ABSTRACT
Knowledgeable and motivated policy intellectuals are needed for effective information and communication technology policy and regulation. This article describes a Telecommunication Policy Research Conference (TPRC)–influenced conference and training program intended to develop such policy intellectuals in the Asia Pacific and Africa, which began in 2006 and ended in 2018. It was unique in emphasizing the development of junior scholars. Evidence of research and policy engagement from tracer surveys is presented. The causes of the brevity of CPRsouth’s existence are analyzed in relation to EuroCPR and TPRC using a model of knowledge network evolution, including the role of external “subsidies” and the mismatch between potential funders and the scope of the activity.
It is well established that more efficient and equitable provision of information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure services will contribute to economic growth and poverty alleviation in the Global South.1 Too often, innovative applications of ICTs for these ends are stymied by the absence, high price, or low quality of ICT infrastructure services.
The importance of effective policy formulation and regulation for the achievement of good ICT infrastructure sector performance is recognized. Effective policy and regulation may be created by expert and motivated government officials, but they are not always present in countries in the Global South. Even in countries with skilled and motivated officials, the participation of experts not in government employment who represent or assist stakeholders and the public in the policy-making process is beneficial. Such experts with the necessary knowledge and motivation to participate in policy and regulatory processes from the outside are described as policy intellectuals. They can be found in government as well.
TPRC (originally, Telecommunication Policy Research Conference), as described below, was the pioneer in seeking to connect research with telecommunication policymaking and regulation. Connection is not simply matching supply and demand. In the policy space, it is not limited to the strengthening of academic networks that will result in greater output of policy-relevant research, as was the case in the United States and Europe, and efforts to bring such research to the attention of decision-makers. It may extend to the active formation of policy intellectuals, as was the case with CPRsouth.
The Global South lacks good policy and regulation. It lacks not only committed government officials but also effective policy intellectuals.2 The objective of CPRsouth was to seed the growth of such policy intellectuals capable of evidence-based policy intervention in low- and lower-middle-income countries in Asia and Africa. The expectation was that good policy and regulation will result, yielding the desired contributions to economic growth and poverty alleviation.
Over a period of 12 years, CPRsouth produced many engaged and effective policy intellectuals. Grace Mirandilla-Santos, who drove the broadband quality debate and engaged in an evidence-based manner on competition in the telecom sector in the Philippines,3 in addition to writing a column in Telecom Asia, when it was a leading trade publication, is a prime example. Ibrahim Kholilul Rohman, who successfully influenced ICT policy in Indonesia through op-ed articles and other interventions at critical junctures, was another.4 The 2011 Young Scholar (YS), Tasmia Tahmid was subsequently promoted to Deputy Director at the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC). Onkokame Mothobi attributes his effective performance at Research ICT Africa to what he learned at the Academy in 2017. Rohman and Ayesha Zainudeen, YSs and paper presenters (PP) from Indonesia and Sri Lanka, argued in early 2018 against Indonesia’s Facebook ban in The Jakarta Post with data from LIRNEasia surveys.5 The Ministry announced shortly thereafter that they would not block Facebook. Yudhanjaya Wijeratne, a YS and PP, co-founded a leading fact-checking organization in Sri Lanka.6
This article documents the thinking behind the design and delivery of conferences and associated training programs for the Asia Pacific and Africa in 2006–2018, including the influence of TPRC and Euro CPR, and the significant deviations from those models.
A Brief History of CPRsouth
CPRsouth was established in 2006 with the recruitment of Board Members from among prominent scholars with a record of intervening in ICT policy. From the outset, it was supported by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) of Canada. The successful proposal for funding made specific reference to TPRC and EuroCPR:
CPRsouth 2006 will be modeled to some extent on the Communication Policy Research Conferences in Europe and the US. Active researchers in addition to those directly working on LIRNEasia projects will be recruited beforehand to organize and chair sessions (senior) and present papers (junior). The purpose is field-building in the area of ICT policy and regulation research in the Asia-Pacific and other developing countries, including the establishment of mentoring relationships. [The activities will include] a pre-conference . . . , intended for young scholars, especially graduate students. A majority of lecturers will be those attending the conference.7
The first conference was held in January 2007 in Manila, the Philippines. The main activity was an annual conference that included a YSs’ program, later renamed CPRsouth Academy, intended to build capacity to take research to policy. CPRafrica was initiated in 2010. It too included a YS program. In 2012 and 2013, LIRNEasia and Research ICT Africa (RIA) jointly organized CPRafrica–CPRsouth. The two merged in 2013. Administrative responsibilities were taken over by RIA for 2015 and 2016, and returned to LIRNEasia in 2017.
CPRsouth was the most nomadic among its peers, as shown in Table 1. TPRC has always stayed close to Washington, DC, the locus of telecom and ICT policy in the United States. EuroCPR was nomadic in its early years, but in its final decades was held in locations such as Brussels and Seville connected to the European Commission.
CPRsouth and CPRafrica Event Locations, 2007–2018
Year . | Month . | CPRsouth . | CPRafrica . |
---|---|---|---|
2007 | January | Manila, Philippines | – |
2007 | December | Chennai, India | – |
2008 | December | Beijing, China | – |
2009 | December | Negombo, Sri Lanka | – |
2010 | December/April | Xi’an, China | Cape Town, South Africa |
2011 | December/April | Bangkok, Thailand | Nairobi, Kenya |
2012 | September | Port Louis, Mauritius | Port Louis, Mauritius |
2013 | September | Mysore, India | Mysore, India |
2014 | September | Maropeng, South Africa | – |
2015 | September | Taipei, Taiwan | – |
2016 | September | Zanzibar, Tanzania | – |
2017 | September | Yangon, Myanmar | – |
2018 | September | Maputo, Mozambique | – |
Year . | Month . | CPRsouth . | CPRafrica . |
---|---|---|---|
2007 | January | Manila, Philippines | – |
2007 | December | Chennai, India | – |
2008 | December | Beijing, China | – |
2009 | December | Negombo, Sri Lanka | – |
2010 | December/April | Xi’an, China | Cape Town, South Africa |
2011 | December/April | Bangkok, Thailand | Nairobi, Kenya |
2012 | September | Port Louis, Mauritius | Port Louis, Mauritius |
2013 | September | Mysore, India | Mysore, India |
2014 | September | Maropeng, South Africa | – |
2015 | September | Taipei, Taiwan | – |
2016 | September | Zanzibar, Tanzania | – |
2017 | September | Yangon, Myanmar | – |
2018 | September | Maputo, Mozambique | – |
Given its multicountry nature, positioning the event close to relevant policymakers and regulators, as is the case in the United States and Europe was impractical.8 Best efforts were made to attract government representatives from the host country and to communicate the importance of the research being undertaken by CPRsouth members.
CPRsouth Academy
From the outset, the primary focus of CPRsouth was on the development of policy intellectuals who could contribute to ICT policy and regulation. This signature deviation from the TPRC-EuroCPR model sought to train participants on how to engage in policy and regulatory processes. Participants learned how to become policy intellectuals through direct instruction and observation. Some went on to prepare and present policy-relevant papers and policy briefs at subsequent CPRsouth conferences. In the early years, remote coaching on effective presentation was provided.
In 2016, LIRNEasia was commissioned by RIA to conduct a tracer study of all participants over the years. Using the lessons of this study, recent evaluations, and a repository of 10 years of experience, two annual CPRsouth programs were redesigned and delivered in 2017 and 2018. The new design gave greater weight to the YS program, renamed as CPRsouth Academy, and enhanced the feedback provided to PP before the conference.
A second tracer study was conducted in 2018 to follow up on 261 individuals who participated in CPRsouth activities from 2013 to 2018 as YS or as PP to ascertain whether the conference achieved its goal of producing individuals who are willing and able to influence communication policy in their countries. The study showed that 96 percent of the YS and PP respondents were engaged in both research and policy (Table 2).
Type of Activity by Type of CPRsouth Participant, 2013–2018
. | Research Only . | Policy Only . | Research and Policy . | None . | ALL . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PP | 3 percent | – | 77 percent | 19 percent | 31 |
YS | 17 percent | – | 73 percent | 10 percent | 41 |
YS and PP | 0 percent | – | 96 percent | 4 percent | 24 |
ALL | 8 percent | – | 80 percent | 11 percent | 96 |
. | Research Only . | Policy Only . | Research and Policy . | None . | ALL . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PP | 3 percent | – | 77 percent | 19 percent | 31 |
YS | 17 percent | – | 73 percent | 10 percent | 41 |
YS and PP | 0 percent | – | 96 percent | 4 percent | 24 |
ALL | 8 percent | – | 80 percent | 11 percent | 96 |
Source: Survey questionnaire.
An Evolutionary Model of a Policy Research Network
In the case of CPRsouth, the paucity of policy intellectuals was identified as a problem by a think tank. A solution was proposed, and funding was obtained. This initiative did not come from the demand side: from policymakers, regulatory agencies, or even from suppliers of ICT services.
In the case of TPRC, the demand and the funding came from the users of the research. Under President Lyndon Johnson, the Task Force on Telecommunications Policy, headed by Undersecretary of State Eugene V. Rostow, set the stage for a focus on the subject. The Nixon White House sought to implement some of the Task Force recommendations. The Office of Telecommunications Policy (OTP) under the leadership of Clay T. Whitehead was created as part of the Executive Office of the President. The OTP had a research budget that supported the first two “Conferences on Communications Research,” which took place at the Executive Office Building. Beginning in 1974, the conference was organized independently with partial funding from the OTP.9
Agencies such as the Federal Communication Commission, the National Telecommunication and Information Administration, and the National Science Foundation provided support in subsequent years. Funds came from the Markle Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Aspen Institute until the mid-1990s. When these forms of support ceased, the conference was compelled to become financially self-sustaining.10 Free registration and paid travel for PP were discontinued. The conference was held in more modest venues.11
At the outset, TPRC’s existence was seen as having significant positive externalities. Therefore, it was supported with taxpayer funds. But over time, this support declined and disappeared. Now, it is supported primarily by registration fees from members. No longer is there an emphasis on plenary sessions; the conventional economics of conferences are in effect. More registrations mean that the fixed costs can be covered, and even some surpluses generated. The incentives are to permit as many papers as possible, using multiple break-out sessions.
Even now, the funding model involves “subsidies,” here defined as payments made by entities other than the direct beneficiaries of the networking opportunities afforded by the conference. This recognizes that the production of policy intellectuals still has positive externalities. But now the “subsidies” come mostly from the organizations (i.e., the universities and companies) that the PP are affiliated with. A few sponsors, usually represented on the Board, contribute to the common costs of the conference. The term subsidy indicates that the participants rarely pay the full costs of registration, accommodation, and travel. Their organizations and conference sponsors pay all or part of those costs.
Figure 1 depicts a taxonomy of knowledge networks. The lower-left (L-L) quadrant represents the primordial state. The upper-right (U-R) quadrant depicts an organized knowledge network where a group has chosen to organize itself into an association by employing a management entity M. There is an external intervention to organize the network in the upper-left (U-L) quadrant. Networks may evolve in several ways, one being the clockwise mode, wherein organization is promoted by external intervention (U-L). The more organized network may employ a management entity (U-R). It may evolve into a natural network (L-R) that does not require an externally or internally funded management entity.
Forms of knowledge networks.
Source: Sujata N. Gamage, Rohan Samarajiva, and Nilusha Kapugama. Organizing for Policy Impact in Telecommunication: A Framework for Action. Arlington, VA: TPRC40, 2012.
Forms of knowledge networks.
Source: Sujata N. Gamage, Rohan Samarajiva, and Nilusha Kapugama. Organizing for Policy Impact in Telecommunication: A Framework for Action. Arlington, VA: TPRC40, 2012.
In the case of TPRC, the process began in the L-L quadrant and moved in a clockwise direction. The US government acted to form the discrete nodes, first into a platform (U-L quadrant) and then into an organized network (U-R quadrant), where incentives were created for the participants and their parent organizations to contribute to the sustenance of the managerial entity. At the platform stage, there is a manager (M). Resources are pumped in by the Manager from external sources (indicated by the downward arrow) who perceive the value of policy intellectuals. In the organized-network stage, the participants and/or their organizations see enough value in the network to pay for the manager and the conference, as indicated by the upward arrow. It is possible that TPRC could move to the lower-right quadrant to become a natural network where there would be no need for the external stimuli of a conference or a manager. The network would exist and would reproduce itself. In the context of the Internet, this is not an unachievable outcome.
What Worked and What Did Not?
EuroCPR, which was modeled on TPRC, functioned for close to three decades but could not be continued after 2015. Its predecessor, UK CPR, was created with some support from the demand side. When the UK entity converted itself to EuroCPR, there were subsidies, such as no-cost conference space from the European Commission and state-owned telecom companies, but they did not last for as long as the US subsidies. Eurocrats recognized the existence of positive externalities in the production and sustenance of policy intellectuals, but they accelerated the process of moving EuroCPR to the U-R quadrant. EuroCPR sought to operate on fees paid by participants (contributions from the universities and research organizations that employ the participants), but had a more difficult transition, partly because of resistance to the conventional economic model for conferences and partly because of the lack of economies of scale. An additional problem was that of recruiting new members.12 The network developed during the past decades may survive as a natural network, without formal mechanisms.
In the case of CPRsouth, there was no overt demand for policy intellectuals from any of the governments of the Global South. It was completely supply driven.13 Instead of simply creating a platform to bring existing policy intellectuals together to build an organized network, it was necessary to start at the more basic level of training and motivating junior and mid-level scholars. It is not that there were no senior and influential scholars in the region. The most important senior scholars identified through publication and citation records were appointed to the Board (nine members at the outset). But others rarely participated in CPRsouth by submitting abstracts/papers. Occasionally, papers co-authored with junior scholars were submitted. The composition of the expanded Board as it stood at the end is shown in Table 3. As a result, CPRsouth was skewed to youth as shown in Table 4.
CPRsouth Board Members in 2018
Name . | Affiliation . | Gender . | Country . |
---|---|---|---|
Erwin Alampay, PhD | Associate Professor, University of the Philippines | M | Philippines |
Tracy Cohen, PhD | Director—Convergence and New Media, Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr | F | South Africa |
Helani Galpaya | Chief Executive Officer, LIRNEasia | F | Sri Lanka |
Alison Gillwald, PhD | Managing Director, RIA | F | South Africa |
Ashok Jhunjhunwala, PhD | Professor, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras | M | India |
Masanori Kondo | Deputy Secretary General, Asia-Pacific Telecommunity (APT) | M | Thailand/Japan |
Monica Kerrets Makau, PhD | Senior Faculty, Strathmore Business School | F | Kenya |
Payal Malik | Advisor Economics, Competition Commission of India (on deputation from Delhi University) | F | India |
Nirmita Narasimhan, PhD | Senior Fellow and Programme Director, Global Initiative for Inclusive ICT | F | India |
Olivier Nana Nzepa, PhD | Head, ICT Department, University of Yaounde II | M | Cameroon |
Americo Muchanga, PhD | Managing Director, National Communications Institute of Mozambique (Regulatory Agency) | M | Mozambique |
Krishna Oolun, PhD | Independent Expert, former regulator | M | Mauritius |
Pirongrong Ramasoota, PhD | Vice President, Chulalongkorn University | F | Thailand |
Rohan Samarajiva, PhD, Chair | Chair, LIRNEasia and ICT Agency of Sri Lanka | M | Sri Lanka |
Don D. H. Shin, PhD | Professor, Chung-Ang University, Sungkyunkwan University | M | Korea |
Supriya Singh, PhD | Professor, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University | F | Australia |
Rasheda Sultana | Head, Financial Services, Grameenphone | F | Bangladesh |
Timothy Waema, PhD | Professor of Information Systems, University of Nairobi | M | Kenya |
Zhong Liu, PhD | Associate Professor, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics | M | China |
Name . | Affiliation . | Gender . | Country . |
---|---|---|---|
Erwin Alampay, PhD | Associate Professor, University of the Philippines | M | Philippines |
Tracy Cohen, PhD | Director—Convergence and New Media, Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr | F | South Africa |
Helani Galpaya | Chief Executive Officer, LIRNEasia | F | Sri Lanka |
Alison Gillwald, PhD | Managing Director, RIA | F | South Africa |
Ashok Jhunjhunwala, PhD | Professor, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras | M | India |
Masanori Kondo | Deputy Secretary General, Asia-Pacific Telecommunity (APT) | M | Thailand/Japan |
Monica Kerrets Makau, PhD | Senior Faculty, Strathmore Business School | F | Kenya |
Payal Malik | Advisor Economics, Competition Commission of India (on deputation from Delhi University) | F | India |
Nirmita Narasimhan, PhD | Senior Fellow and Programme Director, Global Initiative for Inclusive ICT | F | India |
Olivier Nana Nzepa, PhD | Head, ICT Department, University of Yaounde II | M | Cameroon |
Americo Muchanga, PhD | Managing Director, National Communications Institute of Mozambique (Regulatory Agency) | M | Mozambique |
Krishna Oolun, PhD | Independent Expert, former regulator | M | Mauritius |
Pirongrong Ramasoota, PhD | Vice President, Chulalongkorn University | F | Thailand |
Rohan Samarajiva, PhD, Chair | Chair, LIRNEasia and ICT Agency of Sri Lanka | M | Sri Lanka |
Don D. H. Shin, PhD | Professor, Chung-Ang University, Sungkyunkwan University | M | Korea |
Supriya Singh, PhD | Professor, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University | F | Australia |
Rasheda Sultana | Head, Financial Services, Grameenphone | F | Bangladesh |
Timothy Waema, PhD | Professor of Information Systems, University of Nairobi | M | Kenya |
Zhong Liu, PhD | Associate Professor, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics | M | China |
Average Ages of Paper Presenters and Young Scholars, 2007–2012
. | Paper Presenters (Years) . | Young Scholars (Years) . |
---|---|---|
CPRsouth1 | 37 | 30 |
CPRsouth2 | 36 | 29 |
CPRsouth3 | 33 | 32 |
CPRsouth4 | 36 | 27 |
CPRsouth5 | 35 | 30 |
CPRsouth6 | 34 | 30 |
CPRsouth7 | 37 | 28 |
Average | 35.4 | 29.4 |
. | Paper Presenters (Years) . | Young Scholars (Years) . |
---|---|---|
CPRsouth1 | 37 | 30 |
CPRsouth2 | 36 | 29 |
CPRsouth3 | 33 | 32 |
CPRsouth4 | 36 | 27 |
CPRsouth5 | 35 | 30 |
CPRsouth6 | 34 | 30 |
CPRsouth7 | 37 | 28 |
Average | 35.4 | 29.4 |
Source: Sujata N. Gamage, Rohan Samarajiva, and Nilusha Kapugama, eds. Organizing for Policy Impact in Telecommunication: A Framework for Action. Arlington, VA: TPRC40, 2012.
Even as it expanded from the original nine to 25, the Board of CPRsouth was comprised almost entirely of researchers. Even the member showing a corporate affiliation (Grameenphone) was there because of her research credentials (she was a former PP) and not as a mobilizer of funding. Because funding for CPRsouth was more likely to come from regional government organizations, Board positions were offered to them, though not always taken up, usually on grounds of conflict of interest. This contrasts with TPRC, where there is substantial corporate representation on the Board and resource mobilization by those members.
One unexpected outcome of the preponderance of YSs was that demonstration of policy impact becomes more challenging. It is simply not realistic to expect young people in their thirties to break into the circles of policy influence immediately, especially in hierarchical societies.
CPRsouth had a fundamental (and unavoidable for an Asia-Pacific + African regional organization) design flaw. It lacked a fit with a national government (like the US Federal Government in the case of TPRC) or a supranational government entity (like the European Commission in the case of EuroCPR) that could recognize the value of the positive externalities it claimed to produce. One national government is unlikely to support the creation of positive externalities for other governments. Except for ASEAN, which is making uneven progress toward becoming an economic community, there is no supranational entity that has reason to subsidize a regional capacity-building initiative like CPRsouth. There may have been some possibilities in Africa, such as COMESA and SADC, and in the Pacific and in Latin America. But each of these would have required fragmentation of the existing network.
IDRC, the principal funder for more than a decade, saw the value of positive externalities from the regional creation of policy intellectuals. Funders such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank did not. Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) was, at most, willing to host an event in Japan, as did some other national funders. The Ford Foundation was a pioneer in field building and was seen as a natural candidate to support CPRsouth-like activities. It supported some travel for one conference, but continuing funding was not forthcoming.
An agreement was reached to conduct the fourteenth conference and academy in Bangkok adjacent to the meetings of the ICT Committee of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for the Asia Pacific (ESCAP), along with some subsidies in kind (discounted meeting rooms at the UN Conference Center in Bangkok) and, most importantly, access to senior officials attending as delegates from member states across the Asia Pacific. The next stage of the plan was to explore the possibilities of co-location with the appropriate committee at the UN Economic and Social Commission for Africa. Sadly, IDRC funding was discontinued before these plans could be realized.
The Causes of CPRsouth’s Demise
Subsidies were essential for CPRsouth to successfully traverse the U-R quadrant, especially because travel support was essential for junior scholars. The subsidies could have been phased out over time as institutional support became available to move it to the U-L quadrant. This was the case in the US and Europe. If the connections fostered by the network are beneficial to participants, they could continue as a natural network (Lower-Right quadrant) without the need for external resources or support a conference and a managerial entity as an organized network (U-R quadrant). EuroCPR may well be continuing as a natural network even after the conferences ceased in 2015. The Upper Right quadrant is the most familiar form for those in universities. Its success depends on two conditions:
the development of a network with a critical mass of participants worth connecting to, and
the willingness and ability of organizations such as universities to pay for their employees to participate in the organized network.
The first condition can be measured through citations.14 Citations of publications by CPRsouth members, shown in Table 5, may shed light on the viability of transitioning to the U-R quadrant.
Citation Analysis of CPRsouth 4–6 (Paper Givers Only)
CITING ONLY (Authors citing others within the network) | 18 | 23 percent |
CITED ONLY (Authors cited by others within the network) | 23 | 29 percent |
CITED & CITING (Authors citing and cited) | 5 | 6 percent |
NO CITED OR CITING (Authors with no citations/citing within the network) | 34 | 43 percent |
ALL | 80 | 100 percent |
CITING ONLY (Authors citing others within the network) | 18 | 23 percent |
CITED ONLY (Authors cited by others within the network) | 23 | 29 percent |
CITED & CITING (Authors citing and cited) | 5 | 6 percent |
NO CITED OR CITING (Authors with no citations/citing within the network) | 34 | 43 percent |
ALL | 80 | 100 percent |
Source: Sujata N. Gamage, Rohan Samarajiva, and Nilusha Kapugama, eds. “Organizing for Policy Impact in Communication: A Social Network Analysis.” 28th Euro CPR Conference, Brussels, 2013.
Forty-three percent of those who attended the four conferences before 2012 did not have citation relations with others within CPRsouth. There were no co-authorships other than among those from the same organization. The strongest relationships (cited and citing) were found among five authors who belonged to the administrative partner LIRNEasia and its sister organization in Africa, RIA. An analysis of 20 years of data from a series of interdisciplinary conferences suggests that mutual citation takes longer in interdisciplinary groups.15 Citation analysis for subsequent conferences, after more time had passed, may have shown a significant improvement.
The second condition could not be satisfied. It was assumed that the organizations of participants from higher-income and upper-middle-income countries would be able and willing to pay and that over time, those from other countries will also be able to pay. CPRsouth has failed to cover more than 6 to 7 percent of its costs from participants since CPRsouth5 when participant contributions (e.g., no visa fee reimbursements; co-payments for airfare for those from middle-income and low-income countries; no travel support for upper-income countries) were first introduced. Local hosts have contributed approximately 6 percent since CPRsouth2, with much higher amounts in the past few conferences (e.g., all accommodation costs for the 2015 Taipei conference were borne by the local hosts). But IDRC’s contribution was indispensable. An alternative funding model required strong participation from high- and upper-middle-income economies. However, participation from these countries decreased rapidly as the subsidies were withdrawn. The incentives for publication in high-impact disciplinary journals may have also contributed to declining interest in an inter-disciplinary conference such as CPRsouth. When IDRC funding ceased in 2018, the conferences could not be continued.
Some form of natural network may continue, even without the annual events. But in terms of inducting new cohorts of policy intellectuals willing and able to effectively contribute to evidence-based policy making and regulation in Africa and the Asia Pacific, 2018 marked the end. The scholars and relationships developed over 12 years will continue to produce beneficial outcomes, but the natural network is unlikely to reproduce itself.
FOOTNOTES
For example, Stork et al., 191–208.
Samarajiva, 229–42.
Camus.
Rohman.
Rohman and Zainudeen.
Christopher.
LIRNEasia.
But see the aborted effort to colocate with meetings of the ICT Committee of UN ESCAP, described below.
Personal communication from Johannes Bauer, former Chair of TPRC.
Personal communication from Johannes Bauer.
When the first author attended TPRC as a graduate student in 1984, it was held in the luxurious surroundings of Airlie House in Virginia’s horse country. Travel from Vancouver, BC, Canada was paid for; no registration fee was charged.
Personal communication from Robin Mansell, the Chair of the EuroCPR Scientific Committee.
Samarajiva and Gamage; Gamage and Samarajiva, 89–96.
Gamage et al.
Pham et al., 323–35.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Author notes
A previous version was presented at the The Global Impact of TPRC: A retrospective view from offshoot conferences in Asia/Africa (CPRSouth), Latin America (CPR Latam), and Europe (EuroCPR) panel at TPRC 50 in Washington, DC, September 16–17, 2022. The support of the International Development Research Centre of Canada (IDRC), the principal funder is gratefully acknowledged. The contributions of all whose ideas have shaped this article are collectively acknowledged. The authors are grateful for the detailed comments of the anonymous referee.