Dr Shisana, CEO of the HSRC;
HSRC Board, Executives, Management, Researchers;
Distinguished guests.
It is an honour to give this keynote address at the HSRC's 2013 research conference. I have had the privilege of a long and fruitful relationship with the HSRC, which plays such an important role in our broader research community. I get the sense that this research conference is a kind of family reunion, and I am gratified to be part of this family.
However, it is also a rather solemn honour, given the conference theme of "Inequality and justice". What I would like to do, briefly, is connect this important theme to the knowledge creation mission of the HSRC and other science councils, and to the science and technology portfolio. My purpose is to initiate a line of questioning, and I look in particular to the HSRC to help find answers.
But first, I would like to commend the HSRC for making inequality such a consistent focus of its work and of its recent conferences. I think this reflects an uncomfortable truth: inequality has emerged as a key challenge for our young democracy, and it is arguably the biggest threat to social cohesion and stability.
While we can rightfully take some pride in reducing absolute poverty levels, recent analyses show an increase in both intra-group and inter-group inequality. Not only are our levels of inequality unusually high, but the contours of the inequality continue to reflect our racially divided past.
The question may be asked: what do science and technology has to do with inequality and justice? Well, we are all keenly aware of the fact that, some years ago, the South African government declared its intention to move towards a knowledge-based economy.
The DST is at the forefront of this drive, in partnership, of course, with the HSRC and other science councils, as well as with tertiary institutions and the private sector. This shift is essential if South Africa is to compete in an increasingly competitive global economy; we cannot play the game on the same terms as labour-cheap countries such as China and India.
I support the drive towards a more knowledge-driven economy whole-heartedly, and my remarks today should not to be taken to suggest otherwise.
We should take pride in our many accomplishments, such as winning the bid to host most of the Square Kilometre Array radio astronomy project; the recent invention of digital laser technology by a team at the CSIR; and our cutting-edge work on developing the hydrogen economy. All of these are exciting, momentous developments that are taking South Africa very rapidly into the knowledge-based economy of the 21st century.
However, we need to acknowledge the concern that resonates with the theme of this conference. How do we ensure that this knowledge-based economy is one we can all share in? Will it assist us in our attempts to reduce the scourge of inequality, or could it aggravate this scourge? While we have much to celebrate in our recent achievements, this conference is an invitation to scrutinise our choices and their effects. It is in this vein that I offer these observations.
Let us take, for example, an article by the late William Blankley and Irma Booyens in the HSRC review of a couple of years ago. The article begins with a statement that is wonderfully concise: "New knowledge, innovation and technological change have become the drivers of progress, growth and wealth in the world's leading economies as they have evolved over the past two decades into knowledge-based economies, shedding their reliance on traditional resources such as labour and capital." Wonderfully concise, yes, but also subtly brutal, especially the part about "shedding the reliance on labour". This is perhaps too true for comfort.
Our vision of a developmental state is of a state that is both capable and caring. Shed reliance on labour and then what? More unemployment and greater inequality? I am not suggesting that the move towards a knowledge economy necessarily results in job losses. The economic growth that we strive for must be inclusive growth; at the heart of everything we do must be a commitment to eradicating poverty and reducing inequality.
Let me to make this point another way. Look around this hall. What do you see? Mostly individuals above the 90th percentile of the income distribution. The HSRC's senior managers, as well as those of the DST, are probably above the 95th percentile.
The truth is that, in the South African situation, one does not have to be an Oppenheimer or a Motsepe to be rich in fact, to be rich in South Africa, in relative terms, one merely needs to be in the upper end of the knowledge hierarchy, which is precisely where we are. If ever the savage logic of supply and demand works, it works in the labour market.
The demand for "knowledge workers" relative to supply is very high, which is why those of us who might have been merely middle-class in Germany or Japan, are crowded into the upper end of South Africa's income spectrum.
Of course, it is not as if we do not appreciate the scarcity of knowledge workers. This is precisely why, as a country, we are so desperate to improve our education systems and to broaden our capacity, particularly in science, engineering and technology. Perhaps we did not anticipate the growing pains in making this transition.
We have made good progress in deracialising the R&D sector again, look at the composition of this gathering – but for the time being this is another way of saying that we have deracialised the elite few who participate in the knowledge economy.
The changing nature of agriculture provides a stark illustration of the paradoxes associated with technology-driven economic development. Over time, there have been myriad advances in agricultural technologies from improved seed cultivars, to pesticides, to mechanisation, and now to satellite-guided "precision farming" methods. These advances reflect terrific achievements in R&D, and underpin the growth of the commercial farming sector, and of our farmers' hopes to remain globally competitive.
However, these advances have also resulted in massive labour displacements shedding of jobs and loss of livelihoods. The expertise of farmers and farm workers is steadily replaced by the advances embodied in the tools and inputs themselves.
So when we suggest that farm jobs are being lost because commercial farmers no longer need as many unskilled workers, what we are perhaps really saying is that we no longer need or value the skills that farm workers have, because we have machines and chemicals that can do the job as well, and which do not get tired or go on strike.
The machines are mostly imported, contributing to our trade deficit. They run on fossil fuels, pollute the atmosphere and contribute to climate change, which poses a huge threat to farmers and our food security. The application of knowledge is making us more competitive, but are we ultimately working towards our own demise?
As for our efforts to support and grow the smallholder sector, these still tend to rely on the technology transfer model, but with a modern twist. Increasingly, the function of an extension officer is to turn on his 3G-enabled laptop to access a web-based, purpose-built encyclopedia, and then convey to his clients the simplified steps he finds there on growing crops or caring for livestock.
Small holders used to be among the most knowledgeable and sophisticated agriculturalists around; however, modern R&D has ignored their indigenous knowledge, and in so doing threatened its very existence.
Perhaps we have to be more thoughtful about where and how innovation takes place. Otherwise, we risk promoting innovation in service to economic growth, but in such a way that those who are left behind are left even further behind than before. Perhaps we need to acknowledge that the "knowledge-economy revolution" shares some of the downsides of the industrial revolution of two centuries ago.
The parallel is not far-fetched, and obliges us to acknowledge the elephant in the room, namely capitalism. The point is not to bash capitalism, but to note that it appears to be the mechanism through which economic growth within which we include innovation-driven economic growth sometimes translates into widening inequalities. Julius Nyerere recognised this a half a century ago when he wrote:
"To my mind, capitalism went wrong when it divorced Wealth from its true purpose. The true purpose of Wealth is to satisfy very simple needs: the need for food, the need for shelter, the need for education and so on. In other words, the end of Wealth is the banishment of poverty; and wealth is to poverty what light is to darkness.
There is enough wealth in every state for every individual to satisfy these basic needs. But the moment individuals in any single state begin to use wealth, not for the satisfaction of those needs, nor for the abolition of poverty, but for the purpose of acquiring power and prestige, then there is no longer enough."
Nyerere thought deeply about the choices states make, and about the international context in which they make them. He also recognised the explosive potential of inequality, especially when it has racial dimensions.
For us, the choice is not necessarily between capitalism and socialism, but whether, in pursuit of the knowledge-based economy, we can find a better balance between macro-economic strategising and industrialisation, on the one hand, and African humanism, on the other hand. True, we do have a number of specific initiatives that seek to address poverty directly: for instance various efforts to close the "digital divide", and via the DST's Science and Technology for Social Impact Sub programme.
In this context, it bears mentioning that, just last week, we launched a major essential oils project near Uitenhage in the Eastern Cape, co-funded by the DST and the European Union.
But the question is, is this enough? Is this the right modality for ensuring that the poor participate more fully in and benefit from the knowledge-based economy? Perhaps we are too focused on how innovation can be used to strengthen the economy and thus benefit the poor indirectly, and on how we can assist the poor by transferring technologies to them.
Perhaps what is still missing is a creative and robust effort to put the poor in the driver seat of knowledge creation, as well as in the application of knowledge and technological advances. Is it not the case in fact that the real danger of inequality is that it makes the poor feel powerless? Can we envisage an innovation strategy that puts grassroots empowerment at its core?
On that uncertain note, I would like to close by thanking Dr Shisana for inviting me to participate in this conference. I would further like to thank the HSRC Board, and all of the managers, researchers and support staff who make the HSRC the superb institution that it is. I trust your deliberations will be thoughtful, frank and enriching.
Thank you.
