2. Summary
1. Who we are
2. Introduction – Brazil: Innovation and Development
3. Innovation studies: the Brazilian experience
4. IPS Model: the Brazilian case
5. Insights for future developments
6. Final remarks
4. The Brazilian Team
Roberto dos Reis Alvarez (ABDI)
Bruno César Araújo (IPEA)
Rogério Dias Araujo (ABDI)
Mario Sergio Salerno (USP)
5. The Brazilian Team – Short Bios
Roberto dos Reis Alvarez
- International Affairs Manager at the Brazilian Agency for
Industrial Development (ABDI), an organization that he joined
in 2005 and where he held other positions like industrial
development coordinator (deputy to the director).
- A Civil Engineering from the Federal University of Rio Grande
do Sul (UFRGS), he was trained in Quality Control and
Productivity Technique in Japan and he holds Ms.C. and D.Sc.
degrees in Industrial Engineering, from the Brazilian federal
universities of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) and Rio de Janeiro
(COPPE/UFRJ), respectively.
- Before joining ABDI, Mr Alvarez worked in the private sector as
a management and/or operations consultant (manufacturing
and logistics) and entrepreneur in the IT sector.
- He also taught graduated courses at the federal universities of
Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) and
Parana (UFPR).
LinkedIn: http://br.linkedin.com/in/robertodosreisalvarez
Twitter: http://twitter.com/robertoalvarez
Personal web page: http://flavors.me/robertoalvarez
6. The Brazilian Team – Short Bios
Bruno César Araújo
- Researcher at Institute for Applied Economic Research – IPEA
(2004 – present)
- Research fields: innovation metrics and its impacts, foreign
trade, microeconometrics.
- Coordinator of the books: Brazilian Firms and International
Trade (in Portuguese, 2007) and Technological Innovation in
Brazilian and Mexican Firms (in English, 2011)
- Master Degree on Economics of the Public Sector at University
of Brasilia (UnB)
- Foreign Trade Analyst at the Ministry of Development, Industry
and Foreign Trade (2003/2004)
7. The Brazilian Team – Short Bios
Rogério Dias de Araújo
- Competitive Intelligence Coordinator at the Brazilian Agency for
Industrial Development - ABDI;
- Coordinator of many studies on competitiveness and innovation
in cooperation with Universities (Innovation Surveys, Innovation
Studies, Cases Studies, etc);
- Member of the coordination of the task-group that elaborated
the Industrial, Technological and Foreign Trade Policy (PITCE)
of the Federal Government (2003-2004);
- Member of the coordination of the task-group that elaborated
the Productive Development Policy - PDP (2008-2010);
- Member of the coordination of the task-group that elaborated
the “Plano Brasil Maior” (2011-2014);
- Master Degree on Economics at University of Campinas –
Unicamp
- PHD Candidate on Economics at University of Campinas -
Unicamp
- Researcher at Institute for Applied Economic Research – IPEA
(2003/2004)
8. The Brazilian Team – Short Bios
Mario Sergio Salerno
- Full Professor of The Production Engineering Department, Polytechnic
School, University of São Paulo - USP;
- Head of the Department from June 2007 to June 2011; coordinator of the
Innovation Management Laboratory);
- Executive coordinator of The Observatory of Innovation and
Competitiveness at The Institute of Advanced Studies, USP
(www.observatoriousp.pro.br);
- Member of the International Steering Committee of Gerpisa International
Network (www.gerpisa.org), a scientific network on mobility, auto industry
and its workers;
- Regional editor of the International Journal of Automotive Technology
and Management and associate editor of Strategy/Organization/Work of
Gestão&Produção journal;
- Former Director of Industrial Development at the Brazilian Agency for
Industrial Development (ABDI) 2005/2006;
- Former Director of Sectoral Studies at the Institute of Applied Economic
Research (Ipea, 2003-2004);
- Member of the coordination of the task-group that elaborated the
Industrial, Technological and Foreign Trade Policy (PITCE) of the
Federal Government (2003-2004);
- Member of the Technical-Scientific Board of the National Institute of
Technology (INT);
- Member of the Consulting Board of IPT – Institute of Technological
Research of the São Paulo State.
10. 1. Who we are
2. Introduction – Brazil: Innovation and Development
3. Innovation studies: the Brazilian experience
4. IPS Model: the Brazilian case
5. Insights for future developments
6. Final remarks
11. GDP per capita keeps on growing in Brazil since the 70’s
and the pace of growth was shifted to a new level in 2003.
12.
13. Brazil: Inequality reached the lowest level
Gráfico 2.2a: Evolução da desigualdade na renda familiar per
in 32 years
capita no Brasil: CoeficienteIndex – (1977-2007)
(Gini de Gini 1977-2009)
0,640
0,634
0,630
0,623
0,620
0,615 0,612
0,610 Average Gini
Valor médio do
Average de Gini
0,604 0,602 coeficiente Gini
0,600 0,600
0,594 0,596
0,600
Coeficiente de Gini
0,593 Ag 3777 0,599 0,593
0,599 0,598
0,590
CC 12393-0 0,587
0,589
Gini
0,592
0,588
0,580 0,587
0,582 0,581
0,580
0,570 0,569 0,566
Lowest Gini Index
Lowest Gini Index
Valor mínimo do coeficiente de Gini 0,559
0,560
0,552
0,550
0.52
2008
0,520
1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 0,509
2007
Source: PNAD – IBGE – 1977-2008
Anos 2009
Fonte: Estimativas produzidas com base na Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios (PNAD) de 1977 a 2009.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19. The number of papers published by Brazilian researchers
indexed by the ISI has been growing steadly since the
80’s.
21. 1. Who we are
2. Introduction – Brazil: Innovation and Development
3. Innovation studies: the Brazilian experience
4. IPS Model: the Brazilian case
5. Insights for future developments
6. Final remarks
22. A new framework was developed…
A. Firms that have product
differentiation and have launched
a new product to the market
B. Firms specialized in standardised
products (commodities)
C. Firms without product
differentiation and with lower
productivity
23. …considering variables on firms & the Economy
Overview of companies' strategy General overview of the food industry
Firms internationalisation “C” companies’ profiles & strategies
Productivity Cooperation among firms and R&D orgs
Origin of capital Cost and income structure
Technological content of exports Industrial concentration
Work force and wages Governmental acquisitions
MNCs-nationals tech spill overs International comparisons (with CIS3)
Regional issues
spatial distribution of firms
technology and innovation
Determinants of firms’ growth
Sector based analysis
Innovation & tech in the agro-industry
24. The framework was applied in other countries
Innovation &
economic
performance in
Brazil
Innovation &
performance:
Brazil & Latin
America
25. The 3 categories have different characteristics…
Category Productivity Number of Market P&D
(R$1.000/worker) Workers leadership expend.
(% income)
A) Innovate and 74,1 545,9 0,02 3,06
differentiate product
B) Specialised in 44,3 158,1 0,004 0,99
commodities
C) No differentiation / 10,0 34,2 0,00028 0,39
lower productivity
yb dedd a eu la V (Firm income) / P&D
rekrow (CNAE sector expenditures /
income) income
26. ‘A’ companies perform better in all aspects…
Technological innovation is one of the export determinants
Innovative companies are 16% more likely to export than others
Innovative companies generate more jobs & pay better salaries
Averages A= R$ 1.255,00 / B=R$ 749,00 / C= R$ 431,00
Probabilistic model controlling 200 variables (income, sector, exports,
qualification, school time, employment time, turn over, capital origin etc.)
A firms pay wages 23% higher than C and 11% higher than B companies
Wage premium paid by firms that differentiate and innovate product
Innovative effort is greater in Brazilian-owned firms
The result is against the common sense largely diffused in Brazil
Probabilistic model controlling variables such as income, personnel, sector etc
Brazilian-owned (P&D internal expenditures / income) is 80,8% greater than the MNCs
ones
27. Brazil x Argentina x Mexico: from ABC to XYZ….
X. Firms that innovate and differentiate products
i. Firms that launched new products to the national markets according to
Innovation Surveys, and…
ii. invested more than the sector average in R&D/total revenue (following a
common criterion between the countries for the sector averages).
Y. Firms that are specialized in standardized products
i. The rest of the exporters, or…
ii. non-exporters that have higher productivity than the exporters in its
industrial sector.
Z. Non-innovative firms that have a lower productivity
i. Firms that did not fall in the above categories.
28. Firms that are specialized in standardized products have
the largest share of exports, total employment and sales.
In Brazil, innovating and product-differentiating firms have
a larger share of employment, sales and exports than they
have in the two other countries.
In Mexico, there’s a strong specialization towards
standardized products and firms in that category are more
productive than the others.
29. What do results tell us on innovation in LA?
Latin American countries innovative efforts are low;
R&D/industrial sales: 2.7% in Germany and 2.5% in France.
In Brazil, we have more people employed in R&D in each firm, but the
% of total employees as a proportion of the total staff is not so
different than in Argentina because of scale of Brazilian firms.
The lowest value in Mexico (0,08%) illustrates the competitive strategy
of Mexican firms (Note: the Mexican Innovation Survey did not
interview the Maquila firms).
Innovative efforts are biased towards the acquisition of machines and
other equipments related to process innovation, while in Spain in
house R&D is the main source of innovation.
31. 1. Who we are
2. Introduction – Brazil: Innovation and Development
3. Innovation studies: the Brazilian experience
4. IPS Model: the Brazilian case
5. Insights for future developments
6. Final remarks
32. IPS Model: The Brazilian Case
Source: IPS National Competitiveness
Research, 2011-2012
33. IPS Model: The Brazilian Case
Source: IPS National Competitiveness
Research, 2011-2012
34. Factor conditions: factors based competitiveness
Source: Own elaboration, based on Cho, D. and Moon, H. “Distinctive features of GFCC Approach, 2011”.
35. Factor conditions: factors based competitiveness
Source: Own elaboration, based on Cho, D. and Moon, H.
“Distinctive features of GFCC Approach, 2011”.
37. What to do to improve competitiveness?
Source: Own elaboration, based on Cho, D. and Moon, H. “Distinctive features of GFCC Approach, 2011”.
38. IPS Model: The Brazilian Case:
Benchmarking with a single country
Factor Conditions
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Brazil
Demand Conditions 0 Business Context
India
Phyisical Factors
Related Industries
Source: Own elaboration, based on Cho, D. and Moon, H. “Distinctive features of GFCC Approach, 2011”.
39. IPS Model: The Brazilian Case
Benchmarking with a single country
Workers
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Brazil
Professionals 0 Politicians & Bureaucrats
India
Entrepreneurs
Human Factors
Source: Own elaboration, based on Cho, D. and Moon, H. “Distinctive features of GFCC Approach, 2011”.
40. IPS Model: The Brazilian Case
Benchmarking according to the term-priority Matrix
Productivity of
workers:
Output-input
index
5
Quality of life
Life expectancy
at birth
Overall living environment:
Personal security, crime
6 International
Overall living transportation
environment:
Medical service New high-technology
Consumer
sophistication on Industries
Overall living
health and
environment: Finance: Financial
environmental
9 Finance:
Capital
issues
Job description &
individual roles
institution's transparency
accessibility Educational Business Context: Social
Bureaucracy is responsibility
not rigid to system
S&T:
discourage Information
International experience of Politicians Public schools Social safety net
business technology
Consumer activities
Bureaucracy is not rigid to discourage business The legislative Overall living
sophistication on IPR environment: Public order
activities activity of the
parliament
E-business
International experience of officials
Education level
IT training & education of Poltiticans
Source: Own elaboration, based on Cho, D. and Moon, H. “Distinctive features of GFCC Approach, 2011”.
41. What’s the space for Brasil-Korea cooperation?
Source: Own elaboration, based on Cho, D. and Moon, H.
“Distinctive features of GFCC Approach, 2011”.
42. The BR case: revealed vs. Potential competitiveness
Employment Potential Index (2008) GDP growth potential Index (2009) Quality of life potential Index (2009)
Rank Country Rank Country Rank Country Rank Country Rank Country Rank Country
1 Singapore 30 Italy 1 e r o p a g ni S 03 e c e er G 1 United States 30 Romania
2 Sweden 31 Spain 2 l e a r sI 13 n a rI 2 Sweden 31 China
3 Netherlands 32 Mexico 3 gnoK gnoH 23 d n al o P 3 Australia 32 Mexico
4 Denmark 33 Turkey 4 ai d nI 33 tpygE 4 Denmark 33 Turkey
5 Switzerland 34 Brazil 5 d n ali a h T 43 y n a mr e G 5 Netherlands 34 Russia
6 Australia 35 Jordan 6 ail a r t s u A 53 ni a p S 6 United Kingdom 35 South Africa
7 Hong Kong 36 Indonesia 7 nede wS 63 o ci x e M 7 Switzerland 36 Saudi Arabia
8 Iceland 37 Romania 8 s d n al r e h t e N 73 cil b u p e R h c e z C 8 Finland 37 Brazil
9 Israel 38 Panama 9 d n al r e z ti w S 83 a ci r f A h t u o S 9 Germany 38 Thailand
10 Canada 39 Vietnam 01 adanaC 93 ai s e n o d nI 10 France 39 Oman
11 Belgium 40 Saudi Arabia 11 m ui gl e B 04 n a p aJ 11 Austria 40 Colombia
12 Finland 41 Guatemala 21 n a dr oJ 14 y e kr u T 12 Canada 41 Kuwait
13 Austria 42 Greece 31 li z a r B 24 a manaP 13 Belgium 42 Argentina
14 Philippines 43 Russia 41 m o d g ni K d e ti n U 34 ai n a m o R 14 Hong Kong 43 Philippines
15 Korea 44 South Africa 51 s e ni p pili h P 44 d n al e cI 15 Japan 44 Panama
16 United States 45 Peru 61 ai b m ol o C 54 yl a tI 16 New Zealand 45 Peru
17 Germany 46 Kuwait 71 ti a w u K 64 ai t a o r C 17 Singapore 46 Ukraine
18 New Zealand 47 Oman 81 ai r t s u A 74 a ni t n e g r A 18 Spain 47 Jordan
19 Thailand 48 Argentina 91 s e t a t S d e ti n U 84 ai s s u R 19 Italy 48 Indonesia
20 Malaysia 49 Croatia 02 eli h C 94 na m O 20 Iceland 49 Venezuela
21 United Kingdom 50 Colombia 12 a er o K 05 al a m e t a u G 21 Israel 50 Guatemala
22 Czech Republic 51 Morocco 22 d n al a e Z w e N 15 m a n t ei V 22 Czech Republic 51 India
23 Hungary 52 Egypt 32 ur e P 25 e ni a r k U 23 Hungary 52 Egypt
24 France 53 Kyrgyz Republic 42 d n al ni F 35 ai b a r A i d u a S 24 Korea 53 Morocco
25 India 54 Iran 52 kr a m n e D 45 n a t si k a P 25 Poland 54 Sri Lanka
26 China 55 Venezuela 62 e c n ar F 55 cil b u p e R z y g r y K 26 Greece 55 Vietnam
27 Chile 56 Ukraine 72 a ni h C 65 o c c or o M 27 Chile 56 Kyrgyz Republic
28 Poland 57 Pakistan 82 ai s y al a M 75 a k n a L ir S 28 Malaysia 57 Iran
29 Japan 58 Sri Lanka 92 yr a g n u H 85 al e u z e n e V 29 Croatia 58 Pakistan
Source: Cho, D. and Moon, H. “Distinctive features of GFCC Approach, 2011”.
43. IPS Model: a quick summary on the Brazilian case
Brazil ranks 42th:
9th in Factor Conditions;
36th in Business Context and Entrepreneurs;
Equal or above 40th in all the remaining factors.
Brazil is the 5th country in FDI (US$ 48bi in 2010).
Brazil (and all countries) performs better with DS,
Benchmarks for Brazil are India (single country Benchmark),
Saudi Arabia (Politicians & Bureacrats) and Japan (Education
and Overall Living Environment variables).
Model 2: Brazil ranks 13th in Potential Growth competitiveness.
207 variables involved (HDI uses 4 variables).
45. 1. Who we are
2. Introduction – Brazil: Innovation and Development
3. Innovation studies: the Brazilian experience
4. IPS Model: the Brazilian case
5. Insights for future developments
6. Final remarks
46. Insights for future developments
Index structure – dimensions/factors
Sustainability
Innovation
Labor issues
Data: hard x soft
M1 x M2 nexus: variables selection
47. How could sustainability be considered?
Carbon emissions
Energy consumption and efficiency
Water and forest resources
....
