Research policy in emerging economies: Brazil's sector funds

Minerva

Volumn 43, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 245-263

  Sá, Creso ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 25844470974     PISSN: 00264695     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11024-005-6474-4     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. See Bengt-Åke Lundvall, Björn Johnson, Esben Sloth Andersen, and Bent Dalum, 'National Systems of Production, Innovation, and Competence Building', Research Policy, 31 (2), (2002), 213-231.
2. For the dynamics of industrial R&D, see Nathan Rosenberg, 'Why do Firms do Basic Research (with Their Own Money)?' Research Policy, 19(2), (1990), 165-174.
3. For the conceptualization of innovation system, see Bengt-Åke Lundvall (ed.), National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning (London: Pinter, 1992);
4. see also Richard Nelson (ed.), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).
5. Regis Cabral, 'Science and Development', in J.L. Heilbron (ed.), The Oxford Companion to the History of Science (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 205.
6. Ibid., 205-206.
7. For a method of describing interaction among sectors leading to innovation, see Henry Etzkowitz, 'The Triple Helix of Academia-Industry- Government: The US National Innovation System', in Robert Anderson, Theodore Cohn, Chad Day, Michael Hewlett, and Catherine Murray (eds.), Innovation Systems in a Global Context: The North American Experience (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1998), 127-147.
8. For the role of the states and the federal government, see Irwin Feller, 'Federal and State Government Roles in Science and Technology', Economic Development Quarterly, 11 (4), (1997), 238-295.
9. See also Susan U. Raymond (ed.), 'The Technology Link to Economic Development - Past Lessons and Future Imperatives' (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 787) (New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1996).
10. For case studies of recent collaboration among states and research universities, see Roger L. Geiger, Knowledge and Money: Research Universities and the Paradox of the Marketplace (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 2004), 180-231.
11. For emerging state science-based economic development policy, see Roger L. Geiger and Creso Sá, 'Beyond Technology Transfer: New State Policies to Harness University Research for Economic Development', Minerva, 43 (1), (2005), 1-21.
12. See Regis Cabral, 'European Instruments for Technology Transfer and the Experience of the Innovation Relay Centres', ATAS XI - New Approaches to Science and Technology Cooperation and Capacity Building (New York: UNCTAD, 1999), 235-258.
13. The duality of European research policy is evident in proposals for a European Research Council modelled on the US National Science Foundation. See Maria Nedeva, Barend van der Meuden, and Remi Barre, Towards a European Research Council - A Structured Review of the Evidence: A Report to the ERCEG (Manchester: PREST, 2003).
14. Cabral, op. cit. note 4, 205-206.
15. See also David de Ferranti and Guillermo E. Perry et al., Closing the Gap in Education and Technology (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2002).
16. See João Paulo dos Reis Velloso (ed.), O Brasil e a economia do conhedmento [Brazil and the Knowledge Economy] (Rio de Janeiro: José Olympio Editora, 2002).
17. For the former, see Francisco Viana, 'Indústria e tecnologia' [Industry and Technology], in Bolivar Lamounier and Rubens Figueiredo (eds.), A Era FHC [The FHC Era] (São Paulo: Cultura Editores Associados, 2002), 137-177;
18. for the latter, see Simon Schwartzman, A Space for Science: The Development of the Scientific Community in Brazil (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991),
19. and Simon Schwartzman (ed.), Ciência e tecnologia no Brasil: A capacitação Brasileira para a pesquisa científica e tecnológica (vol. 3) [Science and Technology in Brazil: The Brazilian Capacity for Scientific and Technologic Research] (Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Getúlio Vargas, 1996). Pre-prints (in Portuguese) available at http://www.schwartzman.org.br/simon/scipol/summ3.htm#N_1.
20. Judith Sutz, 'The University-Industry-Government Relations in Latin America', Research Policy, 29 (2), (2000), 279-290;
21. Rodrigo Arocena and Judith Sutz, 'Changing Knowledge Production in Latin American Universities', Research Policy, 30 (8), (2001), 1221-1234.
22. See Léa Velho and Tirso W. Saenz, R&D in the Public and Private Sectors in Brazil: Complements or Substitutes? UNU/INTEC Discussion Paper #2002-8 (Maastricht: The United Nations University/Institute for New Technology, 2002);
23. see also Sunil Mani, Government, Innovation and Technology Policy: An Analysis of the Brazilian Experience during the 1990s, UNU/INTEC Discussion Paper #2001-11 (Maastricht: The United Nations University/Institute for New Technology, 2001).
24. Simon Schwartzman, 'A pesquisa científica e o interesse público' [Scientific Research and Public Interest], Revista Brasileira de Inova̧cão, 1(2), (2002), 361-395.
25. Mani, op. cit. note 13, 19-23;
26. Velho and Saenz, op. cit. note 13, 39-45.
27. See Ionara Costa and Sérgio Robles Reis de Queiroz, 'Foreign Direct Investment and Technological Capabilities in Brazilian Industry', Research Policy, 31 (8-9), (2001), 1431-1443.
28. See Edmund Aman and Werner Baer, 'From Technology Absorption to Technology Production: Industrial Strategy and Technological Capacity in Brazil's Development Process', Economia Aplicada, 3 (1), (1999), 109-138.
29. For case studies of Petrobrás' and other state firms' R&D, see Fabio S. Erber and Leda U. Amaral, 'Os centros de pesquisa das empresas estatais: Um estudo de três casos' [Research Centres of State Companies: A Study of Three Cases] in Simon Schwartzman (ed.), Ciência e tecnologia no Brasil: Político industrial, mercado de trabalho e instituiç ões de apoio (vol. 2) [Science and Technology in Brazil: Industrial Policy, Labor Markets and Supporting Institutions] (Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Getúlio Vargas, 1995).
30. For analysis of Embraer, see Claudio R. Frischtak, 'Learning and Technical Progress in the Commuter Aircraft Industry: An Analysis of Embraer's experience', Research Policy, 23 (5), (1994), 601-612;
31. Roberto Bernardes, 'O caso Embraer - a privatização e transformação da gestão empresarial: Dos imperativos tecnológicos a focalização no mercado' [The Embraer Case - Privatization and Transformation of Enterprise Management: From Technological Imperatives to Market Focus], Cadernos de Gestão Tecnológica (São Paulo: CYTED, PGT/USP, 2000), 46.
32. Velho and Saenz, op. cit. note 13, 44.
33. Sec also Renato Dagnino and Lea Velho, 'University-Industry-Government Relations on the Periphery: The University of Campinas, Brazil', Minerva, 36 (3), (1998), 229-251.
34. Aman and Baer, op. cit. note 17.
35. See João Lúcio Azevedo, 'A pesquisa agropecuária', [Agricultural and Livestock Research] in Simon Schwartzman (ed.), Ciência e tecnologia, op. cit. note 11.
36. For an overview, see http://www.embrapa.br/english/index.htm.
37. See C.J. Dahlman and Claudio R. Frischtak, 'National Systems Supporting Technical Advance in Industry: The Brazilian Experience', in Richard R. Nelson (ed.), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 415-450.
38. See also Regis Cabral, 'Biotechnology, Wheat Production, and the Brazilian Company for Agricultural and Livestock Research (EMBRAPA)', Science and Public Policy, 21 (1994), 147-156.
39. Schwartzman, op. cit. note 14, 367.
40. See http://www.fiocruz.br/ for an overview, available in English.
41. Schwartzman, op. cit. note 14, 369-374.
42. This total figure is based on PhDs listed in the National Research Council's (CNPq) directory. Specific studies suggest similar patterns, as in Jacques Velloso (ed.), A pós-graduação no Brasil: Formação e trabalho de mestres e doutores no país [Graduate Studies in Brazil: Training and Work of Masters and Doctors in the Country] (Brasília: Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, 2002).
43. Slightly more than half of the country's doctoral students are enrolled in the three leading São Paulo universities. Elizabeth Balbachevsky, 'From Encirclement to Globalization: Evolving Patterns of Higher Education in Brazil', in Phillip G. Altbach (series ed.) and Matthew S. McMullen, James E. Mauch, and Bob Donnorummo (vol. eds.), The Emerging Markets and Higher Education: Development and Sustainability (New York: Routledge 2000), 149-170.
44. In the US, most academic R&D is performed by the 261 doctoral-research universities (as defined by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching), among a total of almost 4000 institutions of higher education. The top 100 universities, in terms of research revenues, account for 82% of federally-funded academic research. See National Science Foundation, Survey of Research and Development Expenditures at Colleges and Universities (Washington, DC: National Science Foundation/Division of Resources and Statistics, 2002).
45. Eunice R. Durham, As universidades públicas e apesquisa no Brasil [The Public Universities and Research in Brazil] Working Document 9/98 (São Paulo: NUPES - Universidade de São Paulo, 1998);
46. Cláudio de Moura e Castro and Daniel C. Levy, Myth, Reality and Reform: Higher Education Policy in Latin America (Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank, 2000).
47. For a succinct commentary on these structural issues, sec José Goldemberg and Eunice Durham, 'O problema das universidades públicas' [The Problem of Public Universities], Estado de São Paulo, (5 April 2002), Espaço Aberto section.
48. See Balbachevsky, op. cit. note 27, 156.
49. For university rectors' recent comments on financial autonomy, see 'USP, Unesp e Unicamp fazem balanço positivo' [USP, Unesp and Unicamp Do a Positive Assessment], Folha de São Paulo, (8 March, 2004), Cotidiano section.
50. See Schwartzman, A Space For Science, op. cit. note 11, 223-227.
51. See also Dagnino and Velho, op. cit. note 19.
52. These are the 2000 figures for investigator-initiated research, given in Schwartzman, op. cit. note 14, 371-372.
53. Ibid., 374.
54. For a detailed treatment, see Valéria Bastos, 'Fundos públicos para a ciência e tecnologia' [Public Funds for Science and Technology], Revista do BNDES, 10 (20), (2003), 229-260.
55. Schwartzman, op. cit. note 14, 381-386.
56. See Cylon G. Silva and Lucia Carvalho P. De Melo (eds.), Ciência, tecnologia e inovação: Desafio para a Sociedade Brasileira - Livro verde [Science, Technology and Innovation: Challenge for Brazilian Society - The Green Book] (Brasilia: Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia, Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 2001).
57. Available electronically at http://www.finep.gov.br/
58. CGEE was established in 2001, during Cardoso's administration, to be a S&T policy thinktank. It was to assist MCT in conducting prospective studies and coordinating the management committees of the Sector Funds. CGEE fulfilled these roles until 2003, when the new administration's S&T team cut back on its contract, almost dismantling it. A new S&T minister was appointed in 2004, and some of CGEE's functions have been maintained. For the establishment of CGEE, see Leila Suwwan, 'Novo centro vai gerir US$1 bi dos Fundos' [New Centre will manage US$1 billion of the Funds], Folha de São Paulo, (20 September 2001), Ciência section.
59. For later developments, see Luis Nassif, 'Retrabalho nos Fundos Setoriais' [Re-work in the Sector Funds], Folha de São Paulo, (12 May 2004), Dinheiro, section and 'O MCT esclarece' [MCT clarifies],
60. Folha de São Paulo, (14 May 2004), Dinheiro section.
61. SBPC, founded in 1948, has historically fulfilled this critical role in the national S&T debate. See Schwartzman, A Space For Science, op. cit. note 11, 202-203.
62. See 'Fundos para a ciência' [Funds for Science]. Folha de São Paulo (13 March 2004), Editorial.
63. See also SBPC's newsletter: http://www .jornaldaciencia.org.br/index2. jsp.
64. Referring to John Kingdon's use of the expression in Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies (New York: HarperCollins, 1984).
65. Mani, op. cit. note 13, 19-23.
66. Velho and Saenz, op. cit. note 13, 39-45.
67. In this section, letters inside brackets are codes referring to the interviewees whose views are discussed in the paragraph. Gender usage is neutral.
68. See Schwartzman, A Space For Science, op. cit. note 11, 215-218, 232-236, 245-247;
69. Dagnino and Velho, op. cit. note 19, 234-241.
70. Dagnino and Gomes believe that scientists in Brazil have a dominant role in S&T policymaking and implementation. See Renato Dagnino and Erasmo Gomes, 'O processo decisório da Universidade Pública Brasileira: Uma visão de análise de política' [The Decision-making Process of the Brazilian Public University: A Policy Analysis View], Avaliação - Revista da Rede de Avaliação Institutional da Educação Superior, 7 (4), (2002), 43-72.
71. Nathan Rosenberg and Richard Nelson, 'American Universities and Technical Advance in Industry', Research Policy, 23 (3), (1994), 323-348.
72. Nelson, op. cit. note 3.
73. This is the Centennial Campus of North Carolina State University. See Geiger, op. cit. note 7, 207-210.
74. See Erber and Amaral, op. cit. note 18. For an overview of current Petrobrás' programmes: http://www2.petrobras.com.br/portal/tecnologia. htm.
75. Stephanie Mignot-Gerard, 'Who Are the Actors in the Government of French Universities? The Paradoxical Victory of Deliberative Leadership', Higher Education, 45 (1), (2003), 71-89.
76. For a recent report on the current push for reform, see Luciana Constantino and Fernanda Mena, 'Autonomia universitária tern novo impulso' [New Impulse to University Autonomy], Folha de São Paulo, (8 March 2004), Cotidiano section.
77. In mid-2003, there were proposals to decentralize the administration of the Sector Funds, linking individual funds to different ministries. See Antonio Gois and Rafael Cariello, 'Governo estuda pulverizar dinheiro para pesquisa' [Government Studies Pulverization of Research Money]. Folha de São Paulo, (16 July 2003), Ciência section.
78. Several interviewees mentioned a 'centres of excellence' programme, dubbed PRONEX, to exemplify this pattern. PRONEX provides - directly from the Federal budget - discretionary funding for high performance research groups. In 2003, the Ministry of Science and Technology studied the prospect of decentralizing allocations through state research foundations. There were concerns over loss of transparency and wasteful resource dispersion under the new framework. The new Minister of Science and Technology appointed in 2004 has backed the original format. See Luis Renato Strauss, 'MCT recua na descentralização de recursos para a pesquisa no Brasil' ['MCT Retreats on the Decentralization of Research Funds in Brazil'], Folha de São Paulo, (10 March 2004), Ciência section.
79. For background, see Schwartzman, A Space For Science, op. cit. note 11, 217-218;
80. see also Velho and Saenz, op. cit. note 13, 23-26, 47-48.