Exploring challenges in the interaction of forestry-related institutions in the employment of R&D in the South African forestry sector by Dandira Mushangai ([email protected]) A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Humanities, University of the Witwatersrand, in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Education (Sectors, Skills, and the Economic Evolution of South Africa Programme) Centre for Researching Education and Labour (REAL) University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg Supervisor: Prof Andre Kraak Co-supervisor: Prof Stefan Schirmer 2020 ii Dedication I dedicate this thesis to my mother Lucia, Betina Mushangai for her encouragement and love of wisdom, to my daughter Zvakanaka Mushangai for giving me the courage, and to the people of South Africa and Africa in their struggle for social, and economic development. iii Acknowledgement I thank my supervisor, Prof Andre Kraak. The project commenced when I met Prof Kraak for the first time in Braamfontein, Johannesburg in 2014, to discuss my participation in the FPM SETA project he was leading. The project focused on a comparative analysis of forestry sectoral developments across the world, linked to local skills production and industrialisation. My research in the project was to do a comparative analysis of the forestry sectors of Sweden, Canada, China, and Gabon. The aim was to produce a monography of seven or so subsectors under the Fibre Processing and Manufacturing Sector Education Training Authority (FPM SETA). This was to obtain insights as to how South Africa could achieve forestry sectoral industrialisation. The work covered a number of academic and development areas ranging from value chains, global value chains, globalisation, industrial sociology, industrial policy, evolutionary economics, innovation, and post-school studies. It was from this work that my PhD research topic emerged in 2015. With guidance and financial assistance from Prof Kraak, the work progressed from the refinement of the PhD topic and proposal to the last chapter of this thesis. To Prof Kraak, I say, I do appreciate all the effort that you had put into this study. I also thank my co-supervisor Prof Stephan Schirmer, for his informative comments and wise counsel which helped greatly in structuring the chapters of this thesis. I gained some of the insights that shaped this study as an honours student (in 2011) in his masters/honours course: Change and Comparative Development. I thank you Prof Schirmer for the contribution you have made for this thesis. I also thank Dr Nkambule. I worked very well with her at University of the Witwatersrand, as I was tutoring in her course: Pedagogy and Diversity. The course broadened my understanding of some of the political, social and economic issues behind epistemological blockages linked to colonial and apartheid dynamics of accumulation that are affecting educational outcomes at South African HEIs. The formal and informal discussions we had, contributed immensely in shaping some of the arguments in this thesis. Dr Nkambule played a crucial role in facilitating financial assistance that enabled me to complete this project. I also thank Dr Nkambule in her role as the Head of Post-graduate studies (University of the Witwatersrand-Education) by assisting in manoeuvring the bureaucratic hurdles which are blocking mechanisms in the attainment of a PhD. iv I also thank Dr Mary Madileng of the Centre for Researching Labour and Education (University of the Witwatersrand) for the discussions we had that assisted in structuring this thesis. I acknowledge, the FPM SETA, for financial assistance in the first two and half years of the PhD project. I also acknowledge the Post Graduate Merit Awards (PMAs) from the University of the Witwatersrand for three consecutive years, 2016, 2017 and 2018. The Department of Education of the University of the Witwatersrand is also acknowledged for a Departmental PMA for the year 2019. Without all the financial assistance it would not have been possible to complete this project. I acknowledge the participation in the study from companies such as Mondi, Sappi, Merensky, NCT, TWK, small business owners and workers, from government departments such as DEA, DAFF, AgriSETA, FPM SETA and from research organisations such as University of the Witwatersrand, Stellenbosch University, University of Pretoria, Nelson Mandela University, University of KwaZulu-Natal, IFCR, CSIR, Fort Cox and others for their time. v Declaration I, Dandira Mushangai, declare that this is my own work and has not previously been submitted to another university or institution of higher education for a degree. vi Abstract The role of R&D in economic growth and development is increasingly acknowledged globally. With this is an acceptance that collaborative research ensures the benefits of R&D largely accrue to society as a whole. The growing recognition of the importance of R&D in economic growth and development through the generation and application of new knowledge, new skills, new processes, new technologies, functions, and new products by those involved in production processes has enhanced the drive by nations to build integrated systems of innovation. Systems of innovation encourage collaborative research through partnerships, cooperation, and participation in innovation networks. This is important in reducing R&D transaction costs and in ensuring that new knowledge, skills, processes, and products emanating from R&D activities are widely distributed within an economy. This study aims to identify and explain the challenges in relation to the ‘less integrated’ nature (OECD, 2007) of South African systems of innovation which has resulted in ‘weak coordination and linkages and limited resources and capacity’ (Greenberg, 2010) in the South African forestry sectoral system of innovation (SSI), with the effect that the benefits of the system of innovation to the economy are still not known (OECD, 2007). The study analysed the challenges in the formation and maintenance of partnerships, collaboration and networks as some of the issues working against the integration of the South African National System of Innovation (NSI), hence the forestry SSI. The study employed a qualitative methodology and a number of qualitative methods and techniques, such as semi-structured interviews, and observations, and case studies were used in data collection. This was guided by the systems of innovation approach, particularly the SSI as the conceptual framework within a critical research paradigm. A thematic analysis indicated that the lack of integration and the existence of ‘weak coordination and linkages and limited resources and capacity’ that limit the application of R&D by firms in the forestry SSI for the benefit of the economy as a whole are not a result of a single factor but of a convergence of factors that cannot be addressed quantitatively by neat technical solutions. The lack of integration of the South African System of Innovation (SI) is thus explained in terms of multiple realities. However, some of the challenges, such as limited funding and skills, could be greatly lessened through collaboration at sectoral, national or at supra-national levels. vii The historical and evolutionary approach adopted by the study allowed the tracing of the development trajectories of the forestry industry in South Africa since it started and the nature of racial interactions as determined by colonial and apartheid philosophies of separate development. This was important in understanding power relations under the colonial and apartheid systems in relation to knowledge generation and skills development and the differential economic outcomes linked to forestry resource development in the homelands and the white segments of colonial and apartheid South Africa. Historicising was also important in understanding the ideological changes brought in by the transition to democracy hinged on participatory approaches that informed policies such as the BBBEE. This also enabled the problematisation of the state of affairs in South Africa with regard to the emergence of a predatory and politically connected ‘class for itself’ (comprador bourgeoisie) dependent on state tenders as the main source of accumulation among the former revolutionaries (nationalists) vis-à-vis the empowerment of the ordinary South African and SMEs. The democratisation processes have to some extent led to emergence of crony capitalism as exemplified by the state capture case. The evolutionary approach and the historicisation of forestry resource development in South Africa therefore enabled the debunking of some ideas that have persisted unchallenged with regard to the nature of skills development, knowledge generation and application, accumulation processes and the benefits of the South African SI to the economy. These myths have clouded our understanding of R&D processes and role in economic growth and development hence imposing limitations in constructing suitable intervention measures enabling the emancipation of South Africans from the triple threat of inequality, unemployment, and poverty. The study rejected the arguement by Kruger & Bennett (2015) that the South African forestry research system as it developed was exceptional and was not influenced by the Indian and European traditions. It again rejected the idea by Kruger & Bennett (2015) that the apartheid forestry research system was more integrated than the current research system. It also rejected the argument by the OECD (2007) that