Resumo
Os governos latino-americanos recorrem frequentemente aos Fundos de Desenvolvimento Tecnológico (FDT) para apoiar financeiramente as atividades inovadoras das empresas. Neste estudo analisamos a eficácia do um FDT chileno, o programa FONTEC. Constatamos que os subsídios do FONTEC provocaram um aumento dos investimentos inovadores das empresas em ativos intangíveis (principalmente P&D), além de melhorarem as articulações entre atores no sistema de inovação. Entretanto, embora não tenhamos detectado indícios de crowding out (inibição), tampouco encontramos quaisquer evidências de aumento do financiamento privado da inovação devido aos subsídios (crowding in). Em termos de adicionalidade de resultados (output additionality), o FONTEC de fato aumentou a geração de emprego e a produtividade das empresas beneficiárias. As conclusões quanto a habilidades foram mais mistas, mas isso pode ter sido afetado pela baixa qualidade da variável habilidades na enquete.Referências
AGOSIN, M. Políticas de innovación en Chile, IDB Manuscript, Washington DC, 2009.
ALVAREZ R.; CRESPI, G. Multinational firms and productivity catching-up: the case of chilean manufacturing. International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, v. 1, n. 2, p. 136-152, January 2007.
ALVAREZ, R.; BENAVENTE, J. M.; CAMPUSANO, R.; CUEVAS, C. Employment generation, firm size, and innovation in Chile. IDB Publications 54258, Inter-American Development Bank, 2011.
ARROW, K. Economics welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In: NELSON, R. (Ed.). The rate and direction of inventive activity. Princeton University Press, 1962, p. 164-181.
BECKER, S.; ICHINO, A. Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores. The Stata Journal, v. 2, n. 4, p. 358-377, 2002.
BENAVENTE, J. M. Determinants of industrial research and innovation: the case of Chile. Unpublished DPhil Thesis, University of Oxford, 2002.
BENAVENTE, J. M.; DE GREGORIO, J.; NUNEZ, M. Rates of return and the industrial R&D in Chile. Santiago, Chile: University of Chile and Central Bank of Chile, paper presented at the World Bank conference in Barcelona on on R&D and Innovation in the Development Process, 2005.
BENAVENTE, J. M.;CRESPI, G. Biases and weaknesses of Chile’s NSI. In: AGOSIN, M.; SAAVEDRA, N. (Eds.). national innovation systems, what Can Latin America learn from Japan? Santiago: Dolmen Ediciones, 1998.
BENAVENTE, J. M.; CRESPI, G. MAFFIOLI, A. Public support for firm innovation: the experience of chilean FONTEC. 2007 (OVE working paper, 05/07).
BENAVENTE, J. M; PRICE, J. J. Apoyo publico a la innovacion empresarial: de FONTEC and nuestros dias. In: MUNOZ, O. (Ed.). Desarrollo productivo en Chile. La experiencia de CORFO entre 1990 y 2009. CORFO-FLACSO, 2009.
BLUNDELL, R.; COSTA DIAS, M. Alternative approaches to evaluation in empirical microeconomics. Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2002 (CeMMAP working papers, CWP10/02).
CIMOLI, M.;DOSI, G. Technological paradigms, patterns of learning and development. An introductory roadmap. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, v. 5, n. 3, p. 243-268, 1995.
CREPON, B.;DUGUET, E.; MAIRESSE, J. Research, innovation, and productivity: an econometric analysis at the firm level. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, 1998 (NBER working papers, 6696).
DAVID, P.; HALL, B.; TOOLE, A. Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A Review of the Econometric Evidence. Research Policy, n. 29, p. 497-529, 2000.
DINI, M.; STUMPO, G. Anális de la politica de fomento a las pequeñas y medianas empresas en Chile. CEPAL/ECLAC, 2002 (Serie Desarrollo Productivo, 136).
DOSI, C.; NELSON, R. (Eds.). An introduction to evolutionary theories in economics. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, v. 4, n. 3, p. 153-172, 1994.
DOSI, C.; FREEMAN, C.; NELSON, R.; SILVERBERG, G.; SOETE, L. (Eds.). Technical change and economic theory. London: Pinter, 1998.
DUGUET, E. Are subsidies a substitute or a complement to privately funded R&D? Evidence from France using propensity score methods for non-experimental data. Université de Paris I, 2004 (Working Paper, 75).
GERENS, Fontec-Innovación Tecnologica: una estimación de sus beneficios socials. Santiago, 1996. Mimeo.
GRILICHES Z. Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. Journal of Economic Literature, n. 28, p. 1661-1707, 1990.
Hall, B. H. The financing of research and development. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, n. 18, p. 35-51, 2002.
IDB. CH0022: Science and Technology Program. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank, 1991.
KLETTE, T.; MØEN, J. From growth theory to technology policy – coordination problems in theory and practice. Nordic Journal of Political Economy, n. 25, p. 53-74, 1999.
ILADES Un análisis económico de los proyectos de innovación tecnológica apoyados financieramente por FONTEC. Santiago, 1999. Mimeo. LERNER, J. The government as venture capitalist: the long-run impact of the SBIR program. Journal of Business, v. 72, n. 3, p. 285-318, 1999.
LEVIN, R.; KLEVORICK, A.; NELSON, R.; WINTER, S. Appropriating returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, n. 3, p. 783-831, 1987.
Lundvall B. (1988), “Innovation as an Interactive Process: from User-Producer Interaction to the National System of Innovation”, in G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, L, Soete (eds.), Technical Change and Economic Theory, London: Pinter.
LUNDVALL, B. (Ed.). National System of Innovation: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter, 1992.
MANSFIELD, E.; SCHWARTZ, M.; WAGNER, S. Imitation costs and patents: an empirical study. Economic Journal, n. 91, p. 907-918, 1981.
MARTIN, S. The evaluation of strategic research partnerships. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, v. 15, n. 2, p. 159-176, 2000.
MARTIN, S.Competition policy, collusion, and tacit collusion. International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, v. 24, n. 6, p. 1299-1332, 2006.
MARTIN, S.; SCOTT, J. The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovation. Research Policy, n. 12, 437-447, 2000.
METCALFE, J. S. Evolutionary economics and technology policy. The Economic Journal, n. 104, p. 931-944, 1994.
MORGAN, K. Learning by interacting: inter-firm networks and enterprise support. In: OECD (Ed.). Networks of enterprises and local development. Paris: OECD Publications,1996.
NELSON, R. The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy, v. 67, n. 3, p. 297-306, 1959.
NELSON, R. Why do firms innovate, and how does it matter. Strategic Management Journal, n. 12, p. 61-74, 1991.
NELSON, R.; WINTER, S. An evolutionary theory of economical change. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 1982.
OECD. Oslo manual: guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. 3rd Edition, 2005.
POWELL, W.; KOPUT, K.; SMITH-DOERR, L. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, n. 41, p. 116-145, 1996.
ROSENBAUM, P.; RUBIN, D. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, v. 70, n. 1, p. 41-55, 1983.
TEUBAL M. Marco de políticas para el financiamiento de la innovación en economías en vías de industrialización. SDS WP, 1998.
TOIVANEN, O. Innovation policy, entrepreneurship and development: a finnish view. UNUMERIT, 2009 (Working paper series #2009-050).
UNIVERSITY OF CHILE. Evaluación de los resultados económicos de los proyectos de innovación tecnológica financiados por el FONTEC. Santiago, 2004. Mimeo.
VIVARELLI, M. Innovation, employment and skills in advanced and developing countries: a survey of the literature. IDB Publications 61058, Inter-American Development Bank, 2011.
O conteúdo dos artigos e resenhas publicados na RBI são de absoluta e exclusiva responsabilidade de seus autores.
Downloads
