Working Papers
This section includes select working papers, discussion, or background papers for official reports.
Srinivas, S. (2021) ‘Institutional Variety and Sustainable Industrial Policy’, Background paper BP13, prepared for the Industrial Development Report (IDR) 2022, Department of Policy, Research and Statistics Working Paper 20/2021, United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO): Vienna.
Many industrializing economies have multiple institutions for learning, building technological
capabilities, and for coordinating manufacturing and services. The governance of institutional
variety, and the related design of industrial policy, underpins not only how we think of
“development” in the industrial transformation process, but also defines the practical scope for
the ability of countries to adapt, recover and prepare for shocks. COVID-19 has illustrated the
disproportionate call to healthcare-focused technological capabilities, including pharmaceuticals,
diagnostics, devices and vaccines. Industrial reorganization and technological advance require a
framework of analysis and detailed industrial cases which are more relevant to diverse industrial
development paths. Read the paper here: https://www.unido.org/api/opentext/documents/download/25405859/unido-file-25405859https://www.unido.org/api/opentext/documents/download/25405859/unido-file-25405859
Watkins, A., S. Srinivas, and D. Wield (2022). ‘Emergency driven capacity building: COVID-19 and the UK’s response toward increasing critical testing capability and production of PPE’, IKD Working Paper 91, February, Open University UK
Covid-19 has forced many countries to rapidly increase their technological capabilities in diagnostics, personal protective equipment (PPE) and medicines. Global shortages of critical equipment and supplies induced by the pandemic have forced countries that traditionally import such equipment and supplies to build and ramp up their indigenous testing capacities and scale up production of PPEs. While shades of a new economic nationalism pervade much of the political discourse in support of this approach, there is surprising institutional variation in the Covid-19 industrial response of supplier countries. When viewed through an innovation system lens, we suggest that this inward focus on domestic capacity and production is actually coupled with intensified global outreach to new and existing suppliers. In particular, we look at the UK’s efforts at building their laboratory testing capabilities and for increasing production of PPE. The paper’s early findings present useful building blocks of how industrial innovation systems can effectively respond and adapt, while also exposing some limitations to the innovation systems approach, specifically concerning local health capabilities, production, and delivery.
Read the paper here: https://www.open.ac.uk/ikd/publications/working-papers/91
Srinivas, S. and D. Kale (2021). ‘New approaches to learning and regulation in medical devices and diagnostics’. IKD Working Paper 90, Open University.
The paper analyses sub-sector variation in the learning of firms, and the types of leads or lag in industrial regulation in the Indian health industry, with interesting implications for health and industrial policy. Research suggests that although firms continue to learn and innovate, persistent regulatory challenges to firms are generated by the misapplication of industrial policies to diagnostics and devices intended for pharmaceuticals and vaccines. Read the paper here: https://www.open.ac.uk/ikd/publications/working-papers/90.
Srinivas, S., Prasad, R., & Rao, P. (2020). The clinical foreground and industrial background: Customizing national strategy for COVID-19 testing, IKD Working Paper 87, Open University.
The WHO’s exhortation to countries to “Test, Test, Test!” in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented global effort to increase testing capacity for SARS–CoV-2 infection. However, there exists a notable absence of debate about national industrial customization of this testing capacity.” Using a five-layered approach to the underlying industrial complexity, the paper contributes a conceptual integration of economics with public health to illustrate the vital industrial organization of health systems. The paper is part of the IKD Working Paper series. Read the paper here: https://www.open.ac.uk/ikd/publications/working-papers/87
Srinivas, S., & Vieira Filho, J. E. R. (2015). Farms Versus Firms in Economic Development: The Assumptions and Consequences of Learning Dynamics in Agriculture and Manufacturing IPEA, Brasilia: (No. 207). Discussion Paper.
Economic development theories and their learning frameworks differently address farms and firms. This article argues that the traditional double-standard of the primacy of manufacturing rests on a debatable stages model that under-recognizes learning and innovation in agriculture and its crossover supplier segments with manufacturing. The sections analyze manufacturing bias; demand’s effects; and differences in the technological process and links between agriculture and manufacturing. It then analyzes the learning implications of two theories – unlimited labor and induced innovation – on economic development. The article concludes with the implications of the distinctive learning dynamics within and between farms and firms. An evolutionary approach has potential for understanding both manufacturing as well as agriculture, but should be more carefully extended to consider the inter-linkages between the two to extract the maximum developmental benefit. It is clear that models that connect learning and innovation to growth require closer attention and have important developmental consequences through policy design. Read more about it here: https://www.ipea.gov.br/portal/index.php?option=com_content&id=26429
Srinivas, S. (2009) Industry policy, Technological change, and the State, Background paper to the United Nations Conference of Trade and Development (UNCTAD) 2009 Least Developed Countries Report “The State and Development Governance”, Background Paper No.7, February, Geneva.
Industrial policy and innovation policies need to be strongly revitalized and focused on LDC development. Given the concentration of several LDCs in forestry, fisheries, mining, agricultural commodities, and oil, the task of these revitalized industrial policies is to support locally relevant development. Although much has been written about institutions and economic growth and development to date, the question is what aspects industrial policies should focus on in these economies. For several LDCs, even where growth is rapid, this trade-related growth has occurred without the benefits of diversification and structural change, private sector capital has been shy, and ODA continues to be a major source of financing but not necessarily directed at building productive capacities (UNCTAD, 2007; 2008). Of course, with changes in transportation or other costs, the extent of trade might diminish in the future. Nevertheless, many LDCs while enjoying elements of current growth rates of commodity exports, remain distinctly vulnerable as well. Directed industrial policies can therefore be a core instrument for developing economies that must build productive capabilities to compete in what is now a highly traded world economy (Rodrik, 2004, Haque 2007). Perhaps more importantly, industrial policies combined with ODA and social spending concerns, can form the basis of important new social compacts to improve domestic conditions. This paper attempts to lay out both a conceptual and practical approach to how these policies can be revitalized.Read more about it here: https://www.academia.edu/download/32220744/ldcr2009_srinivas_en.pdf
Wilson, P., Post, S., & Srinivas, S. (2007). R&D models: lessons from vaccine history. IAVI Policy Discussion Paper, International AIDS Vaccine Initiative.
A preventive HIV vaccine offers the best hope for ending the AIDS pandemic. Scientific evidence suggests that an HIV vaccine is possible, and funding for HIV vaccine research and development (R&D) has increased substantially in recent years. The speed of progress toward an HIV vaccine will depend on the management of the effort as well as on its scale, however, and organizational issues have been the subject of vigorous debate. With this paper, we seek to shed light on these debates by examining the history of vaccine development, as well as some examples of large R&D initiatives in other areas. We focus on two issues: the roles of the public and private sectors, and the merits and risks of strong central direction of R&D. We also consider the scientific, regulatory, and institutional changes that complicate extrapolation from past experience to the case of HIV vaccines. Our analysis draws on extensive interviews with experts in the field as well as a literature review. Read more about it here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1099495