• No results found

5. Empirical results

5.1. Policy and institutional frameworks

5.1.1. A brief description of the policy environment in Rwanda Policies, institutional frameworks, policy networks, and policymaking processes are major components of the policy environment that defines policy success. However, these components are context-dependent and can either accelerate or hamper the development process, depending on how good or bad they are. A level of synergy, coherence, and coordination across policies is important in a policy network if one wishes to achieve positive policy outcomes. However, success also depends on the level of the actors’

engagement and the degree of interaction within their networks (Borrás 2011;

Chaminade and Lundvall 2019). In the Rwandan context, policies build on the

basic principles set out by the Rwandan constitution, which also set the stage for the aspirations and values of Rwandan society. This policy background is accompanied by long-term visions that are implemented through medium-term and short-term programs and plans. An example is Vision 2020, initiated in 2000 and implemented through the EDPRS I & II as major short-term strategies. Vision 2050 has now been launched in conjunction with the National Transformation Strategy I as a bridging strategy between Vision 2020 and Vision 2050 (MINECOFIN 2012; 2013; 2017; 2020).

The policymaking process is embedded in the government system, which is considered to be decentralized from the organizational point of view. Each policy is approved by the cabinet and is assigned a custodian ministry in charge of the policy development process since many policies affect socio-economic issues (for example, education, agriculture, industry, environment, and healthcare). Policies are implemented by a wide range of actors, including state and non-state actors (for example, NGOs and Community Based Organizations). There exist administrative structures from the national level down to the village level, including the national level, provincial level, district level, sector level, cell level, and village level. These administrative structures are expected to accommodate the flow of policy actions. However, a multilevel network of actors becomes a challenge, to some extent, when policy incoherence and conflicts arise. For example, policy conflicts between agricultural policy and environmental policy may arise (Van Oosten et al.

2018). This is a consequence of the low level of engagement between the various stakeholders and the limited number of avenues for interaction and policy consultation. Official meetings and workshops are the most popular means of consultation. However, they are seen by non-state actors as pre-determined ‘consultations’ with intended outcomes already decided upon. This circumstance makes it challenging to conduct open debates and welcome new (sometimes controversial) ideas.

Although I note a policy implementation structure that aims for decentralization, several stakeholders I interviewed still perceive the policy-making process as a top-down process and (ultimately) state-driven. Some hold the view that policies are made with the high ambition of integrating with global systems before local issues are dealt with. This view emphasizes the lack of systematic evidence-based policymaking at different levels, including the national level and institutional level (Paper III elaborates on this problem).

As pointed out by STI policymakers and researchers, there have been cases of policy failure that can be associated with the way a policy was formed. An example can be seen in education policy instruments that are subject to

repeated changes. Consequently, the education policy is seen by stakeholders as inconsistent and not responsive to the labour market. With this view, bottom-up approaches for policymaking can reduce policy failures and conflicts and promote inclusivity, coherence, and proper coordination.

5.1.2. The STI framework: Policies, funding and human capital Efforts have been made in establishing STI policies and their instruments to advance the production and use of scientific knowledge for socio-economic development in Rwanda. The initial National Education Sector Policy of 1998 was a point of departure in reviving the Rwandan education sector after the tragedy of the Genocide against the Tutsi in 1994 (UNESCO 2014). This policy paved the way for other policies that followed to take a broad sector approach. In 2003, a new education sector policy was developed. Further considerations were made for developing other specialized subsector policies which were aimed at enhancing the production and use of scientific knowledge (MoESTSR 2003). The National Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy of 2006 is one policy that was developed in order to provide a vision and avenues for STI promotion in Rwanda (Murenzi and Hughes 2006). These efforts in developing policies were accompanied by the development of policy instruments that would ensure their implementation. However, STI professionals and researchers who were interviewed for this study perceived that the implementation of policies was slow due to an overlap in policy goals, a lack of human capacity, a lack of financial means, low levels of collaboration between actors, and the lack of a comprehensive institutional framework for coordination. There is a shared view among STI stakeholders (particularly researchers) that all of these challenges are based on the fact that most policies are developed by international consultants who do not understand the Rwandan context and that these policies do not actively engage policy beneficiaries in the policy development process.

Structures have been established to ensure the coordination of STI activities in Rwanda. These structures facilitate interactions between stakeholders and support the implementation of activities relevant to the overall goal of producing and using scientific knowledge for development. These structures have faced a series of reviews and restructuring to achieve stability and delivery of policy goals (UNESCO 2015). Over an extended period, all of the activities related to STI were overseen by the Ministry of Education (MINEDUC) until 2017, when the National Council for Science and

Technology (NCST) was given the mandate to coordinate national Research, Science, Technology, and Innovation activities.

Several entities are in charge of promoting R&D and STI in specific sectors to support this national coordination body. These include the National Industrial Research Development Agency (NIRDA), the Rwanda Agriculture and Animal Resource Development Board (RAB), the Rwanda Biomedical Centre (RBC), and the Rwanda Standard Board (RSB). All of these public agencies have missions that focus on either research and technology transfer (RAB and RBC), industrial development (NIRDA), and certification and standardization (RSB). Nevertheless, there is a lack of collaboration between these entities.

This gap can be observed through the lack of joint initiatives, the lack of policy dialogue platforms, the lack of awareness of available policies, and a lack of resources and capacities directed at collaboration in these agencies.

As for human capital development, the higher education system plays a central role in matching local development needs. This role is part of the Rwandan strategic action plan to make STI a core driver for development. The Rwandan education sector provides ever-increasing opportunities for higher learning institutions to operate in Rwanda, and it stimulates competitiveness amongst graduates in the labour market. This competitiveness is achieved by promoting technical education through polytechnics that can produce suitably qualified human resources for local industries. In addition to this, research centres of excellence have been developed at different universities as a means to enable high-quality research activities that are responsive to society’s demands. This initiative was associated with prioritizing efforts for research capacity building, even though the number of qualified and active researchers is still low compared to society’s expectations regarding research production.

According to a research and development survey of 2015-20165 , the most active researchers in the higher education sector were MSc holders (44%), and only 22% of active researchers held a PhD degree (NCST 2020b).

STI funding remains a core element for supporting the production and use of knowledge for socio-economic development. In Rwanda, STI funding has been driven by international funding through collaboration agreements and loans.

Examples are the education and research capacity-building initiative under the bilateral collaboration between Sweden and Rwanda through the University of Rwanda since 2002 and the collaboration between the Dutch Government and

5 This are updated data for the most recent R&D survey, compared to the data I used in Paper I that is for the R&D survey covering 2013-2014. Paper I was published before the most recent R&D survey report was published.

Rwanda. In addition to this, loans from the African Development Bank and the World Bank have played an important role in R&D infrastructure development. Besides these valued initiatives, Rwanda has started to build its own internal research funding by establishing the National Research and Innovation Fund. R&D investment has increased from 0.2% of the national GDP in 2014 (reference period 2013-2014) to 0.66% of the national GDP in 2016 (UNESCO 2015; NCST 2020b). The commitment for R&D investment funding was 1% by 2020 and has promised to be 4% by 2050 (Gatare, 2016).

The current share of the GDP for R&D seems to be small compared to practices in developed countries where R&D investments have increased. Another core issue is how these ambitious commitments to R&D funding will be achieved, in addition to the donor-led research funding. The involvement of the business sector in research funding is another challenge that needs particular attention and appropriate strategies to deal with it.

5.2. The construction process of the National