Advertisement

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

  • Pedro ConceiçãoEmail author
Chapter

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.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bloom, Nicholas; Charles I. Jones; John Van Reenen; and Michael Webb. 2017. “Are Ideas Harder to Find?”. NBER Working Paper No 23782.Google Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Conceição, Pedro; and Manuel V. Heitor. 2007. “Diversity and integration of science and technology policies”. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 74 (1): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Chen, Peter; Loukas Karabarbounis; and Brent Neiman. 2017. “The Global Rise of Corporate Saving” Journal of Monetary Economics. 89: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. De Loecker, Jan; and Jan Eeckhout. 2017. “The Rise of Market Power and the Macroeconomic Implications”. NBER Working Paper No 23687.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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/
  11. Grűbler, Arnulf. 1998. Technology and Social Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. International Labour Organisation. 2015. Global Wage Report. Wages and Income Inequality. Geneva: ILO.Google Scholar
  13. International Monetary Fund. 2017a. World Economic Outlook. April. Washington, DC: IMF.Google Scholar
  14. International Monetary Fund. 2017b. Fiscal Monitor. Tackling Inequality. Washington, DC: IMFGoogle Scholar
  15. Jason Furman. 2014. Global Lessons for Inclusive Growth. Presentation to the Institute of International and European Affairs. Dublin, Ireland, May 7.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Loukas Karabarbounis; and Brent Neiman. 2014. “The Global Decline in the Labour Share.” NBER Working Paper No. 19136.Google Scholar
  18. Mazzucato, Mariana. 2015. The Entrepreneurial State. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. OECD. 2017. Employment Outlook. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  23. Polanyi, Karl. 1944. The Great Transformation. New York: Farrar & Rinehart.Google Scholar
  24. Perez, Carlotta. 2009. “The Double Bubble at the Turn of the Century: Technological Roots and Structural Implications”. Cambridge Journal of Economics. 33: 779–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rodrik, Dani. 2015. “Premature Deindustrialisation”. NBER Working Paper No 20935.Google Scholar
  26. Scott, James C. 2017. Against the Grain. A Deep History of the Earliest States. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Stiglitz, Joseph E. 2017. “Structural Transformation, Deep Downturns, and Government Policy”, NBER Working Paper No 23794.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. United Nations; and World Bank. 2017. Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  31. World Bank. 2016. World Development Report: Digital Dividends. Washington, DC: World Bank: 23, Figure O.18.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.United Nations Development ProgrammeNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations