International Higher Education, Winter 2001
Should Universities in Developing Countries Stop Doing R&D?
As we witness the transformation of many developed nations into knowledge-based societies, the difficulties for developing countries trying to catch up seem insurmountable. Research universities—along with other public- and private-sector institutions in the industrialized world—continue to develop technology products at unprecedented pace. At present, the world is thus observing how the gulf between developed and developing countries keeps widening. While industrialized nations such as the United States, Japan, and the countries in Western Europe invest between 2 and 3 percent of their GDP in research and development (R&D), the countries of the developing world rarely reach 1 percent on the same indicator. The close link between industry and university R&D in the developed world makes scientific and technological research an important tool for economic development. More often than not, however, university R&D in developing nations lacks effective demand from local industry, making it basically academia oriented. This situation is especially disturbing when university research does not contribute significantly to the solution of urgent local societal needs.
Some countries of the Third World are trying to replicate the successful experiences of Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Malaysia, countries that have proven that it is possible to achieve economic growth based on the contributions of local R&D. It has not been possible thus far to achieve successful results because the coordination of government, universities, and local industry in a clear innovative strategy has not occurred. As a consequence, the viability of developing countries’ R&D is an issue of growing concern among scholars, scientists, and policymakers.
Latin America and, more particularly, Argentina and Mexico, are cases that illustrate the current situation of R&D within the developing world. The knowledge produced in Latin America represents less than 3 percent of the world’s scientific production. This is not surprising given its low investment in R&D. Public expenditures in R&D of all Latin American countries are equivalent to the expenses in R&D of merely a couple of multinational corporations. In Argentina and Mexico–the countries in the region that (along with Brazil) have a tradition of and personnel in R&D—R&D investments have remained significantly low (less than 0.5 percent of GDP). The number of scientists and engineers in R&D is also low (between 14,000 and 16,500), while in the industrialized countries it reaches figures above 50,000. Other indicators show that most R&D funds in Argentina and Mexico come from public money (more than 80 percent). There are very few graduates at the doctoral level training for careers in research. Consequently, with very limited resources and small R&D communities, the output is irrelevant when measured by the number of patents granted to residents and nonresidents. In relation to this indicator, royalties and license fees payments are much higher than receipts.
It is also worth mentioning that R&D in Argentina and Mexico occurs at the large, publicly funded universities. Argentina’s University of Buenos Aires (UBA) and Mexico’s National Autonomous University (UNAM) are, along with Brazil’s University of Sao Paulo and University of Campinas, among the most prestigious institutions for scientific research in Latin America. Despite having the oldest research tradition and employing the largest number of scientists (many of whom are highly distinguished), UBA and UNAM are also too large, with enrollments near and above 200,000 students, respectively, and are plagued by tight budgets, excessive bureaucracy, overpolitization, weak links with local industry, and so on. As is the case with most Latin American institutions of higher education, UBA and UNAM share a strong professional orientation that can be observed in their schools of engineering, medicine, law, accounting, and philosophy and letters. In most of these schools R&D constitutes only a marginal activity.
With all the enormous problems exemplified by these universities and the marginal role that local R&D plays in addressing societal needs, the question arises over whether universities in developing countries should stop doing R&D. There is, of course, no easy answer to this dilemma, since the creation and diffusion of knowledge remain among the principal missions of the modern university. Likewise, some of the large, public institutions possess important research facilities and equipment that have been accumulated over decades. Several universities also employ significant numbers of scientists and technicians whose training (frequently obtained at prestigious universities in industrialized nations) represent a significant investment in money and time. All these resources must not be wasted. Two approaches exist to make local R&D more relevant. First, local R&D should be focused on the creation and consolidation of “niches,” in which a number of scientists and technologists concentrate on specific areas and become highly competitive in those fields. Second, R&D efforts should also be directed to the solution of the most urgent needs of the local society—such as health, energy, food, education and pollution.
It remains to be seen whether the current globalization process and the growing availability of technology communication and information constitute a real chance to overcome the lack of relevance that local R&D has had so far in the developing world. It is possible that the existing gap between the industrialized and the developing nations will widen as a result of technology. The risks of losing track in the present vertiginous knowledge race is more real than ever, as information goes back and forth from one point to the other in the world at unprecedented speed. Thus researchers and technologists in developing countries must take advantage of communications networks to maintain and improve the exchanges with the world’s prime places of R&D, thus avoiding the perils of moving from marginalization to exclusion.