No abstract

This special issue intends to explore and fuel current debate on the role technological innovation, as well as social innovation, is playing or could play in developing countries to foster social inclusion, the alleviation of poverty, and the reduction of inequality. The focus is on the extent to which local public policies are explicitly contributing to these goals. Claims for a more responsive role of governments to address long-standing problems affecting the most vulnerable population in developing countries are on the rise due to a generalized perception, unjustified or not, that policy makers are not paying enough attention to what the knowledge society entails and has to offer and on the ways it could be operationalized in order to meet basic needs.Economic growth coexists with increasing inequality. Furthermore, innovation can be linked to increasing inequalities at all levels. 1 This is not only true for the developing world but also for developed countries, which could learn from ongoing efforts to address the challenges in the former countries. In spite of incommensurable differences between the way innovation processes occur in developed and developing countries, the functioning of the systems, the markets, the demand for innovation, and the role of the state, common questions arise in the quest for models and answers: Why does inequality increase and how could innovation contribute to close the gap of inequality and lead to social inclusion? What happens with the conceptual, theoretical, and/or policy models that are in place? What models would better serve this purpose and where should we look for new alternatives?What seems to be clear is that there is a need to better understand how to pursue innovation processes that systemically lead to sustainable and inclusive development processes and what policy choices and settings could lead to innovation-driven inclusive development. There is a need to learn what the drivers and triggers of these dynamics are, what factors could nurture a virtuous relationship between innovation and social inclusion and sustainability, what policy settings should be created. Do these matters belong to the science, technology, and innovation policy domain or should they cut across different policy domains? To what extent? What policy arrangements, institutional designs, and tools could best nurture innovation processes that are oriented toward inclusiveness and sustainability? bs_bs_banner 669

As part of the formulation of the first National Water Plan (NWP) in Uruguay, a mini-public process called ‘Citizen Deliberation on Water (Deci Agua)’ was developed in 2016. While the draft of the plan was being discussed in the formal arenas of water governance (Basin Commissions and Regional Water Resources Councils), a University research team (led by the authors), in coordination with the national water authority, adapted the mechanism of consensus conferences in order to incorporate the citizens’ visions and to contribute to public understanding of the NWP challenges. This article analyses the main aspects of the developed participation strategy and discusses them regarding a set of quality criteria used to evaluate deliberative processes. Although the final version of the NWP (passed by decree in 2017) incorporated some of the contributions of the Citizen Panel, an in-depth analysis of the scope of the deliberative process of Deci Agua allows us to delve into some key aspects related to the quality of participation processes and the challenges. A mixed approach that combines stakeholder participation and lay citizens is novel and desirable in water governance since it increases the scope of participation, deepens the legitimacy of decision-making and improves the public debate.

This paper analyzes the third mission of universities, based on a case study of the University of the Republic in Uruguay. It draws on the perceptions and opinions of a broad range of actors, from academia to enterprises, and from parliament to trade unions. The University of the Republic is the only public university in the country, and it has played a major role in its history. The university's relevance, legitimacy and respectability were conveyed in the interviews, though counterbalanced by questions concerning its future role. The high appreciation of the university clearly has its limitations: societal support should not be taken for granted and criticisms emerge hand-in-hand with excessive expectations of the role the university can play. The specific analysis of the third mission permeates the paper as an open question, and definition of this mission is an on-going process.