Diffusion and adoption of high technologies in emerging countries. From University-­‐firm linkages to business clusters in Argentina

GRACIELA GUTMAN; PABLO LAVARELLO; VERONICA ROBERT

Montreal

Conferencia; The 16th International Schumpeter Society; 2016

ISS

The discussion on science and technology (S&T) policies in emergent countries, aimed at reducing the technology-gap and generating structural change, requires new approaches. In this article we discuss the trade-off between top-down and bottom-up policies to foster technology poles and clusters based on public and private R&D collaborations. We propose that both types of policies should be complemented when the objective is to encourage local science and technology networks and to link them with the national policy orientation in S&T, implicitly or explicitly present in national systems of innovation(Howells, 1999; Charles and Benneworth, 2001).The extensive literature on public policy experiences oriented to the promotion of technological linkages has shown that, over the last 30 years, the emphasis has changed from top-down policies to bottom-up ones (Morgan, 1995; Howells, 2005; Ergas, 1987; Canter and Pyka 1999). This is aligned with the shift from linear to no-linear models of innovation (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000; Rosemberg, 1982; Niosi, 1999) and with the growing acknowledgment of the relevance of local learning processes embedded in territories (Cook, 1992; Cook and Morgan, 1998;Longhi, 1999; AsheimandGelter, 2005; Martin and Sunley, 1996; Boshma, 2005). This new policy standard acknowledges that the greater autonomy of decentralized actors in problem solving and searching and the spontaneous propensity to generate new linkages foster the emergence of new combinations of technologies (Arthur, 2009). Cases such as technological clusters like Silicon Valley (Saxeniean, 1985), technopoles like Sofia Antipolis (Longhi, 1999); industrial districts likeBaden-Württemberg (Cooke and Morgan 1994) or Italian districts (Beccatini, 1991 and 2004), and some bioclusters in developed countries (Carlson, 2012; Papaioannou, 2009; Niosi and Banik, 2005) provide plenty of evidences onthe benefices of policies aimed at fostering bottom-up processes for local development. However, some authors have pointed out that, even in most paradigmatic cases of bottom-up-driven processes of technological developments ?such as IT and aerospace industries in US or software industry in Israel ? and relationships between universities, public institututes and firms have been more or lessdeliberately promoted by strategic top-down public policies, through specific funding, public procurement, and regulatory contexts (Saxenian,1985; Mazzucato, 2006; Ruttan, 2006, Breznitz, 2007). This has been specially the cases of cutting edge new complex technological systems, linked to national security, health or where markets do not exist yet. Nevertheless, both perspectives coincide in the key role played by interactions and feedbacks between firms and publicly-founded scientific institutions. Regarding new technologies such as biotechnology, nanotechnology or IT, characterized by a high interpenetration between scientific and technological knowledge, these interactions are even more relevant for clusters or regional innovation systems (Pisano, 2006; Malerba and Orsenigo, 1996, Romijn and Albaladejo, 2002).This is because they boost the technological capabilitybuilding processes and facilitate the identification of opportunities since they allow a greater flow of knowledge, diffusion of experiences, emergence of spin-offs, and consolidation of innovative activities in local environment. In emergent countries like Argentina, where technological change refers mostly to adoption, diffusion and adaptation of preexistent technologies in well defined trajectories, instead of development of cutting edge new technologies and , the discussions about technological policies at local and national levels requires new approaches beyond the antagonism between top-down and bottom-up perspectives. Recent national level policy experiences in Argentina,aimed at generating linkages between public science and technologies institutions (mostly universities) and private firms,have taken mainly bottom-up approach. On other hand, several universities have assumed an active role in technology transfer activities and fostering S&T poles and clusters, although with different proximity and interactions with national and regional innovation systemsAll those policies and initiatives have encouraged the spontaneous development of S&T networks based on public-private partnerships, and gave place to raise interesting experiences of clusters and poles formation in different geographical areas across the country. Nevertheless, the criteria for the partnership statement or for network organization was kept mostly under a more or less spontaneous market logic and their success strongly depended on the availability of local complementary assets (production capacities, regulatory context, organizational networks). Therefore new linkages generation were localized and not enough to reinforce the National System of Innovation.In this article, we analyze the proximity between incipient S&T poles and clusters and national system of innovation. We argue that both, top down and bottom up policies are necessary to boost the technological catching-up process in emerging countries, since local environment is key for identifying potential areas for local capacity building, meanwhile national level can meet national needs in the context of state inclusive development programs. For this purpose, we look at threes case of technological development based on public-private partnerships in different localizations in Argentina developed in the contexts of localS&Tpoles and clusters formation.The first case refers the story of a biotechnological laboratory incubated in a pubic university and then acquired by a biopharma business group. This firm has developed and produced several molecules for first wave biosimilar drugs to be commercialized mostly abroad, in countries with low regulatory standards and now is developing new complex biosimilars. The second case describes a public-private partnership for innovation in bio-nanotechnology, lead by a research group at Universidad Nacional de San Martín and a diversified animal and human health group. The story refers to a new technological platform development for production of diagnosis kit for in-situ detection of infectious diseases ?withhigh incidence in national population, like Chagas, Denge and Chikungunya? and for veterinary uses ?Brucelosis? in association with national foundation for nanotechnology and an important biotech firm specialize mostly in animal health. .The third case analyze the development of a software business cluster in Tandil city that was born when the Universidad Nacional del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires encourage the incubation of software firms in three informatics labs. Soon, those firms grew and generated several spin offs that gave place to a local ecosystems of software firms ?aimed at providing software development services for global outsourcing developments?differently related to the University.The results suggest that policies implemented at national and local levels contribute to the emergence of these cases, since they help in generating opportunities to link and shorten the distance between actors (Boschma, 2005). Nevertheless is not clear how they are articulated with national S&T orientation. This result highlight the risk of not be able of capitalizing the technological capacities build with public funding to national S&T needs.