International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 3, March-2014 921
ISSN 2229-5518
Science and Technology Entrepreneurship for Economic Development in Africa (SEEDA)* Gordon M. Bubou, Willie O. Siyanbola, Moses C. Ekperiware, Seigha Gumus
Abstract— Entrepreneurship has been proven not only to be the impetus for growth and economic prosperity, but also serves as the foundation for the transformation of the modern economies. Equally, entrepreneurism has emerged as a viable option to spur local economic development in downtimes. Nevertheless, entrepreneurs’ ability to move technology from the scientific discovery stage to commercially successful products/services is central to that transformational process. Unfortunately, there is an apparent dearth of science and technology (S&T) entrepreneurship capital in Africa. The result is the near non-existent productive capacity of the continent, with very minimal potentials for value addition, with the resultant effects of low capacity for wealth creation and increasing levels of unemployment. In this paper, we propose the Science and Technology Entrepreneurship for Economic Development (SEEDA) initiative, which is to be patterned after the Science and Technology for Economic Development (SEED) initiative of the Ibero American Science and Technology Education Consortium (ISTEC) with the objective of creating new companies with technology expertise, business knowledge and market in Africa. In section 2, we introduce the SEED initiative, and in section 3 we situate it in the context of an African technology-driven development initiative. We conclude with recommendation in section 4.
Index Terms— Africa, science and technology entrepreneurship, technology and innovation management, socio-economic development, South Africa
—————————— ——————————
NTREPRENEURSHIP is a burgeoning global phenome- non and its importance is recognised in modern business practices (Higher Colleges of Technology, 2010) as the entrepreneur is the single most important player in a modern economy (Lazear, 2002). The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) hypothesised that the entrepreneurship conditions in a region will stimulate every entrepreneurial activity which in turn stimulates regional economic growth (Reynolds et al.,
1999). The entrepreneur is an important engine for the growth of the economy (Khanduja et al., 2008; Blanchflower, 2007; Sriram and Mersha, 2006). Clearly, entrepreneurism is emerg- ing as a viable option to spur local economic development in downtimes (Beaulieu and Barefield, 2006) and entrepreneur- ship is frequently pinpointed as the most effective way for those without much experience or political clout to engage in their country’s economic development (CIPE, 2010). For in- stance, OECD/EC (2013) maintains that entrepreneurship has become an important requirement for achieving sustainable and inclusive growth in Europe. This is according to the OECD is because, it has great potential for creating jobs and reducing unemployment, not just in the population in general,
————————————————
• G.M. Bubou is a Principal Researcher Officer at National Centre for Tech- nology Management (NACETEM); PhD candidate of Technology and In- novation Management, University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria. PH-
2347033811861. E-mail: gordon.bubou@nacetem.gov.ng;
• M.C. Ekperiware is a Research Officer at NACETEM Headquarters: PhD
candidate of Economomics, OAU, Nigeria, PH-2347031565256. E-mail:
• S. Gumus is a Research Officer at NACETEM, South-South Office, PH-
2348179744886. E-mail: seighagumus@gmail.com
but also among people who are vulnerable to social exclusion. Consequently, entrepreneurship has become a political priori- ty in the EU since the launch of the Lisbon Agenda in March
2000. Consequently, within the last decades, entrepreneurship has ascended to the centre stage in the public policy arena of most countries as reflected in several major policy initiatives around the world (Reynolds et al., 1999).
Equally, science, technology, innovation and entrepreneur- ship have been proven, not only to be the impetus for growth and economic prosperity, but also serve as the foundation for the transformation of the new economy (Sankat, 2010). A large body of academic research and real-world business experience has established a clear connection between entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth (Ernst and Young, 2009). Nevertheless, most importantly, moving technology from the scientific discovery stage to a commercially successful product is one of the major drivers of economic development in to- day’s world order (Jordan et al., 2006). Unfortunately, there is an apparent dearth of science and technology (S&T) entrepre- neurship capital in Africa, a situation that has led to the near non-existent productive capacity of the continent, with very minimal potentials for value addition, with the resultant ef- fects of low capacity for wealth creation and increasing levels of unemployment. Based on the Science and Technology for Economic Development (SEED) initiative of the Ibero Ameri- can Science and Technology Education Consortium (ISTEC), an initiative whose objective is the creation of new companies with technology expertise, business knowledge and market in New Mexico, Iberia, Latin America, and other participating countries.
The reason for this initiative (SEED) was predicated on the observed fact that among other things, the Ibero American region lacked current information for planning and develop- ing technology; lack of expertise in the use of information; lack of international cooperation in developing the critical mass
IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 3, March-2014 922
ISSN 2229-5518
needed for projects and joint efforts; lack of interaction among universities, industries, governments, and international agen- cies; and lack of availability of technology. Nearly in all ages, Africa had shared most of the characteristic of Latin American countries and the Caribbean, and true to type, all the above observed short comings are vividly evident in the continent and in addition, Africa lacks technology and innovation man- agement expertise; poorly funded higher education sector re- sulting to low rankings in the world’s top universities ranking table; low levels of research, development and innovation (RDI) funding; poor intellectual property rights regimes; and weak regional and national systems of innovation.
The SEEDA initiative advocated in this paper among other things is to galvanise African governments, the organised pri- vate sector and the intelligentsia into a platform that will fos- ter the creation of science and technology entrepreneurs for the technological and socioeconomic development of the con- tinent. In such a platform so advocated, South Africa is sug- gested to be the node or gateway. South Africa the continent’s biggest economy with capabilities in world class technologies, a vibrant manufacturing sector, has Africa’s leading universi- ties and been fairly consistent in producing some of the world’s first 500 universities over the years and her University of Pretoria reputed to be having top project management ex- pertise with the first Graduate School of Technology Man- agement in the continent. This paper is therefore intended to lay in proper perspective, the SEEDA initiative, its objectives and the intended modes of operation, the nodal country as well as the university to set the stage for the development of S&T entrepreneurship for sustainable economic development of the African continent.
The Science and Technology Entrepreneurship for Economic Development initiative according to Jordan et al (2006), was a project of the Ibero-American Science and Technology Educa- tion Consortium. Started in 2004, the SEED initiative involves symposium where technology start-ups present their business plans to angel investors, venture capital firms from the region. The SEED project was a response from ISTEC to tackle some of the challenges of the Ibero-American region, some of which included: -
• Lack of current information for planning and devel- oping technology;
• Lack of expertise in the use of information;
• Lack of international cooperation in developing the
critical mass needed for projects and joint efforts;
• Lack of interaction (lack of confidence) among uni-
versities, industries, governments, and international agencies;
and
• Lack of availability of technology (Jordan et al., 2006). Among other things, leveraging on the New Mexico capabil- ities in science and engineering at the University of New Mex- ico (UNM), Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories
along with the Management of Technology Programme at the Anderson Schools of Management, SEED sought to build a new model that blended business expertise and technical knowledge to benefit the economic, social and cultural devel-
opment activities in Ibero America, New Mexico and the US by way of enhancing the international research and education agenda of US and Ibero-American universities and scientific institutes through technology commercialization activities.
While the broader objective of the SEED initiative is to create new companies with technology expertise, business knowledge and market from all participating countries, the aim of the programme was to:
a) Develop research programs investigating technology forecasting and assessment processes across international markets by developing new and novel market research proce- dures and tools for technology-based products across interna- tional markets;
b) Identify and examine research technology entrepre- neurship issues in Ibero America across all scientific disci- plines with emphasis on information technology, wireless communications and biotechnology. Issues to be covered in- clude: drivers of technology entrepreneurship in different re- gions; drivers for country entrepreneurs to look for interna- tional markets; differences associated with country de- mographics, economy, size, or other parameters; and how to encourage more technology entrepreneurs to target interna- tional markets;
c) Support technological entrepreneurs in the US and Ibero America to meet international market needs and support product development for international markets. This will in- clude establish product development activities at universities, test their capabilities to support actual cases of tech entrepre- neurs that are looking at international markets, and develop market research in new international markets;
d) Support the establishment of Management of Tech-
nology (MOT) programs that can work with the engineering,
science and technology organizations to increase technological
entrepreneurship activities;
e) Identify and examine the intellectual property issues
in Ibero-America, which includes examine intellectual proper-
ty laws and their economic effects in different countries, sug-
gest policy directions in these countries that support the estab-
lishment of intellectual property positions and strategies that
support technology-based commercialization; and
f) Create a collaborative effort between UNM and Ibero-
American universities to effect necessary changes (Jordan et al., 2006).
According to a report by Consultancy Africa Intelligence writ- ten by Furphy (2010) “to date, the African economy has large- ly been overshadowed by Asia in the East and to a lesser ex- tent, Latin America in the West. However, hidden in plain sight, Africa has begun to emerge as one of the world's fastest growing economic regions.” The same report also painted a success story of Africa’s GDP growth gathering momentum, expanding increasingly rapidly through 2008, and that Afri- ca’s collective GDP in 2008 was US$ 1.6 trillion and that it was roughly equal to that of Brazil or Russia; and equally quoted Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Managing Director of the Interna- tional Monetary Fund (IMF) as enthusing that Africa is back.
IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 3, March-2014 923
ISSN 2229-5518
The report equally indicated that Africa’s economic success has arisen in part to resources boom, though, further growth was said to have come from additional sectors including fi- nancial services, technology, media, telecommunications logis- tics services, transportation, retail, trade and manufacturing.
As promising as the above report sounds, the Global Com- petitiveness Report 2009-2010 of the World Economic Forum (WEF) categorises nearly all African economies as still being largely factor-driven, relying heavily on unskilled labour and resource extraction. This portend that most Africans may not have the DNA of innovation and entrepreneurship, for accord- ing to Friedman (2008) when money can be extracted from the ground, people simply don't develop the DNA of innovation and entrepreneurship. Conversely, of the about 30 African countries cited in the report, only South Africa was said to be an efficiency-driven economy, while Algeria, Botswana, Egypt, Libya and Morocco are said to be transiting from fac- tor-driven economies towards efficiency-driven economies (WEF, 2009). However, by 2013, other African countries – Mauritius, Namibia, Tunisia, and Swaziland have equally joined South Africa in the efficiency-driven economies catego- ry (WEF, 2013). This clearly demonstrates Africa’s lack of the six elements favouring entrepreneurship: regulatory frame- work; market conditions; access to finance; R&D and technol- ogy; entrepreneurial capabilities; and culture, a view point supported by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation (Ernest and Young, 2009). In like manner, the Global Entre- preneurship Monitor report of 1999 mentioned that in most entrepreneurially active countries (i.e., U.S., Canada and Isra- el) entrepreneurial activity is an integral and accepted feature of economic and personal life; and on the contrary, entrepre- neurship through enterprise creation remains a structural and cultural anomaly in entrepreneurially less active countries (Reynolds et al., 1999). Culture in this context refers to kind alluded to by Dan Senor a co-author of the book, “Start-Up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle” when he opined that a key lesson from Israel’s success story as start-up nation is that innovation comes from a wider culture that fos- ters both innovation and entrepreneurship (Kramer, 2010).
Besides the above, Africa had shared most of the character- istic of Latin America and the Caribbean earlier mentioned in nearly all ages. Some of those shared features are: lack of tech- nology and innovation management expertise; poorly funded higher education sector resulting to low rankings in the world’s best universities ranking table; low levels of research, development and innovation (RDI) funding; poor intellectual property rights regimes; and weak regional and national sys- tems of innovation.
Understandably, Africa lags behind many other countries on all other main indicators of socio-economic development (Ahmed, 2006). But all said and done, the most worrisome situation is the apparent dearth of S&T entrepreneurship capi- tal in Africa, a situation that has led to the near non-existent productive capacity of the continent, with very minimal po- tentials for value addition, with the resultant effects of low capacity for wealth creation and increasing levels of unem- ployment. Accordingly, capacity is insufficient even to stay meaningfully connected to global advances in science and technology; and opportunities to transfer and adapt
knowledge – the same knowledge that is producing concrete benefits elsewhere – remain mostly unknown and vastly un- derexploited in Africa (The Smith Institute, 2005).
Affirming the above claim, Juma (2007) maintained that creating links between knowledge generation and business development is the most important challenge facing Africa. While the UN Millennium Project (2005) stated that the shift from largely domestic activities to more complex international relationships demands a fresh look at policies that integrate science, technology, and innovation into economic strategies. Thus, policy-makers need to develop, apply and emphasise the important role of engineering, technology and SME devel- opment in human welfare improvement and sustainable de- velopment (Juma, 2007) as technology-based growth is key to the creation of wealth and career oriented jobs (IC2 Institute,
2007). Singh (2007) technological progress itself stems from the build-up of innovative activities, innovation itself being the product of a complex set of interactions conditioned by insti- tutional, organizational and cultural systems. Undoubtedly too, the capability to innovate and to bring innovation success- fully to market will be a crucial determinant of the global competitiveness of nations over the coming decade and there is growing awareness among policymakers that innovative activity is the main driver of economic progress and well- being as well as a potential factor in meeting global challenges in domains such as the environment and health (OECD, 2007).
The pace of technological change has been steadily increas- ing over the last 100 to 200 years, if not longer (Carnegie Mellon University, 2010). The ability of nations to grow and prosper economically is dependent on their ability to harness the forces of technological change which pervades our lives, entering nearly every decision we make. Therefore, the rapid- ly changing national and global realities require change in regional economic strategies and policies (IC2 Institute, 2007) for it is been slowly realised that our conventional models are neither realistic nor sustainable in the long run (Mukherjee,
2003) as empirical evidence from the experiences of many de- veloping countries tend to say that conventional approaches have consistently failed to answer the phenomena of poverty, unemployment, inequality and ecological degradation. In these circumstances the role of entrepreneurs (especially the S&T entrepreneur) seems rather obvious, not only because both the creation and the use of knowledge, as is the case with any other resources, is subject to entrepreneurial activities but also because ‘ideas’ and ‘knowledge’ together with risk taking are the classical attributes of entrepreneurship (Aligica and Florian, 2008).
African countries are equally characterised by weak institu- tional and policy frameworks. In such countries it may take decades of sustained changes in many national, cultural, polit- ical and economic institutions if they are to join the “elite” of entrepreneurial economies (Reynolds, 1999) because strong and effective institutional frameworks encourage productive entrepreneurship (Baumol, 1990) as government policies that encourage entrepreneurship are most likely to result in in- creased innovation and resultant economic growth (Ernst and Young, 2009).
It then implies that the SEED initiative may offer Africa an opportunity to redirect her efforts to jumpstart her technologi-
IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 3, March-2014 924
ISSN 2229-5518
cal growth as according to Jordan et al (2006) the SEED model can be expanded and adapted to different regions of the globe as well as support for international research and education across science and engineering. Similarly, government pro- grammes in other countries can learn from the experience of similar entrepreneurship development programmes (Kropp and Zollin, 2005).
Conversely, state support is not just implementing a set of policies that succeed elsewhere; it is the ability of the state to set up institutions that reflect a harmony between knowledge and physical infrastructure and the formal and informal insti- tutional compensations that are important to them, and struc- ture the idiosyncratic exchange processes of developing econ- omies (Oyelaran-Oyeyinka and Sampath, 2009) as a success model cannot be copied too mechanically (De Beule and Van Beveren, 2008). Therefore, it requires further studies to ascer- tain the peculiarities of Africa so as to ensure a perfect match between the philosophy behind the SEEDA initiative and the realities on ground.
Notwithstanding the work of economic and business histo- rians and others, mainstream economic theory has not proper- ly recognised the role of entrepreneurship, institutions, man- agement and organisation in economic development and growth (Teece, 2007). Also, the idea that education about en- trepreneurship may be an effective way to ensure that the en- trepreneurial resource will be used in a productive way does not seem to have gained significant ground (Aligica and Flori- an, 2008) in most African countries. The creation of an “entre- preneurial economy” – one whose political, social and eco- nomic responses are dictated by the dominance of entrepre- neurship capital, and the capacity to engage in or generate entrepreneurial activity (Audretsch and Thurik, 2004) must be the responsibility of all African governments, if we must erad- icate poverty in Africa.
The SEEDA initiative advocated in this paper among other things is aimed at galvanising African governments, the or- ganised private sector and the intelligentsia into a platform that will foster the creation of science and technology entre- preneurs for the technological and socioeconomic develop- ment of the continent. In such a platform so advocated, South Africa is suggested to be the node or gateway as the country is Africa’s biggest economy with capabilities in world class tech- nologies, a vibrant manufacturing sector, has Africa’s leading universities and been fairly consistent in producing some of the world’s first 500 universities over the years and her Uni- versity of Pretoria reputed to be having top project manage- ment expertise with the first Graduate School of Technology Management in the continent.
Like the SEED initiative, the broader objective of the SEEDA initiative among others may include: development of research programmes in technology forecasting and assess- ment processes across international markets; identification and examination of research in science and technology entre- preneurship issues in Africa; Supporting technological entre- preneurs in Africa; Supporting the establishment of endowed chairs in Knowledge Management and Technology and Inno- vation Management (TIM) to organise programmes in TIM,
for knowledge management plays an important role in the development of innovations and technology based entrepre- neurial firms (Brännback et al., 2007); the identification and examination of intellectual property issues in African coun- tries as fostering strong intellectual property rights regimes across the continent; and creation of stronger collaborative ties among African universities and others to make them more effective in the industry-university-government linkages in the national systems of innovation. For instance, Elfing et al (2006) stated that the Finnish reality indicates the correlation be- tween innovativeness and entrepreneurial activity and to give a very simplified picture of the reality, the innovation system is supposed to turn innovations into commercialized products and hence new entrepreneurs emerge as a part of the process (Elfing et al., 2006)
Venkataraman (2004) opined that a well-functioning inno- vation system requires both a tangible and an intangible infra- structure - the tangible infrastructure consists of things like legal systems, capital markets, logistics, buildings and other structural features; - the intangible infrastructure refers to things like human talent, novel ideas, visions, commitment to work, positive attitude towards entrepreneurship, trust, reci- procity, dynamic capabilities. Intangible infrastructure was referred to as the sum of the social and the human capital em- bedded in the innovation system. In order for the system to spur economical growth, both the tangible and the intangible infrastructure are needed, and to a large extent the intangible infrastructure must arise spontaneously as a result of iterated cooperation and collaboration with government providing the right context for that to happen in most cases (Venkatarman,
2004). Also, if the quality of the intangible infrastructure is to improve, it presupposes initiatives and participations from all the parties involved as a weak intangible infrastructure can estrange the entrepreneurs and the potential entrepreneurs from the innovation system, despite the best intentions (Elfing et al., 2006).
To achieve its aims, SEEDA can leverage on the opportuni- ties provided by development partners, the JAES Action Plan
2011-2013, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), the Association of African Universities (AAU). The Higher Education Research and Policy Network (HERPNET), an initiative of AAU that was founded following a research meeting at Human Science Research Council (HSRC), Pretoria in 2000 may be the vital link between African universities. This is so because HERPNET is dedicated to creation, preser- vation, propagation, and promotion of scientific knowledge that would help in transforming institutions of higher educa- tion to internationally recognized ones in a knowledge society and equally shares the vision of AAU that universities should generate and disseminate knowledge and understanding, fos- ter the values of openness and respect for merit, and enrich the general quality of the social life of their communities through the promotion of research, that universities must give priority to effective and positive participation in the global creation, exchange and application of knowledge through a maximum exploitation of the potential of the information and communi- cation revolution (HERPNET, 2010).
The ultimate end should lead to the organisation of interna- tional SEEDA conference annually. Such a conference can be
IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 3, March-2014 925
ISSN 2229-5518
supported by NEPAD through the African Union and the Af- rican Development Bank by sponsoring technological entre- preneurship business proposal competition as it is done else- where.
However, Sirolli (2008) observed that the wealth of a coun- try depends more on the intelligence of its people than the abundance of its natural resources, more on its civic structure than the fertility of its soil, more on its freedom to invent and create than on the beauty of its landscape”. On the other hand, Dietz (2000) maintains that social capital (human capi- tal) appears to have grown in concert with, if not preceding, the formation of strong economic and scientific assets, and all three developed synergistically while regional actors kept very clear and mutually beneficial roles and goals in mind. Dietz added that programs are geared towards improving the R&D competitiveness of whole regions should focus on the growth of social capital and the capacity that it generates for still more social capital development. In trying to achieve the above ob- jectives, Friedman (2008) maintains that premium should be placed on the development of human capital; as a country (or region) cannot develop politically, socially, and economically if they don’t have to utilise the resources of their citizens to help in the process.
Globalization of the economies goes hand in hand with the increasing significance of regional and local activities as re- gions are key players in the global economy (Bezirtzoglou and Bezirtzoglou, 2006). Dividing the world into continental groupings such as Europe, Asia, America, Africa and Oceania often appears in international business research (Vaaler et al.,
2007).
There has been considerable interest in regional develop-
ment as that strategic to the achievement of global develop-
mental goals. Countries are expected to group on regional ba-
sis to tackle common problems. It is easier to solve common
problems when resources are shared to tackle the problems.
Moreover, the spatial proximity has economic importance as it
reduces the distance among learning actors, enhances com- munication with reduced cost on transportation and commu- nication (Nozawa, 2011).
Local knowledge developed within regions can be shared and innovated for competitive advantage of the regions. Tech- nological learning is easily facilitated on regional basis. Ac- cordingly, it has been globally observed that, more and more, countries are organising themselves into their continental groupings to tackle their common development needs. For instance, there is far more cooperation and cohesion in the European Union (EU) today than ever. The EU promotes re- gional innovation programmes simply because in the increas- ingly knowledge-based economy, innovation holds the key to regional competitiveness (Bezirtzoglou and Bezirtzoglou,
2006). The Asia-Pacific region and Latin America are not left out. Interestingly too, the Africa Union has continually re- newed its call for greater integration and cooperation amongst African countries in so many spheres. Similarly, the Joint Afri- ca European Union Strategic (JAES) Action Plan 2011-2013 –
‘Partnership on Regional Economic Integration, Trade and
Infrastructure’ supports African economic integration and
development agenda in line with the Abuja Treaty. This means that Africa’s quest towards meeting the continents de- velopment aspiration can leverage on the SEEDA Initiative.
Most of the framework conditions needed for the develop- ment of S&T entrepreneurship in Africa is already prevalent in South Africa as the opportunities for economic cooperation are great, and South Africa could play a pivotal role in helping regional economies advance technologically.
South Africa is no doubt the continents acclaimed biggest economy. The country is one of the most stable economies in Africa, a middle-income country, with fully developed basic infrastructure. The country exhibits several indicators of a de- veloped economy, such as well grown primary, secondary and tertiary sectors and non-dependency on agriculture with manufacturing, mining and service sectors being the largest contributors to the country’s GDP (Economy Watch, 2010). In an emerging economy like South Africa, there are several hi- tech sectors that develops products and services that are cut- ting-edge and globally competitive (Cunningham, 2010). By
2009 estimates, South Africa was said to have had an annual GDP purchasing power parity of US$488.6 billion and was ranked 26th in the World in GDP terms with per capita GDP of US$10,000 (Economy Watch, 2010). The World Bank (2012) countries rankings placed South Africa as the world’s 28th biggest economy with GDP of UDS384, 313 billion (World Bank, 2013).
The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) ‘Global Competitive- ness Report 2013-2014’ ranked South Africa as the world’s
53rd most competitive economy, making her Africa’s second to Mauritius. However, going by the WEF’s Global Competi- tiveness Reports (GCR) for the past five years (2009-2014), South has been more consistent than any other Africa country. See Table 1 for a comparison of the top ten most competitive countries for the past five years. WEC (2013) highlighted the framework conditions that set South Africa ahead of other African countries as the nodal country for the proposed SEEDA initiative include: institutionalised property rights systems (world number 20), with high intellectual property protection regime (world number 18), sophisticated financial markets (world number 3), venture capital availability (world number 28), quality management schools (world number 23), local availability of research and training services (world number 54). Others are; availability of latest technologies (world number 40), firm-level technology absorption (world number 35), and yet others are: highly developed business clusters with sophisticated production processes. The reports claims that South Africa has a high capacity for innovation, quality scientific and research institutions, high company R&D spending with an effective university-industry collaboration in R&D (world number 29) as well as utility patents (WEF, 2013).
**There other African countries that came ahead of ones listed above
South Africa equally boasts of world class technologies in area such as military, energy and power, petrochemical, nuclear technology, mining, information technology, as well as a vi-
IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 3, March-2014 926
ISSN 2229-5518
brant manufacturing sector. Another major advantage South Africa has is the presence of highly rated higher institutions of learning. South African Universities have been the top 10 uni-
TABLE 1
TOP TEN MOST COMPETITIVE AFRICA COUNTRIES FOR THE PAST
FIVE YEARS
S/N | Country | 2013- 2014 | 2012- 2013 | 2011- 2012 | 2010- 2011 | 2009- 2010 |
1 | Mauritius | 45 | 54 | 54 | 55 | 57 |
2 | South Africa | 53 | 52 | 50 | 54 | 45 |
3 | Rwanda | 66 | 63 | 70 | 80 | |
4 | Botswana | 74 | 79 | 80 | 76 | 66 |
5 | Morocco | 77 | 70 | 73 | 75 | 73** |
6 | Seychelles | 80 | 76 | - | - | - |
7 | Tunisia | 83 | - | 40 | 32 | 40 |
8 | Namibia | 90 | 92 | 83 | 74 | 74 |
9 | Zambia | 93 | 102** | 113 | 115 | 112 |
10 | Kenya | 96 | 106 | 102 | 106 | 98** |
versities in Africa for over a decade, and few have equally featured consistently in the First 500 universities of the world. Amongst those elite universities in South Africa is the Univer- sity of Pretoria known for its world class programmes in pro- ject and technology management. As the UNM serves as gateway for the Ibero-American region, the University of Pre- toria can serve as the gateway for the African region.
The idea that education about entrepreneurship (particularly technological entrepreneurship) may be an effective way to ensure that the entrepreneurial resource will be used in a pro- ductive way does not seem to have gained significant ground (Aligica and Florian, 2008) especially in Africa. Africa is char- acterised by weak institutions. More so in such areas of re- search strength, institutional missions, sectors of the economy, and levels of the education system - that are the basis for the development and exploitation of social capital and its at- tendant effects on human capital (Dietz, 2008). The SEEDA initiative modelled after the SEED initiative of the Ibero- America region must strive to equip Africans to understand the forces underlying and unleashed by technological change in order to become better decision makers, managers, policy analysts, and researchers. And perhaps, this is one route through which Africa can jumpstart her journey to technologi- cal advancement and development socio-economically.
*The original version of this paper, though accepted but not presented, was first submitted to the Third Annual Interna- tional Conference on Entrepreneurship organized by the WITS Business School, Center for Entrepreneurship, held in Johan- nesburg South Africa between October 20 – 21, 2010
[1] A. Ahmed, “Effective Management and Change in Africa,” Int. J.
Management Practice, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 159-171, 2006.
[2] P.D. Aligica and B. Florian, “Entrepreneurship and Education. The missing Link in International Development Theory and Practice,” Int. J. Business and Globalisation, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 28-38, 2008.
[3] D.B. Audretsch and A.R. Thurik, “A Model of the Entrepreneurial
Economy,” Int. J. Entrepreneurship Education, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 143-
66, 2004.
[4] W.J. Baumol, “Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and
Destructive,” J. Political Economy, vol. 98, no. 5, pp. 893-921, 1990.
[5] L.J. Beaulieu and A. Barefield, The Voices of the People: Strategies for Expanding Entrepreneurship in the Rural South. Southern Rural De- velopment Centre, Barbara Ray, HiredPen, Inc, 2006.
[6] C. Bezirtzoglou and E. Bezirtzoglou, “Regional Programmes of Inno- vative Actions: the Case of Greece,” https://www.academia.edu/253637/Regional_Programmes_of_Inn ovative_Actions_The_case_of_Greece, 2006.
[7] D.G. Blanchflower, “Entrepreneurship in the UK,” Speech Delivered at the Max Planck Summer Institute on Entrepreneurship Research on 9th July 2007, Berlin, Germany.
[8] M. Brännback, A. Carsrud and M. Renko, “Born or Grow Global: Exploring the Concept of Born Global in the Biotechnology Context,” J. Enterprising Culture, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 79-100, 2007.
[9] Carnegie Mellon University, “Minor in Innovation, Entrepreneur-
ship, and Economic Development (I Double E),”
http://sds.hss.cmu.edu/media/pdfs/innovationminor.pdf, 2010.
[10] CIPE, “Take Off the Band Aid: Healing Social Wounds in MENA,” Centre for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) Development blog: http://www.cipe.org/blog/?p=5258, 2010.
[11] S. Cunningham, “The Innovation System in the Electronics Sector in South Africa,” Proc Eighth Globelics Int. Conf. Kuala Lumpur: Ma- laysia, 1-3 November, 2010.
[12] F. De Beule and I. Van Beveren, “Production and Renewal: Foreign Firms and Clusters in Belgium,” LICOS Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, LICOS Discussion Paper no. 227/2008.
[13] J.S. Dietz, “Building a Social Capital Model of Research Develop-
ment: the Case of the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competi- tive Research,” Science and Public Policy, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 137-145,
2000.
[14] Economy Watch, “South Africa Economy,”
http://www.economywatch.com/world_economy/southafrica/,
2010.
[15] J. Elfing, M. Brännback and A. Carsrud, “Regional Development, Entrepreneurial Activity and the Role of Intangible Infrastructure,” http://www.ncsb2006.se/pdf/Regional%20Development.pdf, 2006.
[16] Ernst and Young, Entrepreneurship and Innovation: The keys to
Global Economic Recovery. London: EYGM Limited, 2009.
[17] C. Furphy, “Becoming a Global Economic Power: Africa’s People Hold the Key to Success,” Consultancy Africa Intelligence, http://www.consultancyafrica.com/index.php?view=article&catid=
87:a1, 2010.
[18] T.L. Friedman, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Rev- olution and How it Can Renew America, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008.
[19] HERPNET, “About HERPNET”, http://www.herp- net.org/about_us.html, 2010.
[20] Higher Colleges of Technology, “Fostering and Inspiring the Next
IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 3, March-2014 927
ISSN 2229-5518
Generation of Entrepreneurs,” Proc. HCT Global Entrepreneurship
Conf. 2010.
[21] IC2 Institute, Accelerating Technology-Based Economic Growth and Entrepreneurship in Greater Moncton, Austin: The Innovation, Crea- tivity and Capital (IC2) Institute, University of Texas, 2007.
[22] R. Jordan, S. Kassicieh, A. Roldán, N. Jerez, R. Lotufo and R. Murphy, “Science and Technology Entrepreneurship for Economic Develop- ment (SEED),”. Proc. Ninth Int. Conf. Engineering Education, San Juan, PR, 23-28 July, 2006.
[23] F. Kropp and Zolin, Technological Entrepreneurship and Small Busi- ness Innovation Research Programs,” http://www.amsreview.org/articles/kropp07-2005, 2005.
[24] C. Juma, “Linking Knowledge and Business,” Business Daily (Afri- ca), March 9, 2007.
[25] D. Khanduja, J. Khanduja and S.S. Singh, “The ambience of Incubat- ed Entrepreneurship in Indian Economy,” Proc. Conf. SEAANZ, http://wms- soros.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/NR/seaanz/docs/proceedings/677.pdf,
2008.
[26] M. Kramer, “Israel: The Ultimate Entrepreneurial Culture,” The En- trepreneur Bulletin, February 23, 2010.
[27] E. Lazear, “Entrepreneurship,” NBER Working Paper no. 9109, 2002. [28] N. Mukehrjee, Participatory Rural Appraisal: Methodology and Ap-
plications. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company, 2003.
[29] K. Nozawa, “Technological Innovation and Regional Development: the Case of Organic Light-Emitting Diode Valley Project in Yamagata Prefecture,” Proc. Regional Studies Association Annual Conf. New- castle, 18-20 April, 2011.
[30] OECD, Innovation and Growth: Rational for an Innovation Strategy, Working Document, Paris: OCED Publishing, 2007.
[31] OECD/The European Commission, The Missing Entrepreneurs: Policies for Inclusive Entrepreneurship in Europe, Paris: OECD Pub- lishing, 2013.
[32] B. Oyelaran-Oyeyinka and P.G. Sampath, “The state and Innovation Policy in Late Development: Evidence from South Africa and Malay- sia,” Int. J. Tech. Learning, Innovation and Development, vol. 2, no.
3, pp.173-192, 2009.
[33] P.D. Reynolds M. Hay and S.M. Camp, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor – 1999 Executive Report, The Global Entrepreneurship Mon- itor, 1999.
[34] C.K. Sankat, “Science, Technology, Innovation and Entrepreneurship
- Trinidad and Tobago’s Vision for Development,”
http://worldsustainable.org/index.php/papers/413-sankat, 2010. [35] L. Singh, Globalization, National Innovation Systems and Response
of Public Policy, Munich Personal RePEc Archive (MPRA) Paper no.
641, 2007.
[36] E. Sirolli, “Enterprise, Entrepreneurship and Their Role in the Local, Regional and National Economy,” http://www.sirolli.com, 2008.
[37] V. Sriram and T. Mersha, “Facilitating Entrepreneurship in Sub- Saharan Africa: What Governments Can Do,” J. Int. Business and En- trepreneurship Development, vol. 3, no. 1/2, pp. 136-151, 2006.
[38] D.J. Teece, “The Role of Managers, Entrepreneurs and the Literati in Enterprise Performance and Economic Growth,” Int. J. Tech. Learn- ing, Innovation and Development, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 43-64, 2007.
[39] The Smith Institute, Going for Growth: Science, Technology and
Innovation in Africa, London: The Smith Institute, 2005.
[40] UN Millennium Project, Innovation: Applying Knowledge in Devel- opment, Task Force on Science, Technology, and Innovation. Lon- don, UK and Sterling, Va: Earthscan Publishing, 2005.
[41] P.M. Vaaler, R.V. Aguilera and R. Flores, “New Methods for Ex Post Evaluation of Regional Grouping Schemes in International Business Research: a Simulated Annealing Approach,” Res. Methodology in Strategy and Management, vol. 4, pp. 161-90, 2005.
[42] WEF, The Global Competitiveness Report 2009 – 2010, Geneva: World Economic Forum, 2009.
[43] World Bank, “World Development Indicators Database,” World
Bank, http://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/GDP.pdf,
2013.
IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org