eBusiness Weekly
Clifford Shambare
Oftentimes we confuse innovation with invention. But even though the two are closely related in that one follows the other, they are not one and the same thing.
In the economic realm, for an invention to be beneficial to the whole economy, it has to be adopted by a firm that then commercialises it. This stage — that in some cases involves much research and considerable time and money — should also involve the consumer who needs to approve of, and then go on to purchase and use the product concerned.
So here we can see that all these people-that is, the inventor, the innovator and the consumer or end user of the invention concerned – are critical for the success of the whole system – that is the production, marketing and consumption stages, and ultimately, the whole economy.
Looking at the economic history of the developed world where most inventions have been made, we come across some critical lessons we can learn there from, regarding this matter.
For example, not all inventions have made it to the innovation, then to the final stage. And not all inventors have gone on to benefit from their work.
A good number of inventors have had their inventions stolen by unscrupulous businessmen/ innovators.
Examples here are the game of Monopoly (Elizabeth Magie, not Charles Darrow); the Singer sewing machine (Elias Howe, not Isaac Singer); the TV (Philo Taylor Farnsworth, not Vladimir Zworykin); the phone (Elisha Grey, not Alexander Graham Bell), and many others.
Apart from the said individuals, governments are always involved in some ways, in such work. One of the main ones of these ways is the issuance of patents.
On the other hand, progressive governments are always involved in carrying out the necessary pure research work. But most importantly, they provide some of the funding for such work.
As can be expected, the industrial sector should be the one to spearhead this process largely because it is its major beneficiary. However, in the African context, this is an assumption that cannot be taken for granted. But why?
There are a number of reasons for this state of affairs. Here they are:
Some manufacturers produce goods under franchise, so their decisions on such matters are controlled by legal requirements that go with such agreements/ arrangements.
Some businesses are owned and run by FDI. Most DFI have their R&D and innovation work done in their home countries.
Then there is the issue of competition which can arise between and among several parties—that is international corporations and/or local firms.
Lack of scruples on the part of the innovators. Some innovators stifle the efforts of inventors by not paying or acknowledging inventions which they eventually profit from using.
Jealousies among some of the stakeholders. As I pointed out in my article in this paper; “Can Africans industrialise in this era”, some African governments stifle their inventors either because they are compromised or because they are jealous of the formers’ achievements.
By its nature, corruption always worms its way into such contexts. It does so through many avenues. For example, there are many cases where African government officials have been bribed by potential competitors to scuttle the work of young African inventors and innovators.
In the same context, some time ago in Zimbabwe, there was a programme called “Ndinethasa” (I have a thousand dollars) — a programme which may be still running today.
In this programme young Zimbabweans prospective entrepreneurs were to be awarded US$1000 to start any project that impressed the team of prominent business executives who actually formed a panel of (project) valuators of same.
One day I witnessed one TV episode on this same programme where two young Zimbabwean indigenes had ‘invented’ a crude automatic chicken feeding system which they intended to use in a broiler production project. It appeared that these two young people were quite enthused by their prospective project for which they were seeking funding.
But on seeing it, one of the panelists, a Caucasian, remarked; “Why not just buy what is already on the market instead of making your own crude version of the real thing?
Now this is an interesting attitude and/or statement in a number of ways. Let us tease it here.
The panelist’s position comes across as being rather ambiguous. Firstly, he may have baulked at idea of having to start thinking of getting involved in innovation matters.
This is a situation that would throw him and his fellow panelists into a much more challenging scenario — that of being involved in the field of innovation — a whole area with its own challenges.
Secondly, he may have been thinking of the implications of Zimbabwe—a developing country – being involved such work.
And the subject being a Caucasian, this case presents us with its own interesting aspects in the same context. But why argue this way, you may want to know?
You see, capitalism has discriminatory tendencies, never mind what they say about the matter.
This discrimination may take a number forms — that is, racial, social, territorial, and so forth. In this discriminatory form, it has very strong international connections.
And it is not farfetched to assert that the whole system does not encourage a situation where Africans become involved in such work.
In this respect, a good number of reasons have been advanced by those parties interested in this subject. One of, if not, the major ones has to do with access to natural resources as raw materials for the world’s manufacturing systems. The developed and emerging economies would wish to have all the natural resources to themselves.
But ironically and tellingly, it is the developing countries that currently possess the major proportion of these resources in the current period.
This attitude of the developed and emerging economies, has been expressed by different people in critical positions on both sides of the divide, in ways that are not so bold and clear but furtive.
Fear and subterfuge are largely behind this state of affairs.
The major strategy of the former has been to keep developing economies on the periphery of the world economy. And sub-Saharan Africa is one of the main targets here.
So the key challenge here has always been for the developing economies’ leadership and think tanks to be able to link these strategies of the developed economies to the matter of the involvement of Africans in matters of invention and innovation. In this regard South Africa presents us with an interesting case.
To begin with, that economy is in a way, dichotomous in the sense that the indigenes are still on its periphery.
On the other hand, the South Africa whites are part of the developed economies. This state of affairs manifests itself in a number of interesting contexts. That economy has cobbled a system that welcomes FDI without being unduly worried about losing to the latter in way that other African economies do. This is because the local whites fit snuggly into the shareholding structures of the major companies therein, of which international corporations are some. Anglo-American, DeBeers, Extrata and Rembrandt are some of these
Furthermore, in the agricultural machinery industry of that country, local companies are involved with the international ones in this industry in an interesting way.
The former performs a lot of research and innovation work that has resulted in machinery modifications geared to suit local conditions in South Africa and other countries on the continent.
This situation has enabled South African inventions/innovations to enter the international economy that is largely controlled by the West, with relative ease. A good example here is Tesla’s Elon Musk.
The interesting part of these relationships is that South Africa does not lose but in fact, benefits from them. This is unlike other African countries with equally brilliant inventors, that lose both the inventor/innovator and his inventions to the West.
Sadly, the Africans themselves have come to regard their state of poverty and under development to be the norm.
Unfortunately, this state of affairs has thrown them into the short term mode — a state of existence where their attention has been directed at continually struggling to make ends meet.
This mode does not allow for long term thinking, starting at the personal level, stretching right up to the national and even regional level. One of the consequences of such a mode, are trade and current account deficits for most, if not all, developing economies of which the Africans are in the majority.
As a result, in that environment, much less attention is paid to such issues as invention and innovation — issues that are not regarded as critical therein.
This situation is further complicated by the forces that are brought to bear on the political leadership concerned. Pressure to meet the basics of life — that is food, health and shelter — are some of them. So in their quest to meet these needs, most African governments end up appealing for external assistance.
Interestingly but sadly, this assistance nearly always comes with strings attached. Curiously, these strings are aimed at subtly discouraging the governments concerned, from being involved in invention and innovation matters. To clarify matters here, let us delve into what constitutes an economic structure. This comprises the primary, secondary and tertiary industries of an economy. Primary industries comprise mainly agriculture while the secondary ones comprise manufacturing; and tertiary industries comprise service industries.
For most African—and indeed, for most economies the world over—the secondary industry stage is the most critical. No economy can effectively move onto the tertiary level without first going through the former.
The best example of this strategy of the funders are the structural adjustment programmes that have been meted out to many African governments whenever they have sought funding from the international financial institutions of which World Bank is the major one.
It will need a change of mindsets, guts and much effort on the part of the Africans, to start working towards making full use of the continent’s inventors so that they start contributing meaningfully to their mother continent.
Clifford Shambare is an economist who has qualifications in agriculture. He is a practising farmer and a business consultant and contacted at [email protected]
