CONICET | Buscador de Institutos y Recursos Humanos

For several years, the approaches of NationalInnovation Systems (NIS) and Global Value Chains (GVC) had little dialogue witheach other. While NIS focused on the development of technological capabilitiesat national level (Lundvall, 1992; Nelson, 1993), GVC studied productioninternationalization at global level (Humphrey & Schmitz, 2002; Gereffi etal., 2005).Recently, severalauthors have suggested a theoretical integration of both approaches,considering not only local but external learning sources involved in catchingup processes (Jurowetzki et al., 2015; Pietrobelli & Rabellotti, 2011). Themain link for such integration relies on innovation (or upgrading), which iskey in both. Although other authors are aware of the centrality of innovation,they discard that integration attempt because of differences in proposedpolicies (Szapiro et al., 2016).This paper aims tocontribute to that debate by exploring the backgrounds of three dimensionslinked to innovation and upgrading. First, interactive learning (Lundvall,1985). Second, structural competitiveness (Freeman, 1982). Third, howmultinational companies' technologicalstrategies influence on NIS (Archibugi and Michie, 1997; Chesnais, 1992).Early contributions toNIS literature highlighted the first two aspects, since interactions within aNIS have a key role as source of technological learning, which in turnstrengthened local technological capabilities and expanded structuralcompetitiveness. The third aspect was addressed by MNE`s literature, whichprecedes GVC approaches, although it was later overlooked by upgradingliterature. In short, we argue that the current debate, ignoring thebackgrounds of these three dimensions, hints to a theoretical integration thatcan be misleading and end in contradictory policy recommendations.

enviar mensaje