Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer


Volumen 32 N° 56: julio - diciembre de 2013

Economic policy

Institutions and technology as key components of national development projects: a comparative analysis of Brazil and Mexico

https://doi.org/10.19053/22565779.2445

Published 2014-04-04

  • James Martín Cypher
    • ,
  • Aldo Andrés Pérez Escatel

Abstract

The absence of national projects that have attempted to institutionalize endogenous innovation capacities in Latin America has constituted a critical structural impediment to development. This article presents an analysis of themes relating to technology and development froma heterodox perspective. A large number of nations have abandoned important incipient efforts to promote a degree of technological autonomy as was undertaken during the period of state-led industrialization. This article emphasizes technology policy during the state-led era and its current possibilities. In order to ground this effort, we present a comparative analysis contrasting the diametric cases of Mexico and Brazil. We focus on national institutional structures, such as the prevailing ideology and the economic power structure, since these are the most decisive factors in the formulation of national policies governing national technological development.

Keywords

Institutions, industrialization

PDF (Español (España)) HTML (Español (España))

References

  1. Amann, E. (2009.) Technology, Public Policy and the Emergence of Brazilian Multinationals. In L. Brainard & L.Martínez-Díaz (Eds.). Brazil as an Economic Superpower?: Understanding Brazil’s Changing Role in the Global Economy. (pp.187-220). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
  2. Arbix, G. (2009, March 30-31). Innovation PolicyKnowledge Base in Brazil. Vision Era net Workshop, Helsinki, Finland.
  3. Arbix, G. eA. deNegri. (2009).Ainovação no centro da agenda do desenvolvimento. Em F. Giambiagi e O.de Barros (organziadores), Brasil Pós Crise.(pp.325-344).Rio de Janeiro:Elsevier.
  4. Astorga, P. A. R. Bergés & Fitzgerald, V. (2003). The Standard of Living in Latin America During the Twentieth Century. QEH Working Paper Series –QEHWPS103. Oxford: LatinAmerican Centre, St Antony’s College. Retrieved from http://www3.qeh.ox.ac.uk/pdf/qehwp/qehwps103.pdf
  5. Ayres, C. (1995). EconomicDevelopment:An Institutional Perspective. James Dietz (Ed.), Latin America’s Economic Development (pp. 89-97). Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner Publishers.
  6. Bértola, L. & Ocampo, J.A. (2012). The Economic Development of Latin America since Independence. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
  7. Boltvinik, J. &Hernández, E. (1981).Origen de la crisis industrial: El agotamiento del modelo de sustitución de importaciones. En R. Cordera(comp.). Desarrollo y crisis de la economía mexicana (pp. 456 533). México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
  8. Barón, D. (2012). Pensamiento económico en América Latina (1950 2010). Apuntes del CENES, 31 (54), 37-72.
  9. Bruton, H. (1998). A Reconsideration of Import Substitution. Journal of Economic Literature, 36 (3), 903-936.
  10. Bulmer-Thomas, V. (1994). The Economic History of Latin America since Independence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Capdevielle, M. (2003). Composición tecnológica de la industria manufactura mexicana. En J. Aboites & G. Dutrénit (Eds.). Innovación, aprendizaje y creación de capacidades tecnológicas (pp. 451-470).México:M.A. Porrúa.
  12. Carleial, L. & Cruz, B. (2011). A Hora e a Vez do Desenvolvimento Regional Brasileiro: uma proposta de longo prazo. (nãopublicado), p.p.1-32.
  14. Castaldi, C., Cimoli, M., Correa,N. & Dosi,G. (2009). Technological Learning, Policy Regimes and Growth. In M. Cimoli, G. Dosi & J. Stiglitz (Eds). Industrial Policy and Development (pp. 39-78). Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
  15. Castro, A. (2009). The Impact of Public Policies inBrazil. In M.Cimoli,G.Dosi & J.Stiglitz, (Eds.). Industrial Policy and Development (pp. 257-276). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  16. Chang,H. (2003a). Trade and Industrial Policy Issues. In H. Chang (Ed.). Rethinking Development Economics (pp. 257-276). London:Anthem Press.
  17. Chang,H. (2003b). TheMarket, the State and Institutions. In H. Chang (Ed.), Rethinking Development Economics (pp. 41-60). London: Anthem Press.
  18. Chang, H. (2003c). The East Asian Development Experience. In H. Chang (Ed.). Rethinking Development Economics (pp. 107-124). London: Anthem Press.
  19. Cimoli, M. (2000). Conclusions: An Appreciative Pattern of the Mexican Innovation System. In M. Cimoli (Ed.). Developing Innovation Systems: Mexico in a Global Context (pp. 278-292). New York:Continuum.
  20. Cimoli, M. & S.Rovira. (2008). Elites and Structural Inertia in Latin America. Journal of Economic Issues,42 (2), 327-348.
  21. Crespi,G. & Zuñiga, P. (2010). Innovation and Productivity: Evidence from Six Latin American Nations.WorldDevelopment, 40 (2), 273-290.
  22. Cypher, J. (1989). The Debt Crisis as Opportunity. Latin American Perspectives, 16 (1), 52-78.
  23. Cypher, J. (2009). El auge actual de los commodities y el proceso de primarización en América Latina ¿Al retorno al Siglo XIX? Foro Internacional, 49 (1), 119-162.
  25. Cypher, J. (2012, abril-junio). Veblen y el origen de la hipótesis del Catching-up. Problemas del Desarrollo 43, 9-26.
  26. Cypher, J. & Delgado, R. (2012).México a la deriva. México, D.F.:M.A. Porrúa.
  27. Cypher, J. & Dietz, J. (2009). The Process of Economic Development (3rded). London: Routledge.
  28. Da Motta & Albuquerque, E. (2007). Inadequacy of technology and innovation systems at the periphery. Cambridge Journal of Economics, (31), 669-690.
  29. Dalhman, C. & Frischtak,C. (1993).National Systems Supporting TechnicalAdvance in Industry: The Brazilian Experience. In R. Nelson (Ed.). National Innovation Systems (pp.414-450). NewYork:Oxford University Press.
  30. De Maria, Campos, M., Domínguez, L. &Brown, F. (2012). La industria manufacturera en su encrucijada: evolución en los últimos treinta años. En J. Calva (coordinador). Nueva Estrategia de Industrialización (pp. 279-308). México: Juan Pablos Editor.
  31. Dutrénit, G., Capdeville, M., Carona, J. M., Puchet,M., Santiago,F. & Vera-Cruz, A. (2010). El sistema nacional de innovación mexicano. México: Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana.
  32. Dutrénit,G., Puchet,M. & Teubal,M. (2011). Building bridges between coevolutionary approaches to science, technology and innovation and development economics: an interpretive model. Innovation and Development, 1 (1), 51–74.
  33. French-Davis, R.,Muñoz, O. & Palma. (1991). Las economías latinoamericanas, 1950- 1990. En T.Halperin, W. Glade, R.Thorp, A. Bauer, M. Moreno, C. Lewis, V. Bulmer-Thomas, R. Ffrench-Davis, O. Muñoz & G. Palma.Historia Económica de América Latina (pp. 333 402). Barcelona, España: Crítica.
  34. Furtado,A. & Carvalho, R. (2005). Patterns of Technological Intensity in Brazil. Innovation:Management and Practice. Retrieved from: http://www.thefreelibrary.comInnovation:+Management,+Policy,+&+ ractice/2005/April/1-p51562
  35. Furtado, C. (1968).Umprojeto para o Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Saga.
  36. Furtado, C. (1992). Brasil: a construção interrompida. São Paulo: Paz e Terra.
  37. Giestreia, L. (2010). Desenvolvimento após o Desenvolvimentiso: Origens, Resultados e Limitaçoes da Política Brasileriera de Inovaço Tecnológica (1999-2008). Tesis doutoral, Instituto de Economia da UNICAMP, Campinas,Brasil.
  38. Hira, A. (2007). An East Asian Model for Latin American Success. Aldershot, England:Ashgate.
  39. Hirschman,A. (1989). Courcell-Seneuil, Jean Gustave. In J. Eatwell, M. Milgate & P. Newman (Eds). The New Palgrave: Economic Development (pp. 88-90). New York: Norton.
  40. Hodgson, G. (1998). Dichotomizing the Dichotomy: Veblen vs. Ayres.In S. Fayasmanesh & M. Tool (Eds.). Institutional Method and ValueV.1 (pp. 48-73).Cheltenham,U.K.: EdwardElgar.
  41. Hodgson, G. (2001). HowEconomics Forgot History. London: Routledge.
  42. Hodgson, G. (2006). What are Institutions? Journal of Economic Issues, 40 (1), 1-26.
  43. Katz, J. &Kosacoff, B. (2003). El aprendizaje tecnológico, el desarrollo institucional y la microeconomía de la sustitución de importaciones. En E. Cárdenas et al.(comp.). Industrialización y Estado en la América Latina (pp. 58-84).México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
  44. Lall, S. & Teubal, M.(1998). Market Stimulating Technology Policies in Developing Countries. World Development, 28 (8), 1369-1998.
  45. Leonard, I. (2003). Science, Technology, and HispanicAmerica. In H. J.Wiarda &M. MacLeish Mott (Eds.), Politics and Social Change in Latin America (4th Edition), (pp. 79-90).Westport, Conn.: Praeger.
  46. López,A. (2004). Una puesta en perspectiva de la industrialización sustitutiva de importaciones: los orígenes estructural e histórico del rezago de la Argentina. En R. Boyer & J. Neffa (coordinadores). La economía argentino y su crisis (1976-2001) (pp. 349-378). Buenos Aires,Argentina: Miño yDávila.
  47. López,A. (2006). Empresarios, instituciones y desarrollo económico: el caso argentino. Buenos Aires, Argentina: CEPAL.
  48. Love, J.(2005).The Rise and Decline of Economic Structuralism in LatinAmerica. Latin American Research Review, 40 (3), 100-125.
  49. Lundvall, B-Å., J. Vang, K.J. Joseph & Chaminade, C. (2009). Innovation system research and developing countries. In BÅ. Lundvall, K.J. Joseph, C. Chaminade & J.Vang, (Eds.), Handbook of Innovation Systems and Developing Countries. (pp.1-32). Cheltenham,U.K.: EdwardElgar.
  50. Mahoney, J. (2003). Long-Run Development and the Legacy of Colonial Spanish America. American Journal of Sociology. 109 (1), 50 106.
  51. Martínez, J. (2011). Centripetal forces in aerospace clusters inMexico. Innovation and Development, 1 (2), 303-318.
  52. McKelvey, M. (1994). Innovation, National System of.In Geoffrey Hodgson, et al. (Eds.). Institutional and Evolutionary Economics, (pp. 366-369). Aldershot, England: Edgar Elgar.
  53. Medialdea, B. (2012). Límites estructurales al desarrollo económico: Brasil (1950-2005). Problemas del Desarrollo (43), 55-82.
  54. Ministério da Ciência e Tecnología. (2011). Indicadores consolidados: 2.1.2 Dispêdio nacional em ciência e tecnologia. Recuperado de http://www.mct.gov.br/index.php/content/ view/29140.html
  55. Moreno-Brid, J. & J. Ros Bosch. (2010). Desarrollo y crecimiento en la economía mexicana. México, D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
  56. Nelson, R. (2008). What Enables Rapid Economic progress? research Policy, 37 (1), 1-11.
  57. Nelson, R. (2009). Technology, Institutions and Economic Development. In W. Dreschsler, R. Kattel & E. Reinert (Eds.). Techno Economic Paradigms (pp. 271-285). London: Anthem.
  58. Nelson, R. (2011). Economic development as an evolutionary process. Innovation andDevelopment, 1 (1), 39-49.
  59. Nieto, C. (2005). Los amos de la guerra. Barcelona, España: Random House Mondadori.
  60. O.E.C.D. (1997). Nacional Innovation Systems. Paris: O.E.C.D.
  61. Pérez-Escatel, A. & Pérez, O. (2009). Competitividad y acumulación de capacidades tecnológicas en la industria manufacturera. Investigación Económica, 68 (268), 159-187.
  62. Pérez-Escatel, A. (2012). Competitividad y acumulación de capacidades tecnológicas. Zacatecas, México: Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas.
  63. Pietrobelli, C. & R. Rabellotti. (2009). The Global Dimension of Innovation Systems.In B-A. Lundvall, K. J. Joseph, C. Chaminade & J. Vang (Eds.)., Handbook of Innovation Systems and Developing Countries (pp. 214-240). Cheltenham,U.K.: Edward Elgar.
  64. Rocha, A. y R. Lopez. (2003). Política en ciencia y tecnología en México. En J. Aboites & G. Dutrénit (Eds.). Innovación, aprendizaje y creación de capacidades tecnológicas (pp. 103-134). México:M.A. Porrúa.
  65. Romano, R. & M. Carmangnani. (1999). Componentes Económicas. En M. Carmangnani, A. Hernández & R. Romano (coordinadores). Para una historia de América I: las estructuras (pp. 160-287). México, D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
  66. Shin, J-S. (1996). The Economics of the Latecomers. London: Routledge.
  67. Sikkink, K. (1991). Ideas and Institutions: Developmentalism in Brazil and Argentina. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
  68. Stein, S. & B. Stein. (1970). The Colonial Heritage of LatinAmerica. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.
  69. Street, J. (1981). The Platt-Stein Controversy over Dependency: Another View. Latin American Research Review, 16 (3), 173- 180.
  70. Sunkel,O. (1989). Structuralism, Dependency and Institutionalism. Journal of Economic Issues, 23 (2), 519-533.
  71. Sunkel, O. (1990). Reflections on Latin American Development. In J. Dietz & D. James (Eds.). Progress Toward Development in Latin America (pp. 133-158). Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner Publishers.
  72. Szmrecsányi, T. (2005). The contributions of Celso Furtado (1920 2004) to development economics. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 12 (4), 689-700.
  73. Thorp, R. (1991). Las economías latinoamericanas, 1939-1950. En T. Halperin,W. Glade, R. Thorp, A. Bauer, M. Moreno, C. Lewis, V.Bulmer-Thomas, R. French-Davis, Ó. Muñoz & G. Palma. Historia Económica de América Latina (pp. 287-332).Barcelona, España:Crítica.
  74. Thorp, R. (1998). Progress, Poverty and Exclusion.Washington: Interamerican Development Bank.
  75. Wade, R. (2010).After the Crisis: Industrial Policy and the Developmental State in Low-Income Countries. Global Policy, 1 (2), 150-161.
  76. Wong, J. (2004). The Adaptive Developmental State in East Asia. Journal of East Asian Studies, 4 - 345- 362.
  77. Worcester, D. (2003). The SpanishAmerican Past: enemy of Change. In H. J. Wiarda & M. MacLeish Mott (Eds.), Politics and Social Change in Latin America (4th Edition), (pp. 9-77).Westport, Conn.: Praeger.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.