TMSD 11. Gonzalez et al

51

TMSD 11 (1) pp. 51–65 Intellect Limited 2012

International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development Volume 11 Number 1

© 2012 Intellect Ltd Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/tmsd.11.1.51_1

Keywords

innovationpublic policytriple helixeconomic developmentfunding agencyregional innovation

system

Fernando Barreiros GonzalezPrefeitura Municipal de Rio das Ostras

Branca TerraUniversidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro

Mariza alMeidaUniversidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro

The role of innovation

support initiatives in Brazil:

The case of FaPerJ in the

state of rio de Janeiro

aBsTracT

The Carlos Chagas Filho Foundation for Support to Research in the State of Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ) is a public institution, linked to the Rio de Janeiro State Department for Science and Technology. It was set up for the purpose of promoting research and encouraging the scientific and technological activities necessary for the sociocultural development of the State of Rio de Janeiro. The aim of this article is to evaluate the evolution of FAPERJ’s role with reference to public policies developed in support of innovation, and to analyse the transition of policy objective from provision of a system of support for scientific and technological development to a system that also provides support for innovation. The study involves an analysis of FAPERJ’s performance in the context of the national public policy provision of incentives to technology and innovation with reference to the types of programmes supported and the diversity of the players involved in those activities.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

TMSD_11.1_Mariza_51–65.indd 51 10/19/12 12:20:58 PM

Copyri

ght In

tellec

t 201

2

Do N

ot Dist

ribute

Fernando Barreiros Gonzalez | Branca Terra …

52

inTroducTion

Foundation for Support to Research in the State of Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ) (Carlos Chagas Filho Foundation for Supporting Research in the State of Rio de Janeiro) is a public foundation linked to the Rio de Janeiro State Department for Science and Technology (SECT-RJ). It was set up to stimulate research and foster the kind of scientific and technological activities to underpin the sociocultural development of the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

FAPERJ was created on 26 June 1980 as a result of the merger of Foundation of the Institute for the Economic and Social Development of Rio de Janeiro (FIDERJ) and Foundation of the Center for the Development of Human Resources in Education and Culture (CDRH). The merger was prompted by a declining support from the Federal Government, after the end of the military regime, which came to power in 1964, and was reinforced by the return of demo-cratic elections in 1983 and subsequent commitment to science and technology policy (Etzkowitz et al. 1998). Only towards the end of the 1990s did FAPERJ broaden the range of its activities. Various programmes were introduced to encourage innovation in partnership with the universities, although their scope was rather limited. FAPERJ further broadened its scope, launching programmes to stimulate company innovation after 2000. The Federal Government’s law on innovation was enacted in 2004 and regulated in 2005.

The last decade has witnessed increased policy emphasis in S&T activities in Brazil, driven by rising S&T expenditures directed particularly to the provi-sion of scholarships and research support. However, such growth has been uneven across regions and federation units (States). During the late 1990s, the scale and scope of State-supported research increased, Federalist demands to correct regional disparities came to the forefront of the science and technol-ogy policy agenda. To meet these demands and politically anchor the budget growth, the Brazilian Government began to decentralize its innovation policy across its 26 federative units; and the de-construction of the Brazilian State-supported research policy began to evolve towards wider geographic and firm size coverage with novel institutional arrangements and governance mecha-nisms (Botelho and Almeida 2012).

The Technological Innovation Survey (PINTEC) for the period 2005–2008 (IBGE 2010) documents aspects of the Brazilian firms’ innovation culture. Results of the survey of industrial firm innovation (excluding services) reveal firms’ efforts centred on the acquisition of machinery and equipment to imple-ment new or improved products and processes rather than on the acquisition of knowledge or the development of R&D capabilities. For all that, between 2005 and 2008, whereas R&D expenditures grew by 145% in Portugal; 23% in Spain; 21% in China; and 12% in the United States, it grew by 10% in Brazil, which is 1 percentage point above the average for the OECD countries for the period (OECD 2011).

This article examines FAPERJ’s role in relation to public policies developed in support for scientific and technological development and innovation. It also looks into the degree to which policies and programmes of support to innovation followed the Triple Helix model of university–industry–government relations.

The wider conTexT oF The case

Innovation has been viewed as the key element in economic and social devel-opment, providing a special opportunity for developing countries – and, by extension, for regions such as Rio de Janeiro, Brazil – a role within a globalized

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.


Copyri

ght In

tellec

t 201

2

Do N

ot Dist

ribute

The role of innovation support initiatives in Brazil

53

1. Schumpeter (1939); Abramovitz (1956); Solow (1957).

economy. In the economic sphere, the importance of innovation was already recognized during the last century, particularly in the last two decades (Mowery and Rosenberg 2005). In the first few decades of the twentieth century, innovation was considered by economists such as R. M. Schumpeter (1939), M. Abramovitz (1956) and R. M. Solow (1957)1 as being a variable of the function of economic development. Schumpeter (1939), in his concept of creative destruction, thought of innovation as a driver of cycles of economic development distinguished by the replacement of established companies by new companies that were offering innovative products to the market.

Important transformations began to take place in the 1970s and 1980s, with the development and commercial exploitation of innovations in the fields of microelectronics and information technology (IT), telecommunications and new materials, as well as appreciation of the future importance of innovations in the biosciences, which consolidated the role of scientific research and its natural location, the university, in social and economic development (Kim and Nelson 2005; Etzkowitz and Leydesdorf 2000; Etzkowitz 2008). Innovation, especially of the technological kind originating from scientific research, became the focus of policy in many countries involving the active participation of the knowledge and business spheres.

The triple helix model of innovation (Etzkowitz 1966, 1998; Etzkowitz and Leydesdorf 1998), which is used as a conceptual point of reference for this work, suggests that there is a new dynamic in the relations between university, industry and government and in the participation of each one in actions to foster innovation, using scientific research to generate new knowl-edge, and technology. This model derives from analysis of the activities of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), during the 1930s to foster the development of the New England region in the United States, which includes the State of Massachusetts, where the university is located. The region was undergoing a process of economic decline due to the migration of local companies to other parts of the country in search of ease of access to inputs, transportation and distribution channels (Etzkowitz 1996). The response of the MIT Director was to persuade the leaders of the region’s government and industries that the commercial exploitation of the knowledge generated by that centre of learning and its transfer to existing companies and others still to be created would help bring about the desired economic development (Etzkowitz 1996). Special mechanisms in support of this process were conse-quently created that assisted the method of knowledge transfer through the establishment of transfer offices and the financing of new businesses through venture capital (Etzkowitz 1996).

The principal aim of this model is to analyse the way the relationship is established between the parties involved and how this process can cause changes in their behaviour. It was noted that, while each one maintained its traditional specific areas of expertise, they also had to facilitate matters for the others in order to create the openness necessary for the kind of relationship that was sought (Etzkowitz 1996). Meanwhile, the traditional function of the university to produce qualified manpower for industry has been taking on a new shape – first, with the introduction of research activities, then through collaboration in economic development, and, finally, with the emergence of entrepreneurial universities, acting as bases for the incubation of start-ups as well as participating actively in local development (Etzkowitz 2003).

The presence of scientists in companies devoted to the application of research, and of scientists conducting research at the universities and

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.


Copyri

ght In

tellec

t 201

2

Do N

ot Dist

ribute


54

concerned about the applicability of their discoveries, has enabled the trans-mission of knowledge – tacit or codified – between universities and companies (Etzkowitz and Viale 2010). The university has never been an isolated entity. In the past, universities maintained close relations with the church, with monarchs or with the governments. In recent years, the link with other agen-cies has included industry (Martin and Etzkowitz 2000). This has enabled universities and scientists to generate know-how that, when suitably applied by industry, has benefited humanity in a variety of ways.

The entrepreneurial university, which has shown itself to be a natural development from the knowledge university, came about when US research-ers, seeking resources to conduct their research at a time when funding was scarce, became entrepreneurs. In addition to securing resources, they found themselves guiding teams, arranging physical space, equipment and inputs, took on risk and related directly with companies, providing consultancy serv-ices or performing research that was in the interest of the companies. In the course of time, scientists began to set up their own firms prompted by their perception of the true value of their research, the scientists (Etzkowitz 1996). The transformation of the research university into an entrepreneurial univer-sity still divides opinion, with some people believing that the university’s involvement in economic activities would damage its ethos, since, among other considerations, such a transformation would cause the scientists to distance themselves from their academic activities, while dedicating them-selves more to their business activities. Another criticism is that the orien-tation of universities to business would result in a lack of interest in basic research devoted to generating the pure knowledge, which, over the long term, would ensure progress of scientific development in the broader sense (Martin and Etzkowitz 2000).

Because it is grounded in research that has commercial potential, the entrepreneurial university supports enterprise and the incubation of start-ups, and participates in regional strategies to foster innovation, among other traits, has become a key element in local development (Etzkowitz and Zhou 2007). The spillover from the entrepreneurial university’s commercialization of know-how – i.e. from the spin-offs, the creation of start-ups, the training of manpower, the stimulation of enterprise, the bringing together and creation of new businesses – permeates the local economic and social environments and fosters development (Etzkowitz and Zhou 2007).

research Focus

Brazil has continued the task of building a scientific and technological base, which was begun in the 1950s with the setting up of two federal agencies, the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) and Coordination for the Development of University Graduates (CAPES) for the purpose of fostering scientific and technological development in the country. The Brazilian state began to implement their own S&T policies, led by São Paulo, which founded Foundation for Supporting Research in the State of São Paulo (FAPESP). FAPESP was formally set up in 1960, and FAPERJ in 1980, as part of the movement within Brazil to develop infrastruc-ture to support S,T&I activities. It is important to note that the respective State constitutions determine the transfer of 2 per cent of the revenues from State taxes to the respective institutions for fostering R&D and innovation initiatives.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.


Copyri

ght In

tellec

t 201

2

Do N

ot Dist

ribute


55

2. Since 2011, the name has changed to Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation.

In 1969, the Federal Government established the National Fund for Scientific and Technological Development (FNDCT), which came to be regu-lated on 12 November 2007. The FNDCT resources have been managed by Funding Agency for Studies and Projects (FINEP), a State-owned company that was set up in 1967, and has been under the aegis of the Ministry of Science and Technology (MCT)2 since 1971.

PADCT III, the largest programme for fostering innovation, was created by the Brazilian government along with the World Bank in 1984, as an instru-ment to supplement the existing policy for fostering science, technology and innovation initiatives, and for bringing about a quantitative increase in the financial support for research in areas that had been defined as research prior-ities (Terra et al. 2001). According to B. Terra (2001), since the introduction of the new Federal Constitution (see article 218), in 1988, the State has sought to foster and encourage scientific and technological development, research and technological training. Basic scientific research and technological research get priority treatment, aimed at developing the national and regional production systems. What is more, the State supports the training of human resources in the fields of science, research and technology, including special working conditions. Also worth highlighting is the support provided under the law to companies that invest in research, allowing the State and the Federal Districts to link a portion of their budgets to public entities that stimulate scientific and technological teaching and research.

To achieve those goals, tax incentives were provided in the 1990s in relation to the import of goods destined for the purpose of scientific and technological research; training and competitiveness in the IT sector; and to investments in technological R&D aimed at increasing the competitiveness of Brazil’s industrial and agribusiness companies. With regard to the issue of intellectual property, there has been considerable modernization since 1995, covering the areas of genetic engineering, patents, crops and copyrights on computer programs.

The present Brazilian S,T&I situation favors an entrepreneurial model. The legal context for S,T&I in Brazil can now be mapped from a variety of laws that have changed the national scenario for research, development and innovation. These include: the laws that created the sectoral funds, the new IT law, the biosafety law, the law popularly referred to as the ‘Lei do Bem’ (Law no. 11,196/2005), the law on innovation, and their respective regula-tions. One can also consider the bill regulating the FNDCT and Industrial, Technological and Foreign Trade Policy (PITCE) as a driver of change in the circumstances of Brazilian research. This bill, known since 2008 as the PDP (Policy for the Development of Production), aims to define integrated actions to raise domestic industry to a higher level. To that end, it includes innovation and scientific and technological advances as part of a strategy for tackling the competition and augmenting the penetration abroad.

The legislation that created the sectoral funds was the first initiative to change the way R&D&I is financed in Brazil, laying down new stand-ards to reinforce the national system of innovation. It is aimed at ensuring stable funding for the area and establishing a new management model, with the participation of various social segments, as well as promoting greater synergy between universities, research centres, the production sector and local government. The sectoral funds for S&T came into being in 1999, in the wake of the privatization of certain sectors of the Brazilian economy, for the purpose of ensuring a constant flow of funding for R,T&I. There are

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.


Copyri

ght In

tellec

t 201

2

Do N

ot Dist

ribute


56

now seventeen sectoral funds in Brazil, fifteen of which relate to specific sectors, while two traverse sectoral boundaries. One of these, called the FVA (Green-Yellow Fund, after Brazil’s national colors), is dedicated to university–company interaction, while the other, called CT-Infra, is dedi-cated to supporting improvements in the infrastructure of S&T institutions. In 2001, the Federal Government organized a National Science, Technology and Innovation Conference and published the Science, Technology and Innovation Green Paper. The following year saw the publication of a White Paper and the beginning of the restructuring of the sectoral funds. The process that led to the launching of the Science, Technology and Innovation Green Paper, which served as the basis for the second National Science, Technology and Innovation Conference and the publication of the White Paper, created a context for transformation and innovation that was to be orchestrated through FAPERJ.

The 2002 project regulating the FNDCT (set up in 1969, reinforced in 1991 and expanded in 2001) aims to stimulate innovation and foster scientific and technological development by providing financial support to priority programmes and projects for scientific and technological development. All the resources of the sectoral funds, the only stable source of funding science and technology projects and programmes, are allocated to the FNDCT.

Another milestone for Brazilian research was the law referred to as the new IT Law (Law no. 10,176/2001), which addresses the issue of training and competitiveness in the IT sector and favours, by means of tax incentives, the producers of goods and services in the fields of IT and automation – in other words, those who invest in research.

The innovation law (Law no. 10,973/2004), enacted in 2004 and regulated in 2005, augmented the legal framework governing S, T&I in Brazil. This law facilitates interaction between universities, research institutes and the produc-tion sector, thereby stimulating the development of innovative products and processes in Brazilian companies. This law is organized around three focal points: creating a favourable environment for strategic partnerships between universities, technological institutes and companies; encouraging the partic-ipation of science and technology institutions in the process of innovation; and stimulating innovation in industry. Based on the federal law on innova-tion, the state governments began to draw up, enact and implement their own respective laws regarding innovation. In the State of Rio de Janeiro, Law no. 5361 was enacted in 2008 and regulated in 2010.

The biosafety law (Law no. 11,105/2005) laid down safety standards and established mechanisms for the monitoring of activities that involve research on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and their by-products. It addresses the National Biosafety Policy (PNB); and led to the establishment of the National Biosafety Council (CNBS); and reorganization of the National Technical Committee on Bio-safety (CTNBIO). All these regulations deter-mine the procedures for conducting research in Brazil, and are of particular importance since they address controversial issues like the study, production and commercialization of GMOs and stem cell research.

The ‘Lei do Bem’, which was also enacted in 2005, aims to stimulate exports, by reducing taxes and providing incentives for research. The law consolidates the existing legislation on tax incentives for research, without making any significant changes. The principal objectives are to encourage R&D, stimulate employment in the area and get researchers to set up their own SMEs (small- and medium-sized enterprises).

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.


Copyri

ght In

tellec

t 201

2

Do N

ot Dist

ribute


57

3. The case of FAPERJ was considered for investigation in this article based on review of existing literature and information elicited through semi-structured interviews with the present and former directors of the Foundation, and garnered from FAPERJ reports and website.

4. Equivalent to US$ 9.780, 907.5.

5. Monitor Mercantil, 16 May 2008.

6. http://www.faperj.br/boletim_interna.phtml?obj_id=393, accessed 14 August 2009.

Under the innovation law, it has been possible to launch new federal programmes in support of companies engaging in innovation. Public notices made provisions for offering subsidies, and diversifying the S,T&I results. This paved the way for the launch of the Program of Support for Company Research (PAPPE) in 2004; PAPPE Subvenção (in 2008) and PAPPE Integração (in 2010). These three measures provided resources for matching State Government funds, and also defined the sectors that have priority in receiving support.

FAPERJ has of late shifted its focus towards helping companies find university-based research collaborators and to help researchers under-stand the needs of industry. According to its scientific director, FAPERJ is expected to play a key role in economic development by finding new ways of doing things. The Foundation’s objective is to ‘foster the research and scientific and technological training necessary for the socioeconomic and cultural development of the State of Rio do Janeiro’.

The role oF FaPerJ as vehicle oF innovaTion3

The possibility of FAPERJ supporting Science and Technology in Rio de Janeiro was spelled out in the words of a former State Secretary for Science and Technology and former president of FAPERJ: ‘with a budget of around twenty million of Reais,4 most of it allocated to scholarships, as was the case in 1998, one couldn’t possibly look to FAPERJ as a foundation capable of boost-ing science in the State of Rio de Janeiro’.5 However, by forging closer rela-tions with Federal Government bodies that supported S&T during the period 1995–1998, the stage was set for FAPERJ to engage in interaction between universities and industry to promote the case for innovation, as the key to economic development. During the period 1999 to 2002, a series of changes took place at the Foundation not only with the launching of new programmes in support of scientific research – ‘Cientista do Nosso Estado’/‘Scientist of our State’ and ‘Bolsa Nota 10’/‘Schorlaship for the best students’ – which are considered to have been a success and have been retained until today, but also through initiatives to introduce innovation as a theme in other programmes (Martins and Sousa 2006).

The significance of university–industry interaction was addressed by the president, when he took over the running of FAPERJ in 2000, as being neces-sary for the country’s development. He also recognized the lack of a favour-able culture on both sides of the relationship due to the mutual distrust between the parties involved.6 During the same year, a committee, in which FAPERJ participated, was set up with the objective of formulating a sectoral policy on technological development for the State of Rio de Janeiro (Martins and Sousa 2006). This committee, which also included Department of Science, Technology and Innovation (SECTI), utilized the Regional Innovation Strategy (RIS) methodology applied by the European Union, with the Barcelona region as the point of reference (Terra et al. 2001). Out of this work came the formu-lation of policies for fostering science and technology and the production of innovative goods and services, aimed at promoting the socio-economic devel-opment of Rio de Janeiro, based on a survey of regional aptitudes. No evidence was found to indicate that, with the change of government that occurred at the time, any defined policies had been implemented, which may have been a consequence of government political considerations taking precedence over State interests.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.


Copyri

ght In

tellec

t 201

2

Do N

ot Dist

ribute


58

Another initiative in 2000 was FAPERJ’s evaluation of the possible crea-tion of ‘Municipal Funds to Support Scientific Research’, the earliest record to be found of an initiative to address the subject of science and technology in the interior of the State (Martins and Sousa 2006). The Coordination for Technology, an initiative also set up for the purpose of supporting technological innovation that is developed at small businesses, led to the launching of the Small Business Technology (TPE) programme. During the period 1999–2002, there were initiatives to promote innovation and university–industry interac-tion, including the publication of the first public notices offering financing and support to technology and innovation, culminating in the setting up of the Technology Board in 2002 (Martins and Sousa 2006).7

Table 1, below, consolidates the quantitative data on the number of public notices published and the resources offered, during the period 2002–2011.

These data do not reveal any significant variation in the number of public notices over the years leading to 2006. In 2003 and 2006, the funding avail-able was considerably higher than in the preceding years, although this was not reflected in the increased number of public notices. The federal funding received under formal agreements, for very specific objectives – had a decisive impact on the amount of funding available. In 2003, it was the resources of PAPPE; and in 2006, it was Program of Support for Centers of Excellence (PRONEX).8 In 2007, when Cabral began as Governor of the State of Rio de Janeiro, he started allocating 2 per cent of net tax revenues as defined in the state constitution of 1988, and hence increasing significantly the resources allocated to FAPERJ.

The Figure 1, below, shows the changes in the number of public notices according to the principal classification criteria: support to scientific research, to innovation and for other purposes.

It is apparent from Figure 1 that in the years 2002, 2004 and 2006, there were no public notices in relation to support for innovation, whereas in 2003 and 2005, the ratio of public notices for innovation to those for scientific research, plus others, was 1: 5. The rate of public notices to support inno-vation ranges greatly throughout the period examined. In 2007, despite the greatly increased volume of resources, this ratio was even more unfavoura-ble to investment in innovation, in 2009 (1: 15) and also in 2011 (1: 18), but improved considerably to slightly over 1: 3 in 2008 and to 1: 4 in 2010.

An evaluation based on the number of public notices merely reveals the abovementioned classification. The issuing of public notices devoted to innovation, made it possible to address a greater variety of topics and areas.

7. ThedataavailableonFAPERJ’swebsiteaboutpublicnoticessubstantiateonlythosepublishedasfrom2002.Thereisnoformalrecord,onthatwebsite,ofpublicnoticespertainingtopreviousyears.

8. FederalGovernmentprogrammes.

(*) Committed funding, in U$ million. Paid out over the period specified in the announcement.

Source: The Authors.

Table 1: Total number of Public Notices and corresponding Resources: 2002–2011.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.


Copyri

ght In

tellec

t 201

2

Do N

ot Dist

ribute


59

An analysis from the viewpoint of the allocation of resources complements this first assessment. This new approach also ascertained the proportional quantity of resources made available under the public notices for each type of allocation studied: scientific research, innovation and other purposes.

Figures 2 and 3, below, show the total amount of resources allocated under the public notices to scientific research/other purposes and to innovation, respectively, on a yearly basis, during the period 2002–2011. One can see that, as from 2007 to 2011, the total value of resources committed and paid out grew significantly. Figure 2 shows the annual totals allocated under all public notices, while Figure 3 shows that proportion of the resources allocated to public notices supporting innovation.

Table 2 shows a breakdown, on an annual basis, for the period analysed, of the total resources allocated under the public notices issued, those allocated

Figure 1.

FPO


Figure 2: Resources allocated under all public notices (2002–2011).

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.


Copyri

ght In

tellec

t 201

2

Do N

ot Dist

ribute


60


(*) Amounts in U$ million

Table 2: Resources allocated, by purpose: 2002–2011.

to supporting innovation and to other purposes, and the percentage ratios between these different amounts.

The data was used in preparing the visual representations in Figures 4 and 5, below:

Figure 4 shows the growth of resources allocated to innovation and to other purposes under the public notices from 2007 onwards.

Figure 5 shows that the change in the amount of resources allocated to innovation was positive and showed steady growth as from 2007, while the proportion allocated to other purposes showed a corresponding decline over the same period.

Analysis of the results obtained indicates growth in the resources allocated to innovation under the public notices, thereby favouring innovation over other programmes. Nevertheless, one should also take into consideration the influence of the Federal Government participation, which increased in financial terms just as FAPERJ was cutting back its matching funds under the public notice for the Rio Inovação programme, in 2008.

A large proportion of the resources (US$7.9 million that means 89.38 per cent of the total resources available to all public notices) was allocated to innovation in 2005, when the total resources available were relatively scarce and there were few public notices in support of innovation. A similar proportion of resources was allocated to innovation in 2003, when the total

Figure 3.

FPo

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.


Copyri

ght In

tellec

t 201

2

Do N

ot Dist

ribute


61


Figure 4: Resources allocated, by purpose: 2002–2011.


Figure 5: Total resources and the proportion allocated, by purpose: 2002–20011.

available was limited and there were few public notices; and in 2008, when the total resources were relatively abundant and there were more public notices in support of innovation. On the other hand, a lower proportion (US$4.58 equivalent to 9.7% of the total resources available to all public notices) was allocated in 2007, when there was a significant increase in the total available resources in the face of a very low number of public notices.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.


Copyri

ght In

tellec

t 201

2

Do N

ot Dist

ribute


62

9. Drive and foster research and scientific and technological innovation for developing the state of Minas Gerais.

It should be noted that the resources provided to FAPERJ by the Federal Government and the irregular supply of its own resources were factors that influenced the variations from 2003 to 2007. On the other hand, from 2009 to 2011 FAPERJ increased its own resources for innovation without federal funding. The approval of the Rio de Janeiro State Law of Innovation, the Brazilian and Rio de Janeiro State economic growth led to an increase in investment in this area, and also its relative importance within the State Government priorities.

In the case of innovation, while the considerable variety of economic sectors covered by the public notices may be an indication that the increased funding has allowed a broadening of the programme, it could also suggest that the programme becoming less focused.

suMMary and conclusions

Innovation has been central to FAPERJ since 1999. Support for the devel-opment of technological innovation in small businesses, through the TPE programme, was an isolated initiative in the year 2000, resulting from the creation of the Coordination for Technology, which led to the setting up of the Foundation’s Technology Board, in 2002. No record was found among the documents examined of the programmes launched at that time.

Important changes in the mechanisms of the incentives sponsored and controlled by the Federal Government – i.e. decentralization of the drawing up and issuing of public notices; the creation of mechanisms for stimulating innovation through the PAPPE; the promotion of university–company inter-action through the Green-Yellow Fund and, more recently, the Innovation Law and its regulatory decree, among others – helped to make feasible and reinforce the continuity of the programmes and activities to foster innovation introduced by FAPERJ. The PAPPE programme was fundamental to the Foundation, particularly in 2005 when the State Government’s resources were scarce.

It should be noted, however, that the support for innovation did not take place within the context of a State Government strategic policy on economic and social development. Initiatives with a broader scope that allocated resources to innovation in industry were introduced after 2005. These initia-tives resulted from the decentralized implementation of the federal economic policy, defined in the PITCE, in 2004, and ratified by the PDP, in 2008.

There are records of an initiative to create policies for development through innovation in 2000, when the State’s special commission for formu-lating development policy was set up. The Regional Innovation System (RIS) methodology, used by the European Union, was chosen as the paradigm for the development of this model. No evidence was found, however, to indicate that this initiative was actually implemented.

Various factors could be invoked to account for the lack of policy- and planning-based support for innovation by FAPERJ, amongst which the following may be considered significant:

the belief that the Foundation’s main function is to support the develop-•ment of science, not innovation; examples of other State foundations, such as FAPEMIG (Minas Gerais State Foundation for Supporting Research), should be mentioned, since they have altered their mission9 in the light of the political will to foster innovation;

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.


Copyri

ght In

tellec

t 201

2

Do N

ot Dist

ribute


63

FAPERJ is not an economic development agency, in the strict sense of the •term. Its role has been to bring universities and research centers, on the one hand, and companies, on the other, closer together; resources allo-cated to it have always been scarce and irregular; the recovery of FAPERJ’s investment capability is a recent phenomenon •and has been used not only to expand its programmes, but also to settle outstanding payments to restore its credibility; supporting infrastructure for research is often either lacking or degraded; •new areas of knowledge and research interest need backing.

Access to the resources was provided for in the State constitution, but was made available as from 2007. This has nonetheless enabled FAPERJ to expand its programmes in support of research and innovation, allocating, particularly for innovation, a larger quantity of its own resources. In addition, it saw an increase in Federal resources and, from 2008 to 2011, the issuing of a signifi-cantly greater number of public notices than was normal in the first period under consideration (2002–2006).

Upon analysing the mechanisms in support of development through inno-vation, H. Etzkowitz (2005) emphasizes that each country or region should find its own specific way to implement the triple helix model. It is to be hoped, then, that Brazil and the State of Rio de Janeiro, through FAPERJ, can determine enduring public policies for support to innovation, instead of interrupted initia-tives or those that are still in the process of being thought out, in the wake of the Federal and State innovation laws. Implementation of the State Innovation Law can pave the way for the introduction of such policies and plans, with the partic-ipation of FAPERJ, to guide future programmes of incentives for innovation.

During the period 2002 to 2011, there were significant changes in the Brazilian economy. Amidst these changes, the prevalence of policy concern to maintain a sustained growth, based on products and companies becoming more competitive with higher value-added, introduced innovation as a key ingredient of Brazilian industrial policy. This has had the effect of increasing the resources available for promoting innovation initiatives.

reFerences

Abramovitz, M. (1956), ‘Resource and output trends in the United States since 1870’, American Economic Review, 46: 2, pp. 5–23.

Botelho, A. J. J. and Almeida, M. (2012), ‘Descontruindo a política científica no Brasil: evolução da descentralização da política de apoio à pesquisa e inovação/ Desconstructing science policy in Brazil: evolution of the decentralization policy to support research and innovation’, Sociedade e Estado, 27: 1, pp. 117–32.

Etzkowitz, H. (1996), ‘From knowledge flows to the triple helix – The trans-formation of academic-industry relations in the USA’, Industry & Higher Education, 10: 6, pp. 337–42.

—— (1998), ‘The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages’, Research Policy, 27: 8, pp. 823–33.

—— (2003), ‘Research groups as “quasi-firms”: the invention of the entrepre-neurial university’, Research Policy, 32: 1, pp. 109–21.

—— (2008), The Triple Helix: University-Industry-Government Innovation in Action, London: Routledge, p. 164.

Etzkowitz, H., and Leydesdorf, L. (1998), ‘The triple helix as a model of inno-vation studies’, Science & Public Policy, 25: 3, pp. 195–203.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.


Copyri

ght In

tellec

t 201

2

Do N

ot Dist

ribute


64

—— (2000), ‘The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “Mode 2” to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations’, Research Policy, 29: 2, pp. 109–23.

Etzkowitz, H. and Viale, R. (2010), ‘Polyvalent knowledge and the entrepre-neurial university: A third academic revolution?’, Critical Sociology, 36: 4, pp. 595–609.

Etzkowitz, H. and Zhou, C. (2007), ‘Regional innovation initiator: The entre-preneurial university in various triple helix models’, Singapore Triple Helix VI Conference theme paper, http://nus.edu/nec/eir/TripleHelix6/SingaporeConferenceThemePaper050107.pdf., Singapore, May 16-18, 2007, Accessed 12 May 2009.

Etzkowitz, H., Mello, J. and Terra, B. (1998), ‘When path dependencies collide: the evolution of innovation policy in the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil’, Science and Public Policy, 26: 6, pp. 365–71.

FAPERJ (2006), ‘FAPERJ – Relatório de Atividades 2004–2005/Activity Report 2004-2005’, Rio de Janeiro: FAPERJ.

—— (2009), ‘FAPERJ – Relatório de Atividades 2007–2008/Activity Report 2007-2008’, Rio de Janeiro: FAPERJ.

IBGE (2010), Pesquisa de Inovação Tecnológica – 2008 (PINTEC 2008)/ Survey of Technological Innovation – 2008 (PINTEC - 2008), Rio de Janeiro: IBGE, p. 158.

Kim, L. and Nelson, R. R. (2005), Tecnologia, Aprendizado e Inovação – As expe-riências das Economias de Industrialização Recente/ Technology, learning, and innovation: experiences of newly industrializing economies, São Paulo: Editora Unicamp, p. 503.

Martin, B. R. and Etzkowitz, H. (2000), ‘The origin and evolution of the university species’, VEST 13, 9: 4, pp. 9–34.

Martins, I. L. and Sousa, J. J. (2006), FAPERJ 25 Anos, vol. 1, Rio de Janeiro: FAPERJ, p. 64.

Mowery, D. C. and Rosenberg, N. (2005), Trajetórias da Inovação: A mudança tecnológica nos Estados Unidos da América no Século XX, São Paulo: Editora Unicamp, p. 230.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2011), Main Science and Technology Indicators, International Comparisons Table 19, 2010: 2, pp 42 http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/main-science-and-technology-indicators/volume-2010/issue-2_msti-v2010-2-en-fr. Accessed 10 December 2011, p. 156.

Schumpeter, R. M. (1939), Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process. New York Toronto London : McGraw-Hill Book Company, pp. 461.

Solow, R. M. (1957), ‘Technical change and the aggregate production function’, Review of Economics and Statistics, 39, pp. 312–20.

Terra, B. (2001), Escritórios de Transferência de Tecnologia em Universidades Empreendedoras/ Technology Transfer Offices in Entrepreneurial Universities, Rio de Janeiro: Qualitymark,p. 205.

Terra, B., Barros, F. and Seild, P. (2001), ‘Sistemas regionais de inovação: o caso do Estado do Rio de Janeiro/Regional Innovation Systems: the case of Rio de Janeiro State’, Revista Parcerias Estratégicas, 11: June, pp. 191–202.

suGGesTed ciTaTion

Gonzalez, F. B., Terra, B. and Almeida, M. (2012), ‘The role of innovation support initiatives in Brazil: The case of FAPERJ in the State of Rio de

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.


Copyri

ght In

tellec

t 201

2

Do N

ot Dist

ribute


65

Janeiro’, International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 11: 1, pp. 51–65, doi: 10.1386/tmsd.11.1.51_1

conTriBuTor deTails

Fernando Barreiros Gonzalez is M.Sc. in Local Development. He is currently a planning assistant at Prefeitura Municipal de Rio das Ostras, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Contact: Rua Campo de Albacora, 75 – Loteamento Atlântica, Rio das Ostras, CEP: 28890-000, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. E-mail: [email protected].

Branca Terra has Ph.D. in Production Engineering. She is currently adjunct professor at Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro – UERJ, where he leads the research group named Innovation and Society and the Laboratory for Innovation and Entrepreneurship. She has been implementing the Program for Pre-incubation, Incubation and Post-incubation at UERJ, with emphasis on technological innovation and industrial organization.

Contact: Rua São Francisco Xavier, 525 Bloco B, Room 8024, Rio de Janeiro – RJ, CEP 20550-013, Brazil. E-mail: [email protected].

Mariza Almeida has a Ph.D. in Production Engineering. She is currently Adjunct Professor of the Production Engineering Course in Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro – UNIRIO, working on the following research topics: triple helix of university-business-government; incubators and science parks, innovation and entrepreneurship, knowledge management and innovation and local development.

Contact: Avenida Pasteur, 458 – Urca – CEP 22290-240 - Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

Fernando Barreiros Gonzalez, Branca Terra and Mariza Almeida has asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the author of this work in the format that was submitted to Intellect Ltd.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.


Copyri

ght In

tellec

t 201

2

Do N

ot Dist

ribute

TMSD 11. Gonzalez et al

Documents

Transcript of TMSD 11. Gonzalez et al