Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Public sector organizations and agricultural catch-up dilemma in emerging markets: The orchestrating role of Embrapa in Brazil

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of International Business Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

How can an emerging economy, beset by political, economic and resource challenges, jump-start the technology catch-up process in the agricultural sector and then forge an ecosystem to facilitate the continual generation and dissemination of innovations? Equally important, how can it maintain the viability and salience of its catch-up initiatives subsequent to the entry and inevitable dominance of multinational companies? We answer these questions by studying catch-up in Brazil’s soy seeds sector over four decades (1973–2015). In an environment of political and economic uncertainty, Embrapa, a public sector organization, forged partnerships to first develop absorptive capacity and innovation capabilities, and then build an ecosystem of diverse organizations to generate and disseminate catch-up outcomes to farmers and other end users. Embrapa also developed critical tacit knowledge and complementary assets that – along with its emphasis on environmental sustainability and protecting national interests – helped maintain its salience even after the entry and market dominance by multinational agribusinesses. In addition to demonstrating critical roles for public sector organizations and public private networks in technological catch-up in an emerging economy’s agricultural sector, our study calls into question the prevalent notion of technological catch-up as a rush to reach the technological frontier at any cost.

Résumé

Comment une économie émergente, assaillie par des défis politiques, économiques et de ressources, peut-elle lancer le processus de rattrapage technologique dans le secteur agricole et ensuite forger un écosystème pour faciliter la génération et la diffusion continues d’innovations? Tout aussi important, comment peut-elle maintenir la viabilité et la pertinence de ses initiatives de rattrapage après l’entrée et la domination inévitable d’entreprises multinationales? Nous répondons à ces questions en étudiant le rattrapage du secteur brésilien des semences de soja sur quatre décennies (1973–2015). Dans un contexte d’incertitude politique et économique, Embrapa, une organisation du secteur public, a forgé des partenariats afin de développer d’abord la capacité d’absorption et les capacités d’innovation, puis de construire un écosystème d’organisations diverses pour générer et diffuser les résultats du rattrapage aux agriculteurs et autres utilisateurs finaux. Embrapa a également développé des connaissances tacites essentielles et des actifs complémentaires qui, tout en mettant l’accent sur la durabilité de l’environnement et la protection des intérêts nationaux, ont contribué à maintenir son importance même après l’entrée et la domination du marché par les multinationales de l’agroalimentaire. En plus de démontrer le rôle essentiel des organisations du secteur public et des réseaux public-privé dans le rattrapage technologique du secteur agricole d’une économie émergente, notre étude remet en question la notion courante de rattrapage technologique, qui consiste à se précipiter pour atteindre la frontière technologique à tout prix.

Resumen

¿Cómo puede una economía emergente, acosada por los desafíos políticos, económicos y de recursos, poner en marcha el proceso de actualización tecnológica en el sector agrícola y, a continuación, forjar un ecosistema para facilitar la generación y difusión continua de innovaciones? Igualmente importante, ¿cómo puede mantener la viabilidad y la importancia de sus iniciativas de actualización tras la entrada y el inevitable dominio de las empresas multinacionales? Respondemos a estas preguntas estudiando la actualización el sector brasileño de semillas de soya durante cuatro décadas (1973-2015). En un entorno de incertidumbre política y económica, Embrapa, una organización del sector público, forjó alianzas para desarrollar primero capacidades de absorción e innovación, y luego construir un ecosistema de diversas organizaciones para generar y difundir los resultados de actualización a los agricultores y otros usuarios finales. Embrapa también desarrolló conocimientos tácitos críticos y activos complementarios que -junto con su énfasis en la sostenibilidad ambiental y la protección de los intereses nacionales- ayudaron a mantener su importancia incluso después de la entrada y el dominio del mercado por parte de las multinacionales de agronegocios. Adicionalmente demostrar roles críticos para las organizaciones del sector público y las redes público-privadas en la actualización tecnológica en el sector agrícola de una economía emergente, nuestro estudio pone en duda la noción predominante de actualización tecnológica como una premura por llegar a la frontera tecnológica a cualquier precio.

Resumo

Como pode uma economia emergente, assolada por desafios políticos, econômicos e de recursos, impulsionar o processo de recuperação da tecnologia no setor agrícola e então forjar um ecossistema para facilitar a contínua geração e disseminação de inovações? Igualmente importante, como pode ela manter a viabilidade e relevância de suas iniciativas de recuperação após a entrada e inevitável domínio de empresas multinacionais? Respondemos a essas perguntas estudando a recuperação no setor de sementes de soja no Brasil por quatro décadas (1973–2015). Em um ambiente de incerteza política e econômica, Embrapa, uma organização do setor público, estabeleceu parcerias para inicialmente desenvolver capacidade de absorção e de inovação e, em então construir um ecossistema de diversas organizações para gerar e disseminar frutos de recuperação para agricultores e outros usuários finais. Embrapa também desenvolveu conhecimento tácito crítico e ativos complementares que - juntamente com sua ênfase na sustentabilidade ambiental e proteção de interesses nacionais - ajudaram a manter sua relevância mesmo após a entrada e o domínio de mercado pelas empresas multinacionais do agronegócio. Além de demonstrar papéis críticos para organizações do setor público e redes público-privadas na recuperação tecnológica do setor agrícola de uma economia emergente, nosso estudo questiona a noção predominante de recuperação tecnológica como uma corrida para alcançar a fronteira tecnológica a qualquer custo.

摘要

受政治、经济和资源挑战困扰的新兴经济体如何才能启动农业领域的技术追赶进程, 而后建立生态系统, 以促进创新的不断生成和传播?同样重要的是, 它如何能在跨国公司进入并不可避免地在市场占据主导地位之后保持追赶计划的可行性和显著性?我们通过研究巴西大豆种子行业超过四个十年(1973–2015年)的追赶来回答这些问题。在政治和经济不确定的环境中, 公共部门组织Embrapa铸建伙伴关系, 以首先开发吸收能力和创新能力, 然后建立多样化组织的生态系统, 以向农民和其他最终用户提供并传播追赶成果。Embrapa还开发了关键的隐性知识和互补资产, 除了强调环境的可持续性和保护国家利益外, 即使在跨国农业企业进入并在市场占据主导地位之后, 也有助于维持其显着性。除了展示公共部门组织和公共私有网络在新兴经济体农业部门的技术追赶中的关键作用之外, 我们的研究还质疑不惜一切代价急于到达技术前沿的这一普遍的技术追赶观念。

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

This is an abbreviated list of references that does not include all archival sources that helped us generate the case narrative. A complete list of references is available from the authors on request.

  • Abramovitz, M. 1986. Catching up, forging ahead, and falling behind. Journal of Economic History, 46(2): 385–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adner, R. 2006. Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review, 84(4): 98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adner, R. 2017. Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of Management, 43(1): 39–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. 2010. Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3): 306–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alves, E., & de Oliveira, A. J. 2005. O orçamento da Embrapa. Revista de Política Agrícola, 14(4): 73–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alves, E. D. A. 1980. A importância do investimento na pesquisa agropecuária. Área de Informação da Sede-Documentos (INFOTECA-E).

  • Amsden, A. H. 1992. Asia’s next giant: South Korea and late industrialization. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, A. D., Johnson, B. H., Marín, A., Kaplan, D., Stubrin, L., Lundvall, B.-Å., & Kaplinsky, R. 2015. Natural resources, innovation and development. Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arundel, A., Casali, L., & Hollanders, H. 2015. How European public sector agencies innovate: The use of bottom-up, policy-dependent and knowledge-scanning innovation methods. Research Policy, 44(7): 1271–1282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Awate, S., Larsen, M. M., & Mudambi, R. 2012. EMNE catch-up strategies in the wind turbine industry: Is there a trade-off between output and innovation capabilities? Global Strategy Journal, 2(3): 205–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banalieva, E. R., Cuervo-Cazurra, A., & Sarathy, R. 2018. Journal of International Business Studies

  • Bell, M., & Pavitt, K. 1993. Technological accumulation and industrial growth: Contrasts between developed and developing countries. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2(2): 157–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bisang, R., & Gutman, G. E. 2005. Acumulación y tramas agroalimentarias em América Latina. Revista de la Cepal, 87(12): 115–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blomström, M., & Kokko, A. 1998. Multinational corporations and spillovers. Journal of Economic Surveys, 12(3): 247–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., & Walker, H. 2011. Sustainable procurement in the public sector: An international comparative study. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 31(4): 452–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandl, K., Darendeli, I., & Mudambi, R. 2019. Foreign actors and intellectual property protection regulations in developing countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(5): 826–846.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, L., & Thun, E. 2010. The fight for the middle: Upgrading, competition, and industrial development in China. World Development, 38(11): 1555–1574.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho, S. M. P., & Pessanha, L. D. R. 2001. Propriedade intelectual, estratégias empresariais e mecanismos de apropriação econômica do esforço de inovação no mercado Brasileiro de Sementes. Revista de Economia Contemporânea, 5(1): 151–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casaburi, G. 1999. Dynamic agroindustrial clusters: The political economy of competitive sectors in Argentina and Chile. Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casper, S., Lehrer, M., & Soskice, D. 1999. Can high-technology industries prosper in Germany? Institutional frameworks and the evolution of the German software and biotechnology industries. Industry and Innovation, 6(1): 5–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chu, W. W. 2011. How the Chinese government promoted a global automobile industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(5): 1235–1276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 128–152.

  • Contini, E., & Andrade, R. P. 2013. A experiência da Embrapa em parcerias público-privadas. In E. C. Teixeira, R. M. Protil, & A. L. R. Lima (Eds.), A Contribuição da Ciência e da Tecnologia para o Desenvolvimento do Agronegócio: 567–592. Rio Branco, Brazil: Suprema.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corredoira, R. A., & McDermott, G. A. 2014. Adaptation, bridging and firm upgrading: How non-market institutions and MNCs facilitate knowledge recombination in emerging markets. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(6): 699–722.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. 2000. Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3): 124–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuervo-Cazurra, A., Gaur, A., & Singh, D. 2019. Pro-market institutions and global strategy: The pendulum of pro-market reforms and reversals. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(4): 598–632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2011. Rotating leadership and collaborative innovation: Recombination processes in symbiotic relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(2): 159–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delfim Netto, A. 2015. Brasil continuará como grande fornecedor de alimentos, diz Delfim Netto. http://sna.agr.br/brasil-continuara-como-grande-fornecedor-de-alimentos-diz-delfim-netto/. Accessed 14 August 2015.

  • The Economist. 2010. The miracle of the cerrado. Brazil has revolutionised its own farms. Can it do the same for others? http://www.economist.com/node/16886442. Accessed 8 October 2014.

  • Embrapa. 1984. Relatório técnico annual do centro nacional de pesquisa de soja – 1982 e retrospectiva 1975 a 1981. Londrina, EMBRAPA-CNPSo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, P. B. 2012. Embedded autonomy: States and industrial transformation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fearnside, P. M. 2001. Soybean cultivation as a threat to the environment in Brazil. Environmental Conservation, 28(1): 23–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feltre, C. 2004. Mecanismos de apropriabilidade das inovações tecnológicas na indústria de sementes. XI SIMPEP, Bauru, SP, 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Figueiredo, P. N. 2014. Beyond technological catch-up: An empirical investigation of further innovative capability accumulation outcomes in latecomer firms with evidence from Brazil. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 31(1): 73–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, H. K., Rausch, L., Munger, J., Schelly, I., Morton, D. C., Noojipady, P., Soares-Filho, B., Barreto, P., Micol, L., & Walker, N. F. 2015. Brazil's soy moratorium. Science, 347(6220): 377–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gittelman, M. 2006. National institutions, public-private knowledge flows, and innovation performance: A comparative study of the biotechnology industry in the U.S. and France. Research Policy, 35(7): 1052–1068.

  • Giuliani, E. 2018. Regulating global capitalism amid rampant corporate wrongdoing. Reply to “Three frames for innovation policy.” Research Policy, 47(9): 1577–1582.

  • Giuliani, E., Morrison, A., & Rabellotti, R. (Eds.). 2011. Innovation and technological catch-up: The changing geography of wine production. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. 2002. The problem of embeddedness. International Business: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management, 4(3): 3–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. 1957. Hybrid corn: An exploration in the economics of technological change. Econometrica, 25(4): 501–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. 1960. Hybrid corn and the economics of innovation. Science, 132(3422): 275–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haggard, S., & Kaufman, R. R. 2008. Development, democracy, and welfare states: Latin America, East Asia, and Eastern Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haggard, S., & Webb, S. B. 2004. Political incentives and intergovernmental fiscal relations: Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico compared. In A. P. Montero & D. Samuels (Eds.), Decentralization and democracy in Latin America: 235–270. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J., Matos, S., Silvestre, B., & Martin, M. 2011. Managing technological and social uncertainties of innovation: The evolution of Brazilian energy and agriculture. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(7): 1147–1157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayami, Y., & Ruttan, V. W. 1985. Agricultural development: An international perspective. Baltimore, MD/London: The Johns Hopkins Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch-Kreinsen, H. 2008. “Low-tech” innovations. Industry and Innovation, 15(1): 19–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch-Kreinsen, H., Jacobson, D., Laestadius, S., & Smith, K. 2005. Low and medium technology industries in the knowledge economy: The analytical issues. In H. Hirsch-Kreinsen, D. Jacobson, S. Laestadius (Eds.), Low-tech innovation in the knowledge economy: 11–30. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosono, A., da Rocha, M. C., & Hongo, Y. 2016. Development for sustainable agriculture: The Brazilian cerrado. London, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, J., & Salerno, M. S. 2000. Globalization and assembler-supplier relations: Brazil and India. In J. Humphrey, Y. Lecler, & M. S. Salerno (Eds.), Global strategies and local realities: The auto industry in emerging markets: 149–175. New York: St Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hung, S. C., & Chu, Y. Y. 2006. Stimulating new industries from emerging technologies: Challenges for the public sector. Technovation, 26(1): 104–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, G., & Deeg, R. 2019. Comparing capitalisms and taking institutional context seriously. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(1), 4–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoke, D. 2001. Changing organizations: Business networks in the new political economy. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kobrin, S. J. 1987. Testing the bargaining hypothesis in the manufacturing sector in developing countries. International Organization, 41(4): 609–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koning, M., Mertens, G., & Roosenboom, P. 2018. Drivers of institutional change around the world: The case of IFRS. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(3): 249–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumaraswamy, A., Mudambi, R., Saranga, H., & Tripathy, A. 2012. Catch-up strategies in the Indian auto components industry: Domestic firms’ responses to market liberalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(4): 368–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langley, A. 1999. Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4): 691–710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazzarini, S. G. 2015. Strategizing by the government: Can industrial policy create firm‐level competitive advantage? Strategic Management Journal, 36(1): 97–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K. and Malerba, F. 2017. Catch-up Cycles and Changes in Industry Leadership: Windows of opportunity and responses of firms and countries in the evolution of sectoral systems. Research Policy, 46(1):338–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Limoeiro, D., & Schneider, B. R. 2017. State-led innovation: SOEs, institutional fragmentation, and policy making in Brazil. Working paper, MIT Industrial Performance Center, Cambridge, MA.

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, R. E., & Sjöholm, F. 2005. The impact of inward FDI on host countries: Why such different answers? In T. H. Moran, E. M. Graham, M. Blomström (Eds.), Does foreign direct investment promote development: 23–43. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahmood, I. P., & Rufin, C. 2005. Government’s dilemma: The role of government in imitation and innovation. Academy of Management Review, 30(2): 338–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maksimov, V., Wang, S. L., & Yan, S. 2019. Global connectedness and dynamic green capabilities in MNEs. Journal of International Business Studies, 1–18.

  • Marin, A., Navas-Aleman, L., & Pérez, C. 2014. The possible dynamic role of natural resource-based networks in Latin American development strategies. In G. Dutrenit & J. Sutz (Eds.), National innovation systems, social inclusion and development: 380–412. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marin, A., & Stubrin, L. I. 2015. Innovation in natural resources: New opportunities and new challenges. The case of the Argentinean seed industry. Working paper, United Nations University-Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT), Maastricht, The Netherlands.

  • Marin, A., Stubrin, L. I., & van Zwanenberg, P. 2014. Developing capabilities in the seed industry: Which direction to follow? http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2742162. Accessed 23 November 2019.

  • Mathews, J. A. 2006. Dragon multinationals: New players in 21st century globalization. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(1): 5–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzoleni, R., & Nelson, R. R. 2007. Public research institutions and economic catch-up. Research Policy, 36(10): 1512–1528.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, G. A. 2007. The politics of institutional renovation and economic upgrading: Recombining the vines that bind in Argentina. Politics and Society, 35(1): 103–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, G. A., & Corredoira, R. A. 2010. Network composition, collaborative ties, and upgrading in emerging-market firms: Lessons from the Argentine autoparts sector. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2): 308–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, G. A., Corredoira, R. A., & Kruse, G. 2009. Public-private institutions as catalyst of upgrading in emerging market societies. Academy of Management Journal, 52(6): 1270–1296.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, G. A., & Pietrobelli, C. 2017. Walking before you can run: The knowledge, networks, and institutions for emerging market SMEs. In T. Pedersen, T. M. Devinney, L. Tihanyi, & A. Camuffo (Eds.), Breaking up the global value chain: Opportunities and consequences: 311–332. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, K. E., & Sinani, E. 2009. When and where does foreign direct investment generate positive spillovers? A meta-analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(7): 1075–1094.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. 1984. Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: Toward a shared craft. Educational Researcher, 13(5): 20–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montalbano, P., Nenci, S., & Pietrobelli, C. 2016. International linkages, value-added trade, and firm productivity in Latin America and the Caribbean. In M. Grazzi & C. Pietrobelli (Eds.), Firm innovation and productivity in Latin America and the Caribbean: 285–316. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nambisan, S., Zahra, S. A., & Luo, Y. 2019. Global platforms and ecosystems: Implications for international business theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(9): 1464–1486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nass, L. 2011. Pré-melhoramento vegetal. In M. A. Lopes, A. P. Fávero, M. A. Ferreira, F. G. Faleiro, S. M. Folle, & E. P. Guimarães (Eds.), Pré-melhoramento de plantas: Estado da arte e experiências de sucesso: 23–38. Brasília, Brazil: Embrapa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nwankwo, E., Phillips, N., & Tracey, P. 2007. Social investment through community enterprise: The case of multinational corporations’ involvement in the development of Nigerian water resources. Journal of Business Ethics, 73(1): 91–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palla, G., Barabási, A. L., & Vicsek, T. 2007. Quantifying social group evolution. Nature, 446(7136): 664–667.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parente, R., Rong, K., Geleilate, J.M. and Misati, E. 2019. Adapting and sustaining operations in weak institutional environments: A business ecosystem assessment of a Chinese MNE in Central Africa. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(2): 275–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pentland, B. T. 1999. Building process theory with narrative: From description to explanation. Academy of Management Review, 24(4): 711–724.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perez-Aleman, P. 2005. Cluster formation, institutions and learning: The emergence of clusters and development in Chile. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(4): 651–677.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perez-Aleman, P. 2011. Collective learning in global diffusion: Spreading quality standards in a developing country cluster. Organization Science, 22(1): 173–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, A. M. 1990. Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization Science, 1(3): 267–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, A. M. 1997. What is a processual analysis? Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13(4): 337–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., Smith-Doerr, L., & Koput, K. W. 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1): 116–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roessing, A. C., & Guedes, L. C. 1993. Aspectos econômicos do complexo soja: Sua participação na economia brasileira e evolução na região do Brasil Central. In N. E. Arantes & P. I de M. Souza (Eds.), Cultura da soja nos cerrados: 1–69. Piracicaba, Brazil: Potafós.

  • Rogers, E. M. 1986. Communication technology. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. 1988. Agenda-setting research: Where has it been, where does it go? Communication Yearbook, 11(1): 555–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Safford, S. 2004. Why the garden club couldn’t save Youngstown: Civic infrastructure and mobilization in economic crises. Working paper, MIT Industrial Performance Center, Cambridge, MA.

  • Schneider, B. R. 2009. Hierarchical market economies and varieties of capitalism in Latin America. Journal of Latin American Studies, 41(3): 553–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, B. R. 2015. The developmental state in Brazil: Comparative and historical perspectives. Brazilian Journal of Political Economy, 35(1): 114–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokke, H. E. 2004. Technology adoption and multiple growth paths: An intertemporal general equilibrium analysis of the catch-up process in Thailand. Review of World Economics, 140(1): 80–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuertscher, P., Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. 2014. Justification and interlaced knowledge at ATLAS, CERN. Organization Science, 25(6): 1579–1608.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turkina, E., & Van Assche, A. 2018. Global connectedness and local innovation in industrial clusters. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(6): 706–728.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. 1995. Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 510–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vernon, R. 1971. Sovereignty at bay: The multinational spread of U.S. enterprises. New York: Basic Books.

  • Vernon, R. 1977. Storm over the multinationals: The real issues. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Tunzelmann, N., & Acha, V. 2005. Innovation in “low-tech” industries. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation: 407–432. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis, E., da Cunha Bueno Garman, C., & Haggard, S. 1999. The politics of decentralization in Latin America. Latin American Research Review, 34(1): 7–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamamura, S. 2006. Plantas transgênicas e propriedade intelectual: Ciência, tecnologia e inovação no Brasil frente aos marcos regulatórios. Dissertação de Mestrado – Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Unicamp). Instituto de Geociências.

  • Yin, R. K. 1984. Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zylbersztajn, D. 2014, Coordenação e governança de sistemas agroindustriais. In A. M. Buainain, E. Alves, J. M. da Silveira, Z. Navarro (Eds.), O mundo rural no Brasil do século 21: A formação de um novo padrão agrário e agrícola. Brasília, Brazil: Embrapa.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Ronaldo Parente and Marne Melo have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of International Business – College of Business, Florida International University and FGV-Ebape, 11200 SW 8th Street, Miami, FL, 33199, USA

    Ronaldo Parente

  2. National Institute of Metrology, Quality and Technology (Inmetro), 416 Santa Alexandrina St., Rio Comprido, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 20261-232, Brazil

    Marne Melo

  3. Department of International Business - College of Business, Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th Street, Miami, FL, 33199, USA

    Daniel Andrews & Arun Kumaraswamy

  4. Getúlio Vargas Foundation, 190 Praia de Botafogo, Botafogo, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 22250-900, Brazil

    Flavio Vasconcelos

Authors
  1. Ronaldo Parente
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marne Melo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel Andrews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Arun Kumaraswamy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Flavio Vasconcelos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronaldo Parente.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Accepted by Gerald McDermott, Guest Editor, 9 March 2020. This article has been with the authors for three revisions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Parente, R., Melo, M., Andrews, D. et al. Public sector organizations and agricultural catch-up dilemma in emerging markets: The orchestrating role of Embrapa in Brazil. J Int Bus Stud 52, 646–670 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00325-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00325-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation