Transcript Document

Globelics
and the BRICS project
Globelics Academy
Tampere, Finland – 2008
José Eduardo Cassiolato
Economics Institute of Federal University of Rio de
Janeiro
Specificities of BRICS
• Wide variation of production structures
–
–
heterogeneity of production systems
heterogeneity of demand
• Wide regional differences
• Wide income differences
• The importance of
–
–
•
•
history, culture
mode of insertion in globalization
Indicators (what ???)
In the context of BRICS there is a need to analyze local
innovation and production systems (LIPSs)
• RedeSist’s experience in analyzing LIPSs
The Specificities of BRICS
• Wide variation of productive structures
– heterogeneity (in the same sector)of production
systems
– Heterogeneity of demand
• Wide regional differences
What is so great about R&D expenditures as an
indicator of innovation input ?
• Innovation capability became now seen less in terms of the ability to
discover new technological principles, but more in
terms of the ability to exploit systematically the effects
produced by new combinations and use of pieces in the
existing stock of knowledge (David, P. and D. Foray 1995)
“Accessing and Expanding the Science and Technology Knowledge
Base”, STI Review, no.16, pp. 16-38).
• Not surprisingly the new model appears closely associated with the
emergence of various new sorts of knowledge “service” activities,
implying to some extent, and in contrast to the Frascati R&D focus,
much more routine use of a technological base allowing for
innovation without the need for particular leaps in science and
technology, something which has also been referred to as
“innovation without research” (Freeman and Soete 2007)
BRICS Gross Expenditures on R&D (total
and per capita) 2004
100,000.00
140
90,000.00
120
115.9
80,000.00
100
70,000.00
88.5
60,000.00
50,000.00
80
73.4
72.5
60
40,000.00
30,000.00
40
20.1
20,000.00
20
10,000.00
0.00
0
Brazil
Russia
GERD (PPP $ m)
Source: Cassiolato and Stalivieri 2008
India
China
GERD per capita (PPP $)
South Africa
Studying IS in BRICS
• The IS framework in
– Analytical terms
– Normative terms
•
The different dimensions of the IS framework (national, sectoral, etc.)
and the narrow and the broad versions
• The need to establish a bridge between
– Macro, meso and micro levels
– The territory (in cognitive terms) and the economy
• Capability and learning are firm-especific but are embodied in human
beings (remember the Penrosian firm)
• History, culture and all types of knowledge (included and most
important the “traditional one”
• The complex problem of analysing IS in countries like BRICS
Brics-countries
• Extremely uneven regional development income
– gap between the most and the least developed regions
enormous and still growing.
• Open and hidden unemployment among unskilled
workers is extremely high while there may be
shortages of skilled labour.
• Shortage of capital and knowledge
• The FDI (scale and type very different).
• Role of Diasporah as source of both capital and
skilled labour. (China and India) and Brain Drain
in others
Towards a research design for BRICS
–
The concepts (NIS, learning, etc): need to be
redefined from a “Southern” perspective
•
Power (geo politics, MNCs, etc)
•
Financial globalization
•
Privatization, deregulation,
•
Diversity and institutions
•
The local (regional) dimension
•
Informality and the second economy
•
The role of indigenous knowledge
Annual average growth rates of
total real GDP (%)
1980-89
1990-00
2001-04
Brazil
3,1
2,9
1,8
Mexico
0,8
3,1
1,7
Rep. of Korea
8,5
5,8
4,6
China
10,6
10,4
8,8
India
5,7
6,0
6,1
-
-4,7
6,1
1,4
2,1
3,2
Russia
South Africa
Source: UNCTAD Handbook of Statistics, 2005.
BRICS – Income Distribution
Statistics - 2002
GINI Index
Share of poorest 20% in
national income or
consumption
% of population below the poverty
line
Brazil
0.591
2.4
17.4
China
0.447
4.7
4.6
Índia
0.325
8.9
28.6
Rússia
0.456
8.2
30.9
South
Africa
0.593
3.5
-
Country
Source: United Nations Statistics Division
Industrial performance and growth
• China: spectacular GDP growth is certainly related to
the high competitiveness of its manufacturing system
• Brazil, Russia, South Africa: manufacturing has lost
relative importance and weight; international
competitiveness has faltered…
• India: manufacturing has grown, on average, at the
same pace of GDP
Question: is an improvement of manufacturing’s
competitiveness an important factor for
long term growth?
BRICS: manufacturing value added
(% GDP), 1993 and 2003
Brazil
Russia
1993
20.5
22.8
2003
18.6
22.5
China
India
South Africa
Developed
Developing
32.8
14.7
18.9
18.9
22.7
37.6
15.6
18.0
19.0
22.8
Source: UNIDO
Var 1993-2003
-9.3
-1.3
14.6
6.1
-4.8
0.5
0.4
Growth and competitiveness
• East-Asian economies have grabbed an additional 13
percentage points of world trade in the last 25 years
• China’s performance is, by far, the more dynamic
• Brazil’s share of world exports has stagnated (with a
slight recent improvement)
• India has also shown some moderate improvement
from a low start basis
• South Africa has lost relative importance in world
exports
• Russia’s recent improvement related to oil and gas
price boom
Apparently, global competitiveness has been
a key factor for fast growth
Evolution of market share of world merchandise exports
Developed Countries
Value of Exports
1980
1990
2003
65,3
72,0
64,8
Developing Countries
. Latin America+ Caribbean
. Brazil
. Mexico
. Developing Asia
. West Asia
. Russia
. South Asia
. India
. East Asia
. China
. Rep. of Korea
. Africa
.South Africa
29,5
5,5
1,0
0,9
18,0
9,9
0,7
0,4
7,1
0,9
0,9
5,9
1,3
24,3
4,1
0,9
1,2
16,9
3,9
0,8
0,5
12,0
1,8
1,9
3,2
0,7
32,1
5,0
1,0
2,2
24,7
4,1
1,8
1,1
0,8
19,4
5,8
2,6
2,4
0,5
33,5
5,1
1,1
2,1
25,8
4,4
2,0
1,1
0,8
20,1
6,4
2,8
2,5
0,5
Developing's excl. first-tier NIEs and China
24,8
14,8
16,8
17,4
Country
Source: UNCTAD
2004
63,1
BRICS and selected countries: share in world high-tech products exports
(%),
1993 and 2003
BRICS
Brazil
Russia
India
China
South Africa
Mexico
Korea, Rep.
USA
Japan
World
1993
2.7
0.4
0.5
0.2
1.5
na
1.2
2.8
18.1
13.7
100.0
2003
8.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
7.0
0.1
2.0
4.0
13.3
7.5
100.0
Var 1993-2003
217.8
1.1
-11.0
100.9
359.3
75.9
42.0
-26.6
-45.4
-
Source: NEIT-IE-UNICAMP from UNCTAD primary data
Competitiveness in manufacturing high tech products seems to
be a relevant driver of fast growth and yet an even more
important factor for a strong export record
• China has almost quadrupled its share of world’s high tech
production. It has surpassed Korea and is now equivalent to
Japan!
• India has shown important advance but her share in high tech
products is still small
• Brazil and Russia: have shown a stagnant performance in
world’s manufacturing of high tech products
• South Africa’s presence in high tech is quite small
Towards a research design for BRICS
• ‘Explain’ in a comparative perspective the specialisation,
competitiveness and growth performance, BUT TAKING INTO
ACCOUNT THE LOCAL DIMENSION AND SPECIFICITIES
OF THE DUAL ECONOMY
– select productive activities that play important roles in the national
innovation system and take the regional/local dimension into
account.
– analyse for each of of local systems
• what takes place inside firms in terms of innovation, learning and competence
building.
• the interaction among firms including competition, co-operation and
networking and how firms interact with knowledge infrastructure.
– how specificities in national education, labour markets and
different implicit and explicit policies affect firm behaviour and
inter-organisational patterns.
Towards a research design for BRICS
–
The concepts (NIS, learning, etc): need to
be
redefined
from
a
“Southern”
perspective
•
Power (geo politics, MNCs, etc)
•
Financial globalization
•
Privatization, deregulation,
•
Diversity and institutions
•
The local (regional) dimension
•
The second economy
•Towards a research design for BRICS - A top-down analysis of the
transformation of the national system
•
Mapping the economic structure and the competitiveness of the whole national
economy including the changing patterns of production specialization and
insertion in world trade.
– develop adequate innovation indicators
•
Analyse how BRICS-countries respond to the transformation pressure, eg
– financial liberalization,
– new WTO trade disciplines
– agricultural subsidies in the developed countries.
•
Analyse the role of implicit and explicit policies
– impact of structural adjustment policies and policies towards FDI upon innovation
systems.
– Industrial and innovation policies
– Implicit policies
– policies toward education, skills and the development of human capital.
The BRICS Project
• Research Institutions
– Economics Institute, Federal
University of Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil
– Center of Development Studies,
Trivadrum, Kerala, Índia
– Tshwane University of
Technology, Pretoria, South
Africa
– Tsinghua University, Beijing ,
China
– Higher School of Economics,
Moscow, Russia
• Coordinators
– José E Cassiolato – Brazil
– K.J. Joseph – India
– Rasigan Maharaj – South Africa
– Liu Xielin – China
– Leonid Gokhberg – Russia
Objectives of the BRICS Project
• stimulate interactions and the exchange of experiences between
researchers and policy-makers interested in innovation in BRICS
aiming at creating capabilities and finding joint workable solutions;
• characterize the structure of BRICS´ national innovation systems, their
recent evolution and perspectives;
• compare the five countries innovation systems, identifying differences
and similarities, common bottlenecks and complementarities;
• develop and use concepts and information capable of representing the
Innovation Systems of BRICS;
• discuss policy implications and put forward policy recommendations,
extracting lessons that can be useful not only for these countries but
also for other developing countries.
BRICS – 1st phase
• Reports on NIS of BRICS
• 5 comparative studies on selected horizontal
themes
• A discussion on appropriate indicators
The Broad IS
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 sciencebased 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).
Need to focus on learning and
capacity-building and not R&D
• Within most OECD economies, policymakers
remain heavily focused on ICT, biotech and
nanotechnology issues (both in innovation and
diffusion policy) to the exclusion of most of the
areas of knowledge that are, in fact, producing
change across major industries. Policy remains
focused on a science-based model of innovation to
the exclusion of a genuinely learning-based
approach (Smith, 2004).
Report on NIS
• The Broad NIS
– Geo-Political, Social, Political, Economic, Cultural & Local
Context
– Sub-System: Production & Innovation
– Sub-System: Capacity-building, Research & Technological
Services
– Sub-System: Policies, Representation & Financing
– Demand
•
•
•
•
Income distribution
Structure of consumption
Social organization
Social demand (basic infra-structure, health, education)
Complexity of BRICS NISs
• Two different views of NIS:
• Narrow (and very narrow)
• Broad
NIS: The Narrow Version
Narrow
S&T infrastructure
Firms
S&T&I Policy
Demand
NIS: the Broad Version
Geo-Political, Social, Political, Economic,
Cultural & Local Context
Broad
Narrow
Subsystem
Capacity-Building,
Research & Technology Services
Subsystem
Production/Innovation
Subsystem
Policy, Promotion, Representation &
Financing
Demand
(segmented)
Geo-Political, Social, Political, Economic, Cultural & Local
Context
•
•
•
•
Geo-political context
Social, Political & Economic context
Cultural aspects
Regional & local characteristics
Production & Inovation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Structure of economic activities
Sectoral distribution
Spatial distribution
Employment
Size
Degree of Informality (the Second Economy)
Innovative effort (more than R&D!!!)
Capacity-building, Research & Technological
Services
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Education (basic, technical & graduation)
Pos-graduation
R & D infrastructure
Training & Capacity-building
S&T Information
Metrology
Consulting
Intelectual Property
Policies, Representation & Financing
• Explicit policies (S&T&I, industrial,
sectoral)
• Implicit policies (macroeconomic,
investment, trade, etc.)
• Regulation (sectoral, foreign trade,
intelectual property, environment,
innovation)
• Financing
• Representation
Demand
• Income Distribution (impact on innovation
capabilities)
• Structure of consumption
• Social Organization
• Social demand (basic infrastrucutre, health,
education)
5 Comparative studies
• Innovation Systems and Inequality in BRICS,
• Finance and Funding in the National System of
Innovation
• The role of SMEs in the National Innovation
System
• The role of the State in the National Innovation
System
• Transnational corporations and the National
Innovation System
BRICS – Total R&D Employees and Scientists 2004
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
Brazil
Russia
India
R&D employees (full-time equivalents)
Source: Cassiolato and Stalivieri 2008
China
Scientists (full-time equivalents)
South Africa
BRICS – Scientist intensity and density 2004
3.5
900
3.32
800
3
700
2.5
600
500
2
400
1.5
300
200
1
0.71
0.46
0.31
100
0.09
0
Brazil
Russia
Scientist intensity (pers. / $ bn GPD)
Source: Cassiolato and Stalivieri 2008
0.5
0
India
China
South Africa
Scientist density (pers. / 1,000 pop.)
35,000
BRICS – Publications in SCI – Total and
World Share - 2004
4.18
4.5
4
30,000
3.5
25,000
3
20,000
2.26
2.5
1.83
15,000
2
1.24
1.5
10,000
1
5,000
0.34
0
0.5
0
Brazil
Russia
Publications in SCI
Source: Cassiolato and Stalivieri 2008
India
China
Share in SCI publications worldwide (%)
South Africa
BRICS – Publications per unit of GDP and
per scientist
30
0.17
25
20
0.14
0.10
15
10
0.03
5
0.03
0
Brazil
Russia
India
Publication intensity (publ. / $ bn GPD)
Source: Cassiolato and Stalivieri 2008
China
Publication frequency (publ. / scientist)
South Africa
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00