The framework of ‘local productive and innovation systems’ and its influence on STI policy in Brazil

ABSTRACT

Throughout its twenty years of existence, a Brazilian research network, RedeSist, has developed and improved the theoretical and methodological framework of National Systems of Innovation. The first aim of this article is to present RedeSist’s focusing device of Local Innovation and Production Systems (LIPS), a combination of the Systems of Innovation framework with the contributions of the Latin American Structuralist Approach and to explain the main tools devised to capture collective and systemic processes of production and innovation, taking into account that every LIPS is inserted in specific, local, regional, national and global systems. The second objective is to discuss the Brazilian experience in designing and implementing LIPS policies as part of its industrial and innovation policies. The concluding remarks attempt at recuperating the most important arguments of the discussion and at highlighting the advantages of creating and using contextualized and systemic theories, concepts, indicators and policy models.

KEYWORDS:

• LIPS
• innovation
• development
• methodology
• Brazil

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 In former works we detail some of the main conceptual approaches that target the territorial dimension of production and innovation structures aiming at exploring their main similarities and convergences and comparing them with the LIPS framework: Cassiolato and Lastres (1999), Lastres and Cassiolato (2005a, 2005b). Torre and Zimmermann (2015) presented a comprehensive review of international literature on the subject.

2 It is worth mentioning that, in the first contribution to the OECD Expert Group on Science, Technology and Competitiveness, Freeman (1982) argued that the performance of countries were tied to innovation and that factors beyond the realm of R&D and S&T organizations influenced significantly innovation performance of firms. Johnson, Edquist, and Lundvall (2003) and Cassiolato and Lastres (2008) argued about the importance of considering the broad notion for the analysis of systems of innovation.

3 In 1997, RedeSist organized its first seminar in Gramado (South of Brazil) bringing together Argentinian and Uruguayan researchers to discuss the value and possible use of the NSI approach to the reality of the Mercorsur countries. A second seminar was organized, in Rio de Janeiro in 2000, enlarging the participation of Latin-Americans and other specialists, around the world, working with the concept of NSI. Two books summarize these debates: Cassiolato and Lastres (1999) (with chapters in Portuguese, Spanish and English) and Cassiolato, Lastres, and Maciel (2003) (in English). In 2003, the Globelics network was created and, not for coincidence, its first seminar was also held in Rio de Janeiro. See www.redesist.ie.ufrj.br and www.globelics.org.

4 It is important to stress that in the same period, in Latin America, several similar works were developed particularly in Argentina (Boscherini, López, and Yoguel [1999] and Moori-Koenig and Yoguel [1999]); in Mexico (Dutrénit [2003] and Vera-Cruz and Gil [2003]) and in Costa Rica (Vargas [2000] and Segura [2000]).

5 Cassiolato and Lastres (1999) and Cassiolato et al. (2017) give a detailed account RedeSist’s analytical framework. For its policy utilization see Lastres, Cassiolato, and Maciel (2003, 2014).

6 For further details see also Lastres and Cassiolato (2017) and Yoguel and Boscherini (2001).

7 See Lastres (2003) and Lastres, Cassiolato, and Maciel (2003).

8 See Cassiolato and Lastres (1999), Cassiolato, Lastres, and Maciel (2003).

9 Freeman’s (1987) seminal work emphasized this integrate view in the three levels – micro, meso and macro – as well as their connections in the dynamic evolution of the Japanese National System of Innovation.

10 Erber (1999) adds that, even though Schumpeter stressed the importance of finance for innovation, the neo-schumpeterian literature, when dealing with the macro dimension of innovation, has focused mostly on factors associated to credit.

11 An example, constantly pointed out in Latin American academic circles, of how the omission of such macro components may lead to problematic analysis and conclusions is the well-known comparison of Latin American and East Asian National Systems of innovation in the 1980s where these constraining factors, are not even mentioned, even if they were certainly determinants of technology and innovation development (Dosi, Freeman, and Fabiani 1994).

12 See www.redesist.ie.ufrj.br.

13 Specially the interest and exchange rates.

14 For details see Cassiolato, Lastres, and Maciel (2003) and Cassiolato and Lastres (2008).

15 See Cassiolato et al. (2017).

16 The external debt crisis and the hyperinflation of the 1980s led to the abandonment of public development planning and the pro-development development policies of post-war industrial development, with the country’s economic policies agenda concentrating on the short-term logics of tackling macroeconomic imbalances. For details see Cassiolato, Lastres, and Soares (2014).

17 For details see Cassiolato et al. (2017).

18 Main differences of these activities relate to the knowledge base and the patterns of appropriability, business models, structure and organization of companies and networks. To take the particular characteristics of the distinct activities into account has required several adaptations and improvements of all analytical tools, questionnairies and interview guides. See Falcón et al. (2017).

19 In a review of almost 1500 papers presented in the first nine Globelics conferences, Cassiolato et al. (2012), found that most of the papers that referred to the IS approach did not really adopt a systemic vision.

20 See Szapiro et al. (2017) and Cassiolato et al. (2017).