closing the gap s t evaluation and inequalities n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Closing the Gap: S&T, Evaluation, and Inequalities PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Closing the Gap: S&T, Evaluation, and Inequalities

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 26

Closing the Gap: S&T, Evaluation, and Inequalities - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 125 Views
  • Uploaded on

Closing the Gap: S&T, Evaluation, and Inequalities. Susan E. Cozzens Technology Policy and Assessment Center School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology scozzens@gatech.edu Presented at the American Evaluation Association Annual Meeting, Toronto, Ontario, 27 October 2005.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Closing the Gap: S&T, Evaluation, and Inequalities' - urban


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
closing the gap s t evaluation and inequalities

Closing the Gap: S&T, Evaluation, and Inequalities

Susan E. Cozzens

Technology Policy and Assessment Center

School of Public Policy

Georgia Institute of Technology

scozzens@gatech.edu

Presented at the American Evaluation Association Annual Meeting,

Toronto, Ontario, 27 October 2005

collaborators colleagues and support
Collaborators, Colleagues, and Support
  • AAAS Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, especially Steve Nelson
  • Graduate students: Kamau Bobb, Isabel Bortagaray, Albert George, Kendall Deas, Sonia Gatchair, Gonzalo Ordonez
  • Colleagues: Tim Turpin, Johann Mouton, Peter Healey
  • Supported by NSF Grants SES 0354362 and SES 0354356

Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005

science technology and inequalities
Science, technology, and inequalities
  • Question: What are the connections between S&T policies and programs and inequalities?
  • Goal: Find ways to design and evaluate S&T policies and programs so that they reduce rather than increase inequalities.

Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005

outline of presentation
Outline of presentation
  • Issues of scope
  • Descriptive summary: what are the connections now?
  • Options and issues
    • for program design
    • for evaluation

Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005

inequality is deep and growing
Inequality is deep and growing
  • In the United States
    • Income inequality has been rising steadily for several decades.
    • Health disparities persist.
  • Globally
    • Gap between rich and poor nations is growing.
    • Life expectancies can be twice as much in rich nations as poor ones.
  • Wealth is accumulating fast in some parts of the global economy and not in others.

Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005

what dimensions
What dimensions?
  • Economic inequalities (goal: reducing inequality)
    • High, middle, and low income regions
    • High, middle, and low income individuals and families within regions
    • Poverty vs. inequality
  • The identity inequalities (Goal: achieving equality)
    • Gender
    • Ethnic
  • Creates three-dimensional space

Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005

who cares
Who cares?
  • Inequality is a multi-dimensional space
    • We have been focusing on inequalities in basic needs areas: health, food, environment
  • Distributional ethics
    • Libertarian theory – rights based
    • Utilitarian – maximize the Good
    • Rawlsian – benefit the least advantaged
    • Communitarian – decrease inequality for the sake of community

Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005

types of s t policies
Types of S&T Policies

Government actions to …

  • Research: stimulate production of new knowledge
  • Innovation: stimulate new products or processes
  • Human Resource: recruit and educate a scientific and technical workforce

Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005

central hypothesis
Central hypothesis

Unless they are specifically designed to reduce inequality, these policies probably increase it.

Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005

human resource policies
Human resource policies
  • Recruitment to S/E careers is not neutral on gender or ethnic status – witness the results.
    • Causes lie up and down the education and career chain
  • Within countries:
    • Gender and ethnic status are rising as conscious goals in this area.
    • Economic status gets little or no attention.
  • Between countries:
    • International mobility of S/E – the world is flattening.

Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005

innovation policies
Innovation policies
  • Income inequality within rich countries attributed to skill-biased technological change
    • Education seen as the panacea solution
  • High technology development strategies focus on growing the upper end of the distribution.
    • But may provide new entry points for under-represented groups.
  • Intellectual property laws protect the accumulation of wealth.
    • And therefore limit access to products, sometimes ones that are essential for basic needs.

Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005

research policies
Research policies
  • Often seen as both “the problem” and “the solution” to inequality problems
    • Relatively accessible to civil society
  • The content of the research agenda is the issue.
    • Orientation to industry makes this a subset of innovation policy.
    • Organized public has an influence – in some areas, but unlikely to work very effectively on global gaps.

Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005

summary
Summary
  • S&T policies are part of the problem.
  • They are also seen as part of the solution.
  • Our analyses moved in two directions:
    • Technology-based economic development strategies
    • Case studies in research and innovation policies.

Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005

technology based economic development
Technology-based economic development
  • “High-technology” strategy
    • Goal: produce high-skill, high-wage jobs
    • Adds jobs at the high end of the distribution
    • Increases inequality by definition if it succeeds
  • “Good jobs” strategy
    • Add jobs in the middle of the distribution
  • “Better life” strategy
    • Make life better for those at the lower end of the distribution

Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005

case studies
Case studies
  • Access to essential medicines
    • Patent policy issue
    • Use provision for public march-in
  • Health disparities research
    • Multi-pronged approach
  • African agriculture
    • Institutional design for distributed innovation

Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005

generic approaches
Generic approaches
  • Derived from case studies; see summary available
  • Vary in breadth of participants
    • Participatory
    • Capacity building
    • Public research
    • Private sector stimulation

Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005

more hypotheses
More hypotheses
  • The more empowering the approach, the more likely it is to lead to long-term, sustainable inclusion.
  • The more involved the affected community, the more likely the approach is to set priorities that reduce inequality.

Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005

implications for program design
Implications for program design
  • Need to take inequalities explicitly into account.
  • Need to think about process as well as product.
  • Total outcome should look more equal on several dimensions.

Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005

implications for evaluation
Implications for evaluation
  • Need to measure impacts in several dimensions
    • Economic
    • Gender
    • Ethnic status
  • Easy?

Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005

impact indicators
Impact indicators
  • Long-standing quest in the indicators community
  • No lack of impact indicators themselves
  • Lack the logic that connects them to research programs
  • Leads to work with logic modeling

Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005

generic logic model
Generic Logic Model

Next-stage Users: Public

Outcomes

In

Everyday

Life

S&T

Policy or

Program

Public

MARKETS

Private

Next-stage Users: Private

Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005

hypertension

Am Heart Assoc

Am Soc Hyper­

tension

NHLBI --

Natl Heart Lung and Blood Institute:

Research

Other voluntary health orgs

Place of work

Patients with high blood pressure

Centers for Disease Control Education Programs

GA Dept of Public Health

Community organizations

Primary care physician

Pharmaceu­

tical ndustry: Drugs

Lifestyle

National Center for Minority Health and Health Disparities: Research

Health Disparity Centers

Hypertension

Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005

community pollutants

Department of Energy

Department of Defense

Private philanthropies

GA Dept Community Affairs

USDA Nat Res Cons Service

Black and

low income families live with environmental contamination

Black and Low Income Communities: research and action

EPA: EJ Program

GA Env Protection Division

Industry: source of pollution and mitigation

Community pollutants

Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005

hunger in georgia
Hunger in Georgia

Food Banks (private)

Food insecure and hungry families

Food stamps and school lunches (USDA)

Food industry programs

Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005

biotechnology example

21 national programs, plus regional cooperative programs

Major research institutions, with research agenda

Field trials, by who is doing them

IP skills

Packaging and sale

Biosafety processes

Farmer acceptance

Hectares planted; increased productivity

Lower urban food prices

Increased rural incomes

Biotechnology example

Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005

conclusions so far
Conclusions so far
  • The key step is paying attention to inequalities.
    • The benefits of S&T are not automatically distributed equally.
  • Consideration can be built into strategic planning and performance assessment.
  • Need to accumulate knowledge from specific programs into overall principles of distributional impacts.

Evaluation and Inequality, Cozzens, AEA 2005