The Role Of Government In Supporting R&D

In many ways a government could be regarded as a macro business enterprise. Its shareholders are its peoples, the productivity of the nation depends on them, and, indeed, the profits or losses of a nation's balance sheet can be linked to the surplus or deficit in its balance of payments. International loans need to be repaid, and in most developing nations the noose is tied so tightly that one wonders if such debts will ever be repaid. In their endeavour to meet such obligations, their currencies may be devalued [sometimes in frightening proportions], in the hope of boosting the export potential. However, this is a vicious circle, since exports will not be achievable unless sufficient technical expertise and infrastructure exist to address the opportunities which may have been created through devaluation. Many of the poorer countries have exportable resources of minerals, which are supplied on the international market. This may be the good news, but, unhappily, steps were seldom taken to enhance the value of the mineral products through further beneficiation and the production of high-value sophisticated products. That is where the vicious circle comes in: inadequate infrastructure is created, competent and well-trained manpower is not generated, and the result has inevitably been that the GDP slips backwards, and the nation becomes progressively impoverished. To exacerbate the problem, it is unfortunate that the more impoverished a nation becomes, the greater is its birthrate, and hence the greater the need to create wealth at the very time that the nation is becoming poorer and poorer. Within this scenario, one may well reflect that this is exactly what nations on the African Continent are experiencing, namely exploding populations, although most of the poorest nations in the world are found on this continent. Yet they often possess a superior mineral production potential. Africa still suffers from what may be called the colonial influence, in that the developed world has regarded this continent as a source of raw materials to feed its own factories. The colonial powers gave only secondary attention to developing the nation's peoples and its infrastructure, such as railways, roads, harbours, and other services. These problems all naturally fall within the ambit of government interest, and it is therefore obvious that the state should play a dominant role in addressing them. The reasons for governmental involvement in mineral-related research and development differ considerably, depending on the state of industrial development of that country. Thus, in the highly industrialised world, government's interest will lie mostly in the fields of strategic minerals, which may not be economically exploitable. An example would be the exploitation of American low-grade chromites during the Second World War, or minerals which need to be imported from unfriendly or unreliable sources, such that disruption would not be in the national interest. Colonial powers like the United Kingdom and France established R&D facilities to assist, inter alia, in the exploitation of mineral resources in their colonies. The approach of developing countries would differ from that of the industrialised nations, in that their primary quest would be to promote, support and encourage the development of infrastructure, and the establishment of major industries in order to create and provide employment opportunities, as well as to support small operators who cannot afford to undertake their own research and development. On the debit side, it is a sad fact that, however good their intentions may be, underdeveloped countries are invariably unable to provide the requisite financial support to sustain their own research-and-development laboratories. In a high-tech world, the cost of sophisticated equipment is steep and cannot be afforded. Again, the proverbial vicious circle comes into play. The competent researchers find themselves without rewarding employment and would therefore shun such institutions. Recent trends in the developed world have been to privatise research-and-development institutions, the argument being that they should draw closer to the industry they serve, and that the provision of taxpayers' money for strategic purposes is no longer as important as it may have been once. Complete state withdrawal has had its negative effect in that long-range, high-calibre research has tended to be replaced by short-term problem-solving projects. Industries engaged in the minerals business differ somewhat from major ones, like motor, computer or pharmaceutical industries, which are large enough to support their own internal research and development, and whose work is highly confidential, so that any leakage could have disastrous consequences. Furthermore, private companies are answerable to their shareholders and costly long-range, 'blue-sky' research would be difficult to justify. Since mineral research has become of lesser importance in the sophisticated First World, this trend has persisted. On the positive side, R&D institutions which are totally financed by government, suffer because they tend to forget the reason for their existence. They have often become a form of auxiliary to an academic institution where higher degrees are collected by scientific boffins who, in their quest for academic excellence, tend to disregard the benefits that industry may ultimately gain from this research endeavour. The trend in recent years - and South Africa is no exception - has been for the state to progressively reduce its subsidy, whilst at the same time encouraging research organisations [for their ongoing survival] to interact closely with industry, and to conduct work directly for them on a contract basis. Organisations such as CSIRO in Australia, CANMET in Canada, the USBM in the United States and Mintek in South Africa all generate income from the private sector. However, the critical fact is that the State should never withdraw