Skip to main content

Fear and Loathing of Technological Progress? Leveraging Science and Innovation for the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Public Service Excellence in the 21st Century

Abstract

There is no questioning that scientific progress and technological innovation have been underlying drivers of the improvements in the standards of living through the history of humanity. There is also little doubt that more technological change will be needed to meet not only the challenge of continuing to increase productivity but also to enable us to transition to more sustainable patterns of production and consumption, mitigate and adapt to climate change, and continue to improve health and education. However, any discourse on technological change is always ambivalent. This chapter argues that this ambivalence is driven by overly simplistic framings of the impact of technological change, which can be described as techno-determinism. However, history shows that technological change co-evolves with economic, social, and political systems, and it never determines outcomes on its own. Still, evidence points to the breakdown of some key empirical regularities that do raise the question on whether, and how, technology can be harnessed to deliver the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The recent decrease across a wide number of countries of the labour share of income and the breakdown of the synchronous growth in average family earning and increases in labour productivity, coupled with rapid advances in automation and artificial intelligence, motivate this question. The answer proposed in this chapter is that there are two ways in which technological change can be leveraged to support the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The first is in the way in which technology, along with finance, is already recognised as one of the two key “means of implementation” of the 2030 Agenda. The second corresponds to a deeper and more fundamental perspective, in that all countries in the world, including developing countries, can have a more active and deliberate engagement with science, technology, and innovation. This second contribution implies the recognition that technology does not determine our future, but it is in our hands to invest in science, technology, and innovation and shape the policies and institutions that can harness technology for development. This kind of shift in mindset and engagement is needed to fully leverage technological innovation for the achievement of the SDGs.

This chapter is based on the keynote “Technological Innovation and the Sustainable Development Goals: Delivering the SDGs and Strengthening Citizens’ Trust in Government”, delivered by Pedro Conceição to the International Conference on Disruptive Technologies and the Public Service (Singapore, 29 September 2017). The views are of the author and not of UNDP. I would like to thank Max Everest-Philips, Balazs Horvath, Esuna Dugarova, Mariangela Parra-Lacourt, Marcelo Lafleur, Barry Hughes, Lars Jensen, Poon King Wang, Bruce Jenks, Manuel Heitor, Dennis Pamlin, Andrew Thompson, Stuart Taberner, and participants in the Expert Group Meeting on “Advancing the 2030 Agenda: Interlinkages and Common Themes at the HLPF 2018”, held at UN Headquarters from 25 to 26 January 2018, for their comments and views.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    National Commission on Technology, Automation, and Economic Progress Report, p. xii.

  2. 2.

    National Commission on Technology, Automation, and Economic Progress Report, p. 100.

  3. 3.

    See, for instance, this debate between two columnists in the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/09/business/economy/a-future-without-jobs-two-views-of-the-changing-work-force.html

  4. 4.

    In 2015, the international community agreed on the global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for the next 15 years. This highly ambitious “2030 Agenda” sets out 17 goals, 169 targets, and 231 indicators covering every aspect of development. The 2030 Agenda presents a radical new approach, focusing on the integrated pillars of Sustainable Development: economic, social, and environmental. It is universal, includes issues such as inequality and peace and security, democratic governance, tackling corruption, promoting participation, access to information and other human rights, and institutional capacity which were not part of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) framework.

  5. 5.

    Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development, http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/AAAA_Outcome.pdf

  6. 6.

    http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/ffdconf/

  7. 7.

    I am grateful to Balazs Horvath for this paragraph.

  8. 8.

    What happened during those millennia was a long process over which our ancestors “experimented” over hundreds of years with multiple, hybrid, approaches to finding and producing food. In fact, the Mesopotamian alluvium—which at the time was not a desert between two rivers, like today, but characterised by vast wetlands and marshes—was the ideal setting for this kind of experimentation, given that it has larger variations in rainfall and vegetation over short distances than anywhere else in the world, along with very high seasonal variations in rainfall. And here, as in the upper Nile, it was possible to practise “recession farming” that was less taxing on the use of labour to prepare the land for cultivation, relying instead on the periodic river floods, which, after receding, left the land readily prepared for planting.

  9. 9.

    One of the first was Uruk, in Southern Mesopotamia, the largest city in the world by 3200 BC, with between 25,000 and 50,000 inhabitants.

  10. 10.

    Forced labour was used not only for agriculture but also to build city walls and monuments.

  11. 11.

    See also Grűbler (1998).

  12. 12.

    This is an oversimplification of the process involved in determining the allocation of income between labour and capital, given that this allocation is determined by the elasticity of substitution between the two, which, in turn, is influenced by the set of technologies of production available.

  13. 13.

    The result should be interpreted with caution as the analysis uses as a measure for technology “the relative price of investment versus consumption goods”, which is also likely to be driven highly by trade and other non-tech factors. I am grateful to Lars Jensen for this point.

  14. 14.

    Which, together with household and government savings, equal national savings.

  15. 15.

    For instance, Odusula, Cornia, Bhorat, and Conceição (2017), for the case of Africa.

  16. 16.

    See also the discussion in the next section.

  17. 17.

    https://thinkprogress.org/stunner-lowest-price-solar-power-f3b620d04010/

  18. 18.

    https://thinkprogress.org/renewables-projected-to-crush-fossil-fuels-f6670e3792df/

  19. 19.

    I am grateful to Marcelo Lafleur for this point.

References

  • Ananat, Elizabeth O.; Anna Gassman-Pines; Dania V. Francis; and Christina M. Gibson-Davis. 2017. “Linking Job Loss, Inequality, Mental Health, and Education.” Science. 356 (6343): 1127–1128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Autor, David; and Anna Salomons. 2017. Does Productivity Growth Threaten Employment? https://www.ecbforum.eu/uploads/originals/2017/speakers/papers/D_Autor_A_Salomons_Does_productivity_growth_threaten_employment_Final_Draft_20170619.pdf

  • Bloom, Nicholas; Charles I. Jones; John Van Reenen; and Michael Webb. 2017. “Are Ideas Harder to Find?”. NBER Working Paper No 23782.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceballos, Gerardo; Paul R. Ehrlich; and Rodolfo Dirzo. 2017. “Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 114: E6089–E6096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conceição, Pedro; and Manuel V. Heitor. 2007. “Diversity and integration of science and technology policies”. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 74 (1): 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conceição, Pedro; Manuel V. Heitor; and Bengt-Ake Lundvall (Eds.). 2003. Innovation, Competence Building, and Social Cohesion in Europe – Towards a Learning Society. London: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Peter; Loukas Karabarbounis; and Brent Neiman. 2017. “The Global Rise of Corporate Saving” Journal of Monetary Economics. 89: 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • David, Paul. 1990. “The Dynamo and the Computer: An Historical Perspective on the Modern Productivity Paradox”. American Economic Review, 80 (2): 255–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Loecker, Jan; and Jan Eeckhout. 2017. “The Rise of Market Power and the Macroeconomic Implications”. NBER Working Paper No 23687.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, Christopher; and Carlotta Perez. 1990. “The Diffusion of Technological Innovations and Changes of Techno-economic Paradigm”. In F. Arcangeli et al (Eds.). The Diffusion of New Technologies. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, Uri. 2016. “Trust in Government is Collapsing around the World”. The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/07/trust-institutions-trump-brexit/489554/

  • Grűbler, Arnulf. 1998. Technology and Social Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Labour Organisation. 2015. Global Wage Report. Wages and Income Inequality. Geneva: ILO.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Monetary Fund. 2017a. World Economic Outlook. April. Washington, DC: IMF.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Monetary Fund. 2017b. Fiscal Monitor. Tackling Inequality. Washington, DC: IMF

    Google Scholar 

  • Jason Furman. 2014. Global Lessons for Inclusive Growth. Presentation to the Institute of International and European Affairs. Dublin, Ireland, May 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kakkara, Hemant; and Niro Sivanathan. 2017. “When the Appeal of a Dominant Leader is Greater that a Prestige Leader.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 114 (26): 6734–6739.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loukas Karabarbounis; and Brent Neiman. 2014. “The Global Decline in the Labour Share.” NBER Working Paper No. 19136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzucato, Mariana. 2015. The Entrepreneurial State. New York: Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Commission on Technology, Automation, and Economic Progress. 1966. Report xii. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924050772056;view=1up;seq=14

  • Nordhaus, William D. 2015. “Are we Approaching and Economic Singularity? Information Technology and the Future of Economic Growth”. NBER Working Paper No 21547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odusula, Ayodele; Giovanni Andrea Cornia; Haroon Bhorat. and Pedro Conceição (Eds.). 2017. Income Inequality Trends in sub-Saharan Africa: Divergence, Determinants and Consequences. New York: United Nations Development Programme.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. 2017. Employment Outlook. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, Karl. 1944. The Great Transformation. New York: Farrar & Rinehart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perez, Carlotta. 2009. “The Double Bubble at the Turn of the Century: Technological Roots and Structural Implications”. Cambridge Journal of Economics. 33: 779–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrik, Dani. 2015. “Premature Deindustrialisation”. NBER Working Paper No 20935.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, James C. 2017. Against the Grain. A Deep History of the Earliest States. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, Joseph E. 2017. “Structural Transformation, Deep Downturns, and Government Policy”, NBER Working Paper No 23794.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2017. “The impact of the technological revolution on labour markets and income distribution”. New York: UN DESA.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Development Programme. 2017. “Income Inequality Trends in sub-Saharan Africa: Divergence, Determinants and Consequences”. (Eds.). Ayodele Odusola, Giovanni Andrea Cornia, Haroon Bhorat and Pedro Conceição. New York: UNDP.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations; and World Bank. 2017. Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. 2016. World Development Report: Digital Dividends. Washington, DC: World Bank: 23, Figure O.18.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pedro Conceição .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Conceição, P. (2019). Fear and Loathing of Technological Progress? Leveraging Science and Innovation for the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In: Baimenov, A., Liverakos, P. (eds) Public Service Excellence in the 21st Century. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3215-9_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics