Abstract
Despite numerous academic studies focusing on the design of research public policy and the impact on the mix of instruments few have searched on administrative registers of performance and budget assessments. This proposal presents an attempt of meta-analysis of these tasks as a mechanism of policy learning to achieve main purposes of public R&D centers, which can be declared as how to contribute to build S&T capabilities and to regional development and, as the same time, act as recipients to execute public policies and achieve organizational missions. In this chapter the case of Mexico is presented and reveals that research centers have provided grounds to diffuse governmental practices on results-based management and also for the appropriation of private mechanisms to evaluate and control performance. To the extent that public research centers are learning how to accomplish performance indicators, national and regional systems of S&T and innovation are still falling behind in resources spent and executed in total terms and by business sectors. High expectations have been created around improving their performance as a way to earn more resources through institutional mechanisms or market transactions. Reaching both objectives is still far. On one hand, public R&D sector as part of the administration is an average player in terms of efficiency and efficacy with a lot of coordination inefficiencies and in the other, it has not proved to be an active fund raiser on market, showing lags to steer and develop resources for transferring knowledge and technology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Art. II, Fr.7, BASES of organization and functioning of RENIECYT. http://www.conacyt.gob.mx/Acerca/Documentos%20Normatividad/BASES-organizacion-funcionamiento-RENIECYT_10sep08.pdf. Accessed 10 November 2012.
- 2.
SNI is constituted by regulations, administrative staff, a beneficiary list, peer-review units, and an annual budget. Academic bureaucracy designs an annual Request For Proposals where potential beneficiaries—according to their academic merits undergo a paired peer-review as well as an evaluation by consultative commissions—authenticate their reputation and given a positive response, the successful applicants may maintain their productivity through the provision of a full salary via a tax-free scholarship for a certain period of time.
- 3.
This block, ascribed to the education sector, considers itself independent of other public centres, given that they are not para-state entities. However, for the purposes of this explanation, it is maintained here as given that some HEIs include research centers in their structure, in such a way that these centers are controlled, administered, or directly associated with the education sector.
- 4.
See document: Secretary of Public Tax and Credits, Sub-Secretary of Expenses Programmatic Structure to Employ in the proposed Expense Budget of 2013. http://www.hacienda.gob.mx/EGRESOS/PEF/programacion/programacion2013/estructura_programatica_ppef_2013.pdf.
- 5.
The idea of this duality can be clarified by understanding the origin of the resources. According to Estrada González (2009), CONACYT centres of natural and exact sciences receive 25 % of their funding from fiscal resources (Pp E Modality) and 33 % from subsidies (Pp S and U Modalities); that is, through competitive funding. Technological development receives 12 % of its funding from fiscal resources and 17 % from subsidies.
- 6.
- 7.
The focus of analysis on the logical framework is a way to structure the main elements of a project, highlighting the logical links between expected input, planned activities, and expected results. It was created by USAID in the late 1960s, and has been used since in projects to develop public investments. On March 31, 2007, the Secretary of Public Tax and Credits (Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público), the Secretary of Public Function (Secretaría de la Función Pública), and the National Commission of Social Development Policy Assessment (Comisión Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social) published General Guidelines for the Evaluation of Federal Programs of the Public Federal Administration in the Official Journal of the Federation. The methodology of the logical framework was established with the objective to carry out the evaluation and monitoring of federal programs included in the Budget of Federal Expenses of each tax year, to promote result-based management, and to consolidate the system of performance evaluation.
- 8.
Sanz et al. (2007). Evaluación PCT México. International Panel. Draft paper.
- 9.
See SHCP, Unidad de Evaluación del Desempeño (2012). MSD Methodological Annex.
- 10.
The SHCP matrix does not consider the PRC as a figure that forces it to subscribe to a results-based management agreement, which integrate assessment activities by various actors such as SHCP, SFP, CONACYT, the Federation Superior Audit, and external evaluation committees. Furthermore, self-evaluation reports are put forth for consideration by a public commissary; as para-state entities, their annual work plan is also audited by an internal control office.
- 11.
Trusts to promote S&T activities based on matching funds between CONACYT and state governments (mixed funds; Fondos Mixtos) and state agencies or federal public administration sectors (sectoral funds; Fondos Sectoriales), respectively.
References
ADIAT. (2009). De la investigación aplicada a la innovación. Historia de la ADIAT [From applied research to innovation. History of ADIAT]. México: Asociación Mexicana de Directivos de la Investigación Aplicada y el Desarrollo Tecnológico A.C. [Mexico City: Mexican Association of Directors of Applied Research and Technology Development AC].
Anselin, L., Varga, A., & Acs, Z. (2000). Geographic and sectoral characteristics of academic knowledge externalities. Papers in Regional Science, 79, 435–443.
Bilbao-Osorio, B., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2004). From R&D to innovation and economic growth in the EU. Growth and Change, 35, 434–455.
Braun, D. (1998). The role of funding agencies in the cognitive development of science. Research Policy, 27, 807–821.
Calderón-Martínez, M.G. (2013). La gestión de patentes universitarias. El caso de la UNAM. (Cuaderno de Trabajo; 11) [The management of university patents. The case of the UNAM. (Workbook 11)]. México: Dirección General de Evaluación Institucional-UNAM [Mexico City: UNAM General Directorate of Institutional Assessment].
Campos, M.A., & Jiménez, J. (1994). La actividad científico-tecnológica en México: un factor marginado en la sociedad mexicana [Scientific-technological activity in Mexico: a marginalized factor in Mexican society]. In R. Varela, & L. Mayer (Eds.), Los grandes problemas de la ciencia y la tecnologia [Major problems in science and technology] (pp. 171–186). México: UAM.
Campos-Ríos, G., & Sánchez-Daza, G. (2008). El desarrollo de la ciencia y la tecnología en el ámbito regional [The development of science and technology within a regional scope]. Tecsistécatl. Revista Electrónica de Ciencias Sociales [Electronic Journal of Social Sciences]. No. 3, http://www.eumed.net/rev/tecsistecatl/index.htm. Accessed 31 May 2014.
CONACYT. (2012). Informe del estado de la ciencia y tecnología en México 2011 [Mexico’s 2011 report of the state of science and technology]. México: Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología [Mexico City: National Council for Science and Technology].
Cooke, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). Regional development in the knowledge-based economy: The construction of advantage. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 5–15.
Corley, E. A. (2007). A use-and-transformation model for evaluating public R&D: Illustrations from polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) research. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30, 21–35.
De Gortari, R. (1997). Los académicos: de la producción a la comercialización del conocimiento [Academic staff: From knowledge production to marketing]. In R. Casas & M. Luna (Eds.), Gobierno, Academia y Empresas en México. Hacia una nueva configuración de relaciones [Government, academy and business in Mexico. Towards a new array of relationships] (pp. 137–160). México: IIS-UNAM /Plaza y Valdés.
Debackere, K., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy, 34(3), 321–342.
Díaz-Pérez, C. (2011). La calidad y certificación como estrategia de difusión en los centros de investigación y desarrollo tecnológico: repercusiones organizacionales y problemas pendientes [Quality and certification as dissemination strategies in research and technological development centers: Organizational outcomes and pending issues]. In C. Díaz-Pérez (Ed.), El dilema de la innovación. Redes, clusters y capacidades tecnológicas [The dilemma of innovation. Networks, clusters and technological capabilities] (pp.173–195). Zapopan: Centro Universitario de Ciencias Económico Administrativas. Universidad de Guadalajara [University Center for Economic and Administrative Sciences. University of Guadalajara].
Elzinga, A., & Jamison, A. (1995). Changing policy agendas in science and technology. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (pp. 573–597). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Estrada, S. (2006). Estudio 5. Valoración de los Fondos Mixtos [Study 5. Assessment of matching funds], en Dutrénit, G. (coord.). Diagnóstico de la Política Científica, Tecnológica y de Fomento a la Innovación en México (2000–2006) [Diagnosis of science, technology and innovation promotion policy in Mexico (2000–2006)] (pp. 201–224). Mexico City: Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico, A.C. [Scientific and Technological Consultative Forum, A.C.] http://www.foroconsultivo.org.mx/libros_editados/diagnostico.pdf. Accessed 6 June 2014.
Estrada, S. (2012). Las políticas de ciencia y tecnología en la agenda legislativa. (Cuaderno de Trabajo; 17) [The politics of science and technology in the legislative agenda (Workbook 17)]. México: Dirección General de Estudios Legislativos: Política y Estado del Instituto Belisario Domínguez del Senado de la República. [Mexico City: General Directorate for Legislative Studies: Politics and State, Belisario Domínguez Senate Institute].
Estrada, S., & Pacheco-Vega, R. (2009). Sistemas y políticas de investigación, desarrollo e innovación. Algunas propuestas [Research, development and innovation systems and policy: Some proposals]. Revista Espiral. Estudios sobre Estado y Sociedad [Spiral Magazine. Studies on State and Society], 1 (44), 31–76.
Estrada-González, G. (2009). Creación de OTT’s como mecanismos de impulso de la transferencia de tecnología en los Centros de Investigación CONACYT [Creating TTO’s as mechanisms for boosting technology transfer in CONACYT Research Centers]. Tesis, Maestría en Política y Gestión del Cambio Tecnológico. Dirección Humberto Merritt Tapia y Adolfo Sánchez Aguilar [Thesis. Master of policy and management of technological change. Supervisors Humberto Merritt Tapia and Adolfo Sánchez Aguilar]. México: Centro de Investigaciones Administrativas, Económicas y Sociales. Instituto Politécnico Nacional [Mexico City: Management, Economics and Social Research Center. National Polytechnic Institute].
Feller, I. (2004). S&T-based development and university. Economic Development Quarterly, 18(2), 138–150.
Fischer, M. M., & Varga, A. (2003). Spatial knowledge spillovers and university research: Evidence from Austria. The Annals of Regional Science, 37(2), 303–322.
Georghiou, L., & Roesner, D. (2000). Evaluating technology programs: Tools and methods. Research Policy, 29, 657–678.
González-Block, M. A. (2009). Leadership, institution building and pay-back of health systems research in Mexico. Health Research Policy and Systems. doi:10.1186/1478-4505-7-22.
Graversen, E. K., Schmidt, E. K., & Langberg, K. (2005). Dynamic research environments: A development model. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(8), 1498–1511.
Guerrero, O. (1989). El Estado y la Administración Pública en México. Una Investigación sobre la Actividad del Estado Mexicano en Retrospección y Prospectiva [The state and public administration in Mexico. Hindsight and foresight research on the activity of the Mexican State]. México: Instituto Nacional de Administración Pública [Mexico City: National Institute of Public Administration].
Guston, D. H. (2000). Between politics and science. Assuring the integrity and productivity of research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gutiérrez Serrano, N.G. (2004). La Vinculación en el ámbito Científico-Tecnológico de México. Instituciones de Educación Superior en Interacción con Distintos Actores [Linkages in the science and technology arena of Mexico. Higher education institutions interactions with different actors]. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos [Latin American Journal of Educational Studies], 34(2), 47–94.
Hewitt-Dundas, N., & Roper, S. (2011). Creating advantage in peripheral regions: The role of publicly funded R&D centres. Research Policy, 40, 832–841.
Jongbloed, B. (2007). Reforming the Dutch academic research enterprise: universities’ responses to project funding and performance monitoring. Kassel: Consortium of Higher Education Researchers Conference.
Jongbloed, B. (2008). Creating public-private dynamics in higher education funding. A discussion of three options. In J. Enders & B. Jongbloed (Eds.), Public-private dynamics in higher education funding (pp. 113–138). Bielefeld: Transcript.
Larédo, P., & Mustar, P. (2001). Research and Innovation policies in the new global economy. An international comparative analysis. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Laudel, G. (2006). The art of getting funded: How scientists adapt to their funding conditions. Science and Public Policy, 33, 489–504.
LCyT. (2002). Ley de Ciencia y Tecnología. Diario Oficial de la Federación [Science and Technology Act. Federation’s Official Journal], DOF 05-06-2002. México: Secretaría de Gobernación [Mexico City: Ministry of the Interior].
Lemola, T. (2002). Convergence of national science and technology policies: The case of Finland. Research Policy, 31, 1481–1490.
Lepori, B., van den Besselaar, P., Dinges, M., Potì, B., Reale, E., Slipersæter, S., et al. (2007). Comparing the evolution of national research policies: What patterns of change? Science and Public Policy, 34(6), 372–388.
Lundvall, B. A., Johnson, B., Andersen, E., & Dalum, B. (2002). National systems of production, innovation and competence building. Research Policy, 31(2), 213–231.
Merritt, H. (2006). La vinculación industria-centros tecnológicos de investigación y desarrollo: el caso de los centros CONACYT de México [Linking industry-research and development technological centers: the case of Mexico’s CONACYT centers]. México: I Congreso Iberoamericano de Ciencia, Tecnología, Sociedad e Innovación [Mexico City: Iberoamerican Congress on Science, Technology, Society and Innovation].
Moore, M. C., Arent, D. J., & Norland, D. (2007). R&D advancement, technology diffusion, and impact on evaluation of public R&D. Energy Policy, 35, 1464–1473.
Nelson, R. (1991). Why do firms differ, and how does it matter? Strategic Management Journal, Special Issue: Fundamental Research Issues in Strategy and Economics, 12, 61–74.
Pavitt, K. (1998). The social shaping of the national science base. Research Policy, 27(8), 793–805.
Retana-Guiascón, O.G. (2009). La Institucionalización de la Investigación Científica en México. Breve Cronología [The institutionalization of scientific research in Mexico]. Ciencias [Sciences], 94(2), 46–51.
Roper, S., & Love, J. H. (2006). Innovation and regional absorptive capacity: The labour market dimension. Annals of Regional Science, 40(2), 437–447.
Rubio Castillo, F.A. (2009) La estructura organizacional en centros de investigación, desarrollo e innovación; una aproximación a la experiencia internacional [The organizational structure in research, development and innovation centers; an approach to the international experience]. Tesis, Doctorado en Administración. Dirección Enrique Cabrero Mendoza. Santiago de Querétaro: Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro. Facultad de Contaduría y Administración [Thesis, PhD in management. Supervisor Enrique Cabrero Mendoza. Santiago de Querétaro: University of Queretaro. School of Accounting and Management].
Salomon, J.J. (1994). Modern science and technology. In J.J. Salomon, JF. Sagasti, C. Sachs-Jeantet (Eds.), The uncertain quest: science, technology and development (pp. 29–64). Tokyo: United Nations University Press. http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu09ue/uu09ue00.htm. Accessed 31 May 2014.
Sampere López, J.C, (2003). Política regional de ciencia e innovación: El caso del Sistema de Investigación Miguel Hidalgo de CONACYT [Regional policy on science and innovation: The case of CONACYT’s Miguel Hidalgo Research System]. Tesis de Maestría en Estudios Regionales [Master thesis on regional studies]. México, DF: Instituto de Investigaciones Dr. José María Luís Mora [Dr. José María Luis Mora Research Institute].
Sanz Menéndez, L., & Cruz-Castro, L. (2003). Coping with environmental pressures: Public research organization responses to funding crises. Research Policy, 32(8), 1293–1308.
Senker, J., Balázs, K., Higgins, T., Larédo, P., Muñoz, E., Santesmases, M., et al. (1999). European comparison of public research systems. Final report. EC TSER project SOE1-CT98-1117. Brighton: SPRU, University of Sussex.
Slipersæter, S., Lepori, B., & Dinges, M. (2007). Between policy and science: Research councils’ responsiveness in Austria, Norway and Switzerland. Science and Public Policy, 34(6), 401–415.
Solleiro, J.L., & Escalante, F. (2009). Knowledge management and value creation in Latin American research centers. Final report. IDRC project number 102497–003. México, Mexico City: CCADET-UNAM.
SSA. (2001). Programa de acción: investigación en salud [Action program: Health research]. México, DF: Secretaría de Salud [Ministry of Health].
SSA (2002). Los institutos nacionales de salud de México [The national institutes of health of Mexico]. México: Secretaría de Salud [ Ministry of Health].
Unger, K. (1995). El desarrollo industrial y tecnológico mexicano: estado actual de la integración industrial y tecnológica [The Mexican industrial and technological development: Current state of the industrial and technological integration]. In P. Mulás del Pozo (Ed.), Aspectos Tecnológicos de la Modernización Industrial de México [Technological aspects of the industrial modernization of Mexico] (pp. 44–79). Mexico City: Academia.
Van der Meulen, B. (2003). New roles and strategies of a research council: Intermediation of the principal-agent relationship. Science and Public Policy, 30, 323–336.
Zabala, J.P. (2004). La Utilidad de los Conocimientos Científicos como Problemas Sociológicos [The advantage of scientific knowledge as sociological problems]. In P. Kreimer, H. Thomas, et al. Producción y uso social de conocimientos. Estudios de sociología de la ciencia y la tecnología en América Latina [Social production and use of knowledge. Studies in sociology of science and technology in Latin America] (pp.151–172). Buenos Aires: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes Editorial.
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, re-conceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27, 185–203.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Estrada, S., Aguirre, J. (2016). Research Assessment of Public Research Centers in Mexico: An Instrument of Science Policy. In: Horta, H., Heitor, M., Salmi, J. (eds) Trends and Challenges in Science and Higher Education. Knowledge Studies in Higher Education, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20964-7_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20964-7_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-20963-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-20964-7
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)