Abortion pills in Saudi Arabia (+919707899604)cytotec pills in dammam
Revisión de la Innovación en el Perú
1. OECD Review of Innovation Policy:
Peru
Main results and recommendations
Dominique Guellec and Gernot Hutschenreiter
Country Studies and Outlook Division
Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, OECD
2. OUTLINE
• Context, nature and process of the Review
• Sustainable development: The innovation imperative
• Peru’s innovation system
Overall performance: some international benchmarks
Strengths and weaknesses
• Policy recommendations
Guiding principles
Recommendations
3. OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy
• In 2005, the OECD/CSTP decided to launch a
demand-driven programme of Country
Reviews. Since then:
Completed: Luxembourg, Switzerland, New
Zealand, South Africa, Chile, Norway, China,
Hungary, Korea, Greece, Mexico, Russian
Federation, Peru
Ongoing and under launch: Slovenia,
Sweden, Vietnam
Others requested or under discussion,
including with Brazil, Vietnam (in co-
operation with the World Bank) and others,
first discussions with Indonesia
Regional Reviews: South-East Asia
(ongoing), Latin America Innovation
Initiative (launching event in March 2011
in Mexico), MENA (under discussion)
• Scope: Comprehensive analysis of the
respective national innovation system, with
a focus on the role of government policy
See: www.oecd.org/sti/innovation/reviews
4. Context and nature of the Review of Peru’s Innovation Policy
• At the request of Peru’s Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF), and with
support if the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the Review was
undertaken under the aegis of the OECD Committee of Scientific and
Technological Policy (CSTP)
• An interim Assessment and Recommendations (A&R) report was presented
in March 2011 to the Minister of Economy and Finance and at a stakeholder
workshop in Lima
• The draft final report was completed in July 2011 and sent for comments to
MEF
• The final report was presented to MEF and a stakeholder meeting o n 30
November 2011 in Lima
• The Review will be presented to the OECD’s CSTP at its Spring 2012 session
5. The innovation imperative for Peru’s sustainable development (1)
• Peru recorded impressive economic growth over the last decade, based on
sound macro-economic management, structural reform and increased
openness to international trade and investment
• Yet there are challenges for the sustainability of high performance in the future:
Sources of growth: Low level and lack of dynamism in Total Factor Productivity (no
contribution to growth during 1995-2007)
Narrow export specialisation: natural resources exposed to high price volatility
Slow progress in diversification, despite some success in transforming agricultural
production
Shortfalls in skilled human resources
• Fostering innovation throughout the economy is key for boosting productivity
and international competitiveness, advancing diversification and addressing
social needs
6. The innovation imperative for Peru’s sustainable development (2)
• High macro-economic performance provides a unique window of opportunity
for strengthening innovation in the Peruvian economy
• The Peruvian government has expressed its commitment to foster innovation
and some initiatives have been taken already
• Yet investment in innovation needs to be stepped up significantly
• ... but these increases should go hand in hand with improvements of the
governance of the innovation system in order to ensure that this investment
will pay off and eventually increases social welfare
7. GDP growth
Peru and selected Latin American countries, 1990-2010
Source: IMF.
8. Peru’s innovation system shows major weaknesses
• Lagging innovation performance – by international standards, and vis-à-vis
other emerging economies
Low public and private investment in R&D and innovation and correspondingly
Low levels scientific and innovation output
• Weak overall innovation record of the business sector
• Weak performance of public research institutions (with some exceptions)
Low on output
Weak links, notably to business firms
High share of institutional funding
Inefficient governance and dysfunctional constraints
• Weak Higher Education sector (apart from a few universities)
Governance / incentive system does not reward excellence
Insufficient links to business sector
Lack of accreditation mechanisms
• Shortfalls in human capital and educational performance (PISA)
9. PISA scores in educational performance
Peru and selected countries, 2009
Reading scale Mathematics scale Science scale
OECD average 493 496 501
Korea 539 546 538
Finland 536 541 554
Spain 481 483 488
Chile 449 421 447
Mexico 425 419 416
Colombia 413 381 402
Brazil 412 386 405
Argentina 402 388 401
Peru 370 360 369
Last country 314 331 330
Peru ranking in 65
63 64 64
countries
Source: OECD, PISA 2009.
10. GERD as a share of GDP
Peru and selected countries, 1990-2008
Source: RICYT, IDB, OECD
11. USPTO patents
Peru and selected Latin American countries, 1996-2009
1996-1999 2000-2004 2005-2009 1996-2009
Peru 12 17 9 38
Brazil 290 540 492 1322
Chile 37 65 82 184
Colombia 26 46 34 106
Mexico 217 422 316 955
Source: USPTO.
12. Innovation performance is also held back by weaknesses in
governance and some institutional arrangements
• STI policy and institutions remain largely fragmented and poorly endowed
with resources
• Weak governance
Lack of overarching inter-ministerial co-ordination mechanisms for priority
setting, policy orientation and budgetary allocations
Lack of clear institutional assignment of competencies in policy design and
implementation which can create conflict of interest
Lack of monitoring and evaluation
• Weak institutions
Discrepancy between legal and actual responsibilities (e.g., Concytec)
Overly broad missions of some funds/institutions; frequent overlap of scope of
action among institutions / funds
A fair degree of institutional inertia
13. Innovation performance is also held back by some regulatory
arrangements
• Restrictions to the transfer of public funds to private-sector institutions
reduce the leverage of public support on private innovation investment
• SNIP regulations on public expenditures for investment purposes
are ill-adapted to the requirements of (intangible) investment in R&D and
innovation ... leading to delays and complex administrative procedures
• The tax regime
does not appear to be favourable to investment for R&D and innovation
• Rigidities in the use of Canon Law funds for regional universities
lead to inefficient allocation of resources
• Lack of autonomy combined with rigidities in labour laws
restrict human resource management in PRIs ... leading to a need to recruit better
qualified personnel as temporary workers
• Labour laws applicable to civil servants
restrict inter-institutional mobility and revenues from services rendered to
another institution ... negatively affecting public university researchers’
engagement in collaborative projects
14. Recent innovation policy initiatives
• Development of technological innovation centres (CITEs) starting in 2000
• Establishment of two well-endowed funds co-financed by the Peruvian
government and multilateral financing organisations
INCAGRO launched in 2001, promoting technology transfer and P/P collaboration
in the agricultural sector
FINCYT launched in 2007, promoting a wide range of programmes, including
strengthening the research and innovation capacities in firms, universities and
PRCs and collaboration between them
• FIDECOM, a domestic fund established by MEF in 2006, promoting productive
innovation, also emphasising collaboration
• Canon Law amended in 2004 to allocate part of the resources provided to
regional governments to finance investment projects aimed at developing
research capacities in regional public universities (with some dysfunctional
regulatory constraints, however)
• Post graduate scholarships
15. Recent policy initiatives – positive but limited impact in a
fragmented institutional setting
• Overall these are positive developments contributing to expanding
business investment in R&D and innovation (albeit moderately)
to some degree the knowledge-base of research institutions, incl. Universities
receiving additional funding, and to a lesser extent their technology transfer
activities
activity of technology transfer institutions aimed at fostering productivity growth
• But critical mass may still be lacking. In particular the initiatives
have not been able to catalise a process of systematic technological upgrading
reach only a small number of firms
… and their impact has been weakened by a fragmented institutional setting ,
regulatory obstacles and major weaknesses in innovation policy governance
(resulting in latent conflicts in implementation, duplications, and thus further
dispersion of resources).
16. Recommendations: Governance architecture
• A stronger commitment to S&T and innovation and increased resources
need to be accompanied by improved efficiency of governance mechanisms
• The Review discusses three design options for overarching governance
The creation of a new Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation
A horizontal policy design with one principal implementation agency attached
to a transversal ministerial body (with responsibilities similar to those of
CONACYT in Mexico in inter-ministerial co-ordination and co-funding )
A co-ordinated policy design with several implementation agencies (an
adaptation of the Chilean variant): Inter-ministerial Committee, in with strong
involvement of MEF complemented by an advisory council)
• A key role in steering the new governance system should be played by
the Presidency of the Ministerial Council (PMC)
MEF, with additional advantages as regards its competencies in budgetary
allocation
17. Specific recommendations: Higher Education and
Human Resources
• Initiate a reform of university governance that promotes excellence in
research and facilitates retaining and promoting the most qualified
personnel; to achieve this goal use institutional financing and move
towards performance-based and competitive funding
• Provide incentives to the private sector to hire S&T postgraduates
• Alleviate regulations that impede the participation of public university
researchers to private enterprises’ S&T projects and inter-institutional
mobility
• Promote the development of IPR management in the higher education
sector
18. Specific recommendations: Public Research Institutes
• Reform the governance of PRIs to ensure that they fulfil their core
missions efficiently; include major stakeholders in their boards; enforce
accountability and performance agreements with feedback to the volume
of institutional funding; set objectives for the share of competitive grants,
contracts and revenues from technological services
• Define qualifying criteria for PRI status (e.g. share of S&T personnel);
mitigate the negative effects of rigid labour rules and short-term contracts
for qualified researchers
• Consider streamlining the PRI system
• Provide incentives for the mobility of PRI S&T staff to the private sector
and vice versa
• Develop IPR management capacities of PRIs
• Encourage the participation of PRIs in international research networks
19. Specific recommendations: Promotion of innovation in
the business sector
• Review regulations governing transfer of public resources to the private
sector in light of the legitimacy of such transfers to foster private S&T and
innovation activities
• Give the business sector a more prominent role in the governance of the
innovation system and the definition of strategic orientations and priorities
• Give more attention to impediments to innovation related to physical
infrastructure bottlenecks (transport, ICT, logistics) as well as to S&T
infrastructure (metrology, standards, IPR)
• Lift obstacles to the creation and growth of new technology-based firms;
consider specific support schemes in existing funds
• Continue to give a premium to public-private collaboration projects.
• Consider mission-oriented or sectoral support programmes predicated upon
collaborative arrangements; select programmes on the basis of criteria
related to national interest and natural resource endowments
(e.g. biodiversity).
20. Specific recommendations: Intermediaries
• Consider an expansion of CITEs in terms of:
sectoral coverage
strengthened capacity in applied research to better address firms with an innovation
potential
raising the demand for technology / R&D by a larger set of firms or organisations and
provision of training services to those firms
• Strengthen institutions that provide intangible S&T infrastructure (technological
information, IPR-related services, metrology, certification, standards) and
facilitate access to their services
21. Specific recommendations: Legal and regulatory reform
• Review and revise the SNIP procedures that apply to public investment in
R&D and innovation activities (or public support to such activities); as
regards the application of SNIP procedures to innovation fund projects, the
rules that apply to FINCYT should be generalised
• Consider revising the tax code to set clear rules allowing investment in R&D
to be written off against profits
22. Thank you for your attention
Contacts
Dominique.Guellec@oecd.org
Gernot.Hutschenreiter@oecd.org
Web Resource
www.oecd.org/sti/innovation/reviews