I am interested in how science travels in policy. Some means through which science enters policy-making are metrics (through the use of indicators, targets, monitoring frameworks, statistics, etc. that serve both to set policy goals and to monitor progress), and innovation (through technology, as well as policy innovations). For this entry, I will focus on innovation.
I argue that innovation is a means through which science travels in policy and at the same time it is a means through which a very specific understanding of science is enacted: that of science as Research & Development, of science as offering solutions, and preferably in the form of technological innovations. The instrumentalization of science as a producer of technology has also been characterised as techno-science. The science that is allowed to enter policy is thus technoscience, and it is invited on the grounds that it provides solutions. From this point of view, both technologies and new policy ideas, absolve the function of innovation. In fact, I would even argue that what matters about technological innovations in policy is the idea of innovation, rather than the technology itself. For example, second- and third-generation biofuels are mentioned in energy policy not because of the technical specifications of this innovation, but because the idea of biofuels continues to offer a way out of the stalemate between the energy transition goal and the dependency on liquid fuels – and the specific technologies themselves continue to be criticised, hence the move from first- to second- and third-generation biofuels, preferably with reference to a new technology under development, so that one can focus on the idea rather than the innovation itself.
Because innovation enters policy as an idea rather than as a material artefact, issues of scale are removed from the discussion of these policy solutions. As a consequence, I argue that technological innovation makes policy insensitive to issues of complexity. I will refer to two examples to make this point: the case of solar panels in slums, and the case of the circular economy.
In the case of solar panels, I take the example of Enkanini, a slum in the city of Stellenbosch, South Africa. Solar panels were introduced as a win-win solution: they solved the problem of electricity provision in an informal settlement that did not have access to the national electricity grid, and at the same time they helped with the transition towards renewable energies and thus enacted the sustainable development ideal. The project started as a master’s project of a student of the University of Stellenbosch, and once it received funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, it was scaled up to about 30-40% of the shacks in the settlement. While as a pilot project, the solar panels were accepted by the beneficiaries and their neighbours (to avoid any conflict, the first installations were given to those considered most “in need”, such as a single mother with small children), once the project scaled up, it created a conflict in the slum. The residents were afraid that once they had the solar panels, they would loose their chance of being connected to the grid, and with it, the chance to be formally recognised and serviced by the municipality. While the techno-fix partially responded to the practical need for electricity, when scaled up, it revealed the interconnectedness of technology, social and political spheres. For the community, electricity connection was not just a practical need, it was also a means to articulate the political struggle for formal recognition.
In the case of the circular economy, innovation comes in the form of a new policy idea, which is being enacted through a variety of means. In the European Union context, the circular economy is a policy “in the making”, which first appeared in 2014, was re-drafted in 2015, and has been put into action through the creation indicators, stakeholder platforms, and directing funding at research and innovation on the topic of the circular economy. Here too, the policy innovation is presented as a win-win solution: the circular economy solves the old dichotomy between environmental degradation and economic growth, because a growing economy does not need to have a growing impact on the environment if it can circulate the resources it needs to keep going. Being circular thus becomes not only an environmental policy but also a business strategy.
In this example, the issue of scaling runs in the opposite direction: the innovation provides an economy-wide imaginary, based on vague ideas of “maintaining the value of products and materials in the economy for as long as possible” and “minimising the generation of waste”. At the lower scale, it remains largely unclear how the circular economy is to be put into practice. A lot of the knowledge base of the circular economy comes from the study of industrial production processes, in which materials can be recycled (with some limits due to degradation when it comes to textiles and paper, and due to toxic substances). When it comes to agriculture and the energy sector, however, ideas of circularity are hardly applicable. Waste-to-energy technologies are a means of making use of non-recyclable waste, but are not circular: waste can only be burned once.
The circular economy policy in the European Union does not take into account that many linear economic activities are outsourced to Third World countries: the EU imports most of its feed, fossil fuels, minerals such as uranium are entirely imported. Hence, circularity may not lead to greater sustainability at the global scale, if linear economic processes are displaced. Moreover, the prospect of a circular economy is seen with reticence from Third World countries whose economy depends on the export of primary materials to the EU. Once again, the policy idea attends to a tension in EU policy, but does not provide a practical solution either at the global scale, nor when scaled down to economic sectors.
In conclusion, the scientific information that is mobilised in policy through innovation is that of the win-win solutions. Science plays an instrumental role for policy: it solves bottlenecks, it makes the not yet feasible possible. This role is best understood by analysing the idea of innovation – which can refer to technological artefacts as well as new ways of doing policy. The win-win solutionism works only as an idea, that is, an idea enacted out of scale. Once scaled, technological innovations can hardly be treated as independent variables, as technological and social orders are co-produced. The continued reliance on technological innovation as a means to use science in policy leads to a situation in which the solutions are seemingly known, yet not implemented properly. I argue that technological innovations fail to deliver sustainability because they provide simplified solutions that disregard complexity. A better management of technological innovation requires attention to scaling and multi-level governance in sustainability.
0 Comments