closing the gap: s&t, evaluation, and inequalities susan e. cozzens technology policy and...
TRANSCRIPT
Closing the Gap: S&T, Evaluation, and Inequalities
Susan E. CozzensTechnology Policy and Assessment Center
School of Public PolicyGeorgia Institute of Technology
Presented at the American Evaluation Association Annual Meeting,
Toronto, Ontario, 27 October 2005
Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005
2
Collaborators, Colleagues, and Support
AAAS Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, especially Steve Nelson
Graduate students: Kamau Bobb, Isabel Bortagaray, Albert George, Kendall Deas, Sonia Gatchair, Gonzalo Ordonez
Colleagues: Tim Turpin, Johann Mouton, Peter Healey
Supported by NSF Grants SES 0354362 and SES 0354356
Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005
3
Science, technology, and inequalities
Question: What are the connections between S&T policies and programs and inequalities?
Goal: Find ways to design and evaluate S&T policies and programs so that they reduce rather than increase inequalities.
Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005
4
Outline of presentation Issues of scope Descriptive summary: what are the
connections now? Options and issues
for program design for evaluation
Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005
5
Inequality is deep and growing In the United States
Income inequality has been rising steadily for several decades.
Health disparities persist. Globally
Gap between rich and poor nations is growing.
Life expectancies can be twice as much in rich nations as poor ones.
Wealth is accumulating fast in some parts of the global economy and not in others.
Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005
6
What dimensions? Economic inequalities (goal: reducing
inequality) High, middle, and low income regions High, middle, and low income individuals
and families within regions Poverty vs. inequality
The identity inequalities (Goal: achieving equality) Gender Ethnic
Creates three-dimensional space
Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005
7
Who cares? Inequality is a multi-dimensional space
We have been focusing on inequalities in basic needs areas: health, food, environment
Distributional ethics Libertarian theory – rights based Utilitarian – maximize the Good Rawlsian – benefit the least advantaged Communitarian – decrease inequality for the
sake of community
Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005
8
Types of S&T Policies
Government actions to … Research: stimulate production of
new knowledge Innovation: stimulate new products
or processes Human Resource: recruit and
educate a scientific and technical workforce
Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005
9
Central hypothesis
Unless they are specifically designed to reduce inequality, these policies probably increase it.
Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005
10
Human resource policies Recruitment to S/E careers is not neutral
on gender or ethnic status – witness the results. Causes lie up and down the education and
career chain Within countries:
Gender and ethnic status are rising as conscious goals in this area.
Economic status gets little or no attention. Between countries:
International mobility of S/E – the world is flattening.
Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005
11
Innovation policies Income inequality within rich countries
attributed to skill-biased technological change Education seen as the panacea solution
High technology development strategies focus on growing the upper end of the distribution. But may provide new entry points for under-
represented groups. Intellectual property laws protect the
accumulation of wealth. And therefore limit access to products, sometimes
ones that are essential for basic needs.
Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005
12
Research policies Often seen as both “the problem” and
“the solution” to inequality problems Relatively accessible to civil society
The content of the research agenda is the issue. Orientation to industry makes this a subset
of innovation policy. Organized public has an influence – in some
areas, but unlikely to work very effectively on global gaps.
Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005
13
Summary S&T policies are part of the problem. They are also seen as part of the
solution. Our analyses moved in two directions:
Technology-based economic development strategies
Case studies in research and innovation policies.
Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005
14
Technology-based economic development
“High-technology” strategy Goal: produce high-skill, high-wage jobs Adds jobs at the high end of the distribution Increases inequality by definition if it succeeds
“Good jobs” strategy Add jobs in the middle of the distribution
“Better life” strategy Make life better for those at the lower end of
the distribution
Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005
15
Case studies Access to essential medicines
Patent policy issue Use provision for public march-in
Health disparities research Multi-pronged approach
African agriculture Institutional design for distributed
innovation
Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005
16
Generic approaches Derived from case studies; see
summary available Vary in breadth of participants
Participatory Capacity building Public research Private sector stimulation
Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005
17
More hypotheses The more empowering the
approach, the more likely it is to lead to long-term, sustainable inclusion.
The more involved the affected community, the more likely the approach is to set priorities that reduce inequality.
Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005
18
Implications for program design
Need to take inequalities explicitly into account.
Need to think about process as well as product.
Total outcome should look more equal on several dimensions.
Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005
19
Implications for evaluation Need to measure impacts in
several dimensions Economic Gender Ethnic status
Easy?
Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005
20
Impact indicators Long-standing quest in the
indicators community No lack of impact indicators
themselves Lack the logic that connects them
to research programs Leads to work with logic modeling
Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005
21
Generic Logic Model
S&T Policy
orProgra
m
Next-stage Users: Public
Next-stage Users: Private
OutcomesIn
EverydayLife
PublicMARKETS
Private
Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005
22
Hypertension
Patients with high blood pressure
NHLBI --Natl Heart Lung and Blood Institute:Research
National Center for Minority Health and Health Disparities: Research
Lifestyle
Place of work
Primary care physician
Pharmaceu tical ndustry: Drugs
Centers for Disease Control Education Programs
Am Heart Assoc
Am Soc Hyper tension
GA Dept of Public Health
Other voluntary health orgs
Community organizations
Health Disparity Centers
Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005
23
Community pollutants
Black and low income families live with environmental contamination
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Industry: source of pollution and mitigation
GA Env Protection Division
EPA: EJ Program
Black and Low Income Communities: research and action
Private philanthropies
GA Dept Community Affairs
USDA Nat Res Cons Service
Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005
24
Hunger in Georgia
Food insecure and hungry families
Food Banks (private)
Food stamps and school lunches (USDA)
Food industry programs
Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005
25
Biotechnology example21 national programs, plus regional cooperative programs
Major research institutions, with research agenda Field trials,
by who is doing them
Packaging and sale
Farmer acceptance
Increased rural incomes
Lower urban food prices
IP skills
Biosafety processes
Hectares planted; increased productivity
Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005
26
Conclusions so far The key step is paying attention to
inequalities. The benefits of S&T are not automatically
distributed equally. Consideration can be built into strategic
planning and performance assessment. Need to accumulate knowledge from
specific programs into overall principles of distributional impacts.