Search

The purpose of this paper is to spatially and regionally examine academic engagement within Brazil, identifying patterns. Moreover, our investigation can contribute to a better understanding of how knowledge can be turned into a tool to fight regional inequality. We depart from two hypotheses: first, universities situated in peripheral regions interact more with companies from relatively more dynamic regions, and second, in the absence of industrial knowledge demand, universities tend to collaborate more closely with a diverse range of stakeholders in the region. To evaluate these hypotheses and find empirical evidence, we consider 4497 research groups and 4603 nonacademic organizations as "nodes" connected by 8830 collaborations throughout all Brazilian regions. Social network tools are used to illustrate the spatial and regional dimensions of academic engagement more accurately. The results show that academic engagement is not regionally homogeneous, demonstrating essential differences regarding local nonacademic partnerships. Innovation policies, which encourage only university–firm interactions, perpetuate regional inequality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study examined how the multi-country green technology co-patenting network structure evolved from 1997 to 2016. For that purpose, we used Social Network Analysis tools, which allowed us to assess the network structure from a visual and quantitative perspective. The results indicate that the network expanded as the number of participating countries and ties increased. In all periods, the network grew significantly centralized around a small group of countries, in which the U.S., Great Britain, Germany, France, and Canada had paramount weight. Emerging countries like India and China also stood out due to their growth over time, as they eventually managed to gain central positions in the network. Other developing countries remained marginal, such as Brazil. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the existence of studies addressing the historical development of digital platforms, none of them has yet drawn a coherent and comprehensive interpretation of the emergence of scientific digital platforms. The previous literature (i) focuses on specific scientific practices; (ii) does not reach far enough back into the past; (iii) does not cover all relevant groups of social actors; (iv) does not propose a taxonomy for scientific digital platforms; and (v) does not provide a definition for scientific digital platforms. We propose in this paper a long-term view (from 1990 onwards), allowing us to identify the participation of distinct groups of social actors—within State, Market and Science subsystems—in the process of science platformization. Dialoguing with the most up-to-date literature, we broaden our understanding of the ongoing process of platformization of the research life cycle, proposing a taxonomy and a definition for scientific digital platforms. The evidence provided throughout the paper unveils that (i) the changes (caused by platformization) in each of the phases of the research cycle are not at all linear and are not happening simultaneously; (ii) actors from different subsystem played important roles in the platformization of science; and, (iii) specific categories of platforms have consolidated themselves as infrastructures and certain scientific infrastructures have been platformed, although this varies by category. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper throws some light on the relationship between domestic knowledge production and economic development for a group of countries in different periods of time. In particular, this article presents a statistical analysis using the Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) method and corroborates that there is a strong relationship between economic development and the domestic capacity to produce new knowledge. We use as a proxy for domestic knowledge production the patent application by residents and the metric of income level used was the GDP per capita. We show that an increase in the stock of knowledge produced by residents is an important policy to generate income in an economic system once residents are able to appropriate the gains for the use of this new knowledge. Accordingly, there is a dual effect: Knowledge stock growth has a positive impact on GDP, and GDP growth leads to increases in resources to be used for new knowledge generation. In times of global value chains and capital mobility, incentivizing creative imitation, absorption, and production of new knowledge seems to be a valid strategy for less industrialized countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The growing U.S. R&D internationalization has historically been concentrated in developed countries. However, in the past few decades, the internationalization has moved toward less‐developed countries (LDCs), particularly Brazil, China, and India. What location factors are making some LDCs more "inviting" for U.S. R&D offshore? To answer this first question, we constructed a panel data using secondary data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis regarding the R&D investment made by the majority‐owned foreign affiliates of U.S. parent companies in 71 countries. We then applied a Heckman two‐step correction for selection bias test. The results highlight some important differences between developed countries' and LDCs' attractiveness. Based on these initial results, we conducted a detailed analysis of the determinants of U.S. R&D investments in Brazil, China, and India, which revealed that China's determinants mostly match those found in more developed countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

High quality research infrastructure is required to conduct S&T activities which may help to address national challenges and contribute to innovation processes. Given this, an exhaustive survey conducted by the Brazilian Institute of Applied Economic Research (Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada) was undertaken to diagnose the current research infrastructure situation in Brazil. Using this data, the present paper provides information that allows us to yield new insights based on the peculiarities of the research infrastructure in Brazil, complementing the studies already present in the literature. Two econometric models—logit and probit—were used to "measure" the relative modernity of the research infrastructure in the country. We test the impact of variables frequently present in innovation studies—lab size, S&T production scale and scope, lab longevity and interactions with other labs and profit-seeking firms. We found that scaling up, modernizing and interacting with other agents of the innovation system increase the chances of a research infrastructure to be considered "advanced". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The student of innovation studies is faced with a vast, multi-national and interdisciplinary field on which she must gain an overview and make a novel contribution. There exist a plethora of academic journals, networks, conferences and fora wherein researchers of innovation discuss and advance the topic. How to manage and understand this is a major challenge. This paper helps to make sense of this often confusing and ever-shifting field by reviewing the major developments over the past 20 years, highlighting the present ‘state of the art’ and identifying some important trends going forwards. It does this through a review of the published themes of two major international conferences in the field - Danish Research Unit for Industrial Dynamics (DRUID) and Global Network for the Economics of Learning, Innovation, and Competence Building Systems (GLOBELICS) - to gain a global view on the field. At the heart of the exploration is whether the sphere of innovation studies has evolved coherently worldwide, or there are geographic differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Apuntes: Revista de Ciencias Sociales is the property of Universidad del Pacifico and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

From an empirical perspective and using some historical elements, we speculate about the role of intellectual property rights (IPRs) in the information and communications technology paradigm in the context of production fragmentation and global value chains and the challenges they impose on learning. We use an evolutionary economics framework to understand the importance of 'learning' in a competitive economy where firms that absorb knowledge increase their opportunities to innovate and to obtain larger market shares. Exploring data from Brazil and South Korea we find similarities in both countries regarding the intellectual property (IP) balance of payments: both have an IP balance of payments deficit. However, data from national IPRs offices shows that residents in South Korea are more apt to generate knowledge than residents in Brazil, which can be attributed to the difference in importance given by these countries to their industrial policies and the way both have integrated global value chains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The literature analyzing the spatial distribution of scientific and technological production in Brazil identifies differences in the regional distribution of scientific and technological resources. In this paper, we contribute to this discussion, by analyzing the dynamics of the production of new scientific knowledge in the states that contributed the most to national scientific production in the period 2000–10: Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais and Rio Grande do Sul, also known as the ‘scientific quartet’. Our hypothesis is that even with federal policies aimed at the expansion and decentralization of the production of new scientific knowledge, this production is still strongly anchored in the ‘scientific quartet’. We further identify a concentration of scientific production in three major areas of knowledge: agricultural, biological and health sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]