Paper short abstract:

Science as usual during the COVID-19 pandemic left some countries without essential drugs. Innovation systems that could not tackle existing challenges were off-balance in the face of new challenges. This paper is emphasizing the need for mix approaches for innovation systems in Africa

Paper long abstract:

The COVID-19 has triggered new forms of nationalism and industrial policies. Some countries restricted the distribution of drugs, vaccines and other non-pharmaceutical products during the pandemic to stem political pressures and civil disturbances. These restrictions gained legitimacy when they were termed issues of national security. However, it is surprising that countries had restrictions at the borders but the virus was spreading even with the tightest restrictions. How can poor countries in West Africa manage low supply of drugs and other essential medicines during this supply chain disruption? Is the production of essential medicines within national boundaries not an issue of national security? How could innovation systems in poor countries support pharmaceutical manufacturing to produce essential medicines if not COVID -19 drugs?

This paper focuses on pharmaceutical innovation systems in West Africa. The race to develop drugs, vaccines, and personal protective equipment is still on. Findings from this study show that most African states were not in the race due to the fact that they import most of the pharmaceutical and related products. This is due to lack of access to raw materials, skilled manpower, modern equipment, poor pharmaceutical R&D funding, Limited utilization of Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Flexibilities, and public procurement

This paper recommended the use of mix STI and DUI models for the development of the pharmaceutical innovation system in Africa to help the regional tackle present health and economic impacts of the covid-19 pandemic. It also recommended new roles of STI funding bodies in Africa

Paper short abstract:

This paper uses the case of science granting councils (SGCs) in Africa to argue that ‘pressure’ from the COVID-19 pandemic necessitates rethinking how decisions on public funding of research are made, if responsiveness and resilience to crises are to be achieved.

Paper long abstract:

The COVID-19 global pandemic has exposed frailties across many sectors of economies. The sudden outbreak of the novel coronavirus at the end of 2019 and its rapid global spread to infect nearly 110 million, causing more than 2.4 million deaths to date has been a perfect storm of human and physical factors, simultaneously testing various aspects of our deeply interconnected societies, resulting in delayed, sluggish, inadequate and at times impotent responses to the pandemic. If there is a silver lining that has visibly emerged from the pandemic, it is the important, yet often hidden role that different disciplines of science and engineering play in generating and providing tools for dealing with societal challenges. Our on-going work on the Science Granting Councils Initiative in sub-Saharan Africa Training Effectiveness Case Studies (STECS) project has shown that indeed SGCs in Africa have emerged as a strong coalition point for promoting and lobbying for more funding for research and innovation, and championing numerous socio-technical imaginaries from technological leapfrogging to homegrown economic development through generation of new knowledge, technologies and innovations. In these settings, the pandemic has highlighted the importance, not just of the availability of different tools from science, but their timeliness and relevance to contexts of application. This paper argues that the COVID-19 pandemic ‘pressure’ should necessitate a rethinking of how and where decisions are made on where to spend funding for research, especially public funding, which can play a critical role in responsiveness and resilience to crises such as the current pandemic.

Paper short abstract:

We examine the degree to which the quality of government programs, directly supporting SMEs at all stages of government (national, regional, municipal), moderates the nexus between ownership, heterogeneous sources of finance and entrepreneurs’ ability to introduce new products to the market

Paper long abstract:

Many firms are mostly SMEs that contribute primarily to job creation and sustainability of regions compared to large firms globally. Similarly, the innovation activities of firms are considered a sine qua non for growth and development. However, differences in accessing finance and the quality of government programs and support for SMEs vary substantially between nations across the globe. We propose that the quality of government programs should impact businesses positively considering other firms’ resources. Employing a representative sample of 57, 642 firms from 2008-2015, we examine the degree to which the quality of government programs, directly supporting SMEs at all stages of government (national, regional, municipal), moderates the nexus between ownership, heterogeneous sources of finance and entrepreneurs’ ability to introduce new products to the market. Our findings indicate that government programs are essential components of firms’ in-house and external resources matrix for firms across these countries. We find complementarity and substitutability between firms’ resources (internal & external) and government assistance programs on innovation. Interestingly, our predictive graphs offer a more nuanced picture and significant differences of this link for East Asia & Pacific, Europe & Central Asia, Latin America & Caribbean, Middle East & North Africa, South Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa. We observe that countries with perceived weak institutions affect government aid programs adversely, influencing firms’ resources in predicting a return to innovation. Our empirical analysis supports the synergies between ownership heterogeneity, diverse sources of finance government assistance programs and innovation.

Paper short abstract:

We examine how development of science, technology and innovation capacities, supported by the Science Granting Councils Initiative in sub-Saharan Africa (SGCI), enabled granting councils to act more swiftly, decisively or with greater impact to the COVID-19 pandemic and reflect on future resilience.

Paper long abstract:

Institutions tasked with supporting national systems of science and innovation have a huge role to play in the response to COVID-19: generating and communicating technical insights, which could have real and immediate societal impact, and allocating and mobilising resources. In this extended state of crisis, many institutions are grappling with a need to balance short-term responsive issues and longer term developmental and strategic goals.

This paper reports on the work of the ‘STECS’ project (Science Granting Councils Initiative in sub-Saharan Africa (SGCI) Training Effectiveness Case Studies) and its COVID-19-focussed successor ‘STECS Plus’, which focussed on nine science granting councils (SGCs) in: Burkina Faso, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Senegal, Uganda and Zambia. Both projects sought to understand if and how training and capacity strengthening offered by SGCI on topics including research management, partnerships and private sector engagement had been taken up and integrated into the work of the country-level SGCs.

STECS confirmed that SGCI’s activities improved SGCs effectiveness in research management; development and/or strengthening of partnerships; knowledge exchange with the private sector; and coordination and collaboration between the participating SGCs. STECS Plus suggests a key role for these developments in SGCs COVID-19 response, leveraging inter-SGC networking and partnership opportunities facilitated through SGCI; influencing national responses either directly or indirectly; and engaging significantly in funding mechanisms for responsive research. STECS and STECS Plus suggest that SGCs have great potential to play key roles in short-term response and long-term resilience issues in national systems of science and innovation.