Premises and Instruments of Innovation Policy: A Reflection from the Mexican Case

  • Gabriela Dutrénit


There is growing consensus that a close relationship between science, technology, innovation, and growth exists; the creation and dissemination of knowledge are basic factors of innovation, sustainable economic growth, and the well-being of nations. This idea has already been highlighted by Solow (1957), who suggested that basic science is a determining factor of economic progress.


Gross Domestic Product Latin American Country Innovation Policy Technological Capability National Innovation System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. World Bank (2004), World Development Indicators, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  2. Bartzokas, A. and M. Teubal (2001), “A framework for policy-oriented innovation studies in industrializing countries”, Discussion Papers 6, United Nations University, Institute for New Technologies, Maastricht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  3. Casas, R. (2005), “Premisas básicas de las políticas de ciencia, tecnología e innovación”, en Seminario Permanente de Discusión sobre las Políticas de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación en México, Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico.Google Scholar
  4. EC (European Commission) (2003), Innovation Tomorrow Raising EU R&D Intensity, Improving the Effectiveness of Public Support Mechanisms for Private Sector Research and Development: Direct Measures (EUR 20716), European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
  5. ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean) (2003), Statistic Yearbook of Latin America and the Caribbean. Indicators of Economic and Social Development in Latin America and the Caribbean,United Nations, Santiago de Chile.Google Scholar
  6. Chudnovsky, D., J. Niosi and N. Bercovich (2000), “Sistemas nacionales de innovación, procesos de aprendizaje y política tecnológica: Una comparación de Canadá y Argentina”, Desarrollo Económico, IDES, 40 (158), Buenos Aires, 213–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. CONACYT (Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología) (2005), Estado de la Ciencia.Google Scholar
  8. CONACYT/INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática) (2001), Encuesta Nacional de Innovación.Google Scholar
  9. David, P. A., H. Hall Bronwyn and A. A. Toole (2000), “Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence”, Research Policy (29), pp. 487–529.Google Scholar
  10. Dutrénit G., Capdeville, M., Casas, R. Pochet, M., Unger, K., Vera-Cruz, A.O. (2006), Diagnóstico de la política científica, tecnológica y de fomento a la innovación en México (2000-2006), Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico, México.Google Scholar
  11. Edquist, C., L. Hommen and L. Tsipouri (2000), Public Technology Procurement and Innovation, Wolters Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  12. Esteva Maraboto, J. A. (2005), “Investigación y Desarrollo en la Industria en México”, en Seminario permanente de discusión sobre las Políticas de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación en México, Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico.Google Scholar
  13. Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico (2005), “Relatorías”, Seminario Permanente de Discusión sobre las Políticas de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación, documento de trabajo.Google Scholar
  14. Furtado, A. T. et al. (1999), “Assessment of direct and indirect effects of large technological programmes: Petrobrás deepwater programme in Brazil”, Research Evaluation 8(3), 155–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Georghiou, L. (2004), “Innovation policies and regions”, working paper, PREST and Institute of Innovation Research, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
  16. Georghiou, L. (2002), “Impact and additionality of innovation policy”, in P. Boekholt, ed., Innovation Policy and Sustainable Development: Can Innovation Incentives Make a Difference?, IWT-Observatory, Brussels.Google Scholar
  17. Georghiou, L. et al. (2003), “Strengths, weaknesses and opportunities for the UK’s science base”, report to Office of Science and Technology, PREST, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
  18. Georghiou, L. and P. Cunningham (2001), “New tools for optimizing the transfer, sharing and joint generation of knowledge”, paper presented at the International Conference on Benchmarking Industry-Science Relations, Berlin, 16 to 17 October 2000, OECD/German Government.Google Scholar
  19. IMD (International Institute for Management Development) (2004), World Competitiveness Yearbook 2004, IMD, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  20. Katz, J. (2000), Reformas estructurales, productividad y conducta tecnológica en América Latina, Santiago de Chile, ECLAC/Fondo de Cultura Económica.Google Scholar
  21. Laredo, P. and P. Mustar (eds.) (2001), Research and Innovation Policies in the New Global Economy, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.Google Scholar
  22. Lipsey, R. G. and K. Carlaw (1998), “Technology policies in neo-classical and structuralist-evolutionary models”, STI Review, N° 22, Special Issue on “New rationale and approaches in technology and innovation policy”, OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
  23. Luukkonen, T. (2000), “Additionality of EU framework programmes”, Research Policy, N° 29, 711–724.Google Scholar
  24. Malkin, D. (2005), “La experiencia de los países de la OCDE en el diseño de políticas de innovación”, en Seminario Permanente de Discusión sobre las Políticas de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación en México, Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico.Google Scholar
  25. Mani, S. (2004), “Government, innovation and technology policy: An international comparative analysis”, International Journal of Technology and Globalisation 1(1), 29–44.Google Scholar
  26. Metcalfe, J. S. and L. Georghiou (1998), “Equilibrium and evolutionary foundations of technology policy”, STI Review, N° 22, OECD, Paris, pp. 75–100.Google Scholar
  27. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (1998), Technology, Productivity and Job Creation, Paris.Google Scholar
  28. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2002), Science, Technology and Industry Outlook, OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
  29. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2004a), Main Science and Technology Indicators, OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
  30. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2004b), Science and Technology Statistical Compendium, Meeting of the OECD Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy at Ministerial Level, OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
  31. Péres, W. (ed.) (1997), Políticas de competitividad industrial. América Latina y el Caribe en los años noventa, México, Siglo XXI.Google Scholar
  32. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2004), Human Development Report. Human Development Indicators, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  33. Rigby, J. and L. Georghiou (2002), “Industry-science relationships in the United Kingdom”, in J. Guinet (ed.), OECD, Benchmarking Industry Science Relations, OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
  34. Rojo, J. and W. Polt (eds.) (2009), Handbook on the Evaluation of Research and Technology Policy. Concepts, Tools and Indicators, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, United Kingdom, in press.Google Scholar
  35. Rothwell, R. (1994), “Industrial innovation: success, strategy, trends”, in M. Dodgson and R. Rothwell (eds.), The Handbook of Industrial Innovation, Elsevier Science Ltd., United Kingdom, pp. 33–53.Google Scholar
  36. Sanz Menéndez, L. (2005), “Premisas básicas de las políticas de ciencia, tecnología e innovación”, en Seminario Permanente de Discusión sobre las Políticas de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación en México, Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico.Google Scholar
  37. Scott, A. (2001), “The economic returns to basic research and the benefits of university-industry relationships. A literature review and update of findings”, Report for the Office for Science and Technology, Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  38. Shapira, Ph. and S. Kuhlmann (eds.) (2003), Learning from Science and Technology Policy Evaluation: Experiences from the United States and Europe, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.Google Scholar
  39. Sheehan, J. (2001), “Changing business strategies for R&D and their implications for science and technology policy”, OECD Background and Issues Paper, OECD (DTSP/STP(2001)29), Paris.Google Scholar
  40. Smith, K. (2000), “Innovation as a systemic phenomenon: rethinking the role of policy”, Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies 1, Nº 1, 73–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Smits, R. and S. Kuhlmann (2004), “The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy”, International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 1 (1/2), 4–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Solow, R. (1957), “Technical change and the aggregate production function”, Review of Economics and Statistics 39(3), 312–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tavares, J. and L. Tineo (1999), “Competition policy and regional trade agreements”, in P. Low, B. Kotschwar, and M. R. Mendoza (eds.), Trade Rules in The Making: Challenges in Regional and Multilateral Negotiations, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  44. Teubal, M. (2002), “Introduction to the special issue: What is the systems perspective to innovation and technology policy (ITP) and how can we apply it to developing and newly industrialized countries?”, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 12 (1), 233–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. UNESCO (United Nations Education, Science and Culture Organization) (2004), Science and technology Indicators, Institute for Statistics, Montreal.Google Scholar
  46. Van Den Biesen, J. (2002), “Direct measures from a large firm’s perspective”, contribution to expert group on “Improving the effectiveness of direct public support measures to stimulate private investment in research”.Google Scholar
  47. Velho, L. (2005), “S&T institutions in Latin America and the Caribbean: an overview”, Science and Public Policy 32(2), 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vonortas, N. S. (2002), “Building competitive firms: technology policy initiatives in Latin America”, Technology in Society 24, 433–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© United Nations 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Metropolitan Autonomous University-XochimilcoMexicoMexico City

Personalised recommendations