Experiencia Brasileña en el

Desarollo de Sistemas Regionales de Innovación

José E CassiolatoIE/UFRJ

RedeSist (Research Network on Local Production and Innovation Systems)

International Seminar on Policies of Science, Technology and InnovationBogotá, abril/2008

• The National Innovation System of Brazil is a complex animal ...– Heterogeneity and diversity but not only– Apart from some few cases (oil,

airplanes) it does not make any sense talk about sectoral innovation systems

– But it is totally correct to have a territorial dimensionterritorial dimension of innovation systems

Brazil X Europe (with 6 biomes !!!)

PortugalSpainFranceUNited Kingdom BelgiumGermany PolandCzech RepublicAustriaSwitzerlandItaly

Population=185 million

Heritage of DiversityHeritage of Diversity

THE HERITAGE OF INEQUALITYTHE HERITAGE OF INEQUALITY

% of population of 25 years or more with less than 4 years of study – 2000

PER CAPITA GDPPER CAPITA GDP

1.204,1 - 3.849,4

3.849,4 - 6.358,6

6.358,6 - 9.166,6

9.166,6 - 13.017,0

13.017,0 - 18.533,9

18.533,9 - 27.576,6

27.576,6 - 43.392,5

43.392,5 - 67.084,9

67.084,9 - 10.6502,7

10.6502,7 - 28.9838,3

Source: IBGE- PIB Municipal

Understanding the Brazilian National Innovation System through the understanding

of Local and Regional Innovation Systems

• The setting up of RedeSist– 26 universities in 22 states– Analysis of approximately 90 local innovation

systems from aircraft (Embraer) to subsistance agriculture to cultural activities (Carnival)

– Attempt to understand interactive processes of learning and capacity building (the need for apropriate indicators)

– Mingling research with policy

Example 0f Heterogeneity - Wearing apparel local innovation systems

big differences in innovation and cooperation rates

% of firms with Product

innovations

% of firms with Process

innovations

% of firms with innovations in

product design

% of firms with organizational

innovations

%of firms involved in cooperation

activities Campina Grande - PB 66,70% 52,40% 81% 66,70% 33,30%

Jaraguá - GO 27,30% 22,70% 78,50% 18,20% 7,10%Natal - RN 23,70% 21,10% 18,40% 21% 21%

Tobias Barreto - SE 48,80% 44,40% 80% 37,70% 4,40%Colatina - ES 52,80% 37,70% 92,40% 28,30% 62,30%

Apucarana - PR 50% 37,80% 56% 56% 53%Terra Roxa - PR 88% 88% 82,30% 100% 79,40%

Petrópolis - RJ 79,30% 75,80% 82,70% 89,60% 20,50%Cabo Frio - RJ 5% 11,10% 100% 83,30% 50%

Ibitinga - SP 80% 57,80% 66,70% 42% 0%Brazil - Innov Survey 11,60% 21,20% 72,80% n.a n.a

Structure of Presentation

• What System (Regional) of Inovation?• Brazil – Regional & Social

Development• The Decentralization of S&T (and I)

policies• The different regional innovation

systems in Brazil• Conclusions

Two different versions of “(National, Regional, Local, etc.) Sistems of

Inovation”

Fonte: Cassiolato e Lastres (2008)

What System (Regional) of Inovation?

Often policy makers and scholars have applied a narrow

understanding of the concept (of Innovation System) and this has

given 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.

Without a broad definition of the national innovation system encompassing individual, organizational and inter-organizational learning, it is impossible to establish the link from innovation to economic growth. (Lundvall, 2007, p. 1-2)

In Lundvall, B.-Å. (ed.) (2007), National Innovation Systems: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, London, Pinter Publishers (2nd edition of the 1992 book).

What System (Regional) of Inovation?

• In underdeveloped countries there is a need to understand the (national, regional, local) innovation system in a BROAD perspective– The Social dimension of innovation– Culture and History

• That are manifested in different capabilities and knowledge forms that are localized

• The importance of traditional knowledge (see China and India)

– A BROAD perspective on Innovation • (Innovation is MUCH MORE than R&D)• What is R&D????

– Differences: Social and Regional Heterogeneities

Some characteristics of the Brazilian National Inovation System

• High variety of productive (and innovative) structures– Heterogeneity of production systems

produtivos– Heterogeneity of demand (income

distribution, social demand, etc.) • Important regional differences• Important social differences• Traditional indicators not very much

significant (The Bogotá manual)• Several implications (particularly in

terms of policy)

Brazil – Regional & Social Development Huge Differences … that are gradually

changing

Share of Regions in GDP 1985 2004• North 3,8% 5,3%• Northeast 14,1% 14,1%• Southeast 60,2% 55,0%• South 17,1% 18,3%• Center-West 4,8% 7,5%

Source: IBGE

But that in S&T continues to be large

Number of Graduates by region - 1988-2002

Brazil – Higher Education by Region - 2001

Region Higher educa.

Institutions(%)

Lecturers (%) Students* (%)

Total MSc PhD

North 4.4 4.2 4.1 2.0 4.7

Northeast 15.2 15.5 16.1 11.7 15.2

Southeast** 53.3 51.7 49.5 62.9 51.7

South 15.5 20.6 22.6 18.0 19.8

CentreWest 11.6 8.0 7.7 5.4 8.6

Total Brasil (number)

1,391 219,947 72,978 46,133 3,030,754

* Enrolled students** São Paulo and R de Janeiro cities with 15.5 % and 11.7%Of MScs and 27.0% and 12.3% of PhDs respectively

Brazil – Post-grad (MSc & PhD) students by region and scientific areas (– 1999 (%)

Region Earth Sc

Computing/IT Biological Sc

Engineering Agricult. Total

North 2.2 - 3.8 0.5 1.7 1.6

Northeast 12.6 12.0 6.7 6.5 8.0 8.3

Southeast 68.5 52.4 71.2 70.4 69.8 69.0

South 12.6 33.8 13.7 20.5 18.1 18.1

CentreWest 4.0 1.8 4.5 2.1 2.4 3.0

Total Brasil (number)

7.232 2.358 7.300 14.188 7.774 38.852

Brazil – Regional & Social Development

A huge social debt that for the first time is being addressed

0,56

0,57

0,58

0,59

0,6

0,61

0,62

0,63

0,64

1976 1977 1978 1979 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

GINI

Taxa de crescimento anual da renda per capita acumulada pelos décimos mais pobres entre 2001 e 2005

8.0

5.9

4.9

4.3

3.73.4

3.0

2.5

1.9

0.9

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Primeiro Segundo Terceiro Quarto Quinto Sexto Sétimo Oitavo Nono Décimo

Tax

a d

e cr

esc

imen

to (

%)

Renda Média

Fonte: Estimativas produzidas com base na Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios (PNAD) de 2001 e 2005.

Brazil – Regional & Social Development

BRAZIL DISCOVERS THE BASE OF THE SOCIAL PYRAMIDBRAZIL DISCOVERS THE BASE OF THE SOCIAL PYRAMID

... With important implications for innovation polícies... With important implications for innovation polícies

Source: BARROS ET ALI , IPEA, 2006

ANNUAL GROWTH of ANNUAL GROWTH of PER CAPITAPER CAPITA INCOME BY CLASS INCOME BY CLASS 2001-20052001-2005

POOR AREAS LEAD CONSUMPTION POOR AREAS LEAD CONSUMPTION GROWTHGROWTH

... ... With important implications for innovation With important implications for innovation políciespolícies

0,0

20,0

40,0

60,0

80,0

100,0

120,0

140,0

160,0

180,0

200,0

MA AL AC TO AM RN PB ES CE SE MS GO PA PE AP RO BA PI MG DF BR SP SC MT RO PR RJ RS

Growth of Sales in Commerce Growth of Sales in Commerce 2003-2007 (out)2003-2007 (out)

FONTE: IBGE, PMC,OUT. 2007

NO e NE

Regional and Social differences should be

adressed together

Two different versions of “(National, Regional, Local, etc.) Sistems of

Inovation”

Fonte: Cassiolato e Lastres (2008)

The Decentralization of STI policies

A caveat: the importance of some federal institutions for regional S&T development

• The Federal Public University System– Even in poorest States – importance of

qualified human resources

• EMBRAPA’s regional officies– Spread innovation in all agro areas

• (rice and beans and soya beans...)

• SEBRAE and the support of SMES– Technology diffusion, technology consulting,

management practices, etc

Decentralized Innovation Policies in Brazil

• The beginning– São Paulo

• Fapesp in the early 1960s• The São Paulo State Council of Technology in the early 1970s

• Gradual generalization on the 1980s – The role of CNPq– The Forum of S&T Secretaries– Crisis in the late 1980s

• The hard resistance in the 1990s– Structural change and the abandonment of industrial and S&T policy at

fedral level– States need to act in a “policy emptiness space– The end of SUDENEand SUDAM)– Institutional building and adressing state problems and projects

• THe present period– National policies and decentralization are back– Several advances and problems

INCREASE OF STATE RESOURCESResources of State Governments in S&T , 2000-2004

(current R$)

2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  

Total1.309.90

41.528.16

71.502.00

01.607.30

02.050.80

3

North 26.288 26.263 26.698 35.143 40.349

Northeast 137.031 206.228 217.119 266.308 294.564

Southeast 864.581 990.476 937.264 989.5081.297.94

3

South 244.807 273.147 309.110 294.529 361.281

Centre-West 37.196 32.053 11.809 21.812 56.666

Two (not excluding) models – Emphasis on R&D (narrow vision) or in broader S&T&I activities

Northeast Region

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

P&D ACTC P&D ACTC P&D ACTC P&D ACTC P&D ACTC

Alagoas 1.091 2.270 1.591 5.098 3.294 774 5.168 1.759 5.876 4.615

BahiaBahia 44.04744.047 28.32628.326 59.96059.960 28.73028.730 82.39582.395 28.46528.465 97.78997.789 32.85832.858 111.349111.349 37.05137.051

Ceará 1.082 6.239 4.762 8.033 2.571 20.598 6.621 28.116 4.312 44.863

Maranhão 467 2.194 23.674 269 7.360 741 18.646 1.778 165 6.517

Paraíba 5.318 1.380 5.867 1.034 4.633 2.348 5.662 2.909 8.154 889

Pernambuco 24.731 12.674 27.484 28.363 21.315 24.760 20.817 28.948 16.153 33.788

Piauí 10 398 129 457 143 655 145 1.988 435 2.033

Rio Grande do Norte 3.504 739 4.008 1.636 1.028 10.736 41 5.758 756 9.132

Sergipe 37 2.524 246 4.887 498 4.806 1.485 5.819 2.698 5.777

Northeast 80.287 56.744 127.720 78.508 123.237 93.883 156.374 109.933 149.898 144.665

(não inclui estimativa de gastos com a pós-graduação)Fonte: Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia.

The State experiences

• Different models – different results• Emphasis on R&D X emphasis on

innovation

Some general features of State policies

• Selecting strategic areas mostly related to local patterns of specialization;

• Support of R&D by private sector;• Emphasis on training human resources• Targetting non-R&D activities – design, trade

mark, etc• Development of institutions and local

arrangements for innovation and diffusion– Foundation to support research (the Fapesp model)– Reengineering State technological research institutes– Non-governmental organizations for mediation and

integration.

The example of Ceará

• Ceará digital;• E-jovem, Technology agents and

Ceará Technology Network;• Technology colleges;• Institute of Research,

Desenvolvimento e Inovação do Ceará (IPDI).

Regional innovation systems in Brazil: the positive results

• Several examples of successful innovations adressing local social problems ... and also productive problems– Using local knowledge (in the Amazon but not only)– And NOT low tech

• Cooperative behaviour between local actors (firms and others) and local universities (a positive by-product of the effort in human resources)

• Institutional building (including policy capabilities)• Adressing more precisely human capacity building

related to the knowledge society– Training, local nteworks, etc.

• AND MORE IMPORTANT – INCLUDING OTHER ACTORS BESIDES THOSE OF THE NARROW APPROACH TO IS

New Federal Iniciatives with huge Regional impact

• MCT• Finep

– Decentralization (particularly Grants to Innovation)

• Two VERY GOOD general principal– Different match funding by states– States choose local institutions rto implement policies

• BNDES– Regional Actions and local production and

innovation systems (focus on innovation in SMEs)

But problems remain

• “(...) the format of public tender and the pre-condition of existing infra-structure for project qualification has resulted in a rsource alocation that acentuates concentration (...)”.

Document of the Forum of State S&T Secretaries, 2007

CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS

• A Country still being occupied (development) : – THE IMPORTANCE OF NATIONAL POLICIES

• A country where inequality is reproduced in all scales: – POLICIES IN DIFFERENT SCALES

• A country with distinct regional realities: – POLICIES WITH VARIOUS OBJECTIVES AND

AGENTS

(importance of local policies)