Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techfore

Evolution of university-industry collaboration in Brazil from a technology

upgrading perspective
⁎
Bruno Brandão Fischera, , Paola Rücker Schaefferb, Nicholas S. Vonortasc,d,e
a
School of Applied Sciences, University of Campinas, Brazil
b
Department of Science and Technology Policy, University of Campinas, Brazil
c
Institute for International Science and Technology Policy and Department of Economics, The George Washington University, USA
d
São Paulo Excellence Chair, Department of Science and Technology Policy, University of Campinas, Brazil
e
Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Russian Federation

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Due to its ability to create and disseminate knowledge, the modern university is understood as a central agent in
Technology upgrading innovation systems and technology upgrading dynamics. The main objective of this article is to assess the
Universities evolution of universities' embeddedness within the innovation system of an emerging economy in terms of
University-industry linkages patenting activity and linkages to industry. The study is based on information relating to the twelve most
Social network analysis
eminent universities in Brazil for the years 1994, 2004 and 2014. These institutions are found responsible for a
Emerging economy
substantial share of Brazilian patents – with an upward trend over the years - and these institutions have de-
monstrated a progressive embeddedness to the national innovation system. Such behavior seems to have co-
evolved along with improvements in the national institutional environment, leading to expectations that aca-
demia can become strategic in shaping the catching-up conditions in Brazil for the coming years. However,
deeper connections with both domestic and foreign agents and multinational corporations are needed in order to
accelerate the pace of university contribution to value chains and technology upgrading.

1. Introduction element of technology upgrading. The relationship between scientific

A striking challenge for most developing economies concerns the
structural barriers embroiled in middle-income traps (Im and
Rosenblatt, 2013). Catching up with advanced countries depends on
multiple aspects related to innovation systems' functioning.1 One ap-
proach to explaining these dynamics has been recently put forward as
Technology Upgrading, a term that can be straightforwardly defined as
“a gradual shift from lower to higher value-added activities” (Radosevic and
Yoruk, 2016, p. 4). While not entirely a new concept – akin to the
concept of ‘structural change’ – it involves a complex array of vectors of
interest, it is closely connected to the diversification in the knowledge
portfolio of nations (Lee, 2013), and it is connected to the omnipresent
interaction of global and local actors (firms, universities, governments)
(Ernst and Kim, 2002). These modern approaches to the dynamics of
innovation in catching up economies stress that closing the technology
gap with advanced countries functions differently than pushing the
knowledge frontiers back.
Within this context, the knowledge infrastructure stands as a key
and technological development has long been recognized as a pillar of
innovation systems' development and of the competitive capabilities in
knowledge-based societies (Eichengreen, 2004; Etzkowitz and
Leydesdorff, 2000; Nelson and Rosenberg, 1993). If anything, this re-
lationship has become more deeply entrenched in productive structures
in modern times and in multi-player settings (Caraça et al., 2009;
Leydesdorff and Meyer, 2007). Accordingly, the modern university is
viewed as a central agent of the knowledge infrastructure on which
innovation dynamics rely (Asheim et al., 2011; Conceição and Heitor,
1999; Cooke et al., 1997; Guerrero et al., 2016; Mazzoleni and Nelson,
2007).
Empirical evidence shows that universities function as fundamental
sources of technological opportunities for the private sector (Klevorick
et al., 1995), and for emerging economies' catch-up processes (Kruss
et al., 2015). Academic technology transfer generates pervasive effects
for society at large – such as improved human capital, knowledge ca-
pital and entrepreneurship (Guerrero et al., 2016). Universities have
also been related to contributions to the innovation environment

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bruno.fischer@fca.unicamp.br (B.B. Fischer).
Terminologies are still fluid. Similar issues are discussed under the label “catch-up, post catch-up”, for instance, where basically the discussion is about the transition of economies
1

from an upper middle-income level to a fully developed stage where they can generate new-to-the-world innovations (Choung, 2016; Choung et al., 2016).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.05.001
Received 27 September 2017; Received in revised form 25 April 2018; Accepted 2 May 2018
0040-1625/ © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Fischer, B.B., Technological Forecasting & Social Change (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.05.001
B.B. Fischer et al.
(Choung et al., 2014), the generation of aggregate competitive ad-
vantages (Goddard and Chatterton, 1999), and as vectors of integration
with international knowledge communities (Heitor, 2015).
The acknowledgement of this role for academia has given rise to
institutional changes aiming at promoting a closer connection between
universities and markets (Caraça et al., 2009) which intensifies the need
to further explore the relationship between the science base and tech-
nological and industrial knowledge (Radosevic and Yoruk, 2014). This
is critical for emerging and transition countries – those in search for
technology upgrading. These economies often lack adequate knowledge
infrastructures able to feed the economic system with skills and ideas
necessary to attain higher levels of productivity.
Aiming at contributing to this debate from a new perspective, this
study assesses the evolution of universities' embeddedness within the
innovation system of an emerging economy. We explore the evolution
of patenting activity and linkages to industry over the past decades and
how these dynamics may fit into technology upgrading and catching-up
processes in an emerging economy: Brazil. As it is known, the role
played by universities within National Innovation Systems varies over
time and across countries at different stages of development (Kruss
et al., 2015; Mowery and Sampat, 2005), making such an approach a
fundamental step in understanding the trajectory of Brazil's National
Innovation System. Emphasis is given to the intensity and breadth of
technology upgrading, as well as to interactions with domestic and
foreign firms. The assessment extends to the most eminent research-
intensive Brazilian universities for three distinct years (1994, 2004,
2014) in order to capture inter-temporal trends.
According to the Global Competitiveness Report 2016/2017,2 Brazil
is classified among the efficiency-driven economies, a development
stage in which technological readiness and higher education institu-
tions are among the strategic pillars, justifying our interest in academic
institutions. Also, this country presents some interesting traits, such as a
history of successful cases in University-Industry linkages (Dutrénit and
Arza, 2015; Guennif and Ramani, 2012) and a high concentration of
researchers in academic institutions (Ryan, 2010). Our findings indicate
that leading universities in Brazil have increased their participation in
technology upgrading processes, as well as their connections to mar-
kets, following a substantial enhancement of the institutional environ-
ment. However, deeper connections with foreign agents and multi-
nationals hosted in the country are needed in order to accelerate the
pace of technology upgrading.
The article is structured in six sections. Following the introduction,
Section 2 reviews the literature on technology upgrading and the role of
universities in it. Section 3 describes the analytical method. Section 4
presents empirical findings, while Section 5 discusses these results in
light of the institutional evolution of the Brazilian regulatory frame-
work. Section 6 concludes with final remarks and potential implications
for researchers and policy.
2. Middle-income trap, catching-up and technology upgrading
Middle-income traps consist of a state of growth decelerations fol-
lowing periods of sustained increases in per capita income (Gill et al.,
2007). This situation is a function of the exhaustion of imitative
strategy opportunities and low value added production. As income le-
vels rise, international price-based competitiveness decreases. In the
absence of structural upgrading, this condition is persistent, creating a
barrier for emerging economies' evolution towards higher stages of
development (Agénor, 2017). A key aspect in this discussion concerns
the inability of middle-income countries to generate sufficient levels of
innovative capabilities and product differentiation in international
markets. Eventually, gains from the exploitation of low-cost resources
2
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2016-2017/05FullReport/
TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2016-2017_FINAL.pdf
2
Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
(typically labor and natural resources) and imitation of foreign tech-
nologies are exhausted, requiring a productive shift towards high value
added activities for sustaining growth (Perez-Sebastian, 2007;
Vandenbussche et al., 2006).
In this regard, technological knowledge from advanced economies
represents a strategic asset for emerging economies' evolutionary tra-
jectories (Gerschenkron, 1962; Giuliani et al., 2005). However, tradi-
tional approaches have rarely emphasized the barriers faced by devel-
oping countries in the generation of technological capabilities (Lall,
1992). This implies that innovations generated in advanced nations
should be appropriated in developing economies at low costs and that
some level of convergence should be attained over the long run. But a
closer look on catching-up processes reveals that convergence is con-
ditional on the capability of absorbing and diffusing frontier technol-
ogies from advanced markets (Abramovitz, 1986; Esterhuizen et al.,
2012). In order for these conditions to materialize, catching-up
economies must be able to promote the development of learning cap-
abilities (Dahlman et al., 1987; Lall, 1992; Verspagen, 1991).
Distinct analytical approaches have been directed towards the
catching-up processes of developing and emerging nations. Key items of
interest include participation in Global Value Chains as a transmission
channel of knowledge (Ernst and Kim, 2002), complexity of economic
structures (Hidalgo and Hausmann, 2009; Krüger, 2008), dynamic
specialization towards emerging technologies (Radosevic and Yoruk,
2014), and sequential upgrading based on leading sectors (Ozawa,
2009), among others. Jindra et al. (2015) have summed up these ar-
guments in three dimensions of technology upgrading processes in
order to address the evolution of value-added within emerging econo-
mies:
a) Intensity of Technology Upgrading: a vector of technology acquisition
strategies conditional upon countries' current technological cap-
abilities;
b) Breadth of Technology Upgrading: structural factors connected to the
dynamics of technology upgrading, such as infrastructure, structural
features of productive systems, and firm-level capabilities.
c) Interaction with the Global Economy: international interconnectedness
that is embedded in knowledge flows, highlighting inter-
dependencies across different nations and technological systems.
The overarching argument behind these dimensions resides in
technological capabilities and human capital (Agénor, 2017; Stokey,
2015). The reasoning is that human capital, along with broader struc-
tural changes, influence innovation rates, driving up sophistication of
production and exports. That is because advanced foreign technology
absorption and the expansion of domestic technological activity are
hampered in a context of scarce high-quality human capital (Stone and
Shepherd, 2011), such as the case of Brazil (OECD, 2014).
As previously outlined, a socioeconomic environment that tackles
these challenges comprises several distinct elements. One of the key
players in these dynamics is the academic system (Lee, 2013; Mazzoleni
and Nelson, 2007). The next section discusses how and to what extent
universities can influence technology upgrading trajectories as a means
for catching-up.
2.1. Universities as agents of technology upgrading
From a systems perspective, several organizations interact with one
another to contribute to the construction of technological capabilities
(Bergek et al., 2008; Cohen et al., 2002; Lundvall, 2009, 2010;
Mazzoleni and Nelson, 2007; Nelson, 1993; Yoon, 2015). Academic
institutions are central agents in these evolutionary processes due to
their ability to create and deploy knowledge (Bercovitz and Feldman,
2006; Conceição and Heitor, 1999). This is mainly a function of the fact
that universities operate as sources of aggregate industrial competi-
tiveness and brokers' of international knowledge to domestic industries
B.B. Fischer et al.
(Giuliani and Rabellotti, 2012; Goldstein and Drucker, 2006; Goldstein
and Renault, 2004; Leten et al., 2014; Martin, 1998; Rosenberg and
Nelson, 1994).
A traditional pillar of this knowledge transmission comes in the
form of human capital. Tertiary education has been perceived as a
strategic vector of developing countries' growth trajectories, supplying
economic systems with advanced skills (Bercovitz and Feldman, 2006;
Hanushek, 2013; Martin, 1998). Education, however, provides a limited
interpretation on how universities interact with innovation systems and
disseminate capabilities (Giuliani and Rabellotti, 2012). The role of the
university as a supplier of human resources has been extended to in-
clude joint R&D projects and other forms of technology transfer
(Etzkowitz, 2004; Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 1997; Etzkowitz and
Leydesdorff, 2000; Leydesdorff and Zawdie, 2010; Van Looy et al.,
2011; Yoruk, 2013). Eun et al. (2006) refer to the concept of ‘forward
engineering’ as involving a direct connection between universities and
businesses for the process of technological development. It is based on
refinement of scientific knowledge in academic institutions and sub-
sequent commercialization. Well known examples include spin-offs,
patents, licenses, and consulting activities (Breschi et al., 2000; Caraça
et al., 2009; Cohen et al., 2002; Klofsten and Jones-Evans, 2000; Lee,
2013; Mazzoleni and Nelson, 2007). These conditions highlight the
developmental function of the university, going beyond pure teaching
and research activities (Gunasekara, 2006). Ultimately, this can trans-
late into stronger firm-level technological capabilities, innovation and
economic development (Audretsch and Lehmann, 2004; Feller, 1990;
Galan-Muros and Davey, 2017; Klevorick et al., 1995; Malerba and
Nelson, 2011; Wang et al., 2012). This is particularly relevant in a
context in which several industries become increasingly science-based
(Hobday, 2005; Jensen et al., 2007; Lee, 2013, 2005).
A successful case of these dynamics taking place in a catch-up
context is that of the Taiwanese chip industry, where universities acted
as strategic patenting and licensing agents (Lee and Yoon, 2010). Also,
increasing levels of collaboration between academia and industry has
been identified as a mechanism to enhance the productivity of the
Chinese innovation system, helping it to develop the necessary cap-
abilities to move past the middle-income status (Liu et al., 2017).
While this discussion is also of interest to developed economies, we
argue herein for the critical importance to emerging nations. First,
universities form part of innovation systems, being able to influence
rates of catching-up in developing country firms (Lee and Malerba,
2017). Second, considering the incipient nature of innovation systems
in these countries (Albuquerque, 1999), universities play a pivotal role
in shaping overall firm capabilities (Eun et al., 2006; Suzigan et al.,
2009). Dahlman et al. (1987) have proposed that institutions dedicated
to research, education and training can play the role of specialized
technological agents in developing countries' evolutionary processes. In
the same vein, universities in emerging economies can function as
‘antennae’ for scientific and technological evolutions created in leading
innovation systems (Kruss et al., 2015). Therefore, outcomes of aca-
demic research – coupled with stronger incentives for university R&D -
can assist reducing domestic dependence on foreign sources of tech-
nology and promoting the development of domestic capabilities (Chang
et al., 2016; Spencer, 2001).
Nevertheless, recent evidence (Britto et al., 2015; Fischer et al.,
2018) points out that developing countries demonstrate weak partici-
pation of universities in the economic structure, indicating barriers for
technology upgrading and catching-up. This implies that the mere
presence of key agents in innovation systems is insufficient and that
systemic interactions matter. Still, there is insufficient knowledge on
how universities in emerging nations are connected to developing
countries' productive systems (Suzigan et al., 2009). This provides the
motivation for the present analysis.
3
Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
3. Method
We analyze university patenting activity in Brazil, focusing on the
technological activity of the twelve most distinguished research-or-
iented Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in the country. The
SCImago ranking3 was used to determine eminence in terms of a
composite indicator incorporating research performance, innovation
outputs and societal impacts. Since research quality significantly affects
the university's ability to engage with non-university actors
(Abramovsky et al., 2007; Laursen et al., 2011), dealing with the
leading academic institutions is considered appropriate for assessing
university-industry interaction patterns. This is also supported by evi-
dence that positive effects in terms of technological capabilities arising
from universities are mainly concentrated in those institutions with
higher quality research (Cowan and Zinovyeva, 2013).
We first address the level of openness of these universities by
checking to what extent they are involved with markets. For that pur-
pose we analyze data from the Brazilian Census of the CNPq Research
Group Directory which identifies relationships between registered re-
search groups with industry and the object of these collaborations.
These data are available for years 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010 and
2014.
Next we turn to university patenting activity. Even though patents
have definite limitations as proxies of catch-up conditions, they re-
present a useful tool. Patents are useful indicators of university linkages
to innovation systems (Cassiman et al., 2007; Cowan and Zinovyeva,
2013), proxies for technology diffusion (Chang et al., 2016) and for
catching-up processes (Giuliani et al., 2016). The top-12 Brazilian
universities in terms of academic excellence are responsible for the bulk
of patents deposited by universities in the country.4 Restraining the
sample to the more usual ‘top-10’ approach would lead to the exclusion
of two relevant universities in terms of patenting activity.
In order to develop a description of the participation of Brazilian
universities to technological upgrading intensity, breadth and interac-
tion with the global economy, we assess: i) domestic and international
patents; ii) technological domains; and iii) networks of assignees. Data
were obtained from Orbit Intelligence. A total of 807 patent applica-
tions with participation of at least one of the twelve focal institutions
were analyzed for three periods: 1994, 2004, and 2014. Data for each
year includes all patent applications deposited from January 1st until
December 31st. Searches were performed for each individual university
taking into account application assignees. As a search criterion for pa-
tent applications, we focused on the earliest publication date of docu-
ments, minimizing potential double count of patents. University acro-
nyms were used to capture variations in assignees' names5 (see Table 1
for the correspondence between institutions and acronyms). Subse-
quently, each document was analyzed individually. For each patent we
collected information on the office of application, IPC (International
Patent Classification) and co-assignees. Table 1 summarizes the overall
quantity of patent applications for each university/year of publication.
It is worth noticing the substantial increment over the years in terms of
patent applications from academic units included in the sample. The
exception is the Federal University of São Paulo, which presents a
negligible patenting activity in spite of its institutional relevance in the
SCImago ranking.
The next step in our exploratory exercise consisted of schematizing
the obtained dataset for university-industry interactions, a measure of
academic embeddedness in domestic productive structures and inter-
national knowledge networks. We use Social Network Analysis (SNA)
3
http://www.scimagoir.com/methodology.php
4
According to detailed data on university patenting in Brazil, these twelve institutions
respond for half (49.9%) of patent deposits by universities in the country since the year
2000. The remaining half is spread across other 166 higher education institutions.
5
Universities' names appeared in different languages, while acronyms remained con-
stant.
B.B. Fischer et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 1 Table 2
Patent applications for each university/year. University-industry interactions' openness quotient.
University Acronym 1994 2004 2014 University 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2014*

University of São Paulo USP 3 39 112 USP 0.7328 0.7883 0.8003 0.7885 0.9572 1,1084
University of Campinas UNICAMP 8 73 83 UNICAMP 0.5156 0.5275 0.6245 0.5700 0.6348 1,0374
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro UFRJ 0 35 35 UFRJ 0.6232 0.5964 0.6599 0.8541 0.9399 1,2801
State University of São Paulo UNESP 1 9 42 UNESP 0.4921 0.7768 1.0738 1.0745 1.3006 1,1579
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul UFRGS 0 13 47 UFRGS 1.9623 1.8704 1.9263 1.9562 1.4821 1,3232
Federal University of Minas Gerais UFMG 0 26 89 UFMG 0.5502 0.8723 0.9973 0.9582 1.0718 1,0118
Federal University of São Paulo UNIFESP 0 1 0 UNIFESP 0.6183 0.4433 0.5180 0.5508 0.6025 1,1946
Federal University of Santa Catarina UFSC 0 3 20 UFSC 2.8759 2.4809 2.2035 2.1768 2.1602 1,6068
Federal University of Paraná UFPR 0 6 65 UFPR 2.3425 1.9835 2.0499 1.8403 1.7615 1,1340
Federal University of Pernambuco UFPE 0 7 26 UFPE 1.4365 1.6850 1.8798 1.5555 1.5892 1,0816
Federal University of São Carlos UFSCAR 0 7 30 UFSCAR 0.7543 1.0684 0.6456 2.0404 1.0869 1,2748
University of Brasília UnB 0 1 26 UnB 1.2605 1.3710 1.4988 1.4976 1.2385 1,0876
Total 12 220 575
Notes: (*) Most recent data available.

for this purpose, focusing on co-patenting data as proxy of interactions
between universities and other agents (a vector of both knowledge
creation and dissemination within the productive system). Co-patenting
refers to patents applied for by two or more agents. Generally, this is a
sign of cooperative technological activity. Concerning the evaluation of
social networks, patent data with focus on universities represent a one-
mode perspective, i.e., a network that comprises one set of nodes that
are similar to each other (Wal and Boschma, 2009). Our panel data
consists of cross-section across twelve universities and longitudinal for
years 1994, 2004 and 2014, allowing for the observation of structural
trends and shifts in social ties related to co-patenting over the last
decades. Density and centrality indicators are also calculated for each
social network.
Lastly, we cast the discussion of findings within the evolving in-
stitutional context of the Brazilian innovation system during the 20-
year period (1994–2014) to address how it affects university embedd-
edness in technology upgrading dynamics. We also extend our argu-
ment to the larger population of Brazilian firms, and how they perceive
the participation of academic institutions within the innovation en-
vironment. To do so we use descriptive statistics from the Brazilian
Innovation Survey (PINTEC).
4. Empirical assessment
The first step in our assessment develops a closer look at the top
twelve research-oriented universities in Brazil with particular emphasis
to the evolution of their patenting activity over the 20-year period. The
purpose is to detect behavioral patterns concerning the extent to which
these institutions participate in processes related to knowledge gen-
eration and deployment. Correspondingly, we look into academic pa-
tenting and university-industry co-patenting indicators.
We start by analyzing these universities' openness in terms of uni-
versity-industry interactions relative to the total population of Brazilian
universities (Table 2). This index was calculated as a quotient between
the average number U-I linkages of each institution's research groups
relative to the average number of U-I linkages across the whole popu-
lation of registered university research groups in the country. It is based
on CNPq's Research Group Directory. Hence, a value below (above) one
represents an Openness Quotient below (above) the national average.
Data from this Census includes University-Industry linkages reported by
research group leaders over previous periods,6 not representing ne-
cessarily that connections took place in the same year of data collection.
The Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), the Federal
University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), The Federal University of Rio
de Janeiro (UFRJ), The Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCAR), the
Federal University of São Paulo (UNIFESP), and the State University of
6 8
This corresponds to the previous two years in the 2002–2010 editions, and four
previous years for the 2014 census.
São Paulo (UNESP) were the most ‘open’ institutions in the last period
analyzed. Most universities among the top-12 have evolved in terms of
UeI linkages but, with the exception of the Federal University of Santa
Catarina (UFSC), they do not demonstrate strong market embeddedness
relative to the population of academic institutions in Brazil.
The above is based on all sorts of U-I interaction, including research,
consulting, training, etc. Limiting attention to U-I research interactions
produces similar results (Table 3). The universities that presented a
higher level of specialization in collaborations with industry in general
are also those with higher R&D-oriented patterns of relationships. This
is interesting: the behavior of the top-ranked research-oriented uni-
versities that could, in theory, have a greater impact on technology
upgrading does not differ significantly from the behavior of the average
higher education institution in Brazil concerning interactions with in-
dustry (in general and in R&D-oriented projects). What happens here is
that the population of research groups in Brazil has become more prone
to interact with companies over the analyzed period, explaining why
universities that were much below or above average (value 1) have
converged in relative terms. In 2002, each research group developed on
average 0.4 collaborations with industry (of which, 0.3 collaborations
were in R&D). These values evolved to 1.6 collaborations on average in
2014 (1.2 in R&D).7 Potential institutional triggers for this phenomenon
are presented and discussed in Section 5. Nonetheless, this assessment
gives only a quantitative overview of U-I collaborations. The remainder
of our assessment deals with important qualifications of these condi-
tions and the pivotal role played by the top-12 universities within the
context of technology upgrading in Brazil.
Another interesting feature is that Brazilian science and technology
activities are concentrated in the South-Southeast axis (Suzigan et al.,
2009). This corresponds to the geographic distribution of the twelve
institutions in our sample, the only exception being the Federal Uni-
versity of Pernambuco (UFPE) located in the Northeast. Hence, one
would expect disproportionately stronger impacts by these universities
in terms of technology upgrading to the more developed regions in the
country, thus reinforcing the existing economic geography.
Another description of the sample is offered in Graph 1, presenting
the weight of the top-12 Brazilian universities in total patenting activity
(domestic and international applications) with at least one Brazilian
assignee. There are clear indications that the most preeminent research-
oriented universities in Brazil are responsible for a substantial amount
of patenting activity in the country. According to the Brazilian Patent
Office (INPI), six among the ten most active players in terms of patent
generation are universities.8 The top-12 academic institutions have
enhanced their share of patenting from 0.45% in 1994 to 8.57% in 2014
7
Collaborations can reach values above one as each research group can engage in
multiple collaborative projects.
http://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/2016/11/18/protagonismo-incomum/ (in
Portuguese).

4
B.B. Fischer et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 3 Herfindahl-Hirschman Index demonstrates a relative deconcentration

University-industry R&D openness quotient. process in patenting activity: technological concentration reduces from
University 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2014* 0.796 in 1994 to 0.178 in 2014. We see here indications of slow pace of
improvement of technological activity, relatively low levels of inter-
USP 0.6653 0.7526 0.7725 0.7476 0.8870 1,1021 action with the global economy, and gradual deconcentration in terms
UNICAMP 0.5304 0.5827 0.6496 0.5838 0.6024 1,0326
of technological domains, a picture of the struggle to engage in the
UFRJ 0.7176 0.6302 0.6622 0.8718 0.9553 1,2888
UNESP 0.4624 0.8159 1.0872 1.0457 1.2350 1,1575
catching-up process from middle to high-income status (Lee, 2013).
UFRGS 2.0119 1.9009 1.9461 1.9930 1.5113 1,3418 The next step consists in social network analysis of co-patenting
UFMG 0.5623 0.9469 1.0182 0.9764 1.0821 1,0513 relationships involving our focal group of Brazilian universities.
UNIFESP 0.4059 0.2694 0.3356 0.3531 0.4650 1,2032 Emphasis here resides in the characteristics of connections, i.e., the
UFSC 3.2907 2.7573 2.4677 2.4853 2.4136 1,6281
nature of agents (companies, other universities, research institutes and
UFPR 2.4385 2.0446 2.0602 1.8603 1.7640 1,1462
UFPE 1.2829 1.5861 1.7470 1.4914 1.6264 1,1101 research support institutions) and their respective origin (domestic,
UFSCAR 0.9084 1.1001 0.5664 2.4977 1.0967 1,2611 multinational subsidiaries or foreign entities), thus following the
UnB 1.1117 1.2973 1.4311 1.4791 1.3243 1,0972 guidelines provided by the analytical framework of technology up-
grading literature. In the following representation of networks, the size
Notes: (*) Most recent data available.

Participation of top-12 Brazilian universities in total patenting activity (1994-2014).

8000
6848 6712
7000 6359 6603
5735
6000 5393 5521 5420
4814 4920 4969
5000 4451
3782 3948 4031
4000
3091 2953 3087 3073 3329
3000 2669

2000
1000 621 526 575
12 27 10 10 31 21 172 55 133 159 220 150 226 192 255 121 154 252
0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Top 12 Universities Total (patents deposited by at least one Brazilian assignee)

Graph 1. Participation of top-12 Brazilian universities in total patenting activity (1994–2014).
Note: Data for total patents deposited by at least one Brazilian assignee was obtained from WIPO. Data for the top 12 universities was gathered from orbit
intelligence.

(patents with at least one Brazilian assignee). To put this in perspective, Table 4
the participation of the total population of universities in patenting Top-12 university patenting: technological domains, international engagement.
activity in the European Union is around 4%, while in the US this Technology upgrading 1994 2004 2014
number goes up to 6% (Malerba et al., 2016). That is to say, despite
increasing levels of academic patenting in recent decades, universities Intensity of technology upgrading
in developed countries are still marginally relevant (Blind et al., 2006; Domestic 11 200 494
International 1 20 81
Geuna and Nesta, 2006). The analysis of the Brazilian sample of key
Breadth of technology upgrading
institutions reveals a different picture in terms of academic weight in Technological domains (IPC-code)a
total patenting activity. This feature corroborates with the expectation Human Necessities 5 93 258
that universities in Brazil are strategic agents in the technology up- Performing Operations; Transporting 1 27 92
Chemistery; Metallurgy 5 98 214
grading process.
Textiles; Paper 1 2 7
Fixed Constructions 0 6 11
4.1. Brazilian universities and the dimensions of technology upgrading Mechanical Engineering; Lighting; Heating; 0 3 6
Weapons; Blasting
Physics 1 35 81
The next step in our analysis consists in organizing the top twelve Electricity 0 19 29
Brazilian universities' data on patents according to the established Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI)b,a 0.796 0.181 0.178
measures of technology upgrading (Jindra et al., 2015). We look at Interactions with the global economy
domestic and international patents, technological domains, and net- Co-patents 3 47 203
International co-patentsc 1 7 21
works of assignees. Table 4 provides a description of the first two di-
mensions. a
Some patents do not have information on technological domains, while
The patenting behavior of the twelve top ranked research uni- other are assigned to more than one area of knowledge.
versities in Brazil indicates a rather domestic-oriented focus. Academic b
HHI was calculated based on the sub-classifications of technological do-
co-patenting is also strongly inward-oriented, lacking connections with mains containing the 23 subareas with patenting activity for our sample.
agents abroad and with MNEs with subsidiaries in the country. These c
This indicator represents only how many co-patents were deposited with
are capped with a low degree of diversification in the application of international partners. However, the number of interactions may differ from
patents. Inventions are concentrated in only two broad technological this data because each application could consist in multiple interactions.
domains: Human Necessities and Chemistry & Metallurgy. However,
when technological sub-domains are introduced in the analysis, the

5
B.B. Fischer et al.
Network of patent collaborations established by the top 12 Brazilian universities – 1994.
Graph 2. Network of patent collaborations established by the top 12 Brazilian
universities – 1994.
Note: 1Triangles comprehend domestic Universities and Research Foundations
& Institutions. Diamonds identify these same agents that are located abroad.
Circles represent Brazilian firms. Boxes stand for multinational companies with
subsidiaries in Brazil and foreign corporations.
2
Lines connecting patent assignees illustrate the presence of at least one co-
patent. Notice that lines can also represent multiple co-patents among different
entities. In 1994, the line connecting USP and FAPESP represents two co-pa-
tents. The remaining connections stand for single co-patents.
of symbols reflects the degree centrality of each agent (absolute number
of collaboration in patent applications for each agent). Lastly, in-
dicators of network density and centrality are discussed.
The dataset reveals that Brazilian universities have increased the
level of interaction with industry over time, albeit starting from a very
low level (Graphs 2–4). There is a growing level of embeddedness of
these institutions into patenting networks involving firms over the
specific period. Back in 1994 U-I co-patenting networks barely existed,
reflecting the small numbers in overall patents with university appli-
cants that year (twelve in total). The only institutions among the top-12
academic units examined were the University of São Paulo (USP) and
the University of Campinas (UNICAMP). The latter was the sole agent to
engage in transnational patenting activity. FAPESP, which is a research
support institution in the State of São Paulo, is the only agent that has
two co-patents with USP.
Ten years later (2004) we observe that only three of the twelve
institutions are left out of co-patenting activity. Still, even if this net-
work appears to be denser, interactions with multinational companies
and other agents located abroad are marginal: three Multinationals and
four Universities and Research Foundations and Institutions located
Network of patent collaborations established by the top 12 Brazilian universities – 2004.
6
Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
abroad are included in Graph 3. Again the central role played by the
São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) must be highlighted, inter-
acting not only with universities from its own state (São Paulo) but also
with the Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), being responsible
for 20 out of 47 co-patents in 2004. This foundation is the institution
responsible for supporting financially for science, technology and in-
novation in the State of São Paulo, acting as a key player in sustaining
high quality research in several universities across the Southeast region.
As its budget is dependent on value added taxes of the richest state in
Brazil, FAPESP has a substantial amount of resources to invest, thus
shaping a rich environment for academic institutions in the State of São
Paulo. Five out of our twelve focal institutions are located in this par-
ticular State. Among the universities and research institutions of in-
terest, Fiocruz, a public research institute, and the Catholic University
of Brasília are those with the largest numbers of co-patents with the
focal universities. In turn, Biolab, a Brazilian pharmaceutical company,
and USIMINAS, a Brazilian steel company, are the two companies with
the most relevant representations in terms of co-patents with the top-12
universities included in our analysis.
The 2014 network is clearly much denser than what was observed
for previous periods. Only one university in our sample did not get
involved in co-patenting activity that year. Over the past couple of
decades, then, the role of Brazilian academic institutions as central
agents in processes related to the production and deployment of
knowledge has seemingly advanced significantly. The University of São
Paulo (USP), the University of Campinas (UNICAMP), the Federal
University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) and the Federal University of Minas
Gerais (UFMG) stand out in terms of interactions in patenting activity.
However, only 25 out of 268 identified collaborations are related to
multinational corporations or other foreign entities. The remaining 243
interactions are with domestic agents. This is a representative aspect of
the domestic orientation of Brazilian academia, underscoring its diffi-
culty in participating in international knowledge flows – particularly
those originating in advanced economies.
In terms of the main organizations establishing co-patents with the
focal universities we can mention FAPEMIG, the research foundation of
the State of Minas Gerais, with 17 co-patents, Embrapa, a public re-
search body dedicated to agricultural sciences, with 14 co-patents,
Petrobras, the public oil company, with 13 co-patents, and the
University of São Paulo (USP) with 8 co-patents. It is relevant to notice
that only Petrobras can be categorized as firm – even though it follows
public directions and it is often used as a policy instrument in Brazil.
None of these organizations is located outside of Brazil, or represents a
Graph 3. Network of patent collaborations estab-
lished by the top 12 Brazilian universities – 2004.
Note: 1Triangles comprehend domestic Universities
and Research Foundations & Institutions. Diamonds
identify these same agents that are located abroad.
Circles represent Brazilian firms. Boxes stand for
multinational companies with subsidiaries in Brazil
and foreign corporations.
2
Lines connecting patent assignees illustrate the
presence of at least one co-patent. Notice that lines
can also represent multiple co-patents among dif-
ferent entities. In 2004, the line connecting USP and
FAPESP represents 16 co-patents. The remaining
lines stand for two co-patents or less.
B.B. Fischer et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Network of patent collaborations established by the top 12 Brazilian universities – 2014. Graph 4. Network of patent collaborations
established by the top 12 Brazilian uni-
versities – 2014.
Note: 1Triangles comprehend domestic
Universities and Research Foundations &
Institutions. Diamonds identify these same
agents that are located abroad. Circles re-
present Brazilian firms. Boxes stand for
multinational companies with subsidiaries
in Brazil and foreign corporations.
2
Lines connecting patent assignees illustrate
the presence of at least one co-patent.
Notice that lines can also represent multiple
co-patents among different entities. In
2014, the line connecting UFMG and
FAPEMIG represents 16 co-patents. The re-
maining connections stand for seven co-
patents or less.

local branch of a multinational enterprise. These results are also in line upgrading (Lee and Malerba, 2017). Our assessment (1994, 2004,
with the perception that there is a clear predominance of relationships 2014) covers a rich period of changes in the Brazilian innovation policy
between agents of a similar nature. landscape. A first institutional landmark concerns a major revision of
Table 5 supports our interpretation of the Graphs. The low density the intellectual property law in 1996 (Law 9279/96). The improved
observed in these networks - along with the scarcity of co-patents regulatory mechanism enhanced the institutional stability for filing
(particularly with multinational companies) - ratify the Brazilian patents in Brazil by incorporating issues contained in the TRIPS
landscape of scant interactions between academia and industry, albeit agreement and created a stronger appropriability regime that benefitted
with noticeable evolution. The average number of interactions per technology markets in the country (Ryan, 2010). Better intellectual
university evolved from 0.53 in 1994 to 4.58 in 2014 leaving only one property protection has been associated in the literature with positive
university among the top-12 Brazilian institutions isolated in terms of incentives to collaborate in research.
patenting activity. The density indicator – defined by the sum of all As Ryan (2010; p. 1084) puts it, “Brazilian technocrats in science and
existing connections divided by the number of possible connections technology funding agencies and research universities recall that in the
among agents – varied considerably. In 1994, only 3.84% of possible 1990s they realized that Brazil had great science but little technology in-
connections were consummated. This number goes up to 10.97% in novation”. Albuquerque (1999) found in this situation signs of im-
2004. It is then reduced back to 3.94% in 2014 probably as a result of maturity of the National Innovation System. In the late 1990's FAPESP
the aforementioned increase in the total number of different interacting started providing financial support for collaborative R&D between
partners in the networks with our focal group of universities. Another academic institutions and firms (Alves et al., 2015). Known for its
indication of the decentralized U-I linkages in our sample is offered by pioneering initiatives, FAPESP functioned as a benchmark for funding
the closeness centrality indicator (Nooy et al., 2005). The progressive agencies across the country. But it was not until 2004 that the Federal
increase of the mean value of this indicator between 1994 (0.05) and Government included University-Industry linkages as a pillar for in-
2014 (0.31) suggests a considerable reduction in terms of distances novation policy. Since that year industrial policies have prioritized
among the different agents in the network. Similarly, the low value of closer interaction between academia and the private sector. This ap-
the betweenness centrality indicator across all three years underscores proach was embraced by the Industrial, Technological and Trade Policy
the decentralized nature of linkages. (PITCE 2004–2008), and it remains a core axis of the current National
Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation (2016–2022). In
practical terms, this has resulted in several initiatives that facilitated
5. Institutional framework
the approximation of companies to the S&T infrastructure.
In a similar vein, and inspired by the Bayh-Dole Act in the United
The institutional context can help clarify the empirical appraisal of
States, the Brazilian Innovation Act of 2004 has set the regulatory
data. While we understand that other issues are likely to have played
framework to guide technology transfer processes from academia. This
important roles in these dynamics (such as evolving demand for tech-
regulatory framework also includes the creation of research infra-
nologies and macroeconomic conditions), our focus on institutional
structure in public universities that can be shared with companies in
dynamics covers fundamental structural changes in the environment for
collaborative projects with universities (Santos and Torkomian, 2013).
technology production and diffusion in Brazilian universities, a central
Positive effects of the Innovation Act of 2004 in terms of overall aca-
issue in the discussion of the necessary settings for technology
demic patenting (Santos and Mello, 2009) and for U-I cooperation,
leading to stronger innovative capabilities in companies, have been
Table 5
reported (Dewes et al., 2015). This is not to say that all challenges have
Indicators of centrality and density - 1994/2004/2014.
been resolved, including institutional weaknesses in U-I agreements
1994 2004 2014 mainly a function of inexperienced governance of university technology
transfer offices (TTOs) (Alves et al., 2015; Silva and Guimarães, 2015)
Average degree centrality 0.53 3.29 4.58
Density (no loops allowed) 0.0381 0.1097 0.0394 and high levels of bureaucratic barriers in public universities and re-
Closeness centrality Mean 0.05 0.17 0.31 search institutes (Freitas et al., 2013). This situation perpetuates in-
Std. Dev. 0.0708 0.0865 0.0525 formal agreements (Dewes et al., 2015). Such “teething” problems are
Betweenness centrality Mean 0.00 0.04 0.02 not unique to Brazil, of course. In its first decade, the Bayh-Dole Act did
Std. Dev. 0.00 0.0897 0.0648
not generate significant results in terms of getting academia closer to

7
B.B. Fischer et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 6
Brazilian innovation survey (PINTEC): UIC trends in Brazil from companies' perspective.
PINTEC Total companies in Innovative Companies with Companies with UIC object (only companies UIC importance (companies with collaborative
the survey companies collaborative processes UIC with UIC) processes)

R&D activities Others High Medium Low/no

relevan.

2003 84,262 28,036 1052 551 360 191 188 124 740
(3.76%) (1.96%) (65.3%) (34.7%) (17.9%) (11.8%) (70.3%)
2005 91,055 30,377 2194 777 341 436 432 256 1506
(7.22%) (2.56%) (43.9%) (56.1%) (19.7%) (11.7%) (68.6%)
2008 106,822 41,223 4248 1759 1028 732 829 477 2942
(10.31%) (4.27%) (58.4%) (41.6%) (19.5%) (11.2%) (69.3%)
2011 128,699 45,950 7694 3405 1850 1555 1431 826 5437
(16.74%) (7.41%) (54.3%) (45.7%) (18.6%) (10.7%) (70.7%)
2014 132,529 47,693 7299 3432 1882 1551 1098 840 5361
(15.30%) (7.20%) (54.8%) (45.2%) (15.0%) (11.5%) (73.5%)

industry, except for some specific ‘superstar’ outliers (Nelsen, 2004).
The system was also underlined by deep mistrust between the two sides
(Hertzfeld et al., 2006).
Subsequent discussions between government, academia and in-
dustry over a period of five years led to updates of the Innovation Act of
2004 via a new institutional framework in 2016 (Law 13,243/2016,
also known as STI Legal Framework) to further facilitate linkages be-
tween academia and industry. The new legal framework further reg-
ulates the participation of academics in firms' in-house projects, as well
as the use of university laboratories and facilities by industry. It also
adds flexibility to the ownership of IP rights. According to the
Innovation Act of 2004 these assets belonged to universities and they
could only license it via public bids. Impacts of these new regulations
should be felt in upcoming years as the new regulatory framework
proceeds to implementation.
Several additional programs directed towards fostering linkages
between universities and firms are also worth mentioning. Law 11.196/
2005 – commonly referred to as Lei do Bem (Good Law) – instituted R&
D tax deductions for companies, also including joint projects with
universities. Launched in 2007, the Brazilian Technology System
(Sibratec) aims at coordinating relationships between academia, re-
search institutes and firms through collaborative innovation centers and
subsidies for joint technological development. Embrapii (Brazilian
National Association for Industrial Research and Innovation), a public
enterprise, was created in 2013 to foster innovation-oriented U-I col-
laborative projects. Embrapii's current structure consists in twenty eight
research centers, 23 of which are located in the same regional ecosys-
tems of the majority of our twelve universities (South/Southeast). Main
expectations involve technology transfer as a means to generate and
strengthen innovative capabilities in firms.
Lastly, we can mention the National Funds for Science and
Technology Development (FNDCT). These funds were originally es-
tablished in the period 1999–2002 to foster competitiveness in
Brazilian firms by financing projects that bring together universities,
research institutes and firms (Cimoli et al., 2005; Koeller and
Cassiolato, 2011). Thus, as the implementation of these funds involves
academia and industry, the structure of FNDCT promotes proximity
among these different agents of the Brazilian innovation system. The
budget relies on federal taxes, compulsory contributions from firms
benefitted by fiscal incentives, royalties from exploitation of public
infrastructure and natural resources, donations and loans. These funds
involve priority sectors and transversal actions. Priority sectors are oil &
gas, agribusiness, aeronautics, shipbuilding, biotechnology, water re-
sources, ICT, mining, health and land transportation. Among the
transversal actions, the Green-Yellow Fund, established in 2000, de-
serves attention. It is exclusively oriented towards fomenting U-I lin-
kages. As a general overview, these sectoral and transversal funds
provide financial stability for the innovation system, setting the stage
for stronger connections between firms and academia.
Two further issues deserve attention regarding U-I linkages in
Brazil. The first concerns the apparent short-termism of research pro-
jects which tend to focus on solving the immediate technical problems
of the industrial partners. The second concerns that such projects are
concentrated in low and medium-tech sectors (Albuquerque et al.,
2015; Dewes et al., 2015; Dutrénit and Arza, 2015; Freitas et al., 2013).
These sectors include the domains of materials, metallurgy, mining,
mechanical engineering, agronomy and chemistry. Computer science
and electrical engineering respond for domains of interaction with
higher technological content. As it can be gathered from the assessment
of sectoral funds, there is some degree of overlap among priority sectors
and those domains with stronger presence of U-I linkages, signaling the
effectiveness of these initiatives.
An explanation for the lack of long-term projects may be the pre-
dominance of multinational companies in high-tech sectors in Brazil
which are primarily interested in adapting their products and processes
to the local market while remaining only marginally involved in longer-
term innovation activities locally. Another explanation may be that,
with some notable exceptions, domestic companies that have sig-
nificant resources for research tend to be in mature industries with slow
moving technological trajectories. A third, and related, explanation
may be the low awareness of industry to the possibilities of new tech-
nology and its mistrust for universities. Anecdotal evidence also in-
dicates a “contempt” by academia regarding the low technological as-
pirations of Brazilian industry (again with some exceptions). All these
are typical problems observed repeatedly around the world and un-
derlie technology upgrading dynamics.
Yet, despite the institutional evolution of the innovation system in
Brazil in the direction of strengthening the interaction between aca-
demia and industry, universities are still regarded as marginally im-
portant by the private sector regarding its innovative processes. On the
upside, data from the Brazilian Innovation Survey (PINTEC) shows an
intensification of U-I interactions (Table 6).
Nonetheless, the share of firms developing joint R&D-oriented ac-
tivities – instead of technical, training and consulting forms of co-
operation – has not increased. More troubling is that the large majority
of firms involved in collaborative processes view Brazilian universities
as of low relevance for their innovative strategies (a constant trend over
time). As a result, the persistent chasm between academia and industry
hampers a faster diffusion of knowledge in the country, arguably af-
fecting technology upgrading processes (Britto et al., 2015). On the
other hand, this lack of embeddedness of universities in firm-level in-
novative activities can be related to a lack of market incentives for R&D
(Radosevic, 2011).

8
B.B. Fischer et al.
6. Concluding remarks
Starting from the proposition that universities play a strategic role
in catching-up dynamics, this article has addressed the embeddedness
of higher education institutions in the Brazilian national innovation
system. Implications of this study should help guide institutional ad-
justments that promote the integration of a broader spectrum of re-
search-oriented universities into national and global value chains.
Closer interaction of academia with productive systems is anticipated to
boost intensity and breadth of technology upgrading and innovative
activity (Caraça et al., 2009; Cohen et al., 2002; Klofsten and Jones-
Evans, 2000). In turn, universities may disseminate this knowledge
back to industry via improved education and human capital better at-
tuned to technology transfer activities. As shown by the patent data in
this paper, the evolution of the Brazilian regulatory system over time
towards closer U-I cooperation has not yet been translated into ex-
tensive integration of the two parties. Despite the rate of improvement,
connections with international value chains are especially lacking.
Reaching the next level is not a straightforward process that hap-
pens mechanically: technology upgrading takes place slowly and de-
pends on adequate market and institutional settings (Radosevic, 2011;
Radosevic and Yoruk, 2014). To include universities as central agents in
this process can be a strategic step for innovation policy, but it involves
systemic coordination and paradigm shifts in the way academia is
perceived (by itself and by external agents) in Brazil and other devel-
oping economies.
Based on studies of successful cases, previous assessments have re-
lated academic institutions in Brazil to development of new technolo-
gies and knowledge transfer to firms (Mazzoleni and Nelson, 2007;
Suzigan et al., 2009; Suzigan and Albuquerque, 2011). The pre-
dominance of firms with weak technological competences in the
country increase the strategic importance of universities (Rapini et al.,
2009). A typical case in point is the emergence of Embraer in Brazil and
its long-term reliance on close collaboration with universities and
public research centers (Mazzoleni and Nelson, 2007). Another is the
profound success of the agricultural sector during the past few decades
and its extensive reliance on public agencies like Embrapa as well as a
very extensive network of public research institutes and university
departments around the country dedicated to its efforts for technolo-
gical upgrading. A third example is the extensive international presence
of the country in food processing and extractive industries where very
significant technological advancement has taken place. Yet, as observed
by Lee (2013), there remains a relative disconnection between aca-
demia in industry in Brazil compared to other catching-up countries,
contributing to lower levels of STI development and economic growth
(Santos and Torkomian, 2013).
On a positive note, a lot has happened in the two decades since
Albuquerque (1999) characterized the Brazilian innovation system as
immature. Research-oriented universities have involved more ex-
tensively in technology upgrading processes, strengthening linkages
with the private sector and responding to the call for national efforts to
close the gap.
We close with suggestions for further research. Formal empirical
analyses on U-I collaboration will definitely help the discussion on
impacts. Longer and more complete data series will allow better as-
sessment of pattern evolution. Differences among sectors in terms of
interaction with universities deserve attention as sectoral idiosyncrasies
in terms of technological advancement are omnipresent (Malerba and
Nelson, 2011). Lastly, future empirical exercises should further address
(qualitatively and quantitatively) the determinants of university in-
tegration into productive structures, not only from the point of view of
academia, but also from the perspective of businesses. Such approaches
are likely to feed innovation policy with relevant information, helping
to refine instruments that facilitate the contributions of universities to
the dynamics of technology upgrading in emerging nations.
9
Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Acknowledgements
Authors acknowledge valuable contributions from participants at
the Conference Exploring technology upgrading in emerging and tran-
sition economies: From ‘Shifting Wealth I’ to ‘Shifting Wealth II’ held in
London in June 2017. We also appreciate comments and suggestions
from participants of a Technis webinar held in March 2017. We would
also like to thank the editor, Dirk Meissner, and anonymous reviewers
for insights to our analysis. The authors recognize financial support by
the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) (2013/50524-6) in con-
nection to the São Paulo Excellence Chair in innovation systems,
strategy and policy established in the Department of Science and
Technology Policy of the University of Campinas (UNICAMP) and
FAPESP project 2016/17801-4. Vonortas' contributions was also pre-
pared within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the
National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) and
supported within the framework of a subsidy by the Russian Academic
Excellence Project '5-100'. The usual disclaimer applies.
References
Abramovitz, M., 1986. Catching up, forging ahead, and falling behind. J. Econ. Hist. 46
(2), 385–406.
Abramovsky, L., Harrison, R., Simpson, J., 2007. University research and the location of
business R&D. Econ. J. 117 (519), 114–141.
Agénor, P., 2017. Caught in the middle? The economics of middle-income traps. J. Econ.
Surv. 31 (3), 771–791.
Albuquerque, E., 1999. National systems of innovation and non-OECD countries: notes
about a rudimentary and tentative typology. Braz. J. Polit. Econ. 19 (4), 35–52.
Albuquerque, E., Suzigan, W., Arza, V., Dutrénit, G., 2015. Matrices of university–firm
interactions in Latin America. In: Albuquerque, E., Suzigan, W., Kruss, G., Lee, K.
(Eds.), Developing National Systems of Innovation: University–Industry Interactions
in the Global South. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 194–218.
Alves, A., Quelhas, O., Silva, M., Lameira, V., 2015. On the role of university in the
promotion of innovation: exploratory evidences from a university-industry coopera-
tion experience in Brazil. Int. J. Innov. Learn. 17 (1), 1–18.
Asheim, B.T., Smith, H.L., Oughton, C., 2011. Regional innovation systems: theory, em-
pirics and policy. Reg. Stud. 45 (7), 875–891.
Audretsch, D., Lehmann, E., 2004. Mansfield's missing link: the impact of knowledge
spillovers on firm growth. J. Technol. Transfer. 30 (1), 207–210.
Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., 2006. Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: a
conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. J.
Technol. Transfer. 31 (1), 175–188.
Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S., Rickne, A., 2008. Analyzing the
functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: a scheme of analysis. Res.
Policy 37 (3), 407–429.
Blind, K., Edler, J., Frietsch, R., Schmoch, U., 2006. Motives to patent: empirical evidence
from Germany. Res. Policy 35 (5), 655–672.
Breschi, S., Malerba, F., Orsenigo, L., 2000. Technological regimes and Schumpeterian
patterns of innovation. Econ. J. 110 (463), 388–410.
Britto, G., Santos, U., Kruss, G., Albuquerque, E., 2015. Global innovation networks and
university-firm interactions: an exploratory survey analysis. Braz. J. Innov. 14 (1),
163–192.
Caraça, J., Lundvall, B., Mendonça, S., 2009. The changing role of science in the in-
novation process: from queen to Cinderella? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 76 (6),
861–867.
Cassiman, B., Glenisson, P., Looy, B., 2007. Measuring industry-science links through
inventor-author relations: a profiling methodology. Scientometrics 70 (2), 379–391.
Chang, C., McAleer, M., Tang, J., 2016. Joint and Cross-border Patents as Proxies for
International Technology Diffusion. Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico
(Working Paper n. 1702).
Choung, J.-Y., 2016. Editorial paper: transition: from catch- up to post catch-up. Asian J.
Technol. Innov. 24 (1), 1–7.
Choung, J.-Y., Hwang, H.-R., Song, W., 2014. Transitions of innovative activities in la-
tecomer countries: an exploratory case study of South Korea. World Dev. 54,
156–167.
Choung, J.-Y., Hwang, H.-R., Choi, J.K., 2016. Post catch-up system transition failure: the
case of ICT technology development in Korea. Asian J. Technol. Innov. 24 (1),
78–102.
Cimoli, M., Ferraz, J., Primi, A., 2005. Science and Technology Policies in Open
Economies: The Case of Latin America and the Caribbean. ECLAC Series Economic
Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (n. 165).
Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R., Walsh, J.P., 2002. Links and impacts: the influence of public
research on industrial R&D. Manag. Sci. 48 (1), 1–23.
Conceição, P., Heitor, M., 1999. On the role of the university in the knowledge economy.
Sci. Public Policy 26 (1), 37–51.
Cooke, P., Uranga, M., Etxebarria, G., 1997. Regional innovation systems: institutional
and organizational dimensions. Res. Policy 26 (4), 475–491.
Cowan, R., Zinovyeva, N., 2013. University effects on regional innovation. Res. Policy 42
B.B. Fischer et al.
(3), 788–800.
Dahlman, C., Ross-Larson, B., Westphal, L., 1987. Managing technological development:
lessons from the newly industrializing countries. World Dev. 15 (6), 759–775.
Dewes, M., Dalmarco, G., Padula, A., 2015. Innovation policies in Brazilian and Dutch
aerospace industries: how sectors driven by national procurement are influenced by
its S&T environment. Space Policy 34, 32–38.
Dutrénit, G., Arza, V., 2015. Features of interactions between public research organiza-
tions and industry in Latin America: the perspective of researchers and firms. In:
Albuquerque, E., Suzigan, W., Kruss, G., Lee, K. (Eds.), Developing National Systems
of Innovation: University–Industry Interactions in the Global South. Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham, pp. 93–119.
Eichengreen, B., 2004. Productivity growth, the new economy, and catching up. Rev. Int.
Econ. 12 (2), 243–245.
Ernst, D., Kim, L., 2002. Global production networks, knowledge diffusion and local
capability formation. Res. Policy 31, 1417–1429.
Esterhuizen, D., Schutte, C., Toit, A., 2012. Knowledge creation processes as critical en-
ablers for innovation. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 32 (4), 354–364.
Etzkowitz, H., 2004. The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. Int. J. Technol.
Glob. 1 (1), 64–77.
Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L. (Eds.), 1997. Universities in the Global Economy: A Triple
Helix of University–Industry–Government Relations. Cassell Academic, London.
Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L., 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems
and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Res.
Policy 29 (2), 9–23.
Eun, J., Lee, K., Wu, G., 2006. Explaining the “University-run enterprises” in China: a
theoretical framework for university–industry relationship in developing countries
and its application to China. Res. Policy 35 (9), 1329–1346.
Feller, I., 1990. Universities as engines of R&D-based economic growth: they think they
can. Res. Policy 19 (4), 335–348.
Fischer, B., Schaeffer, P., Vonortas, N., Queiroz, S., 2018. Quality comes first: university-
industry collaboration as a source of academic entrepreneurship in a developing
country. J. Technol. Transfer 43 (2), 263–284.
Freitas, I., Marques, R., Silva, E., 2013. University-industry collaboration and innovation
in emergent and mature industries in new industrialized countries. Res. Policy 42 (2),
443–453.
Galan-Muros, V., Davey, T., 2017. The UBC ecosystem: putting together a comprehensive
framework for university-business cooperation. J. Technol. Transfer. 1–36.
Gerschenkron, A., 1962. Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective. Belknap Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Geuna, A., Nesta, L.J.J., 2006. University patenting and its effects on academic research:
the emerging European evidence. Res. Policy 35 (6), 790–807.
Gill, I., Kharas, H., Bhattasali, D., Brahmbhatt, M., Datt, G., Haddad, M., Mountfield, E.,
Tatucu, R., Vostroknutova, E., 2007. An East Asian Renaissance: Ideas for Economic
Growth. The World Bank, Washington, DC.
Giuliani, E., Rabellotti, R., 2012. Universities in emerging economies: bridging local in-
dustry with international science-evidence from Chile and South Africa. Camb. J.
Econ. 36 (3), 679–702.
Giuliani, E., Rabellotti, R., Van Dijk, M., 2005. Clusters Facing Competition: The
Importance of External Linkages. Ashgate, Aldershot.
Giuliani, E., Martinelli, A., Rabellotti, R., 2016. Is co-invention expediting technological
catch-up? A study of collaboration between emerging country firms and EU in-
ventors. World Dev. 77, 192–205.
Goddard, J., Chatterton, P., 1999. Regional development agencies and the knowledge
economy: harnessing the potential of universities. Eviron. Plann. C. Gov. Policy 17
(6), 685–699.
Goldstein, H., Drucker, J., 2006. The economic development impacts of universities on
regions: do size and distance matter? Econ. Dev. Q. 20 (1), 22–43.
Goldstein, H., Renault, C., 2004. Contributions of universities to regional economic de-
velopment: a quasi-experimental approach. Reg. Stud. 38 (7), 733–746.
Guennif, S., Ramani, S., 2012. Explaining divergence in catching-up in pharma between
India and Brazil using the NSI framework. Res. Policy 41 (2), 430–441.
Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Fayolle, A., Klofsten, M., Mian, S., 2016. Entrepreneurial uni-
versities: emerging models in the new social and economic landscape. Small Bus.
Econ. 47 (3), 551–563.
Gunasekara, C., 2006. Reframing the role of universities in the development of regional
innovation systems. J. Technol. Transfer. 31 (1), 101–113.
Hanushek, E., 2013. Economic growth in developing countries: the role of human capital.
Econ. Educ. Rev. 37, 204–212.
Heitor, M., 2015. How university global partnerships may facilitate a new era of inter-
national affairs and foster political and economic relations. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Chang. 95, 276–293.
Hertzfeld, H., Link, A., Vonortas, N., 2006. Intellectual property protection mechanisms in
research partnerships. Res. Policy 35 (6), 825–838.
Hidalgo, C., Hausmann, R., 2009. The building blocks of economic complexity. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. 106 (26), 10570–10575.
Hobday, M., 2005. Firm-level innovation models: perspectives on research in developed
and developing countries. Tech. Anal. Strat. Manag. 17 (2), 121–146.
Im, F., Rosenblatt, D., 2013. Middle-income traps: a conceptual and empirical survey. The
World Bank (Policy Research Working Paper 6594).
Jensen, M., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., Lundvall, B., 2007. Forms of knowledge and modes of
innovation. Res. Policy 36 (5), 680–693.
Jindra, B., Lacasa, I., Radosevic, S., 2015. Dynamics of Technology Upgrading of the
Central and East European Countries in a Comparative Perspective: Analysis Based on
Patent Data. Center for Comparative Economics (Economics and Business Working
Paper n. 135).
Klevorick, A., Levin, R., Nelson, R., Winter, S., 1995. On the sources and significance of
10
Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
inter-industry differences in technological opportunities. Res. Policy 24 (2), 185–205.
Klofsten, M., Jones-Evans, D., 2000. Comparing academic entrepreneurship in
Europe—the case of Sweden and Ireland. Small Bus. Econ. 14 (4), 299–310.
Koeller, P., Cassiolato, J., 2011. Achievements and shortcomings of Brazil's innovation
policies. In: Cassiolato, J., Vittorino, V. (Eds.), BRICS and Development Alternatives:
Innovation Systems and Policies. Anthem Press, London, pp. 35–72.
Krüger, J., 2008. Productivity and structural change: a review of the literature. J. Econ.
Surv. 22 (2), 330–363.
Kruss, G., Lee, K., Suzigan, W., Albuquerque, E., 2015. Introduction. In: Albuquerque, E.,
Suzigan, W., Kruss, G., Lee, K. (Eds.), Developing National Systems of Innovation:
University–Industry Interactions in the Global South. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp.
1–27.
Lall, S., 1992. Technological capabilities and industrialization. World Dev. 20 (2),
165–186.
Laursen, K., Reichstein, T., Salter, A., 2011. Exploring the effect of geographical proximity
and university quality on university–industry collaboration in the United Kingdom.
Reg. Stud. 45 (4), 507–523.
Lee, K., 2005. Making a technological catch-up: barriers and opportunities. Asian J.
Technol. Innov. 13 (2), 97–131.
Lee, K., 2013. Schumpeterian Analysis of Economic Catch-Up: Knowledge, Path Creation,
and the Middle-Income Trap. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lee, K., Malerba, F., 2017. Catch-up cycles and changes in industrial leadership: windows
of opportunity and responses of firms and countries in the evolution of sectoral
systems. Res. Policy 46 (2), 338–351.
Lee, K., Yoon, M., 2010. International, intra-national and inter-firm knowledge diffusion
and technological catch-up: the USA, Japan, Korea and Taiwan in the memory chip
industry. Tech. Anal. Strat. Manag. 22 (5), 553–570.
Leten, B., Landoni, P., Van Looy, B., 2014. Science or graduates: how do firms benefit
from the proximity of universities? Res. Policy 43 (8), 1398–1412.
Leydesdorff, L., Meyer, M., 2007. The scientometrics of a triple helix of university-in-
dustry-government relations. Scientometrics 70 (2), 207–222.
Leydesdorff, L., Zawdie, G., 2010. The Triple Helix perspective of innovation systems.
Tech. Anal. Strat. Manag. 22 (7), 789–804.
Liu, X., Serger, S., Tagscherer, U., Chang, A., 2017. Beyond catch-up—can a new in-
novation policy help China overcome the middle income trap? Sci. Public Policy 44
(5), 656–669.
Lundvall, B., 2009. Innovation as an interactive process: user–producer interaction to the
national system of innovation: research paper. Afr. J. Sci. Technol. Innov. Dev. 1
(2–3), 10–34.
Lundvall, B., 2010. National Systems of Innovation: Toward a Theory of Innovation and
Interactive Learning. Anthem Press, London.
Malerba, F., Nelson, R., 2011. Learning and catching up in different sectoral systems:
evidence from six industries. Ind. Corp. Chang. 20 (6), 1645–1675.
Malerba, F., Caloghirou, Y., McKelvey, M., Radosevic, S., 2016. Introduction. In: Malerba,
F., Caloghirou, Y., McKelvey, M., Radosevic, S. (Eds.), Dynamics of Knowledge-
Intensive Entrepreneurship: Business Strategy and Public Policy. Routledge, New
York, pp. 1–16.
Martin, F., 1998. The economic impact of Canadian university R&D. Res. Policy 27 (7),
677–687.
Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R., 2007. The roles of research at universities and public labs in
economic catch-up. Res. Policy 36 (10), 1512–1528.
Mowery, D., Sampat, B., 2005. Universities in national innovation systems. In: Fagerberg,
J., Mowery, D., Nelson, R. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook on Innovation. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, pp. 209–239.
Nelsen, L., 2004. A US perspective on technology transfer: the changing role of the uni-
versity. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 5 (3), 243–247.
Nelson, R., 1993. National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford
University Press, New York.
Nelson, R., Rosenberg, N., 1993. Technical innovation and national systems. In: Nelson,
R. (Ed.), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., Batagelj, V., 2005. Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
OECD, 2014. Perspectives on Global Development: Boosting Productivity to Meet the
Middle-Income Challenge. OECD, Paris.
Ozawa, T., 2009. The Rise of Asia, the ‘Flying Geese’ Theory of Tandem Growth and
Regional Agglomeration. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Perez-Sebastian, F., 2007. Public support to innovation and imitation in a non-scale
growth model. J. Econ. Dyn. Control. 31 (12), 3791–3821.
Radosevic, S., 2011. Science–industry links in central and Eastern Europe and the com-
monwealth of independent states: conventional policy wisdom facing reality. Sci.
Public Policy 38 (5), 365–378.
Radosevic, S., Yoruk, E., 2014. Are there global shifts in the world science base?
Analysing the catching up and falling behind of world regions. Scientometrics 101
(3), 1897–1924.
Radosevic, S., Yoruk, E., 2016. Why do we need a theory and metrics of technology
upgrading? Asian J. Technol. Innov. 24 (1), 8–32.
Rapini, M., Albuquerque, E., Chave, C., Silva, L., Souza, S., Righi, H., Cruz, W., 2009.
University-industry interactions in an immature system of innovation: evidence from
Minas Gerais, Brazil. Sci. Public Policy 36 (5), 373–386.
Rosenberg, N., Nelson, R., 1994. American universities and technical advance in industry.
Res. Policy 23 (3), 323–348.
Ryan, M., 2010. Patent incentives, technology markets, and public–private bio-medical
innovation networks in Brazil. World Dev. 38 (8), 1082–1093.
Santos, M., Mello, J., 2009. IPR policy and management of university technology transfer
offices in Brazil. In: Triple Helix Association: 7th Biennial International Conference
B.B. Fischer et al.
on University, Industry and Government Linkages, Triple Helix Association:
17th–19th June, Glasgow, Scotland.
Santos, M., Torkomian, A., 2013. Technology transfer and innovation: the role of the
Brazilian TTOs. Int. J. Technol. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 12 (1), 89–111.
Silva, L., Guimarães, P., 2015. Law and innovation policies: an analysis of the mismatch
between innovation public policies and their results in Brazil. Law Dev. Rev. 9 (1),
1–57.
Spencer, J., 2001. How relevant is university-based scientific research to private high-
technology firms? A United States-Japan comparison. Acad. Manag. J. 44 (2),
432–440.
Stokey, N., 2015. Catching up and falling behind. J. Econ. Growth 20 (1), 1–36.
Stone, S., Shepherd, B., 2011. Dynamic Gains from Trade: The Role of Intermediate Inputs
and Equipment Imports. OECD (Trade Policy Paper n. 110).
Suzigan, W., Albuquerque, E., 2011. The underestimated role of universities for the
Brazilian system of innovation. Braz. J. Polit. Econ. 31 (1), 3–30.
Suzigan, W., Albuquerque, E., Garcia, R., Rapini, M., 2009. University and industry lin-
kages in Brazil: some preliminary and descriptive results. Seoul J. Econ. 22 (4),
591–611.
Van Looy, B., Landoni, P., Callaert, J., Pottelsberghe, B., Sapsalis, E., Debackere, K., 2011.
Entrepreneurial effectiveness of European universities: an empirical assessment of
antecedents and trade-offs. Res. Policy 40 (4), 553–564.
Vandenbussche, J., Aghion, P., Meghir, C., 2006. Growth, distance to frontier and com-
position of human capital. J. Econ. Growth 11 (2), 97–127.
Verspagen, B., 1991. A new empirical approach to catching up or falling behind. Struct.
Chang. Econ. Dyn. 2 (2), 359–380.
Wal, A., Boschma, R., 2009. Applying social network analysis in economic geography:
framing some key analytic issues. Ann. Reg. Sci. 43 (3), 739–756.
Wang, Y., Roijakkers, N., Vanhaverbeke, W., Chen, J., 2012. How Chinese firms employ
open innovation to strengthen their innovative performance. Int. J. Technol. Manag.
59 (3–4), 235–254.
Yoon, J., 2015. The evolution of South Korea's innovation system:moving towards the
triple helix model? Scientometrics 104 (1), 265–293.
11
Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Yoruk, D.E., 2013. Firm-level Upgrading in Low- and Medium-technology Industries in
Emerging Markets: The Role of Learning Networks. Ph.D. Thesis. University of
Sussex, SPRU (December).
Bruno Brandão Fischer is Assistant Professor at the School of Applied Sciences (FCA),
University of Campinas (UNICAMP). His research emphasizes the topics of ecosystems
and regional systems of innovation and entrepreneurship. Prof. Fischer holds PhD in
Economics and Innovation Management (Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain).
MSc in Economics and Innovation Management (Universidad Autonoma de Madrid,
Spain) and in Agribusiness (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil).
Paola Rücker Schaeffer is a PhD student at Department of Science and Technology
Policy (DPCT), University of Campinas (UNICAMP). Her main research interests are:
university-industry collaboration, innovation ecosystems and knowledge intensive en-
trepreneurship. Schaeffer holds a MSc in Business Management (2015) with emphasis in
Innovation, Technology and Sustainability from Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul
(UFRGS) and a BA in Business Management (2013) from Unisinos University.
Nicholas Vonortas is Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the George
Washington University (GW) in Washington DC, USA. He is a faculty member of the
Department of Economics, of the Institute for International Science and Technology
Policy, and of the Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration.
Professor Vonortas currently holds the São Paulo Excellence Chair at the University of
Campinas (UNICAMP), Brazil. He is a leading research fellow at the Institute for
Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, National Research University Higher
School of Economics (HSE), Moscow, Russian Federation. He also serves as a member of
the Innovation Policy Forum of the US National Academies of Science. Professor Vonortas
is an editor of the peer-reviewed academic journal Science and Public Policy. He holds a
Ph.D. and M.Phil. in Economics from New York University (USA), a MA in Economic
Development from Leicester University (UK), and a BA in Economics from the National
and Kapodistrian University of Athens (Greece).