Knowledge for development in sub-Saharan Africa:

University-firm interaction in Nigeria, Uganda and South Africa

Glenda Kruss, John Adeoti and Dani Nabudere

Why study UILs in sSA?

• Assumption of the promise of university-firm interaction for economic development, without analysis of economic and social contexts of sSA

• Project aim: systematic and in-depth empirical research in diverse sSA countries to explore nature and scale of university- firm interaction

The approach• Survey of firm interaction with universities in key

manufacturing sectors (Cohen et al)• Case studies of university interaction in key bio-sector

(agro-processing)• Contextualised in relation to economic strengths, social

development challenges, innovation policy context and the nature of the national system of innovation and HE

• Comparison using a framework of structural change related dynamic phases, each with different mixes of diversification and selection of sectoral production and employment, shaped by distinct initial conditions, that highlights systemic weaknesses and latent opportunities for knowledge-based economic growth (Sercovich and Teubal 2005, 2008)

• Data challenges – creating new datasets

A mismatch between universities and firms in Nigeria

• Degree of diversification and firm experimentation, but structural constraints (dominant oil economy and industrialization based on import-substitution), lack of coherent innovation policy framework, immature NIS and under-investment in large HE system

• Firms tend to rely on own resources (or customers and competitors) to drive incremental innovation and experimentation, drawing on tacit know-how, low R&D investment, little STI modes

• Use informal channels (IKS), or assimilate publicly available knowledge sources (publications, internet)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

% Respondents

The firms manufacturing operation

Affiliated suppliers

Independent Suppliers( not linked through ownership

Customers

Universities

Public Research Institutions

Competitors

Cooperative or joint ventures with other firms

Consulting or contracting R & D firms

Fairs and expositions

Technical publications and reports

Internet

Indigenous knowledge system

Professional/ trade associations

• Universities least important source of information, negative perception - ‘big science’, inferior quality

• Agro-food processing cases: Scientific infrastructure and knowledge generation capabilities of universities limited – academics generating adaptations of technology to suit local conditions BUT in advance of market demand and tend to remain locked in to institutions

• A few networks of academics, small firms, farmers, local groups, foreign universities and development agencies that enhance productivity in agriculture, and potentially open new niche sectors for research or build research base

Policy driven interaction in Uganda• Very little diversification of traditional agricultural activities,

but a dynamic transition towards variety generation, adoption of new S&T policy framework, strong influence of global agencies, a weak NIS, small HE, with major low level equilibrium traps

• Similar pattern: firms rely on tacit ‘know-how’, IKS and publicly available sources, not universities

• Interaction in biopharma sector directly driven by government : universities substitute for missing firm R&D capacity, to comply with international regulatory standards and promote global exports in a new niche sector

• Agroprocessing networks stimulated by donor interventions and funding: knowledge intensification of agricultural activities to enhance productivity, collaborate with IKS generators, cooperatives, community organisations – university role = testing and QA, applied research diffusion to grow exports

Refine analytical tools to encompass sSA empirical realities

• Extend focus beyond firms in formal sector - such as small-scale and subsistence farmers, informal sector micro-firms, community cooperatives, development agencies and so on

• Focus not only on ‘Science, Technology and Innovation’ modes of learning but also ‘Doing, Using and Interacting’ modes (Jensen et al 2007) – how to measure?

• Going beyond universities and other formal scientific research institutes – the holders and producers of indigenous knowledge as sources?

• University interaction that addresses human development needs in health or agriculture and that takes into account distributional effects on poverty reduction

• Interactive capability and networks within higher education system itself that promote or constrain diffusion of S&T capabiilities