January 10th Mexico City

Matias Ramirez

Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Matias.ramirez@sussex.ac.uk

Inclusive innovation through different policy frames

How can we think of inclusive innovation in frame 1?

• Linear and planned: Agendas and solutions invented by scientists, engineers and technocrats to either solve problems of poor (health, education, jobs) or improve their capabilities and/or livelihoods.

• Example: UK housing policy– End of 19th century : Large populations moving from countryside to

cities. Principle measure to help were the “Almhouses” based on charity, rich people build for poor.

• Post WW1 and post WW2 created expectation on the state to solve problem. Post WW2 new technical solution based on PRC (Pre-cast Reinforced Concrete). These houses were quick to assemble and required less skilled labour.

• Advantage– Universality: The decade after

1945, 1.5 million homes had been completed for poorest. The percentage of the people renting from local authorities had risen to over a quarter of the population, from 10% in 1938 to 26% in 1961.

• DisadvantageHigh rise blocks created social problem, delinquency, break-up of social networks – nobody asked tenants.

Inclusive innovation and Frame 2 Learning- connectedness – institutions – System dynamics

• Innovation is built on dynamic interactions between different component parts of the system. Asks the question: If one part fails, what is the effect on the rest?

• “learning” can take place in different forms: Contrasts learning through STI (from formal investment in science, technology and Innovation) with DUI (doing, using, interacting). Many emerging economies rely on DUI.

• Linkages between various actors and rationale for policy intervention is system failure:

• Innovation policy focuses on technology transfer, technology clusters to stimulate interaction.

Thinking of inclusive innovation in Frame 2

• How to develop inclusive systems of innovation in the context of low skill levels, high levels of inequality and low competences?

• Build social capital and networks between marginal actors.

• Need bonders to connect fragmented actors, need brokers to connect different actors and build bridges between communities.

Teoría de redes: Metodología

3 properties of inclusive innovation1. Social capital: Cohesion between actors.

2. Innovation: Openness to new ideas and entrepreneurs

3. Governance of network: Asymmetric power relations

Need bonders to connect fragmented actors, need brokersto connect different actors and build bridges between communities.

•

1. CohesiónAcción colectiva (asociatividad): Los beneficios de tener altos niveles de conectividad provienen del capital social existente entre actores. Los valores compartidos en redes cohesivas mejoran la capacidad de sus actores y reducen la vulnerabilidad de los mismos

2. Openness of network: proxy forinnovation

• Dense networks can have redundant information• The costs of mantaining a dense network can be greater than the advantages of being in a

network• Open networks can provide access to new knowledge and greater diversity of knowledge.

Case study of Mango (Peru) and Palm Oil (Colombia) clusters

Cohesion

Centralization/

Decentralization

Openness

Palma de aceite

Mango

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

Organizations providing

non-redundant

linkages

Evaluating inclusive innovation: The geographical network of small prodicersopens itself up to new services and creates new local networks: The Raspberry

producers in the South Of Chile

AT

Productor

Comprador

Otros AT

Institución

Información

Otros Product

Proveedores

Inclusive innovation in 3rd frame. A view from grassroots innovation: depth, form and scope,

• Form (bottom – up)– Community. – Networks and social spaces. – Local (re-)manufacturing and tool swapping.– Examples: Community sanitation, housing co-

operatives.

• Scope: Use inclusive innovation as a focusing device for purposeful social transformation. – Example: Innovation as a means towards

organising communities and empowering them to reclaim rights over local resources.

• Depth (deepening inclusion):

– Alternative processes: Democratising expertise, and involving people in shaping the science and technology agendas of governments, research institutes, universities and corporations.

– Social transformations: making design choices that reduce dependence, re-investment in community.

– Alternative measures of expertise: Action research to empower community-level planning, participatory product development.

Proyectos

Inclusive Innovation in Frame 3: La Cisterna

• Rainwater collection systems in Brazil address local power relations that affect not only access to water (and the injustices arising from reliance on water tanked in by vendors).

• Through self-build process people gained the confidence and power to organise themselves, articulate demands, do projects, and co-ordinate their maintenance.

• The government decided to purchase ready-made, plastic systems for more rapid installation locally, but standard units did not work well in all situations (top-down) and little space for development workers and local community members to address issues that affect how the systems would be used. Protests in the region subsequently reinstated a self-build track into the programme.

Intermediaries play a different role in transitions: they are articulators, strategizes, mobilizers, accelerators, arbitrators etc (Kivimaa 2014)