Series
Globelics Academy

Series Type
Event Series
Description
Associated Organization(s)
Associated Organization(s)
Organizational Unit

Publication Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 133
  • Item
    Innovation System Research: Where it came from and where it might go
    (Georgia Institute of Technology, 2008) Lundvall, Bengt-Åke
    When the first edition of Lundvall (1992) and of Nelson (1993), the concept ‘national innovation system’ was known only by a handful of scholars and policy makers. Over a period of 15 years there has been a rapid and wide diffusion of the concept. Giving ‘Google’ the text strings ‘national innovation system(s)’ and ‘national system(s) of innovation’ you end up with almost 1.000.000 references. Going through the references you find that most of them are recent and that many of them are related to innovation policy efforts at the national level while others refer to new contributions in social science. Using Google Scholar (May 2007) we find that more than 2000 scientific publications have referred respectively to the different editions of Lundvall (2002) and Nelson (1993). Economists, business economists, economic historians, sociologists, political scientists and especially economic geographers have utilized the concept to explain and understand phenomena related to innovation and competence building.1 In this paper we argue that during the process of diffusion there has been a distortion of the concept as compared to the original versions as developed by Christopher Freeman and the IKE-group in Aalborg. Often policy makers and scholars have applied a narrow understanding of the concept and this has gives rise to so-called ‘innovation paradoxes’ which leave significant elements of innovation-based economic performance unexplained. Such a bias is reflected in studies of innovation that focus on science-based innovation and on the formal technological infrastructure and in policies aiming almost exclusively at stimulating R&D efforts in high-technology sectors.
  • Item
    Discussing innovation and development: Converging points between the Latin American school and the Innovation Systems perspective?
    (Georgia Institute of Technology, 2008) Cassiolato, José Eduardo ; Lastres, Helena M. M.
    From the 1950s to the 1970s the central preoccupations of the international research and policy agenda was to come to terms with underdevelopment. During this period a theoretical framework– structuralism - shaped the debate on the issue. There are many differences within structuralism, but its contributors share the view that underdeveloped countries are significantly different from industrial advanced ones. Hence they could not follow the same “paths” towards development) Some authors even went beyond that arguing that structural inequalities in international economic and geo-political relations were the main causes of underdevelopment. Other consensual points of these writers were the understanding that (i) structural changes and specific knowledge and policies were necessary to overcome backwardness and (ii) that structural changes would require government intervention. rely The emphasis of the agenda changed dramatically in the late 1970s as a crisis – which combined stagnation, inflation and unemployment - started in developed countries and spread throughout the world. This had a parallel with the diffusion of orthodox monetary-based thinking, which became the hegemonic paradigm throughout the 1980s and 1990s. However, significant difficulties remained in understanding the nature of the crisis, the specificities of the IT revolution and the acceleration of globalization, as well as in conceptualizing the problems and in formulating policy prescriptions to cope with it One of the most fruitful alternative thinking developed in advanced countries came from a resurrection and updating of earlier thinking that emphasized the role of innovation as an engine of economic growth and the long-run cyclical character of technical change. Christopher Freeman‟s now famous paper of 1982 pointed out the importance that Smith, Marx and Schumpeter attached to innovation (p. 1) and accentuated its systemic and national character (p. 18). He also stressed the crucial role of government policies to cope with the uncertainties associated with the upsurge of a new techno-economic paradigm and the very limited circumstances under which free trade could promote economic development. In the South, neo-liberalism had a negative impact on the previous structuralism consensus. The leading proponents of what Toye (1987) has called the 'counter-revolution in development theory and policy' introduced a radical neo-liberal agenda in which “development practically disappears as a specific question (remaining) only as the welfare achieved by the elimination of obstacles to market functioning” (Arocena and Sutz 2005, p. 16). This agenda stated that long-run growth should be maximized through the pursuit of short-run allocative efficiency as determined by market prices; and that even if market failures existed, imperfect markets were better than imperfect states. The basic neo-liberal principle has been that underdevelopment is simply the result of bad allocation of resources and that is virtually exclusively caused by government intervention (with the proliferation of controls that distort prices and the existence of an over-dimensioned public sector) and reduced the complex problem of underdevelopment to a matter of simply following some simple economic “recipes” (get the prices right, get the property rights right, get the institutions right, get the governance right, get the competitiveness right) based on replicating Anglo-American institutions throughout the world and orthodox textbook ideas about liberalization of international trade and investment, privatization, and deregulation (Chang 2005). By proposing a world where countries would converge if they followed the same liberalizing economic recipes and using their economic and political power to influence government and intellectuals, international organizations forced a radical shift in the nature of the debate. One of the most significant by-products of these views was that previous theorizing about development and underdevelopment coming from Latin America was almost totally discarded as a frame of reference for understanding and changing the world. Another consequence, perhaps more disturbing, is that 25 years of neo-liberal experimentation with economic policies led to a more divided world, with the gap between rich and poor countries (and people inside countries) widening and poverty and starvation increasing. Since it was formulated in the 1980s, the Systems of Innovation approach has been increasingly used in different parts of world to analyze processes of acquisition, use and diffusion of innovations and to guide policy recommendations. This is also true in Latin American countries, where it is being applied and understood in close connection with the basic conceptual ideas of the structuralism approach developed in the region since the 1950s under the influence of the Economic Commission of Latin America and Caribbean. In fact, since the mid-nineties, the work of RedeSist – the Research Network on Local Productive and Innovative Systems – based at the Economics Institute of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil - has been using such dual frame of reference. Stemming from the research program of RedeSist, this paper aims at (1) identifying and discussing common aspects, as well as main differences between both approaches; and (2) exploring the advantages of linking these approaches particularly, but not exclusively, in the case of development. The importance of examining convergences between these frameworks is three fold. First, it contributes to a deeper reflection on the use of the concept of innovation systems in understanding and orienting the processes of innovation and capacity building in less developed countries. Second, we argue that both approaches can benefit a lot from incorporating contributions from each other. Finally, this effort of discussing conceptual coherence may even provide ground to identify convergences when comparing analytical and normative frameworks to be used in national systems of innovation and in development studies not only in the Americas but also in Africa, Asia, Oceania and Europe.
  • Item
    Optimal policy for biopharmaceutical drugs innovation and access in India
    (Georgia Institute of Technology, 2008) Rashmi, Rakhi
    Useful inventions in the field of biotechnology have contributed significantly in recent years for the benefit of humanity as many different technologies in chemistry and biology are being combined to develop new therapeutics.1 For example, advances in the recombinant DNA technology, study of the cell growth, gene therapy proteomics, and bioinformatics contribute to the development of proteins can provide cures for many chronicle and hereditary disease as Alzheimer disease.2 These inventions are important for a country like India where there is widespread of these diseases. At the same time investment for these drugs innovations is negligible, therefore availability through technology transfer from the multinational innovator companies are desired. The empirical finding shows that there was negligible investment through foreign technology transfer too for the neglected diseases drugs innovation in India even after the TRIPs regime. Although after the introduction of product patents in India has enhanced the innovator’s incentive to innovate but still multinational biopharmaceutical companies have been vociferous with regards to higher patent standards and data exclusivity provisions in the Indian patent laws in order to transfer their technology in India.3 In the absence of such provisions they are reluctant in introducing new drugs in India. In biotechnology sector, discovery of entirely new drug takes years and costs million of dollars, where as the copy of the same can be manufactured in very little time and in fraction of the money spend in the discovery of new drugs. In biotech innovation only 22 percent of drugs that enter clinical trials eventually receive FDA approval.4 Also, it costs about $400 million, on an average, in out-of-pocket expenses to develop a new drug.5 Thus, in order to recoup the high and rising costs of biotech R&D, inventors need to capture enough of the economic returns to make their investment worthwhile through stronger patent protection. As patents grant an exclusive right to exploit a specific product or process for a set period of time, which protects new products from competitors, and enable exclusive right to market. Thus, stronger patent protection is crucial for the commercial success for the biopharmaceutical companies as they sustain the large and risky R&D expenditure needed for the product innovation.6 It also enables them to recoup the significant investments they have made in developing and discovering the new products and processes and bringing them to the market. Further, patent protection enables companies to generate sufficient income to support future research and develop new products. Patents, therefore, are the lynchpins of the biopharmaceutical industry.7 Thus, from the private interest point of view, patents are important as a reward to the innovator to stimulate private investment for research and development, which leads to economic growth.
  • Item
    Strategic policies for capabilities acquisition and development: A taxonomy of policy models in terms of S&T priorities setting
    (Georgia Institute of Technology, 2008) Godinho, Manuel Mira ; Caraça, João
    The publication of “Science the Endless Frontier” in July 1945 signaled the deep change occurred in the relationships between science, technology and society as a result of the war effort. In fact, the promise of modern science that through the knowledge of the laws of nature we could transform the world was finally being fulfilled through the development of science-based technologies. The main points of “Science the Endless Frontier” were that science was the new future of the US, the “new (and endless) frontier”, that it was necessary to organize the application of new scientific knowledge to technology and that the strengthening of the scientific basis was a legitimate concern of government. But it took more than a decade (the launching of Sputnik by the USSR in 1957) to make the American public and society aware of the need to advance in new scientific fields leading to promising technologies. On May 25, 1961, J. F. Kennedy announced to the US congress his plan of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth before 1970. As it is well known, the efforts associated with this objective had a strong impact on the S&T performance of the US economy in the coming years. Now, more than 4 decades later, the US still keeps a strong flow of public resources to basic and applied R&D, namely in relation to the health, energy, defense and food sectors, through a complex system of federal agencies, public labs and research universities. It is widely recognized that these US arrangements have generated important spillovers harnessing the development of microelectronics, IT, biotech, the internet and other civilian and military technologies.
  • Item
    The research project “Comparative study of the national innovation systems of Brazil, Russia, India, China And South Africa (BRICS)”
    (Georgia Institute of Technology, 2008) Cassiolato, José Eduardo
    A significant part of the growth potential of the world economy for the coming decades resides mostly in some large less developed countries. Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) have such potential. More than just that, BRICS are thought as having the capacity to “change the world” by the threats and opportunities they represent from the economic, social and political points of views. International agencies and some analysts suggest that investors should pay careful attention to the opportunities presented by these countries. In this case, the emphasis has been restricted to the identification of investment possibilities in the BRICS production structures and to the perspectives presented by their consumer markets. In the study hereby proposed the interest in analyzing BRICS goes much beyond. These countries present significant development opportunities, as well as several common characteristics and challenges. Identifying and analyzing them may help to uncover the possible paths for fulfilling their socio-political-economic development potential. The central focus of the study is the national innovation system (NIS) of the five BRICS. The notion of innovation system has in its centre the production, S&T and education subsystems; but includes also the financial subsystem, the investment patterns, the legal and political frameworks as well as other spheres connected to the national and international, contexts where knowledge are generated, used and diffused. In this effort it is necessary to develop conceptual and methodological frameworks capable of depicting their different private, public and governmental dimensions and that allow the comparison of the NIS of the five countries, pointing out convergences, divergences and synergies. Particular attention will be given to policy implications. Better knowledge about the experience of the BRICS´ NIS will allow the identification and the analysis of competing areas, as well as common bottlenecks and complementarities, which are of paramount importance for the implementation of actual and potential joint actions. In order to do so, the study aims at including, not only students and researchers specialized on production and innovation development, but also policy-makers in national and international debates.
  • Item
    Accelerating the formation of regional systems of innovation in Mexico? Understanding the effects of the Technology Business Accelerator Program in the formation of resources and capabilities to innovate in Mexican regions
    (Georgia Institute of Technology, 2008) Martinez de Velasco Aguirre, Emilio
    In 2004 the Mexican Government launched the Technology Business Accelerator (TechBA) program, an initiative that seeks to help the best small and medium Mexican technology companies to access and compete in international markets. A distinctive feature of the TechBA program is that rather than just helping companies to place their products and services in the international markets, it locates Mexican companies in the most innovative regions in the world in order to promote their full integration into the financial, market, business, and technological resources of these regions. This institutional innovation has established a two-way flow of knowledge and technology between Mexico and the most advanced innovation resources and capabilities across the globe. In this way, the TechBA program also opens a new conduit to explore the effects that external sources of knowledge and technology have in the formation of systems of innovation in developing countries.
  • Item
    Russia’s National System of Innovation: Strengths and Weaknesses. Studying the Business Sector of Russia’s NSI
    (Georgia Institute of Technology, 2008) Khvatova, Tatiana
    The objective of our research is to analyze the peculiarities of NSI functioning in Russia, its strengths and weaknesses, and also to work out recommendations on its improvement. In order to achieve this it is important to answer the following questions: 1) What are the peculiarities of Russia’s NSI, its problems and disproportions, that originate from the Soviet period and still have an effect on Russia’s NSI? 2) What are the main subjects of Russia’s NSI, and how they interact? 3) Which organizational and economic forms increase the effectiveness of innovation processes on the federal and regional levels? 4) How are the innovation processes regulated on the municipal level? 5) How can the State initiate innovation processes? 6) How can we summarize foreign experience of NSI shaping and developing and apply it for improving Russia’s NSI? Answering each question would require separate research. Therefore, in this article we will pay more attention to the business sector of Russia’s NSI as the key element and indicator of the whole NSI effectiveness. The other issues will be given a short overview.
  • Item
    Are KIBS more than intermediate inputs? An examination into their R&D diffuser role in Europe
    (Georgia Institute of Technology, 2008) Rodriguez, Mercedes
    It is widely accepted that knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS) are key agents in knowledge diffusion. Thanks in part to information technologies, an increasing internationalisation process has been taking place in this type of services in recent years. Starting from these two facts, the objective of this paper is to evaluate and compare the R&D diffuser role of a group of KIBS, those called high-tech services, both within domestic economies and among countries. To do so an input-output model that estimates the domestic and the imported product-embodied R&D diffused by intermediate consumptions of high-tech services is applied in eleven European countries. The results obtained point out the existence of a potential “compensatory” role of imported high-tech services in some countries, a role that deserves further study.
  • Item
    Emergence of the Biofuel Sector in Brazil and in the US – The Role of Innovation Policy with focus on Public Procurement
    (Georgia Institute of Technology, 2008) Andersen, Allan Dahl
    Biofuel is an issue that currently receives much attention worldwide due to its potential for lowering greenhouse gas (GHG) emission rates from transport and because the currently high, and still rising, oil prices have (in some regions) made ethanol production cost-competitive with fossil fuel. A longer-term perspective on energy sources also seems to be in favour of biofuels - in 2007, fossil fuels made up about 80% of the total world energy supply. At constant (continuation of recent growth in consumption) production and consumption, presently known reserves of oil will last about 41 years, natural gas 64 years and coal 155 years (Goldemberg, 2007). As a reaction to the latter, policies requiring ethanol blended with gasoline (in various proportions) are becoming widespread in OECD countries which is estimated to result in a demand for about 26 billion litres of ethanol in the short run (CREM, 2006, 27). It seems undeniable that the demand for biofuel will surge in both the near and medium-term future – the remaining question is who will produce it? Currently a wide range of countries are currently launching public funded ethanol programs in order to get a foothold in the sector for both strategic, environmental and economic reasons. Even though it will not be dealt with in this paper, the framework governing international trade will have a decisive impact on who will produce and thus export ethanol (Matthews, 2007). The idea with writing this paper is to take a first step towards understanding my main research interest which is fairly encapsulated in the question: What are the “potentials” for poor countries to benefit from the up-coming market for bio-ethanol as both producers and users? That several poor countries have the possibility to produce ethanol is unquestionable. This possibility mainly consists of the right resource endowment inter alia including available arable land, favourable climate and low wage level. Twidell and Weir (2006) estimate that Latin America and Africa are the continents with the largest potential for producing biofuel. Still, to benefit (short or long term) from this will depend on whether a given country is capable of gardening such a production sector through policy measures. Several scholars are of the opinion that other countries, developed and developing, can learn important lessons from Brazil’s history (Goldemberg, 2007; ESMAP, 2005). In the light of my main research interest, this paper considers the policy management that has taken place in the world’s two largest bio-ethanol producers – the US and Brazil. If any lessons can be learned it is likely to be from them. Therefore the paper is a step towards getting a firmer grasp on my future research. My focus in the policy analysis will be on innovation policy because establishing an ethanol sector per se may only be a matter of investments and thus reallocation of resources. Making the sector competitive/sustainable is another issue - an issue which in this case concerns productivity, technological development and how to manage the sector’s broader impact on society through inter alia institutional innovation.