World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, Vol. 1, No.

1, 2004

Science, technology and sustainable development:

a world review
Allam Ahmed
Strategic and International Management, East London Business School,
University of East London, Longbridge Road, Dagenham,
Essex RM8 2AS, UK
Fax: +44 (0) 20 8223 2899
E-mail: a.ahmed@uel.ac.uk

Josephine Anne Stein

School of Cultural and Innovation Studies, University of East London,
Docklands Campus / East Building,
4-6 University Way, London E16 2RD, UK
Fax: +44 (0) 20 8223 7595
E-mail: j.a.stein@uel.ac.uk
Abstract: This paper explores global viewpoints on the state of science,
technology and sustainable development (SD). The objective of this paper is to
provide an overview of SD and why it is important, and to provoke forward
thinking on the development of a more coherent approach to solving global
problems related to sustainability. In doing so, a holistic approach is used to
critically examine the inter-relationship between the natural, the governmental,
the economic and the social dimensions of our world, and how science and
technology can contribute to solutions. A framework for understanding and
acting upon these solutions is presented, taking into account a variety of
international, institutional and intellectual perspectives. The aim is to address
growing concerns for the future of our interlocked ecological, political and
economic systems in a highly populated world that is characterised by major
social and economic disparities.
Keywords: science; technology; sustainable development; policy; production;
consumption; environment; governments; world; developing countries;
developed countries; societies.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Ahmed, A. and Stein, J.A.
(2004) Science, technology and sustainable development: a world review,
World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, Vol. 1,
No. 1, pp.524.
Biographical notes: Dr. Allam Ahmed is a Senior Lecturer of Strategic and
International Management in the University of East London, UK. Allam is a
Full Member and Chartered Marketer of the Chartered Institute of Marketing
and Graduate Member of the Institute of Agricultural Management, UK.
He was awarded the RAC College Book Prize for Best MSc/MBA Dissertation
and has published in a wide range of national and international academic
journals. His current research interests focus on globalisation and international
business, technology transfer and management, productivity gap analysis and
modelling, strategic management and government macroeconomic policies,
industry and SD and economic development.

Copyright 2004 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

A. Ahmed and J.A. Stein

Dr Josephine Anne Stein is a Principal Research Fellow in Innovation Studies
at the University of East London, UK. She studied engineering and held an
Instructorship at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and worked for
NASA as a cryogenic/aerospace engineer. She was an S&T analyst for the US
Congress and the European Commission. Her current research focuses on
policies for sustainable technological innovation, relationships between
international S&T cooperation and foreign policy, and the emergence of a
European system of innovation. She guest edited a recent special issue of
Science and Public Policy on Globalisation, science, technology and policy.

Introduction

Science and technology are considered amongst the most effective means to enhance
growth and socio-economic development of nations. Technological development has a
profound and long-term impact on income distribution, economic growth, employment,
trade, environment, industrial structure and defence and security matters (Stoneman,
1987). The acquisition and use of science and technology (S&T) are critical for the
achievement and sustenance of food security, as well as the promotion of public health
and environmental quality. The importance of science and technology to modern
societies, and the role of a technologically educated population in promoting social and
economic development, has long been recognised (UN, 2002; 2002a). At the same time,
modernisation, if not properly managed, can exacerbate risk and its unequal social and
geographical distribution (Beck, 1986), can also widen disparities in personal incomes
and well-being (Wyatt et al., 2000).
The scientific and technological community can make a leading contribution to
tackling major problems, such as fighting disease; overpopulation and urbanisation; the
digital/information divide and the impacts of information technology systems on world
financial markets; coping with climate change; confronting the water crisis; defending the
soil; preserving forests, fisheries and biodiversity; trade in biotechnological products and
building a new ethic of global stewardship (National Research Council, 1999; Stein,
1999; UN, 2002). The universalism of science, and the globalisation of technological
production and trade, offer unprecedented opportunities for focused cooperation by
scientists and engineers, and the institutions that employ them, to further progress on SD
(Stein, 2002).
The complex relationship between the economy, society and the environment and
scientific knowledge requires a multi-disciplinary approach, and calls for skilled
communication to be able to address technological issues as well as the political
framework within which problem solving necessarily takes place. At all levels, the role of
science and technology is crucial; scientific knowledge and appropriate technologies are
central to resolving the economic, social and environmental problems that make current
development paths unsustainable. Bridging the development gap between the North and
the South, and alleviating poverty to provide a more equitable and sustainable future for
all, require novel integrated approaches that fully incorporate existing and new scientific
knowledge. A clear implication of this is that international cooperation in S&T, from
small cross-border research projects to global-scale coordination, must be considered as a
key tool for enhancing SD.

Science, technology and sustainable development: a world review

There have been innumerable attempts (books, journal, networks, organisations) over
the last 40 years to examine the subject of SD, bringing more than one hundred
definitions, concepts, perspectives, concerns and solutions for SD. But how they relate to
each other and provide a clear understanding of our common future still remain a key
question to be addressed. The SD problematique is strongly influenced by the
institutional culture in which international discussions have taken place. The World
Bank, for example, uses the discourse of financial, physical, human, social and natural
capital in its conceptualisation of SD. The development goals of UN are expressed in
terms of human and environmental well-being, couched in terms of major issue areas
(e.g. health, food, water, energy and the environment) and in the context of international
partnership. The Brundtland Commission report on Our Common Future (WCED,
1987) focuses on institutional imperatives in addressing SD issues, including political,
economic, social and administrative systems. The Brundtland Report explicitly addresses
the matter of production and technological systems, but without anchoring the discussion
in the realities of the patchy, embryonic state of global S&T cooperation.
It is significant that embedding SD into mainstream policies for international
cooperation in science and technology has been underdeveloped, particularly at the global
level. However, it is just as significant that where major partnerships in S&T exist
between developed and developing countries, SD issues are often in the forefront, often
in the context of technical aid to the developing countries (Stein, 2002a). What this
approach fails to achieve, however, is systematic knowledge transfer between and
amongst countries that are not directly involved in such cooperative ventures. It also
presupposes a model of innovation as emerging from the developed world to be
subsequently adapted by the developing world, whereas the reality of innovation is far
more complex and evenly distributed than typically acknowledged by the donor
countries.
Globalisation of science and technology has been dominated by bottom-up
processes, driven largely by purely scientific dynamics or commercial considerations,
neither of which is particularly well suited to defining or addressing sustainability
objectives. In international terms, SD is primarily a matter for the public sphere, and
cooperation in science and technology provides the most important vehicle for
implementing a SD agenda globally. Effective dissemination of knowledge about science,
technology and SD is also critically important for the application of solutions at local and
regional level. This implies a need for a knowledge infrastructure, which extends to all
parts of the world, the highly industrialised as well as the underdeveloped. World Review
of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development aims to bring together globally
dispersed knowledge on SD and to make it available on a realistic basis to scholars and
other interested parties around the world.

Globalisation of science and technology

Globalisation of science and technology is associated with the political economy of the
late 20th and early 21st century, driven both by phenomenal growth in international trade
and by dramatic improvements in information and communication technologies,
combined with the growing accessibility of information worldwide over the internet
(Castells, 2000). However, although the advantages of international cooperation,
particularly in the basic sciences or in areas related to the responsibilities of the public

A. Ahmed and J.A. Stein

sector have been well documented (Georghiou, 1998), there remain many barriers to
systematic cooperation in science. Strategic technological alliances amongst firms and
the development of dispersed innovation networks can be beneficial to firms operating in
a globalising business environment (ETAN, 1998). Yet, from a policy perspective,
national (or regional or European) investments in R&D must be justified in terms of
identifiable national benefits. Foreign participation in publicly funded R&D remains a
perennially controversial topic (Reid and Schriesheim, 1996; OECD, 1997) with intricate
(and sometimes inconsistent) policies supporting or restricting international cooperation.
Pooling resources has been achieved in the context of European Union integration and
enlargement, but still constitutes a very small fraction (about 5%) of EUR-15/EEA
national expenditure on civil R&D.
The most important example of systematic, global expert input to policy is,
significantly, in the area of the environment: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). The impacts of global warming extend to all countries of the world, not
only the coastal nations, and without concerted attention and cooperation in problem
solving global sustainability is impossible. Even with strong, agreed scientific evidence
of serious potential global threat, it has not proven easy to translate the results of the
IPCC process into policies for SD, and IPCC does not itself sponsor scientific research.
In other areas, global cooperation is facing significant challenges as well, and the
inclusion of SD objectives is sporadic and uneven.
The UN provides an important framework for international scientific cooperation,
especially through its agencies (UNESCO, FAO, UNIDO, IAEA, WHO). Much of the
UNs work is related to technical assistance and supports the renormalisation of
international relations in a postcolonial world (Desai, 1997), but its scope is limited and
has suffered from disagreements and management difficulties. However, the UNs role
has recently been bolstered by US President George W. Bushs announcement in
September 2002 that the USA would rejoin UNESCO after an absence of 18 years
(Outlook on Science Policy, 2002), a development that has budgetary as well as political
significance. Other primarily non-scientific organisations, such as the OECD, and
especially through its Global Science Forum, are engaged with discussions between
scientists, policy researchers and national representatives, through which further
initiatives may emerge.

2.1 North America

The USA has the worlds largest, and arguably the sole remaining truly national system
of innovation amongst the highly developed countries in the early 21st century (Lardo,
2002). As the worlds only remaining superpower, USA has been able to afford
investment in sustainable technologies and to enjoy a very high standard of living for the
majority of its citizens. Its attitudes towards international collaboration are conditioned
by the fact that USA has been largely self-sufficient as a nation as well as a world leader
in the production and application of new knowledge. American perspectives on US S&T
policy in the 1980s often stressed the economic and security basis for restricting foreign
access to Federally funded R&D and export controls (National Research Council, 1987),
a situation echoed by recent concerns over terrorism and security. The US refusal to
accept limits on greenhouse gas emissions on the basis of economic protectionism has
frustrated attempts to implement global agreements on global warming. At the same time,
US scientific and technological strength owes a great deal to the contributions of foreign

Science, technology and sustainable development: a world review

students and immigrants, whose ties with their home countries and their cosmopolitanism
stimulates international collaboration (Zinberg, 1991). Yet restrictions on foreign
nationals access to scientific and technological knowledge in areas of commercial as
well as military sensitivity has had echoes even in the academic world.
Internationalism amongst the US scientific community found its voice with a
groundswell in the 1990s that led to demands for more opportunities for international
cooperation along with pressure on the government to strengthen its S&T capacity in
foreign policy making (National Research Council, 1999; Carnegie Commission on
Science, Technology and Government, 1992). However, the policy context inherited from
the previous decades has left the US constrained in its capacity to undertake integrated
international R&D. With the exception of NASA, international scientific cooperation in
Federal agencies can only be undertaken to fulfill explicitly national objectives.
Norman Neureiter was appointed as the first Science and Technology Adviser to the
US Secretary of State in 2000, responsible for improving the integration of S&T into US
foreign policy. In a speech in October, 2000 (Neureiter, 2000), he described a borderless
world in which global problems needed to enlist S&T in support of a sustainable global
society. Although he didnt go so far as to imply that solutions lay in international S&T
cooperation, the discourse suggested an increased commitment to international
understanding and greater attention to informed, negotiated solutions to world
problems. Neureiter also called for advice from the American S&T community whose
internationalism had been responsible for the creation of his job in the first place. Coming
from the heart of the US diplomatic establishment, the speech signalled a new,
progressive and open approach.
In the post-September 11 climate, however, the USA has reassessed its position on
the need to control access to scientific and technological knowledge, and the tensions
between internationalism and protectionism appear to be (re)complicating the
relationships between science, technology and international cooperation.
The USAs neighbour to the north, Canada, views its international S&T activities and
policies in a different way. Dufour (2002) describes how, on the one hand, interaction
with global knowledge and innovation networks is a linchpin of Canadian strategy to
secure comparative national advantage, and how, on the other hand, Canada takes
international S&T into account in formulating its foreign policy. Indeed, Canada
recognises the need to internationalise S&T-related aspects of policy making where
global issues are at stake, and is prepared to sacrifice national sovereignty if necessary.
Canada is a highly advanced country and a G-7 member. While Canada plays a
prominent role in international organisations, such as the OECD Global Science Forum,
its decentralised decision making on international S&T at the domestic level is, according
to Dufour, a serious weakness. Furthermore, there has been a recognition that Canada has
suffered as a result of pulling back or out of international cooperative programmes during
the budget cutbacks of the 1990s. The Advisory Council on S&T issued a major report in
2000 on the importance of situating Canadian S&T in a more global context,
recommending a more coherent and committed approach to international S&T
cooperation and intelligence gathering through diplomatic channels (ACST, 2000).
At the same time, Canada has become increasingly active in S&T partnerships with the
developing world, recognising that sustainability is bound with global interdependence.

10

A. Ahmed and J.A. Stein

2.2 South East Asia

The position of countries in the Far East that are now technologically advanced has been
more a question of managing a catching-up process. Japans post-war success in
absorbing Western technology and its emergence as a major economic power led, in the
1980s, to major trade-related disputes with the USA and other countries. The Human
Frontier Science Program and the Intelligent Manufacturing Systems Programme began
as Japanese initiatives designed to improve its national scientific capacity through
international cooperation, while working to improve international relations through joint
production and sharing of knowledge (Stein, 1999). The Japanese National Environment
Agency plays a leading role in global environmental research. Japan cooperates
considerably with developing countries (often in tropical regions) and with the US on
bioremediation technologies. Much Asia/Pacific cooperation is included in Japans
capacity building research category, in common with patterns of cooperation between
developed and developing countries in the rest of the world.
Like Japan, Korea developed rapidly into an advanced economy; Chung (2002) traces
an evolutionary trajectory whereby a poor recipient of foreign aid transformed its
economic position and reached the stage of being a global actor in S&T in only four
decades. He explains why Koreas unfavourable geopolitical position and lack of natural
resources made international S&T linkages with Japan, and later with the USA and
European countries, so important to its economic development. Chung describes how
Koreas industrialisation phase depended on informal international S&T linkages backed
up by domestic absorptive capacity based on a well-educated workforce; acquisition of
technology and reverse engineering being key elements of this strategy. Once the
economy reached a certain stage of development, however, international S&T
cooperation acquired a more balanced and reciprocal character, backed up by both
domestic initiatives and international programmes. But difficulties for developing
countries, even those well along the development pathway, persist. During the 1960s and
1970s, Korea benefited from an international community that was tolerant towards
protectionism in developing countries, which is no longer the case today. Korea
encountered various difficulties in participating in some of the major international S&T
cooperative programmes, some due to mismatches between national and international
scientific structures and others due to difficulties in securing membership in international
organisations; these factors are common to most other developing countries. Chung
identifies additional barriers to participation in international programmes by developing
countries, concluding is the presence of mutual interest in adopting flexible policies that
maximise participation in multilateral S&T cooperation.

2.3 Europe
The European Community as a whole has the highly complex job of coordinating policy
development with respect to its Member States and the rest of the world. With ten new
members having joined the European Union on May 1, 2004, priority has been placed on
integrating and consolidating intra-European S&T cooperation. Much of this cooperation
has been oriented towards the achievement of environmental and other standards related
to sustainability in the new Member States in order to meet targets for compliance with
existing European Community directives and regulations.

Science, technology and sustainable development: a world review

11

Intra-European scientific cooperation, and then technological cooperation, arose in

the aftermath of the Second World War with the stimulus of external scientific and
economic competition (Stein, 2002a). The architecture and norms of European
Community S&T cooperation reflect the integrative forces of widening and deepening
that together define the essence of intra-European integration. With the European
Research Area (European Commission, 2000) implementing greater coordination
between the EU as a whole and its constituent members, all 25 Member States have to
negotiate their way through an even more complex set of national and European
considerations.
European Community cooperation with non-European countries tends to focus on
fields of S&T such as agriculture and medicine, that are intrinsic to SD, and Member
States (Eur 15) with S&T cooperation partnerships with countries outside of Europe tend
to focus similarly on SD-related issues. According to the INCOPOL (INternational
COoperation POLicy) exercise that reviewed Member States and European Economic
Area countries S&T cooperation schemes with non-European countries, roughly 750
MECU was spent in 1996 by the 18 European countries on these schemes, about six
times the European-level expenditure (Rhode and Stein, 1999).
Aspects of European external relations have now been described in terms of The
International Dimension of the European Research Area (European Commission, 2001),
an ambitious agenda whereby S&T considerations would be coordinated with European
Union foreign policy objectives. Common priorities for European cooperation with
developing countries focus on SD and socioeconomic welfare, specifically through
sustainable management of natural resources, health, food and economic development,
including efforts to combat poverty. The European Constitution agreed by the 25 EU
Member States in June 2004 would rationalise and enhance the EUs role as a global
partner across all areas of international cooperation, science and technology included.
It is particularly interesting to see how some of the smaller, peripheral EU countries
(prior to the 2004 enlargement) have managed their international S&T cooperation as
countries developing their scientific, industrial, economic and political capacities within
the European Union. Countries, such as Greece, Ireland and Portugal, have been
economically in a catch-up position similar to Korea and earlier, Japan. However, these
three countries embedded their national S&T policies within the framework of European
integration, utilising a variety of support frameworks. All three countries have used, to
great effect, the EC Structural and Cohesion funds to bolster national S&T capacity in
addition to participation in dedicated S&T programmes, such as COST, EUREKA and
the Framework Programme; together these constitute a sizeable proportion of national
research efforts.
Greece, Ireland and Portugal all have highly developed S&T relations with non-EU
countries as well as within Europe. The outward migrations from Greece for educational
and economic reasons, and during the Greek Civil War (19451949), have created a
diaspora that has reinforced Greek scientific and international relations with the Western
countries, Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union (Amanatidou, 2002). Irelands
diaspora is particularly significant in the USA, especially in software development, and
this has contributed to both inward investment and strategic technological links that,
along with Irish synergies with European S&T programmes, have made Ireland one of
the fastest growing economies in Europe (Battel, 2003). International cooperation is
important to the relatively small Portuguese research system, illustrated by the fact that

12

A. Ahmed and J.A. Stein

over half of all its publications are internationally co-authored (Santos Pereira,
2002). Portugal has strong links to former colonies, such as Angola and Brazil (as part of
the Community of Countries of Portuguese Language), but also collaborates extensively
with the UK and its neighbour, Spain.
The success of the European experiment suggests that certain aspects of this approach
could be adapted to more widespread cooperation in S&T in areas related to SD.
The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership is a good example of a regional programme that
includes research cooperation, which is focused on environmental concerns common to
southern Europe, the Middle East and Northern Africa. From a European perspective,
opening the European Research Area to carefully constructed cooperation with other
parts of the world, and the development of new, more coherent global approaches to joint
solution of S&T-related global problems, are options that can proceed in parallel.

2.4 Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)

Technology development and transfer in Africa plays key roles in terms of employment,
food security, export earning, provision of raw material and its potential as a source for
capital for development. The UK Government White Papers on international
development (1997 and 2000) explain that improved access to knowledge and
technologies by poor people will be achieved through continued investment in research
and research capacity in developing countries and that efforts must also be made to
strengthen the capability of developing countries to produce, adapt and use knowledge,
whether produced locally or internationally (Young and Kannemeyer, 2001). In most
SSA countries, there is a wide separation of R&D from production, and this gap
reinforces the preference of firms for foreign technology.
Technological dependence in SSA is severe and pervasive, primarily because of
colonialism and continued poverty (Ahmed, 2004; Ahmed and Cleeve, 2004). However,
an inadequate base of skills and the absence of both a socio-economic infrastructure and a
technological infrastructure prevent necessary learning activities from taking place.
Moreover, there is a widespread concern among the donor countries and international
funding organisations about the relevance, impact and dissemination of research results in
SSA.
Earlier last year (February, 2003), the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan urged
African countries and their development partners to promote a Green Revolution in
Africa, as S&T can make substantial contributions to the effective development of Africa.
Africa continues to face the following technological challenges (UNECA, 2003;
2003a; 2002):

deteriorating health associated with diseases (HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, etc.)

and malnutrition

degradation of environment/natural resources, including, forest, soil and water

increasing loss of biodiversity

poor or inadequate transformation of natural resources and agricultural raw materials

low agricultural productivity and food shortage

deep energy crisis coupled with increasing desertification due to the overuse of fuel
wood among others.

Science, technology and sustainable development: a world review

13

The priorities in Africa as outlined by the UNESCO include human resources

development, increased investments, establishment of suitable institutions, formulation
and adoption of appropriate policies, and inter-country cooperation within and outside
Africa. Furthermore, the UNESCO argues that Africa will be unable to rise above its
current level of poverty without pursuing manufacturing more purposefully. Doing so
will necessarily require a greater focus on industrial R&D. According to Dion (UNECA,
2002) African policy-makers are increasingly recognising that the transition to SD and
the inclusion of Africa into the global economy cannot be achieved without the adoption
of a new technological regime.
This new technological regime is required for Africa to meet the millennium
development goals (MDGs) of reducing poverty, hunger, illiteracy and lack of access to
water and sanitation (Ahmed, 2004; Ahmed and Cleeve, 2004). Such a regime needs to
address the following key challenges:

most SSA countries continue to show dismal performance on almost all measures of
human development

agriculture, the backbone of Africas economy, displays the lowest yields in the
world

Africa leads the world statistics on the major health problems with 80% of the
infectious diseases found in SSA

Africas natural resources and exquisite biological diversity is under rapid

degradation, which threatens its economic and physical survival

Africa remains essentially a producer of primary goods for the rest of the world

there is an urgent need in Africa for a democratisation and popularisation of S&T

better integration of S&T and innovation policies with overall development policies

strengthening of S&T policy-making and development institutions

building an efficient S&T infrastructure and strengthened funding, popularisation

and extension, as well as managerial, entrepreneurial and innovation capacities

enhancing international cooperation by liasing, networking, partnering and

collaborating with industrialised, industrialising and developing countries of other
regions

using internationally agreed standards and methods, Africa needs to develop and
implement better mechanisms to monitor S&T development within the continent.

Poor technological capability remains one of the major constraints to Africas efforts to
achieve SD and food security (Ahmed, 2004; Ahmed and Cleeve, 2004; UNECA, 2003;
2003a; 2002). The lack of deliberate technological learning and implementation of
technological policies that are in line with domestic economic problems and the
challenges of globalisation is overwhelming. Also, overwhelming is the continents
continuous failure to learn from the newly industrialised countries (NICs) and to address
properly the key issues that have shaped the development paradigm in these countries.
Achieving the MDGs and SD in Africa represents major challenges, given the weak S&T
capacities of most African countries and therefore, requires strengthened S&T
capabilities on the African continent (see UNECA, 2003a; 2002).

14

A. Ahmed and J.A. Stein

What is SD?

Defining sustainability is very difficult as the common use of the word sustainable
suggests an ability to maintain some activity in the face of stress and this seems to be also
the most technically applicable meaning. In simple terms, SD refers to maintaining
development over time but so far there are more than one hundred definitions currently
available in the literature (Pearce, Markandya and Barbier, 1989; Holmberg, 1992;
Morita et al., 1993; Murcott, 1997; Elliot, 2001). However, at the national level, there are
several factors and conditions that need to be considered including peace, debt reduction,
terms of trade, non-declining foreign aid, economic policy, techniques for measuring SD,
the trade-offs between conflicting environmental goals and the limited time and distance
horizons of elected politicians. Tolba (1987) argues that SD has become an article of
faith, often used but little explained. Does it amount to a strategy? Does it apply only to
renewable resources? What does the term actually mean?
SD means different things to different people, but the most frequently quoted
definition is from the report Our Common Future (also known as the Brundtland Report).
The Brundtland report (WCED, 1987) defined SD as development that meets the needs
of the present without comprising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs.
The Brundtland report recommended seven critical actions that ensure a good quality
of life for people around the world:

revive growth

change the quality of growth

meet essential needs and aspirations for jobs, food, energy, water and sanitation

ensure a sustainable level of population

conserve and enhance the resource base

reorient technology and manage risk

include and combine environment and economics considerations in decision making.

These recommendations are as valid today as they were when first written (Sarre, Smith
and Morris, 1991)1,2 and are a call to change our actions and to do things differently. In
particular, they underscore a need to:

produce differently by applying concepts of eco-efficiency and sustainable

livelihoods

consume differently

organise ourselves differently by increasing public participation while reducing

corruption and perverse subsidies.

The Brundtland definition for SD however implies a very important shift from an idea of
sustainability, as primarily ecological, to a framework that also emphasises the economic
and social context of development. The ability of humanity is to ensure that it meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs. The commitment to meet the needs of the present generation implies setting
goals of SD that satisfy peoples needs, such as economic, social, cultural, health, and

Science, technology and sustainable development: a world review

15

political, in a number of ways. Banuri and Spanger-Siegfried (2001) suggest that human
and institutional capacity can create the ability to act, and that this ability, when directed
towards building sustainable livelihoods, can go far toward realising the goals of SD.
As the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) wrote in (2004)
Most attempts towards the concept of sustainability start with the Brundtland
Reports definition, this definition is vague since it does not specify the time
horizon of future generations, gives no indication of the role of the environment
and refers to the opaque concept of human needs. Accordingly, a variety of
definitions of sustainability and SD are used in different contexts.

Accordingly to the World Bank (see World Bank, 2004; 2003; 2003a), development in
the 21st century is a multi-dimensional concept which combines five perspectives, all of
which are key to making development sustainable:

Financial capital: sound macroeconomic planning and prudent fiscal management.

Physical capital: infrastructure assets, such as buildings, machines, roads, power

plants, and ports.

Human capital: good health and education to maintain labour markets.

Social capital: peoples skills and abilities as well as the institutions, relationships,
and norms that shape the quality and quantity of a societys social interactions.

Natural capital: natural resources, both commercial and non-commercial, and

ecological services which provide the basic requirements, including food, water,
energy, fibers, waste assimilation, climate stabilisation, and other life-support
services.

Figure 1 summarises the different dimensions of SD based on the different definitions

explored above as a framework that involves all issues, such as science, technology,
economic growth and development, health, education, foreign direct investment and
multinational companies, international debt and aid, trade, politics, war, natural disasters,
population growth, terrorism and related issues.
Figure 1

Dimensions of Sustainable Development

16

A. Ahmed and J.A. Stein

Why SD?

Until recently, to many people, SD was often perceived and discussed in relation to issues
associated only with the environment (ecology, climate, water, land) and that the concept
of SD is only a matter relating to the developing countries. SD is not just a concern of the
developing countries, all countries whatever their level of development or past scientific
and technological glories must pay attention to SD. It is time for all of us at every level to
clearly understand the meaning of SD and the realities of our common future. SD is
probably the most daunting challenge that humanity has ever faced, and achieving it
requires that the fundamental issues be addressed immediately at local, regional and
global levels (UN, 2002; 2002a). Such issues have not been addressed directly in
neoclassical economics, which has been criticised on a number of grounds including:
its assumption that growth will lead to well-being and environmental improvements; its
failure to include natural resources as factors of production in the economy, its
assumption that sweeping social and institutional change is necessary for development
and its ethnocentric generalisations about human behaviour. There have, therefore, been
calls for SD and novel approaches to development.
The core of the idea of sustainability is the concept that current decisions should not
impair the prospects for maintaining or improving future living standards (Repetto,
1986). This implies that our economic systems should be managed so that we can live off
the dividend of our resources, maintaining and improving the asset base. In general terms,
the primary objectives of SD are:

achieve a reasonable and equitably distributed level of economic well-being that can
be perpetuated continually for many human generations (Murcott, 1997)

reduce the absolute poverty of the worlds poor through providing lasting and secure
livelihoods that minimise resource depletion, environmental degradation, cultural
disruption and social instability

find the optimal level of interaction between the biological and natural resource
system, the economic system and the social system (Barbier, 1989).

According to the UN (2002), progress on developing the concept of SD has been rapid
since the 1980s including the Earth Summit (1992), the Brundtland Report and the
Agenda 21. Throughout the rest of the 1990s, regional and sectoral sustainability plans
have been developed. A wide variety of groups including the World Bank have adopted
the concept and given it their own particular interpretations. These initiatives have
increased our understanding of what SD means within many different contexts but
progress on implementing SD plans has been slow (Stoneman, 1987; UNECA, 2003;
2003a).
Breitmeier (1995) defines the concept of SD in three parts: the environment as an
integral part of the economy and vice versa; intra-generational equity; and
inter-generational equity. The concept of SD constitutes a further elaboration of the close
links between economic activity and the conservation of environmental resources
(Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1990). It implies a
partnership between the environment and the economy, within which a key element is the
legacy of environmental resources, which are not unduly diminished. For Braat (1991),
the concept of SD combines two basic notions: economic development and
ecological sustainability. Ecologically sustainable economic development can be thought
of as the process of related changes of structure, organisation and activity of an

Science, technology and sustainable development: a world review

17

economic-ecological system, directed towards maximum welfare, which can be sustained

by the resources to which that system has access. The different dimensions of
sustainability include:

elimination of poverty and deprivation

conservation and enhancement of the resources base which alone can ensure that the
elimination of poverty is permanent

broadening of the concept of development so that it covers not only economic

growth, but also social and cultural development

most important, the unification of economics and ecology in decision making at all
levels.

Measuring SD

The 1992 Earth Summit stipulated that countries at the national level and international
governmental and non-governmental organisations at the international level should
develop indicators of SD in order to help countries makeinformed decisions concerning
SD (UNECE, 2004). Indicators for SD have been launched by the United Nations
Commission for Sustainable Development (UNCSD), UN Statistics Division, OECD,
Eurostat, NGOs and other international organisations. According to the UNECE (2004),
the debate has hardly involved official statisticians and that there is still neither a definite
set of indicators for SD, nor a set of sustainability indicators adopted within the
framework of official statistics by any international authoritative body. The major
challenges for the measurement of SD are the lack of a widely accepted operational
definition of both SD and sustainability and the difficulties in measuring the
inter-linkages of the three dimensions of SD (economic, social, environmental) are often
mentioned and still not yet solved.
The most commonly used indicator (index) in recent use is the Environmental
Sustainability Index (ESI)3 of the World Economic Forum. The ESI is a measure of the
overall progress towards environmental sustainability, developed for 142 countries. The
ESI scores are based on a set of 20 core indicators, each of which combines two to eight
variables for a total of 68 underlying variables. The ESI permits cross-national
comparisons of environmental progress in a systematic and quantitative fashion. It
represents a first step towards a more analytically driven approach to environmental
decision making.
According to the latest ESI (2002) ranking (Table 1), Finland leads the world in
environmental sustainability, USA ranks 45th, UK 91st and Kuwait last, showing that a
nations economic status does not always correspond to its ESI performance.

Global partnership for SD

The World Summit did much to address issues relating to sustainable
development but it is becoming clear that a broad common agenda and
effective global institutions are essential to deal with issues of sustainable
development. Ultimately this is about our world as a global community a
clich perhaps but true. Interdependence is the defining characteristic of the
modern world. What we lack at present is the common agenda that is broad and
just and global institutions to execute it. That is the real task of statesmanship
today. And the time-scale is urgent. Prime Minister Tony Blair (2003)

18

A. Ahmed and J.A. Stein

Table 1

Environmental sustainability index (ESI) 2002

Highest Ten

Rank

Country

Lowest Ten
ESI

Rank

Country

ESI

Finland

73.9

Kuwait

23.9

Norway

73.0

United Arab Emirates

25.7

Sweden

72.6

North Korea

32.3

Canada

70.6

Iraq

33.2

Switzerland

66.5

Saudi Arabia

34.2

Uruguay

66.0

Haiti

34.8

Austria

64.2

Ukraine

35.0

Iceland

63.9

South Korea

35.9

Costa Rica

63.2

Sierra Leone

36.5

Latvia

63.0

10

Nigeria

36.7

10

Source: World Economic Forum (2002)

The responsibility for achieving SD is a global one, resting both with the more developed
and the less developed nations, if not in equal measure. Achieving the goals of SD
requires planning and action at local, regional and global scales and specifying short- and
long-term objectives that allow for the transition to sustainability. Action plans for SD,
such as Agenda 21 or the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs 2000) (Ahmed and
Cleeve, 2004; UN, 2000; 2002), can only be achieved with the implementation of
effective long-term solutions in partnerships. In 2000, the OECD and UNs Copenhagen
plus five Conference, endorsed and adopted a general approach to establish an agreed
universal framework of international development goals and targets to be reached in the
near future (2010 and 2015) universally and they finally referred to them as the UN
Millennium Development Goals (MDG) (UN, 2000; 2002). The MDGs is a framework of
8 goals, 18 targets and 48 indicators to measure world progress towards the
implementation of these goals. The eight goals include:

eradicate extreme poverty and hunger

achieve universal primary education

promote gender equality and empower women

reduce child mortality

improve maternal health

combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other diseases

ensure environmental sustainability

develop a global partnership for development (emphasis added).

The key challenge however is reaching goals only to discover that the achievement
cannot be sustained and is just a waste of time and efforts (UNEP, 2000). Such a
challenge led the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan (UN, 2002a) to identify five
priority areas for urgent actions during the Johannesburg World Summit: Water and

Science, technology and sustainable development: a world review

19

sanitation, Energy, Health, Agriculture, and Biodiversity protection and ecosystem

management-known as the WEHAB initiatives. Governments agreed on the following
series of commitments and actions in all these areas:

Water and sanitation: halve the proportion of people who lack clean water and
proper sanitation by 2015.

Energy: expanding reach to the two billion people that do not have access to modern
energy services.

Health: fight HIV/AIDS and reduce water-borne diseases, and the health risks due to
pollution, and phase out, by 2020, the use and production of chemicals that harm
human health and the environment.

Agriculture: combat desertification and improve agricultural practices in the

drylands.

Biodiversity: reduce biodiversity loss by 2010; to restore fisheries to their maximum

sustainable yields by 2015; to establish a representative network of marine protected
areas by 2012; and to improve developing countries access to environmentally
sound alternatives to ozone depleting chemicals by 2010.

The World Development Reports (World Bank, 2003; 2003a) stresses that the burden of
guaranteeing SD must be shared locally, nationally and globally:

Developing countries need to promote participation and substantive democracy,

inclusiveness and transparency as they build the institutions needed to manage their
resources.

Rich countries need to increase aid, cut poor country debts, open their markets to
developing country exporters and help transfer technologies needed to prevent
diseases, increase energy efficiency and bolster agricultural productivity.

Civil society organisations contribute when they serve as a voice for dispersed
interests and provide independent verification of public, private, and
nongovernmental performance.

Private firms contribute when they commit to sustainability in their daily operations
and also create incentives to pursue their interests while advancing environmental
and social objectives.

Sustaining Growth over the long term requires that our current problems be addressed
integrally in current growth strategies and investment programmes (the ongoing debate
lead by the World Bank, UN and other global partners). It is better to address these
problems well before they become crises, since the lead times can be long. Examples of
such problems include: socio-economic inequalities; demographic stresses; natural
resource rents as the struggle for control of natural resources is a leading cause of social
conflict, indeed of civil wars in many countries; and environmental degradation.
Meissari-Polsa (1988) argues that in order to make development sustainable, United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) could have taken some of
the following actions:

20

A. Ahmed and J.A. Stein

include environmental issues as an item on its agenda

give more attention to the concepts of environment and SD

study, in detail, relationships between environment and development, and between

growth and natural resource utilisation

introduce a new goal for development, a better environment, by using longer

perspective on development issues

take account of environmental requirements and SD on every level of negotiations

establish a special committee or working group on environmental issues

provide information to other international actors, initiate and coordinate international

actions, and follow up implementation actions concerning environment and SD.

Conclusions

Cooperation in science and technology offers potentially powerful means to inform

policy design for international agreements, and to provide the sort of joint creativity and
capacity-pooling needed to advance and apply knowledge to global problems. However,
international cooperation in S&T remains dominated by bottom-up initiatives, bilateral
agreements, and exceptional arrangements for large-scale cooperation. New approaches
to public policy, and especially new, more flexible forms of multilateral cooperation, and
effective, truly international expert advisory systems, would help to address the
SD-related challenges confronting the world community.
There is nothing new in the concept of sustainability as such; it is the political and
economic context that is of paramount importance. Sustainability requires new thinking
across the spectrum of human endeavour, not merely among scientists and technologists.
Economic, social and institutional innovations must keep pace with technological
innovations. SD is a multidisciplinary process that involves all issues, such as science,
innovation, technology, R&D, information technology and e-commerce, economic
development, health, foreign direct investment and multinational companies,
international debt and aid, trade, politics, war, natural disasters, population growth,
terrorism and related issues. The concept of SD ceases to make a meaningful contribution
to the quality of life on the planet if it is devoid of the perspectives confronting and
addressing the processes leading to poverty and resource deprivation.
There is an urgent need to reach broad consensus, initially at the individual and civil
society levels, on a set of basic principles and values that can guide the actions of people
and institutions towards SD practices2. This consensus must then be brought to bear upon
the institutions of government, economics, science and industry to encourage the
development of policies that systematically embed SD in scientific and technological
research, and in mainstream international cooperation activities. In order to reach a
satisfactory level of sustainability (as measured by the Environmental Sustainability
Index), we must:

Science, technology and sustainable development: a world review

21

achieve substantial growth in income and productivity in developing countries

manage the social, economic and environmental transitions to a predominantly urban

world

attend to the needs ofmillions of people living on environmentally fragile lands

reap the demographic dividends seen in declining dependency rates and slowing
population growth

avoid the social and environmental stresses at local and global levels.

Finally, as we work toward SD, we must strive not to lose sight of the big picture and that
we must think and act both globally and locally. It is the aim of World Review of Science,
Technology and Sustainable Development to provide a stimulus for knowledge exchange
and cooperation worldwide, that focuses on the application of science and technology to
SD everywhere in this interdependent world.

References
Advisory Council on Science and Technology (ACST) (2000) Expert panel on Canadas role in
international science and technology, Reaching Out: Canada International Science and
Technology, and the Knowledge-based Economy, Industry Canada, Ottawa.
Ahmed, A. (2004) Making technology works for the poor: strategies and policies for African
sustainable development, International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management,
Vol. 4, No.1, pp.117.
Ahmed, A. and Cleeve, E. (2004) Tracking the millennium development goals in Sub-Saharan
Africa, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp.1229.
Amanatidou, E. (2002) Foreign policy and international R&D collaboration policy in Greece,
Science and Public Policy, Vol. 29, No. 6, pp.439450.
Banuri, T. and Spanger-Siegfried, E. (2001) Strengthening demand: a framework for financing
SD, Text of a Paper Prepared for World Summit on SD, Johannesburg, International
Institute for Environment and Development.
Barbier, E. (1989) Economics, Natural Resource Scarcity and Development, Earthscan Publications
Ltd, London.
Battel, R. (2003) The Celtic Tiger, Science, Technology and Human Values, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp.
93111.
Beck, U. (1986) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, English Edition, Sage, 1992, London.
Braat, L. (1991) The predictive meaning of sustainability indicators, in Kuik, O. and Verbruggen,
H. (Eds.): In Search of Indicators of SD, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.
Breitmeier, H. (1995) SD: criteria and indicators: workshop #3, IIASA, July 18, Manuscript on
file at IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria.
Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and Government (1992) Science and Technology in
US International Affairs, Carnegie Commission, New York.
Castells, M. (2000) The Rise of the Network Society, Second Edition, Blackwell, UK.
Chung, S. (2002) Catching up through international linkages: science, technology and the Korean
experience, Science and Public Policy, Vol. 29, No. 6, pp.431437.
Desai, P.N. (1997) Science, Technology and International Cooperation, Har-Anand, New Delhi.
Dufour, P. (2002) Taking the (right?) fork in the road: Canadas two-track approach to domestic
and international science and technology, Science and Public Policy, Vol. 29, No. 6,
pp.419429.

22

A. Ahmed and J.A. Stein

Elliot, J.A. (2001) An introduction to sustainable development, Second Edition, Routledge,

London.
European Commission (2000) Towards a European Research Area, COM/2000/6.
European Commission (2001) The International Dimension of the European Research Area,
COM/2001/346 final.
European Technology Assessment Network (ETAN) Expert Working Group (1998)
Internationalisation of research and technology: trends, issues and implications for S&T
Policies in Europe, European Commission, Brussels/Luxembourg.
Georghiou, L. (1998) Global cooperation in research, Research Policy, Vol. 27, pp.611626.
Holmberg, J. (1992) Making Development Sustainable, Island Press, Washington, DC.
Lardo, P. (2002) Opening Keynote Address, STRATA Workshop on Science and Technology
Policies in Europe: New Challenges, New Responses, April, Brussels, pp.2223.
Meissari-Polsa, T. (1988) UNCTAD and SD a case study of difficulties in large international
organizations, in Stockholm Group for Study on Natural Resources Development,
Perspective on SD, Stockholm.
Morita, R. et al. (1993) SD: its definitions and goals, Mita Journal of Economics, Vol. 4, No. 85.
Murcott, S. (1997) Definitions of sustainable development, Appendix A, Sustainable Living
Network, http://www.sustainableliving.org/index.html.
National Research Council Panel on the Impact of National Security Controls on International
Technology Transfer (1987) Balancing the National Interest: US National Security Export
Controls and Global Economic Competition, National Academy Press, Washington.
National Research Council. (1999) The pervasive role of science, Technology and Health in
Foreign Policy: Imperatives for the Department of State, National Academy Press,
Washington.
Neureiter, N.P. (2000) Its the World, Stupid, talk given at the US National Academy of
Engineering Earth Systems Technical Symposium, 24 October.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (1990) ISSUESPAPERS: On Integrating
Environment and Economics, OECD, Paris.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1997) Foreign Access to
Technology Programmes, OCDE/GD, Vol. 97, p.209.
Outlook on Science Policy (2002) US Agrees to Re-Join UNESCO, Beech Tree Publishing,
Guildford, October, Vol. 24, No. 9.
Pearce, D., Markandya, A. and Barbier, E. (1989) Blueprint for a Green Economy, Earthscan
Publications Ltd, London.
Reid, P.P. and Schriesheim, A. (Eds.): (1996) Foreign Participation in US Research and
Development: Asset or Liability?, National Academy Press, Washington.
Repetto, R. (1986) World Enough and Time, Yale University Press, New Haven.
Rhode, B. and Stein, J.A. (Eds.) (1999) International cooperation policies of the EU/EEA
countries in science and technology, INCOPOL Synthesis Report, European Commission
Brussels.
Santos Pereira, T. (2002) International dimension of research in Portugal: the European research
area and beyond, Science and Public Policy, Vol. 29, No. 6, pp.451461.
Sarre, P., Smith, P. and Morris, E. (1991) One World for one Earth: Saving the Environment,
Earthscan Publications Ltd, London.
Stein, J.A. (1999) External relations in the European Union, the USA and Japan and International
research and technological development cooperation, PREST Report to the Forward Studies
Unit, European Commission.
Stein, J.A. (2002) Globalisation, science, technology and policy, Science and Public Policy, Vol.
29, No. 6, pp.402408.

Science, technology and sustainable development: a world review

23

Stein, J.A. (2002a) Science, technology and European foreign policy: European integration, global
interaction, Science and Public Policy, Vol. 29, No. 6, pp.463477.
Stoneman, P. (1987) The Economic Analysis of Technology Policy, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Tolba, M. (1987) SD Constraints and Opportunities, London: Butterworth.
Tony Blair (2003) Prime Minister Tony Blair Speech on Sustainable Development, 10 Downing
Street, London, http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page3073.asp.
United Nations (2000) United Nations millennium declaration (55/2), General Assembly,
18 September, http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htmhttp://www.un.org
/millenniumgoals/.
United Nations (2002) Implementation of the United Nations millennium declaration, Report of
the Secretary-General, United Nations General Assembly, http://www.un.org.
United Nations (UN) (2002a) Science and Technology as a Foundation for SD. Summary by the
Scientific and Technological Community for the Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue Segment
of the fourth session of the Commission on SD acting as the preparatory committee for
the World Summit on SD. Note by the Secretary-General. Commission on SD acting as
the preparatory committee for the World Summit on SD Fourth Preparatory Session,
27 May7 June, 2002.
United Nations (UN) (2002a) Global challenge global opportunity: trends in sustainable
development, Department of Economics and Social, World Summit on Sustainable
Development, Johannesburg, SA.
United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) (2002) Address by Josu Dion:
science and technology policies for sustainable development and Africas global inclusion,
Sustainable Development Division ATPS Conference, 11 November, Abuja, Nigeria.
United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) (2003) Making Science and
Technology Work for the Poor and for SD in Africa, Paper prepared by the SD Division with
the assistance of a senior international consultant, Akin Adubifa, January.
United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) (2003a) The state of food security in
Africa, Progress Report of the 3rd Meeting of the Committee on Sustainable Development,
710 October, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) (2004) Note by the ECE Secretariat,
Steering Group on Sustainable Development. Second Meeting of the 2003/2004 Bureau,
Conference of European Statisticians, Statistical Commission, Geneva, Switzerland.
United Nations Under-Secretary General and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
(2000) Overview: outlook and recommendations, Global Environment Outlook,
http://grid.cr.usgs.gov/geo2000/ov-e/0012.htm, Earthscan, 1999, London.
World
Bank,
Sustainable
Development
in
the
21st
Century,
http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/sdvext.nsf/43ByDocName/SustainableDevelopmentint
he21st Century.
World
Bank,
World
Bank
Sustainable
Development
Reference
Guide,
http://www.WorldBankSustainableDevelopmentReferenceGuide.
World Bank (2003) World Development Report, Oxford University Press, New York.
World Bank (2003a) Global economic prospects: realizing the development promise of the Doha
agenda, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World Bank,
World Bank: Washington, DC.
World Bank (2004) World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Poor People,
World Bank: Washington, DC.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our Common Future,
Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, Vol. 43.
World
Economic
Forum
(2002)
Environmental
Sustainability
Index,
http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/indicators/ESI/rank.html.

24

A. Ahmed and J.A. Stein

Wyatt, S., Henwood, F., Miller, N. and Senker, P. (Eds.) (2000) Technology and In/Equality:
Questioning the Information Society, Routledge, London and New York.
Young, J. and Kannemeyer, N. (2001) Building capacity in southern research: a study to map
existing initiatives draft report, Overseas Development Institute (ODI), London, UK.
Zinberg, D. (1991) Contradictions and Complexity: International comparisons in the training of
foreign scientists and engineers, in Zinberg, D. (Ed.): The Changing University: How
Increased Demand for Scientists and Technology is Transforming Academic Institutions
Internationally, Kluwer, Dordrecht/Boston/London.

Notes
1
2
3

Sustainable Development Communications Network (SDCN) http://www.sdcn.org/.

Earth Council: http://www.ecouncil.ac.cr/.
The ESI is the result of collaboration among the World Economic Forums Global Leaders
for Tomorrow Environment Task Force, The Yale Center for Environmental Law and
Policy, and the Columbia University Center for International Earth Science Information
Network (CIESIN).