Towards Effective Public-Private Partnerships
in Research and Innovation: A Perspective for
African Science Granting Councils
African Technology Policy Studies Network

RESEARCH PAPER No. 29
Prof.Banji Oyeleran-Oyenyinka
Dr.Bertha Vallejo
Ms.Shruti Vasudev

Machobane Farming System and its Relevance to Climate Change Policy in Lesotho I

1

Towards Effective Public-Private Partnerships in
Research and Innovation: A Perspective for
African Science Granting Councils

Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, Banjia ; Vallejo, Berthab; and Vasudev, Shrutic
814, Eluid Mathu, Runda, Nairobi, Kenya
Tilburg University, the Netherlands and UNU-MERIT, the NetherlandscEuropean School of Management and Technology (ESMT), Berlin, GermanyabThe African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) is a transdisciplinary network of researchers, policymakers, private sector
actors and the civil society promoting the generation,dissemination,use
and mastery of Science , Technology and Innovations (STI) for African
development, environmental sustainability and global inclusion. In
collaboration with like-minded institutions, ATP provides platforms forregional and international research and knowledge sharing in order tobuild Africa's capabilities in STI policy research, policymaking and implementation for sustainable development©2018 Published by the African Technology Policy Studies Network

ISBN: 978-9966-030-98-6

Table of Contents
1

Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................................4

2

Methodology........................................................................................................................................................................53

Background...........................................................................................................................................................................6

3.1

Science, technology and innovation and PPPs in Africa.................................................................................... ..6

3.2

Science granting councils and the Science Granting Councils Initiative.......................................................8

3.3

Key questions addressed in this paper.................................................................................................. .....................94

Theoretical framework...................................................................................................................................................10

4.1

Partnerships and collaborations.................................................................................................................................10

4.2

Public-private collaborations .......................................................................................................................................11

4.3
4.4

Research partnerships....................................................................................................................................................12

4.5

Public-private partnerships in research and innovation....................................................................................14

5

Analytical framework......................................................................................................................................................17

5.1

The systems perspective and PPPs in R&I................................................................................................................18

5.2

How institutions shape systems of innovation......................................................................................................18

5.3

Patterns of interaction....................................................................................................................................................21

5.4

Other frameworks supporting PPPs in R&I..............................................................................................................25

6

International experiences in PPPs in R&I..................................................................................................................26

6.1

The European experience..............................................................................................................................................26

6.2

The Indian experience....................................................................................................................................................28

6.3

The US/African experience: BD-PEPFAR...................................................................................................................29

7

The role of SGCs and the characteristics of PPPs in R&I in SSA........................................................................31

8

Domains of knowledge and innovation systems...................................................................................................32

8.1

Main bottlenecks in interactions between SGCs and system actors..............................................................34

8.2

Governance perceptions of the SGCs and system actors...................................................................................35

8.3

Funding and monitoring mechanisms.....................................................................................................................37

8.4

Intellectual property rights and related items.......................................................................................................38

8.5

SGCs and their linkages with universities................................................................................................................38

8.6

Regional participation of SGCs in PPPs in R&I in SSA..........................................................................................38

9

40

9.1

Knowledge centres and motives for partnership.....................................................................40

9.2

The Private sector...................................................................................................................42

9.3

Sector focus........................................................................................................................................................................42

10

Conclusions and policy recommendations..................................................................................44

ANNEXES
Annex 1: Research platforms.........................................................................................................................................................46
Annex 2: Case studies.......................................................................................................................................................................49
Annex 3: Funding mechanisms for SGCs..................................................................................................................................53
References....................................................................................................................................................................................... 55

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. R&D expenditure by Science Granting Councils Initiative member countries as a percentage of GDP..
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................7
Table 2. R&D expenditure by non-Science Granting Councils Initiative member countries as a percentage ofGDP..............................................................................................................................................................................................................7
Table 3. Types of PPPs........................................................................................................................................................................12
Table 4.

24

Table 5. Theoretical basis for the analysis of PPPs in R&I......................................................................................................25
Table 6.

35

Table 7.

36

Table 8. University-industry research platforms......................................................................................................................46
Table 9. Analysis of diverse case studies from the literature..............................................................................................49
Table 10.

53

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Types of public-private collaborations......................................................................................................................10
Figure 2. The cyclic Innovation model........................................................................................................................................22
Figure 3. SGCs and domains of knowledge for intervention..............................................................................................33
Figure 4. Service-led growth in SSA countries............................................................................................................................43

Acknowledgements
The research was financed by the African Tecnhnology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) in
partnership with the Scinnovent Center under a contract arrangement with funding from theInternational Development Research Centre (IDRC), Department of International Development (DFID) and the National Research Foundation (NRF), South Africa under the Science
Granting Councils Initiative (SGCI) for sub-Saharan Africa. The authors express their appreciation to Dr Nicholas Ozor, Dr Maurice Bolo and. Dr Ernest Acheampong for their commentson the drafts of this paper and for their timely indications and suggestions. Our deep gratitude goes to those interviewed who shared with us their experiences, knowledge and time.
The usual caveats apply.

List of Acronyms
ATPS .........................................................................African Technology Policy Studies Network
CDC............................................................................Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
COMET......................................................................Competence Centers for Excellent Technologies
DFID...........................................................................Department for International Development
DFID...........................................................................Department of International Development
GDP............................................................................Gross Domestic Product
IDRC...........................................................................International Development Research Centre
NACOSTI..................................................................National Commission for Science Technology and Innovation
NIST............................................................................National Institute of Standards and Technology
NRF.............................................................................National Research Foundation
OECD.........................................................................Economic Co-operation and Development
PPPs...........................................................................Public-Private Partnerships
R&I..............................................................................Research and Innovation
SGCI...........................................................................Science Granting Councils Initiative
SGCs..........................................................................Science Granting Councils
SIDA ......................................................................... Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
SMEs..........................................................................Small-Sized Enterprises
SSA ............................................................................Sub-Saharan Africa
ST&I .......................................................................... Science, Technology and Innovation
USAID........................................................................United States Agency for International Development

Abstract
Public-private partnerships in research and innovation (PPPs in RI) have become a key elementin the research and innovation policy of countries. The study presents an analysis of theprocesses, practices and the attendant bottlenecks in promoting PPPs in RI by science granting
councils in sub-Saharan Africa. The research combines several techniques including a literature
review of the evolution of STI policies, secondary case study reviews of PPPs in RI, and survey
questionnaires seeking input from informants and experts familiar with the workings of SGCs.
Findins reveal that different partnership collaborations in Africa are evolving in episodoc
fashions driven in large part by resource scarcity within universities, and are used to strengthenindustrial bases, compared to the North which uses PPPs to maintain ldership at the technological frontier. The study finds that partnerships are influenced by geographic consideration, andinstitutional rigidities constitute major barriers to sustainable partnerships.

1. Introduction
Contemporary scholarship calls for a variety of partnerships within and outside national
borders aimed at optimizing collaborative research outcomes. This paper presents thefindings of a study on the policies and practices for engaging in public-private
partnerships (PPPs) in research and innovation (R&I) in different countries in sub -SaharanAfrica (SSA). The study found that partnerships, no matter their nature, co-evolve with theprevailing institutional environment and that changes in extant knowledge structures tend tobe slow and gradual. The policies and practices in relation to partnerships are shaped to alarge extent by the respective country’s historic development (Bartholomew, 1997, p. 244).
Policies and practices, as well as the institutional behavior and collaborative patterns ofactors, are also shaped by socio-economic factors, which tend to be rooted in society overtime. PPPs in R&I have become a key element in the mix of tools deployed in the researchand innovation policies of many countries around the world. Although this instrument dates
back to the 1980s, in recent years there has been renewed interest in, and discourse about,
PPPs in R&I, which have found their way back into policy discussions, not only in Europe andthe United States of America (USA), but also in many developing countries, particularly in
Africa.
The idea of PPPs in R&I is by nature a systemic one. Operationalizing the concept
necessarily involves several system actors and impacts on the productive engines of nations,such as industries and firms. This tool is regarded as a mechanism for addressing market
failures and coordinating complex activities involving a diverse set of actors including national
science system actors, such as universities and research centres. Its functional domain
encompasses a broad array of elements, including intellectual property issues relating toresearch, technology and knowledge generation. Accordingly, in this study we examine PPPs
in R&I from an innovation systems perspective, taking into account the diversity of actors thatshape the enabling environment, the contracts that bind the engagements, and the different
forms the interactions take.
The paper opens with the methodology and background, followed by the theoretical framework for understanding the surge of these new PPPs in R&I. It then sets out the analyticalframework before providing a general overview of PPs in R&I in diferent parts of the world,
focusing on lessons learnt for the SSA context. Di erent case studies are examined, supplemented by secondary sources, with the aim of establishing the typologies of PPPs in R&I toguide interventions in SSA.
The research is triangulated using semi-structured interviews with stakeholders of PPPs in R&I
in different European and SSA locations in an e ort to identify how they are established andcommon practices and experiences in their relation to their operation. The paper seeks to provide practical lessons for science granting councils (SGCs) and practitioners working in thisarea, particularly those working in the African context.

2. Methodology
This research is based on an extensive literature review on the evolution of ST&I policies andinnovation policies and the theoretical frameworks in influencing this evolution. We draw fromthe literature on innovation systems, interactive learning and capability building toconstruct a conceptualization that enables us to understand the implementation of PPPs in R&I
in different settings.
The study is designed to understand PPPs in R&I in SSA countries that are part of the Science
Granting Councils Initiative, namely Botswana, Burkina-Faso, Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Ethiopia,
Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia andZimbabwe. We also include perspectives from Nigeria and South Africa as points ofcomparison.
An extensive desk review of secondary case studies in which PPPs in R&I were implemented in
the different countries was conducted and, where possible, the authors of these studies were
contacted for details that could enrich our research. In the course of the desk research, we
identified several key reports on PPPs in R&I under the Science Granting Councils Initiative.
We scheduled interviews with the corresponding authors with aim of including their reflectionsin the research (Joanna Chataway et al., 2017; Mouton, Gaillard, & van Lill, 2014; Ssebuwufu,
Ludwick, & Beland, 2012). Case studies beyond SSA were also analyzed to understand the bestpractices for implementing PPPs in R&I outside our sample.
In addition to an extensive literature review, we solicited inputs, through an online survey questionnaire, from informants and experts familiar with the workings of SGCs, as well as agencies
with similar missions, such as national science councils and national commissions for scienceand technology, to enrich the research. Within this group were individuals who contributed to
the rest envisioned comprehensive and in-depth study detailing the functioning and roles of
SCGs or equivalent bodies in SSA during a consultative workshop in South Africa in November
2013 (Mouton et al., 2014). We also sent survey questionnaires to a total of 43 individuals
across 33 organizations and 18 countries, including individuals in 16 member organizations of
SGCs in Africa.
As the response rate to the survey questionnaire was very low (under 10%), we scheduled Skypeand phone interviews with key actors from SSA countries. We interviewed several directors oftechnology transfer o ces, university-industry linkage and technology o ces at main universities
in our SSA sample countries, and directors of industry associations. This helped us to understandthe current practices around PPPs and the respondents’ personal impressions of these practices(based on their experience). In addition, we conducted three key interviews with policy advisors
of international organizations (e.g., NWO, IDRC and DFG), who gave us a general perspective on
the role that PPPs in R&I play in both policy planning and market im- plementation. This made usaware of the di erent levels of readiness to engage in PPS in R&I around the world, which implies
di erent levels of complexity in the partnerships R&I implemented.

3. Background
3.1 Science, Technology and Innovation and PPPs in Africa
The centrality of S&T as a driver of economic growth and development has long been recognizedin academic and policy literature. Studies have shown how S&T enhances a country’s industrial
competitiveness and increases the efficiency of production routines and systems (J. Chataway etal., 2009; NACETEM, 2010; NEPAD, 2006). As early as the 1980s, Nelson and Winter (1982) identified
technological change and innovation as drivers of national competitiveness.
According to several regional declarations, African countries are committed to development led
by science, technology and innovation (ST&I). This is evidenced by the adoption of the 10- year
Science, Technology, and Innovation Strategy for Africa 2024 (STISA 2024) in June 2014 at the23rd Ordinary Session of African Union Heads of State and Government Summit. STISA 2024 is
aimed at accelerating and developing human capital, innovation, industrialization,
entrepreneurship and value addition to facilitate social transformation and enhance theeconom- ic development and, thus, competitiveness of the continent (African Union, 2014).
Currently, over two-thirds of African countries have ST&I policies and strategies (The African
Capacity Building Foundation, 2017), and the last decade has seen an increase in research fundcom- mitments from national governments, the emergence of new organizations funding STI,
and increased rates of scientifc production, innovation activities, and cross-regional researchcollaboration (African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) & The Scinnovent Centre,2017).
Many African countries, however, lack the requisite capacity to optimize the potential of ST&I toenhance the structural transformation of their economies. The majority have “underdeveloped
STI institutions and fail to e ectively generate and deploy knowledge and technologicalinnovations for socio-economic growth” (The African Capacity Building Foundation, 2017, p. viii).
As an exception, countries, like South Africa and Nigeria, have relatively well established policy
and scientific institutions, such as ministries for science and technology, national researchfoundations, the technology innovation agencies, and various innovation hubs and portals.
There are other countries where knowledge generation and management systems are not aswell developed and the ministries of economy, industry and higher education carry out the ST&I
mandate alone. For example, average nancing for research and development (R&D) in Africancountries is about 0.5% of GDP, which is less than the target of 1% of GDP (The African Capacity
Building Foundation, 2017). Table 1 and Table 2 present the di erent investments in R&D carriedout by members and non-members of the Science Granting Councils Initiative.

Table 1. R&D Expenditure by Science Granting Councils Initiative member countries as apercentage of GDP
Country

Year of Latest Available Data

Research and Development
Expenditure (% of GDP)

Burkina Faso

2009

0.20015

Botswana

2013

0.5423Cote d’ Ivore

n/a

n/a

Ghana

2010

0.37655

Ethiopia2013

0.60468

Kenya

2010

0.7856

Malawin/an/aMozambique

2015

0.33732

Namibia2014

0.33695

Nigeria2007

0.21939

Rwandan/an/aSenegal2010

0.5413

Tanzania

2013

0.52889

Uganda2010

0.47505

Zimbabwen/an/aworldbank.org/indicator/GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS?end=2015&start=2015&view=map&year_high_desc=false

Table 2. R&D Expenditure by Non-Science Granting Councils Initiative Member Countries
as a Percentage of GDP
Country

Year of Latest Available Research and Development Expenditure
Data(% of GDP)

China

2015

2.06558

India

2015

0.6274

Russia2015

1.13202

S. Korea2015

4.22816

Germany

2015

2.87849

Canada2014

1.61548

Italy

2015

1.33488

USA

2015

2.79385UK

2015

1.70304

France2015

2.23135

Japan

2015

3.28363

Source: Elaborated by the authors with information from UNESCO’s Institute for Statistics and https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS?end=2015&start=2015&view=map&year_high_desc=false

Alongside recognition of the need for ST&I in order to achieve sustainable growth and development, global leaders are increasingly articulating the need to form PPPs in order to achieve
ST&I goals. African governments have reiterated the role of PPPs and the desire to strengthen
collaborations with public and private sector partners through various policy initiatives andforums, including the New Partnership for Africa’s Development agenda (NEPAD, 2013) andthe Second Ministerial Forum on Science, Technology, and Innovation in Rabat on 17 October 2014. The Sustainable Development Goals, which were collectively agreed upon, have also
placed PPPs as central to achieving inclusive and sustainable growth.
3.2 Science Granting Councils and the Science Granting Councils Initiative
The key players promoting PPPs around R&I within a country’s national system of innovationthat funds science through a diversity of platforms. However, they are also taking on functions
management and policy advice. Importantly, these councils act as agents of the government
institutions in a country” (Mouton et al., 2014).
A host of countries in SSA have long-established SGCs; however, while their broad mandate is-national systems of innovation, and fostering of PPPs in R&I. A 2017 study by the Science Policy
Research Unit and the African Centre for Technology Studies that looked at how political econKenya, Rwanda, Senegal and Tanzania) were committed to increasing funding, but, in general,
funding levels were still low (Joanna Chataway et al., 2017). In these countries, SGCs have been
established, but in varying ways, which has implications for how they are funded and carry out
their functions). Secondly, while there is reference to the role that the private sector can playat both the regional and national levels, private sector funding remains low, and engagement‘patchy’ across the case study countries (Joanna Chataway et al., 2017). The authors point out
the following:

Greater consideration could be given to the variety of ways in which the private sector could be enwill not make use of formal R&D activities and may not identify as innovating companies. The type ofengagement and activity will also vary across sectors. However, there will be aspects of research that
may have relevance and use and although actual private sector spend may remain limited, greater involvement will lay the basis for sustained and growing collaboration. (Joanna Chataway et al., 2017,p. 43)-

research and innovation increases, it is important to enable discussions about PPPs for R&I,
their design, management and impact, in order to shape the roles of such partnerships within
national systems of innovation (African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) & The Scinnovent Centre, 2017). Accordingly, the Science Granting Councils Initiative commissioned thisinitiative, jointly funded by the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development(DFID), Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and South Africa’s National Research Foundation. The initiative works to strengthen the capacity of SGCs in SSA to
support research and evidence-based policies that will contribute to economic and social development. The objectives of the Science Granting Councils Initiative include strengthening
the ability of science granting councils to: (i) manage research; (ii) design and monitor research
programmes based on the use of robust ST&I indicators; (iii) support knowledge exchangewith the private sector; and (iv) establish partnerships between councils and other science system actors (African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) & The Scinnovent Centre, 2017).
3.3 Key Questions Addressed in this Paper
In order to enhance the role of PPPs in socio-economic development and in support of the
STISA 2024, the Science Granting Councils Initiative commissioned this paper to explore issues
related to PPPs in research and innovation and to propose good practices from around theworld (African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) & The Scinnovent Centre, 2017). In
particular, the paper addresses the following key questions:• What are the key characteristics of PPPs in R&I in the SSA context?
• How have PPPs in R&I contributed to the translation of research outputs into new products
and services?
• What are the current challenges in achieving strong PPPs in R&I in SSA?
•
• What policies, practices and incentive structures are required in order to strengthen PPPs
in R&D?
• What changes (for example, structural and institutional or to roles and mandates) should
be made to enhance the capacity of science granting councils to catalyze, facilitate andmediate PPPs in R&I?
• What analytical framework, including performance measures and indicators, might beused by science granting councils to assess the impacts of their PPPs in R&I programmes?
The research results of this study were presented at the Annual Forum, convened by the Science Granting Councils Initiative in partnership with the African Union Commission and the
New Partnership for Africa’s Development. The forum hosted various African science granting

4. Theoretical Framework
4.1 Partnerships and Collaborations
agreement. In this paper, we conceptualize and elaborate PPPs in R&I within the structure anddynamics of network collaborations among a diverse set of actors. We do this within an innovation systems framework that includes agents in the public and private sectors, be theyactions and coordination is now well established (Edquist, 1997). It is also widely accepted that
innovation actors are ordinarily embedded in networks of varying densities depending on thedevelopment support environment. An understanding of these kinds of important organizational forms not only points markets in the best direction for investment, it directs state action
and policy to the best forms of intervention to attenuate market failures. At the micro-level, an
understanding of partnership networks helps the policy process in the structuring of linkages
patterning of persistent interaction. This makes partnership networks more than mere channels of information exchange, but institutions of knowledge creation, because the persistenceof relations suggests structure and relative stability. Evidently, research partnerships are included in this categorization.
Partnerships for innovation include activities such as joint ventures, research corporations,joint R&D, technology research agreements (such as technology sharing, cross-licensing andmutual second-sourcing), direct investment, customer-supplier relations and R&D contracts,
among other things. While collaborations are mainly sealed by contractual agreement, innovation networks may also be based on informal collaboration involving knowledge exchange byfoster innovation; however, it is part of a much wider and broader set of collaborative relationships, which can be formal or informal (Hagedoorn, Link, & Vonortas, 2000). The literature idenFigure 1: illustrates the differences between these concepts

Public-Private Collaboration

Outsourcing

Public-Private Partnernips

Privatisation

Contracting by a publlic agency
for completion of government
functions by a privator
sector organisation

Means of utilising private sector
resources combining outsourcing
and privatization

The sale of government owned
asset to the private sector

The European Commission’s Guidelines for Successful Public Private Partnerships (2003) innamely: (i) traditional public sector procurement; (ii) build-operate-transfer (BOT), (iii) designmajor public responsibility and the last one more extensive private responsibility (European
rangements (e.g., such as service contracts, management contracts, leases, build-operatetransfer arrangements and concessions) (European Commission, 2003). The type of arrangement adopted depends on the type of project, the needs being addressed and the sector of
implementation.
4.2 Public-Private Collaborations
Collaborations or associations between the public and the private sector on infrastructure anddevelopment issues can be traced back as far as the 18th century (Nirupama, 2009). However,in the mid-1970s, the adoption of these schemes became more commonly used by the public
sector seeking to promote the development of road infrastructure, as well as health, prisons,water and sanitation services, etc. In this context, public-private collaborations complemented
the limited public budget with alternative sources of (private) capital, external knowledge andskills, and risk sharing. By the late 1980s, Europe, Australia and the USA had already adopted
ment projects. Since then, PPPs have been recognized as an innovative mechanism by which
to fund projects at a reduced cost, create jobs, improve delivery, and increase the quality of
performance. Due to limited state resources, the evidence suggests that PPPs have become
an important tool for the public sector in the delivery of basic goods and services, as they alPPPs emerged as an instrument of new public management, becoming a preferred approach-

PPPs are, therefore, understood as those alliances in which the public and the private sector
enter into long-term collaboration to produce better quality products at a lower cost. They
private sector to procure public infrastructure and services (Grimsey & Lewis, 2007a, 2007b).

PPPs operate under a mid- or long-term contractual arrangement between the public and theprivate sector with the objective of maximizing the use of the best skills and capabilities ofeach sector (Agyemang, 2011). As a generalization, the recent types of PPPs can be characterized as follows: (i) PPPs in which the cooperation among partners that is long-term and stable;(ii) PPPs in which the contributions of each partner (public and private) are clearly establishedunder formal arrangements; (iii) PPPs in which the outcomes and performances are clearlyevaluation activities, are mostly conducted by the public partner; (v) PPPs in which the public
partner holds the role of organizer, regulator and controller, while the private partner holds
the role of direct operator; and (vi) PPPs in which the risks are mostly transferred to the public
partner (Reillon, 2017b).
Although PPPs have been traditionally linked to the development of infrastructure, the healthsector and the water sector (i.e., supply partnerships), their adoption in the last decade has
expanded to many other economic sectors. Table 3
Table 3. Types of PPPs
Type of PPP

Reason for Formation

Challenges

Supply partnership•

Central entity must be a neutral andtrusted party
Intellectual property structure
Performance measurement•••

Product development

Optimization of the use of available knowledge and resources
Promotion of economic growththrough a more competitive private sector
Promotion of ‘open innovation’To address topics that require aneutral/multi-stakeholder environment

Risk sharing

partnershipResearch partnership sup- •Increased scale

Engagement of small and mediumsized enterprises (SMEs) and large
companies
Time-lines and sustainability

porting early stage innovation
Partnership for concept
development and overallsystems strategy

research strategy

Consortium leadership and project
management

Source World Health Organisation (2013)

4.4 Research Partnerships
Research partnerships are thos-of new products, processes and services. It usually has a limited number of partners who pull
the arrangement are entitled to a proportion of the income derived from the investment. Fromthe literature, we know that research collaboration has been practiced for as long as modern

Authors such as Okamura et al. (2003) employ the term ‘innovation networks’ to describe collaborative relationships created between business and non-business entities. Spatially, these
relationships may involve North-North, North-South and South-South collaborations andequally expand across traditional and non-traditional sectors, involving both knowledge centres and industries. According to Hagedoorn et al. (2000), research partnerships are made up

of the members in the relationship (i.e., the partners) and the organizational structure of therelationship (i.e., informal or formal arrangements and its different modalities). Partners in
the network could be universities, research centres, government agencies and/or private
firms.
The literature explains the motivation of firms to enter into research partnerships from theperspective of transaction cost economics, strategic management and industrialorganization, innovation theories, and economic geography (Hagedoorn et al., 2000;
Koschatzky, 2017). The model implemented under this scheme is highly attractive toentrepreneurial academics because it allows them to acquire further leadership skills andleverage capabilities extant in the network. Research partnerships have gained considerable
attention as a S&T policy tool aimed at promoting domestic technology and knowledgetransfer. The traditional science policy model up until the 1970s was focused on the
promotion of cross-national technology transfer, mostly from the North towards countries in
the South (Bozeman, 2000), creating technological dependency discussed by the importsubstitution theories. In the late 1970s, the S&T policy agenda shifted towards technology
transfer within nations. This notion took the form of formal research contracts, shifting the
focus toward the researches’ pre-market application or implementation, which was
traditionally addressed by the private sector. The main policy objective of this strategy was
to deploy financial incentives and public funding for the purpose of turning research into
products, processes and services in order to promote economic and social progress (Wrightet al 2008).
In an advanced industrial economy like the USA, the objective is, in part, to gain
technological leadership by improving technology-driven competitiveness. To achieve this
aim the US government has invested considerably in the establishment of institutional
structures to facilitate technology transfer between universities and industries (Bozeman,
2000; Sampat & Nelson, 2000). One such institution is the Industry-University Cooperative
Research Center, established in the 1980s. This strand of the S&T policy aims to promote
long-term partnerships among industry, academia and the government. This programmeholds out the possibility of a low threshold for industrial players to engage with othersystem actors (such as universities and research institutes) and, eventually, can provide
significant payoffs in terms of long-term benefits and profit.
Within the EU, countries promoted research partnerships in the 1980s with the adoption of
the first Framework Programmes (FP). These FPs are policy tools that foster researchcoordination across the EU, but, more importantly, they are financial tools that support thecompetitive capacity of the member states (Reillon, 2017a). Through the FPs, the publicresearch organization structures of the EU are modernizing, avoiding duplication andlimiting intra-community competition. After the first FPs (FP1 in 1983, FP2 in 1987, and FP3
in 1990), they were adapted to the needs of the European Commission and, in the
Maastricht Treaty in 1993, the legal framework was formulated to transform FPs into
financial tools for research activities. In FP4 (1994) and FP5 (1998), the topics for researchwere broadened and the frameworks started to display an emphasis on pre-competitive
research.
Despite differences in approaches, the common elements in the S&T strategies were thecreation of policies influencing collaborative pre-competitive research, particularly in
information technology and other key sectors; the creation of new technology-based
firms; and a constantemphasis on stimulating the integration of medium and small-sized enterprises (SMEs)(Rothwell & Dodgson, 1992). In the South as a regional block, the literature on the latecomer
f irms identifies several case studies, especially from the 1990s, of firms updating theircapabilities, not only through informal arrangements, but through formal contractual
arrangements, such as research joint ventures (Bray & Link, 2017), cross-licensing, research
agreements, direct investment, customer-supplier relationships, R&D contracts, licensing andoutsourcing, among other type of research partnerships. Drawing on an earlier study ofAfrican systems, it was observed:
Generally, the picture of S&T capacity building in Africa is one of a weak but growing supply oftechnologies and human resources and strikingly, a low demand and therefore limited or even
unproductive deployment of these resources. By and large, the literature indicates that partner
ships for S&T capacity building have made only a modest contribution to the development
challenge in Africa and largely not succeeded in resolving old and new problems such as low
agricultural productivity, weak technological capabilities in manufacturing and processing,poverty, food security, environmental degradation and many others (Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, 2005).

For most African countries, this situation has changed only marginally. The key constraints of
their underdeveloped environment limit how far advanced society models can be adopted
by these countries (Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, 2006). To start with, a large part of knowledge in African
societies is tacit in nature; African societies thrive on oral history, whereby much of
the techniques of local knowledge production are passed on from master craftsmen to
apprentice. Even if this is hardly acknowledged in official documentation, much of the learning
takes place through informal institutions and, for much of Africa’s history,
knowledge of nature was regarded as a secrets to be passed on to the ‘chosen’, most often aperson’s offspring (Oyelaran- Oyeyinka, 2006). Second, institutions for the codification ofknowledge were barely developed, but ‘modern’ organizations for doing this are embedded
in many widely-accepted social systems and practices (Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, 2006). Thirdly,
orthodox measurements of the generation and flow of knowledge concentrate largely on
measurable data such as patents, scientific publications and R&D statistics (Oyelaran-Oyeyin-ka,
2006). These practices are supported by institutions of knowledge creation, such as networks ofscientific laboratories and patent offices, and practices such as standards and metrology. For
example, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) had a budget of USD 964
million in 2016. NIST promotes US innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing themeasurement of standards and technology in ways that enhance economic growth. Most
Africancountries
lacksuch
supporting
institutions,andeven though they have adopted policies of advanced nations, policy makers and scholars
tend to underrate and poorly rank informal networks, which in some countries contain a vast
knowledge base that is largely tacit.

4.5 Public-Private Partnerships in Research and Innovation
Beginning in the 2000s and induced mainly by the global economic crisis, science andtechnology policies started moving towards today’s innovation policies by adapting researchfrom links between science centres and industry towards partnerships focusing on research
application or implementation, as well as aiming to address market failures. The OrganizationforEconomic Co-operation and Development (OECD, (2014) initiated this type of PPPs, which it
in R&I, which are top-down-oriented PPPs characterized by long-term public support addressing strategic issues, with the following aims: (i) to strengthen the industrial base; (ii) to resolve
long-standing global problems; (iii) to support economic growth; (iv) to create employment;and (v) to provide leadership at the technological frontier and foster technological comparative advantage.
ment in order to achieve complementary goals by jointly operating research activities (Buck-proximity; (ii) medium to long-term collaboration arrangements; and (iii) a legally-regulated
PPP contractual agreement (Koschatzky, 2017; Koschatzky et al., 2015).
(a) Spatial and Social Proximity
For the European PPPs in R&I, spatial proximity is a mandatory requirement. Proximity among
operation and research. Employees from the private sector are in constant communication
Proximity promotes interactivity, as was also found in the African context, where it is undenitions providing technical services, was found to be an important determinant of innovation-

are characterized by geographic proximity, interactive collaborations promote learning andclients, contractors, suppliers and input suppliers tends to be the most widespread amongsmall enterprises in close proximity, especially industrial clusters (Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, 2004b).
Relationships with input suppliers as well as domestic machinery suppliers and maintenanceorganizations are the most prominent. Small producers tend not to patronize universities andresearch centres, due to ‘relational distance’, manifested in the ivory tower mind set of many
research entities. Firms are far more concerned with meeting daily production schedules andmuch less engaged in medium to long-term innovation planning.
(b) Length of the Contractual Agreement
A medium or along-term formal arrangement is important in research, particularly researchthat involves collaboration between academia and industry.

(c) Legally-Regulated Agreements
Country characteristics such as weak institutional frameworks, high level of corruption andas revenue and intellectual property rights, especially as projects advance and start producing

A very important aspect of PPPs in R&I is the legal regulation of intellectual property rights
rights under PPPs in R&I remains an important challenge around the globe. Case studies in
Europe, Australia and the USA indicate that although intellectual property rights are discussed

most cases there are no strict rules or guidelines for the regulation of intellectual property
rights; therefore, they are negotiated among all the partnership actors (including aspects suchas the allocation of intellectual property and the income from intellectual property). As intelwith the organization that has the greatest capacity to administrate it.
Miranda Sarmento and Renneboog (2017) present evidence of opportunistic bidding for PPP
contracts, which once they are acquired – and the competition eliminated – lead to renegotiation to increase revenue. Their analysis shows that incomplete legal contracts (due to contract
complexity, size and length), favor renegotiations at the operational stage. Election years (generally the year before an election) are positively correlated with the renegotiation of large PPPs,
either by governments or the private sector (Miranda Sarmento & Renneboog, 2017).

5. Analytical Framework
5.1 The Systems Perspective and PPPs in R&I
In this paper, we have adopted the systems of innovation framework for analysis of theresearch results, because it best describes the activities of actors in a PPP. The systems ofinnovation concept rests on a number of conceptual platforms and articulates the generally
agreed notion that firms, universities and economic agents do not innovate in isolation. For
this reason, ‘learning organizations’ have to develop modes of interaction with other agentswithin a boundary – national, regional or sectoral – that marks their system of innovation.
The system of innovation is defined as “the network of institutions in the public and private
sectors whose activities and interactions initiate, import, modify and di use newtechnologies” (Freeman, 1987, p. 1). Lundvall’s concept of national systems of innovationemphasizes the diffusion of “economically useful knowledge” (Lundvall, 1992, p. 12). There
are a wide variety of definitions (Nelson and Rosenberg, 1993; Metcalfe, 1994), but there isalso a fairly good convergence of the key ideas at the heart of the systems of innovation
framework. One of these ideas is the persistent, but uneven, distribution of the capabilities
of firms to innovate across sectors, countries and regions. This skewed effect of innovation
performance is a function of specific national or sectoral factors and, as such, thecompetitive advantage of sectors and nations depends greatly on how advanced theirsystem of innovation is and how well it has generated coherence and interactions.
Following the earlier path-breaking work of Freeman (1987), Lundvall (1992), Nelson (1987)
and Edquist (1997), scholars have made progress in applying the systems of innovation concept to developing countries (Arocena & Sutz, 1999; Cimoli, 2000; Gu, 1999;
Oyelaran-Oyeyinka & Adebowale, 2012). These sources point out not only the considerable
differences between advanced industrial countries and developing countries as a bloc, butalso the marked differences between individual countries within these blocs. The systems ofinnovation in developed and industrialized countries differ in several ways from those indeveloping countries, and specifically in three respects. First, advanced economies tend tobe highly science-intensive and technology-intensive, with relatively high levels of domestic
investment in R&D. Second, industry and the service sectors are far more advanced andcomplex and also far more knowledge-based and innovation-driven in rich industrial
nations. Third, and complementary to the first two, advanced economies have high levelsof skilled manpower, the importance of which is accentuated by intensifying global
competition. To be sure, PPPs in R&I are embedded in these contextual conditions.
PPPs in R&I foster innovation, which in turn grows out of a network of private and public
sector actors whose interactions produce, diffuse and use knowledge that is economicallyuseful (Lundvall 1992). Additionally, a system is made up of key actors (components) and isdriven by interactions that define their engagement. Continuous interaction is criticalbecause of the nature of organizational behavior – they do not innovate alone. The system
is dynamic and evolving, and complex relationships get reconfigured. The framework placesemphasis on interactive learning between producers, suppliers, buyers and theorganizations that support them

importance of the local and international policy environment, which sets the parameters within which all these actors learn and innovate (Lundvall, 1992; Nelson, 1993; Nelson & Winter,-In sum, the innovation system concept is useful for our understanding of PPPs in R&I, because
it provides a framework for: (i) exploring patterns of partnerships; (ii) revealing and managing
the institutional context that governs these relationships and processes; (iii) understanding
research and innovation as a social process of learning; and (iv) thinking about capacity development in a systems sense (Hall, 2002). Therefore, in applying the concepts underpinning successful PPPs in advanced and developing countries in Africa, we need to call attention to theidiosyncratic contexts distinguishing the two environments. For example, when a developing
country in Africa attempts to replicates an institutional form such as a PPP in R&I, its successcannot be presumed without major attention being paid to the prevailing objective conditionsof an underserved knowledge economy. For example, in the African setting, support institutions are weak and some critical ones do not exist; as such, new institutions may have to bebuilt from scratch, unlike in countries where such institutions have existed for decades. In adIt should be expected that developing institutional forms in African counties capable of therequire continuous learning and experimentation.
5.2 How Institutions Shape Systems of Innovation
proposed by North (1996), as follows:…the rules of the game of a society or more formally the humanly devised constraints that structure human interaction. They consist of formal rules (statute law, common law and regulations);
and informal constraints (social norms, habits, routines and practices) and the enforcement characteristics of both.
In a narrow sense, institutions are conceived as organizations such as universities and technology institutes, while in broad terms institutions include the political context, habits, practices
and norms, and the rules regulating relations and interactions between people. Lundvall’s(1992, p. 12) conceptualization of the concept of a national system of innovation emphasizes
economic countries. The growth of knowledge takes place through long processes of learning,
while information reproduction is carried out by duplication. PPPs in R&I tend to evolve in part

because knowledge is costly, as learning is a complex process that can be formal orinformal and may be tacit or difficult to replicate and process. R&D is only one component oftech-nological knowledge, and the growth of knowledge is related to the growth of theeconomy. As such, the extent to which PPPs in R&I will succeed is to a large extent
associated closely with the conditions of Africa’s late development (Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, 2010,
p. 70).
Systems of innovation differ equally and significantly under the two sets of development
conditions. Clearly, countries have evolved different knowledge bases; for example, because
African nations started much later and evolved much more slowly than East Asia, for example,
the R&D and innovative capacities are decades apart. For instance, Nelson noted thedifferences that size makes in systems of innovation shaped by political and historical environments: “The differences in the innovation systems reflect differences in economic andpolitical circumstances and priorities [while] size and the degree of influence matter a lot(Nelson, 1993, p.507).” By implication, there are external conditions shaping the domain of
R&D and the institutions that evolve to shape PPPs in R&I, for example. In the context of this
discourse, we identify four broad dimensions to guide our framing of good practices for
PPPs in R&I (Oyelaran-Oyeyinka & Adebowale, 2012). First, in developing countries, theamount of R&D (an important source of learning for innovation) carried out in universities
and firms is significantly lower than in advanced industrial countries. In addition, large
amounts of innovative activities in firms are adaptive and imitative and product-based rather
than process-centred. Significantly, the transactional nature and functions of PPPs in R&I arevery different, and the gap in the overall gross domestic product (GDP) even more so. For
instance, the whole architecture of industrial production in advanced nations is geared tosupporting and promoting R&D-intensive hi-tech products. Examined closely for example,
the US system is more specialized in significant respects than that of the EU; public-sector
research, for example at universities, is more closely linked to industry, performing R&D
functions that private sector firms fulfil in Japan, for instance (Edquist and Texier, 1996).
Second, while African universities and specialized training centres were establishedpost-independence for the express purpose of building research and industrial manpower,
most have failed in this mission for a number of reasons (Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, 2004a). Whilethese organizations exhibit a semblance of performance, especially the production ofuniversity graduates, they struggle to meet minimum global standards of good performance.
And, for the most part, African countries have failed to meet the challenges of the new, morecompetitive global economy (Oyelaran-Oyeyinka and Barclay, 2003).
Examined in a comparative global perspective, the situation for Africa’s system actors, such asuniversities is also very different. Being a top university in Africa, for instance, does nottranslate to anything even close to being a top university globally. In 2016, the University ofCape Town was the best performer in Africa, but 148th in the Times Higher Education Worldrankings, and University of Witwatersrand was second in Africa, but 182nd globally.
The latest world rankings (2018) place South Africa’s University of Cape Town in 171st
position globally, down 23 positions, although it still remained top in Africa for the same year.
The University of Witwatersrand, which remains second in Africa, is now placed lower than
250th in the rankings. These rankings suggest a clear worsening, in relative terms, of the stateof African universities over the past two years.

Furthermore, African universities have also not been at the top globally in attracting industry funding. The Times Higher Education 2015–2016 private sector investment per academic
ranking had only one African university – Stellenbosch University – in the top 20 (ranked 15).
terms of industry income per academic were: (1) LMU Munich, Germany (USD 392,800), (2)Duke University, USA (USD 287,100), (3) Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology,
South Korea (USD 254,700), (4) Johns Hopkins University, USA (USD 249,900), and (5) Wageningen University and Research Center, the Netherlands (USD 242,500) (Bothwell, 2016).
From our analysis, universities are considered key agents of social and development change,
but have considerable catching up to do in Africa. Arocena and Sutz (2005) present the changing role of universities in Latin America from teaching and research entities to entities including in their mission the introduction of economic development. The ‘third mission’ for universities was articulated by The Scinnovent Centre. Its framework emphasizes the social dimensionof universities, framed as the need to increase their social relevance and impact. The ongoingdebate indicates that this societal mission of the university is closely linked to its ability to interact with the private sector in its quest for commercialization and building prototypes. This
speaks to the importance of a conducive enabling environment, supported by policies that
Third, the coordinative capacity for information exchange is usually weak or even non-existentin developing countries compared to advanced economies. In the latter, knowledge and infor-

when one compares advanced and emerging nations. Advanced economies have built enduring and strong institutions that have persisted over long periods of time to drive vehicles like
PPPs in R&I relatively smoothly. Most African countries have only a few, weak regulatory institutions, especially those that have to cope with rapidly evolving new technologies and complex
science systems.
the enabling environment, (ii) the organizational level, and (iii) the individual level (Connolly &York, 2002; UNDP, 2009). These three points are linked and complemented by two additional
entry dimensions: (i) partnerships and (ii) communities (Vallejo & Wehn, 2016). The enabling
environment consists of policies, legislation, regulations, power relations, social norms, coordination bodies and information systems, as well as economic, cultural and informal institutions,and norms and standards (Lincklaen Arriens & Wehn de Montalvo, 2013; UNDP, 2009). The
organizational level includes government agencies, policies, teams and their routines, procedures, frameworks and knowledge management. It also includes the private and corporate
sector, civil society organizations and the incentive system (Lincklaen Arriens & Wehn de Montalvo, 2013). The individual level embodies knowledge, skills, experience and attitudes (UNDP,
2009). It involves not only individuals in decision-making positions, but also project and teamleaders, as well as emerging leaders, advisers, coaches, mentors and trainers (Lincklaen Arriens& Wehn de Montalvo, 2013). This level also includes large amounts of inter-personal interdependence (Voeten & Parto, 2006).
However, fostering innovation involves taking certain explicit and deliberate steps, starting
the supply of organizational resources (including capacity) and infrastructure; (ii) promoting
the culture and environment for innovation; (iii) engendering leadership and management;and (iv) putting in place a framework for institutional decision-making. Undoubtedly there will
be barriers and bottlenecks that arise and there may be capacity and institutional hiatuses at-when we compare countries in Africa with more advanced economies, and we should equally
expect variations in the interpretation of the concept of, and practices involved in, PPP. We
and non-market origins, with the latter providing the leverage for policy intervention at different levels of the economy (Metcalfe, 1997). Clearly, PPPs in R&I in every environment will be
driven by institutions, and performance will depend on relative institutional capacities.
5.3 Patterns of Interaction
Although the literature emphasizes the need to move from a linear conceptualization of themation technology are constant inputs (Niosi 1999, Russel et al., 1991), the linear perspective
is still very much applied in practice, even though the adoption levels of applications resulting
from these schemes is low, at around 30%. Research from the late 1990s shows how interactions, feedback (Hipp, 1999; den Hertog, 2000), and user-producer interactions (Freeman andLundvall, 1988) play a key role in innovation. The third-generation innovation models highlight
ket-pull strategies, as well as open R&D and a strong emphasis on chain management (Ortt &Smits, 2006). The relevance of feedback linkages in the non-linear process of innovation draws
attention to the full scope of the innovation cycle, particularly to the demand side of innovation. Nevertheless, it has been argued that these models emphasize product and process innovations that are typically of a technical nature, while neglecting organizational and market
innovations (which are typically non-technical), as well as solutions for institutional barriers
and societal needs (Berkhout et al., 2006).

multidisciplinary environment requires new innovation directions and combinations. The inadequacy of traditional models, as well as the increasingly complex roles assigned to actors
in the innovation system has radically changed the boundaries of demand and supply in inactivities; instead, they are built on the idea that “innovation builds on innovation” (Berkhout

et al., 2006) and on partnerships and interactions between science and business. These new
global-local landscapes for innovation have prompted analysts to search for new ways of explaining innovation, such as the cyclic innovation model.
The cyclic innovation model is a methodological framework presenting the processes in innovation within cycles of continuous change. The cyclic innovation model places strong emphasis on the relevance of interactions between science and business, on complementary types ofknowledge (of technologies as well as emerging markets), on skills for managing networks andinteractions, and on the fact that entrepreneurs play a central role in this dynamic (Berkhout
et al., 2006; Chesbrough, 2003; Christensen & Raynor, 2003; Niosi, 1999). The cyclic innovation
model recognizes the embeddedness of innovation in partnerships (open innovation), as wellas the relevance of networks and the concept of the circular economy. Figure 2 presents thecyclical architecture of the cyclic innovation model, which is characterized by interconnected
cycles and processes that contain feedback paths through which quick adjustments and learning enhance a very dynamic system (Berkhout et al., 2006; Ortt & Smits, 2006).

Figure 2. The Cyclic Innovation Model

Hard Knowledge
infrastructure

Manufacturing andprocessing industry

Technologicalresearch
Intergrated
engineering cycle

Technical-oriented
sciences cycle

Product
development

EnterpreneurshipSocial-oriented
sciences cycle

service cycle

MarketPublic and private
service sector

infrastructure

Source: Berkhout et al. (2006, p. 301)

As highlighted by The Scinnovent Centre (2015), the establishment of formal partnerships between universities or other science system actors with the private sector may be the mechanism that empowers this mission and favors national innovation and learning. However, thelink between science system actors’ knowledge and expertise and the private sector is notnatural or automatic (Arocena & Sutz, 2005; The Scinnovent Centre, 2015). It requires an explicitof the public sphere (i.e., ST&I entities) in providing this framework, as well as tools such as
generations of innovation models and their main elements, focus and criticisms, as well as theirrelationship with the adoption of PPPs in R&I, as tools for helping to dynamically link sciencesystem actors with private and public sector actors.

Towards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

23

Generationof innovation
model

Main elements

Focus

Criticisms

First generation(1G)-Innovation as alinear sequence ofprocesses-Technology push(linear process withmarkets at the endof the pipeline-- No strategic goals, - Innovation
no chain manage(R&D) within thement-Universities asproviders of basic sciences andhuman capital

Second generation (2G)

- Market pull (linear
process with science at the end of
the pipeline)- Innovation as alinear sequence ofprocesses-Contract research-Market-driven
improvementsof existingproducts (optimization- Weak ties with-Contractual arcorporate strategy rangements for-Little emphasis on
chain management edge needs
laborative agreements

Third generation (3G), open
R&D model-Product and process innovation(technical)-Technology pushand market pull

- Strong emphasis on chain
management-Emphasis is not on
organizational ormarket innovations(non-technical)-Focus is not on
including solutions
for institutional barriers and societal
needs-Innovation embedded in partnerships-Entrepreneurshipplays a central role
-Includes feedback
paths that allow
adaptive steeringand learning processes to be more
explicit- Early interaction between
science andbusiness-Science pushand function
pull-Need for neworganizational
concepts-Skills for managing networks
are emphasized-Focus is on
processes ofchange, noton equilibrium
processes

Fourth generation (4G), open
innovation,
cyclic innovation model

research that
ends up withcommercial applications

technologicalcapabilities

Relationshipwith PPPs in
R&I-Integration ofscience system
actors- Strategic alliances, strategicacquisitions andinternationalization of ownershipintegration andnetworking- Closer relationships with
suppliers andcustomers-Pre-competitive
research consortia-Partnerships

Towards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

24

6. International experiences in PPPs
in R&IIn Annex 2: Case studies (Table 9), we draw from the literature to present a comparative
conclusions can be drawn. We found that many of the PPPs in R&I in developing countries adconducted by (African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) & The Scinnovent Centre,2017), which found that agriculture and health receive the most resources in the SSA region,
although this may be changing. Fundamentally, international organizations, donors and development aid agencies are key technical and funding partners in PPPs in R&I (see Annex 2: Casestudies, Table 9). Universities are also major players in these arrangements. On the side of
do not explicitly cover science, technology and innovation collaborate with other actors to
pursue projects in research and innovation to solve key problems in their geographical areas.
For example, the Export Promotion Agency of Costa Rica (PROCOMER), is a public agency that
improved employment in less developed regions of the country.
mal, contracts. We can then assume that partners’ roles and responsibilities within the PPP
on the type of project. Even within projects like Bioinnovate, which were implemented acrossment actors. The following section presents the main national initiatives for PPPs in R&I at theEuropean level, to compare the formalization and execution of such arrangements with thosein SSA. The section is complemented by the Indian experience and a case-study of a PPP in R&I
between the USA and SSA.
6.1 The European Experience
The establishment of the European Research Area in 2000 set the path of the EU researchpolicy and the design of FP6 (2002) and FP7 (2006). Gradually, the instruments used in the
grants for transnational cooperative research projects. The establishment of the European Research Council (ERC) and the European Institute for Innovation and Technology (EIT) werecomplemented by the design of instruments to support SMEs and grants for individual mobility. By 2013, when FP8, called Horizon 2020, was established, the European research landscape
had already been redesigned (Reillon, 2017a).
to economic growth, in which pre-competitive technological discovery and ownership (i.e.,through the corresponding patents) are sought as a means to achieve societal challenges thatare targeted explicitly in Horizon 2020 and supported by the network of EU regulations andTowards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

26

5.4 Other Frameworks Supporting PPPs in R&I
in R&I tend to be anecdotal, authors like
Koschatzky (2017) present initiatives for theoretical frameworks to analyze these type of interactions. Table 5 presents the main elements used by Koschatzky (2017) to analyze this type ofpartnership.
Table 5. Theoretical basis for the analysis of PPPs in R&I
Theoreticalbasis

Basic principles

Knowledge
creation processes

Challenges /motivation
structure

Key Concepts

Transaction
costs theories

Coordination
Control
GovernanceRegulation

Hierarchical andmarket coordination

Trust
Opportunistic
behavior

Absorptive
capacity

Innovation
framework

Dissemination
Open innovation
Interactive
processes
Uncertainty

Economic
geography

Geographicalproximity
Social proximity(i.e., external
solutions)
Knowledge

Creation of new Open innovamarkets
tionIntellectualinteractive value
property
creationR&D activities(exchange of
newly-generated knowledge)
Face-to-faceinteractions

Regional attrac- Open innovativenesstion
partnerships

Towards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

25

industries, such as robotics and activities within the Factories of the Future working programme
development of these new sectors, whose outputs are expected to be integrated with the existing ones in the near future.
In other words, Europe is moving towards new forms of joint competition in which industries
are rising to meet societal challenges – and PPPs are the key element of competition. The
competition for FP7 and Horizon 2020 grants brought to Europe the need for intra-regional,
their identity as manufacturers to become part of the societal needs debate. European economic growth is no longer pursued by promoting individual industries and competing basedon costs; instead, the new approach is characterized by competition based on collaborating
industries seeking to satisfy societal needs and resulting in the creation of new markets.
erative Research Centers programme, the European Commission has promoted several PPPs
in R&I. These initiatives are part of the improvement of existing innovation policies and build
on earlier initiatives in PPPs in R&I, such as the Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs) and the EIT’s
Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) , which entered the stage in the late 2000s.
The COMET programme in Austria, the Research Campus in Germany, and the Top Sectors
Policy in the Netherlands are examples of how new policy instruments and new PPPs in R&I
practices come together virtually and physically. These high-investment PPPs in R&I are examtechnological readiness levels in the European Commission vernacular).
Austria – COMET
The Austrian national programme, known as Competence Centers for Excellent Technologies(COMET), which started in 2006, is one of the most successful technology policy initiatives inAustria, recognized worldwide for its best-practice model. Its strategic objectives are to build
up new competencies by initiating and supporting long-term research cooperation between
science and industry and to develop and secure the technology leadership of companies (Koschatzky et al., 2015). The characteristics of the COMET programme are a high level of trust between science and industry, long-term commitment between science and commercial actors,
openness to the international environment, and a thematic agenda that is open and not basedon predetermined topics.
Germany – Research Campus
In 2011, the German Ministry of Education and Research implemented the Research Campus
programme seeking to strengthen medium and long-term cooperation in the interphase between science and business to unlock, bundle and exploit research results. This is the mostambitious initiative of the German federal government to foster the regional engagement of
universities in innovation activities. Each Research Campus (currently there are 9 of them) is
funded for EUR 1 to 2 million per year over a period of 15 years. This amount is complemented
by an equal amount from private partners. The pre-existence of a culture of cooperation betwTowards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

27

een knowledge organizations and industry, as well as experience with previous existing contracts and trust among the major actors in the project, favors the establishment of this type ofpartnership. As the Research Campus is still an experiment based on expectations, there is notmuch empirical evidence for its analysis. It is still not known how open innovation processes
will be handled when the outputs are more realistic and market implementation and intellectual property rights become issues (Koschatzky, 2017).
The Netherlands – Top Sectors Policy
The Netherlands has nine top innovative sectors, namely: horticulture and propagation materials, agri-food, water, life sciences and health, chemicals, high tech, energy, logistics andcreative industries. The government, private sector, and universities and research centres areworking together in the Top Sector Alliance for Knowledge and Innovation (TKI) to make these
top sectors strong and competitive worldwide. The alliance explores ways to get innovative
products or services into the market. Through the Innovative Future fund, the government
makes money available to SMEs for research and innovation. The initial capital of the fundis EUR 200 million (2015–2020), from which every year EUR 5 million is made available. The
to the top sectors, of which more than EUR 1,000 million is for PPPs between university scien2020. The contribution of NWO is built on three pillars: (i) PPP1: public-private partnerships(joint programming, with a private contribution required); (ii) PPP2: public-private programming (joint programming, without a private contribution required); and (iii) curiosity-driven
research, aimed at the top sectors for which various NWO instruments can be deployed, suchas talent programmes.
6.2 The Indian Experience
The Government of India’s Department of Science & Technology formed the Technology, Information, Forecasting and Assessment Council (TIFAC) as a knowledge networking institution
to promote key technological innovation in the country. TIFAC’s main objective is to facilitateized projects of great national importance, such as home grown technology, and bio products,
promoting PPPs to generate market-driven projects. Among the various models that TIFAC
adopted, the most successful for technological development was the industry-centric model.
This model focused on creating tri-partite agreements between an industry implementing
partner from the private sector, a knowledge partner (usually publicly-funded research labs
or academic institutions), and TIFAC itself as a facilitator that also provided soft development
TIFAC achieved great success under this model, as most of its projects were concluded suc-scheme, enables technological risk sharing between partners, and enables easy market penemerged, which provided lessons learnt and led to the creation of best practices for the future
Towards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

28

TIFAC’s major challenge came under its Advanced Composite Program, in which it noticed
that some of the products devolved under the PPP umbrella started being directly substituted
for conventional materials. However, the partnering industries and projects slowly gravitatedback to the technologies and products whose market success was predictable. Another major
fall-out recorded by TIFAC’s industry-centric PPP programme was a decline in the number ofprojects catering to novel and highly technical and innovative applications, reducing the innovation component of the initiative.

have it funded purely by the public sector from the government or on a grant-in-aid basis. The
industry partner could be brought in as an outsourcing company for the contracting of individual activities, such as process up-scaling or prototyping, etc. on a need basis. At a later stage,
when the technology has been developed, the industry partner could then become a fully
involved partner, taking on responsibilities such as product testing, manufacturing and othercommercialization activities. TICAF also noted that not all innovation development projects
ucts, and some may only serve as knowledge creation.
6.3 The US/African Experience: BD-PEPFAR
In 2003, the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) was launched. One of the
purposes of the initiative was to address the prevention, care, and treatment of the humanand systems were impeding the scaling up of the programme. In 2007, a PPP was developedtion (CDC) and a private global medical technology company, Becton, Dickinson and Company
be aligned with the goals of PEPFAR and the ministries of health in African countries for thetreatment and prevention of HIV/AIDs in Africa. Five countries – Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique,South Africa and Uganda – were selected for this intervention based on their political willingness and readiness to provide leadership in the partnership.
The project was implemented at an estimated shared cost of USD 18 million, representing dollars spent, products provided, and time and services donated. The CDC, as the public partner,
contributed its expertise in disease detection and prevention, patient monitoring and surveil-

technicians, quality consultants, phlebotomists and logistics coordinators were deployed. Experts from both BD and the International Laboratory Branch within the Division of Global HIV/AIDS (which served as the implementing agency for the project within the CDC) met twice ayear for inter-country coordination, strategic planning and technical assistance.
The PPP was successful in delivering on its key objectives, including driving continuous quality
improvements in laboratories, providing scalable and measurable outcomes to strenghthen
Towards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

29

national capacities for building technical skills, and supporting evidence-based health proing laboratory results to physicians and patients. In Addis Ababa, the PPP reduced the time forthe collection of antiretroviral treatment specimens to delivery of results by 71%, from 7 days
to 2 days. In Mozambique, the PPP supported the Ministry of Health in appointing dedicatedreliance on foreign laboratory professionals. The success of the PPP also inspired the partners
to develop a series of other collaborations, such as the BD-PEPFAR Safer Blood Collection Partnership, implemented in Kyrgyzstan, Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia, as well as another laboratory partnership, Labs for Life, which ran from 2012 to 2017, with support USD 20 million in
funding.

innovatively solve some of the world’s greatest health challenges, in this case the prevention
and treatment of HIV/AIDS. The PPP took key steps to overcome the operational and procecultures.
Drawing on the BD-PEPFAR PPP, Shrivastava, Gadde, and Nkengasong (2016) proposed sevensteps for a successful PPP using the acronym FOCUSED: (i) F – frame clear goals, roles andresponsibilities for partners; (ii) O – operate with open and frequent communication to build
the strengths of other organizations to enrich the PPP; (v) S – share best practices and foster
country ownership to ensure sustainability; (vi) E – evaluate and ‘measure what matters’ using
an outcomes-based approach; and (vii) D – deploy the right human resources; people make all

Towards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

30

7. The Role of SGCs and the Characteristics of PPPs in R&I in SSA
In the African context, research partnerships and PPPs in R&I are taken as interchangeable
and commonly understood as similar concepts as partnerships for development (Oyelarantime and at all times. In the conception of most policy makers, the main knowledge centres areuniversities and research organizations; in fact, these are erroneously seen as the sole sourceengineering organizations are hardly factored into the policy process. Although it is true thatstructure (see Table 8 in the Annex 1), not all of them have built strong capacities, particularly regarding the management of intellectual property rights, entrepreneurialism and market
studies (Ssebuwufu et al., 2012).
Contrary to what conventional wisdom and popular indicators suggest, this knowledge dopower in the most research-intensive country, the USA. According to the US National Research
Foundation (2016), R&D performed in the United States totaled USD 456.1 billion in 2013. However, the business sector continued to provide the lion’s share of R&D performance and R&D
funding in the US. For example, the sector performed USD 322.5 billion of R&D in 2013, or 71%
of the US total, drawing on business, federal, and other sources of R&D funding. The businesssector itself provided USD 297.3 billion of funding for R&D in 2013, or 65% of the US total, mostof which supported R&D performed by business. The academic sector was the second-largest
performer of US R&D, accounting for USD 64.7 billion in 2013, or about 14% of the national
total. The federal government was the second-largest funder of US R&D, accounting for an
estimated USD 121.8 billion, or 27% of US total R&D performance in 2013. While most basic
research in the US is conducted at universities and colleges through federal government funding, the largest share of US R&D is development, which is mainly carried out by the businesssector. The private/business sector also performs the majority of applied research. In 2013,
basic research was about 18% (USD 80.5 billion) of total US R&D performance, applied research
was about 20% (USD 90.6 billion), and development was about 63% (USD 285 billion).
The above is instructive in understanding the expected role of SGCs in an African context,
core function of universities in the US is basic research, but the bulk of the equivalent SGC is
the federal government, which funding is only 18% of the total federal funds, while the bulk
the total.

Towards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

31

8. Domains of knowledge and innovation systems
The Case-Studies Presented in Annex 2: Case Studies
Table 9 (Annex 2) are analyzed within the framework of Error! Reference source not found.,with and intervene in. These four functional dimensions of knowledge are found in both adsystematic work related to new knowledge creation. This is a largely science-based domain
with scientists and engineering R&D as the dominant activity and research scientists and engineers working in these private and government research laboratories as the main actors.
The second domain is the design and engineering domain. This component involves systemcomputer hardware and software. This component is linked more directly to component three,which is the manufacturing and production component, rather than R&D, although outputs ofapplied research and development feed into this sub-system.
The third domain is the modern production and manufacturing establishments, with engineers as well as skilled technicians, but less so scientists, as the dominant actors. The locus ofactivity here is the factory and manufacturing centres.
The fourth knowledge domain is the informal or traditional sector, which characterizes developing environments. The main actors are artisans, crafts persons and technicians. The locus of activity is the diverse, but structurally homogeneous, including maintenance and repair
garages, clusters of low technology, and traditional products and production processes suchas indigenous knitwear, leather and footwear making. The mode of knowledge is largely skillbased tacit and experiential. There are three characteristics of this knowledge base. First, theactors are largely low-level skilled workers and apply low-level technologies based on a mix ofmodern and traditional methods to manufacture. Second, it is largely disconnected from component three (modern manufacturing and production), although it is not unusual for it to draw
on raw materials, such as scrap metals, for instance, which manufacturing rejects, as inputs.
Third, its disembodied (human) knowledge is equally disconnected from formal educational
centres and laboratories although it is a large part of the economies of developing countries.

Towards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

32

Figure 3. SGCs and domains of knowledge for intervention

Research and Development
domain, largerly sciencebased domain withGermany, UK, USA,France, Italy

as the dominant actors

01
sector, which characterizes
developing environments.
The main actors are

04

SGC

02

Design and Engineering
component which

technicians

Burkina Faso, Botswana
Cote D’Ivoire, Ghana,
Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi,
Mozambique, Nambia,
Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal
Tanzania, Uganda,
Zimbabwe03
and manufacturing
establishments withengineers as well as
skilled technicians

India, China, Russia

as the dominant
actorsWeak PPP

Strong PPP

Source: Adapted from Oyelaran-Oyeyinka and Gehl Sampath (2010)

Towards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

33

8.1 Main Bottlenecks in Interactions between SGCs and System Actors
From the interviews conducted and the information presented in Table 8 (Annex 1), it is clear
administrative tasks needed to support partnerships with international donors. As already indicated by Ssebuwufu et al. (2012), our research also found that very few of the universities
analyzed have experience in incubation and science and technological parks.
There is broad agreement among all key actors on the need for SGCs to strengthen relationships with the private sector through formal contractual partnerships, although, contrary towhat applies in advanced industrial countries (see US case mentioned above, for instance),
ings of Ssebuwufu et al. (2012) in their research on universities in 35 African countries.
The PPPs in R&I in the African context, documented through several case studies, highlightthe urgent need to improve the enabling environment to strengthen these desirable types offramework needed for them to succeed (Akampurira, Root, & Shakantu, 2009). Our discussions
with SGCs and universities contacted for this research indicate a lack of clarity or lack of formal
guidelines regarding the formation of PPPs in R&I. Issues such as corruption (Lilley, 2003; The
World Bank, 2005; Williams & Ghanadan, 2006), long administrative processes (Ranjit & Kazim,
2003), and political interference (Sader, 2000) were also documented in several of the casestudies in SSA.
Poor institutional settings and the inability of local institutions to provide a healthy environprivate participation in the African context (Akampurira et al., 2009; Kajimo-Shakantu, Kavela,& Shakantu, 2014). Otieno and Obamba (2013) highlight that although Ghana, Kenya andUganda have development policy frameworks and programme initiatives interconnecting
ST&I, the level of coherence between the existing policies, programmes and institutions (i.e.,
the enabling environment) is relatively weak. Table 6 summarizes the main bottlenecks conresearch.

Towards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

34

Administrative Constraints

Financial Constraints External Factors

Implementation

Many requirements toInability of local
Resistance from enviobtain project approval institutions to provide ronmental groups

Low level of skills

Lengthy project approval process /lengthy
bureaucratic procedures

Poor creditworthinessof loan taker

Resistance from civilsociety organizations

Lack of proper legislation

Poor coordination
between government

Investors’ concerns
about need forintensive managerial
resources

Public resentment

Legislation regarding
intellectual property is
not clear

Political interference inprocurement process

Restrictions on returnon investment

Corruption

Lack of trust between
university and private
sectorLack of (or weak) enabling legal and regulatory framework

Investors’ concerns
about foreign exchange risks

Slow implementationof public reforms

ing mechanisms-

Corruption
Lack of or weak political
will and support
Failure of government
to honor its contract
obligations
Foreign ownership restrictions (legal framework
Openness in the process of the arrangement
Length of the bureaucratic process
Source: Compiled from Akampurira et al. (2009); Kajimo-Shakantu et al. (2014) and online survey inputs

8.2 Governance Perceptions of the SGCs and System Actors
Table 7 presents the perceptions of three types of science systems actors, namely, ministries/
councils related to ST&I (e.g., education, industries or ST&I), public national universities andnational research foundations or national research programme agencies. The results are basedon the responses of the Science Granting Councils Initiative’s main state-owned universities’
outreach centre directors.

Towards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

35

From Table 7, we can identify clear divergences among the actors regarding the main functionof PPPs in R&I. While for the universities and national research foundations/programmes, PPPs
in R&I address issues related to market failures (such as the integration and strengthening of
the value chain for a local producer, as well as the development of SMEs), for the ministries they
act as bridges in the production of knowledge and its exchange between universities and theprivate sector.

EntityMain objective of PPPs in R&I

Initiates andleads the discussions

Main participantsfrom the private
sectorST&I related
ministry

To produce
research andevidence-based
policies

To support
The university or
knowledge
research centre
creation and exchange with theprivate sector

Large (multina-

Public university

To strengthen thevalue chain for a
local productTo integrate and The university ordevelop SMEs
research centre
into a global
value chain

SMEs

National research
agencies

To strengthen thevalue chain for a
local product

The public sector

Large (multina-

Source: Online survey analysis

The interviews with national universities revealed that although the objectives of the implementation of PPPs in R&I are oriented to solve a market failure, mostly related to value chains,
the reasoning behind actively looking for these type of partnerships is the large amounts ofexternal revenue that they bring to their centres and to the university. In some cases, it was
mentioned that these types of associations are a way for the university to compensate for national budget cuts. From the discussions, the SGCs, mainly the national ST&I agencies, believe
tres are mostly focused on partnering with SMEs in the region. As in the case of Europe, close
proximity seems to be an important condition for engaging in a formal partnership with theuniversity.
The survey results indicate that on average it is the university that initiates and leads the discussions regarding the implementation of PPPs in R&I. From the interviews, it was clear that
universities do not have a structured strategy for approaching the private sector. As presented
in Table 8 (Annex 1), the private sector is mainly approached through conferences (wheretions with directors of outreach centres, we found that they frequently call industry associatioTowards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

36

versity promotes its services and tries to create a culture of trust with the private sector. In thecase of South Africa, for example, the main means of communication for grants and partnership opportunities is through the portal of the National Research Foundation and its emails to
8.3 Funding and Monitoring Mechanisms
As already documented by Ssebuwufu et al. (2012), the incorporation of linkage or outreachis supported by the earlier work of Bolo, Awino, and Odongo (2017) on Kenya.

when a partnership is established between a university and the private sector, it is the latterthat funds the intervention. The interviews also revealed that the establishment of these partnational industry chambers or councils, as well as business registers. The interviewers agreed
that the existing business (and academic) culture does not naturally embrace these associamostly due to the nature of the local private sector in these countries, which is formed mainly
by SMEs with no R&D&I budget or activities. Once these associations are complete, it is mostly
When directly asked, most of the actors, including the universities, recognized the inherent
instability of collaborations with the private sector, which are often subject to changes in indioften engage in private consultancies with the private sector that exclude the university. Manyof the collaborations with the local private sector are products of person-to-person informal
recommendations; on many occasions the request arrives directly to the researcher and not toDuring the interviews, and supported by our portal analysis, it was mentioned that the main
donors, such as the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), UnitedStates Agency for International Development (USAID), the Department for International Deamong others. On the university side, and as presented in Table 8 (Annex 1), grant writing has
become a strategic tool to compete for external funds. From our conversations with key informby their grants are determined in their headquarters based on (i) the donor country’s areas ofinterest, (ii) the donor funders’ areas of interest, and (iii) inputs provided by their embassies in
the recipient countries in their assessment of country needs. Gradually, there have been evolving guidelines. For example, grants guidelines are now subject to eligibility conditions involviTowards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

37

ing partnerships between a foreign entity (university, research centre or private sector), a local
science system actor and a local community (where the implementation takes place). Most of
by a memorandum of understanding (MoU) or collaboration agreement, not necessarily a formal contract. The multidisciplinary and multi-institutional strategy is also found in the National
Commission for Science Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI)/National Research Foundation
framework described by Kenya Engineer (2017). Under the University Research Chairs Programme of NACOSTI, the inclusion of the private sector and a demonstrated demand for the
research are compulsory requirements.
8.4 Intellectual Property Rights and Related Items
Although from the information provided in Table 8 (Annex 1) we can see the important pres-property rights policy. In many cases it was reported that the researcher owns the patents andtrademarks. The registration of patents is made at the national level.
8.5 SGCs and their Linkages with Universities
From the analysis of the cases found in the literature (presented in Annex 2: Case studies
Table 9, Annex 2), as well as from the survey and the direct interviews with the universities, wefound that the role of SGCs and related agencies is often not explicitly recognized. From the interviews, the perception of the universities is that SGCs are largely rule-setting and regulationmaking entities: that these agencies provide a legal framework, enforce mandates and create
an environment for the establishment of PPPs in R&I. However, when asked about the role of
SGCs in project implementation there was no clear delineation of roles.
In line with Mouton et al. (2014) and Bolo, Osir, Rugutt, and Desai (2015), we found that incountries like Kenya and Ghana SGCs are more proactive. It seems that although these organi-activities. Nevertheless, we need to recognize that the provision and promotion of frameworks
with those of Otieno and Obamba (2013), who stated that the integration of higher education
institutions in these countries is not consequent on the knowledge
8.6 Regional Participation of SGCs in PPPs in R&I in SSA
The SGCs are not visible in many of the activities in the case studies presented in Annex 2: Casestudies
Table 9 (Annex2)
partners in PPPs in R&I are scarce. In Annex 2: Case studies
Table 9, the majority of cases involve industry-university engagement, and less with private

In Annex 3: Funding mechanisms for SGCs
Towards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

38

Table 10 (Annex)
ed globally by SGCs to fund a wide variety of industry-science system actor partnerships in order to compare their platforms of interaction, areas of attention and monitoring mechanisms.
From the table it is clear that interactions through websites, national (mostly annual) meetingsand email communications are well established. Although there are pre-discussions on the establishment of priority areas, these are in line with national or regional pre-established strategic points. The most successful mechanism for the promotion of PPPs in R&I has been throughTowards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

39

9. Discussion of Findings

In SSA SGCs are mainly government ministries, departments and agencies, which are involved

foreign); and international research institutions. The adoption of PPPs in R&I enables costs andrisks to be distributed among the system actors, facilitates the integration of new knowledge
cussion with key actors indicates that it is largely done under the umbrella of ministries
for ST&I, SGCs or ST&I councils. However, there are countries in which ST&I promotion is doneby the ministry of industry or the ministry of economy, representing the government in theseaf-fairs.
9.1 Knowledge Centres and Motives for PartnershipTo understand the key agents and motives of PPPs in R&I in
to two questions in our interviews: Firstly, who initiates the PPP process – is it the university,
process? In the advanced industrialized nations that we studied, two broad types of formal
from public research or universities. These are uncommon in many African countries, because
university professors are unable (due to capacity constraints) or disinclined to pursue commercial ventures. Relatedly, the cost in time and money to pursue such a line of activity is too highand, therefore, acts as a disincentive, giving rise to institutional arrangements such as outreachized to pursue external knowledge to share risks and costs, due to the growing complexityof knowledge search and production. This is because the nature of knowledge generation is-crease the possible sources of public and private funding. They also help facilitate technology
universities as the major players. For this reason, an increasing number of African universities
capacity to deal with the most urgent challenges in the society. For example, our research also
found that very few of the universities interviewed have experience in incubation and scienceand technological parks.

Towards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

40

The interviews with the national universities revealed that although the objectives of
the implementation of PPPs in R&I are oriented to solve a market failure, mostly
related to value chains, the reason for actively looking for these types of partnerships
is the large amounts of external revenue that they bring to their centres and to theuniversity. As mentioned previously, these partnership are also a way for universities
to compensate for national budget cuts. From our fieldwork, it is evident that whilemost universities have established an outreach office, they tend to focus on
rudimentary functions such as facilitating administrative tasks needed to support
partnerships with international donors, rather than with national SGCs (see Table 8,Annex 1). The directors of outreach centres tend to work mostly with SMEs.
Regarding the adoption of PPPs in R&I, we found a direct relationship between SSA
universities and the private sector when an international NGO or donor is involved(mostly SIDA, USAID, IDRC, DFID). When an SGC is involved, the relationship is notalways straightforward. This is consistent with the findings of Mouton et al. (2014) intheir analysis of SGCs in SSA in 2014. Most of the interviewees recognized the Ministryof ST&I as a proxy for SGCs, provider of legislation and enabler of the environment for
PPPs in R&I to come into effect.
As with the non-African case studies that we studied, close proximity seems to be an
important factor for engaging in formal partnerships with African universities. Our
survey results indicate that it is mainly the university that initiates the implementationof PPPs in R&I. However, universities do not have a structured strategy for
approaching the private sector. The platforms used for engaging the private sector
include conferences where research findings are presented, industrial internships,
grant writing, phone conversations with industry associations, and emails to local
SMEs, among other things. From the observations in discussion groups, it is evident
that it is the private sector that funds PPPs and usually initiates the contact with theuniversity. On many occasions contact is based on person-to-person communication
between the firm and a particular researcher at the university. Universities also
conduct advocacy missions addressed to associations to promote their services,
although on rare occasions they need to sub-contract experts to address the
problems brought by the private sector. Although PPPs are generally formalized insigned documents, the trust by the private sector in the university is not strong andmuch work needs to be done in this regard (trust can be enhanced by visits by theuniversity sta to the firms and meetings in which the university promotes its services
and tries to create a culture of trust with the private sector). In South Africa, the mainmeans of communication about grants and partnership opportunities was throughthe National Research Foundation and the grants support offices of South African
universities.

Towards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

41

9.2 The Private Sector
According to the SGCs members in Africa interviewed, the private sector is mostly composed-

products and processes (Oyelaran-Oyeyinka & Lal, 2006). Except for in the largest economies inAfrica, the private sector is generally composed of SMEs. Several studies (Lal, 2002; Lall, 1982)-

more to the state, including SGCs, as well as to professional associations, for support. Larger
resources (knowledge and skills). Evidently, the size of African enterprises constrains their abilOyeyinka and Kaushalesh (2016) highlight how the service sector has taken the conventional
position of industrial manufacturing in Africa in the process of structural transformation. Thismight well be one of the reasons why progress in PPPs in R&I that leads to an innovation-driven
knowledge economy in Africa has been slow – because the region has basically ‘skipped’ thetransportation, trade and low-level ICT sub-sectors, in the process of structural transformation.
Structural transformation is the transition of an economy from low-productivity and laborintensive economic activities (i.e., agriculture and low-skilled services) to higher productivity
and skill and innovation-intensive activities (Oyelaran-Oyeyinka & Kaushalesh, 2016). The driving force behind structural transformation is the growth of innovation-induced productivity inmodern sectors, which is dominated by manufacturing and services; manufacturing in many
countries in Africa contributes little to overall GDP, the domain where PPPs should be mostactive.
9.3 Sector Focus
According to SGCs, most PPPs in R&I in developing countries address issues in the agriculture,
Policy Studies Network (ATPS) and The Scinnovent Centre (2017), who found that agriculture
and health receive the most resources in the SSA region. One suggestion that resonated constantly in conversations with the SGCs is the imperative to harness local funds for R&I in sectorsof national interest. The sectors repeatedly mentioned were agribusiness, food processing,seeds, and vaccinations.
The driving force behind structural transformation is the growth of innovation-induced productivity in modern sectors, which is dominated by manufacturing and services. Structuralchange is equally attended by the movement of the workforce from labor intensive activities
to skill-intensive urban-based ones. However, economic growth in African countries, including
all the countries in this study, is being driven not by innovation-led manufacturing that fosters
PPPs in R&I, but in low-productivity services (see Figure 4).
Towards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

42

Figure 4. Service - led growth in SSA countries - Share of Value added to GDP

Agriculture

Services

Agriculture

Services
11.1

10.1
32.1

Manufacturing
16.4

49.9
7.2
Manufacturing

Angola 2013

Egypt 2014
Agriculture

Services

8.8

61.9

Manufacturing
16.7

Tunisia 2014
Source: From Oyelaran-Oyeyinka and Kaushalesh (2016)

patents and idea registration are alreasy well established in alsmost all universities. When thepartnership involves funds from a public entity (i.e., government), the property right or patentremains within the university. However, when the funds come from a private entity, particularly
an international organization, then the property right or the patent goes to the private entity.
and strengthen state-of-the-art technologies., seeking to maintain leadership at thetechnological frontier (and ownership of the technology through patents and intellectual
property rights) and addressing pre-established societal challenges. Meanwhile, the South isusing the tool as an instrument to build or strengthen its individual base, intergrate its SMEs into
the global value chain, and create employment.

Towards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

43

10. Conclusions and Policy
Recommendations
SGCs are central to the long-term development of ST&I-led development and will continue

within state systems of innovation, and policy makers in SSA.
Recommendation 1. Strengthen Systemic Cooperation and Learning
mic cooperationand learning. SSA’s private sector is quantitatively small, and its science and knowledge system
and uncooperative behavior, because of their struggle to deal with daily routines, including
non-available public goods, which are taken for granted in advanced societies. These small actors also lack information search capabilities. They need support and to interact with universities to raise their collective productivity. This must be facilitated by instruments of policy, as it
will not happen spontaneously. Therefore, it is recommended that SGCs in Africa engage in the
deliberate creation of capacity strengthening for sectoral interaction mapping and learning,

make a range of knowledge interactions critical to competence building at the sectoral level,
including engaging with, promoting, and monitoring and evaluating the knowledge interaccellence and public research institutes; traditional knowledge holders [farming communities]

and other intermediary organizations that help gauge local demand and issues imminent tothe agricultural system; various governmental agencies responsible for promoting these comusing a combination of factors, such as: the percentage of funds devoted to research; the percentage of research contracted to and from outside organizations; the level of joint researchwith other organizations (basic, applied or product development initiatives); the number ofthe sectoral level; and the amount of consultancy research carried out for other organizations,both local and foreign.
Recommendation 2. Strengthen State institutions for PPPs in R&I
In the developing African environment, research and development institutions and their relaestablishment of organizations and institutions that regulate and coordinate innovation
functions. State institutions for PPPs in R&I need to be strengthened to enable them to use
PPPs
Towards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

44

for R&I as strategies for advancing technological change in Africa, in addition to addressing
market failures. Therefore, in line with Oyelaran-Oyeyinka (2004b), we suggest that developing African countries approach the task of developing their national system of innovation withvigor and devote resources to key sectors.
Recommendation 3. Support Policy-induced Partnershipwork partnerships in promoting innovation in both European initiatives and successful cases inAfrica and other regions. PPPs in R&I work to generate inter-agent collaborations. However, thiscooperative interaction between economic agents in advanced economies responded largely
to inducement tools and mechanisms. In Africa, as in other places, collaboration will not happen naturally and policy inducements and facilitative incentives need to be applied consistently over time.
Recommendation 4. Strengthen the Governance of Systems of Innovation
Finally, the governance of national systems of innovation needs to be strengthened. In addi-

innovation and technology development in SSA. Overcoming these challenges will require awith initiatives aimed at encouraging the private sector to invest substantially in innovation.
Frameworks to promote linkages between universities, science, engineering and technology
institutions, and the private sector are required to share risks (using partnership innovations).

STI administrative system.

Towards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

45

Annex 1: Research Platforms
Table 8. University-Industry Research Platforms
Country

University Name ofoutreachdepartment

Botswana

University of
Botswana

BurkiUniversite
na-Faso de Ouagadougou

Coted’Ivoire

Félix HouphouëtBoigny
University(Abidjan)

Ethiopia

Addis
Ababa
University

Researchand Development;
Incubation
CentreLa Direction de la
Cooperationinter-Universtaire

UniversityIndustry
Linkage &TechnolTechnology
Business
Incubation and
S&T Park(planned)

Research
department/

Research andDevelopment;
Research
Commercialization Unit;
Okavango
Research InstituteCouncilTechnology
Business Incubation Centre(AAU-TBIC)

Outreach Local
platforms donors

International
donors(main)

GovernGrant
ment
writing;
Visits toindustry
to promote theuse of licences forinventions
made bythe university

African universities;
Development
NGOs

Grant
writing
Conferences

Government

European
Union, World
Bank, African
Development
Bank, FIDA,
Belgium/Danish/ Canadian/German/Norwegiandevelopment cooperation, Bill andMelinda Gates
Foundation(USA), Ecobank
Group (Togo),
Ford Foundation (USA),
McArthurFoundation(USA), OXFAM

Grant
writing;
Visits tocompanies;
Consultancy
agreements;
Industrial
internships; professional
conferences; Faculty
personal
contacts;
publications

Local
industry
Government

Activities
with local
private sector

Patents andintellectual
propertyrights, copyrights andtrademarks
Research
Commercialization Unit;
For the university

Throughinternational
projects –mainly inhealth andagriculture
sectors;
Community
level

Improvement of
product
quality

Mostly kept
by the university

Improvement of
production
processes
Development of new
products
Industrial
internshipTowards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

46

Country

University Name ofoutreachdepartment

Research
department/of-

Outreachplatforms

Local
donorsInternational
donors(main)

Activities
with local
private sector

Centre for
Researchand Publications

Short
training
courses fornon-scholars andministries;
Grant writing

Internal
fundsfrom theuniversity

Consultancies (i.e.,businessplans,
impact assessments,
product development,
market analysis, policy
design);Training;
Technical ICT
Training

College Directorate of
Research,Innovation
and PostGraduate
Studies(DRIPG);
Research
Unit

Annualconferencewith current
and potential donors;
Grant writing/ management;
Approaching companies andcharitablefoundations;
Sponsorship; Internships;Conferences;
Publications; MoUs

Government(47%)

Training ofPatents and intellectual property rights,
copyrights andtrademarks

Ghana
Kenya
MalawiUniversityof Malawi

Mozambique
Namibia

Universityof Namibia

Rwanda* Universityof Rwanda

SenegalCheikAnta Diop
University(Dakar)University
CentralConsultancy
BureauResources
Mobilization

Direction de la
Cooperation

Technological Park
(planned)

Swedish Cooperation, Blekinge Instituteof Technology,
Internally DIKO, AUSaid,
generated UN Habitat,(19%)
McArthurFoundation(USA), SIDA
(Sweden),Rockefeller
Foundation(USA), University of Liege(Belgium),
Global Fund
(USA), USAID,
European
Union
Africanuniversities

the private
sector;
Provision ofservices forthe private
sectorSeveral European universities, Iranianand Russian
universities,
American,Canadianand Brazilian
universities

Mostly kept by
the university

Mostly kept by
the university

Tanzania

Towards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

47

Country

University Name ofoutreachdepartment

Research
department/

Outreachplatforms

Local
donorsInternational
donors(main)

Activities
with local
private sector

UgandaMakerere
University

Directorateof Researchand Graduate
Training ;Food Technology and Business Incubation Center– CAES;
Centre for
Research
in Energy
and Energy
Conservation– CEDAT;
Centre for
Tobacco Control in Africa– CHS;
Microsoft
Innovation
Center –CoCIS;Petroleum Exploration and
Production
Technology
Laboratory –CoNAS

Grant writing

Government of
Uganda;1% ofuniversity
incomegoes toresearch(thismoney isgeneratedfrom thefaculties,
contributions from
graduate andundergraduate
students);
Bilateral funds
fromdevelopment
partners

SIDA/Department for Research (SAREC)(Sweden),NUFFIC Indian
cooperation,
USAID, Uganda
Gatsby Trust,Rockefeller
Foundation,
Carnegie
Corporation(USA) – African
Partnership for
Research Excellence (CAPREx),
Development
Research
Uptake in SubSahara Africa(DRUSA), Africa
Regional Inter-

Mountedmodel villages

Zambia The University ofZambiaZimbabwe

Universityof Zimbabwe

Eachcollegeengages
in its own
collaboration andpartnerships

InternaPlatform fortional Link Research,
Science, Technology, Innovation andDevelopment(PReSTID)

Eachfacultyengages
in its own
collaborations andpartnerships

Quality Assur-

Dissemination ofresearch
Meetings
with public
and private
sector toencourage use ofuniversity
research
outputs;
newsletter
Conferences;
Presentation of
graduates’
research
outputs

Arua andRakai districts

Student Exchange (ARISE),
Consortium
for Advanced
Research Training (CARTA),
Norwegian
Agency for
Development
Cooperation(NORAD), Research Professional Africa,
Next Generation of African
Academics(NGAA)

National
ministries(particularly for
healthand agriculture)

Local industries

Patents andintellectual property
rights, copyrights andtrademarks

Mostly kept by
the university

Other nationaland African
universities(e.g., Polytechnic of Namibia,
Cape Peninsula
University ofTechnology)

Towards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

Professors
keep a lot of
them

48

Country

University Name ofoutreachdepartment

Research
department/

Outreachplatforms

Local
donorsAnnualresearch
and intellectual
expos

National
ministries(for health,water,
land, S&T)

International donors(main)

Activities
with local
privatesectorPatents andintellectual
propertyrights, copy
rights andtrademarks

Source: Authors’ own research based on information from the digital portals of universities and complemented byAnnex 2: Case Studies
Table 9. Analysis of Diverse Case Studies from the Literature
Locationneed

Description

Product/
innovation

Main actors
involved

Governancearrangements

Formal/informalcontracts

PROCOMER identi-

Formalcontracts

P

Formalcontracts

None

San Jose,
Costa Rica
(ECLAC,2017)

Creationof employment,
integrationin value
chainsof lessdeveloped
regions

Creationof a value
chain

Chain of
Private secchips friedbusiness enin air
trepreneurs;
University:
CITA, University de Costa
Rica;
Government:
PROCOMER,
COMEX

Java, Indonesia(ECLAC,2017)

Strengthen
the accessof smallagro producers totechnologies andextension
services,
as well as
integration
with newmarkets

Creationof spaceto addressdevelopment needsof agrobusinessthrough
implementation;

The creation ofa valuechain
centreEnvironmental (water and soil)
pollution;
Contaminated waterand poorsanitation

Use ofnanotechnology forwater andsoil cleanup

value chain
issues are
addressed
in a practical way

Role of
SGCs, ifanyneed andpushedfor theproject

Private sector:(agro)business entrepreneurs;
University:
University of
Padjadjaran;
Government:
regional authorities andthe Ministryof Agriculture

Reduction Canada’sof cost of International
water pu- Development
Researchmethods Centre (IDRC),

Fundingmechanisms

South
AfricaCanada
Research
ChairsFormalcontract(5 years)

Towards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

49

Locationneed

Description

Product/innovation

Main actors
involvedfacilitate
diseasetransmission andincrease
the mortality rate ofchildrenunder 5years old

Involves students in R&D,
publications
and potential
patentsPort
Elizabeth,South
Africa(Koen,
2016)

able andaccurate
healthcare
Reduction of HIV
treatment
costs

Testing CD4
cells in bloodusing a cellphone camera (capableof reading
CD4 counts
in HIV positive patients)
and a test
strip withbiomaterials

Development ofprototypes
for monitoring CD4
counts fromblood samples using acell-phone
cameraUNICEF,
Rhodes
University’s
Biotechnology
Innovation
Centre (RUBIC)(South Africa)

Ghana(2011–
2017 )

Ensuretechnology
development andIncrease
capacity andincentives
for research
institutes,
universities,
and technology providers to develop, adapt

Establishment of of-

Ministry ofEnvironment,
Science Technology andInnovation(MESTI);
World Bank ;Research
universities:
University of
Ghana & Ghana Technology University
College;Research
institutions:Council foris more responsive tothe needsof theeconomyGovernancearrangements

Formal/informalcontracts

Fundingmechanisms

Role of
SGCs, ifany

Facilitate
collaboration
betweenresearchbodies andprivatesector byoutlining
generalproject
objectives
from government’s
perspective,
selectingresearchbodies, andproviding
grantsUnited States
International
UniversityAfrica(USIU-Africa),
Edith Amuhaya (Kenya),
Rhodes University (South
Africa), Ottawa
University(Canada)of technology development,
marketingand transfers within
institutions

technologies
to private
sector enterprises ona demanddriven basis

Formalcontract(ZAR 3
million)

MESTI
oversees
the selection ofresearchbodiesand monitors theirprogress

Formalcontract(USD 2.5
million

Grant
(each
institution
received
USD
500,000)

Depending on the
project
andregion,variousgovernment
actorsfrom therespective
country/
religionand inter-

Formalcontracts
for eachproject

Call forfunding isadvertised
by SIDA,applicants
must
apply
with theirrelevant
project
idea andwith support fromthe host

Industrial
Research andGhana Atomic
Energy Commission
Polytechnics:
Kumasi Polytechnic
Kenya,
Burundi,Ethiopia,
Rwanda,Tanzania andUgandaBioinnovate
is essentiallya multidisciplinarycompetitive
funding
convertmechanism,ing everfor bioadvancing sciences andbioscience producttechnolooriented
gies into
innovation
innovations activities in
to foster
Eastern Africa
To support
East Africancountries
to leverage theFunding andfacilitating
the development andinnovationof several
bio-basedideas andinnovativetechnologies across
East Africa

Donors:
SIDA, New
Partnershipfor Africa’s
Development(NEPAD)
Partners:(Dependingon the country
and project)
several universities from
Eastern Africa,
several univer-

Towards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

50

Location

need

Clinicalevaluationsin Indiaand
China

Product/
innovation

Main actors
involved

It functions as a
two-phase programme: Phase
I lasted from2010–2015 andencompassed
building innovation consortia/
platforms oncrop improvement technologies, thesustainable utilization of agro
industrial waste,
and bioscienceinnovation policies and value
added products
from millet andsorghum. Phase
II (2016–2021)
is focusing on
linking bio-based
technologies
and ideas tothe market andcommercializing the ideas/
technologies andbusinesses.

sities outside
the region,
various national research
institutes(NARIs), three
African regional initiatives,international
research institutes (IRCs)

The PPP was set
HIV/AIDS
up to research,vaccinedevelop, patent,
test (clinical)
and enable the
HIV/AIDS
manufacturing
vaccine for of a safe andIndia andother deAIDS vaccine,veloping
as mandated
countries
by the Indian
government, forIndia as well asneighboring andother developing
countries.

Indian Councilof Medical
Research(ICMR), theInternational
AIDS Vaccine Initiative(IAVI) (USA),
National
AIDS Control
Organization(NACO/Indian
Ministry of
Health), andTherion Biologics (USA)inclusive
growthand sustainable
development

India

Description

Developan affordable,
safe andCreating
cervicalcancerscreening
tests that

PATH formeda partnerships
with two private
the test formats

Governancearrangements

Formal/informalcontracts

Fundingmechanisms

national
actors.

organization,
which must
be willing tomatch grantfunding. Applicants canbe from any ofthe participating countries
and can often
even be ateam from thetries. Funding is thenprovided fora set period
and a budget
establishedthrough the
Biosciences
Innovation
Fund

councils/
ministries forscience andtechnology

Screening PATH and two
Technologies to
Advance
Rapid Testing (START)ICMR isresponsible for
ensuring
the proper
functioningof the entire project
and that itmeets its
objectives.
A projectmanagement
committee
made upof representatives
from ICMR
and IAVI
was also
establishedto manage,
coordinate,
monitorand assess
all project
activities.

Role of
SGCs, ifany

Agreement
signedbetween
ICMR and
IAVI
Several othercontracts
signedbetweenthe partners forpurposes(e.g.,
patents
and technology
transfer
agreements
etc.)

Formalagreements
between
PATH andtwo

Funding to
PATH awarded
by Bill Gates
Foundation

Towards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

51

Locationneedable forwomenin the developingworld

AfricaDescription

Product/
innovation

project to to
detect humanpapillomavirus(HPV) (one using
DNA, and theother using a biomarker protein).
Both companies
will create a safe,
accurate andsimple to use testdevelop

Main actors Governinvolved
ance
arrangements

Formal/informalcontracts

Fundingmechanisms

Role of
SGCs, ifanyFormalagreements
between
PATH andtwo industry partners
and special
intellectual
property arrangements

safe andaccurate
cervicalcancerscreening
tests

PATH and World
Health Organization (WHO)vaccineworked together
to treatwith the otherepidemic partners to demeningitis velop the low
cost vaccine for
acrosssale at a price
Africaof USD 0.40
per dose across
Africa

PATH, WHOPPP
betweengroup A
SynCo Biomeningo- Partners B.V,
coccal vac- Serum Insticine by the tute of India
Meningitis Limited(SIIL) and
Vaccinethe US Food
Projectand Drug
Administration’s (FDA)
Center for
Biologics
Evaluation andResearch

Formalagreements
and special
intellectual
property andknowledgetransfer
agreements

Funding to
PATH andWHO awarded
by Bill &Melinda Gates
Foundation

Lack oftemperature
control for
vaccines indeveloping
countries
in vaccine
cold chain
or distribution
networks

Improving
vaccinestabilization technology

PATH isworkingwith a wide
range of private sector
companies
and universities.

Formalagreements
and special
intellectual
property andknowledgetransfer
agreements

Funding to
PATH awarded
by Bill &Melinda Gates
Foundation,plus companies also
funded R&D

Improvedlaboratory
servicesand systems

Public Agen-

Formal arrangement

Shared cost of Not obUSD 18 million served
between PEPFAR and BD
representing
dollars spent,
products
provided, andtime and services donatedLack of anThis project aims
at improving
vaccine thermostability (the inherent ability for
vaccines to withstand extreme
temperatures) toensure that every
child in the world
receives safe anduncompromised
vaccines despite
cold chain.

Ethiopia,
Kenya,
Mozambique,South
Africa andUgandaInadequate
laboratory
servicesand systems, that
could impede thescaling upof the US
President’s
Emergency Plan for
AIDS Relief(PEPFAR),aimed atthe prevention,care, andtreatmentof HIV
infection

To support laboratory systemstrengthening
projects in Africaof the US
Global AIDS
Coordinator, Centers
for Disease
Control andPrevention (CDC)
Private sector: Becton,
Dickinson
and Company (BD)
Variousgovernmentand healthcare facilities
in implementing
countries

Towards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

52

Annex 3: Funding Mechanisms for SGCs
Country

Ireland

The Netherlands

Ghana

Ministry of
S&T (yes/no)

Yes

Yes

Ministry of Environment,
Science Technology and Innovation (MESTI)SGC proxy

Science Foundation Ireland

The Netherlands Organization

Ministry of Education– Applied and Engineering
Sciences (AES, previously theTechnology Foundation, STW)
MandateTo develop world-leading,large-scale research centres
linking scientists and engineers in partnerships acrossacademia and industry

Knowledge transfer between
the technical sciences and users so as to emphasize the roleof users in all AES projects

Objectives

In line with agenda Europe
2020

In line with agenda Europe
2020

(a)

To develop new and existing
Irish-based technology companies

To answer demand-driven
questions from the industry
with the open submission ofresearch ideas from the university or research centres

To facilitate collaboration
between research bodies
and the private sector by
outlining general project
objectives from the government’s perspective, selecting
research bodies, and providing grants(b)

To contribute to the Irish
economyTo promote consortia andpartnerships between industry and academia

To increase the capacity of,
and incentives for, research
institutes, universities, andtechnology providers totechnologies to private sector enterprises on a demanddriven basis(c)

To expand educational andcareer opportunities in scienceand engineering

National
policies supporting the
mandate- Intellectual property management guidelines- National policy statement on
ensuring research integrity in
Ireland.

Top sectors agenda of the
Dutch government

Ethical andRegulated by clearly established policy documents andguidelines- In line with the intellectual
property policy adopted by
NWO ‘Rules of Play for publicprivate collaboration’, as
presented to the Lower Houseof the Dutch Parliament on 25
June 2013

issuesinstitutions the opportunity
to make their own intellectual
property and publication arrangements with the parties
with whom they wish to cooperate (in this way they
Towards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

53

Country

Ireland

The Netherlands

Ghana

can better respond to the wishesof the researchers and co-funders
involved in the research projects)
Matching
funds byindustry

Required in most applications related to research
centres, CSET and SRCs

In-kind contributions required

BudgetEUR 355 million (from government) + EUR 190 million(from industry)

About EUR 57 million of AES’s
budget comes NWO and theMinistry of Education, Culture
and Science, EUR 23 million
from the Ministry for Economic

World Bank is the main
funderparties and EUR 14 million fromparticipating in research projects.
In addition to this the partners
make in-kind contributions to theresearch.
Number ofcentres

12 centres

In-kind contributions required

Number ofcompanies
involved

200

Areas of support

Pre-established on basisof economic and societal
needs

Pre-established by the industry
based on its needs; includes
industrial doctorates (PhDs)

Areas

Pharma, big data, medical
devices, nanotechnology/
materials, marine renewable energy, food for health/functional foods, perinatal
research, applied geosciences, software, digitalcontent, telecommunications and medical devices

Broad themes previously discussed by Dutch companies andin line with those targeted inEurope 2020

Mechanismsof communication

Website, email list

Website, email list, annual information meetings

Source: Elaborated by the authors based on information available on the online portals

Towards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

54

References

African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS), & The Scinnovent Centre. (2017). Science Granting Council InitiaNote and Terms of Reference. African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) and The Scinnovent Centre. Nairobi,
Kenya.
African Union. (2014). Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy for Africa 2014 (STISA 2024). African Union Commission. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Agyemang, P. F. K. (2011).
Civil Engineering), University of Texas, Arlington.

(Master of Science in

Akampurira, E., Root, D., & Shakantu, W. (2009). Stakeholder perceptions in the factors constraining the development and implementation of public private partnerships in the Ugandan electricity sector. Journal of Energy inSouthern Africa, 20(2).
Altonen, M. (1998).
School of Economics and Business Administration. Turku.

Working Paper Series. Turku

Arocena, R., & Sutz, J. (1999). Looking at National Systems of Innovation from the South. Industry and Innovation
7(1), 55-75.
,
Arocena, R., & Sutz, J. (2005). Latin American Universities: From an Original Revolution to an Uncertain Transition.
Journal of Higher Education, 50(4), 573-592. doi:DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6367-8
Bartholomew, S. (1997). National Systems of Biotechnology Innovation: Complex Interdependence in the Global
System. Journal of International Business Studies,, 28(2), 241-266.
turing industry. Research Policy, 33(2), 209-223. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2003.07.003
Berkhout, A. J., Hartmann, D., van der Duin, P., & Ortt, R. (2006). Innovating the innovation process. International
Journal of Technology Management, 34(3/4), 390-404.
Bolo, M., Awino, V., & Odongo, D. (2017). Harmonization of open science and commercialization in research partnerships in Kenya. The Scinnovent Centre. Nairobi, Kenya.
Bolo, M., Odongo, D., & Awino, V. (2016). Financing Research and Development in Kenya. Insights from the health sector. PATH and The Scinnovent Centre. Nairobi.
Bolo, M., Osir, E., Rugutt, M., & Desai, K. (2015). Stimulating innovation and entrepreneurship in Kenyan universities
and public research institutes. Is performance-based research funding model the answer? [Press release]
Bothwell, E. (2016). The world’s top universities for attracting industry funding [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/funding-for-innovation-ranking-2016
Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29(4-5),
627-655. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00093-1
Bray, J. W., & Link, A. N. (2017). Dynamic Entrepreneurship: On the performance of US research joint ventures. Small
Business Economics. doi:10.1007/s11187-017-9862-x
Buckland, R. (2009). Private and Public Sector Models for Strategies in Universities. British Journal of Management,
20(4), 524-536. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00593.x
Chataway, J., Chaturvedi, K., Hanlin, R., Mugwagwa, J., Smith, J., & Wield, D. (2009). Technological Trends and Opportunities to Combat Diseases of the Poor Africa. In F. Kalua, A. Awotedu, L. Kamwanja, & J. Saka (Eds.), Science,
Technology and Innovation for Public Health in Africa. Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa: NEPAD.
Chataway, J., Ochieng, C., Byrne, R., Daniels, C., Dobson, C., Hanlin, R., & Hopkins, M. (2017). Case Studies of the PolitiTowards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

55

cal Economy of Science Granting Councils in Sub-Sahara Africa. SPRU and ACTS. Nairobi, Kenya.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003).
Business Press.

HarvardChristensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. (2003). The Innovator’s Solution. Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth: Harvard Business School Press.
Cimoli, M. (Ed.) (2000). Developing innovation system: Mexico in the global context. New York-London: ContinuumPinter Publishers.
Practitioner,
34(4), 33-39.
Edquist, C. (2001). Innovation policy in the systems of innovation approach. Some basic principles. In M. M. Fischer& J. Fröhlich (Eds.), Knowledge complexity and innovation systems (pp. 46-55). Berlin: Springer.
Edquist, C. (Ed.) (1997). Systems of Innovation. Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. London and New York:
Routledge.
Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109-123. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0048-7333(99)00055-4
European Commission. (2003). Guidelines for Successful Public-Private Partnerships. Retrieved from Brussels, BE:
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/guides/ppp_en.pdf
European Institute of Innovation & Technology. (2017). Innovation Communities. Retrieved from https://eit.europa.
eu/activities/innovation-communities
Freeman, C. (1987). Technology and Economic Performance. Lessons from Japan. London: Pinter.
Grimsey, D., & Lewis, M. (2007a). Public Private Parterships. The Worldwide Revolution in Infrastructure Provision and
Finance: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Grimsey, D., & Lewis, M. (2007b). Public Private Partnerships and Public Procurement. Agenda: A Journal of Policy
Analysis and Reform, 14(2), 171-188.
Gu, S. (1999). Implications of National Innovation Systems for Developing Countries: Managing Change and Complex
ity in Economic Development. Discussion Paper. United Nations University, Institute for New Technologies. Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Hagedoorn, J., Link, A. N., & Vonortas, N. S. (2000). Research Partnerships. Research Policy, 29(4), 567-586.
Kajimo-Shakantu, K., Kavela, L., & Shakantu, W. (2014). Applicability and constraints of delivering water infrastructure via public private partnership. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 119, 867-876. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.097
Kenya Engineer. (2017, May 22). The University Research Chairs Programme Call for Proposals: Technological In
novation in the Manufacturing Sector. Kenya Engineer Journal.
Koen, D. (2016, June 2). Rhodes, UNICEF in R3m partnership. The Herald. Retrieved from http://www.heraldlive.
co.za/news/2016/06/02/rhodes-unicef-r3m-partnership/
Koschatzky, K. (2017). A theoretical view on public-private partnerships in research and innovation in Germany. Working Paper Firms and Region. Competence Center ‘Policy-Industry-Innovation’. Fraunhofer Institute for Systems of
Innovation Research. Karlsruhe, Germany.
Koschatzky, K., Kroll, H., Meyborg, M., Stahlecker, T., Dwertmann, A., & Huber, M. (2015). Public-private partnerships
Towards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

56

in Research and Innovation - Case studies from Australia, Austria, Sweden and the United States. Working Papers Firms
and Region. Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research. Karlsruhe, Germany.
Kroschatzky, K. (2013). Heterogene Kooperationen im deutschen Forschungs- und Innovations system. Fraunhofer
Verlag. Stuttgart.
Lal, K. (2002). E-business and export behaviour. Discussion paper. UNU-WIDER. Helsinki.
Lall, S. (1982). Developing Countries as Exporters of Technology
millan.

-Lilley, S. (2003). AES backs out of Bujagali dam project. Retrieved from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.
php?id=8250
Lincklaen Arriens, W. T., & Wehn de Montalvo, U. (2013). Exploring Water Leadership. Water Policy, 15, 15-41.
doi:10.2166/wp.2013.010
Lundvall, B. A. (1988). Innovation as an Interactive Process: From User-Producer Interaction to National Systems of
Innovation. In G. Diosi, C. Freeman, G. Silverberg, & L. Soete (Eds.), Technical Change and Economic Theory. London:
Pinter.
Lundvall, B. A. (1992). National Systems of Innovation. Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. Lon
don: Pinter Publishers.
Lundvall, B. A. (1995). National Systems of Innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning (B. A.
Lundvall Ed.): Anthem Press.
Miranda Sarmento, J., & Renneboog, L. (2017). Renegotiating Public-Private Partnerships. CentER Discussion
Paper. Center for Economic Research. Tilburg University. Tilburg. Retrieved from https://pure.uvt.nl/portal/
Mouton, J., Gaillard, J., & van Lill, M. (2014). Science Granting councils in Sub-Sahara Africa. Stellenbosch University,
CREST, IRD. South Africa.
Mytelka, L. K. (2006). Divides and rules: the impact of new wave technologies on learning and innovation in theSouth. Journal of International Development, 18(6), 861-876. doi:10.1002/jid.1319
NACETEM. (2010). Assessment of innovation capability in the manufacturing sector in Nigeria. Monograph Series.
NACETEM. Ile-Ife.
Nelson, R. R. (1993). National Systems of Innovation. A Comparative Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge: Harvard Univesity
Press.
NEPAD. (2006). Report on activities of the NEPAD agency in the implementation of the Africa’s Science & Technology
Consolidated Plan of Action (CPA) in Southern Africa. NPCA Mission to Southern Africa. Pretoria.
Niosi, J. (1999). Fourth-Generation R&D: From Linear Models to Flexible Innovation. Journal of Business Research,
45(2), 111-117. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(97)00230-0
Nirupama, K. (2009). A survey of payment mechanisms for public-private partnership transportation projects: Comparisons of the US, India and Mexico. The Leonard N. Stern School of Business. Glucksman Institute for Research inSecurities Markets. New York.
North, D. C. (1996). Economic Performance through time. In L. J. Alston, T. Eggertsson, & D. C. North (Eds.), Empiricalstudies in institutional change (pp. 342-355). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
OECD. (2011). The Enabling Environment for Capacity Development. In. Paris: OECD.
Towards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

57

OECD. (2014). Strategic Public/Private Partnerships in Science, Technology and Innovation. Retrieved from Paris:
International Journal of Technology Management, 34(3-4), 296-318. doi:10.1504/IJTM.2006.009461
Otieno, J., & Obamba, M. (2013). Research and Innovation Management: Comparative Analyiss of Ghana, Kenya nad
Uganda. Programme on Innovation, Higher Education and Research for Development. African Network for Internationalization of Education.
Industry. International Journal of Technology and Sustainable Development, 3(2).
Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, B. (2004b).
try. Discussion Paper Series. United Nations University-Institute for New Technologies. Maastricht, NL-

Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, B. (2005). Partnerships for building Science and Technology Capacity in Africa. Paper presented at
the IDRC / DFID Conference, London, UK.
Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, B. (2006). Learning Hi-Tech and Knowldege in Local Systems: The Otigba Computer Hardware
Cluster in Nigeria. Working Papers Serie. UNU-MERIT. Maastricht, NL.
Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, B., & Adebowale, B. A. (2012). University-Industry Collaboration as a Determinant of Innovationin Nigeria. International Journal of Institutions and Economics, 4(1), 21-46.
Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, B., Adelaja, M., & Abiola, B. O. (2014). SMEs clusters in Nigeria: Institutions Policies and Support
Systems. Ibadan: Booksellers Publishers.
Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, B., & Gehl Sampath, P. (2010). Latecomer Development: Innovation and knowledge for economic
growth. New York: Routledge.
Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, B., & Kaushalesh, L. (2016). Structural Transformation and Economic Development. Cross Regional
Analysis of Industrialization and Urbanization: Taylor & Francis.
Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, B., & Lal, K. (2006). Institutional Support for Collective Learning: Cluster Development in Kenya
and Ghana. African Development Review, 18(2), 258-278. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8268.2006.00142.x
Ranjit, L., & Kazim, S. (2003). What international investors look for when investing in developing countries. Results froma survey of international investors in the power sector. Energy and Mining Sector Board Discussion Paper. The WorldBank Group and The Energy and Mining Sector Board. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://cdm.unfccc.int/
Projects/DB/RWTUV1207728922.94/ReviewInitialComments/9GPVZYR8VJYPEON7KJ0M6TYLNG1RGH
Reillon, V. (2017a). EU Framework Programmes for Research and Innovation. Evolution and key data from FP1 to Horizon 2020 in view of FP9. Retrieved from Brussels:
Reillon, V. (2017b). Public-private partnerships in research. European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS). Brussels.
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 4(1), 73-75. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537329208524080
Rothwell, R., & Dodgson, M. (1992). European technology policy evolution: convergence towards SMEs and regional technology transfer. Technovation, 12(4), 223-238. doi:10.1016/0166-4972(92)90044-I
Sader, F. (2000).
The World Bank.

Massachusetts, USA:

Sampat, B. N., & Nelson, R. R. (2000). The evolution of university patenting and licesing proceedures: An empirical
study of institutional change. In P. Ingram & B. S. Silverman (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Strategic Management(Vol. 19, pp. 135-164): Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Towards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

58

Ssebuwufu, J., Ludwick, T., & Beland, M. (2012). Strengthening University-Industry Linkages in Africa. A Study on Institutional Capacities and Gaps. Canadian International Development Agency.
The African Capacity Building Foundation. (2017). Building Capacity in Science, Technology and Innovation for
Africa’s Transformation: The Role of Higher Learning and Reasearch Institutions. In Policy Brief: The African Capacity
Building Foundation.
The Scinnovent Centre. (2015). The Third Mission Framework. Fostering Partnerships between Universities / Public Research Institutes with the Private Sector. The Scinnovent Centre Technical Manual 01. The Scinnovent Centre. Nairobi,
Kenya.
The World Bank. (2005). Project Completion Note (Guarantee No. B-003-0-UG). In Africa Region Energy Team (Vol.
Report no. 33722-UG). Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
UNDP. (2009). Overview of UNDP’s Approach to Supporting Capacity Development. Capacity Development Group,
Bureau for Development Policy. United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved from http://www.undp.org/
content/dam/aplaws/publication/en/publications/capacity-development/undp-capacity-development-presentation_august-2009/Capacity%20Development%20UNDP%20August%202009.pdf
Vallejo, B., & Wehn, U. (2016). Capacity Development Evaluation: The Challenge of the Results Agenda and Measuring Return on Inverstment in the Global South. World Development, 79(March), 1-13. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
worlddev.2015.10.044
Voeten, J., & Parto, S. (2006). How Do Insitutions Matter in Institutional Capacity Development? Observations From
Three NUFFIC NPT Cases. Maastricht School of Management. Maastricht, NL.
Williams, J. H., & Ghanadan, R. (2006). Electricity reform in developing and transition countries: A reapraisal. Energy,
31, 815-844.
World Health Organization. (2013). New Approaches to Promoting Innovation. Public-Private Partnerships andInnovation. In V. J. W. Warren Kaplan, A. Mantel-Teeuwisse, P. Stolk, B. Duthey, & R. Laing (Eds.), Priority Medicines for
Europe and the World. 2013 Update (pp. 186-189). Geneva: Universiteit Utrecht, Boston University and World HealthOrganization.

Towards Effective Public Partnership in Research and Innovation: A perspective for African Science Granting Councils

59

The African technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) is atrans-disciplinary network of researchers, policymakers,
private sector actors and the civil society promoting thegeneration, dissemination, use and mastery of science,
Technology and Innovations (STI) for African development,
environmental sustainability and global inclusion.
In collaboration with like-minded institutions, ATPS provides
platforms for regional and international research andknowledge sharing in order to build Africa’s capabilities in
STI policy research,policymaking and implementation forsustainable development

African Technology
Policy Studies Network

Contact the Executive Director at
The Chancery, 8th Floor, Valley Rd.
P O Box 10081, 00100-Nairobi, Kenya
Contact: +254 20 2714092
Fax: +254 020 2714028
https://atpsnet.org/

Science, Technology and Innovation
for African Development

12 I Machobane Farming System and its Relevance to Climate Change Policy in Lesotho
ISBN: 978-9966-030-98-6