Is 3D printing an inclusive innovation?: An examination of 3D printing in Brazil

Technovation 80–81 (2019) 54–62

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technovation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/technovation

Is 3D printing an inclusive innovation?: An examination of 3D printing in Brazil

T

Thomas Woodsona, , Julia Torres Alcantarab, Milena Silva do Nascimentob ⁎

a b

Stony Brook University, Department of Technology and Society, 1412 Computer Science Building, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA Universidade Estadual do Norte Fluminense Darcy Ribeiro, Laboratório de Engenharia de Produção, Brazil

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: 3D printing Additive manufacturing Inclusive innovation Brazil Technology transfer Development

3D printing is an emerging technology that many believe will revolutionize manufacturing, supply chains and global product consumption. This study uses a new framework, the ladder of inclusive innovation, to analyze whether 3D printing is an inclusive innovation. The interviews with 3D printer users and innovators in Brazil show that 3D printers are not being used or purchased by marginalized communities because the technology is expensive, and it requires a steep learning curve. However, the technology is changing the process, structure, and post-structural discussions surrounding innovation for marginalized communities. Overall, there are aspects of 3D printing develop that are inclusive innovation, but there are significant barriers that prevent the technology from having a broad impact on society. The results of the study will help make innovations more inclusive for marginalized groups around the world. Abstract in Portuguese: A impressão 3D é uma tecnologia emergente a qual muitos acreditam que vai revolucionar a manufatura, as cadeias de suprimentos e o consumo de produtos globais. Este estudo utiliza uma nova estrutura, a escada da inovação inclusiva, para analisar se a impressão 3D é uma inovação inclusiva. Através de entrevistas com usuários de impressoras 3D e inovadores no Brasil, descobrimos que impressoras 3D não estão sendo adotadas por comunidades marginalizadas porque a tecnologia é cara e exige uma curva de aprendizado íngreme. No entanto, a tecnologia altera os processo, a estrutura e as discussões pós-estruturais que envolvem a inovação para as comunidades marginalizadas. Em geral, existem aspectos da impressão 3D que podem considera-la como uma inovação inclusiva, mas existem barreiras significativas que impedem a tecnologia de ter um amplo impacto sobre a sociedade. Os resultados do estudo ajudarão a tornar as inovações mais inclusivas para grupos marginalizados em todo o mundo.

1. Introduction This article examines whether 3D printing is an inclusive technology. Many regard 3D printing as the newest technology that will usher in an industrial revolution (Rifkin, 2012). A famous development scholar wrote that the rise of 3D printing could do for Africa what semiconductors did for Taiwan in the 1960s (Juma, 2014) and in President Obama's 2013 State of the Union Address, he describes the technology as having “the potential to revolutionize the way we make almost everything” (Barack Obama, 2013). With all the excitement about 3D printing, it is important to study the impacts of the technology for poor and marginalized communities. Will marginalized communities benefit from 3D printing or will this innovation only help wealthy citizens? 3D printing, or additive manufacturing, is a process of making threedimensional solid objects from a digital file by building layer upon layer of

⁎

material. This type of manufacturing process has many advantages over traditional manufacturing in that 3D printed designs do not become more expensive with complexity, it is very cheap to customize the designs and you can print shapes that are impossible to manufacture through subtractive manufacturing techniques (Lipson and Kurman, 2013). If the technology develops as many hope, the unique advantages of 3D printing could have a dramatic impact on the economy (Woodson, 2015). One effect of widespread 3D printer adoption is that it will completely revolutionize business models and global supply chains (Beyer, 2014). Currently, most products are mass produced in a central location and then shipped around the world. If consumers can directly print an object on demand, then traditional manufacturing and supply chains will dramatically change. Second, 3D printing will change the nature of warehousing and commerce (Beyer, 2014). Manufacturers and retailers will no longer

Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (T. Woodson).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.12.001 Received 11 April 2017; Received in revised form 4 December 2018; Accepted 17 December 2018 Available online 08 January 2019 0166-4972/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Technovation 80–81 (2019) 54–62

T. Woodson et al.

need to maintain backup supplies and consumers will not need to go the store as often to buy products. Rather, if a person needs something, they can simply download and print the item from home. Currently, retail salespeople and cashiers are the two largest occupations in the USA accounting for about 4.5 million and 3.5 million jobs respectively. Supply chain jobs, like freight and movers, make up about 2.5 million jobs. Together these occupations are about 7% of the USA workforce (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016). If 3D printing replaces some of these jobs, that will lead to major economic disruptions around the country. Third, 3D printers can be more environmentally sustainable than other manufacturing techniques because they use less raw materials, generate fewer wasted byproducts, and is a less energy intensive process (Diegel et al., 2010; Gebler et al., 2014; Huang et al., 2012) Developing environmental friendly technologies is especially necessary because as the world's population grows, gets wealthier and demands more goods, there will be an increasing desire for limited resources. Without making a dramatic change to manufacturing, the world will quickly run out of raw materials for new goods. An additional benefit of generating less waste is that the lives of poor and marginalized communities, which suffer the majority of ill consequences from waste generation (Giusti, 2009; Grant et al., 2013; Pastor et al., 2001), will improve. Over the past 10 years, scholars have done various analyses examining the financial and environmental advantages of 3D printing (Baumers et al., 2016; Candi and Beltagui, 2018; Yeh and Chen, 2018), but there have been few empirical studies of whether 3D printing will be an inclusive innovation. Therefore, this paper examines the impacts of 3D printing on marginalized communities in Brazil. Brazil is a middle-income country in South America with both a large national innovation system and high rates of poverty. As a result, the country is an ideal case to study the potential impacts of an emerging technology on marginalized communities because the findings can apply to countries across the economic spectrum. In addition, this paper applies the ladder of inclusive innovation to show that inclusive innovation is a multi-level phenomenon. The main research questions for this study are: According to the ladder of inclusive innovation, is 3D printing in Brazil an inclusive innovation? Is 3D printing decreasing inequality and in Brazil? This study highlights the policies and institutions that affect inclusive innovations and the complexities of developing inclusive technologies.

Vertical inequality, or inequality between individuals, tends to describe income and wealth inequality. This type of disparity gets the most attention by development scholars and aid organizations and there are a myriad of products, processes, and institutions to help impoverished communities gain more wealth. Wealth creation is obviously a major part of eradicating poverty, but if development scholars only focus on wealth, they will miss other factors that impact inequality. Horizontal inequality exists between groups of people based on factors like age, religion, gender or race. For example, Brazilians with a lighter shade of skin color get preferential treatment compared to darker Brazilians (Telles, 2004). If the a government develops a wealth transfer program simple based on income level, but fails to address the horizontal inequality, then the wealth transfer program could generate systematic biases that further subjugate a population. To truly solve inequality, innovators must develop solutions to fix horizontal inequality as well. Horizontal inequality gets less attention than vertical inequality, but it crucial that inclusive innovations address this dimension as well (Stewart et al., 2005). 2.2. Ladder of inclusive innovation Inclusive innovation occurs at a variety of levels and scholars have developed different models of inclusive innovation to refine their understanding of innovation. One model, called the ladder of inclusive innovation, has six different rungs of inclusive (See Fig. 1). As the innovations move up the ladder, the level of inclusion becomes more integrated into the system, and as a consequence, they are harder to achieve (Heeks et al., 2014). The first rung of the ladder, inclusion of intent, is the minimum threshold for an innovation to be inclusive. At this level an innovation is inclusive if the intent of the innovators is to be inclusive; however, the innovation does not actually have to help a marginalized community. Sadly, the authors have seen dozens of failed innovations, ranging from biogas generators to small business schemes, that sit on this rung. The intent of the innovators was to make an inclusive technology, but due to a variety of factors including unfruitful ideas, trial and error, and negligence, the innovation did not have an impact. The second rung, inclusion of consumption, requires that the innovation is adopted and used by a marginalized group. However, the innovation does not have to benefit the community. Many cook stove and solar panel projects that fit on this rung. These innovations might have been used by the community, but it is not clear if they had a positive impact. The development project, One Laptop per Child, could

2. Literature review 2.1. Inclusive innovation Inclusive innovation's intellectual foundations comes from writings on innovation by Schumpeter and Schumacher (R Kaplinsky, 2011; Schumacher, 2011) and technology movements like appropriate technology (Willoughby, 1990), evolutionary economics, innovation systems (Niosi, 2008), bottom of the pyramid innovation (London, 2008; Prahalad, 2004), below the radar innovation (Kaplinsky et al., 2009), and grass roots innovation (Smith et al., 2014). These different movements recognize the importance of poverty alleviation and equality in order to have sustainable, long-term economic growth (Heeks et al., 2014). However, these theories do not sufficiently characterize the impacts of innovation on diverse groups within poor communities. They tend to think of poor communities as a block as opposed to various populations that face different challenges based on factors like race, gender, age or religion. Inclusive innovation recognizes that marginal communities face additional burdens that prevent them from receiving the benefits of innovation. Based on the previous frameworks, inclusive innovation is defined as the design of new products, processes or institutions that are actively geared towards improving the lives of marginalized communities (Heeks et al., 2014). In this context a marginalized community is a group of people that face vertical and horizontal inequalities that separate them from advantaged groups (Cozzens and Kaplinsky, 2009; Stewart et al., 2005).

Fig. 1. Ladder of inclusive innovation as modified from Heeks et al. (2014). 55

Technovation 80–81 (2019) 54–62

T. Woodson et al.

also fit on this rung. The laptops were used in some communities, but the rollout was fraught with challenges, and overall, the program did not make an significant impact on the education of marginalized children in developing countries (James, 2009; Kraemer et al., 2009; Luyt, 2008; Warschauer and Ames, 2010). The third rung has even a bigger requirement for the innovations because at this stage the innovation must have a positive impact on the marginalized community. Developing an innovation at this level takes a lot of time and iteration. A challenging aspect about this rung is that it is difficult to assess positive impacts. Innovations have both short-term and long-term effects that can be narrowly or widely dispersed. An innovation can be initially helpful yet turn into a problem later in the future. For example, the short-term impacts of a new water pump for a community may be beneficial, but in the long run, the water pump may break down or harm community cohesion. One famous innovation that provides a clear benefit for marginalized communities are mobile phones and mobile banking applications like M-PESA. Mobile banking applications allow people to use text messaging to wire money to someone. This has allowed marginalized communities to access banking services and by-pass expensive middlemen when sending money. In 2014, 60% of Kenyans were using mobile banking services, and over the past few years, the popularity of those applications has only increased (Muthiora, 2015). Compared to the first three rungs, the fourth, fifth, and sixth rungs shift the approach to inclusive innovation. The fourth rung is that the marginalized population is involved in the process of making the innovation. Moving from the third to the fourth rung requires changing the innovation process because at this level, the marginalized community helps create the innovation, and in the ideal situation, the marginalized group is the driving force behind the innovation. In general, engineers and scientists are not trained to engage with community partners. Rather, they develop innovations in their labs without the vital input of the intended recipient (Harsh et al., 2017). Though it is possible for an inclusive innovation to reach rung three without involving the excluded group in the development process, most successful innovations require participation from the community. The fifth rung, inclusion of structure, considers how the innovation changes society's institutions. Is the innovation developed inside a system that is inclusive? Are horizontal inequalities being eroded so that marginalized groups have more access to inputs to create innovations? At rung five, institutions change their funding priorities, marginalized groups get more power political power, and more people have access to quality education. Innovations that reach rung five go beyond the artefact but induce structural change. In some cases, it is possible for an innovation to have marginal benefits for society, but because it changes the structure of R&D, education and politics, the innovations sit on rung five. Finally, the sixth rung, post-structure, examines whether the innovation “is created with a frame of knowledge and discourse that is itself inclusive” (Heeks et al., 2014). This rung is the least defined and hardest to attain because it involves a change in how society approaches knowledge and moral sentiments. Some potential innovations that reach rung six are micro lending programs developed by women in marginalized communities. These programs reach the first five rungs in that they were highly successful, developed by the marginal community and they changed many of the financial structures that keep women at a disadvantage. However in addition those factors, the programs pushed forward feminist thought on empowerment (Guérin et al., 2013; Rankin, 2002).

specific technologies. For example, Niosi and Reid (2007) examine biotechnology and nanotechnology R&D in less developed countries (LDCs) to better understand whether they are catching up with richer countries in R&D (Niosi and Reid, 2007) and Confraria and Godinho explore the trends in African scientific publications (Confraria and Godinho, 2015). These types of studies, although insightful, classify research in developing countries as inclusive simply because it is done in LDCs. Although R&D in LDCs is a part of inclusive innovation, inclusive innovation is a larger concept (Monroe-White and Woodson, 2016). For example, it is possible to do research in a LDC and the benefits of the research will not benefit the local population. Scholars have noted that some LDCs are simply being used a test sites. The specimens, data, and knowledge are “mined” from the country and used to help consumers in wealthy countries (Angell, 1997; Glickman et al., 2009). Obviously, that limits the inclusiveness of the research. Other scholars focus primarily on the impacts of the artefact on marginalized communities, but do not examine the process, structure, and post structure aspects of the innovations (Akoorie, 2015; King, 2015; Storrs, 2015). By failing to investigate larger consequences of the innovation on society, scholars do not get a full picture of the inclusivity. One study that does investigate the broader dimensions of inclusive innovation looked at the inclusive nature of mobile phone in Kenya (Foster and Heeks, 2013). The researchers found that this technology was inclusive on a variety of dimensions because the needs of the lowincome user were built into the technology. The mobile phone provided an immense benefit for marginalized communities and many formal and informal institutions were created to make the technology inclusive (Foster and Heeks, 2013). In addition, mobile phones minimized a variety of horizontal inequalities by empowering women and individuals from the countryside to participate in commerce and community life (Foster and Heeks, 2013). In another study, Kay and Shapira examined the impact of nanotechnology on economic development and equity in Brazil. The authors found that there is inequality in R&D public spending, the distribution of benefits, the institutions conducting the research, and in the distribution of health and environmental damage due to nanotechnology. Sadly, they conclude that marginalized communities would bear the brunt of the negative health and environmental consequences of widespread nanotechnology use (Kay and Shapira, 2010). 2.4. Brazil To better understand inclusive innovation, this study examines 3D printing in Brazil. Brazil is a middle-income country that has received a lot of attention over the past decade as a fast-growing country. In the mid-2000s, it was one of the famed BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) countries that were experiencing immense economic growth and over the past five years is has received even further international notoriety by hosting events like the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Rio Olympics. Recently, Brazil has faced many economic and politic struggles. In 2010, it had a GDP growth rate of around 7.5% but by 2012, its growth rate dropped to 1% (UNESCO, 2015). Brazil's economic stagnation is largely due to the fall in global commodity prices, which hurt the country's export and manufacturing sectors. The slowdown in the economy has caused massive political turmoil. Many Brazilians felt that the money spent on the World Cup and Olympics was wasteful and could have been spent on more useful projects. There were mass protests in the country and eventually the president, Dilma Rousseff, was impeached on charges of corruption and mishandling the economy. Like its economy, there are parts of Brazil's innovation system that are strong and there are parts that are weak. Compared to other Latin American countries, Brazil is a powerhouse in science, technology and innovation (STI). In Latin America, Brazil has the most PhDs per million inhabitants, the most scientific publications and patents, and they spend the most on R&D (UNESCO, 2015). However, compared to richer

2.3. Studies on inclusive innovation Though there has been a lot of conceptual studies on inclusive innovation, there are fewer empirical studies of inclusive innovation (Heeks et al., 2013). Some studies on innovation in developing countries examine whether developing countries are conducting research on 56

Technovation 80–81 (2019) 54–62

T. Woodson et al.

Table 1 Statistics on R&D from select countries. Country

R&D as a % GDP (most recent year available)

Total R&D expenditures (billions)

Scientific Publications

Population (million)

GDP per Capita (2013)

Brazil USA Mexico South Korea China Russia South Africa Italy India Sweden Argentina

1.24 2.81 0.50 4.15 2.08 1.12 0.73 1.25 0.82 3.30 0.58

35.80 453.50 7.00 68.90 336.70 40.70 4.80 26.50 48.00 14.20 5.10

232,381 2,151,180 68,383 298,768 1,137,882 194,364 51,166 366,894 314,669 136,603 51,685

202 323 124 50 1394 143 53 61 1264 10 42

15,037 53,042 16,370 33,062 11,907 25,248 12,867 35,281 5418 44,658 10,644

*Take from World Bank data.

the authors are only talking with people who are familiar with 3D printing, and therefore, these participants have a distinct perspective from than the average Brazilian. Stereotypically, technologists tend to be optimistic about new innovations and their impact on society. The authors developed the list of potential interviewees based on intensive web searches of Brazilians working with 3D printers. After developing a list of active researchers and entrepreneurs, they contacted 36 people and conducted 12 interviews from June 2015 to July 2016 in both Portuguese and English. Seven of the respondents are from Makerspaces/FabLabs throughout Brazil. Among these seven respondents, some of them are also cross-listed at academics because some of the Makerspaces/FabLabs are at universities. Two of the respondents are founders of 3D printing companies. The rest of the interviewees use 3D printers in either their profession, like a dentist, or at non-profit organizations. By conducting the interviews in English and Portuguese, the study reached a broader audience and ensure that the respondents could give their opinions in their preferred language. Speaking the local language is especially important when gathering information from marginalized communities. The interviewers asked about the individual's involvement with 3D printing, how 3D printing is used in the Brazil, government involvement with the technology, the positive and negative impacts of the technology, and the future of 3D printing in Brazil. Each of the interviews were translated, transcribed and coded. The interviews were translated by the native Portuguese speakers on the research team. The interview codes were developed through a grounded theory approach to qualitative data analysis (Corbin and Strauss, 1990). Each of the coders were trained on grounded theory approaches and the codes were iteratively developed and verified with the principal investigator to ensure intercoder reliability. Table 2 list the codes that were eventually developed through the analysis process.

nations it lags far behind in STI indicators. For example, Germany and South Korea have about 333 and 240 PhDs per million inhabitants, respectively, while Brazil has 70 PhDs per million inhabitants (UNESCO, 2015). Rich nations spend at least 2% of their GDP on R&D, while Brazil only spends 1.15% (UNESCO, 2015). Table 1 shows STI indicators for several countries around the world. Publication output is not a perfect indicator of R&D output, but it is an indication of R&D performance. Brazil's combination of elevated levels of poverty with a strong innovation system make it a good case to study inclusive innovation. It has robust STI institutions to support a 3D printing sector and there are a variety of marginalized communities that could directly benefit from an inclusive technology. The lessons learned from Brazil can be applied to many other low/middle income countries in South America, Africa, Europe and Asia. 3. Method This study consists of both a bibliometric investigation of 3D printing and phone/skype interviews of prominent 3D printing researchers and entrepreneurs in Brazil. The project begins with an indepth bibliometric analysis of 3D printing publications and patents from Brazilian researchers and institutions. The search started by examining 3D printing publications in Web of Science. Web of Science is a common database for bibliometric analyses and it has been used to investigate publication trends on a variety of issues ranging from research output in Brazil (Packer and Meneghini, 2006) to creating global maps of science (Leydesdorff et al., 2013). To find the 3D printing publications, this project uses search terms developed by Weber et al. in their study on additive manufacturing development (Weber et al., 2013). Their list of 61 3D printing keywords is in Appendix A. Next, the authors did a bibliometric search for 3D printing patents in the Castle Island World Wide Guide to Rapid Prototyping and Brazil's patent office, the Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial (INPI). The Castle Island databases contains about 10,000 3D printing patent in the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) up to March 2015, and it is considered one of the most comprehensive databases on 3D printing patents (Weber et al., 2013). INPI is Brazil's patent office, and even though it is not as big as the USPTO or the European Patent Office (EPO), it is an important patent office for Brazilians to declare their work. Unfortunately, the intensive bibliometric analysis yielded few results. The Castle Island World Wide Guide to Rapid Prototyping had no patents by Brazilian investigators and Brazil's INPI only had three patents related to 3D printing. Because the traditional bibliometric techniques yielded so few results, the authors conducted semi-structured interviews of Brazilian 3D printer users, designers and researchers. The authors chose to interview Brazilians working with 3D printers because these participants give the best insight into how the technology is developing in the country. However, by concentrating the analysis on this population there is a potential that the results could be biased because

4. Results Below are some of the main findings from the study. The findings are divided into discussions on institutions, knowledge, and other problems. These divisions match some key factors in innovation systems studies (Altenburg, 2009; Chaminade et al., 2009). 4.1. Institutions/applications Brazilian institutions are in the initial stages of adopting 3D printings. The main organizations using and promoting 3D printing are makerspaces and FabLabs. These organizations are small community workspaces where individuals can build, tinker and develop ideas. Makerspaces and FabLabs have a similar purpose, but FabLabs are a part of a global network of makerspaces that was started by MIT (Fab Foundation, 2016). The authors found about 20 makerspaces and FabLabs throughout the country and all but two of them had a 3D printer. FabLabs and makerspaces are committed to inclusive innovation. 57

Technovation 80–81 (2019) 54–62

T. Woodson et al.

to install equipment because parts were missing, and another entrepreneur commented that they had trouble securing the actual lab space to host a FabLab. The experience of the Brazil's 3D printing entrepreneurs highlights the fact that the Brazilian government is not focused on technologies like 3D printing. Rather, the majority of government R&D goes towards agriculture, industrial and health R&D (Bound, 2008). Despite the lack of formal government support for 3D printing, several government funded research organizations and universities are using the technology in projects. The most prominent government organization involved with 3D printing is the Centro de Tecnologia da Informação (CTI) Renato Archer. CTI is a research unit of Brazil's Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation that focuses on electronics, software applications, IT and robotics. CTI has done several surgeries using 3D printed skulls. In one case they printed a new skull for a woman in a motorbike accident (“Medical first in Brazil: 3D printed titanium skull successfully implanted in 23-year-old woman”, 2015), and in another case, doctors printed a model of a skull that they used to prepare them for the surgery (Eddie Krassenstein, 2015). In addition to CTI, there are a few universities involved in 3D printing, but these efforts tend to be driven by an individual faculty member and their research projects that use 3D printers. For example, a professor at one of the federal universities had some 3D printers and automated design tools that he used to set up as an informal makerspace. This study did not find any 3D printing research networks or university-wide initiatives. There are a few companies building and selling 3D printers. The intensive web and bibliometric review found four companies involved with 3D printer production. The companies that are pursuing 3D printers tend to be small and specialize in 3D printing design and education. The companies differ from makerspaces in that the primary goal of companies is to sell 3D printer or 3D printing services as opposed to providing a workspace for innovators to come and do their personal projects. As one of the respondents said, “Here what is growing are small companies with small production producing projects with many characteristics of open projects. Most of the places that work with 3D printing here are doing projects that are open and not that expensive.” This type of bottom up innovation from small companies is unique in Brazil's innovation system. Traditional innovation in Brazil is dominated by large multinational firms like Petrobras or Embraer (Bound, 2008). Despite the small footprint of many of the 3D printing companies, they have trouble staying financially viable. One company manufactured and sold 3D printers, but they stopped producing the printers due to the low sales volume. As a result, the company shifted its attention to providing 3D printing services. Now they use 3D printers as an educational tool and they consult on 3D printing and digital fabrication projects for other firms. Similarly, other companies are focusing on 3D printing education. One company trains teachers and helps build makerspace inside schools. They hope that 3D printing will make learning more dynamic for primary and secondary school students. The challenges of 3D printing firms in Brazil matches difficulties firms across the world face. It is challenging for firms and individuals to fully capture the value of 3D printing (Rayna and Striukova, 2016). Finally, there are some non-profit organizations that use 3D printing for social good. For example, there is a non-profit organization that makes 3D printed prosthetics and rehabilitates children and adults with disabled or amputated limbs. Another non-profit organization makes 3D printed animal prosthetics. A dental surgeon from that group was involved in making the world's first titanium 3D printed prosthetic beak for a bird.

Table 2 Code for the interviews. Code names

Description

Access Accessibility

Is easy to find a place that has 3D printers? Are 3D printers an inclusive or exclusive technology? Professional background experience Who are your partners and close colleagues? Companies using the technology Is expensive to have 3D printers in Brazil? How the economic crisis has affected 3D printing in Brazil Areas that 3D printing has been developing in Brazil Does the project receive any financial support Opinion on the future of 3D printing Does 3D printing receive gov't support (financial and non-financial)? History of 3D printing in Brazil Impacts of the technology on the poor Innovative products using 3D printing Are people interested in learning or get to know more about 3D printing? Has the maker culture been developing in Brazil? Makerspaces, hackerspaces and FabLabs in Brazil Mission and goals of the organization Why do you work with 3D printers? Patents and publications related to 3D printing First contact with 3D printing Policies related to 3d printing Is 3d printer popular in Brazil? Problems with 3D printing Projects related to 3D printing The work is related to universities, university research, and college

Background Collaboration CompaniesUsingTechnology Costs Crisis Development Funding Future Gov't support HistoryBrazil Impacts InnovativeProducts Learning Maker culture Makerspaces Mission Motivation PatentsAndPublications PersonalHistory3D Policies Popularity Problem Projects Universities

The goal of FabLabs is “democratizing access to the tools for technical invention. This community is simultaneously a manufacturing network, a distributed technical education campus, and a distributed research laboratory working to digitize fabrication, inventing the next generation of manufacturing and personal fabrication (Fab Foundation, 2016).” FabLabs value community development and broad access to technology. Despite a mission that incorporates marginalized communities, FabLabs and makerspaces still predominately benefit communities with the time, skills, and money to access these spaces, and as result, they have not broadly served marginalized communities. Most of the makerspaces and FabLabs were founded by Brazilians after they returned from working or studying in the USA or Europe. While abroad, the Brazilians entrepreneurs got to experience makerspaces, and when they came back, they had a powerful desire to start Brazilian makerspaces. One of the founders said, “So, when we come back to Brasilia we missed this [makerspaces]. Even though there are some machines and tools in our university in Brazil, there is a lot of bureaucracy and is it difficult to have access to them. We started the project from a personal need. We needed a space where people can come and use the machines to do whatever they want.” To sustain themselves, the Brazilian makerspaces charge an hourly usage rates, have membership fees and host training courses. These fees are not intended to enrich the makerspaces; rather, the fees simply keep the makerspaces viable. Makerspaces receive little support from the government, especially the federal government. None of the interview participants received any direct support from the government, nor did they know about any grants from the federal government. The only government program that supports 3D printing was an initiative by the city of São Paulo to open 12 FabLabs. Unfortunately, many of the FabLabs have not opened due to a variety of organizational problems. One of the makerspace entrepreneurs commented that some of the labs in São Paulo were unable

4.2. Learning A central driver of innovation in the innovation systems framework is learning (Lundvall et al., 2002). Learning, through both explicit and implicit means, serves as the catalyst and diffusion mechanism of innovation. As Lundvall et al. say “…we argue that today the most 58

Technovation 80–81 (2019) 54–62

T. Woodson et al.

important elements in innovation systems have to do with the learning capability of individuals, organizations, and regions (Lundvall et al., 2002).” Learning and sharing knowledge in the 3D printing space is complicated. At one level, the makerspaces/FabLabs are core knowledge facilitators that purposefully spread tacit/experience-based knowledge of 3D printers and design. They host demonstration projects and short courses to train their community to use the technology. As a makerspace manager says,

around R$: 2500 [USD 780] or even R$: 3000 [USD 937].” Brazil's high taxes make the technology more expensive and it signals to the innovators that the country is not interested in promoting the technology. Alongside expensive equipment, 3D printer users cannot find the right parts to build and repair the printers. One of the respondents said, “Here is really hard to find the pieces, and for example, the motors that we need we find in some old equipment but not in new ones. We tried to go to junkyard to look for some pieces, but it's really hard to find what we need in an accessible price.”

“When we are presenting the space, we talk to people that usually work with something related to technology, so they get very enamored with the idea and want to come visit the space, but … many people still prefer to access the garage in their own house, in a virtual way. However, this is not the intention of our project, we want to people come visit our space and be a part of the change of experiences.”

The lack of parts severely limits use and adoption of the technology. 5. Discussion Given the broader trends of 3D printing in Brazil, is the technology an inclusive innovation? Below is a summary of how the technology maps onto the ladder of inclusive innovation.

Despite the significant role of makerspaces in providing knowledge, there are few explicit/codified instructional resources, like manual and how-to books, in Portuguese. This limits the ability of the codified, explicit knowledge to disseminate and help the expansion of 3D printers. Another complicating factor that hinders learning in the 3D printing innovation system is that the initial excitement of the technology quickly fades as users discover that the technology can be challenging to operate. Creating and printing designs requires knowledge of 3D computer aided design, 3D printer maintenance and troubleshooting. These can be challenging skills to learn unless the individual has a high degree of technical ability and knowledge. Previous studies confirm that a barrier to technology diffusion in Brazil is the lack of absorptive capacity (Goedhuys and Veugelers, 2012). Other respondents mentioned that Brazil lacks a do it yourself (DIY) “maker culture” which impedes learning and knowledge diffusion. Rather than designing or creating a new product, the default response by many Brazilians is to simply buy the product. One of the respondents said:

5.1. Rung 1: intention From the interviews, there is clearly an intention that 3D printing will be an inclusive innovation. The mission of the makerspaces and FabLabs is to give the community access to technology. These organizations want to train people across the economic, education, and social status spectrum to use 3D printers to make their own products. In fact, the desire for inclusion is so strong that there was very little discussion about using 3D printing in high-tech industries or for luxury good. 5.2. Rung 2 and 3: consumption and impact There is little evidence that there is consumption of 3D printing, rung 2, and as a result, the technology is not having an impact on the society, rung 3. There was a broad consensus that 3D printing was too expensive and difficult to import, and therefore, it was nearly impossible for the average Brazilian citizen or small firm to purchase a printer. The few active printers are in research centers, makerspaces, and schools. Secondly, even in the makerspaces, 3D printers are underutilized. When makerspaces first started, there was an initial excitement that the technology would change manufacturing and design in communities. A person from an underserved community could go to at a makerspace and print a tool to help their business. But the initial excitement wore off as people realized that it is difficult to design an object. Finally, it is unclear if making medical devices, one of the most anticipated applications of 3D printing, will have long-term and broad impacts. 3D printed prosthetic limbs and implants provide some functionality to their patients, but the cheap 3D printed devices are brittle and not suitable for heavy lifting or complex tasks (Rose Eveleth and Eveleth, 2015). The stronger devices that fit well are hard to design and they are almost the same price as a medically certified prosthetic that has been professionally built (Rose Eveleth and Eveleth, 2015). In the future, home 3D printed prosthetics could become more functional, but currently the technology does not provide a long-term solution for individuals with disabilities.

“When I studied social science, there was a course called the sociological formation of Brazil, and I learned about the culture of the manual work to the slaves. According to the study, manual work doesn't have value. For example, making cement, [or] repairing the socket of your house is not very interesting; for this culture, it is better you contract someone to do it for you. This is different than the culture in Europe or in the USA, where the guys make things by themselves, the culture of DIY. I am fighting against a local culture from [region X], where people do not leave their houses. And, also fighting against a no maker Brazilian culture.” These statements are supported by other scholars who found that Brazil has low levels of innovation and at the corporate level there is a “deeply ingrained indifference of businesses and industry towards developing new technologies” (UNESCO, 2015). 4.3. Challenges of 3D printing in Brazil One challenge for 3D printer adoption and expansion in Brazil is the cost of the technology. At the low end of the spectrum, a cheap 3D printer costs about R$2700 (US$900), and at the high end, a 3D printer can cost over R$30,000 (US$10,000). In a country where the median annual household income is below $10,000, buying a commercial 3D printer is cost prohibitive. In addition to the base price, Brazil imposes heavy taxes on importing 3D printers and 3D printer parts. The base import tax, Imposto sobre a Importção, for 3D printers is 14%. On top of that 3D printers are subject to the state tax, Imposto sobre a Circulação de Mercadorias e Serviços (ICMS), which is 18% in São Paulo and the social security financing tax (COFINS), which is 7.6% (Rebeca Duran, 2014). In comparison, the import duty fees in the USA for 3D printers are around 3.1% (United States International Trade Commission, 2016). One of the interviewees expressed this disparity saying, “The total I spent buying from the USA with tax was less then R$: 2000 [USD 625] If I bought in Brazil, I would pay

5.3. Rung 4: inclusion of process There is evidence that 3D printing both does and does not feature “inclusion of process”. Despite finding little evidence of inclusive innovation on rungs 1–3, there is evidence that 3D printing is an inclusive innovation at rung 3D printing satisfies this rung because almost all the 3D printing pioneers in the country are native Brazilians rather than foreigners importing the technology. Brazilians are creating 3D printing companies and makerspaces, and local researchers are using the technology in a variety of settings ranging from medical applications to afterschool programs. However, the development of 3D printing highlights much of the inequality in the country. Most of the Brazilians developing the 59

Technovation 80–81 (2019) 54–62

T. Woodson et al.

models of inclusive innovation like bottom of the pyramid innovation (Prahalad, 2004). Though this model has sharpened thinking or propoor innovation, bottom of the pyramid scholarship has typically concentrated on innovations in multinational corporations and the movement is closely tied to corporate social responsibility (Hall, 2014). The ladder of inclusive innovation broadens the discussion by making community involvement in the innovation process a key part of inclusive innovation. Another addition to theory is that this article's unit of analysis is the technology (3D printing) as opposed to a certain industry or business. By focusing on a technology that is used in multiple sectors and industries, the paper illuminates some of the cross-cutting challenges of inclusive innovation. For example, the challenge of importing replacement parts for 3D printers is felt across the Brazilian economy. Finally, the ladder is an improvement of innovation models because it can analyze a wide range of technologies and innovations. The nature of 3D printing innovation does not align as well with innovation models that concentrate on large corporations. 3D printing has close connection with grassroot and open innovation movements, and therefore, it needs different models that recognize the importance of this type of innovation (Fressoli et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2014).

technology are highly educated. Many of them were trained in engineering at European or American universities and started using the technology when they were outside of Brazil. The highly-educated doctors and engineers using 3D printers do not represent the marginalized communities of Brazil, and therefore, marginalized groups are not involved in the process of developing the technology. 5.4. Rung 5: structure The development of 3D printing has brought structural reforms to Brazil that are inclusive. One change is that the technology is being developed and disseminated in newly formed makerspaces that are intended to be inclusive and allow anyone to develop ideas. Makerspaces have the potential to change innovation in the country, and if makerspaces are started in marginalized communities, then they could change how those communities approach technology. 3D printers are also changing the structure of intellectual property to be more inclusive. Many of the recent 3D printing innovations are based on open source and open access structures that allow marginalized communities greater access to the technology. Rather than paying a large licensing fee to a company, the open access protocol allows individuals to take the core technology and build upon it. One of the respondents said “For example, [XYZCompany] always followed the principles of free software and open hardware… I think this is an inclusive technology. Because you have the user of the technology in a position of power by putting the user as actor”

7. Conclusion 3D printing is an emerging technology that could revolutionize manufacturing, supply chains, design and product consumption. As the technology develops, it is important to investigate whether it is inclusive and to determine the factors that allow it to improve the lives of marginalized communities. This study uses the ladder of inclusive to characterize 3D printing innovation. Compared to previous innovation frameworks for marginalized communities, the ladder of inclusive innovation best accounts for the several types of inclusive innovation, and therefore, it can more accurately assess the impacts of technologies on these communities. Though this project is a case study of 3D printing in Brazil, the results can be generalized to 3D printing adoption and technology development around the world. First, the authors find that 3D printing is an inclusive innovation on some issues, yet, it is exclusive on other aspects. At the individual level, the technology is not very inclusive. 3D printing has not been widely adopted by marginalized communities because the technology is expensive, and it is challenging to develop useful 3D designs. As other scholars have found, simply owning a 3D printing is not enough to encourage development and innovation. It is necessary to have the infrastructure and capacity to support the technology (Candi and Beltagui, 2018). This finding especially powerful because most of the interviewees were deeply involved in developing the technology, and as mentioned before, technologists tend to overestimate the benefits of technology. However, there are aspects of 3D printing that are inclusive. 3D printing encourages design thinking in marginalized communities and the open access nature of the technology makes it more accessible to marginalized groups. Also, 3D printers are being used in schools to train the next generation of entrepreneurs. It is difficult to predict the future of technology but the greatest benefit of 3D printing is that the technology, and the surrounding institutions like makerspaces, encourage inclusive innovation. With these skills individuals in marginalized communities can develop other technologies that are truly inclusive innovations.

5.5. Rung 6: post-structure The sixth rung represents the highest level of inclusive innovation because there is a change in the discourse surrounding innovation. In Brazil, there are signs that 3D printing is changing the culture of making, building, and innovation in the country. Many of the 3D printer entrepreneurs view 3D printing as a part of a system of technologies that are building an inclusive frame of knowledge. There is a strong belief in the 3D printing community the technology will allow any person, regardless of background, to create an innovation. This is a radical shift in beliefs in a country where innovations were only developed by experts in a lab. Brazil is far from having a strong DIY community in marginalized communities, but the initial discussions about instilling a DIY culture in Brazil points to post-structural inclusive innovation. One of the respondents said these exact sentiments when she said, “However, I think that it is not the printer that will make a big impact on our society, it is the mentality of the printer.” Another aspect of 3D printing that is shows a post-structural inclusion society is that the technology is being used to educate students and give them a fresh perspective on innovation. The hope is that the technology will alter the way young Brazilians approach design, and eventually, more of the population will be involved in creating novel innovations. 6. Implications for theory This study pushes forward our understanding of technology diffusion, innovation and international development. The ladder of inclusive innovation is another way to discussion innovation for poverty that enhances the current literature on theories like innovation systems or technology diffusion. Much of the traditional innovation and innovation systems literature focuses on innovation done by and for middle income and wealthy communities. The innovation for these communities is obviously different than innovation for marginalized communities, and as a consequence, traditional innovation can acerbate inequality (Heeks et al., 2014). In response to the lack of good models for LDCs, scholars created

Funding/Acknowledgements This work was funded through the Brazil Scientific Mobility Program and Stony Brook University.

60

Technovation 80–81 (2019) 54–62

T. Woodson et al.

Appendix A See Appendix Table A1. Table A1 List of keyword for 3D printing bibliometric search. layer deposita layer fabricata layer manufactura layered fabricata layered manufactura LOM mass customa metal deposita metallic deposita MLS powder bed rapid manufactura rapid prototypa rapid toola rapid-prototypa RP select deposita selective deposita selectively deposita SFF shape deposita SLA SLS stereolithographa STL strategic manufactura STRATMAN three dimensional printa ultrasonic consola ultrasonic fabricata

3DP 3 prototype toola adaptive slica additive fabricata additive layer manufactura additive manufactura additive processa additive system* conformal coola DDM deposition modela desktop manufactura digital fabricata digital manufactura direct fabricata direct manufactura direct metal deposita direct metal fabricata directa energy DMD electron beam melta fab laba FDM free form freeform fused deposition laminated object laser additia laser engineered net shapa laser melta laser sinta a

Is wildcard search character.

Eddie Krassenstein, 2015. 3D Printing Saves the Life of a Newborn with Cloverleaf Skull Syndrome in Brazil | 3DPrint.com. Retrieved January 12, 2017, from 〈https:// 3dprint.com/48390/cloverleaf-skull-syndrome/〉. Fab Foundation, 2016. Fab Foundation – About Fab Foundation. Retrieved February 12, 2017, from 〈http://fabfoundation.org/index.php/about-fab-foundation/index.html〉. Foster, C., Heeks, R., 2013. Conceptualising inclusive innovation: modifying systems of innovation frameworks to understand diffusion of new technology to low-income consumers. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 25 (3), 333–355. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2013.7. Fressoli, M., Arond, E., Abrol, D., Smith, A., Ely, A., Dias, R., 2014. When grassroots innovation movements encounter mainstream institutions: implications for models of inclusive innovation. Innov. Dev. 4 (2), 277–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 2157930X.2014.921354. Gebler, M., Schoot Uiterkamp, A.J.M., Visser, C., 2014. A global sustainability perspective on 3D printing technologies. Energy Policy 74 (C), 158–167. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.enpol.2014.08.033. Giusti, L., 2009. A review of waste management practices and their impact on human health. Waste Manag. 29 (8), 2227–2239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009. 03.028. Glickman, S.W., McHutchison, J.G., Peterson, E.D., Cairns, C.B., Harrington, R. a., Califf, R.M., Schulman, K.a., 2009. Ethical and scientific implications of the globalization of clinical research. New Engl. J. Med. 360 (8), 816–823. https://doi.org/10.1056/ NEJMsb0803929. Goedhuys, M., Veugelers, R., 2012. Innovation strategies, process and product innovations and growth: firm-level evidence from Brazil. Struct. Change Econ. Dyn. 23 (4), 516–529(Retrieved from 〈http://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/34871〉). Grant, K., Goldizen, F.C., Sly, P.D., Brune, M.N., Neira, M., van den Berg, M., Norman, R.E., 2013. Health consequences of exposure to e-waste: a systematic review. Lancet Glob. Health 1 (6), e350–e361. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(13)70101-3. Guérin, I., Kumar, S., Agier, I., 2013. women's empowerment: power to act or power over other women? Lessons from Indian microfinance. Oxf. Dev. Stud. 41 (sup1), S76–S94. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600818.2013.781147. Hall, J., 2014. Innovation and entrepreneurial dynamics in the base of the pyramid. Technovation 34 (5–6), 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.04. 001. Harsh, M., Bernstein, M.J., Wetmore, J., Cozzens, S., Woodson, T., Castillo, R., 2017. Preparing engineers for the challenges of community engagement. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 42 (6), 1154–1173. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2014.965672.Cozzens. Heeks, R., Amalia, M., Kintu, R., Shah, N., 2013. Inclusive Innovation: Definition,

References Akoorie, N., 2015. Kiwi design gets kids on their feet. N.Z. Herald. 1–2. Altenburg, T., 2009. Building inclusive innovation systems in developing countries: challenges for IS research. In: Lundvall, B.-Å., Joseph, K., Chaminade, C., Vang, J. (Eds.), Handbook on Innovation Systems and Developing Countries – Building Domestic Capabilities in a Global Setting. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Angell, M., 1997. The ethics of clinical research in the third world. New Engl. J. Med. 337 (12), 847–849. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199709183371209. Barack Obama, 2013. Remarks by the President in the State of the Union Address | The White House. White House Press Release, Washington D.C.(Retrieved from 〈http:// www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/remarks-president-state-unionaddress〉). Baumers, M., Dickens, P., Tuck, C., Hague, R., 2016. The cost of additive manufacturing: machine productivity, economies of scale and technology-push. Technol. Forecast. Social Change 102, 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.02.015. Beyer, C., 2014. Strategic implications of current trends in additive manufacturing. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 136 (6), 064701. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4028599. Bound, K., 2008. Brazil the Natural Knowledge Economy. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016. May 2015 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. Retrieved February 28, 2017, from 〈https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/ oes_nat.htm#41-0000〉. Candi, M., Beltagui, A., 2018. Effective use of 3D printing in the innovation process. Technovation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.05.002. Chaminade, C., Lundvall, B.-A., Vang, J., Joseph, K.J., 2009. Designing innovation policies for development: towards a systemic experimentation-based approach. In: Handbook of Innovation Systems and Developing Countries. Edward-Elgar, Northampton, Massachusetts. Confraria, H., Godinho, M.M., 2015. The impact of African science: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics 102 (2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1463-8. Corbin, J., Strauss, A., 1990. Grounded theory research: procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Qual. Sociol. Cozzens, S.E., Kaplinsky, R., 2009. Innovation, poverty, and inequality: cause, coincidence or co-evolution? In: Handbook of Innovation Systems and Developing Countries. Diegel, O., Singamneni, S., Reay, S., Withell, A., 2010. Tools for sustainable product design: additive manufacturing. J. Sustain. Dev. 3 (3), 68–75.

61

Technovation 80–81 (2019) 54–62

T. Woodson et al.

1/2/81f894baaa91623ffe8f91cc807b69a3〉). 〈http://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/B6VC6-4MYMP4K-1/2/81f894baaa91623ffe8f91cc807b69a3〉. Packer, A.L., Meneghini, R., 2006. Articles with authors affiliated to Brazilian institutions published from 1994 to 2003 with 100 or more citations: I - the weight of international collaboration and the role of the networks. An. Da Acad. Bras. Ciências 78 (4), 841–853(Retrieved from 〈http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17143417〉). Pastor, M., Sadd, J.I.M., Hipp, J., 2001. Which came first? Toxic facilities, minority movein, and environmental justice. J. Urban Aff. 23 (1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 0735-2166.00072. Prahalad, C.K., 2004. The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid. Wharton School Publishing, Philadelphia(Retrieved from 〈http://ptgmedia.pearsoncmg.com/images/ 9780137009275/samplepages/0137009275.pdf〉). Rankin, K.N., 2002. Social capital, microfinance, and the politics of development. Fem. Econ. 8 (1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545700210125167. Rayna, T., Striukova, L., 2016. From rapid prototyping to home fabrication: how 3D printing is changing business model innovation. Technol. Forecast. Social Change 102, 214–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.023. Rebeca Duran, 2014. Import Taxes in Brazil – The Brazil Business. Retrieved March 1, 2017, from 〈http://thebrazilbusiness.com/article/import-taxes-in-brazil〉. Rifkin, J., 2012. The third industrial revolution: How the internet, green electricity, and 3-D printing are ushering in a sustainable era of distributed capitalism. World Financ. Rev(Retrieved from 〈http://wermutham.com/pdf/TheThirdIndustrialRevolution. pdf〉). Rose Eveleth, Eveleth, R., 2015. The Reality of 3D Printed Robo-Hands – The Daily Beast. Retrieved March 2, 2017, from 〈http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/ 11/the-reality-of-3d-printed-robo-hands.html〉. Schumacher, E.F., 2011. Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered. Random House, New York. Smith, A., Fressoli, M., Thomas, H., 2014. Grassroots innovation movements: challenges and contributions. J. Clean. Prod. 63, 114–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2012.12.025. Stewart, F., Brown, G., Mancini, L., 2005. Why Horizontal Inequalities Matter: Some Implications for Measurement (CRISE Working Paper No. 19). Retrieved from 〈http://www3.qeh.ox.ac.uk/pdf/qehwp/qehwps81.pdf〉. Storrs, C., 2015. How a 3-D-printer changed a 4-year-old’s heart and life. CNN. Telles, E.E., 2004. Race in Another America: The Significance of Skin Color in Brazil. Princeton University Press, Princeton. UNESCO, 2015. UNESCO Science Report. Paris, France. United States International Trade Commission, 2016. 2015 HTSA Revision 2 Edition. Retrieved February 8, 2017, from 〈https://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/bychapter/ index.htm〉. Warschauer, M., Ames, M., 2010. Can one laptop per child save the world's poor. J. Int. Aff. 64 (1), 33–51. Weber, C.L., Pena, V., Micali, M.K., Rood, S.A., Yglesias, E., Scott, J.A., Lal, B., 2013. The Role of the National Science Foundation in the Origin and Evolution of Additive Manufacturing in the United States. Alexandria, VA. Willoughby, K.W., 1990. Technology Choice: A Critique of the Appropriate Technology Movement. Westview Press, Boulder CO, USA. Woodson, T.S., 2015. 3D printing for sustainable industrial transformation. Development 58 (4), 1–6. Yeh, C.C., Chen, Y.F., 2018. Critical success factors for adoption of 3D printing. Technol. Forecast. Social Change 132, 209–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.02. 003.

Conceptualisation and Future. Academy of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Oxford, pp. 1–24. Heeks, R., Foster, C., Nugroho, Y., 2014. New models of inclusive innovation for development. Innov. Dev. 0, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2014.928982. Huang, S.H., Liu, P., Mokasdar, A., Hou, L., 2012. Additive manufacturing and its societal impact: a literature review. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 67 (5–8), 1191–1203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-012-4558-5. James, J., 2009. New technology in developing countries: a critique of the one-laptop-perchild program. Socia. Sci. Comput. Rev. 28 (3), 381–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0894439309346398. Juma, C., 2014. It will take more than natural resources for Africa to rise. Aljazeera 1–7. Kaplinsky, R., 2011. Schumacher meets Schumpeter: appropriate technology below the radar. Res. Policy 40, 193–203(Retrieved from 〈http://umconference.um.edu.my/ upload/43-1/papers/111RaphaelKaplinsky.pdf〉). Kaplinsky, R., Chataway, J., Clark, N., Hanlin, R., Kale, D., Muraguri, L., Wamae, W., 2009. Below the radar: what does innovation in emerging economies have to offer other low-income economies? Int. J. Technol. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 8 (3), 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1386/ijtm8.3.177/1. Kay, L., Shapira, P., 2010. The potential of nanotechnology for economic development: the case of Brazil and lessons from Latin America. In: Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society Volume 3: Equity and Equality. 3 Springer, New York. King, L., 2015. 3D Printing and the Momentous Change for Africa’s Amputees. Forbes. Kraemer, B.Y.K.L., Dedrick, J., Sharma, P., Kraemer, K.L., 2009. One laptop per child: vision vs. reality. Commun. ACM 52 (6), 66–73(Retrieved from 〈http://dl.acm.org/ citation.cfm?id=1516063〉). Leydesdorff, L., Carley, S., Rafols, I., 2013. Global maps of science based on the new webof-science categories scientometrics. Scientometrics 94 (2), 1–5. Lipson, H., Kurman, M., 2013. Fabricated: The New World of 3d Printing. John Wiley & Sons, Indianapolis. London, T., 2008. The base-of-the-pyramid perspective on poverty alleviation. Acad. Manag. Proc. 1, 1–46(Retrieved from 〈http://www.myduquesne.duq.edu/s/831/ images/editor_documents/SocialThought/ABaseofthePyramidPerspective(3).pdf〉). Lundvall, B.-Å., Johnson, B., Andersen, E.S., Dalum, B., 2002. National systems of production, innovation and competence building. Res. Policy 31 (2), 213–231. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00137-8. Luyt, B., 2008. The one laptop per child project and the negotiation of technological meaning. First Monday 13 (6). Medical first in Brazil: 3D printed titanium skull successfully implanted in 23-year-old woman, 2015. Retrieved March 2, 2017, from 〈http://www.3ders.org/articles/ 20150603-medical-first-in-brazil-3d-printed-titanium-skull-successfully-implantedin-23-year-old-woman.html〉. Monroe-White, T., Woodson, T.S., 2016. Inequalities in scholarly knowledge: public value failures and their impact on global science. Afr. J. Sci. Technol. Innov. Dev. 8 (2), 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2016.1147204. Muthiora, B., 2015. Enabling Mobile Money Policies in Kenya: Fostering a Digital Financial Revolution. London. Retrieved from 〈http://www.gsma.com/ mobilefordevelopment/programme/mobile-money/enabling-mobile-money-policiesin-kenya-fostering-a-digital-financial-revolution/〉. Niosi, J., 2008. Technology, development and innovation systems: an introduction. J. Dev. Stud. 44, 613–621. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220380802009084. Niosi, J., Reid, S.E., 2007. Biotechnology and nanotechnology: science-based enabling technologies as windows of opportunity for LDCs? World Dev. 35 (3), 426–438. (Retrieved from 〈http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VC6-4MYMP4K-

62