“We lack an ecosystem that effectively translates research into policy and decision-making”

Myriam Blin, Head of the Charles Telfair Centre

• It is a worrying trend if universities are increasingly guided by market logic rather than social needs.
• Economic performance matters, but education also has a role in shaping critical thinking, social cohesion and the long-term resilience of societies.

Economist, gender expert and Head of the Charles Telfair Centre, Myriam Blin reflects on the evolving role of universities, the growing importance of evidence-based policymaking, and the challenges facing Mauritius in a rapidly changing global environment. In this interview with Bizweek, she discusses the country’s research deficit, the need for stronger institutional bridges between academia and decision-makers, the risks posed by demographic and social pressures, and the importance of building a more inclusive, resilient and knowledge-driven society. She also shares her views on higher education, artificial intelligence, migration, gender equality, and the geopolitical shifts reshaping small island economies.

Rudy Veeramundar 

You have held academic and leadership roles across the UK, the Middle East and Mauritius. Looking back, how have these experiences shaped your understanding of the link between education, policy and economic performance?

It is about how the sector has evolved and changed over time, as well as about what is very specific to Mauritius. I can think of two broad dimensions.

The first relates to learning and teaching, particularly in higher education.

We already understand the importance of education and human capital, so I will not repeat the broader economic arguments around that. What is interesting is how the role of universities themselves has changed.

 

“Mauritius invests 0.23 per cent of its GDP in R&D. The global average is 1.7 per cent. Singapore invests 1.85%.”

 

When I started as an academic around 20 years ago, universities were primarily expected to equip students with deep disciplinary knowledge, critical thinking abilities and problem-solving skills. There was little expectation for universities to develop professional or workplace skills, except perhaps in areas such as accounting or engineering.

The mission of universities was centred on intellectual depth and deep thinking. 

I think this has changed fundamentally. Today, the labour market expects graduates to be work-ready, and universities have had to adapt accordingly.

The most significant adaptation has been the development of what we call work-integrated learning pedagogies. Some institutions now offer ‘programmes d’alternance’, while others embed internships and practical work experience directly into academic programmes, either during or outside term time. This is something that Charles Telfair and Curtin Mauritius have integrated across a number of programmes.

In that sense, higher education has become far more responsive to economic needs and labour-market demands by shifting from a sole emphasis on deep disciplinary knowledge towards a stronger focus on professional skills.

I think this is, overall, a positive evolution. However, there is also a downside. If universities respond only to market signals, they risk losing part of their broader mission, which is also to serve the social good of a nation. Globally, we have seen universities progressively disinvest in the humanities and social sciences. This is a worrying trend if universities are increasingly guided by market logic rather than social needs.

In a world that is becoming more fragmented and multipolar, and where artificial intelligence is fundamentally changing our relationship with knowledge, disciplines such as social sciences and the humanities are likely to become even more important.

Universities therefore need to strike a balance. They must respond to economic and labour-market realities while also preserving their role as institutions that contribute to public debate, social cohesion and the wider public good.

The second dimension relates to research and policymaking, particularly in the Mauritian context. Mauritius does have researchers, and some produce very high-quality research. What we lack is the ecosystem that allows this research to translate effectively into decision-making and policy implementation.

There are several reasons for this. We have insufficient funding, the wrong incentive structures within universities, and a lack of institutional bridges capable of connecting research to policymakers. To give you an idea, Mauritius invests only around 0.23 per cent of GDP in research and development. The global average is approximately 1.7 per cent, while developed countries invest closer to 2 per cent.

Development economists generally consider 1 per cent the minimum threshold required for an emerging economy to establish a national innovation system capable of supporting economic development. Mauritius, therefore, remains significantly below that benchmark. Private-sector investment in research and development is also very low, at around 0.07 per cent of GDP.

It is difficult to aspire to a research ecosystem that meaningfully influences policymaking when the country is not making the minimum level of investment required. That applies both to government investment and to private-sector commitment to R&D.

Mauritius could realistically aim for a target of 1 per cent of GDP invested in research and development over the medium to long term. Reaching 2 per cent would probably not be realistic, but establishing a realistic target over 10 to 15 years would already represent meaningful progress.

I also think recent initiatives, such as National Research Week, are encouraging because they have attempted to bring together universities, government institutions and the private sector within the same conversation. Research cannot remain fragmented, with the public and private sectors each operating independently. The ecosystem has to function collectively.

Ideally, ministries and organisations should operate with processes where major decisions are expected to be supported by evidence and data. This is not yet systematically embedded in Mauritius.

Ultimately, what these experiences across different regions have shown me is that the relationship between education, policy and economic performance is not automatic.

Strong education systems contribute to economic development not only through human capital formation, but also through the quality of research ecosystems, institutional collaboration and the ability of societies to translate knowledge into evidence-based policymaking.

At the same time, universities must retain their broader social purpose. Economic performance matters, but education also has a role in shaping critical thinking, social cohesion and the long-term resilience of societies.

So, basically, universities should not forget that they are, after all, universities.

Exactly.

We often compare ourselves with Singapore. Do you know how much Singapore invests in R&D?

Singapore invests 1.85% of its GDP in R&D (WIPO, 2024). 

As you said, the recent National Research Week is an encouraging initiative.

Yes. I attended the first day. I think it was a very positive step. At least discussions around research are now beginning to happen in a more structured way.

What was commendable was that the ministry made a genuine effort to include all higher education institutions, as well as the private sector, in the conversation. That is the right approach because all stakeholders need to work together if we want to bridge the gap between science and decision-making.

Talk to us about the greater collaboration needed between the public and private sectors?

We definitely cannot work in isolation. We need to work together. That is easy to say but much harder to implement. For such an ecosystem to function effectively, I believe three elements are required.

The first is that the production of research itself must be digestible for decision-makers. If research exists only in academic journals, written in language understood exclusively by specialists, then it is of limited practical use.

The second element is the presence of bridging institutions. Evidence does not automatically travel to decision-makers. We need institutions capable of translating academic research into practical recommendations and solutions.

My understanding is that the National Research Strategy proposes the creation of national research institutes across priority themes. If implemented properly, these institutes could act as bridges between academic research and policymakers.

Such institutions could also become platforms that bring together government, the private sector and civil society while maintaining independence. Independence is critical. These institutes could also apply for large international research grants, which individual institutions often struggle to secure on their own.

Importantly, they would provide a clear point of contact. Whether you are a Permanent Secretary or a private-sector executive, you would know where to go when seeking evidence-based answers.

The third element is perhaps the most difficult: embedding evidence-based decision-making into institutional processes. For example, ministries and organisations should ideally have systems where decisions cannot be made without supporting evidence. This is not yet systematically embedded in Mauritius.

For the research-policy nexus to work effectively, all three elements are required.

What would research concretely bring to the country?

Research provides evidence-based solutions.

Take migration policy as an example. Mauritius is undergoing demographic changes that increasingly require openness to migrant labour. There is extensive international research on how to design migration systems and support structures that are beneficial both to migrant workers and to the host country.

If policymakers do not rely on evidence when shaping migration policy, they are less likely to develop effective systems.

The same applies to organisational inclusion. I have worked with organisations trying to become more inclusive along gender lines. If decisions are not informed by research and best practice, organisations are unlikely to achieve meaningful results.

This applies equally to coastal management, biomedical research, energy policy and countless other areas.

Research ensures that decision-makers are fully informed before making decisions. It allows them to rely on data and evidence rather than hearsay or imitation.

The government is trying to develop biotechnology. Is this feasible for Mauritius?

Biotechnology is not my area of expertise, so I would hesitate to comment in detail. However, Mauritius has demonstrated in the past that when there is a clear vision and the right institutions are put in place, transformation is possible.

So yes, I think it is feasible if there is political will, the right partnerships and the right infrastructure.

Perhaps it does not need to be pursued entirely alone. Mauritius could work regionally or globally. But in theory, biotechnology certainly has the potential to become a high-value-added economic activity for the country.

As Head of the Charles Telfair Centre, what role do you see research institutions playing in informing public debate and policy at a time of heightened global uncertainty?

At the Centre, our objective is to bridge the gap between knowledge, research and policymaking. We focus on three main goals: making knowledge more accessible, providing an independent platform where stakeholders can engage in dialogue, and supporting decision-makers through the dissemination of evidence-based work.

Over time, we have found that three elements are essential if this bridge between research and policy is to function effectively: independence, trust and dissemination.

Independence is probably the most important. We position ourselves as a non-partisan and independent institution, and we work hard not only to remain independent, but also to ensure that we are perceived as such. In practice, perception matters just as much as reality.

That independence has enabled us to bring together a wide range of stakeholders and encourage open discussion on sensitive or strategic issues. For example, we have organised discussions on the future of diplomacy for small states, as well as on the competitiveness of the port sector, bringing together labour unions, public authorities and private-sector actors. Because the Centre is perceived as independent, stakeholders are willing to engage openly and frankly.

Independence is also important because it strengthens trust in the research and knowledge that institutions produce. Stakeholders are more likely to trust research when they do not perceive it as serving a particular political or commercial interest. This is why any future national research institutes designed to bridge knowledge and policymaking would also need to maintain strong institutional independence.

The second element is trust. Building trust requires long-term relationship-building across institutions, sectors and professional levels. At the Centre, we invest significant time and effort into building relationships not only with senior decision-makers, but also across broader stakeholder networks. This process is reciprocal. Institutions cannot expect participation in their initiatives if they are not themselves engaged in the work and priorities of others.

The third element is dissemination. Knowledge has to be actively communicated and translated into language that is accessible to wider audiences. Research cannot remain confined to academic circles if it is expected to influence policymaking or public debate.

Ultimately, academic and research institutions play an essential role in preserving the independence of opinion and knowledge within democratic societies. Knowledge should therefore be treated as a public good. It must remain accessible if we want to build stronger societies and more resilient economies.

The global economy is increasingly shaped by geopolitical tensions and ongoing conflicts in the Middle East. How do such shocks transmit into small, open economies like Mauritius?

I think this has already been fairly well documented, and I can share some of the analyses, such as the one by Prof Christian Bueger, that we published at the level of the Centre.

The first transmission channel is inflation. Rising oil and shipping prices feed directly into transport costs and broader value chains, and small island economies are particularly vulnerable because they are heavily dependent on imports.

Around 20 per cent of Mauritius’s import bill relates to oil. Increases in crude oil and shipping prices therefore have a direct inflationary impact.

The second channel is tourism. Global uncertainty and inflationary pressures in our key markets could reduce tourism demand.

So far, tourism data for Mauritius has remained relatively positive, but Seychelles, for example, reportedly experienced a 40 per cent decline in tourist arrivals. Seychelles is less diversified than Mauritius, but we have also seen more local advertising campaigns encouraging Mauritians to visit hotels. Although the tourism figures for April are not yet available, there are indications that the sector may have started to feel the effects of the conflict.

The third issue is maritime security. What this conflict has demonstrated is that even geographically distant small island states are not insulated from geopolitical tensions. We saw missiles fired towards the Chagos Archipelago and developments in Sri Lanka. Maritime security is therefore not only about piracy or illegal fishing; it also involves understanding broader geopolitical dynamics and recognising that small island states are actors within these dynamics.

Finally, the conflict has reinforced the urgency of addressing energy and food security. We need to build more resilient systems capable of protecting energy and food supplies during periods of global disruption.

It is high time that these issues be taken seriously.

I think they are being taken seriously, but perhaps not with enough urgency. These are complex, multi-stakeholder issues, often involving regional dimensions. There may also be opportunities for greater regional collaboration, whether in food value chains or energy resilience.

Could Mauritius eventually achieve food security?

It depends on how food security is understood. If the objective is to ensure that every Mauritian has access to enough safe and nutritious food, then yes, I think that is achievable.

However, Mauritius will never be able to produce 100 per cent of the food it consumes, nor would that necessarily make economic sense. Very few countries are entirely self-sufficient in essential food production.

The more realistic objective is to ensure that, during crises or external shocks, the country has sufficient reserves and resilience for the population to have access to essential food. Regional food value chains could also help reduce vulnerability to smaller disruptions.

Earlier, you mentioned that higher education has become more market oriented. Was Covid-19 instrumental in accelerating this change?

No, this shift started before Covid-19. Covid certainly changed students’ perceptions of education. It normalised remote learning and made it easier for students not to attend classes physically. In some respects, that was a challenge for universities, because it forced us to rethink what value the classroom itself provides. We had to ask ourselves how to make students want to return to class and what pedagogical approaches genuinely add value.

So, Covid may have accelerated certain trends, but the market orientation of higher education predates the pandemic.

Education systems worldwide are under pressure to adapt to rapid technological and economic shifts. Where do you see the most significant gaps today?

The issue that concerns me most is the rise of generative artificial intelligence in education. Generative AI is fundamentally changing our relationship with knowledge, language and the way we structure thought. 

Higher education has traditionally been built on the assumption that critical thinking develops through reading and writing. Much cognitive research supports this. Generative AI challenges that model because it creates a world where students no longer necessarily need to read or write in order to access knowledge.

That is now our reality, and universities cannot simply reject it. AI must become part of the education system. However, this means we need to fundamentally rethink how we develop critical thinking, problem-solving and analytical abilities.

Universities are beginning to engage with these questions, but institutions tend to move slowly while technological change is happening very quickly.

There is also concern that AI is standardising language and writing styles.

Yes, and interestingly, much of the language associated with AI comes from academia itself, because LLMs (Large Language Models) are trained on datasets that include academic papers and reports. Academic writing already relies on highly standardised language, which can make it difficult to distinguish between work produced by AI and work produced by academics.

Charles Telfair has positioned itself as a platform for dialogue and research. How do you ensure that this work translates into tangible policy or business outcomes?

I think I have already addressed much of that. What I would add is that influence takes time. Policy change rarely results from a single report or institution. Decision-makers are usually influenced by the accumulation of evidence from multiple sources.

That is why Mauritius needs not just one think tank, but a broader ecosystem of institutions capable of bridging science and policy.

With global labour markets evolving and inequalities persisting, what policy priorities should governments focus on to ensure more inclusive and sustainable growth?

From the recent work that we have covered at the level of the centre, three priorities come out: women,  youth, and migration.

Mauritius continues to rank poorly on several dimensions of gender equality, particularly in terms of women’s economic participation and representation in decision-making positions. From an economic perspective, this means underutilising a substantial share of the country’s talent and workforce.

At the Charles Telfair Centre, we devoted an entire conference last year to questions surrounding gender equality, and we are currently preparing reports and recommendations on this theme.

The second priority is youth. At the centre, we have just completed a whole day of workshops on intergenerational dialogue, looking at intergenerational relations at work and in society. One worrying trend in Mauritius is the growing number of young Mauritians choosing to leave the country.

Are you concerned by this trend?

Yes, very much so. Mauritius is already facing demographic pressures, and while migrant labour may partly offset labour shortages, it remains concerning that the country appears unable to provide an economic and social framework that encourages young people to remain. What is striking is that this trend seems to cut across social classes and educational backgrounds.

Youth policy also tends to remain marginal within broader policymaking discussions. It is often approached through isolated programmes or through areas such as sport, rather than being integrated into economic and social policymaking more broadly. I think youth issues need to become a much more central part of national policy discussions.

Migration policy is another critical area. Migrant labour already represents a significant share of the labour force, and Mauritius now needs to think seriously about what kind of welcoming nation it wants to become. Questions such as whether there should be differentiated systems for skilled and non-skilled workers are important economic and sociological issues that require careful consideration.

More broadly, governments seeking inclusive and sustainable growth need to place far greater emphasis on evidence-based policymaking, long-term demographic planning and social cohesion.

Economic growth alone is not sufficient if significant parts of the population feel excluded from opportunity or disconnected from national progress.

Looking ahead, how do you see the interaction between geopolitics, economic policy and social inclusion shaping the next decade?

One important issue is that small island states increasingly need to recognise the degree of agency they possess within global geopolitical dynamics. This is something we explored at the Centre during discussions with Darshana Baruah around her work on the Indian Ocean and the role of small states within the region. Small island states are not simply passive actors. They can influence geopolitical developments, particularly when they cooperate regionally and act strategically.

In terms of economic policy, the current international environment means countries can no longer rely exclusively on multilateralism. There will be increasing reliance on bilateral agreements, strategic partnerships and economic diplomacy in order to secure national interests within an evolving global order.

Mauritius therefore needs to think carefully about how it positions itself economically and diplomatically within this changing environment.

In terms of social inclusion, geopolitical and economic pressures may intensify existing concerns around inequality, demographic change and social cohesion. Mauritius is already facing slower population growth, while also experiencing broader social pressures. We are seeing worrying trends, including rising substance abuse and increasing anecdotal evidence of violence, both in public spaces and within households.

Although more data is needed, these developments raise important questions about the potential social consequences of inequality and economic insecurity. In our favour, Mauritius has, historically, been able to shield the most vulnerable from the worst effects of successive crises and prevent the erosion of its welfare state. 

As geopolitical uncertainty and economic fragmentation continue, countries will increasingly need to consider not only economic competitiveness, but also the resilience and cohesion of their societies. That means asking difficult questions about social priorities, inequality, inclusion and the type of society we want to build over the next decade.

Any final thoughts?

I remain optimistic.

I believe there is a genuine willingness – within government, the private sector and civil society – to move towards more evidence-based and data-driven decision-making. I remain hopeful that Mauritius will succeed in building the institutions and infrastructure necessary to make informed decisions as a nation.

At the same time, we also need to continue asking deeper questions about social cohesion, inequality and the type of society we want to build in a context of geopolitical and economic transformation.