The Innovation Imperative: Balancing Technological Progress with Social Equity

The role of emerging technologies in modern society extends significantly beyond daily conveniences, increasingly serving as a crucial element in social entrepreneurship aimed at tackling complex societal challenges. According to Bosma (2016), this integration is not just transformative but essential for addressing wide-ranging social issues through innovative business practices. Investments in research and development (R&D) and human capital within social entrepreneurship have demonstrated a high social return on investment, with the potential to exceed traditional private returns as noted by Nordgren (1999). However, despite these promising developments, a vast segment of the global population remains economically vulnerable, with individuals earning less than $10,000 annually accounting for 53.6% of the total (Credit Suisse, 2020). This economic disparity has led to a shift in consumer demand, where the majority seeks substantial benefits from minimal investment, commonly referred to as the 80/20 rule of consumer expectations.

In response to these evolving market dynamics, the business sector is increasingly adopting a strategy of "more with less, for more," which leverages technological innovation to tap into these underserved or economically sensitive markets (Ishtiaq Pasha Mahmood, 2014). This strategy is not merely about reducing costs but about rethinking the approach to innovation—using creative destruction spurred by emerging technologies to challenge traditional business models and industry standards. This approach compels startups, micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), and large corporations alike to think creatively about solving societal challenges while maintaining affordability.

Prominent examples in the healthcare sector illustrate how innovative applications of technology can make high-tech solutions both accessible and affordable, particularly in emerging markets. For instance, General Electric's deployment of low-cost ECG machines in China and India has proven that advanced healthcare technologies can be provided at reduced costs, thus broadening their accessibility (Herstatt, 2015). The urgency and feasibility of such innovations were further emphasized during the COVID-19 pandemic. An illustrative example is Nocca Robotics, an Indian startup, which swiftly developed a ventilator priced at USD 2,600—25-30% cheaper than its market counterparts. This feat was accomplished within just 90 days, showcasing the potential for rapid scalability and the profound impact of targeted technological innovation (Economic Times, 2021). Similarly, India's development of a user-friendly COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Self-Test Kit, priced at merely USD 3, made diagnostic tools vastly more accessible. This kit allows individuals to test themselves and obtain results within 15 minutes, thereby integrating technology with user convenience to meet critical public health demands (Leroy Leo, 2021; ICMR, 2021).

While these instances of social innovation in healthcare are promising, the process of scaling them involves complex challenges that require a coordinated effort among diverse stakeholders. This includes businesses, governments, and civil society, each playing a pivotal role (Greco, 2018). The Indian government's proactive stance during the pandemic, where it offered necessary regulatory flexibilities, exemplifies the essential nature of supportive policies in facilitating and scaling healthcare innovations (Ankita Sharma, 2020). As such, the evolving role of Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI) policies is critical. These policies must not only foster innovation but also ensure that it aligns with broader social and economic objectives, thereby enhancing the overall impact of technological advancements on public health and welfare.

However, the deployment of technology, while offering solutions to societal issues, also presents significant challenges, particularly in terms of exacerbating income and wealth inequalities. This is evident in the skill-biased nature of many technological advancements, which disproportionately benefit those with access to digital infrastructure and skills (Qureshi, 2021). In Least Developed Economies, the stark technological divide limits access to these advancements, potentially leading to technological unemployment and widening socio-economic disparities (Kapeliushnikov, 2019; Wong, 2020).

Moreover, the implementation of technology in marginalized communities can often lead to unintended consequences, compounding rather than alleviating existing inequalities. A pertinent example is the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) initiative, which aimed to provide low-cost laptops to children in developing countries. Despite its noble intentions, the initiative struggled due to a lack of consideration for the social, cultural, and economic contexts of the recipient communities. Challenges such as inadequate infrastructure, limited access to electricity, and a shortage of qualified teachers hindered the effective use of these laptops. This oversight demonstrates how technological solutions can fail when they do not address the broader ecosystem or the root causes of poverty and inequality.

Conversely, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted opportunities for nations like India to pursue technological self-reliance, thereby enhancing the global competitiveness of locally produced goods (IBEF, 2020). This shift towards self-reliance isn't just a matter of national pride but a strategic initiative to foster a sustainable model of economic growth through enhanced technological and manufacturing capabilities. Such strategies underscore the importance of researching how advanced production techniques can influence economic complexity and stability.

Therefore, investigating the long-term effects of technology on employment and economic diversification is essential for understanding how to balance technological advancement with economic equity and sustainability (Antonis Adam, 2021). This research is crucial for ensuring that the benefits of innovation are not only widely distributed but also contribute meaningfully to global development.

Reference

Greco, K. D. (2018, August 10). Why Proven Solutions Struggle to Scale Up. Stanford Social Innovation Review.

Sterev, N. a. (2019). Technology, Innovations and Industrial Development. Economic Alternatives, issue 4, p. 549-559.

Bosma, N. &. (2016). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2015 to 2016: Special Report on Social Entrepreneurship.

Stehli, I. P. (2014). Frugal innovation: Creating and capturing value in emerging markets. IMD.

Ishtiaq Pasha Mahmood, A. K. (2014). Frugal innovation: Creating and capturing value in emerging markets.IMD.

Nordgren, J. H. (1999). Economic rationales of government involvement in innovation and the supply of innovation-related services. STEP.

Mazzucato, R. K. (2018). Mission-oriented innovation policy and dynamic capabilities in the public sector. . Industrial and Corporate Change, 27. 787-801. 10.1093/icc/dty032.

Herstatt, A. R. (2015). Study 2: Lessons from GE Healthcare: How Incumbents Can Systematically Create Disruptive Innovations. In A. R. Herstatt, Frugal Innovation in Healthcare (pp. pp.75-103).

Rajendran Narayanan, S. D. (2017, April 09). Scroll. Retrieved from scroll.in: https://scroll.in/article/833487/aadhaar-trouble-how-a-womans-wages-under-mgnrega-were-transferred-to-someone-elses-account

Ankita Sharma, K. V. (2020, July 13). Strategic Investment Research Unit. Retrieved from Investindia.org.in: https://www.investindia.gov.in/siru/helping-india-breathe-ventilator-manufacturing-during-covid-19

Beniwal, V. (2021, November 1). Bloomberg. Retrieved from Bloomberg Economics: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-01/india-unemployment-rate-rises-in-october-on-rural-joblessness

Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy . New York: Harper & Bros.

Romer, P. M. (1990). “Endogenous Technological Change.” . Journal of Political Economy, vol. 98, no. 5, University of Chicago Press, , pp. S71–102, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2937632.

Solow, R. M. (1999). Chapter 9 Neoclassical growth theory. In R. M. Solow, Handbook of Macroeconomics (pp. 637-667). Elsevier, Volume 1, Part A.

ICMR. (2021, August 05). COVID-19 Home Testing using Rapid Antigen Tests (RATs). Retrieved from icmr.gov.in: https://www.icmr.gov.in/pdf/covid/kits/COVID_Home_Test_Kit_05082021.pdf

Economic Times. (2021, April 19). Economic Times | Industry. Retrieved from Economic Times: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/healthcare/biotech/pharmaceuticals/nocca-robotics-sees-20-25-times-jump-in-demand-for-covid-ventilators-seeks-centres-help/articleshow/82145632.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cpp

Leroy Leo. (2021, May 20). Live Mint. Retrieved from Mint: https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/mylab-launches-do-it-yourself-covid-19-test-kit-coviself-at-250-11621499240788.html

Economic Times. (2021, April 19). Economic Times | Industry. Retrieved from Economic Times: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/healthcare/biotech/pharmaceuticals/nocca-robotics- sees-20-25-times-jump-in-demand-for-covid-ventilators-seeks-centres- help/articleshow/82145632.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=c

Sakina Dhorajiwala. (2020, May 21). Economic & Political Weekly - ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846. Retrieved from EPW Engage: https://www.epw.in/engage/article/who-responsible-when-technology-fails-marginalised

Qureshi, Z. (2021). Technology, growth, and inequality: Changing dynamics in the digital era. Global Economy and Development Brookings Institution.

Kapeliushnikov, R. (2019). The phantom of technological unemployment. Russian Journal of Economics 5(1), 88-116.

Wong, J. (2020, 02 10). UNESCAP. Retrieved from unescap.org: https://www.unescap.org/blog/rise-digital-economy-and-tech-driven-inequality-can-tech-revolution-be-equaliser-instead

Antonis Adam, A. G.-S. (2021). Economic complexity and jobs: an empirical analysis. Economics of Innovation and New Technology.

IBEF. (2020, May 20). India Brand Equity Foundation. Retrieved from www.ibef.org: https://www.ibef.org/blogs/self-reliant-india-movement-an-opportunity

Credit Suisse. (2020). Global wealth report 2020. Credit Suisse Research Institute.

Gero, J. S. (2010). Innovation Policy and Design Thinking. In Design thinking research symposium, pp. 175-186.

Ebua, E.J. (2023) Investigating the Potential of Technology to Promote Development and the Ethical and Social Implications of Technological Innovation in the Context of Development.?Open Access Library Journal,?10, 1-23. doi:?10.4236/oalib.1109936.

?

?

?

?