G L O B E L I C S W O R K I N G P A P E R S E R I E ST H E G L O B A L N E T W O R K F O R E C O N O M I C S O F L E A R N I N G ,

I N N O VAT I O N , A N D C O M P E T E N C E B U I L D I N G S Y S T E M

Innovation Systems and Development: The use of the IS framework along the first ten years of the Globelics conference

José Eduardo Cassiolato, Marcelo Pessoa de Matos, Helena Lastres and Israel Marcellino

Working Paper

No. 2012-01

ISBN: 978-87-92923-06-2

www.globelics.org

GLOBELICS

Innovation Systems and Development: The use of the IS framework along the first ten years of the Globelics

conference

José Eduardo Cassiolato*, Marcelo Pessoa de Matos,

Helena Lastres and

Israel MarcellinoRedeSist-IE/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

*cassio@ie.ufrj.br

Abstract

This paper analyzes how the innovation system (IS) framework has been used for addressing

development issues. It is based on a review of 1461 papers from the last nine Globelics conferences.

We found a rich set of contributions focusing on different dimensions of innovation systems and a

growing importance of research lines that link a systemic perspective with issues that are relevant

for national and local social-economic development processes that are sustainable and inclusive.

There is a great potential for deepening some research lines, especially those in connection with the

rich development thinking traditions that evolved in less developed countries, helping to enrich the

IS framework and policy agenda.

Key Words:Innovation Systems, Sustainable Development, Globelics conference papers

4

INTRODUCTION

The core of Globelics is the application of the concept of 'Learning, Innovation, and

Competence Building System' (LICS) as an analytical framework to the understanding of

development issues. As pointed out by Bengt Aake Lundvall and Luc Soete in a background

paper about Globelics, the idea is to bring together relevant information about what is going on

in different parts of the globe and to share experiences worldwide regarding methodological

issues, analytical results and policy experience about the utilization of the innovation systems

framework. In a paper that build upon the contributions to the First Globelics Workshop and

the Seminar on Innovation Systems at Aalborg University during 4-6 November 2002 - where

Globelics was launched - we discuss the reasons for establishing and participating in such a

global research network. (LASTRES; CASSIOLATO, 2002).

In the afore mentioned paper we suggested themes to which Globelics could make important

contribution. Among them we could point out: mapping efforts for, identifying, measuring and

analyzing processes of creation, acquisition, use and diffusion of knowledge; development of

practical tools and models to analyze the dynamics of LICS; assessment of the role of nation

states in promoting development and systems of innovation in different historical and

geopolitical contexts; globalization, financiarization of the economy and the interconnected

environmental and production-financial crises that signal a transition to a techno-economic

paradigm based on a lower exploitation of finite natural resources.

This paper takes up the discussion on the need and usefulness of the concept of system of

innovation for addressing development issues and focuses on the contributions from the

Globelics community for the advance of this field of endeavor. The 1461 paper from the past

nine annual conferences constitute a representative sample. We take the opportunity given by

the 10th Globelics seminar to make such an attempt.

The first section addresses the Innovation System framework and its connection to the

development literature. The second section offers an outline of the procedurals for classifying

and organizing the papers. The third section discusses the aggregate results of this

classification. The forth section discusses the results in respect to specific topics. The

concluding section elaborates on potential steps ahead in the connection between the IS

framework and development debate and policy.

5

1. LINKS BETWEEN DEVELOPMENT AND INNOVATION SYSTEMS

During the past 25 years a substantial literature on Innovation Systems (IS) has evolved. Going

beyond linear innovation models, the IS framework put emphasis on the interactive character

of innovation, on the importance of (and complementarities between) incremental and radical,

technical and organizational innovations and their different and simultaneous sources, and on

the re-conceptualization of firms, as organization embedded within specific socio-economic-

political environments that reflect particular historical and cultural trajectories (FREEMAN,

1987; LUNDVALL, 1985).

The systems of innovation approach has been used, sometimes without recognition, from two

different perspectives. In opposition to a narrow perspective (basically a follow up to earlier

analyses of national science and technology structures and policies), the broad perspective

takes into account the broad set of institutions affecting the innovation system (such as macro-

economic implicit policies for innovation and the financial system) and shaping competence

building in the economy (such as education, training, industrial relations and labor market

dynamics) (FREEMAN 1982, 1987; LUNDVALL 1985).

As stressed by several authors (FREEMAN 1982, JOHNSON et al. 2003, LUNDVALL 2007,

CASSIOLATO and LASTRES 2005), innovation theory in general and the Innovation System

literature in particular benefited significantly from the post-war development debate, besides

main former contributions on “National System of Production”, mental (intellectual) capital

and the role of institutions and policies (LIST 1841).

Particularly important were the insights of the structuralist tradition on the long-term

deterioration of terms of trade for primary products and of the distribution of gains between

developed and developing countries and the emphasis on structural transformation as a path for

development (PREBISCH 1949; SINGER 1950, MYRDAL 1958, HIRSCHMAN 1958;

FURTADO 1961). Works of Chris Freeman and Hans Singer combined the discussions on

poverty, self-reliance and the role of science and technology (SINGER et al., 1970). Inspired

by these ideas an important literature about the need to address paradigmatic changes and the

problems and options deriving from the diffusion of the information technologies led to a

series of interconnected work from the innovation perspective by authors such as Herrera

(1975) and Perez (1983), as well as how firms in the less developed world acquire and develop

technological capabilities unfolded during the 1970s and 1980s (KATZ, 1985).

6

The emphasis put by the evolutionary literature on the role of innovation as an engine of

growth and the long-run cyclical character of technical change converged with the perspectives

on structural transformation and development. Both offer an alternative to simplistic

explanations about underdevelopment, adopting a holistic and historically contextualized view.

This helps to explain why the IS framework revealed to be such a fruitful ground for discussing

the specific challenges and opportunities of development. Since this framework proposes a

comprehensive understanding of the processes by which societies and economies learn and

acquire capabilities both to produce and to innovate it offers substantial contribution to the

development debate.

This paper seeks to provide an overview of how this connection has been worked out within

the Globelics community.

2. METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURES

In order to better understand the contribution of Globelice for the discussion on innovation

systems and development a data base of the papers presented in all Globelics conferences was

set up. The database consists of 1461 regular conference papers presented during the last nine

conferences (from Rio de Janeiro, 2003 until Buenos Aires, 2011). A small set of papers were

not presented in English: Thirteen papers of the Saratov 2007 meeting are available only in

Russian and 17 papers of the Dakar 2009 meeting are available only in French. The data base

used for the analysis consists of pares written in English and French, a total of 1448 papers.

The first step undertaken was the classification of the papers in relation to whether they use the

Innovation System framework for the analysis or not. Three categories were defined:

• Papers that do not use the innovation system framework – (i) papers that do not refer to the

IS framework at all and (ii) papers that only quote innovation systems but do not further

engage in this perspective;

• Papers that make reference to the innovation system framework – papers that: (i) present a

more or less systemic analysis without explicitly adopting the IS framework; (ii) partially

address IS as one of its topics, without taking it as main guideline; (iii) address IS as one

of many elements in theoretical discussions;

• Papers that, in fact, use/focus on the IS framework.

7

The papers that do not use the Innovation System framework were not subject of a detailed

discussion. For the other two cases a second step of characterization was undertaken. This

second step thus encompassed 629 papers and consisted of a classification according to:

• the type of analysis – papers with predominantly (1) theoretical/conceptual, (2)

quantitative or (3) historical/appreciative/comparative analysis;

• the dimensions of innovation systems – papers that focus on one or more of the

following dimensions: supranational; national; subnational/local, sectoral innovation

systems1;

• the specific topic or subject addressed by the paper. Categories were not defined in

advance. They resulted from a free registering of topics and a subsequent aggregation

into 18 groups (each paper may address many different topics).

The next sections elaborate on the results of this effort.

3. EVOLUTION OF THE USE OF THE IS FRAMEWORK

The analysis showed that most Globelics papers presented in the 9 conferences do not use the

Innovation System framework in their analysis (figure 1): 56% did not use the IS framework.

16% only made reference to it and 28% effectively used it or focused on it. Thus, in 629 (44%)

papers the IS perspective is present.

The explanation of the high percentage of papers that do not use the IS framework may be

related to the level of specificity of the subject, such as the analysis of one specific innovation,

of one type of organization (e.g. universities); one type of support mechanism (e.g. venture

capital), a case study, etc. But, it could be argued that although the systemic nature of

innovation is widely accepted to use it as a real analytical framework is a much more complex

endeavor. The existing indicators do not help the understanding of how firms and other

organizations (embedded in a specific context). One could then point out that in fact a

reasonable number of these papers are closer linked to theoretical frameworks that do not

explicitly incorporate the IS framework.

1 The term ‘regional’ was purposely left out because of the possible confusion deriving of its frequent use to address both the dimension of many countries (we opt for supranational) and of a part of a country (we opt for subnational or local).

8

Figure 1 – Share of Globelics papers that make effective use, punctual use or no use of the Innovation System framework

Source: Own elaboration

But the matter is not about explicitly citing this framework but rather about using a systemic

perspective. The second group of papers, those that make some reference to ISs, are good

examples. As explained above, many papers came under this header without explicitly

referring to the ground-setting texts or and the IS framework. But in fact these papers present a

relatively systemic perspective, taking into account the (economic, social, institutional, etc.)

context, a diversified set of organizations and their interaction for production and innovation

purposes.

The only three conferences were the share of papers that either use or refer to the IS framework

accounts for more than 50% were the meetings of Rio de Janeiro 2003 (73%), Pretoria 2005

(56%) and Trivandrum 2006 (54%). The Beijing 2004 and the Dakar 2009 meetings pushed

upwards the average level of papers that do not engage in a systemic analysis while in the other

meetings this percentage is close to the overall average (41% to 46%). This suggests a slight

tendency of increase of the share of papers that do not present a systemic analysis of the

learning, innovation and competence building processes, a fact that could be explained by a

growing inclusion of academic and policy makers of different methodological backgrounds in

the network.

9

Figure 2 – Share of Globelics papers that make effective use, punctual use or no use of the Innovation System framework per event

Source: Own elaboration

The data for the first Globelics conference deserve some specific considerations, as it was not

based on an open call for papers like the others. Participants were invited by the Globelics

board. Necessarily the resulting set of contributions was closely related to what was proposed

to be the main directions of this global network, as proposed in the 2002 Aalborg meeting that

created the network.

Expanding and opening up the network should, in fact, be one of its main goals, in order to

further underline the adjective ‘global’ it already deserves and to incorporate new perspectives

and voices. It is an interesting task how to learn from these increasingly diversified voices and

at the same time stand for what is believed to be a fundamental tool for effectively

understanding the LICS processes and avoiding simplistic conclusions and potentially

misleading policy initiatives.

Another main finding (figure 3) is the strong emphasis on studies with an appreciative,

historical and/or comparative approach (73.3% of the 629 papers that use or refer to the IS

framework). Only 11.3% present essentially theoretical discussions2 and 15.4% focus on

predominantly quantitative analysis – indicators and the use of statistical and econometric

models for testing relations among variables.

2 Most of these theoretical papers focus on the main theoretical foundations of the IS framework. Others propose the creation of new concepts such as ‘knowledge, research and innovation system’, ‘science, technology and innovation systems’, ‘national learning systems’ and ‘Spiral Innovation System’. But, as stressed by Lundvall et al. (2011), the innovation systems is a rather comprehensive and broad term that has been able to cope with different realities and processes. Thus, the need for alternative terms would be questionable.

10

Figure 3 – Analytical approach of Globelics papers – all events and per event¹

All events Per event

Source: Own elaboration ¹ 26 papers were associated to more than one approach

These findings are very interesting, especially when we consider the actual dictum for

scientific production, especially in economics, which suggests that appreciative analysis

without concrete evidence from hard data and econometric models are not truly ‘scientific’. Of

course, most appreciative and empirical analysis relies on some hard data, but they are rather

auxiliary to a contextualized understanding of an object or process. It seems that, most of the

Globelics community has been aware of the limitations and problems of unqualified use of

traditional indicators.

On the other hand, the theoretical contributions are still rather limited. The broadening of the

network was accompanied by a increasing share of empirical and/or quantitative analysis

coming out of LDCs, which is not accompanied by a critical discussion concerning the

theoretical foundations of the IS framework. Articulating a critical appraisal of empirical

findings with the broad set of literature on development could help to further enrich the IS

framework.

Finally, we present the findings related to the use of the IS framework in its different

dimensions – supra-national, national, local, sectoral. The close interconnectedness between

the development of the innovation system concept as such and that of national innovation

systems helps to explain the predominance of the national dimension of innovation systems

(53% of the papers that use or refer to the IS framework).

Other dimensions of IS that receive considerable attention are the subnational/local dimension

(15%) and the sectoral dimension (19%). In the group of ‘other or no restriction’ are those

11

cases where none of the previous dimensions is specified or where other references are used,

such as ‘technological systems’.

Figure 4 – Innovation System dimension of Globelics papers - all events and per event¹

All events Per event

Source: Own elaboration ¹ Many papers were associated to more than one dimension

We underline the importance of considering and understanding social economic and political

processes within the specific territory in which they actually take place. The local territorial

dimension is of particular importance for addressing development issues for two reasons.

First, the experience of many countries showed that aggregate or average indicators (for social

development, income, sectoral/technological performance) hide huge imbalances. The

historical trajectory of many LDCs led to a great heterogeneity of the productive and social

structures along their territories (FURTADO, 1964). In huge countries one can find both

“world class” and very archaic production and innovation systems within the same sector or

technology field3. In general, localities that are least dynamic in economic terms also present

considerable challenges related social development. More generally, every production activity

has to be understood within the specific social, cultural, institutional and natural context, which

is specific for each locality.

In this context, one main challenge of the innovation system framework is to understand how

specific structures evolve, which are the specific challenges and potentialities and how specific

3 Some critics argue that most of these structures do not actually constitute a system, which is in fact a mistaken view of innovation system as an object or a given stage to be reached. It is a rather a framework of analysis. Wherever there is production there will always be some kind of system around it and they vary from the most simple, modest or disjointed to the most complex and articulated (LASTRES; CASSIOLATO, 2005)

12

policy initiatives could foster the learning and innovation processes and induce sustainable

local development. The needs are specific and so must be the initiatives. It is not surprising that

six countries with huge territories and inequalities account for more than 60% of the references

that focus on the local dimension: China (20%), Brazil (17%), Mexico (9%), Russia (8%),

India (6%) and South Africa (4%).

Second, as innovation is an essentially interactive and social process (Freeman 1988) the local

dimension represents the sphere in which most interactive learning processes take place. The

diffusion of tacit knowledge requires a close, personal, interaction among organizations and

people, which must be understood within a specific territory. Many research and policy efforts

have focused on the local dimension and the so called ‘local (or regional) innovation systems’.

Many different conceptual and analytical frameworks, such as industrial districts, clusters and

milieu inovateur have emerged for analyzing activities in the local dimension. Although some

authors suggest these concepts to be equivalent, we claim that the IS framework offers a

broader and more comprehensive tool for understanding links not only amongst production

agents, but also other different kinds of institutions and the territory, stressing the importance

of LICs processes in a specific local context (Lastres; Cassiolato, 2005).

4. DIFFERENT TOPICS AND PERSPECTIVES

The papers were also classified according to the topics. In our analysis (table 1) a total of 1764

issues under 18 main topics were addressed by the 629 papers that used or refer to the IS

framework. The topics can be organized into four broad groups (fifth column of table 1). The

first group refers to the general framework that structures the evolution of innovation systems

(growth, catch-up, development) and the related policies and institutions. We are aware that

these three general concepts mean totally different things but at this stage they can be grouped

together for the sake of understanding general trends. The second group encompasses issues

related to different types of knowledge, interactive learning processes and structures that

enable these interactions. The third group aggregates the topics that address specific

development challenges. The fourth group includes a rather varied set of topics, which count

with a longer and well established research tradition. Not disregarding that they are important

for development, we shed more light in the other groups.

In the following analysis we present a discussion on the three first groups and eventually address the specific topics they encompass.

13

4.1. Development, growth and policies

According to table 1 above, this group receive 40.6% of total references. Below we detail how

each of the three topics within this group fared.

(a) The importance of development in IS research

We start the analysis of the topics with those elements that constitute the main subject of this

paper (Table 2). One striking aspect is the reduced share of studies that consider development

(and growth) as one of its explicit topics. For sure, many studies focusing on specific

innovations or discussing the role of multinational companies’ R&D, for example, may aim at

14

providing some insights for the broader discussion about development. But only in a very small

number of cases (14% of papers that use or refer to the IS framework) development is

explicitly one of the topics.

Once again we can observe the distinct features of the first Globelics conference. In line with

the main reference papers for the creation of this network, development was a far more relevant

topic in this first meeting (26% of papers). But, once conference papers were submitted to open

tender, the share of development as a specific issues decreased to an average level 14% (the

only exception was the Pretoria 2005 meeting).

As expected, development is clearly a more relevant issue for less developed countries.

Especially in those countries that are experiencing substantial changes along the last decade

development and growth became a main topic. In part as an outcome of virtuous evolvements

many papers discuss the determinants of the recent performance of China (addressed by 18

papers focusing on development), India (6), South Korea (5), Taiwan (5) and Malaysia (4)4.

Papers discussing the case of Latin American Countries, such as Brazil (11) and México (5),

focus mostly on the challenges for development and the normative dimension of national and

4 Discussing the transformations of the NISs and the role of policies (Abrol, 2006; Gu and Lundvall, 2007; Gu et al., 2008; Wong and Goh, 2010, 2011; Lundvall and Gu, 2011); the virtuous ‘catch-up’ process in specific industries (Liu 2004, Rasiah et. al. 2007; Joseph 2007; Malerba and Nelson 2007) and the role of regional/local innovation systems and clusters (Wu et al. 2004; Jiang and Wu, 2010).

15

local policy, the potentialities and the mode of insertion in the world economy5. For the case of

studies that focus on Africa, we can highlight those that elaborate on the importance of

strengthening the supranational (pan-African) dimension of innovation systems as a path for

enhancing development in the continent6 and those that discuss the opportunities and threats

related to the exploration of natural resources7.

(b) The role of policy and institutions

The topic ‘Policy and institutions /Governance’ is the most important one both in aggregate

terms and in almost every single conference (addressed by 61% of the papers that use or refer

to the IS framework). This is, of course, closely related to the recognition within the IS

framework that the governments and institutions play central roles.

As argued by Chang (2002) no country became developed by applying a liberal dictum.

Especially when it comes to that kind of strategic long term transformations that influences the

level of learning, competence building and innovation in a country, locality or sector policies

play a pivotal role. A major example can be found in a ground-setting paper for the IS

framework, in which Freeman (1987) analyses the Japanese economic and technological

performance. Thus, 66% of the papers that address the topic of development underline the role

of government as a main driving force for this process.

In the set of papers for the Globelics conferences a variety of circumstances in which policy

plays a major role is represented. Important contributions in the first conference helped to set

the scene for posterior discussions by contextualizing the role of innovation, ISs and S,T&I

policy within the actual international context8. An interesting set of papers also provides a

historical account of the evolution of policies9. Many authors elaborated on the Latin American

structuralist tradition for understanding development in that region and to move forward on a

normative front10. And a broader set of papers presents a long term strategic perspective on the

potential transformation of innovation systems. They comprise essays on long term policy

5 Dutrénit and Vera-Cruz (2003), Arocena and Sutz (2004), Lastres and Cassiolato (2005); Katz (2006); Jover et. al. (2008); Soares and Cassiolato (2008); Matos and Britto (2011). 6 Muchie (2003) and Maharajh (2010) 7 Lorentzen (2005) and Maleki and SiAbdelhadi (2010) 8 Chesnay (2003) and Perez (2003), for example, discussed the threats for development that are related to (financial) globalization and the role of national policies. Reinert and Reinert (2003) elaborated on a historical account of the modern nation state and role of innovations. 9 Maleki A. et all. (2005), Dutrénit G., et all. (2006), Edquist C. (2008). 10 For example, Cassiolato et al. (2005) and Katz (2006).

16

plans, the main rigidities and hurdles that should be addressed in order to enable substantial

transformations11.

A main element with concrete implications for less developed countries, which comes out of

these discussions, relates to the link between micro, meso and macro dimensions. Many studies

emphasize the influence of macroeconomic conditions on microeconomic decisions12. As

particularly pointed out by Latin American and Caribbean authors, characteristic hindering

learning and capacity building in these countries are often associated to the instability and

vulnerability of the macro-economic, political, institutional and financial environments.

Problems such as high external debt and high interest rates are frequent constraints to

technological (and industrial) development. Thus, corroborating older arguments by Herrera

(1971) and Sagasti (1978), ‘implicit’ innovation policies related to macro-economic contexts in

developing countries are perceived to be as important as specific innovation policies.

Many papers that explicitly discuss the role of policy and institutions focus on the potential for

promoting linkages between the science and technology subsystem and other dimensions of the

innovation system. Inspired by a long tradition, many papers discuss policies to promote

university-industry ties and to create or strengthen markets for knowledge and technology.

Others discuss the role of university within society and the promotion of social outcomes13.

Building upon this later topic, a growing set of papers analyzes institutional determinants for

exclusion and policy implications for promoting social inclusion (this is further discussed in

section 4.3).

(c) Catch-up or unique development paths?

Half of the papers that use the catch-up concept engage in a IS analysis from a sectoral

perspective, discussing catch-up strategies for promoting the incorporation of technologies and

building of innovative capacity in specific sectors or industries14, while the other half discuss

catch-up and policies from a national IS perspective15.

There is potential ground for misleading perspectives that deserves to be addressed. In

particular, as pointed out by the Latin American structuralist literature the recognition of

asymmetries in (and the dual character of) the international economic and technological 11 Villaschi (2005), Arocena and Sutz (2007), Kaplan (2008), Gu et al. (2008) and Niosi (2010) 12 Lastres (2003), Baskaran and Muchie (2003) and Abrol (2004). 13 Arocena and Sutz (2002), Jover et al. (2008), Kruss, (2009), Dutrénit et al. (2010) and Joseph and Abraham (2011). 14 Rasiah et al. (2007), Malerba and Nelson (2007), Gu et. al. (2008) and Rho, et. al. (2010). 15 Fagerberg and Srholec (2006), Kriaucioniene (2007) and Saviotti et al. (2010).

17

process of development suggests the uniqueness of development processes which by definition

are not replicable. In fact - and already pointed out by a number of authors, including Friedrich

List, any proposal of a linear process of catch-up, in the sense of an accelerated process of

reproducing similar institutional and productive structures to the leading countries is

misleading.

Underdevelopment cannot be seen as a prior phase of a country in a linear development

process, but a result of global structural and historical elements, complementary to the

existence of developed countries (FURTADO, 1961). This perspective calls out for the

construction of a unique path that allows a country to break with the structural determinants of

underdevelopment. And this path is closely influenced by the specific natural, social, cultural

context and by the productive and institutional set-ups. This means that development cannot be

associated with ideas of Innovation System “creation” 16 or benchmarking, once there is no

linear catch-up path to be followed. This also indicates that it is difficult to assert that there

exist only two kinds of countries, those who possess a System of Innovation and those who

don’t, once every country has different institutions and more or less developed scientific,

technological and productive capabilities in different areas. Hence, we argue that catch-up is

incompatible with the notion of innovation systems within an evolutionary perspective.

The only dimension in which an effective “reduction of the leader’s advantage” is proposed is

in the capacity to acquire, use, transform and create knowledge, applying it for productive

purposes17. The institutional set-up could be adapted and even enriched, but necessarily based

on its specific characteristics, determined by its historical evolution process. Thus, the resulting

institutional, scientific, technological and productive set-up that would allow a country to reach

the leaders, in terms of aggregate performance, would be necessarily specific and unique. The

potential disconnection between some variants of the ‘catch-up’ concept with that of

development is confirmed by the fact that only 26% of the papers that address the former also

engage in a discussion about the later concept.

16 As Djeflat, for example, uses the ‘building’ concept in many of his papers (e.g. 2009 and 2010), he refers to the reasonable process of building upon existing capabilities and structures. This, of course, differs substantially for concepts of ‘creating’ new systems out of the blank paper. 17 This relates to the substantive challenge of ‘borrowing’ and adapting technologies that the technological lead countries and organizations control, through a combination of reverse engineering, licensing, sending scholars abroad, inviting foreign firms and experts and engaging in international scientific collaboration (LUNDVALL, 2007).

18

4.2. Interactive processes and structures for competence building

The second group of topics encompasses many processes and structures that are central in the

LICS approach (Table 3). These topics accounted, in aggregate terms, for the largest number

of references (59.6% of the set of 629 papers addressed these issues).

As regards the specific topics within this group, the most recurrent one refers to the links

enabling interaction among different actors of the innovation system (43% of the papers).

Almost as frequent is the topic of knowledge and learning processes (40%). Also recurrent is

the topic of capabilities, competence building and competitiveness (20%) and

spillovers/technological diffusion and transference (12%). For sure these issues are closely

related. While interactions and networks nurture learning processes, knowledge is acquired by

actors in close interaction. As a result, there is a tendency for this to imply in greater

capabilities and competitiveness. But it is also interesting to observe the varying emphasis

given to each of these specific themes over the different conferences. It is not a surprise that the

concept of ‘social capital’ for instance attracts far less interest nowadays than it did at the time

of the first conferences. Once this concept became increasingly criticized it almost disappeared

in recent conferences.

Some aspects that are directly related to how learning, interaction and competence building

relates to development deserve special attention. The very definition of innovation systems

stresses the complex processes of knowledge generation, diffusion and use and the specific

capabilities each actor. Trying to understand this complex mosaic implies in considering not

19

only the most dynamic and innovative organizations, sectors and technological fields. Then,

many papers focusing on less developed countries and localities underlined the central

importance of understanding learning and innovation efforts of all kinds of organizations, even

if they are far behind the technological frontier. This perception stimulated a broad set of

studies focusing on systems in ‘traditional sectors’, agricultural production, services, many of

which characterized by small scale and outdated organizational formats and technologies18.

From a development perspective not only the knowledge and the innovation processes with far

reaching impacts are relevant. Especially, considering regions with low economic dynamism

and/or centered on traditional activities, any minor transformation of production processes,

organizational aspects, product variety or elements that enable the access to new or broader

markets may have considerable impact. Many times these innovations, which are not envisaged

by the traditional literature and captured by indicators, translate into substantial increase in

capacities of one or many productive agents to produce and compete on a sustainable basis,

generating income and job and enhancing living standards.

Efforts directed to the development and use of methodological tools for empirical

investigations that consider these broad set of elements of novelty effectively as innovations

revealed very fruitful environments for which standard indicators would suggest the

inexistence of innovation processes19. The increasing use of emblematic terms such as

‘grassroots innovations’ and ‘below the radar innovations’ shows that this perspective is being

increasingly recognized and incorporated in the research agenda and maybe, hopefully more in

the future.

Directly related to this discussion is the emphasis on the importance of accumulating

capabilities and knowledge for sustainable development20, in order to overcome what

Fajnzylber (1988) called short-term ‘spurious competitiveness’. For being able to absorb and

effectively use new technologies, substantial learning efforts are necessary. The capacity to

learn and use (having access to the means and opportunities) turns out to be much more

important for inclusion or exclusion than the access to goods and services that incorporate new

technologies, in special ICTs. Overcoming the ‘learning divide’ based on a systemic

18 Examples are studies about agriculture in china (Gu 2004, 2007), salmon farming in Chile (Iizuka 2006), cocoa industry in Nigeria (Adeoti et al. 2008), wine sector in Chile, Italy and South Africa (Cusmano et al. 2008), flower industry in Ethiopia (Iizuka and Gebreeyesus 2010), wooden furniture in Malaysia (Boon-Kwee and Thiruchelvam 2010), tourism in Russia (Odintsova 2007) and cultural activities in Brazil (Matos and Lemos 2005). 19 Lastres (2003), Sutz and Arocena,(2004), Kriaucioniene et al. (2004), Albagli and Maciel (2007), Morceiro et al. (2011). 20 Lundvall (2005), Lastres (2003), and Maleki and SiAbdelhadi (2010)

20

perspective constitutes the fundamental challenge for policy action (AROCENA; SUTZ,

2003). Once more, the effort directed to the creation and use of suited methodological tools for

empirical investigation revealed many formal and informal learning processes that result in

various transformations of technologies, adapting them through minor modifications and

combinations in order to address specific problems and needs (GU, 2003)21. In Lundvall’s

(2007) terms, this implies in considering not only the STI-mode (learning processes related to

the Science, Technology, Innovation chain) but also the DUI-mode (learning by Doing, Using

and Interacting).

These discussions also shed more light on the relevance of knowledge that is not directly

linked to the formal education and S&T system. Important transformations and key elements

for the sustainable use of limited resources often derive from knowledge that is rooted in a

specific territory and that relates to specific cultural habits and practices. It is interesting to

notice in the table above that this topic is becoming more and more relevant. While the topic of

‘traditional knowledge’ or ‘indigenous knowledge’ and its articulation with more formalized

and technological knowledge has not been present in the first conferences, it became recurrent

topic in later meetings22. But certainly it still does not receive all the attention it deserves.

This broader and systemic understanding of knowledge and innovation has clear advantages,

especially in relation to policy implications. One can hardly support something that can’t be

seen. This broad view encourages policy-makers to take into account the opportunities for

learning and innovation in any productive activity (MYTELKA; FARINELLI, 2003).

Additionally, understanding innovation as a context specific and socially determined process

underlines that the acquisition of technology abroad is not a substitute for local efforts. Thus, a

lot of local knowledge is necessary to allow the, selection, buying (or copying), transforming

and internalizing of technologies (Lastres and Cassiolato 2005). The institutional learning

process in many countries is being influenced by these findings, helping to broaden the scope

of S,T&I policy. But there is still a long way ahead.

21 Cassiolato et al.( 2003), Sampath and Oyelaran-Oyeyinka (2007) and Hervas-Oliver (2011) 22 Examples are Muchie’s (2007) and Adeoti’s and Adeoti’s (2010) discussions on the problems of transformation of agriculture in African countries, Scheinberg’s et al. (2009) discussion on the role of university in protecting and creating value from indigenous knowledge and Matos’s (2006) discussion on the role of socially rooted knowledge in cultural activities.

21

4.3. Development challenges: sustainability, social innovation and SMEs

Table 4 presents the share of papers that discuss specific challenges and opportunities for

development from a systemic perspective. Only a small fraction of papers have addressed these

topics. But we find it important to discuss them in detail, once they are central elements for

development thinking and they are becoming increasingly relevant and the last conferences.

The IS framework is very useful for addressing specific challenges posed by

underdevelopment, particularly those connected with a view of development as the expansion

of substantive freedoms (Sen 1999). Issues of sustainability as well as challenges related to

social development necessarily suggest a convergence and interaction of many different actors

with different interests, power positions, and capabilities. These topics have been linked to the

IS thinking both from a broad and from a specific/directed perspective.

On a broad perspective, many authors suggest that the evolution of the ISs as a whole should

be oriented towards their specific development challenges. This may imply in related policy

choices, for example, to the priority given to some technology/knowledge fields (high-tech or

technologies with pervasive impacts) or types of institutions23 and to the creation of ‘world

class’ niches/firms versus aiming at socialized economic impacts. The prevalence of conflicts,

poverty and poor governance in Africa, for example, are pointed out by Muchie et al. (2004) to

23 Andersen (2003), for example, provides an interesting discussion on the rationale of intellectual property rights systems and the related potential social costs.

22

be some of the most urgent global development issue and the most important guiding line for

policy initiatives based on a IS perspective.

On a specific/targeted perspective issues of social development and sustainability have been

studied and targeted in policy action under the headers of ‘social innovation’ and

‘environmental innovations’. As expected almost all papers that deal with these issues focus on

LDCs. It is interesting to note that a great part of the papers (8 out of 36) focus on India, which

relates both to the dimension of the challenge in that country and to the tradition in

development thinking on a broad perspective. Other recent correlated terms are ‘innovation for

the bottom of the pyramid’ and ‘pro poor innovations’24. With respect to the header of

sustainability, we find that most papers focus on specific experiences and technologies aimed

at mitigating environmental impact and on clean production25, and a minority seeks to expand

the concept of sustainability to a social dimension26. It is interesting to find that few papers (4

out of 36) that discuss sustainability also deal with the issue of social innovation. This suggests

that there might be a great potential for future research to build this bridge and to understand

the environmental issue within a broader perspective of (social) development.

The definition of social or environmental innovation is based on the final goals – positive

social and environmental outcomes – and not necessarily by the type of innovation, knowledge

and actors that are involved. This may lead to a perspective that doesn’t articulate the

innovation process and their actors with the beneficiaries of the innovations. Some papers, for

example, discuss the positive impacts of cheaper ICTs solutions for digital inclusion, new

drugs and cheap production of drugs for chronic diseases, etc. These are very important

processes but are not the end of the story.

The effective use of a systemic perspective for analyzing these types of innovations stresses the

importance of close interaction and, many times, protagonism of the social group that may

benefit from the outcomes. Especially considering the goal of promoting sustainable

alternatives for development, the empowerment of the targeted social groups is fundamental27.

In many cases social actors are main protagonists mobilizing ‘external’ knowledge and

solutions according to their needs. This often translates into the organization of production

24 Cholez et al. (2010), Ramachander (2010), Sulaiman (2006) 25 Zao and Wu (2004), Adeoti (2005), Binz (2010), Walz and Eichhammer (2011) and Podcameni and Queiroz (2011) 26 Djeflat (2006), Pulamte (2008), Matos and Britto (2010). 27 Adeoti and Sinh (2009)

23

processes based on principles of solidarity and trust28. Examples relate to the use of techniques

for soil fertilization based on organic material, complementary productive use for disposals,

efficient use of rain water in semi-arid areas, ‘traditional’ medicine, organizational innovations

in preventive health care, etc29.

The characteristics of the production agents – their formal or informal character and their size

– can also be seen as critical issues for promoting socioeconomic development. Thus, issues

like informality, inclusion and exclusion and challenges of small enterprises have been

increasingly addressed by conference papers. The threats and obstacles faced by these

productive agents and their greater integration in the economy, helping them to move away

from a subsistence logic towards one based on sustained competitiveness, is a major challenge

for policy action.

Studies focusing on India, for example, show how IS framework can help to address issues

related to the institutions or norms of social exclusion that are embedded in the current

structural and policy configurations30. The studies about the second economy in South Africa

investigate how formal and informal economies are articulated, the way the institutional and

macroeconomic context may favor or not formalization and the relation of informality with

exclusion31. Studies focusing on Latin America underline the changing pattern of research and

innovation policy focusing on solutions to social marginalization32.

The characteristics of SMEs and the challenges they face are frequently discussed in

association with the subnational / local dimension of innovation systems33. The local

dimension is seen as especially important for these enterprises to build upon complementarities

and to join forces. Other cases explore the complementary role of SMEs and big enterprises

within hierarchical governance structures34. Thus, direct interaction through networks and

institutional set-ups and cooperative relations are main aspect of analysis and of policy

experiences35.

28 Rodriguez and Martí (2006) discuss the importance of trust and commitment for strengthening interactive learning processes and for enabling cultural and institutional changes that favor local development. 29 Sulaiman (2006), Pulamte (2008), Abrol (2008), Chopra (2010), Oliver et al. (2011) 30 Joseph et al. (2010) 31 Aliber et al. (2006) 32 Sustz (2010), Soares and Cassiolato (2008) 33 Lemos et al. (2003), Wei and Wu (2004), Dutrénit and Fuentes (2006) and Alferov et al. (2007) 34 Dutrénit and Vera-Cruz (2003) 35 Yoguel et al. (2006), Raina (2006), Malerba and Molina (2011)

24

5. CONCLUSION

This paper attempted to provide a first general impression about the use of the innovation

systems perspective from the 1461 contributions presented in the 9 previous Globelics

conferences. Although only 44% of all these papers used in one way or another the IS

perspective the exercise revealed a very robust contribution to the innovation and development

debate.

The national and local dimensions of innovation systems were the subject of the majority of the

papers that used the framework pointing out the relevance of the local and national contexts in

the globalized economy as diversified and fruitful environments with very relevant

contributions to the issue of development.

The importance of issues related to interactive learning processes and structures that enable

these interactions (addressed by 60% of papers that use the IS framework) is also worth

emphasizing, as several papers focusing on development underlined the central importance of

learning and innovation efforts of all kinds of organizations, not only those directly linked to

R&D.

Finally, even though not addressed by most papers the important development challenges of

sustainability and social innovation start to appear more frequently as a central element of

analysis.

There is also a great potential for deepening some research lines, especially in connection with

the ample development thinking traditions that evolved in less developed countries, helping to

enrich the IS framework and policy agenda.

This paper represents a first assessment of this vast set of literature and is by far not

exhaustive. The intention is rather to set the scene for a more detailed discussion on specific

issues and research lines based on a systemic perspective.

Potential steps ahead include: (i) a closer appraisal on the connection of different types of

policies – S,T&I, industrial, social – establishing as focal point for their convergence the

pursuit of an inclusive and sustainable development process; (ii) the understanding of the role

of traditional knowledge and their connection with formalized science, which may constitute a

fruitful ground for sustainable solutions; (iii) the articulation of environmental and

social/cultural sustainability both as an end and mean for implementing policies; (iv) the

specific dynamics, sources, influences and challenges of social innovation processes, especially

re-discussing the user-producer framework considering beneficiaries as co-innovators and the

25

appropriation of key knowledge; (v) the influence of institutional settings on inclusion and

exclusion, deepening the understanding on background conditions for the expansion of

substantive freedoms;

REFERENCES36

AROCENA, R.; SUTZ, J. (2003). “Learning divides, social capital and the roles of

universities”. Paper presented at the 1st Globelics Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

CASSIOLATO, J.E.; LASTRES, H.M.M.; MACIEL, M.L. (2003). “Systems of innovation and

development - evidence from Brazil”. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

CASSIOLATO, J. E.; et al. (2005). “Innovation systems and development: what can we learn

from the Latin American experience?”, 3rd Globelics Conference, Pretoria, South Africa.

CHANG, H-J. (2002). “Kicking away the ladder: development strategy in historical

perspective”. London: Anthem Press, 2002.

FREEMAN, C.; PEREZ, C. (1988). “Structural crisis of adjustment, business cycles and

investment behaviour”, In: G. DOSI et al. (eds) Technical Change and Economic Theory,

London: Pinter, 1988.

FREEMAN, C. (1982). “Technological infrastructure and international competitiveness”. draft

paper submitted to the OECD ad hoc group on science, technology and competitiveness, Paris:

OCDE.

FREEMAN, C. (1987). “Technology Policy and Economic Performance - Lessons from

Japan”, London: Frances Pinter.

FURTADO, C. (1958). “Capital Formation and Economic Development”, in A. N.

AGARWALA; S. P. SINGH (orgs.), The Economics of Underdevelopment, Oxford, Oxford

University Press

FURTADO, C. (1961). “Desenvolvimento e subdesenvolvimento”. Rio de Janeiro: Fundo de

Cultura.

GU. S. (2003). “NIS transformation and recombination learning in China”. 1st Globelics

Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 36 As a review of 10 years of Globelics’ intellectual production this paper cites a broad set of conference papers. All citations in footnotes refer to these papers. Due to space limitations the full references of these papers are not presented. All papers can be accessed through the webpage www.globelics.org, refereeing to the year of each conference.

26

HERRERA, A. (1975) “Los Determinantes Sociales de la Politica Cientifica en America

Latina”. In: J. SÁBATO, (ed.). El pensamento Latinoamericano en ciencia-tecnologia-

desarrollo- dependencia. Buenos Aires: Paidos.

HERRERA, A. (1971) “Ciencia y politica en America Latina” México: Siglo XXI.

HIRSCHMAN, A. (1958). “The strategy of economic development”. New Haven: Yale

University Press.

JOHNSON, B.; EDQUIST, C.; LUNDVALL, B.-Å. (2003) “Economic Development and the

National System of Innovation Approach”. Paper presented at the 1st Globelics Conference,

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

JOSEPH, K.J. et al. (2010). “Institutions and Innovation Systems: Understanding Exclusion in

India”. 8th Globelics Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

KATZ, J. (1985). “Domestic technological innovations and dynamic comparative advantages:

further reflections on comparative case-study program”. In: Rosenberg N.; Frischtak C. (ed.),

International Technology Transfer: Concepts Measures and Comparisons, Praeger Publishers.

LASTRES, H.M.M. and CASSIOLATO, J.E. (2002) “Systems of innovation and development

from a South American perspective: a contribution to Globelics” First Globelics Workshop,

Aalborg University, 4-6 November.

________. (2005) “Innovation systems and local productive arrangements: new strategies to

promote the generation, acquisition and diffusion of knowledge”, Innovation: Management,

Policy & Practice, 7:2-3, p.172-187.

LIST, F. (1841).“Das nationale system der politischen ökonomie“. Basel: Kyklos.

LUNDVALL, B.-Å., (2007). “Innovation system research: where it came from and where it

might go”. 5th Globelics Conference, Saratov, Russia.

LUNDVALL, B-Å; et al. (2011). Innovation Systems and Economic Development. Paper

presented at the 9th Globelics Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

LUNDVALL, B.-Å., (1985). “Product Innovation and User-Producer Interaction”. Aalborg,

Aalborg University Press.

LUNDVALL, B-Å (1988). Innovation as an interactive process – from user-producer

interaction to national systems of innovation. In: G Dosi, C Freeman, R Nelson, G Silverberg

and L G Soete (eds.). Technical change and economic theory, pp. 349-367. London: Pinter.

27

MOWERY, D.; OXLEY, J. (1995). “Inward technology transfer and competitiveness: the role

of national innovation systems”. Cambridge Journal of Economics 19 (1): 67-93.

MUCHIE, M.; GAMMELTOFT, P.; LUNDVALL B-Å. (ed.). (2004). “Putting Africa first: the

making of african innovation systems”. Denmark: Aalborg University Press.

MYRDAL, G. (1958). “Economic theory and under-developed regions”. London: Gerald

Duckworth.

MYTELKA, L. (1993). “A role for innovation networking in the other two-thirds”. Futures,

July/August.

MYTELKA, L.K.; FARINELLI, F. (2003). “From Local Clusters to Innovation Systems”. In:

Cassiolato, J.E; Lastres, H.M.M.; Maciel, M.L. (ed.), (2003). “Systems of innovation and

development: evidence from Brazil”. London: Elgar.

NELSON, R.R. (ed.) (1992). “National innovation systems: a comparative study”. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

PEREZ, C. (1983). “Structural change and the assimilation of new technologies in the

economic and social system”. Futures 15(5): 357–75.

PRESBISCH, R. (1949). “O desenvolvimento econômico da América Latina e alguns de seus

problemas principais”, Reprinted in R. BIELSCHOWSKY (2000) (Ed.), Cinqüenta anos de

pensamento na CEPAL. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Record.

SAGASTI, F. (1978). “Ciencia y tecnologia para el desarrollo: informe comparativo central del

proyecto STPI”. Ottawa: IDRC.

SEN, A. (1999). “Development as Freedom”. US: Anchor Books.

SINGER, H. (1950). “The Distribution of Gains between Investing and Borrowing Countries”.

American Economic Review.

SINGER, H. et al. (1970). “The Sussex manifesto: science and technology for developing

countries during the second development decade”. IDS Reprints No. 101, Brighton: Institute of

Development Studies.

TOYE, J. (1987). “Dilemmas of development - reflections on the counter revolution in

development theory and policy”. Oxford: Blackwell.