DPMN Bulletin: Volume X, Number 4, November 2003

The Status of Science and technology Indicators in Africa: A Commentary

Britina D. Diyamett *

 Introduction

It is a rare opportunity to contribute to a special issue on the status of science and technology (S&T) in Africa, in particular in Zimbabwe. For quite some time now I have been asking myself questions whose answers are not so obvious, at least not to me, regarding the place and role of S&T indicators in Africa. My interest in the subject was partly intensified by my participation in an International Review of S&T Indicators launched by the UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) early last year. It is during this time that I came to learn that the culture of collecting relevant information on S&T is conspicuously lacking in most African countries. There can be two reasons for this: either the role of science and technology indicators in the development of the former is not appreciated; or it could altogether mean that the role of science and technology in socio-economic development is not appreciated, leading to the lack of enthusiasms on the part of the government in putting in place appropriate strategies and mechanisms towards the development of science and technology. If the reason is the former, then the solution is not so difficult; it takes only running a few conferences throughout the region. But if the reason is the latter, then the problem is much bigger and complicated, and I will not attempt even to comment on it even though the original intention of this article is to bring the issue to the attention of the readers for further discussion and comments. I will therefore only attempt, very briefly, to give the role and status of science and technology indicators in Africa, in the hope that this will facilitate more discussion on the above controversy. This article is therefore designed to raise more questions than answers.

The rest of the article is structured as follows: section two is on the role of indicators in the development of science and technology. Section three is devoted to the status of science and technology indicators in Africa. The last section consists of comments and concluding remarks.

2. Indicators and the Develoment of Science and Technology: Some Conceptual Issues

2.1 Science and Technology Defined

Before we define an indicator, which is a major subject of inquiry here, it is useful to put the concept of S&T in a proper context: While science is commonly understood, in a very simple way, as a systematic study of the natural world, technology, which is one of the most important means by which mankind reproduces and expands its living condition, has been defined differently by different scholars. According to Muller 1980, who has more or less crosscutting definition, technology embraces a combination of four constituents: techniques, knowledge, organization and products. Technology is therefore best defined as not a thing, but rather a spectrum of things with ideas at one end and techniques and products at the other end, with the design in the middle.

Science and technology normally appear together as S&T because of the symbiotic relationship that exists between the two, where technology influences the growth of science as much as science influences the growth of technology. Technological innovation affects human beings in two ways. Firstly, it can directly enhance human capabilities. Secondly, technological innovation is a means to human development because of its impact on economic growth through the productivity gains it generates (UNDP Human Development Report 2001, 28).

2.2 An Indicator Defined

Indicators are not only important for S&T activities but for many others that cannot be measured directly. They are selected on the basis of plausible assumptions about their relationships with the variables they represent. An indicator defines the performance standard to be reached to achieve a certain objective. It is therefore a tool to be used to assist in the assessment of some activities or consequences. Typically, assessment or evaluation makes use of the sets of indicators each of which may display or highlight some facets of the object under evaluaion.

2.3 The Role of Indicators in the Development of Scienc and Technology

Science and technology is viewed as one of the strongest forces driving economic growth. In fact the economic gap that exists between the North and the South is actually a science and technology gap. This realisation led to major activities directed at promoting the use of S&T in economic development, and hence the need for continuous assessment and evaluation of S&T activities in a country. This in turn spurred growing interest in indicators for measurement of the progress and status of science and technology activities and what contribution they are likely to make to economic development. Such indicators are often used in two ways: the first is a purely descriptive purpose that is useful in comparisons between nations and even firms. The second is to discern the patterns of scientific and technological activities existing in a system, where technological indicators go beyond pure description and become an important aid at better understanding of the causal relationship in a given socio-economic system. S&T indicators are therefore indispensable S&T policy tools. Specifically, they fulfil the following major functions:

The process of developing indicators in different parts of the world has been in place for more than five decades now. For the first time in the year 1950, an attempt was made to put in place an S&T indicator based on human resource in S&T (UIS 2002). Given their importance, over the years that followed, more and more S&T indicators were added to this. The following are some of the indicators that are currently available:

While in most developed countries individual governments have been behind the development and use of S&T indicators, in most developing countries attempts have been made by UN agencies such as UNESCO in collaboration with governments.

It is however worth noting that the above indicators are far from being adequate representation of S&T dynamics currently taking place, even in the developed world where they originated. For instance, input indicators such as R&D funding and human resources in R&D are receiving growing criticism on the grounds of being inadequate proxies for innovative activities at the firm level much of which is from tacit knowledge. Such inadequacies have spurred S&T indicators' reviews throughout the world. The example is the innovation indicators based on the Oslo Manual, which is continuously being reviewed by different countries and regions of the world to fit their specific environment (see Anllo 2001).

3. Status of S&T Indicators in Africa

There are two major issues here: availability and validity. Concerning availability, while in developed countries and some of the regions of the developing countries S&T statistics have been part and parcel
of their S&T activities and there are specialised institutions put in place for the purpose, in most African countries this seems to have taken a back seat. According to Tchatchoua (2002), in the past 20 years Africa has provided UNESCO with very few and irregular data on R&D. About 80% of the countries have not provided such data at all and less than 4% provided in a regular way. It is useful to note here that this 4% largely consists of Arab states of North Africa.

The above, however, is not only a result of difficulties in communicating this information to UNESCO, but a total absence of the information. According to Khalil (2000), in most African countries data for most S&T indicators are neither gathered nor compiled! In the few cases this is done, it is largely a result of pressure from international organisations such as UNESCO who are normally interested in the compilation of S&T statistics. In some countries such as Tanzania, S&T indicators exist only as part of the policy blueprint. Worse still, these seem to have been copied from the manuals developed for more developed countries' environment. In short the culture of using S&T indicators for the purpose of policy and planning in most Sub-Saharan Africa is lacking.

Regarding validity, it is worth noting that S&T indicators are largely context specific; to a large extent they depend on a given socio-economic environment. This is especially true for the innovation indicators.

For instance, while R&D in puts and patents (much as they are being criticized) are very important
indicators of innovative activities in most developed economies, in most poor developing countries such as in Africa, this tells very little about innovative activities at the firm level. This is from the fact that while there is an organic relationship that exists between science and economic activities in most developed countries, in Africa science is largely alienated from economic activities. Science is largely sought for its own sake and the symbiotic relationship that normally exists between science and technology is largely absent. We therefore have science, which is based in academic institutions and a different technology in industrial firms. A direct measure of innovative activities in industrial firms is therefore more appropriate for Africa. Likewise it is also more useful to develop indicators for the linkage between science and productive sectors (see Diyamett and Wangwe 2001).

4. Summary and Concluding Remarks

This article, short as it is, has highlighted the importance of S&T indicators in the S&T policy process. However, while the rest of the world is busy collecting S&T statistics and continuously seeking for more appropriate indicators of S&T, the African region has remained silent. One may therefore wonder, how S&T activities are decided up on in these countries? To what effects? It is also a normal outcry in the region that not enough resources are allocated for R&D. What is the justification.

At a regional and sub-regional level there are increasing initiatives in terms of projects, organizations, commissions and foundations for S&T. How did we arrive at this? What were the criteria used?

References

Anllo, G. 2001. "An Overview on the Latin American innovation surveys. A paper presented at the OECD/DACST Seminar on Innovation Measurement, Pretoria, South Africa.

CCST. 1999. A Caribbean approach to S&T indicators: Report of the CCST workshop on S&T indicators. Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago.

Diyamett, B. D., and S.M. Wangwe. 2001. Innovation indicators within Sub-Saharan Africa: Usefulness, methodologies and approaches _ A specific case for Tanzania. Paper presented at the OECD/DACST Seminar on Innovation Measurement, Pretoria, South Africa.

Khalil, M.H. 2001. Status of science and technology capacity in Africa. IDRC, Nairobi, Kenya.

Muller, J. 1980. Liquidation or consolidation of indigenous technology _ A study of the changing conditions of production of village blacksmith in Tanzania. Development Research Series, no.1. Denmark: Aalborg University Press.

Saeed, K., and Xu, H. n.d. Emerging issues in the development and utilization of S&T indicators in developing countries of the ESCAP region. Social Science and Policy Studies, Worcester Poly Technic Institute.

Tchatchoua. 2002. Science and technology: An international review of science and technology statistics and indicators. Paper presented at the ATPS annual conference, Abuja, Nigeria.

UIS. 2002. Science and technology statistics and indicators: Perspectives and challenges. A working document prepared for the Experts Meeting, 2-5 April 2002, Montreal, Canada.

* Britina D. Diyamett (M.A.) is currently Senior Scientific Officer in Tanzania and is also current African Technology Policy Studies National Coordinator for the Tanzanian Chapter.