1. Introduction
The concept of national systems of innovation (Freeman, 1988; Nelson, 1993) is the starting point the present investigation. It is a complex institutional setting that characterizes modern capitalist economies, involving a diversity of actors – firms with and without R&D departments, universities, research institutes, government, financial agencies, legal framework – and a division of labor among them. Within such institutional setting, the relationships required to exchange and combine knowledge and experience between the actors are a crucial factor differentiating developed and non-developed NSIs (Lundvall, 2003). Among them, those between firms, universities and research institutes stand out as they work in a complementary way, bringing benefits to both academy and industry (Mowery and Sampat, 2005). From the perspective of most developed industrial countries, they are a key and dynamic component of the NSIs, especially in the form of two-way links (Narin, 1997; Pavitt, 1991; Rosenberg, 1990). They are also reported as complex and multifarious in the more advanced form – the US case (Klevorick et al, 1995; Cohen et al, 2002).
Those studies also show that the channels through which knowledge flows between firms and public research organizations (PRO) matter, as do the relationships between the channels used and the benefits obtained. However, they have strong historical roots, with very specific patterns of change over time and space, and are difficult to construct (Rosenberg, 1982; Mokyr, 1990). On the one hand, they thrive in academic environments that value the so-called “entrepreneurial role” of the universities beyond the traditional focus on higher education, production of scientific knowledge, and provi...
... middle of paper ...
...he creation of scientific institutions “ahead of demand”. This has been the case of information and communication technologies, computer sciences, and computer engineering.
On the other hand, despite recent advances, Brazil still presents a lagging position in respect to its national system of innovation (NSI). Differently from South Korea, the Brazilian path is slow and shows a relatively small tradeoff between scientific and technological production, as Ribeiro et al (2009) demonstrate. The scientific side of the system has improved considerably but the mismatch with production technology is representative of a less-developed national socioeconomic formation. Furthermore, it is understood that a NSI constitutes a precondition for overcoming underdevelopment, as it produces solutions to problems faced by economy and society (Suzigan, Rapini and Albuquerque (2009).
...hese will lay the groundwork for closing Brazil’s gaps in productivity and development statistics. However, the government may also want to consider balancing the factor inputs of its subsidized industries. Businesses must be allowed to capitalize on labor abundance and provide formal employment for Brazil’s working class, rather than incentivized to replace them with expensive capital, subsidized by the government with the highest public debt in South America. Even traditional development theories show us that this is a sustainable way to increase wages in the long term, as has been shown by South Korea and Chile. Though there is no guarantee the same model will work for Brazil, it poses an interesting question about the dynamics of the country’s development from a microeconomic perspective, and suggests a path to industrialization not yet fully embraced by Brazil.
Part one of this book deals with the shift from a mercantile economy into a “modern economy”. “A modern economy turns people who are close to the economy, where they are apt to be struck by new commercial ideas, into the investigators and experimenters who manage the innovation process from development, and in many cases, adoption as well.” (Phelps 27) The shift from a mercantile economy to a modern economy stopped people from just buying...
His “Three Worlds of Innovation” system categorizes countries into one of three differentiations of entrepreneurial abilities. The category of marginalized countries includes areas of low innovative contributions, such as Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. The second tier categorizes technological diffusers, which have advanced production and technology absorption abilities but low contribution to innovation, including China, India, and the former Soviet Union. At the top of the hierarchy is the core country category, which includes “Western” states like the United States, Japan, and nations in Western Europe which dominate innovation due to their wealth, supportive abilities, and developed infrastructure. Sachs describes the hostility of marginalized countries to innovation, blaming the absence of national innovation systems/democratic policy and poor STEM support, as well as natural disadvantages such as ecological and environmental challenges. To become a diffuser and/or a core country, he recommends marginalized countries aim to develop their urban areas into sites of globalized production, attracting financial grants and international support for scientific advancements. By integrating a national economy into world production, states such as Singapore and Israel have become bases of operation for world-class technology leaders. Conclusively, Sachs contends that while many aspects of innovation (such as intellectual property rights and technology transfer) must be reimagined themselves, the public provision and promotion of STEM is critical to innovation and must be supported
Globalisation has been crucial to the economic and social development of Brazil. In the late twentieth century Brazil face years of economic, political and social instability experiencing high inflation, high income inequality and rapidly growing poverty. However after a change of government in the 1990s and large structural changes in both the economic and social landscapes, the brazilian economy has been experiencing a growing middle class and reduced income gap. Since the start of the 21st century, brazil has benefitted from the move to a more global economy.
Rhoades, Gary and Sheila Slaughter. 2004. “Academic Capitalism in the New Economy: Challenges and Choices.�The John Hopkins University Press. 38-60.
In the current economic times the development and growth of any economy has come to a near stop or at least to a drastic slow down. The face of the global economic environment has changed and many new countries are starting to change the way their country and the rest of the world does business. One such nation is Brazil, who has turned around their own economic troubles and is becoming one of the fastest growing economies in the world (World Factbook). Brazil has started developing its economy and using the opportunity to achieve a level of respect in the world.
Mandeville, T. (1998). An information economics perspective on innovation. International Journal of Social Economics, 25 (2), 357-364. Retrieved March 11, 2011, from: http://www.
Utterback, A. M. (1996). Mastering the dynamics of innovation. United States of American: Harvard Business Press
Kelley,T. (2005, Oct.). The 10 faces of innovation. Fast Company, 74-77. Retrieved 6th March’ 2014 from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=9&sid=1d6a17b7-c5f7-4f00-bea4 db1d84cbef55%40sessionmgr10&hid=28&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=bth&AN=18386009
Theoretical model of modern economic growth shows that long-term economic growth and raise the level of per capita income depends on technological progress. This is because of without technological progress and with the increase of capital per capita, marginal returns of capital would diminish and output per capita growth would eventually stagnate (Solow, 1956; Swan, 1956). Studies have shown that “experience, skills and knowledge in the long-term economic growth is playing an increasingly important role” (World Bank, 1999). Despite how technological progress work on economic growth, and how there are different views on the role of in the end, but I am afraid no one would deny that technical progress in the important role of economic development. In this sense, for a country to achieve long-term economic growth, we must continue to promote technological progress. However, economic growth theory is analyzed in general, and usually under the assumption that in the closed economy, and technological progress in a country not normally have taken place in various departments at the same time, and now the economy are often increasingly open economy. In this way, the technological progress in different economic impact on a country may be quite different. In addition, we assume that technological progress is Hicks neutral, is to an industry in itself, but technological progress also reflects the establishment of new industries and development. The new industries and technology-intensive industries generally older than the high, the use of less labor. Even the old industries, the general trend of technological progress is labor-saving.
Urwick, L. F. and E. F. L. Brech (1966). The making of scientific management: Pitman.
Scientific and technological progress is one of the most important and far reaching of humanity’s effort streams throughout history. One of the hallmarks of any great society is what new or improved knowledge of the world and how it works that the society can contribute. A strong and vibrant culture celebrates the spirit of invention and innovation. Closely allied with this concept is the spirit of entrepreneurship, considered one of the greatest qualities of the American culture.
In modern society, governments in both developed and developing countries contribute financial resources to various forms of research and development (R&D). This type of investment assists society to function more effectively, because of inventions and innovations in many sectors, such as health, education, technology and science. In this way, social growth is encouraged at both a national and international level, which further supports improved business and commercial expansion. Based on this, it can be understood that government funding promotes scientific exploration of new ideas and processes that can advance the standard of living around the world. Therefore, it is argued that government funding for research benefits society. This will be examined with reference to the way government funding for medical research aids society, and scientific production on technology.
In the highly competitive global environment, knowledge and information are key factors in the competitiveness of nations. Technology holds the promise of bringing poor nations out of poverty. It is the engine of economic growth (e.g., Chen and Shimonmura,
As the introduction prepared us for this, we can discern three different phases in the history of institutional development of science. If we put them in an order according to chronological interest that each phase has, we could say that the first one is the pre-science phase, the second is the science for gentlemen and the third is the phase of professional science. (Dr. Nedeva Maria, Lecture “The story of science”, 2006)