation Policy Dynamics, Systems, and Governance, edited by Stephan Kuhlmann, Philip Shapira, and Ruud Smits. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Cozzens S. E. and Sutz, J., Innovation in Informal Settings: A Research Agenda. Available at: pdf. Accessed: Daniels, C. U., 2014a. Policy Support for Innovation at Grassroots in Developing Countries: Perspectives from Nigeria. Journal of Science, Technology and Society (forthcoming). Daniels, C. U., 2014b. Measuring innovation in the global South: an annotated bibliography. A report on the measurement and analysis of innovation programme, submitted to the Centre for Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (CeSTII), Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), South Africa. Ekboir, J. and Vera-Cruz, A., Intermediary institution to foster the agricultural system of innovation: the Mexican Produce Foundation. Int. J. of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, Vol. 5, Nos. 1/2. Foster. C, and Heeks R., Conceptualizing inclusive innovation: Modifying systems of innovation frameworks to understand diffusion of new technology to low-income consumers. European Journal of Development Research, 25, 3, Freeman C. and Soete, L., Developing Science, technology and innovation indicators: the twenty-first century challenges, in Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators in a Changing World: Responding to Policy Needs, Paris: OECD. Freeman, C. and Soete, L., Developing science, technology and innovation indicators: What we can learn from the past, Research Policy, 38, Freeman, C., Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan. London, Pinter. Fressoli, M., Smith, A. and Thomas, H., From Appropriate to Social technologies: some enduring dilemmas in grassroots innovation movements for socially just futures. Globelics 2011, Buenos Aires. Gault, F., (ed.) Handbook of Innovation Indicators and Measurement, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. Godin, B., The Number Makers: Fifty Years of Official Statistics on Science and Technology. 8

9 Minerva. 40, 4, pp Griliches, Z., Hall, B. and Hausman J "Patents and R&D: Is there a lag?" International Economic Review, 27, 2, pp Griliches, Z., Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey, Journal of Economic Literature, XXVIII, Grupp, H. and Mogee, M.E., Indicators for national science and technology policy: how robust are composite indicators? Research Policy 33, pp Gupta, A. K., Mobilizing grassroots' technological innovations and traditional knowledge, values and institutions. Articulating Social and Ethical Capital, 35, 9, Gupta, A. K., Towards an inclusive innovation model for sustainable development. Paper presented at the Global Business Policy Council of A.T. Kearney CEO s Retreat, Dubai, 9 11 December. Gupta, A. K., Innovations for the poor by the poor. Int. J. of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, Vol. 5, Nos. 1/2. Gupta, A.K., Policy Gaps for Promoting Green Grassroots Innovations and Traditional Knowledge in Developing Countries: Learning from Indian Experience. IIMA W.P. No Gupta, A.K., Theory of green grassroots frugal innovations. Accessed: Gupta, A.K., Sinha, R., Koradia, D., Patel, R., Parmar, M., Rohit, P., Patel, H., Patel, K., Chand, V.S., James, T.J., Chandan, A., Patel, M., Prakash, T.N., Vivekanandan, P., Mobilizing grassroots technological innovations and traditional knowledge, values and institutions: articulating social and ethical capital. Futures, Futures of indigenous cultures, 35, Hall, B. H., Using productivity growth as an innovation indicator Report for the high level panel on measuring innovation, DG Research, European Commission Iizuka, M. and SadreGhazi, S., Understanding Dynamics of Pro-Poor Innovation: Mapping the Disputed Areas. Presented at the DIME Final Conference, UNU MERIT, Maastricht. Kaplinsky, R., Schumacher meets Schumpeter: Appropriate technology below the radar. Research Policy, 40, 2, Kraemer Mbula, E. and W. Wamae, eds., Innovation and the Development Agenda. Ottawa, OECD/IDRC. Kruss, G., Channels of interaction in health biotechnology networks in South Africa: who benefits and how? Int. J. of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, Vol. 5, Nos. 1/2. Kruss, G., Diwu, C., Nyoka, B., Ranchod, R., and Manamela, A., A review of the Community- University partnership programme (CUPP). Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC): Pretoria, South Africa. Lanjouw, J. O. and Schankerman, M., The Quality of Ideas: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators. NBR (National Bureau of Economic Research) Working Paper 7345 Lorentzen, J. and Mohamed, R., Where Are the Poor in Innovation Studies? Paper presented at 7th Annual Globelics Conference, Dakar, Senegal, 6-9 October. Available at: Accessed: Lundvall, B. A., ed., National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London, Pinter. Marcelle, G., Editorial, Special Issue: Innovation for development frontiers of research, policy and practice. Int. J. Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, 5, 1-2, Marcelle, G., 2004, Technological Learning Strategic imperative for firms in the developing world, Edward Elgar. Marcelle, G., Science Technology and Innovation Policy that is Responsive to Innovation Performers, Invited Chapter for International Research Handbook on Science, Technology and Innovation Policy in Developing Countries: Rationales and Relevance, Edited by Stefan 9

10 Kuhlmann and Gonzalo Ordonez-Matamoros, Edward Elgar. Marcelle, G., Nkhumise, L. and Vawda, S., Making innovation and science relevant for poor communities: the case of a water management project in South Africa. Available at: v2.pdf. Accessed: Muchie, M., Gammeltoft, P. and Lundvall, B-A. (eds.), Putting Africa First: The making of African Innovation Systems. Aalborg: Aalborg University Press Nelson, R. R., National innovation systems: a comparative analysis. Oxford University Press, USA. Oyeyinka, B. O., Institutional capacity and policy for latecomer technology development. Int. J. Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, 5, 1-2. Pogue, T. and Abrahams, L., South Africa's national system of innovation and knowledge economy evolution: thinking about "less favoured regions". Int. J. Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, 5, 1-2. Prahalad, C. K., The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits. Wharton School Publishing, Philadelphia: Pennsylvania. Prahalad, C. K., Bottom of the pyramid as a source of breakthrough innovations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29, 1, Prahalad, C. K., and Hart, S. L., The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Strategy and Business, 26, RICYT, Bogota Manual: Standardisation of Indicators of Technological. Available at: Accessed: Salazar, M. and Holbrook, A., A debate on innovation surveys. Science and Public Policy, 31, 4, p Salazar-Acosta, M Paper presented at the Blue Sky 2006 conference What indicators for Science, Technology and Innovation Policies in the 21 st century, Statistics Canada, Ottawa, September Schibany, A. and Streicher, G., 2008 How not to compare innovation performance - A critical assessment of the European Innovation Scoreboard. Conference paper for the 2nd PRIME Indicators Conference on STI Indicators for Policy. Addressing New Demands of Stakeholders Smith, A., Fressoli, M., Thomas, H., Grassroots innovation movements: challenges and contributions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 63, Srinivas, S. and J. Sutz, Developing Countries and Innovation: Searching for a New Analytical Approach, Technology in Society, Vol. 30, pp Sutz, J., Measuring innovation in developing countries: some suggestions to achieve more accurate and useful indicators. Int. J. Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, 5, 1-2. UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development), Pro-poor technology, innovation and entrepreneurship policies. TD/B/C.II/MEM.1/12. Geneva. 8 November. UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development), Innovation policy tools for inclusive development. UNCTAD. VIOTTI, E., Macedo, B. and Matos, M. (eds.), Indicators of Science, Technology and Innovation in Brazil. Editora Unicamp, Campinas, SP, Brazil, pp Viotti, E Measuring innovation requires more than R&D indicators. Available at: Accessed: World Bank, Innovation Policy: a Guide for Developing Countries. No International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank. Washington, D.C. World Bank, China: Inclusive innovation for sustainable inclusive growth. Document of the World Bank No Washington, D.C. Zeschky, M., Widenmayer, B., Gassmann, O., Frugal Innovation in Emerging Markets. 10

11 Research Technology Management 54,