guilhermecavalcantesilva

Estudo avalia impacto do ecossistema universitário na intenção empreendedora dos alunos

August 6, 2021

Autor: Guilherme Cavalcante Silva (InSySPo) / Para a versão em inglês, clique aqui

Passaram-se anos, veio uma pandemia, mas uma coisa não mudou no Brasil: o anseio por empreender. Embora o número de empreendedores estabelecidos no país tenha caído pela metade no país em 2020 (de 16,1%, em 2019, para 8,7% em 2020), o índice de atividades empreendedoras em fase inicial até mesmo aumentou (ligeiramente), subindo de 23,3% para 23,4%, segundo dados do Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM). As porcentagens se referem à quantidade da população nacional registrada como empreendedores em fase inicial ou estabelecida.

Quando a intenção de empreender entra em questão, os dados são ainda mais enfáticos. Mais da metade da população brasileira (52,7%) tem intenção de começar um negócio próprio em até três anos, índice que estava em 30% em 2019 – Brasil é um dos líderes globais neste ranking. A pergunta que paira no ar ante esse cenário é: como aproveitar esses números e favorecer ainda mais o empreendedorismo no país? A resposta não é fácil e envolve não apenas ações das esferas governamentais, como também de outras áreas. Uma delas é a universidade, um dos principais elementos do ecossistema de empreendedorismo.

Brasil é um dos líderes em intenção empreendedora no mundo. Na imagem, em preto, países sem dados. De amarelo até vermelho, em suas distintas gradações, os países com menor e maior índice de intenção empreendedora, respectivamente.

Motivado por esse tema, Matheus Campos, pesquisador de pós-doutorado no programa Innovation Systems, Strategies and Policy (InSySPo), da Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Unicamp), fez da relação entre o ambiente da universidade e o desenvolvimento de características empreendedoras o assunto de sua pesquisa doutoral. Recentemente, ele publicou um artigo, em co-autoria com os pesquisadores Gustavo Salati e Ana Carolina Spatti, ambos também da Unicamp, na Brazilian Administration Review, apresentando os resultados de um modelo avaliativo que utilizou para compreender os diferentes modos em que o ambiente universitário no Brasil impacta o desenvolvimento de características empresariais nos alunos, e, consequentemente, o próprio modo em que universidade e empreendedorismo interagem. O artigo é intitulado “Do University Ecosystems Impact Student’s Entrepreneurial Behavior?“.

No artigo, os autores criaram um modelo conceitual de análise e extraíram dados de sete universidades públicas brasileiras (UEA, UFCG, UnB, Unicamp, USP, UTFPR, UFRGS), localizadas nas cinco regiões do país. Os resultados demonstraram o que, de modo geral, os estudos na área já sabiam: as universidades possuem uma influência no desenvolvimento de intenção empreendedora (intenção de abrir um negócio) por parte dos alunos. Porém, o escopo de tal influência é bem menor do que se pensava. “O que nosso estudo demonstrou é que o papel mais importante da universidade, em relação ao empreendedorismo, não é o incentivo para que o aluno abra uma empresa, mas a sua atuação no desenvolvimento de características voltadas ao empreendedorismo”, sublinha Campos. Em outros termos, treinamentos motivacionais, cursos e uma atuação voltada para que o estudante abra empresas no futuro, embora importantes, são menos eficazes do que o preparo voltado para características empreendedoras, como reconhecimento de oportunidades, perseverança e habilidade de pensar em soluções inovadoras. Afinal, um dos achados do estudo foi de que, nas universidades pesquisadas, a intenção empreendedora está muito mais relacionada com as características pessoais dos próprios estudantes do que com ações da universidade nesse sentido.

O estudo se soma a outras pesquisas da área conhecida como “ecossistema do empreendedorismo”, que avalia a atividade empreendedora em sua conexão com diferentes fatores sociais, políticos, econômicos e educacionais, fatores estes que ultrapassam as “quatro” paredes das empresas e seus recursos financeiros e materiais. “Mesmo algo como a intenção de empreender, por parte dos alunos, está direcionada a fatores tão distintos quanto a sua localização geográfica, isto é, se este aluno está na região Norte/Nordeste ou Sul/Sudeste do país, como nosso estudo demonstrou”, aponta Spatti. “Em um o maior nível de capacitação vai estar consequentemente ligado a um maior estímulo para empreender, em outro, com o mesmo nível de capacitação, o estímulo pode não vir por diversos fatores, como maior competitividade, por exemplo”, acrescenta Salati. Além do aspecto geográfico, a disponibilidade de capital humano, financiamento, políticas públicas, acessibilidade de mercado, cultural local e presença das universidades são alguns dos outros pilares do ecossistema de empreendedorismo.

Alguns dos fatores que fazem parte do ecossistema universitário de empreendedorismo. Adaptado de Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtm023

Em relação ao contexto mais específico das universidades, diversos fatores influenciam na decisão dos alunos de empreender. Os resultados do artigo, relacionados às universidades brasileiras, demonstraram que um dos principais é o desenvolvimento de características empreendedoras, que impactam diretamente a mentalidade empreendedora dos estudantes. Por outro lado, fatores como suporte à abertura de negócios constituíram pesos negativos na amostra. “Em rankings globais de intenção empreendedora, estamos [Brasil] sempre no topo. Mas, ao mesmo tempo, paradoxalmente, ainda há uma certa dificuldade cultural no país em relação a empreender e a ter uma relação mais próxima entre empresas e universidades”, reflete Salati. “O que as pesquisas têm mostrado é que se a orientação da universidade for para o preparo para o mercado de trabalho, o estudante seguirá esse rumo. Por outro lado, se lá ele tiver contato com abertura de empresas, patenteamento, a tendência é que siga esse caminho”, conclui Campos. Embora universidades como USP e Unicamp se destaquem na relação universidade-indústria em termos de investimento e patenteamento, o cenário brasileiro, no geral, ainda é de pouco investimento em P&D (cerca de 1% do PIB, porcentagem bastante superior em países desenvolvidos) e pouca participação da iniciativa privada.

A pesquisa é um indicativo de que uma atividade empreendedora mais intensa no contexto das universidades brasileiras pode não vir de um frenesi sobre empreendedorismo no contexto da sala de aula ou da mera reprodução de modelos “certificados” por instituições norte-americanas ou europeias. “Os nossos achados apontam que as universidades brasileiras são muito boas na questão do ensino e oferecimento de aulas, palestras, cursos e workshops sobre empreendedorismo, mas faltam mecanismos de suporte para auxiliar o estudante a efetivamente abrir uma firma. Tudo isso está relacionado a uma cultura mais ampla, tanto dentro como fora da universidade, em relação ao empreendedorismo que amplia um gap entre ensino e empresas”, reflete Campos.

O artigo completo se encontra disponível aqui.

News

Study investigates impact of university ecosystems on students’ entrepreneurial intention

August 6, 2021

Author: Guilherme Cavalcante Silva / Article in Portuguese available here

Years have passed, a pandemic has come, but one thing has not changed in Brazil: the level of entrepreneurial intention. Even though the number of established entrepreneurs in the country decreased in 2020 (from 16.1% in 2019 to 8.7% in 2020), the rate of early-stage entrepreneurial activity (slightly) increased, rising from 23.3% to 23.4%, according to the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM). The data refer to the percentage of the population registered as early-stage or established entrepreneurs.

When we bring the intention to become an entrepreneur to the table, the data become even more emphatic. More than half of the Brazilian population (52.7%) intends to start their own business within three years, a rate that stood at 30% in 2019 – Brazil is one of the global leaders in that particular ranking. Considering that scenario, one question pops up: how to take advantage of these numbers and boast entrepreneurship in the country? The answer is not easy and involves the government sector as well as other areas. One of them is the university sector, one of the major elements of the entrepreneurial ecosystem.

Brazil is one of the global leaders in entrepreneurial intention. In the map above, in black, countries with no data available. From yellow to red, in their distinct gradations, countries with the lowest and highest entrepreneurial intention indexes, respectively.

Intrigued with the topic, Matheus Campos, a post-doctoral researcher at the Innovation Systems, Strategies and Policy (InSySPo) program at Unicamp dedicated his doctoral research to the study of the relationship between the university environment and the development of entrepreneurial characteristics. Recently, he published an article co-authored with researchers Gustavo Salati and Ana Carolina Spatti (both also from Unicamp) in the Brazilian Administration Review (BAR), presenting the results of an evaluative model used to understand the different ways in which the environment of Brazilian major public universities impacts the development of entrepreneurial characteristics in students. On a deeper level, the article (titled “Do University Ecosystems Impact Student’s Entrepreneurial Behavior?“) investigates the very way in which university and entrepreneurship interact.

The authors created a conceptual model of analysis, and extracted data from seven Brazilian public universities (Amazonas State University, Federal University of Campo Grande, University of Brasilia, University of Campinas, University of São Paulo, Federal University of Technology – Paraná, and Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul). At first, results showed what studies in the field already knew: universities have an influence on the development of entrepreneurial intention (intention to start a business) by students. However, the scope of such influence is much smaller than previously thought. “What our study has shown is that the most important role of the university is not incentivising the student to start a business, but fostering the development of entrepreneurial characteristics“, Campos concluded. In other words, motivational training, courses, and actions focused on the student creating companies in the future, although important, are less effective than an education focused on entrepreneurial characteristics, such as the recognition of opportunities, perseverance, and the ability to offer innovative solutions. After all, one of the findings of the study was that in the universities surveyed, entrepreneurial intention was much more related to the students’ own characteristics than to university actions in that sense.

The study adds to other researches in the “entrepreneurship ecosystem” field, which evaluates entrepreneurial activity in its connection to different social, political, economic, and educational factors – variables that go beyond the “four walls” of companies and their financial and material resources. “Even something like students’ intention to become entrepreneurs is related to things as distinct as their geographical location, i.e. whether this particular student is in the North/Northeast or South/Southeast part of Brazil, as our study has shown,” Spatti points out. “For one student, a higher level of training will consequently generate a greater stimulus to entrepreneurship; for another, with the same level of training, there will be no room for intention to start a business for a myriad of other variables such as higher competitiveness in major cities, for example,” Salati adds. Besides geographical aspects, the availability of human capital, funding, public policies, market accessibility, local culture, and the presence of universities in the region are some of the other pillars of the entrepreneurial ecosystem.

In the more specific context of universities, several factors influence students’ decision to become entrepreneurs. As mentioned before, one of them is the development of entrepreneurial characteristics, which directly impact the entrepreneurial mentality of students. On the other hand, factors such as “support for starting a business” resulted in negative weights in the sample. “In global rankings of entrepreneurial intention, we [Brazil] are always at the top. But at the same time, paradoxically, there is still a certain cultural block in the country regarding the relationship between companies and universities, and that affects entrepreneurial outcomes,” Salati reflects. “Research is pretty established in showing that if the orientation of the university is to prepare for the job market, the student will follow that direction. If there are straight contacts with business, start-ups and patenting, their tendency is to follow this path,” Campos concludes. With the exception of institutions such as the University of São Paulo (USP) and University of Campinas (Unicamp) – both stand out in terms of university-industry relationship, private investment, and patenting, the Brazilian scenario is still one of scarce investments in R&D (around 1% of the GDP, a percentage that is much higher in developed countries) and little interactions with private enterprises.

The research is an indication that a more intense entrepreneurial activity in Brazil might not come from a frenzy about entrepreneurship in the universities’ classroom context or from the mere reproduction of “certified models” from North American or European institutions. “Our findings point out that Brazilian universities are very good at teaching and offering classes, lectures, courses and workshops on entrepreneurship, but lack support mechanisms to help students effectively open a firm. All of this is a reflection of a broader culture both inside and outside the university involving entrepreneurship that widens the gap between education and businesses,” Campos reflects.

The full article is available here.

News

InSySPo members offer course on Foresight Management

August 5, 2021

With the participation of InSySPo researchers, Unicamp’s research lab GEOPI (Laboratory for Studies on the Organization of Research and Innovation) offered an online course on “Foresight & Beyond: prospection, priorization and support to decision making in Science, Technology and Innovation” from July 19 to July 30, 2021. InSySPo’s Co-Principal Investigator Sergio Salles-Filho and Associate Investigator Adriana Bin organized the event, that also counted with courses from Nicholas Vonortas (InSySPo’s Principal Investigator) and Vinicius Muraro (InSysPo collaborator).

A total of 23 students from major public and private organizations in Brazil and Latin America joined the course. During the course, they had the chance to develop proposals for prospection and prioritization of themes such as office of the future, digital health and post-pandemic public education following a practical step-by-step learned in the course.

The 17 different sessions covered the main concepts, definitions, schools, frontiers, challenges, and tools of prospecting and prioritization. The topics were also approached from the viewpoints of policy and innovation design in different countries. A special attention was also given to corporate foresight, data, and opinion-based tools from an economic, multi-criteria, and mixed-methods perspective.

You can check some prints from the course below:

News

OUP volume on Technology and Economic Catch-Up released

May 28, 2021

Highly anticipated volume gathers contributions from editors and authors from all around the world on issues such as technological capabilities, green growth, middle-income trap, and innovation policy, just to name a few.

After four years of work, several days of discussion in conferences and workshops, and fruitful debates, the volume “The Challenges of Technology and Economic Catch-Up in Emerging Economies” was finally released on June 2021. The book is published by Oxford University Press and contains 16 chapters split into 4 book sections. The first section deals with “Technology Capability and Growth Performance at the Country Level”. Next, the book moves to the industry level with a section on “Technology Capability Upgrade and Sectoral Catch-Up”, followed by a discussion on green growth and the “Emerging Paradigm on Technology Capability Upgrading”. As for the final section, three chapters discuss “Innovation Policy for Technology Upgrading”.

The book synthesizes and interprets existing knowledge on technology upgrading failures in order to better understand the challenges of technology upgrading in emerging economies. The objective is to bring together diverse evidence on three major dimensions of technology upgrading: paths of technology upgrading, structural changes in the nature of technology upgrading, and the issues of technology transfer and technology upgrading.

The book is edited by InSySPo’s Principal Investigator Prof. Nicholas Vonortas (GWU/Unicamp), along with Prof. Jeong-Dong Lee (Seoul National University), Prof. Keun Lee (Seoul National University), Prof. Dirk Meissner (Higher School of Economics – NRU), and Prof. Slavo Radosevic (University College London). The volume is available for purchase from Oxford University Press. More information is available here.

If you want a ‘taste’ of the book content, you can watch some of the discussions that took place in our “Technology Upgrading and Economic Catch-Up” workshop series on Youtube, based in the book chapters. Full playlist available below:

News

Workshop series on Technology Upgrading comes to an end on a high note

April 28, 2021

The event on April 22 concluded a journey that brought together around 400 participants from 56 countries

Six months after the first edition on the beginning of November 2020, the workshop series on “Technology Upgrading and Economic Catch-Up” has come to an end, leaving behind many interesting discussions that reached almost 400 participants from 56 countries. During its run, the series went from micro to macroeconomics, and vice-versa, dealing with issues such as innovation policy, green growth, capability building, global value chains and so on.

The theme of the first edition of the workshop series was “Technology capabilities and their impact on growth and catching up”. The workshop explored the role of technological capabilities and their impact on growth and economic catching up, with a focus on emerging economies. Jan Fagerberg (University of Oslo), Randolph Bruno (University College London), Vitaliy Roud (Higher School of Economics, National Research University), JD Lee, and Keun Lee (Seoul National University) were some of the speakers. Alessandro Golombiewski Teixeira (Tsinghua University) offered some special remarks. You can watch the event in full below:

For the second edition, we discussed “Technology Capability Upgrade and Sectoral Catch-Up”. The workshop explored the reasons for the uncertainty behind technology upgrading processes, where outcomes are dependent on a variety of mutually interrelated factors whose consequences are so unpredictable. Paulo Zawislak (Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul), Paulo Figueiredo (Getulio Vargas Foundation), Jae Yong Choung (Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology) were some of the speakers. Anwar Aridi (World Bank) provided special remarks. You can watch the event in full below:

The third edition of the workshop series went green by discussing “Emerging paradigm on technology capability upgrading: embracing green, inclusive and social sustainability concerns”. The workshop explored new developments in technology through the increasing application of artificial intelligence, the demise of the fossil-fuel-based growth regime, plus increasing concerns with equity and inclusiveness of technology. It also evaluated new measures of economic growth that go beyond GDP measures to include sustainable development and green growth. Tilman Altenburg (German Development Institute), Maria Savona (Sussex University), and Gabriela Dutrénit (Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana) were some of the speakers. Otaviano Canuto (Policy Center for the New South) provided some comments on the presentations. You can watch the event in full below:

Innovation Policy for Technology Upgrading was the theme of the fourth edition of the workshop series. It explored different facets of innovation policies for technology upgrading in the context of changing policy philosophies evolving from import substitution earlier on and the Washington consensus policies more recently to the pandemic/post-pandemic context of today. The speakers were Xudong Gao (Tsinghua University), Carlo Pietrobelli (University Roma Trè), and Yevgeny Kuznetsov (Migration Policy Institute), while Fuad Hasanov and Reda Cherif (International Monetary Fund) acted as external discussants. You can watch the event in full below:

Finally, the final edition brought together the editors of the upcoming Oxford University Press volume that inspired the organization of the series: “The Challenges of Technology Upgrading and Economic Catch-Up in Emerging Economies” to wrap up the discussions and provide some comments on future research agenda. They are Jeong-Dong Lee (Seoul National University), Keun Lee (Seoul National University), Dirk Meissner (Higher School of Economics – NRU), Slavo Radosevic (University College London), and Nicholas Vonortas (George Washington University/University of Campinas). Sergio Salles-Filho (University of Campinas), Yongsuk Jang (Science and Technology Policy Institute, Korea), and Alfred Watkins (Global Solutions Summit) provided special remarks. You can watch the event in full below:

The volume is soon to be released by Oxford University Press (June 2021). You can find more information here. Please check out our International Events section for more details on past and forthcoming events. You can also subscribe to our Newsletter to receive up-to-date information about our and our partners’ research.

News

Workshop series “Technology Upgrading and Economic Catch-Up”: final edition in April

March 27, 2021

The event will have the 5 co-editors of the upcoming OUP volume as speakers.

Free registration available here

After five months and four successful editions gathering more almost 350 participants from over 50 countries, the workshop series “Technology Upgrading and Economic Catch-Up” is coming to an end in April. The final edition of the series is taking place on April 22, from 9am to 11am (São Paulo local time). The workshop series was the result of a joint effort between the São Paulo Excellence Chair program InSysPo (Innovation Systems, Strategies and Policy), part of the Department of Science and Technology Policy, University of Campinas (Unicamp, Brazil), and other leading institutions in innovations studies from all over the world.

The workshop will synthesise the main insights and lessons from the previous four workshops while also outlining the research and policy road ahead in the new global post-Covid context. For the final edition, the event is receiving the five editors from the forthcoming Oxford University Press volume “The Challenges of Technology Upgrading and Economic Catch-Up in Emerging Economies”. They are: Jeong-Dong Lee (Seoul National University), Keun Lee (Seoul National University), Dirk Meissner (Higher School of Economics – NRU), Slavo Radosevic (University College London), and Nicholas Vonortas (George Washington University/University of Campinas). The event is hosted online through the video conferencing platform Zoom, with a live stream on Youtube.

ABOUT THE SERIES:

The workshop series explored the major issues related to the technology upgrading of emerging and catching up economies. It discussed the state-of-the-art understanding of the issues around technology upgrading and economic catch-up, exploring country, sector and firm-level issues based on a variety of country experiences.

Besides InSysPo, the series was co-organized by the Institute for International Science and Technology Policy (George Washington University), the UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies – University College London, the Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge (National Research University/Higher School of Economics), and Seoul National University.

You can watch the full video of the first four editions below:

News

2021 edition of Bromley Memorial hosts US NSF Director

March 9, 2021

Event organized in honour of Dr. Allan Bromley and his contributions to STI policy will be held virtually this year

This year’s edition is co-organized by The Institute for Science, Society and Policy at the University of Ottawa and the Institute for International Science and Technology Policy at George Washington University

The 2021 Bromley Memorial will have Sethuraman Panchanathan, the Director of the US National Science Foundation (NSF) as its main speaker. He has a distinguished career in science, technology, engineering, and education that spans more than three decades, with many contributions to the areas of human-centered multimedia computing, haptic user interfaces, and person-centered ubiquitous computing technologies for empowering individuals with a range of abilities.

The event will consist of three parts:

Symposium on the S&T Landscape 1:30 pm EDT (2:30pm BRT) (open to the public)
Students Workshop on the S&T Landscape 3:30pm EDT (4:30pm BRT) (restricted to GW and UOttawa students)
Keynote Lecture featuring Dr. Sethuraman Panchanathan 4:30pm EDT (5:30pm BRT) (open to the public)

This year, the Bromley Memorial is partnering with the 20th annual STGlobal Conference, which will be virtually held on April 16-17, 2021. Registrations for the event are available here and here.

News

Innovation at all costs? Producing a methodology for evaluating technology parks in Brazil

March 3, 2021

Document points to the importance of advancing technology parks in the country…as long as it also encompasses its entire ecosystems

Technological Park São José dos Campos/SP, currently the largest in Brazil.

_{Author: Guilherme Cavalcante Silva}

It is universally recognized that one of the main factors in socioeconomic growth and its dynamization is investment in innovation processes. This is especially true for “emerging” countries such as Brazil. In this sense, in the midst of the many bad news, Brazil can be proud of having improved its position in the latest Global Innovation Index, published in the second half of 2020, jumping four positions (it is currently in 62nd place among 131 countries evaluated), occupying the fourth place in Latin America – even though the scenario of technological capability development is still far from ideal, as this study points out. In this context, technology parks are reacher higher grounds in the country.

Altogether, according to data from the National Association of Entities Promoting Innovative Enterprises (Anprotec) Brazil has 43 technology parks in operation and 60 in implementation; of these, 36 have as its main cluster the area of Information and Communication Technology (ICT), 25 biotechnology, and 22 the energy area. But, after all, what are technology parks? Forget the scenario of Silicon Valley and its huge technology companies. Technology parks are much more than a conglomerate of ICT companies. They play a vital role in nurturing local innovation ecosystems and promoting production, research, and innovative entrepreneurship.

The Cabinet of Entrepreneurship and Innovation of the Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovation and Communications (MCTI) has recently commissioned the creation of a methodology for the classification and evaluation of technology parks in Brazil, aiming not only the development of strategies, but also an optimal allocation of public resources for their creation and maintenance. The project headed by the Laboratory for Studies on the Organization of Research & Innovation (Geopi/Unicamp), was coordinated by three InSySPo members: Bruno Fischer, Paola Schaeffer, and Camila Zeitoum. The report was sent to the ministry in December 2020.

What are technology parks?
_{The definition of a technology park is not straightforward. Some definitions are stricter, while others appear more broadly. In general, according to Protec’s definition, a technology park is a planned industrial production complex of scientific-technological based services, with a formal, concentrated, and cooperative character, bringing together companies whose production is based on research and development, promoting a culture of innovation, competitiveness, and business training with the aim of increasing the wealth of a region. In short, it is based on the geographical and planned concentration of companies oriented towards research, development, and innovation. Therefore, not every industrial zone is a technology park.}

With the purpose of providing a methodology to help the government’s promotion of technological parks, the report breaks some common notions associated with them, such as the idea that their massive implementation, by itself, can generate a socioeconomic boom in the area where they are located. The report shows the importance of the ecosystem where the park is located and the productive alignment between the park and local policies. “The park is not the main element for promoting regional development. It appears as an important stimulator for something that is already established,” warns Zeitoum. Investment in parks without proper planning or considering for the local ecosystem and the region’s development stage as well as the availability of qualified human resources are the perfect recipe to produce “white elephants”, bringing large deficits to public funds.

Map with the technology parks in operation in the country. Source: VIA Estação Conhecimento – UFSC.

“If we could create a technology park in an economically peripheral region and expect this to generate development in that area, it would be fantastic. But this is not what happens in real life. What we realize, based on evidence is that you can come up with a technology park and it becomes a drain. The more public money you put in, in the absence of certain conditions, the more it sucks without giving results that justify its existence. Why? There are things to be done before making that step. First, you need to understand the reasons behind the lack of socioeconomic development there. These are complex issues, and the park will not supply everything needed for regional development,” explains Fischer. It is worth remembering that in 2020 alone, the portfolio’s budget reached BRL 15 billion [around USD 2.65 billion].

Socioeconomic development demands more than focusing on isolated initiatives, such as building technology parks. This fact points to the difficulties involved in reducing economic and technological asymmetries between regions in a country, such as the one found between the North/Northeast and the South/Southeast of Brazil, and between blocks of countries, such as the one between Latin America and Europe/North America. “There is no point in creating something because it is an international trend. There must be complementary assets for every single project in the region. Otherwise, the results will fall short of the expected. The big issue is that these changes in orientation and development are not quick or easy,” concludes Fischer. One of the strengths of the methodology is precisely to highlight the role of the park within the ecosystem in question and its potential in terms of internal and external interactions, pointing out aspects where alignments and specific investments are necessary.

The methodology highlighted the importance of the so-called “innovation ecosystem” [see infographic below] in the creation of innovation projects. This expression, common among innovation researchers, accounts for the interplay between multiple factors for the success of innovation projects. These factors go beyond the “four” walls of the companies and their financial and material resources, reaching less “tangible” aspects such as: public policies at the local level; pre-existing industrial, technological, and economic orientation in the area; scientific and human resources capabilities linked to the region (e.g., universities or research centers), among others. “The parks are not detached from their context. They depend on university training people for their staff, as well as the engagement from the local government. Other companies will demand or supply products to the companies from the park. These relations are vital, otherwise the park becomes a disconnected complex of unproductive and financially troubled companies”, Schaeffer points out.

The Methodology of Evaluation of Technology Parks in Brazil (MAPTec) built several indicators to evaluate (from 0 to 1) each dimension of a technology park – namely: external and internal ecosystem/interactions, governance, and results/impacts, finishing with the display of three characteristic profiles of Brazilian technology parks: the leader park (with the highest score, <0.85), the follower park (median scores, 0.60-0.85) and the embryonic park (low scores, >0.60). Although not conducting an exhaustive survey on the number of parks located in each of these profiles, the team responsible for the methodology proposed a series of initiatives to optimize the evaluation and stimulate the transition of parks to more consolidated stages of organization. “We developed the methodology with the intent of showing the public manager what are the strengths and weaknesses of each park, considering their different maturity stages. This way, s/he can define priorities in her/his planning and spending,” adds Zeitoum.

In addition to demonstrating the importance of calming the spirits when it comes to fostering innovation at all costs, the methodology brings to light the challenge of systematizing and evaluating the impact of public and private initiatives in Brazil. This was the main suggestion made by the researchers, which involved the following recommendations: 1) compulsory submission of information from companies and technology parks in case they want to compete for financial incentives from the federal government; 2) systematization of the data collection process in technology parks; 3) continuous use of tools for classification, monitoring, and impact assessment of parks before, during, and after the decision-making process on funding; and 4) engagement of the academic community in the evaluation and classification of technology parks. The request for the creation of an evaluation methodology for technology parks by the MCTI is an important step in this direction. “Our intention is to support the establishment of a culture of evaluation of investments made, especially in the public sphere. Evaluation analysis here in Brazil is still far behind from what is done in Europe. We need to get used to, and I am not just talking about the parks, monitoring the results and impacts of public programs,” expresses Fischer.

Meanwhile, Brazil is witnessing a growth in the number of technology parks and has several good examples of parks that became important hubs for regional development, as shown below. “The moment has been one of growth in the number of parks in the country. With the development of a healthy innovation ecosystem, associated with better infrastructure, partnerships with universities, interaction between local government and technology parks, fostering the creation of scientific, productive, and technological competencies, and a more consistent impact evaluation, the parks have everything to generate significant socioeconomic gains in Brazil,” concludes.

News

Inovação a todo custo? Produzindo uma metodologia de avaliação dos parques tecnológicos no Brasil

March 2, 2021

Documento aponta para a importância do avanço dos parques tecnológicos no país…desde que este abranja também todo o seu ecossistema

Parque Tecnológico São José dos Campos/SP, atualmente o maior do Brasil.

_{Author: Guilherme Cavalcante Silva}

Há um reconhecimento universal de que um dos principais fatores no crescimento socioeconômico e na sua dinamização é o investimento em processos de inovação. Isso vale especialmente para nações “emergentes” como o Brasil. Nesse sentido, em meio a tantas notícias ruins, o Brasil pode se orgulhar de ter apresentado melhora em sua posição no último índice anual de inovação (Global Innovation Index), publicado no segundo semestre de 2020, saltando quatro posições (atualmente está no 62º lugar no ranking, entre 131 países avaliados), ocupando o quarto lugar na América Latina – ainda que o cenário de desenvolvimento de capacidade tecnológica ainda esteja longe do ideal, como aponta este estudo. Neste contexto, os parques tecnológicos ganham proporção cada vez maior no país.

Ao todo, segundo dados da Associação Nacional de Entidades Promotoras de Empreendimentos Inovadores (Anprotec), o Brasil possui 43 parques tecnológicos em operação e 60 nas fases de implantação e em projeto; destes, 36 na área de Tecnologia da Informação e Comunicação (TIC), 25 em biotecnologia; e 22 na área de energia – os três principais temas de interesse dos parques. Mas, afinal, o que são parques tecnológicos? Se o cenário que você pensou é o das mega empresas de tecnologia do Vale do Silício, é melhor deixar o imaginário dos filmes de lado. Os parque tecnológicos são bem mais do que um conglomerado de empresas da área de TIC. Eles exercem uma função vital nos ecossistemas locais de inovação e no fomento à produção, pesquisa e empreendedorismo inovador.

O que são parques tecnológicos?
_{A definição sobre o que é parque tecnológico aparece de forma variada na literatura sobre o assunto. Algumas definições são mais estritas, enquanto outras aparecem de forma mais ampla. De modo geral, parque tecnológico, segundo a definição da Protec, é um complexo produtivo industrial de serviços de base científico-tecnológica, planejado, tendo caráter formal, concentrado e cooperativo, agregando empresas cuja produção se baseie em pesquisa e desenvolvimento, promovendo a cultura de inovação, competitividade e capacitação empresarial com o objetivo de incrementar a riqueza de uma região. Em resumo, ele se baseia na concentração geográfica e planejada de empresas com orientação para pesquisa, desenvolvimento e inovação. Portanto, nem toda zona industrial ou condomínio de empresas é um parque tecnológico.}

A Secretaria de Desenvolvimento Tecnológico e Inovação do Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações e Comunicações (MCTI) encomendou recentemente a criação de uma metodologia de classificação e avaliação dos parques tecnológicos no Brasil, com o objetivo não apenas de pensar em estratégias de desenvolvimento, mas de otimizar a alocação de recursos públicos na criação e manutenção destes. O projeto, encabeçado pelo Grupo de Estudos sobre Organização da Pesquisa e da Inovação (Geopi/Unicamp), contou com a coordenação de três membros do InSySPo: Bruno Fischer, Paola Schaeffer e Camila Zeitoum. O relatório foi concluído e enviado ao ministério no fim de 2020.

Dentro do propósito de fornecer uma metodologia para classificar e priorizar o fomento por parte do governo em parques tecnológicos, o relatório acaba por quebrar algumas noções comuns associadas a estes, como a ideia de que a implantação massiva deles, por si só, é capaz de gerar um boom socioeconômico na região onde estão situados. Para tanto, incorpora-se, dentre as dimensões avaliadas pela metodologia, aspectos relativos às condições do ecossistema onde o parque se encontra e seu alinhamento produtivo e com as políticas públicas locais. “O parque não tem como objetivo ser o principal elemento de promoção do desenvolvimento regional. Ele aparece como um importante dinamizador de algo que já está se estabelecendo”, alerta Zeitoum. O investimento em parques sem planejamento ou consideração para com a vocação e o grau de desenvolvimento locais, bem como a disponibilidade de recursos humanos qualificados, pode produzir os famosos “elefantes brancos”, que trazem amplos déficits aos cofres públicos.

Mapa com os parques tecnológicos em operação no país. Fonte: VIA Estação Conhecimento – UFSC.

“É lógico que se fosse simples criar um parque tecnológico em uma região economicamente periférica e esperar que isso gere desenvolvimento para a região seria fantástico. Mas não é isso que acontece. O que a gente percebe, pelas evidências, é que você pode criar um parque tecnológico e ele virar um ralo de insumos. Quanto mais dinheiro público você coloca, na ausência de determinadas condições, mais ele suga sem dar retornos que justifiquem a sua existência. Por quê? Existem coisas anteriores que precisam ser entendidas, os motivos de não haver desenvolvimento socioeconômico ali. Estas são questões são complexas e o parque não vai suprir essa miríade de elementos que influenciam o desenvolvimento regional”, exemplifica Fischer. Vale lembrar que somente em 2020, o orçamento da pasta chegou a R$ 15 bilhões em 2020.

A realidade dos limites de iniciativas isoladas, como a construção de parques tecnológicos no desenvolvimento socioeconômico regional, aponta para a complexidade que envolve a redução de assimetrias econômicas e tecnológicas entre regiões de um país, como a existente entre Norte/Nordeste e Sul/Sudeste, e mesmo entre blocos de países, como América Latina e Europa/América do Norte. “Não adianta criar algo porque é tendência internacional. É preciso que haja ativos complementares para isso na região. Caso contrário, os resultados ficarão bem aquém do que se espera. A grande questão é que essas mudanças de orientação e desenvolvimento não são rápidas, nem fáceis”, conclui Fischer. Um dos pontos fortes da metodologia é justamente considerar o papel do parque no âmbito do ecossistema em questão e suas potencialidades em termos de interações internas e com o ambiente externo e, com isso, sinalizar pontos de convergência e aspectos onde se façam necessários alinhamentos e eventuais investimentos específicos.

Um dos objetivos da metodologia era ressaltar a importância do chamado “ecossistema de inovação” [ver infográfico abaixo] na criação de projetos voltados para avanços tecnológicos e de inovação. Essa expressão, comum entre pesquisadores da área de inovação, aponta para a importância de considerarmos a relação entre diversos fatores para o êxito de projetos de inovação. Fatores estes que ultrapassam as “quatro” paredes das empresas e seus recursos financeiros e materiais, envolvendo aspectos menos “palpáveis” como: políticas públicas a nível regional e local; orientação industrial, tecnológica e econômica pré-existente no local; capacidade científica e de formação de recursos humanos atrelada à região (ex: universidades ou centros de pesquisa), entre outros. “O parque não é descolado do seu contexto. O parque depende da universidade formando pessoas para seu pessoal, bem como do governo local, que precisa estar engajado na iniciativa. Outras empresas vão demandar ou fornecer produtos para as empresas que estão no parque. Tudo isso é vital, se não o parque vira um condomínio desconexo de empresas, improdutivo e acarretando prejuízos contínuos”, aponta Schaeffer.

O Mapeamento de Avaliação de Parques Tecnológicos do Brasil (MAPTec) construiu vários indicadores para avaliar quantitativamente (de 0 a 1) cada uma das dimensões do parque tecnológico – quais sejam: ecossistema externo e interno/interações, governança, e resultados/impactos, concluindo na construção de três perfis característicos dos parques tecnológicos brasileiros: o parque líder (com pontuação mais alta, <0,85), o parque seguidor (pontuações medianas, 0,60-0,85) e o parque embrionário (pontuações baixas, >0,60). Embora não tenham realizado um levantamento exaustivo sobre a quantidade de parques situada em cada um destes perfis, a equipe responsável pela pesquisa propôs uma série de iniciativas a fim de otimizar a avaliação e estimular a transição dos parques para estágios mais consolidados de organização. “Fizemos a metodologia com uma preocupação de evidenciar para o gestor público o que os perfis estão indicando, isto é, quais são os pontos fortes de cada parque, quais são os gargalos e fragilidades de cada um, levando em conta os diferentes estágios de maturidade. Assim, ele consegue definir prioridades no seu planejamento e gasto”, acrescenta Zeitoum.

Além de demonstrar a importância de conter a implementação de iniciativas de fomento à inovação a todo custo, o mapeamento lança à tona o desafio de sistematizar e avaliar o impacto das iniciativas públicas e privadas no Brasil. Essa foi a principal sugestão feita na conclusão da metodologia, o que envolvia as seguintes recomendações: 1) compulsoriedade do envio de informação para as empresas e parques tecnológicos concorrerem a incentivo financeiro do governo federal; 2) sistematização do processo de coleta de dados dos parques tecnológicos; 3) uso contínuo de ferramentas de classificação, monitoramento e avaliação de impacto dos parques antes, durante e depois do processo de tomada de decisão sobre fomento; e 4) engajamento da comunidade acadêmica na avaliação e classificação de parques tecnológicos. A solicitação da criação de uma metodologia de avaliação dos parques, por parte do MCTI, é um importante passo nesse sentido. “Nossa intenção é apoiar o estabelecimento de uma cultura de avaliação dos investimentos feitos especialmente na esfera pública. A análise de impacto aqui no Brasil ainda é bem defasada em relação ao que é feito na Europa e Estados Unidos. Precisamos nos acostumar, e não falo apenas em relação aos parques, a fazer um acompanhamento de resultados e impactos de programas públicos”, ressalta Fischer.

Enquanto isso, o Brasil testemunha um crescimento no número de parques tecnológicos e conta com vários bons exemplos de parques que se tornaram importantes polos de desenvolvimento regional e de fomento a inovação, como mostra o quadro abaixo. “O momento tem sido de crescimento no número de parques no país. Com o desenvolvimento de um ecossistema de inovação saudável, associado à uma melhor infraestrutura, parcerias com universidades, interação entre governo local e parque tecnológico, fomento à criação de competências científicas, produtivas e tecnológicos e uma avaliação de impacto mais consistente, os parques têm tudo para continuar gerando ganhos socioeconômicos significativos no Brasil”, conclui Fischer.

News

March edition of the workshop series discusses Innovation Policy

February 25, 2021

Global Value Chains, governance, and large-scale policy programs are some of the topics of the fourth edition of the “Technology Upgrading and Economic Catch-Up” workshop series

Free registration available here

The second to last edition of the “Technology Upgrading and Economic Catch-Up” online workshop series will discuss innovation policy and its implications for technology upgrading. The event is taking place on March 25, from 9am to 11am (São Paulo, Brazil local time). The workshop series is the result of a joint effort between the São Paulo Excellence Chair program InSysPo (Innovation Systems, Strategies and Policy), part of the Department of Science and Technology Policy, University of Campinas (Unicamp, Brazil), and other leading institutions in innovations studies from all over the world.

The next edition explores different facets of innovation policies for technology upgrading in the context of changing policy philosophies evolving from import substitution earlier on and the Washington consensus policies more recently to the pandemic/post-pandemic context of today. Some of the questions to be addressed are: how countries can reshape the nature of the existing value chains and innovation networks dominated by foreign multinational enterprises (MNEs)? How to set initiatives and programs to use Global Value Chains (GVCs) as levers for local technology accumulation? What are the limits of GVC-only technology upgrading policies? Finally, how should policymakers go about implementing new policy? You can check the whole list of topics and speakers by clicking here. The event is hosted online through the video conferencing platform Zoom, with a live stream on Youtube.

Besides InSysPo, the series is co-organized by the Institute for International Science and Technology Policy (George Washington University), the UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies – University College London, the Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge (National Research University/Higher School of Economics), and Seoul National University.

ABOUT THE SERIES:

This series of workshops explores the major issues related to the technology upgrading of emerging and catching up economies. It discusses the state-of-the-art understanding of the issues around technology upgrading and economic catch-up, exploring country, sector and firm-level issues based on a variety of country experiences.

The background for the presentations are contributions in the forthcoming Oxford University Press volume “The Challenges of Technology and Economic Catch-Up in Emerging Economies” edited by Jeong-Dong Lee (Seoul National University), Keun Lee (Seoul National University), Dirk Meissner (Higher School of Economics – NRU), Slavo Radosevic (University College London), and Nicholas Vonortas (George Washington University/University of Campinas).

You can watch the full video of the first three editions below:

Author Archives: guilhermecavalcantesilva