From Inventors toInnovators: An
Investigation into Individual
Inventors in Tanzania
Bitrina D. Diyamett
Richard Mabala

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES No. 36

Published by the African Technology Policy Studies Network, P.O. Box 10081, 00100
General Post Office, Nairobi, Kenya.

© 2007 African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS)

PUBLISHED BY ATPS COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT
Printed by Newtec Concepts
P.O. Box 00800, Westlands
14180 Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: 4449849, Fax: 4450399
newtec@mitsumi.net

ISBN: 9966-916-48-2

ABOUT THE AFRICAN TECHNOLOGY POLICY STUDIES NETWORKThe African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) is a multi-disciplinary network of researchers,
policy makers, actors in the private sector and other end users interested in generating, promoting
and strengthening innovative science and technology policies in Africa. With a regional secretariat in
Nairobi, the network operates through national chapters in 23 countries, with an expansion plan tocover the entire sub-Saharan Africa.
One of the objectives of the network is to disseminate research results to policy makers, legislators,
the organized private sector, civil society, mass media and farmers’ groups through publications,dialogue and advocacy. Among its range of publications are the Working Paper Series (WPS),
Research Paper Series (RPS), Special Paper Series (SPS) and the Technopolicy Briefs.
Papers published under the ATPS Special Paper Series are those commissioned as concept
papers, think pieces, leading conference papers and keynote addresses. In keeping with
our knowledge brokerage function, ATPS publishes, with permission of the author(s) or
journal editors, papers (published or unpublished) produced by distinguished academics/
researchers for a different purpose but judged by ATPS to be of excellent quality. Thesepapers address significant policy questions relevant to the work of ATPS and/or support
the Southern voice or an African perspective. We also consider theoretical papers that
advance our knowledge of science and technology policy issues.
ATPS is supported by a growing number of donors including the International Development ResearchCentre (IDRC), the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Rockefeller Foundation, the World Bank,
the OPEC Fund, Ford Foundation, Coca-Cola Eastern Africa, the African Development Bank, InfoDev,
European Union and the Royal Dutch Government.

Acronyms

COSTECH
IFIA
IPRs
NSI
R&D
TAI
TASTA

Commission for Science and Technology
International Federation of Inventors’ Associations
Intellectual Property Rights
National Systems of Innovation
Research and Development
Tanzania Association of Inventors
Tanzania Awards for Scientific and Technological Achievement

Table of Contents

1.

Introduction
1.1 Background to the research problem
1.2 Statement of the problem and research questions
1.3 Research objectives

1
1
1
3

2.

Literature Review: some theoretical and conceputal issues
2.1 Definition of technological innovation
2.2 Origins of technological innovations: The context of the developed
nations
2.3 Systematic approach to innovation

4
4

3.

Research Methods
3.1 Sample size
3.2 Research techniques

9
9
10

4.

Research Findings and Analysis
4.1 Background to TASTA Awards
4.2 Level of education and family background
4.3 Original forces behind studied inventive and innovative activities
4.4 The enabling or disabling system elements

12
12
14
14
15

5.

Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations

22

References

5
7

24

Abstract
Although technological innovation has lately been accepted as a key aspect in socio and economic
development and therefore poverty reduction, poor countries such as Tanzania have largely beenleft out of the process. One major reason for this has been the concentration on technology transfer
that does not take into account a conscious and deliberate effort in building indigenous technologicalcapability. However, despite this fact, there are individuals, especially in the informal sector, who areinventing and innovating to the extent of coming up with inventions which have been declared new
to the world. But the diffusion of these inventions is largely constrained by factors that include: leveland nature of science education, and a research system that creates and reinforces dichotomy
between science education and system, and societal needs; globalization and privatization;
recognition and hence reward by the government; tax incentives; venture capital and Intellectual
Property Rights (IPR) system.
Lastly, the study is proposing long and short term measures that will reduce the effects of systemobstacles.

Introduction

1.1 Background to the Research Problem
The world today is in a process of rapid transition. Political alignments, economic systems andsocial values are all being transformed and it is increasingly being recognized that, at the base of
these transformations is the acceleration of scientific and technological advances in some areas of
the world. This has also added strong impetus to the trend towards globalization. However, in sucha situation, those who benefit most are those who own and control the process. Thus, one of thechronic problems facing most poor Third World countries such as Tanzania and other countries in
Sub-Saharan Africa is the conspicuous lack of technological innovation, especially indigenous
innovation. Technological innovation has been recognized by scholars as well as politicians andeconomic practitioners as having a crucial role to play in creating a better life for people in thesepoor countries, yet the reality on the ground shows that such recognition has not been translated into
appropriate action.
One of the reasons for this has been the belief that the best technological road to a better life for poor
developing countries was technology transfer. There was no need to reinvent the wheel and any
wheel invented somewhere else could easily be adapted to local conditions. While this is true, acertain level of indigenous technological capability, especially absorptive capacity is a prerequisite.
The problem has been that those responsible for such transfers often do not take this fact into
account. Consequently, technologies were transferred wholesale with little or no attempt to build
local technological capability. As Fransman (1986) succinctly stated in regard to the Third World:“Previously, attention was focused largely on the question of choice of technique and cost of transferring
foreign technology”. As a result, little or no attention was paid to indigenous innovation capacity
building.

1.2 Statement of the Problem and Research Questions
Despite the lack of attention on indigenous innovators and inventors, such people do exist. In thecourse of our previous research on Diffusion of Technological Innovations to Rural Women: the Roleof Entrepreneurship (1997), in a mere 16 villages in four districts of Tanzania, we stumbled upon
several potential and actual technological inventors and innovators at all levels of society right down
to the community level. In most cases, they have invented new technology (even though not in thearea of high technology) or made radical adaptations to existing ones. What is interesting is that1

2

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 36

most of them are not employees of research and development (R&D) institutions or similarorganizations, and therefore have none of the institutional advantages of other researchers. In
addition they have, to date, gained little significant profit from their inventions and innovations as aresult of unfavorable system factors such as venture capital to turn inventions into innovations,
economic hardship and a general lack of recognition and support for their activities from both stateand private enterprise. Yet they still continue to experiment and innovate.
In one sense, a preliminary step has been made. The Tanzania Commission for Science andTechnology (COSTECH) for instance, tries with very limited resources, to identify and even award a
few technological inventors and innovators. However, such an initiative is inevitably limited. First, as
observed by Wangwe (1996):
The recognition through TASTA (Tanzania Awards for Scientific and Technological Achievement)
seems to be a symbol of recognition once the results of an invention is out, but support before andafter the invention (for example, in terms of financing R&D is not ordinarily provided for).

Second, there has been no systematic effort to make a comprehensive inventory of such people, andmore importantly for any sustainable technological development, there has been no in-depth studyof these important individuals and their environment. They tend to be treated like a ‘black box’ out of
which inventions and innovations naturally come out. The primary objective of this work is therefore
to open the black box and examine its contents with the intention of identifying what specificcharacteristics of inventors and environments emerge under which the inventions took place inrelation to Tanzanian technological inventors and innovators, and maybe for other African countries
as well. The intention is to establish concrete policy directives that would enable inventors to turninto successful innovators.
Specifically, the research will address the following questions:(a) What made them inventors/innovators? Where did the original impetus come from? Whatencouragement did they receive from family, community or educational environments?
(b) For those who have turned their inventions into innovation, what facilitated the process?
(c) What motivates them to continue inventing and/or innovating, both from within themselves andfrom the environment in which they live? What support have they received from institutions andindividuals?
(d) What constraints have they faced/do they face in their work? What do they feel they need inorder to be more successful and effective?

On the basis of the answers to the above questions, an attempt has been made to come up with thenecessary educational background and environment that can enable inventors and innovators to
emerge and succeed.

FROM INVENTORS TO INNOVATORS: AN INVESTIGATION INTO INDIVIDUAL INVENTORS IN TANZANIA

3

Two groups of people have been dealt with:• The inventor who, as a result of either personal or environmental factors has failed toturn his/her invention into an innovation.
• The inventor who succeeds in transforming her/his invention into an innovation(technological entrepreneur).

1.3

Research Objectives

The broad objective is to identify special characteristics of innovators, innovations or inventions andthe environment that leads to successfully moving an invention to an innovation. The specificobjectives were to find out from the inventors and innovators and document:(1)
The influence of family and society, including significant role models.
(2)
Educational background (subjects preferred, academic progress, level of education).
(3)
Previous work experience and factors which have facilitated or constrained theirinnovative activities.
(4)
The institutional support and general environment they require in order to be
successful innovators.

2.
Literature Review: Some Theoretical and Conceptual Issues
Even though there is a dearth of literature on indigenous technological innovation in the African
context, the available literature on technological innovation, though largely based on studies of theenvironment of the developed world, can guide the study by taking into account differences in thesocio-economic environment.

2.1 Definition of Technological Innovation
The essence of innovation is novelty; innovation is both the process of introducing something new
and the new thing itself. Thus technological innovation refers to newly introduced technologies(whether in terms of skills, processes or equipment). It should also be remembered that innovation
can either be radical (completely new) or incremental (small modifications). Sometimes
accumulation of small increments results in a radical innovation (Rosenberg, 1982). If the invention
is a new piece of equipment, the first to sell the equipment and the first to use it are both innovators(Rosenberg, 1982). The first person is a product innovator while the second is a process innovator.
Normally a commercial connotation is attached to technological innovation as it is sometimes
defined as a creation of a new marketable commodity. However, for the purpose of this work, innovation
also includes non-commercial practical use of an invention.
The definition of innovation is derived from an important terminological distinction between invention
and innovation, which are sometimes wrongly taken to be one and the same. However, these are two
distinct processes. Invention refers to the creation of something new (which may or may not be thenintroduced into the market place) whereas innovation is the process whereby an invention is
successfully introduced into the market place and diffused. According to many scholars (Coombs,
1987; Resenberg, 1982; Fransman, 1986 inter alia) the process of innovation actually starts with themost basic laboratory investigation although in most cases this is prompted by some market or needsignals. Invention is therefore one step in the innovation process and inventors are those who start
the process by creating something new, while innovators are those who commercialize the invention.
In some cases, the inventor and the innovator are the same person.
In an economic context, innovation can also be equated to technological entrepreneurship. According
to Adeboye (1995), technological entrepreneurship refers to the creation of a new business based on
the exploitation of a technological innovation or the expansion of an existing business through the4

FROM INVENTORS TO INNOVATORS: AN INVESTIGATION INTO INDIVIDUAL INVENTORS IN TANZANIA

5acquisition and marshalling of resources for the creation of a small (at arm’s length) venture througha spin-off from the parent company. This is also similar to Schumpeter’s argument, based on his
technology push model that innovations are brought about by entrepreneurs.
With regard to technological entrepreneurship, a distinction can be made between the entrepreneurial
act of an inventor and that of another entrepreneur who merely uses the invention of another institution,individual or firm. An innovator who goes on to start a business on the basis of his invention is referred
to as an “inventor entrepreneur”. In the case of more developed countries, a good example is spinoff companies that are normally started by university professors based on their own research outputs.
On the other hand the term “surrogate technical entrepreneur” can be used for the entrepreneur who
takes inventions made by others to launch an independent new venture (Adeboye, 1995). This
research concentrated only on inventors and innovators who use their own inventions to come up
with an innovation. We consider them more important than innovators who use inventions made byothers or surrogate technical entrepreneurs for two reasons.
•
The inventors are the initiators of the innovation process.
•In Tanzania, where the standard of living is very low and the means of communication arevery poor, the inventors have the highest potential for starting the process since they often
invent in response to their own environment and then translate their invention into acommercial venture or any other practical use at the local level. By contrast, because of
the environmental problems mentioned above, it will be much more difficult for surrogate
entrepreneurs to identify and develop inventions of others.

2.2 Origins of Technological Innovations: The Context of the Developed Nations
Forces behind innovative activities are still a headache for scholars of technological innovation, andstill a major subject of inquiry in the innovation literature. In the recent past, two oversimplified
theories of innovation dominated the debate –– technology push and demand-pull. According to thedemand-pull theory, innovation arises out of perceived and often clearly articulated market needs.
This leads to focused R&D activities creating a host of products for the market (Rothwell, 1985). The
rationale behind the theory is that production units within the markets recognize customer needs anddirect their efforts to fulfill those needs through technological activities (Dosi, 1984). The actors in
the market, that is the adopters, can be private firms, government or domestic consumers.
According to the technology push theory, discoveries in basic science eventually lead to technologicaldevelopment, which results in the flow of new products and processes to the market place (Rothwell
and Zegveld, 1985, cited in Diyamett, 1993. See also Mallecki, 1991 and Rothwell, 1992). Here themarket plays a minimal role in the innovation process and only acts as a repository for R&D results.
In this theory, the entrepreneur occupies a central position (Schumpeter, 1934, cited in Coombs,
1987, Rosenberg, 1982, Kaplinsky, 1990, Diyamett, 1993, Diyamett and Mabala, 1998). According
to Schumpeter’s economic perspective, the drive to innovate comes from the work of an entrepreneur
who discovers, often in the existing pool of knowledge, commercially untried ideas, which he or she

6

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 36

introduces into commercial life. Although the entrepreneur has to overcome barriers caused by oldtechniques, and existing habits and institutions, he or she is motivated above all to run the risk
inherent in introducing a new idea and overcoming these barriers by the expected large profit to begained from a temporary monopoly by being the first to introduce the idea, as well as secondary
motives such as recognition, service to the community and so on.
From the foregoing discussion , it can be seen that innovation is mainly determined either by market
forces or by technology as an autonomous factor. There is empirical evidence to support each ofthese claims. For instance, there was no user demand during the development of the atomic
absorption spectrometer. Only the scientists envisaged its application. Conversely, it was demand
from potential users that led to the invention and development of synthetic rubber (Freeman, 1982).
Evidence notwithstanding, these two extreme classifications have been criticized by many scholars,
most of whom argue that each claim is inadequate.
On the one hand, as Fransman (1986) rightly argued:
The argument that market demand will influence the firm’s technological activity is trivial since firms
must market their products in order to survive.
In addition, great emphasis should be given to Rosenberg’s argument (1982) that most proponents
of demand-induced innovations have failed to give adequate explanation to the process, thereby
implicitly treating firms as printers that receive demand signals and print out innovations to order.
Nevertheless, both the aforementioned authors agree that, while the generation of new technology
may be more supply than demand determined, the diffusion of the technology will be to a greater
extent demand determined (Fransman, 1986). This concurs well with Coombs (1987) when heargues that technology push tends to be relatively more important in the early stages of developmentof the industry, while demand tends to increase in relative importance in the mature stage of the
product cycle. This is largely for radical innovations. For incremental innovations the market is the
major determining factor, where technologies are continuously being improved as a result of thechanging market demand and other environmental factors.
At this stage, the most basic question to ask ourselves is: “how are inventions and innovationsorganized in the context of the poor developing countries where scientific infrastructure is largely
poor and markets underdeveloped? Where do inventors and innovators, especially the individuals,come from? How are they motivated?”
In relation to the developed world, Mallecki (1996) argues that, before the year 1900, individual
inventors dominated the course of technological process whereas, of late, R&D has been formalized
and institutionalized. Coombs (1987) makes a similar point and proceeds to define these institutions
as follows:

FROM INVENTORS TO INNOVATORS: AN INVESTIGATION INTO INDIVIDUAL INVENTORS IN TANZANIA7a) Institutions generating new knowledge (universities, private and government, R&D
laboratories, etc.);b) Institutions both generating and using new knowledge as an input for their main activity;c) Institutions using technological change ‘embodied’ in products (hardware) and working
practice and techniques.
In most developed countries, R&D is an industrial endeavour and in most cases privately funded;
there is therefore an organic relationship between R&D and the productive sector. R&D sections
and institutions are staffed with care and workers are well motivated. The major goal iscommercialization of inventions as a result of which they have been highly instrumental intechnological progress. By contrast, in the developing world, especially Sub-Saharan Africa, organized
R&D effort has not been very fruitful in generating technological innovations. According to Vitta(1992), the region’s record of putting existing knowledge to use (that is, turning inventions into
innovations) is poor. He mentioned major obstacles as institution and resource related. In relation
to this point, Adeboye (1995) argues that it would be difficult to turn inventors from the aforementioned
institutions into innovators because their main concern is with academic inquiry, not commercial
profit. This argument was supported by a recent study (Diyamett and Mabala, 1997), which foundthat Tanzanian R&D institutions manifest the same preoccupation with academic performance
rather than commercial orientation in their research activities. This is why it is interesting to also
study the individual inventors and innovators in the informal settings free of academic motives.

2.3:

Systemic Approach to Innovation

In the last section we identified two major interactive forces behind innovative activities as technology
push and market pull. However, while it is generally agreed that these two forces are the major
determinants, in realty there are several other interactive forces at work, depending on the national
environment. Innovation, whether originating from an individual or institutions is basically a collective
endeavour, and is largely a process facilitated by the interactive learning, which is socially conditioned,
between and among different actors, that is, it is systemic in nature. This system is made up ofelements and their interdependent relations. The system elements are basically made of two typesof institutions. First, are the organizations, which include R&D organizations, firms and farms, theacademia such as the universities, and the financial institutions. Second, are rules and regulations;these are either formal or informal. Examples of formal are government policies, laws and regulations,and informal includes norms, customs and traditions. These are unique for a given national
environment hence the concept of National Systems of Innovation (NSI) (North, 1991 cited in Edguist,
1997). Sometimes, these elements mutually reinforce the learning process; and sometimes they
block such a process. Cumulative causation and virtuous or vicious circles are characteristics ofinnovation systems and sub systems (Muller, 2000).
Of particular importance in the context of a country like Tanzania is what Muller (2002) referred to asa matrix of four salient features of the NSI in the context of the South (see Figure 1).

8

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 36

Figure 2.1: National Systems of Innovation Matrix
Key:
1. Large scale industries of foreign origin in the formal (modern) sector – here extraneous
knowledge is at work
2. Mixture of all sorts of things, for example, the repair workshops.
3. Largely, area consisting of medium scale industries where most of the spare parts are of local
origin.
4. Small scale in the informal sector – indigenous knowledge.
As rightly put by Muller, sustainable technology development is possible only when the above
extraneous and indigenous technologies merge, particularly 4 and 1.

3.

Research Methods

3.1 Sampling Procedure
3.1.1 Sample size
To reach valid conclusions and outline an acceptable model for the development of technologicalinnovations, we found it necessary to identify and talk to at least 30 technological inventors andinnovators in the capital goods’ sector. However, because of difficulty in following up the inventors
and innovators1 and because we had already established a certain trend in the characteristics ofinventors and innovators and their environment, we stopped after identifying about 23 individuals.
Given the trend, the remaining seven would not have made much difference in the findings.
3.1.2 Sampling methods
The research used purposive sampling since the primary aim was to identify a fairly rare category ofpeople. A two-pronged method was used:•
Use of existing records in COSTECH and the Ministry of Trade and Industry as well as
previous winners of the TASTA awards (Tanzania Awards for Scientific and TechnologicalAchievement)•
In each of the regions identified, a search was carried out through interviewing district
government officials, religious and non-governmental organizations, local private sectorbusiness persons and entrepreneurs, donor organizations, and market and hardware
sellers.
Although our major thrust was to identify those inventors and innovators who have produced something
appreciably new (rather than minor adaptations to existing machines), we did not restrict our search
to the TASTA awardees, but also sampled those who were not aware of the award or those who may
not qualify for the award in any way. This is because our major interest here is not the newness of theidea per se but the spirit of the innovator and supportive environment.

1

There was an incident in which we had to follow up one entrepreneur for about 10 days, covering a distance close to 600 miles.
He was moving from one village to the other. For those who were located at industrial firms, we found that they had already been
retrenched as a result of privatization of parastatal organizations. We therefore had to ask about their whereabouts and follow them.
Most of them had moved miles away from their work places. In short the project was the most difficult and challenging t
hat I have ever been involved in. But it was worth the trouble.

9

10

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 36

3.1.3 Choice of regions
The following regions were chosen.
IringaIringa was one of the research regions in our previous research and several technological innovators
have already been identified in the fields of agriculture and construction. In addition, Iringa has
several large private workshops in the regional headquarters.
ArushaArusha was also one of the research regions in our previous research and several innovators havealready been identified in the field of agriculture. At the same time, Arusha has an extensive smallscale industrial estate (consisting mainly of private sector manufacturers) and several of the largest
R&D institutions in the country as well as being one of the most dynamic and developing towns in
Tanzania.
Dar es Salaam
Dar es Salaam is by far the largest city in Tanzania with a long history of small-scale production andentrepreneurship. It would thus be the best place to identify urban-based innovators working for an
urban market with possible greater potential for market expansion.
In addition to the regions chosen, TASTA award winners from other regions were followed up andinterviewed.

3.2 Research Techniques
3.2.1 Use of secondary sources• COSTECH (Commission for Science and Technology) records on TASTA awards.
• Ministry of Trade and Industry records on requests for patents.
• Institutions, which collaborate with COSTECH in disseminating information concerning the
TASTA awards.
• Curricula for science and technical subjects at primary and secondary levels.
3.2.2 Primary sources
Semi-structured interviews
A semi-structured interview with each of the inventors and innovators identified, based on the issues
outlined in the research problem, was the primary research instrument. It required enough time foran extended discussion with the inventor or innovator.
Interviews were also carried out with curriculum developers and practitioners in the field of scienceand technology in formal educational institutions. This was in order to:• Ascertain to what extent the syllabi encourage or impede innovation.
• Record their views on the success and failures of the current system and how they
believe it can be improved.

FROM INVENTORS TO INNOVATORS: AN INVESTIGATION INTO INDIVIDUAL INVENTORS IN TANZANIA

11

Case studies
After the original interviews were carried out, five of the most contrasting (three failures and two
successful inventors or innovators) were selected for a more in-depth probing on their work. The
other criteria used for selection was that the inventor or innovator must be a recipient of the TASTA
award.
Observation
The semi-structured interview was supplemented by observation of the conditions and potential for
entrepreneurs, the business environment, the educational institutions, and so on.

4.

Research Findings and Analysis

4.1 Background to TASTA Awards
The Tanzanian Award for the Scientific and Technological Achievements (TASTA) is an ongoingaward instituted by the government in 1981 to promote and encourage the development of scienceand technology in the country with the following aims and objectives:• To develop technological capability in the country• To encourage creativity• To foster the utilization of such creativity in accelerating socio-economic development in
the country.
The following are the conditions governing the award:• Originality of the claim• The potential impact of the claim on socio-economic development, especially in relation
to the national development goals• The potential of the claim to increase productivity and efficiency.
Eligibility: any individual or group of individuals is eligible to apply for the award.
The award is processed through a committee of experts appointed by the minister responsible forscience and technology.

12

13

FROM INVENTORS TO INNOVATORS: AN INVESTIGATION INTO INDIVIDUAL INVENTORS IN TANZANIA

Table 4.1: The list of Interviewees (Both TASTA and non TASTA)

1
2
3Invention/Innovation

TASTA/ Status
Non
TASTA

Inventor/
Innovator

Educational
backgroundYearof Award

Net winding and net
unchaining machine
Locally made bicycle
Locally madeduplicating machine

TASTA

Not in use

Mr. Omary

1995

Non
TASTA

Still in business
Never diffused –He is using it,
however
Serving two
families in thevillage
Has been improvedby the use of waste
oil & compressed air
instead of water. But
currently not in use.
Currently not in use

Mr. Shilla
Mr.
Nyirenda

Secondary technicaleducation
Primary, Trade Tests
Secondaryeducation, Teachers
CollegeStd VII

1988

Engineer

1982

4Mini Hydro Electric
Plant

Non

5

Use of waste oil assource of energy inheating

TASTA

6

TASTA

10

Punch press machine
Tobbaco fine treatment
line
A simple machine forsmall scale sugar
production
Amalgam retort for
mercury recovery
Water powered solar
scanner
Tractor driven oil press

11
12
13

Planter
Mechanical saw
Welding machine

TASTA
Non
Non

14

Brick making machine

Non

15

Tile making machine

Non

16
17
18

Non
TASTA
TASTA

21

Sewing machine
Bamboo pipes
Teaching aid: 4 stroke
petrol engine operation
Shuttle manufacturingmachineHand operated
pneumatic drive
Automatic blastering unit

22
23

7

8
9

19
20

Mr. John
Fute
Mr. Sherif
Dewji

1986
2001

TASTA

Mr.
Diploma (technical
Vedustuscollege)
Byoma
Still in use though
Group of
Degree in engineering
trade liberalization has five IPI
reduced its profitability engineers
Highly diffusedGroup of
Degree in Engineering
IPI Engeers
Not fully developedDr.
Masters in Engineering
Mbogoma
Still in use, upgraded Mr. Mbise
Form II, Trade Tests
to motor powered
Not developed
Mr. Msigwa Never been to school
In useMr. Mbuya
Never been to school
In useMr. Andrew
Std VII
Kilibika
In useMr. Romanus Std VII
Mlowe
In useMr. Emanuel Std VII
LubukaIn useMr. Luwala
StdVII
Not in use
Mr. Lipangile Diploma (tech college)
In use (in one
Mr. Mazzuki Form IV
school only)
Not in use
Mr. Mlaki
Degree in Engineering

TASTA

Not in use

1982

TASTA

In useFlat-ceramic biogas iron

TASTA

PloughNon

Using it himself,
could not market
Not fully developed

TASTA

TASTA
TASTA
Non

Mr. Chale

Std VII and Trade Tests
certificate
Mr. Douglass Diploma (TechnicalAkwilapo
College)
Mr. Jaustine Std VII and Trade Tests
Mungurecertificate
Mr. Mlowe
Std VII

1991

1995
1991

1983

1989
1986

2001
1995

14

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 36

4.2 Level of Education and Family Background
There is no clear pattern of the educational level of the inventors and innovators in Table 1. They
range from those who did not go to school at all to those with PhDs in Engineering. Surprisingly, theinvention which was found patentable and original to the world belongs to the inventor who never hadformal education (Mr. Msigwa and his planter). It is also important to note that a large number of
inventors and innovators are those who did not go beyond primary or at least ordinary level secondary
education. This is interesting because one would expect more TASTA awards to go to R&D institutions,which have individuals with higher levels of education and a more favorable work environment.
However, what is common for all the inventors and innovators is that in one way or another they haveworked as engineers or technicians or at least helpers in garages. Most also had role models in theirfield of interest. For instance, Mr. Byoma’s grandfather was a foundry and his father was a carpenter.
Mr. Mbise was closely working with an expatriate who invented the first oil press (the Bielenbergpress).
The foregoing points to the importance of technical education in the innovativeness of a nation.
There is also the issue of support and role modeling from the society surrounding the innovators.
This is possible only when the society at large is scientifically and technologically literate. Recently,
Science and Technology Public Attitude and Public Understanding has been used as one of theindicators of the level of technology development in a country. One aspect of this importance, according
to Kathryn Kissam, the Director of Public Affairs at Monsanto, is the support the scientifically literatesociety gives to young scientists. “As societal understanding of science is improved, people in all
professional backgrounds are better equipped to support those students who bring us the next
generation of scientific discoveries”, said Kissam (see MONSANTO News Release 2002, on theweb- http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC).

4.3 Original Forces behind Studied Inventive and Innovative Activities
Many of the innovators were employees who were inspired or rather forced to innovate because ofbottlenecks caused by the breakdowns and unavailability of spare parts in their work environment
due to the economic hardship of the late 70s and 80s and macroeconomic policies on import
restrictions. Thus to a large extent, innovations were demand driven (though it was a temporary
demand or rather, as in the old saying: “necessity is the mother of invention”). This applies to the
shuttle making machines, punch press machine, the fishnet machines; the hand-operated pneumatic
drive, the small-scale sugar-processing machine as well as the bamboo pipes. There was also adetermination to save scarce foreign exchange as well as overcome the obstacles related to import
restrictions. This in our views was the major contributing factor towards the government’s policy on
TASTA awards. It also suggests that some degree of import restriction is important even under thecurrent free market environment, to spur innovative activities in the private sector.

FROM INVENTORS TO INNOVATORS: AN INVESTIGATION INTO INDIVIDUAL INVENTORS IN TANZANIA

15

The rest of the technologies evolved as a result of the felt needs of the community in which theinnovators live. For instance, Mr Mbise invented the tractor-driven oil press because of the complaints
about the hard work required by his manually operated Bielenberg press. Mr Msigwa developed his
planter because of his awareness of the tedious and unremitting work faced by the farmer, while Mr
Nyirenda’s seminal work on the duplicating machine was the result of his experience as a teacher
in rural schools, which did not have access to any kind of technology for photocopying.
Two other innovators also stated that they developed the technology as labour saving devices forthemselves, such as the mechanical saw and welding machine.
Several also saw the technology as a means of personal income generation, although only one
stated specifically that he was looking for a gap in society so that he could make money by filling it.
When he saw that imported bicycles were too expensive for most people, he developed his own
bicycle, which is much cheaper, and he has already sold several of them. All the innovators hopedthat the machines they developed would be more widely diffused.
On the part of the government, the major impetus for the TASTA awards was the shortages of the
1980s.

4.4 The Enabling or Disabling System Elements
4.4.1 Education system
Even though in the original development of an idea, the level of education does not seem to matter(especially with those with innate special qualities), education does matter when it comes tosuccessfully turning an idea into a viable prototype. This is because this stage requires complicatedtechnical drawings, which can only be done with a high-level knowledge of engineering. Some of
the first class inventions like Mr. Msigwa’s planter got lost because of this problem (see Box 1).
Box 1: Mr. Msigwa
He spent seven years developing a planter which was able to measure, dig, plant and deposit
fertilizer. When he completed it, it was examined by international experts (from America, India andSweden) who pronounced it to be original and he was given a medal and a prize by the President( the late Mwalimu Julius Nyerere) in 1983 (together with Mr. Lipangile). Since he was not able tomass produce the planter himself, he was asked to take the machine to the University of Dar es
Salaam which would dismantle and draw the machine so that the production process could start. He
was also advised that it was important to take out a patent and that the people in Dar es Salaam would
do this for him. He believed them and returned to Njombe. There was no communication at all forabout six years after which they came and asked him for another planter. After much probing they
admitted that the machine had been ‘lost’ and that they suspected that some English lecturer had taken
it to Kenya. Mr. Msigwa refused to give them another until they showed him where the previous one
had gone or paid him for the original one, neither of which has been done to date.

16

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 36

Mr. Msigwa’s planter would probably have been developed into a useful innovation if he himself wereable to make technical drawings of the planter and had venture capital to turn his invention into an
innovation, and perhaps might have sought for the patent himself. It is also important to note, in thisconnection, that the technologies which found their way to the market place are those which are
relatively simple and therefore did not require any complicated technical drawings and large
investments in monetary terms.
Another related issue with education is the existing dichotomy between science curricula and thereal needs of the society. As argued by Vita (1992) and Adeboye (1999) and many others, in most of
the SSA countries, science has largely been divorced from the mainstream of economic and social
activities and it is either sought for its own sake or to copy what is happening in the developed world.
Most of the science curricula and related textbooks emphasize theoretical learning and reproductionof memorized facts that are unrelated to and out of context with simple and real life experience of thecommunities. As a result, most of the inventors who are responding to real problems of the community
are those with minimum level education (those who did not have a chance to be brain washed by thecurrent curricula).
In addition, there is also a tendency on the part of those responsible for spearheading scienceeducation, to at best neglect (as happened with Mr. Msigwa’s planter) and at worst despise thosetechnologies originating from the real life experience of communities. To drive this point home wequote part of the presentation made by the eminent professor scientists from the University of Dar es
Salaam during the university’s convocation symposium in 2000:…..”Not long ago the Tanzanian national science awards were being given in appreciation of the “discoveries”
of antiquities! How can scientific advances be taken seriously by school children this way? While others inscience-conscious societies are engaged in advances and inventions of the state of art technologies likesatellites, we in Tanzania orchestrate the use of bamboo for water distribution or fabrication of wooden
duplicating machines. Indeed these are examples of the dubious concept of appropriate technology, thathas been used by some external funding agencies to substantiate motives towards scientific underdevelopmentof developing countries. It tends to marginalize the conceptual thinking of policy makers and some scientists
who may be victims of this concept. Hence relevant science ( emphasis mine) suffers through government
and policy makers getting indulged supporting mediocre research that perpetuate what may be termed as
traditional ways of doing things that goes down to antiquity. This effectively thwarts prospects for developing
science and technology in developing countries.” (The Multi-Dimensional Crisis of Education in Tanzania:
A Preliminary Call for Public Debate and Action, 2000, p.129)

Such attitudes have been translated into the mistreatment of the inventors (see example in Box 2).

FROM INVENTORS TO INNOVATORS: AN INVESTIGATION INTO INDIVIDUAL INVENTORS IN TANZANIA

17

Box 2: Mr. Nyirenda
He is a teacher. In 1972, he developed a duplicating machine using local materials (wood, sponge andcloth) which could be used in rural schools which would never have the money to buy an imported
machine. It was shown at trade fairs in 1977 and 1982. When he entered for the TASTA awards in 1982,
his forms were lost. He did not lose heart but continued to correspond with COSTECH until 1988 when, withsome improvements suggested by the University of Dar es Salaam workshop, he won the award (16 years
after the original invention!).
He then asked for some money to carry out field-testing. This money was sent instead to the university,
which made 10 machines that did not work and took them to be tested in urban secondary schools, insteadof rural primary schools from where the idea for the innovation came and to which it was directed. The
report came back that the machines could not cope with the volume of work and could not compete with theimported machines to which the urban schools had access. As a result, Mr. Nyirenda still has his own
duplicating machine but the idea has never been disseminated and primary schools still have no access toduplicating machines.

As discussed in the theoretical section, innovation is largely a product of interactive learning between
different actors, and it is evolutionary rather than revolutionary in nature. The most sustainable path,according to most scholars of technical change, is that which takes into account the social economic
environment of the community and evolves with the knowledge of the indigenous people. The
Nyirenda duplicator might seem an ‘antiquity’ now but has a potential to grow into something better
than anything that ever existed with the necessary support. In this connection, COSTECH has the
tradition of linking the TASTA awardees to the University of Dar es Salaam for cross fertilization ofideas, especially since most of the awardees are limited in the educational level required to provide
technical drawings for their initial ideas. But they are very useful in the sense that, in contrast to thehigher learning institutions such as the universities, the individual inventors are in touch with, and are
therefore responding to, the real needs of the society. However, because of the attitudes of most of
our scientists, such interactive learning is being hampered as demonstrated in Box 2. We think to alarge extent this has contributed to the current problem facing TASTA awards and the whole issue of
dichotomy between indigenous knowledge and modern knowledge. This is similar to what Muller(2002) referred to as formal-normal dichotomy. He was referring to the dichotomy that exists between
large-scale industries employing foreign technology and the informal sector with indigenous
technology. We take the analogue to refer to formal education with foreign textbooks with foreignillustrations, foreign aspirations and so on, as against individual inventors and innovators who acquire
knowledge through informal means such as apprenticeship.
Two issues are obvious from the case of Mr Nyirenda. First, it was wrong to try to develop the
prototype in the absence of the individual with the original idea. He also was denied the chance toupgrade his knowledge through interactive learning with the university scholars. Similarly, the university
would have learnt a lot from Mr. Nyirenda. Second, the machine was tested in an environment
different from that where the original idea was conceived. It is true that the machine would not have

18

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 36

worked in large cities such as Dar es Salaam where teachers have access to computers andphotocopying machines, but in the rural areas where there is not even electricity! Mr. Nyirenda’s idea
is indeed a brilliant idea. However, on the contrary, the machine was dumped as a useless antiquity.
On the other hand, this is the result of the current convergence between science and technology,
especially in the areas of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information technology. For developed
countries with advances in technology, there is little problem in the usual coupling between scienceand technology; and there is therefore some appreciable degree of complementarities between
university science and technology in the productive sector. For poor developing countries, however,a big dichotomy exists between science pursued at the universities and technology. While scienceand the scientific community is one and global, scientists in poor countries therefore have to be atpar with their colleagues worldwide, technology is local, and unfortunately at a very low level compared
to contemporary science.
Of course, even for the developed countries, a high level of technology does not necessarily ensure
automatic relevance of science to socio-economic development. There has to be deliberate policy
effort to make science relevant. For instance, there are currently worldwide movements in an effort
to make science responsive to the needs of society. Examples of such movements are the newscience education programmes emerging in different parts of the world. To mention but a few, theseare: ASEP (Australia), CORST (Canada), SATIS and Salters Science (UK) and ChemCom (USA)(Solomon and Aikenhead, 1994; EijKeholff, 2001).
What the above programmes advocate in general is to make science more responsive to the needsof the society. According to Yarger and Luz (1995, cited in EijKeholff, 2001) this can be done byincluding societal issues in school sciences courses. If this is done, the following is most likely to beachieved:• Justifies information included in science courses• Allows students to find sciences relevant to their daily lives• Enables the teachers to evaluate students’ success at application and synthesis of
ideas• Redefines the teacher’s role to the “facilitator” and relegates the text books’ status toinformation sources• It may allow for increased scientific understanding of concepts, based on cognitive
theories of learning• Provides a vehicle for tying the whole school programme together.
4.4.2 Lack of appreciation and support of inventors and innovators by the Government
Most of the inventors or innovators, especially those who made their inventions as part of the productionlines of large-scale industries, by then belonging to the government, have now been laid off as aresult of the privatization exercise. Some of them like Mr Mlaki and Mr Byoma were able to set up
their own offices, and with minimum capital, are struggling to produce a few gadgets. However,FROM INVENTORS TO INNOVATORS: AN INVESTIGATION INTO INDIVIDUAL INVENTORS IN TANZANIA

19

inventors like Christopher Charles, formerly of Ubungo Farm Implements and Mr. Omary of Tanzania
Fishnet are in a very desperate situation. We had an opportunity to visit them at their homes. Mr
Charles especially seems to be undergoing serious economic hardship. What he had to remind himof those good old days are the front pages of newspapers he had frequently appeared on in 1982 asa famous inventor. When we inquired as to why he did not attempt to set up a business using his
experience, his replies were: “no space, no funds, etc”. He also bitterly complained of the low levelof remuneration he was given when he was retrenched. Mr Omary and Mr Lipangile also had theirown story to tell (see Box 3).
Box 3: Mr Omary and Mr Lipangile
Mr Omary
He was working for Tanzania Fishnets, which was a government parastatal. There were insufficientmachines and the workers were subjected to very hard labour so he decided to develop machines fornetwinding which produced more with less labour and which are continuing to work until today. He
succeeded and was given some money by the management after two years. However, he feels that themoney was in no way commensurate with the contribution made by the machine to production in the factory.
His supervisor was actively opposed to him and deprived him of loans and his fellow workers were also
jealous of him. Before he retired he was working on a new machine. He offered to continue developing it but
nobody listened; and he retired with no continued connections with the company management.
Mr Lipangile
He was the regional water engineer in Mwanza. There was a severe water shortage in one area and nohope of getting water pipes. He therefore developed bamboo water pipes which are five times cheaper
than plastic and fifteen times cheaper than metal. His idea was enthusiastically received and he won anational award, and the issue was forwarded to the ministry responsible for water for further action, butwhen the economic situation improved and the more expensive imported pipes were available, he and his
technology were forgotten.
Mr. Lipangile also initiated the Tanzania Association of Inventors (TAI) and was able to obtain TAI’smembership in the International Federation of Inventors’ Associations (IFIA). According to Mr. Lipangile, he
only has contact with the 10 leaders. He has lost contact with the other innovators. They once asked forfunds from the Ministry of Technology and Higher Education so that they could identify more inventors andtheir inventions but their request was turned down.

Despite the foregoing cases, the government still offers TASTA awards, but more because of a
tradition than necessity as during its inception in the early 1980s.
4.4.3 Inefficient patent law
Patenting is still a very cumbersome process in Tanzania, and most of the potential inventors are notaware or conscious of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).
Inefficiency of the patent law, especially in protection of the indigenous technology, is revealed by theloss of Mr. Msigwa’s novel invention.

20

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 36

To some extent it is also contributing to the lack of innovativeness. Mr. Mbise who originally madethe first version of the tractor-driven oil press, and later on improved it to become a motor oil press
had to stop producing the machine and move to a very distant village which was recently electrified,
to set up a business for producing sunflower oil with his machine instead of producing machines.
According to him, he had to move and stop producing machines because of the declining profit hewas getting from machine production, as other people had freely entered his line of business. If Mr.
Mbise’s prototypes were protected in some way, and earned enough capital from his designs, hewould have been motivated to do something more advanced, expecting more protection and more
profit.
The same thing also happened to Mr. Thomas who was producing his version of a locally madebicycle, based in Singida. He had to move to Haydom (recently electrified village) to continue
earning profits from his work. Some people in Singida had already started copying his designs.
Although this in a way has facilitated diffusion of this innovation, it will most likely kill the inventor’screativity.
4.4.4 Tax disincentives
This problem was mentioned by most of the innovators who at least tried to set up a business. Mr.
Mbuya, who developed a mechanical saw and is currently using it for his own business, expressed
this problem in a very interesting way. When asked whether he had ever tried to commercialize his
invention, he replied as follows: “we tried but stopped because when you try to advertise anything, thefirst person to visit you is not a customer but people from the Revenue Authority and your advertisement
effort will produce more tax demands than customers”.
4.4.5 Lack of venture capital
Innovating is a risky business even for a well-established company, let alone an individual. Most of
the inventors have no starting capital and have not been supported in any way. Working premises
and facilities were not available either. As a result, relatively successful inventors were those whoinvented within their production line with support from the company where they were working. One
innovator (Mr. Mbise) had to work for a garage in order to have access to the machinery and space
he required. Additionally, innovations, even if market driven, require vigorous advertisement to achieve
wider diffusion and this requires money.
The effect of availability of space and venture capital is also demonstrated by success of the twoinnovations made with the formal R&D structures (sugar-processing machine and mercury recovery
amalgam retort). These two inventions had access to donor money through their institutions, goodworking environment, and all the necessary support system. They had all the above-mentioned
inadequacies of the individual inventors and innovators.

FROM INVENTORS TO INNOVATORS: AN INVESTIGATION INTO INDIVIDUAL INVENTORS IN TANZANIA

21

According to inventors from IPI the two innovations are doing well, especially the amalgam retort.
The sugar-processing machine is facing very stringent competition from imported sugar, and its
profitability and hence diffusion has radically been reduced.
4.4.6 Globalization and privatization
This study has shown that most of the innovations that were developed as part of the production lines
in the industrial firms, which were by then owned by the government have been abandoned after theprivatization exercise. Worse still, not only were the innovations abandoned but also the respective
inventors. Important innovations such as the sugar-processing machine are facing serious competition
from cheap imported sugar, and according to the researchers from the IPI, its profitability has radically
been reduced such that its existence and further development are seriously threatened.
As privatization and globalization are good for efficiency and innovativeness, in the case of a poor
country such as Tanzania, these provide a serious challenge and have to be embraced with caution.
At the very least, some form of protectionism approaches are important, especially for a few selectedareas or sectors.

5.

Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations

This study has demonstrated that both the technology push and demand pull are fundamental
forces at work in the beginning of the innovation process. However, for successful and wider
diffusion, many of the other interactive forces which are unique for every nation come into play.
For the Tanzanian environment and for this study in particular, the following factors or forces were
found important: Science education, both level and nature; recognition of the inventors, especiallyby the government machinery; tax incentives; globalization and privatization; venture capital, andIntellectual Property Rights (IPR) system.
The findings also indicate that very few of the identified inventions and innovations are currently
being utilized or achieved wide spread diffusion, largely because of the blockage caused by theabove environmental factors. We therefore preliminarily recommend the following, divided into
long-term and short-term measures:Long term measures:•
Popularize science and its role to the wider society.
•Work towards reducing the dichotomy that exists between science and social andeconomic needs by radically overhauling the current higher education and researchsystems. By proposing so, however, we do not suggest that university science shouldcome down to the kind of low science input technologies we have identified, but rather,even the high level science should be made relevant to social and economic needs ofthe country through contribution of knowledge to intermediary institutions that conduct
more applied research commensurate with the demands of low technology private
investments.
•
Increase opportunities for high quality and high level technical education.
Short term measures:•
Continue with TASTA awards but at the same time provide a venture capital in terms ofmatching grant for those inventors who can move their inventions to the market place
themselves or who can identify an entrepreneur interested in investing in the invention.
•
Support a forum where innovators can air their views and exchange ideas on issues ofinterest and provide a forum to market their products. Recognizing and supporting theinitiatives started by Mr Lipangile could be a starting point.

22

FROM INVENTORS TO INNOVATORS: AN INVESTIGATION INTO INDIVIDUAL INVENTORS IN TANZANIA•••

Popularize the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) to the wider society and reduce thebureaucracy in patenting.
The whole issue of Free trade and Privatization has to be rethought to protect anddevelop indigenous knowledge.
Tax incentives such as tax holidays should be given to emerging technologicalentrepreneurs.

23References
Adeboye, T. (1999). “ The Interface of Science with Society in Africa’. In: Proceedings of theConference on Basic Science for Development in Eastern and Southern Africa, Arusha, Tanzania,
1999.
Coombs, R.; Saviotti, P. and V. Waloh. (1987). Economics and Technical Change, London: Macmillan
Education Ltd.
Diyamett, B.D. (1993). “Appropriate Technology, Rural Women and Development in Sub-SaharanAfrica: Problems and Prospects in Adoption of Appropriate Technology”, M.A. Dissertation, Lund,
University of Lund.
Diyamett, B.D., R. Mabala and R. Mandara. (1998). “Poverty and Diffusion of TechnologicalInnovations to Rural Women: the Role of Entrepreneurship”, REPOA, 1998.
Dosi, G. (1984). Technical Change and Industrial Transformation, New York: St. Martins Press.
Edquist, C. (1997). Systems of Innovation, Institutions and Organizations. Pinter Publishers, London.
Eijkelhoff, H.K. (2001). “Recent developments in science education: Research and Curriculum
Development”. In: K.M. O-Saki et al., eds, Reflection on Research Issues in Science Educationin Tanzania (in press).
Fransman, M. (1986). Technology and Economic Development, Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books.
Freeman, C.; Clark, J. and L. Soete. (1982). Unemployment and Technical Innovation, London:
Frances Printers.
Kaplinsky, R. (1990). The Economics of Small: Appropriate Technology in a Changing World,
London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Komba, A.Y. (1990). “Technological Innovation and Public Policy in Tanzania”. Research Reportsubmitted to IDRC, Ottawa.
Muller, J. (2000). “Making Ends Meet: Reconciling Indigenous & Extraneous Systems of Innovation”.
Aalborg University, Denmark, IDM, Mzumbe and University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Rosenberg, N. (1982). Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Rothwell, R. (1992). “Successful Industrial Innovation: Critical Factors for the 1990’s”, Researchand Development Management, Vol. 22, No.3, pp. 221-231.
Rothwell, R. and Zegveld. (1985). Reindustrialization and Technology, Longman: Harlow.
Solomon, J. and G. Aikenhead, Eds. (1994). STS Education: International Perspectives on Reforms,
New York: Teachers College Press.
“The Multi Dimensional Crisis of Education in Tanzania: A Preliminary Call for Public Debate”,
University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

24

FROM INVENTORS TO INNOVATORS: AN INVESTIGATION INTO INDIVIDUAL INVENTORS IN TANZANIA

25

Vitta, P. (1992). “Utility of Research in Sub-Saharan Africa: Beyond the Leap of Faith”. In: Science andPublic Policy. Vol.19, No.4.
Wangwe, S.M. (1996). “Technology Development in Tanzania: Some Challenges for the 21st Century.
In: Leading Issues in Development Studies, A Reader, Vol. 11,(IDS, Dar es Salaam).
Internet materials
http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed432443.html

Other Publications in the ATPS Special Paper SeriesSpecial Paper Series 1: Globalization and Technology: Africa’s Participation and Perspectives: Concept Paper andResearch Agenda by Melvin Ayogu &Osita Ogbu (2002)
Special Paper Series 2: Globalization, Markets for Technology and the Relevance of Innovation Policies in Developing Economies by Sunil Mani (2002)
Special Paper Series 3: Biotechnology in sub-Saharan Africa: Towards a Policy Research Agenda by John Mugabe(2000)
Special Paper Series 4: The Impact of Globalization in sub-Saharan Africa Countries by Mwindaace N. Siamwiza(2002)
Special Paper Series 5: A Blueprint for Developing National ICT Policy in Africa by Clement Dzidonu(2002)
Special Paper Series 6: Impact of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) on Technology Transfer in Africa by Moses M.
Ikiara (2002)
Special Paper Series 7: Pursuing Technology Policy Research in sub-Saharan Africa: Reflections on the Dimensions, Applications and Implications of a Methodological Framework by M.H. Khalil-Timamy (2002)
Special Paper Series 8: African Response to the Information Communication Technology Revolution by G. Olalere
Ajayi (2002)
Special Paper Series 9: Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs): Poverty Alleviation and Universal
Access Policies by Andrew Dymond & Sonja Oestmann (2002)
Special Paper Series 10: ICT Human Resource Development in Africa: Challenges, Strategies and Options by
T.M. Waema (2002).
Special Paper Series 11: Applications of ICTs in Africa: Development of Knowledge Workers in Centres of Learning
by John Muraguri Waibochi (2002).
Special Paper Series 12: State of Science and Technology Capacity in sub-Saharan Africa by Khalil-Timamy(2002).
Special Paper Series 13: Strengthening National Information and Cmmunication Technology Policy in Africa:
Governance, Equity and Institutional Issues by Melvin Ayogu
Special Paper Series 14: A Science Agenda from An Afrian Perspective by Turner T. Isoun
Special Paper Series 15: International Trends in Modern Bio-technology: Entry by and Implications for African
Countries by John Mugabe
Special Paper Series 16: Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), technology Transfer and Poverty Alleviation: Africa’s
Hopes and Dilemma by Moses Ikiara
Special Paper Series 17: Global Governance of Technology and Africa’s Global Inclusion by Banji Oyeyinka
Special Paper Series 18: Science and Technology and Poverty Reduction Strategy in Sub-Saharan Africa byO.
Akin Adubifa
Special Paper Series 19: An Assessment of Science and Technology Capacity Building in sub-Saharan Africa byO.
Akin Adubifa
Special Paper Series 20: Network as Determinants of Manufacturing SME Cluster Growth in Nigeria Networking
Technical Change and Industrialization: The Case of Small and Medium Firm in Nigeria by Banji OyelaranOyeyinka
Special Paper Series 21: Technology Transfer in a Globalizing World: Many Promises, Lack of Responsibility, andChallenges for Africa by M.H. Khalil Timamy
Special Paper Series 22: Integrated Value Mapping for Sustainable River Basin Management by Kevin UramaSpecial Paper Series 23: Wastewater and Irrigated Agriculture Lessons Learned and Possible Applications in Africa
by Frans Huibers, Lucas Seghezzo and Adriaan Mels
Special Paper Series 24: Survey of Indigenous Water Management and Coping Mechanisms in Africa: Implications

for Knowledge and Technology Policy by Femi Olokesusi
Special Paper Series 25: Survey of Indigenous Water Management and Coping Mechanisms in Africa: Implications
for Knowledge and Technology Policy by Femi Olokesusi
Special Paper Series 26: Water Management and Conflict in Africa: The Role of Management and Technology by
Chris Huggins
Special Paper Series 27: Markets, Institutions and Agricultural Performance in Africa by Julius Mangisoni
Special Paper Series 28: The Biotechnology Revolution and its Implication for Food Security in Africa by Victor
Konde
Special Paper Series 29: Why Africa has Fallen Short of Building Dynamic Agro-processing Capabilities: Constrains, Options and Prospects by Wellington A. Otieno and Ada Mwangola
Special Paper Series 30: Promotion of Public Health Care Using African Indigenous Knowledge Systems and
Implications for IPR: Experiences from Southern and Eastern Africa by Hassan O. KayaSpecial Paper Series 31: The Place of Policy in Applied Health Care and Technology with Special Reference toAfrican Tradition Medicine by Daniel Noni Lantum
Special Paper Series 32: A Framework for the Strategic Analysis and Management of the Brain Drain of African
Health Care Professionals: An Innovative Systems Approach by Rubin Pillay
Special Paper Series 33: ICTs and Health Technology at the Grassroots Level in Africa by Margaret Nyambura
Ndung’uFor more information on this series and ATPS Contact:

The Director
The African Technology Policy Studies Network
3rd Floor, The Chancery, Valley Road
P.O. Box 10081 00100 General Post Office
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254-020-2714092/168/498
Fax: +254-020-2714028
Email: info@atpsnet.org
Website: http://www.atpsnet.org