Science and Public Policy, volume 32, number 2, April 2005, pages 95–108, Beech Tree Publishing, 10 Watford
Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 2EP, England
Latin America and Caribbean
S&T institutions in Latin America and the
Caribbean: an overview
Léa Velho
Latin America and the Caribbean countries have
not been able to build virtuous links among the
various relevant social actors involved in S&T
production and use. There are problems both on
the supply and demand sides. Concerning the
former, universities and public research insti-
tutes, which together perform almost 70% of
R&D, have not created mechanisms to identify
user’s needs and set their research agenda on the
basis of scientific criteria in line with inter-
national mainstream science. On the demand side,
there is not much demand for local R&D, since
transnational corporations innovate on the basis
of R&D conducted in the advanced countries
and local private firms, in order to be competi-
tive, also prefer to import foreign technology.
Governments in some countries have imple-
mented a few schemes aiming to bring together
supply and demand but, with a few exceptions,
they have not been successful.
Léa Velho is professor in the Department of Science and Tech-
nology Policy, University of Campinas, 13083-970 - Campinas,
SP, Brazil; Tel: +55 193 7884561; Fax: +55 193 2891772; E-
mail: velho@ige.unicamp.br. At the time of writing she was at
the Institute for New Technologies, United Nations University
in Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Science and Public Policy April 2005
L
ATIN AMERICA and the Caribbean (LAC)
is a region comprising 34 independent states
and 12 territories inhabited by 524 million
people with an average per capita income of about
(purchasing power parity, PPP) US$7,200 per year.
LAC people live mostly in urban areas, and suffer
large wealth inequalities, with almost one-third of
them living in poverty (defined as living on less than
US$2 a day).
Despite historical, language and cultural common-
alities that provide a feeling of belonging to a com-
mon region, diversity in LAC is as strong as
homogeneity. An example of this is that, during the
1990s and up to 2002, the annual per capita growth
rate of LAC countries was below 2% (Lopez, 2003).
Economic stagnation has increased the development
gap between LAC and the traditionally more ad-
vanced countries, but also between LAC and other
countries, such as South Korea and Taiwan, that, two
decades ago, were at a similar development level.
The reason for this state of affairs is complex and
manifold. However, there is considerable agreement
that, to enhance its economic growth prospects, LAC
must improve its ability to produce, select, adapt,
commercialise, and use knowledge (IDB, 2001).
Doing so requires a deliberate and focused strategy
to address the region’s deficits in skills and technol-
ogy. Part of this strategy is to create and/or
strengthen local R&D institutions in the public sec-
tor and to stimulate them to pursue activities that are
relevant to development needs. In addition, even
more effort has to be made to foster an environment
that encourages the private sector to engage in this
kind of activity.
Increasing the local level and quality of R&D,
however important, is not enough. It is generally
0302-3427/05/020095-14 US$08.00  Beech Tree Publishing 2005 95
S&T institutions in Latin America and the Caribbean
Léa Velho is professor of Science and Technology Policy at
the University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Brazil, currently
seconded to the United Nations University, Institute for New
Technologies, Maastricht, the Netherlands. She obtained
her PhD from Sussex University, UK in 1985, and has been
visiting scholar at Edinburgh University (UK), Ohio State
University, Cornell University (Fulbright Scholar) and Indi-
ana University (USA). She has published extensively on a
variety of S&T policy-related issues in major Latin American
and international journals and has been a consultant to
various multilateral and bilateral development organisations.
accepted nowadays that the countries that were able
to become knowledge societies are those that have a
well functioning system of innovation. This consists
of a network of social actors — firms, public and
private laboratories, universities, professional asso-
ciations, trade unions, grassroots organisations, and
so on — together with the institutions1 and policies
that influence their innovative behaviour and per-
formance (Freeman, 1987; Lundvall, 1992; Nelson,
1993).
The most important element in the system is not
so much the strength of the individual actors but the
links between them. When actors are not particularly
strong, but the links among them are well developed,
the system of innovation may operate more effec-
tively (in terms of learning and in generating innova-
tions) than another system in which one or other
actor is strong but the links among them are weak.
Such links can only be developed in an enabling en-
vironment; this makes clear the key role played by
public policies.
While the relevant literature does not necessarily
suggest that national governments in the technologi-
cally successful countries have explicitly sought to
build innovation systems, some have clearly done so.2
This suggests that, for the countries willing to become
knowledge societies, the system of innovation con-
cept nowadays “carries a normative weight” (Arocena
and Sutz, 2000, page 58). However, rather than pre-
senting a blueprint for achieving this, the system of
innovation approach is concerned with identifying the
participant social actors, mapping the knowledge
flows among them, identifying bottlenecks and sug-
gesting remedial actions. This can be done at different
levels: for a whole country, for specific regions or
sectors within a country, or even for particular techno-
logical innovations (Clark et al, 2003).
This paper aims to contribute a small step to the
task of devising a strategy to build innovation sys-
tems in LAC countries. Whatever the strategy is, and
it clearly is not the same for all LAC countries, it
requires a background picture of the local environ-
ment of knowledge production and utilisation. Thus,
the objective here is to provide such a picture. This
is achieved by mapping out the existing set of org-
anisations, institutions and policies relevant for
innovative activities, and the interactions (or knowl-
edge flows) among the organisations (social actors)
that supply and demand S&T and R&D.
96
This is not a complete picture as the amount and
quality of information available varies considerably
for each country. For this reason, the focus of this
article is more on the organisations on the research
supply side, that is, government bodies allocating
research resources, and universities and research
institutions performing research. Much less informa-
tion is provided about the demand side of research,
that is, those organisations or ‘social actors’ with the
capacity, ability and willingness for research uptake.
Evidence about the existence of linkages or inter-
action between research ‘supply and demand’ is
mostly taken from common sense statements or, at
best, based on case studies that can seldom be gen-
eralised. This reflects the state of the art of the inves-
tigation about S&T in LAC. Nevertheless, the
picture below provides preliminary evidence of
whether a system of innovation is in place or, per-
haps, being built in the region. The final section
sums up the main issues identified and raises the
question of the continuation or not of present S&T
and R&D trends in LAC.
Policy formulation and resource allocation
The idea of creating a S&T policy apparatus at gov-
ernment level is not new in LAC. Following the
general trend after World War II, and under the aus-
pices and co-ordination of the United Nations Edu-
cational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
(UNESCO) and the Organisation of American State
(OAS), S&T policy-making bodies were founded
early in the 1950s in Brazil and Mexico, followed by
Argentina later in the decade. During the 60s and
70s, a significant number of countries had already
established some form of systematic policy thinking
on S&T matters (see Table 1). At this stage of their
creation, most of these bodies were structured as
research councils, which should, at the same time,
articulate S&T policy, normally in negotiation with
ministries of other sectors, and implement the policy
through funding and incentive mechanisms.3
The mere creation of such institutions, however,
did not make them operational or dynamic. In a few
countries, S&T plans and the so-called Fondos de
C&T (S&T funds) have only existed nominally, on
paper. This is the case in Bolivia (where at least
three unsuccessful attempts were made to institu-
tionalise the research council) Paraguay and Nicara-
gua.4 In the countries where the policy and funding
mechanisms do work (Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina,
Chile, Colombia, Venezuela, Costa Rica and Mex-
ico), they have been under considerable control of
the local scientific community.
Assuming a linear model of innovation, efforts
were concentrated on the scientific end, that is, on the
supply side, the rationale being that a high quality
critical mass of researchers, well equipped labora-
tories and strong universities would result in ‘good
science’, which, sooner or later, would find its
Science and Public Policy April 2005
 S&T institutions in Latin America and the Caribbean

application in technological development.5 Thus, in users. As such, research themes tend to be selected
LAC, identifying research priorities for resource allo- more on the basis of their scientific importance, tak-
cation has, traditionally, been a task left to the re- ing the lead from international science, than on the
search community and not negotiated with potential basis of local needs.

Table 1. Governmnt institutions for S&T policy formulation and resource allocation in LAC

Country S&T policy Research councils Government policies to foster R&D activities and innovation in
institutions and funds the private sector

Argentina Secretariat for Science, National Research - Law 23.877 in 1990 to fund collaborative research between the
Technology and Council (CONICET with public and private sectors
Innovation (linked to the funds ANPCYT, - Establishment of the “units of links” (Unidades de vinculación) for
Ministry for Education, FONTAR, FONCYT) the identification, selection and formulation of R&D collaborative
Science and Technology) programmes
Bolivia National Secretariat for National Research - A research fund for S&T and an innovation law have been
S&T/Comité Ejecutivo de Council (CONACYT) approved but are not operational, as financial resources have not
la Universidad Boliviana been allocated
(SICYT-CEUB)
Brazil Ministry of Science National Research - Programme to support industrial technological capability (PCTI)
&Technology Council (CNPq), with various components: fiscal incentives to the scientific and
Main advisory committee: Financier of Projects technological development of industry (PDTI) and the same for
Council of Science and (FINEP), Agency for agriculture (PDTA); support to technological innovation in micro
Technology (CCT) Graduate Education and small industries: Project Alfa; support for university/industry
(CAPES); State co-operative projects: Project Omega; National Programme for the
Foundations (FAPs) Support of Enterprise Incubators (PNI); Program of Technological
Management for Competitiveness (PGTec)
- Sectoral funds
Chile National Research National Research - FONDEF – a scheme to support collaborative research between
Council (linked to Council (CONICYT) the public and private sectors (maximum 50% funding from
National Office of government)
Planning (ODEPLA) - FONTEC – to increase quality and quantity of R&D and the
which is linked directly to provision of scientific services with impact on productive activity (at
the Presidency of the least 20% contribution from private firms)
Republic) national - FIA, FIM, FIP – the same as above, for the agricultural sector,
government level mineral resources and fishing activities, respectively

Colombia Ministry of Planning Secretary of S&T - Fondo Nacional de Garantias (SMEs) to foster technological
(Departamento de (Colciencias) upgrade and competition of small firms and thus increase their
Planeacion Nacional) sustainability
National Research
Council (CNCyT)
Costa Rica Ministry for Science and National Research - Government schemes to foster links between universities and
Technology (MICIT) Council (CONICIT) private firms, fro instance, Alliance INTEl + Technological Institute
of Costa Rica (ITCR)
- programme of technological incubators, for instance, Industrial
Park of Cartago
Cuba Ministry for Science and Cuban Academy of - No information
Technology and Sciences
Environment
Ecuador SENACYT (linked to the National Research - FUNDACYT – funds one scheme for collaborative research and
Vice-president of Council (CONICIT) SMEs
Republic) - No information
El Salvador Ministry of Economics Department of Funding - No information
National Research for Development of S&T
Council (CONACYT)
Guatemala National Research National Fund for S&T - No information
Council: CONICYT (FONACYT)
Guyana Council for Science, National Research - No information
Technology and Council (CONICYT)
Environment (linked to
Presidency of the
Republic)
Honduras Council for Science, National Research - UNIDO facilitating scheme with Dutch Government Funds to
Technology and Council (COHCIT) support technological upgrade of SMEs
Environment (linked - CERTEC: a foundation established to institutionalise the earlier
directly to Presidency of UNIDO programme achievements, pass on lessons learned and
the Republic) methodologies
Jamaica National Research - UNDP support to JAMPRO, government development agency with
Council (NCST) a scheme to foster competitiveness of SMEs by technological
upgrade
Mexico Secretariat for Public National Research - Schemes to foster “knowledge spaces” at regional level, integrating
Education Council (CONACYT) public research institutes with local university, SMEs and large
corporations
- Establishment of science parks

(continued)

Science and Public Policy April 2005 97

S&T institutions in Latin America and the Caribbean

Table 1 (continued)

Country S&T policy Research councils Government policies to foster R&D activities and innovation in
institutions and funds the private sector

Nicaragua Nicaraguan Council on National Research Research council operates with IDB loan to foster technological
Science, Technology Council (COHCIT) innovation in agriculture and forestry
(linked to Ministry of UNIDO facilitating programme to foster technological upgrade of SMEs
Industry and Commerce) and to articulate network strategies (clustering)
Panama National Secretariat for National Research City of Knowledge: created under Law #6 of 2000, to promote the
Science and Technology Council (CONACYT) generation, dissemination and use of knowledge (funds from IDB)
- SENACYT (linked (manages FONACIT)
directly to Presidency of
the Republic)
Paraguay National Research National Fund for S&T No information
Council: CONACYT (FONACYT)
(linked to Presidency of
the Republic)
Peru National Research National Fund for No information
Council (CONCYTEC) Development of S&T
(linked to Ministry of (FONDECYT)
Education)
Trinidad National Institute of No information
and Higher Education,
Tobago Research, S&T
(NIHERST) (linked to
Presidency of the
Republic)
Uruguay National Research DINACYT–OPP (National FINTEC – scheme to foster technological innovation at the firms level
Council (CONICYT) Directorate of S&T and Sectoral Commission of Scientific Investigation (CSIC) at the University
(linked to the Ministry of Innovation–Office of of Republic funds a scheme for collaborative research between
Education and Culture) Planning and Budget) university and the private sector
Venezuela Ministry of Science and National Research FONACIT – National Fund for Science, Technology and Innovation
Technology Council (CONICIT) support for a programme for organisational updating and strengthening
(manages FONACIT of technological capacities of private firms
PIN Industrial – schemes to insert young researchers in work positions
in private firms

Sources: Elaborated by the author from multiple sources: Vonortas (2002); Velho & Saenz (2002), Velho et al (1998), RICYT (2002), Han-
sen et al (2002)

It is fair to say that the association of S&T policy
with economic development is not a new concept for
LAC either. Actually, as early as the 1970s, a group
of influential Latin American thinkers, some of them
imminent researchers, argued that the way the re-
search councils operated was ‘marginalizing’ local
science from local needs. They associated this with
the character of the industrialisation model adopted
— its reliance on technology transfer — that did not
require local R&D activities but only the accumula-
tion of specific capabilities to operate technology
developed elsewhere.
As a consequence, local R&D was shut out or
played a strictly circumscribed role, unable to match
the advantages of foreign technologies. With no de-
mands made of them by the industrial productive
sector, the scientific institutions were alienated from
production activities or “marginalised” (Herrera,
1975). With this picture in mind, S&T policy ana-
lysts in Latin America have tried to break up such a
‘circular–causal’ process. They advocated a strong
role for government policies in articulating the sup-
ply and demand sides of R&D, through a model that
became known as the ‘Sabato Triangle’ of govern-
ment, universities and firms (Sabato, 1975).
As a result of local awareness of a need for
change in the S&T policy framework, which was
well in tune with international trends, during the 80s,
LAC governments sought to implement changes in
the government apparatus for S&T policy. There
was a consistent trend towards the creation of minis-
tries of science and technology or special divisions
for S&T under the strong ministries of economics
and planning, to which the research councils became
subordinated. A division of labour was thus envis-
aged whereby the ministries of S&T would be re-
sponsible for articulating the S&T policy and the
research councils for implementing it through fund-
ing mechanisms.
To achieve this, a number of policy schemes were
Local awareness of a need for change
in the S&T policy framework led,
during the 80s, to LAC governments
implementing changes in the
apparatus for S&T policy: ministries
of S&T would be responsible for
articulating S&T policy and research
councils for implementing it

98 Science and Public Policy April 2005


devised by research councils in many countries to
foster linkages between public-sector research (par-
ticularly universities) and firms, as listed in Table 1.
Such schemes include: co-operative projects
between public and private sectors, support for incu-
bators and science parks, and support for research
training at the level of the firms.
How successful such schemes have been is diffi-
cult to ascertain. First, there is no adequate monitor-
ing and evaluation of the individual schemes, not to
mention of the policy as a whole, as many analysts
have pointed out (Vonortas, 2002; Velho and Saenz,
2002; Mullin et al, 1999; Dagnino et al, 1996; Bas-
tos and Cooper, 1995). Secondly, the existing
evaluation studies of co-operative research involving
LAC universities and firms are mostly case studies,
selected on the basis of their having ‘something to
show’ and, therefore, are not prone to generalisation.
This notwithstanding, the common sense among
analysts (even if hard evidence is thin) is that the
objectives of the policy schemes have not been at-
tained, at least not in a way that can make any dif-
ference overall (although there are isolated stories of
success).6 As one analyst has put it “[the region] has
not managed to ignite the virtuous cycle of learning,
innovation and economic growth” observed in East
Asia (Cardoza, 1997, page 377). Part of the blame is
clearly put on the lack of an effective innovation
(S&T included) policy framework.
What ingredients a S&T policy framework in
LAC should have as part of an effective innovation
policy is also contentious, as different stakeholders
have different views, and so do policy analysts. That
R&D expenditure must increase in LAC is probably
the only consensual idea. Where the money should
come from and how it should be allocated is a totally
different matter.
The research community, for example, struggles
for more public research funds and to keep control
over how resources are allocated. There is no deny-
ing that, as the public sector is the primary sponsor
of R&D in LAC, any reduction in government
spending has a strong negative effect. Most LAC
countries have suffered such effects as the increase
in private-sector expenditure on R&D in the region
(from 20% in 1990 to 36% in 2000) did not compen-
sate for the decrease in public R&D funding (Fer-
ranti et al, 2003).
On the other hand, despite a general decrease (or
kinks) in public spending, the academic community
has been the main beneficiary and has kept control
over whatever resources were available. What is
mostly controversial in this aspect is the indication
by other stakeholders and by policy analysts that an
important part of such resources has been spent on
salary supplements for researchers. In Chile and
Brazil, over 25% of project costs funded by the
research councils are dedicated to salary supple-
ments (Mullin et al, 1999; Brazilian Research
Council, 2005). Other countries, such as Argentina,
Uruguay, Mexico and Venezuela, have also
Science and Public Policy April 2005
S&T institutions in Latin America and the Caribbean
created mechanisms to supplement the salaries of
researchers.7
In sum, there is considerable concern among ana-
lysts that, despite the shift in the S&T policy frame-
work now recognising the importance of interactions
and articulating supply and demand, in practice,
there has not been much change in the allocation
criteria for public R&D funds.
Institutions of higher education
LAC universities have a tradition of being public;
they were created after the classic Humboldt model
and the contemporary research universities in the
USA and Europe. Although in some countries uni-
versities were created early in the colonial times, it
was only in the middle of the 20th century that re-
search started to be an important part of the activities
and only for some of them.
Moreover, during this process, they suffered im-
portant setbacks as a result of political events. The
military dictatorships that took one country after the
other from the mid 60s to the end of the 80s — from
Brazil to Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Bolivia,
to mention just a few — hit the universities, which
were the main focus of intellectual resistance to the
regimes, particularly hard. For some countries, of
which Uruguay is perhaps the best example, this
meant the almost complete dismantling of the re-
search groups that had been formed with great effort.
Now, since return to democracy, there is total po-
litical freedom, but there is no denying that in many
respects, including in university and research life,
we are still paying the toll for the ‘black political
period’. The most evident aspect of this legacy is the
absence of a ‘negotiating culture’ among social
groups with differing political interest in the benefit
of all, not only in government, but also in public
universities and research institutes; there is a conse-
quent discontinuity of plans and projects.
It is a common feature of LAC countries that
changes in government mean a halt to on-going pro-
jects and a new phase starting almost from scratch.
The same takes place at LAC universities, which are
extremely politicised and have their higher adminis-
trative posts (rectors, deans, directors and unit
heads) subject to election by the university commu-
nity. This process reproduces, inside the universities,
the political party politics taking place in the larger
context with all its benefits and problems.
Therefore, LAC countries have a huge challenge
ahead to consolidate their democratic political insti-
tutions at all levels. This is made even more difficult
in the light of the globalisation of the economy,
which adds more variables to the already complex
situation (World Bank, 2002).
In the past 15 years, many countries in LAC have
experienced an impressive growth of private tertiary
education institutions. Their distribution is presented
for most LAC countries in Table 2. In the Dominican
99
S&T institutions in Latin America and the Caribbean

Table 2. Science and technology performing organisations in Latin America and the Caribbean

Country S&T performing organisations

Argentina Higher education: 36 public and 43 private universities

Public research institutes in: health, atomic energy, agriculture, environment and industrial development (regional and
national level), for instance, INTA with 46 research centres in agriculture distributed in 18 regional centres
Bolivia Higher education: 12 public universities
Public research institutes: 14 (4 in agriculture, 2 environment, 1 education, 1 indigenous knowledge, 1 health)
NGOs: 5 (3 social science research, 2 indigenous knowledge and 1 environment)
Brazil Higher education: 150 (77 public, 76 private) research universities; 820 non-university institutions (16% public and 84%
private) for professional education
Public research institutes and state-owned enterprises: 22 (1 health, 1 environment, 1 education, 1 indigenous
knowledge/Amazonian, 1 agriculture, 2 health, oil, mineral)
15 professional and national not-for-profit organisations (promotion, co-ordination and services for agriculture, SMEs and
technical training)
Chile Higher education: 67 universities, 72 professional education and 128 for technical training (23 universities carry out research)
Public research institutes: 7 (health, environment, education, indigenous knowledge, agriculture, mineralogy)
NGOs and professional not-for-profit institutions (150)
Stated-owned enterprises: 1 (defence)
Colombia Higher education: 70 public, 132 private and 119 non university institutions
Public research institutes: 18 (environmental, health, biotechnology; education, agro-industrial)
NGOs: 17
private sector: 7; technological development centres: 4
Costa Rica 146 institutions dedicated to R&D: 100 in education; 16 in general services; 11 in the private sector; 3 regional and
international
2 co-operatives and foundations
Cuba Higher education: 62 public universities (50 universities are active in R&D)
200 research centres (agriculture and livestock; biotechnology and development of vaccines and pharmaceuticals; health;
industrial activities; sugar plantation; biodiversity and environment; social and economic problems)
Science and production poles: 14 territorial networks
Ecuador Higher education: 31 institutions with 150 R&D units
Public sector: 12 R&D units (5%)
Private sector: 46 R&D units (20%)
NGOs: 17 units of R&D (8%)
El Salvador The institutions with major participation in S&T activities are from the governmental sector; there is little participation from the
higher education sector, private sector or NGOs
Guatemala Higher education: 1 public and 6 private universities
Public research institutes: 3 in agriculture, 2 in environment
Private sector: 1 indigenous knowledge, 1 SMEs support
Guyana Higher education: 1 public and 6 private universities
Public research institute: 1 Guyana’s Agriculture Information Network (13 agricultural research centres)
Honduras Higher education: 3 public universities
Public research institutes: 3 institutions in agriculture, 1 in public health, 1 in water quality and management
Jamaica Higher education: 1 public university
Public research institutes: 3 in agriculture, 2 in public health, 2 in environment and water, 2 in industry
Mexico Higher education: 1140 universities (35% public and 65% private) and 393 non-university (28% public and 70% private): most
R&D concentrated in 3 public universities
research centres linked to public universities
Public research institutes: 29 centres SEP-CONACYT
Nicaragua Higher education: 34 (4 public and 30 private); the public universities carry most R&D activities
Public research institutes: 1 environmental, 1 health, 1 education, 1 agriculture
NGOs: agriculture, forestry, industrial associations
Panama Higher education: 4 public universities carry most R&D activities
Public research institutes: 6 (1 health, 2 agriculture and livestock, 1 environment, 1 biology, 1 industry)
NGOs: 4 (1 health, 1 economics, 2 social sciences)
Paraguay Higher education: 6 public universities involved with R&D
Public research institutes: agriculture, health, education, communications and industry and commerce
NGOs: 14 (3 on environment)
Peru Higher education: total 78 (33 public and 45 private)
Public research institutes: 1 health, 1 environment, 1 indigenous knowledge (Amazonian); 2 agriculture and fisheries
NGOs: 1 agriculture (for instance, Cipotato)
Trinidad & 1 public university
Tobago 1 regional research institute
Uruguay Higher education: 6 universities (1 public concentrates infrastructure and most research groups; and 5 private of which 3 do
not carry out R&D)
Public research institutes: 3 (agriculture, livestock and fisheries)
State enterprises: 2 (electricity generation and supply; telecommunications)
Venezuela Higher education: 37 university institutions (17 public, 20 private) and 94 non- universities (52% public and 48% private)
Public research institutes: 9 (1 petroleum, 2 agriculture, 2 health, 1 geology, 1 astronomy)
NGOs: 4
Sources: Elaboration by author from RICYT (2000): CDRom available at <http://www.ricyt.edu.ar>, last accessed 11 April 2004
- Brazil: FAPESP/MEC/INEP (2001)
- Chile: <http://www.cse.cl/Indices/Estadisticas/fr_estadista.htm>, last accessed 5 May 2004
- Colombia: <http://www.Icfes.gov.co/>, last accessed 5 May 2004, Resumen Estadistico 1990–1999
- Cuba: Fte: <http://www.cuba.cu/educacion>, last accessed 28 April 2004
- Mexico: Estadísticas de la educación superior – 2000 <http://www.anuies.mx>, last accessed 28 April 2004
- Peru: <www.concytec.gob.pe>, last accessed 2 May 2004; <http://www.iesalc.unesco.org.ve/documentosenlinea.htm>, last
accessed 28 April 2004

100 Science and Public Policy April 2005


Republic and El Salvador the share of student enrol-
ment in private tertiary education rose from about
25% in 1970 to about 70% in 1996, and for the region
as a whole the figure is 40% (García Guadilla, 1998).
Some countries also have a significant non-university
tertiary sector (79% of total enrolment in Cuba, 43%
in Peru, 38% in Brazil and 35% in Chile); in others,
among them El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras,
Nicaragua and Panama, the non-university sector
accounts for less than 5% (World Bank, 2002).
Most of the new private universities and non-
university education institutions concentrate on
‘chalk and blackboard’ disciplines (law, business,
accounting, social work and so on) and do not carry
out research. There is no dispute among analysts and
policy makers that public universities are the main
locus of knowledge production all over the region.
Higher education institutions in LAC performed
around 41% of R&D activities in 1995 with a slight
decline to around 38% in 2000. This seems to be a
declining trend confirmed by the drop in the share of
researchers in higher education from 62% in 1995 to
59% in 2000. This notwithstanding, academic insti-
tutions in LAC produced over 80% of the publica-
tions in 2000 (RICYT, 2002). University researchers
in LAC tend to be academically oriented, for a num-
ber of reasons. The most obvious is that, in some
countries, they are evaluated and promoted on the
basis of their formal qualification and publication
record, which traditionally values publications in
mainstream journals more than others.8
Another important reason is that university re-
searchers tend to have very weak linkages with other
segments of society, be it government, the produc-
tive sector or civil society organisations. In these
circumstances, the research agenda is more likely to
be influenced by the international mainstream.
Of course, there is nothing intrinsically wrong in
doing academic research. Many argue that basic re-
search is the actual function of universities (Pavitt,
1998). The problem is when the research agenda is
disconnected from local problems. The argument is
that, from a close contact with other social seg-
ments, problems are identified and the need for basic
research relevant to solving such problems may
then arise. That would be socially relevant basic
research.
The general academic orientation of university re-
search in LAC has been pointed out since the late
60s (Varsavsky, 1969; Herrera, 1975) and confirmed
subsequently by many empirical studies in different
countries (Velho, 1995; Casas, 1997; Arocena and
Sutz, 2001). There are, however, some notable dif-
ferences among scientific fields. In agriculture, for
example, LAC universities have some significant
traditions and strong links with applications in plant
breeding and pest and disease control. However,
even in such an applied field, empirical studies
have found that university researchers in agriculture
tend to choose their research topics out of their own
assessment of production needs and not from
Science and Public Policy April 2005
S&T institutions in Latin America and the Caribbean
contacts with farmers and extension agents (Velho,
1990).
There is also some connection between university
research in tropical diseases and knowledge de-
mands to solve them, but the channels connecting
knowledge producers and users are far from satisfac-
tory (see, for example, the case of the Medical
School in Leon, Nicaragua, in Velho (2004)).
The links of LAC universities with the industrial
sector, in addition, are quite limited and do not nor-
mally involve research activities, but are short-term
contracts mainly for consultancy, trouble-shooting
and routine analysis.9 A report compiling results for
various case studies of university–industry links in
LAC countries concluded that “human capital in
universities appears to be poorly matched to the
needs of the private sector”, and that “LAC business
leaders do not generally consider higher education to
meet the needs of the economy” (Ferranti et al,
2003, page 228).
Finally, in the social sciences, by the very nature
of their research subject, there is a tendency to focus
on the study of aspects of the local reality. Yet here,
again, research problems are identified as such by
the researchers themselves and do not arise from
social demands. The exception are the elite social
scientists in the best universities, who are often con-
tracted out by government to carry out studies to
inform (or legitimate) policy decisions.
One fundamental contribution of universities to
knowledge production is the training of new profes-
sionals and new researchers (for Pavitt (1998), and
others, this is the primary benefit of academic
research). There is considerable evidence that suc-
cessful innovative activities in whatever sector are
dependent on human resources originating in local
universities.
As far as training researchers is concerned, expan-
sion of post-graduate education in LAC has been
extremely slow. Students enrolled in post-graduate
programmes represented, on average, only 2.4 % of
overall tertiary education enrolment in 1997, com-
pared with 13% in the USA. Moreover, most of
these students tend to be either in non-degree spe-
cialisation courses or in Master programmes mainly
in the social professions such as law and business
(Schwartzman, 2001).
Concerning doctoral training, whereas OECD
(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and De-
velopment) countries produce, on average, one new
PhD per year per 5,000 population, the ratio is one
per 28,000 population in Brazil, one per 140,000 in
Chile and one per 700,000 in Colombia (NSB,
2002). Moreover, the training of post-graduate stu-
dents is highly concentrated in just a few countries
in LAC — more than two-thirds of all Latin Ameri-
can post-graduate students are found in just two
countries: Brazil and Mexico (World Bank, 2002).
In Brazilian universities, however, almost six
times as many PhDs graduate as in Mexican ones
(NSB, 2002). The Brazilian Government also
101
S&T institutions in Latin America and the Caribbean
In most LAC countries, PhD
programmes are seen almost
exclusively as a necessary step for
those wanting to pursue an academic
career and not for taking a job in the
private sector or other career options
that require independent thought plus
analysis of complex problems
provides scholarships to over 1,500 doctoral candi-
dates to study abroad every year. Another important
feature of the Brazilian post-graduate training pro-
grammes is that they are free of any tuition, provide
maintenance stipends to a high proportion of the
students (around 50%) and extend this access to for-
eign students. For this reason, a large number of
students from other LAC countries are enrolled in
graduate programmes in Brazil.10
Although there is agreement that LAC countries
must increase their R&D workforce in order to meet
the needs of a “knowledge society” (Hansen et al,
2002), a clear problem faced by those who do get
trained is lack of career opportunities. In most LAC
countries, PhD programmes are seen almost exclu-
sively as a necessary step for those willing to pursue
an academic career and not for taking a job in the
private sector or other career options that require
independent thought plus analysis of complex prob-
lems. In Brazil, for example, an extensive survey of
doctoral students in all scientific fields revealed that
over 80% of them aspired to take up a job at a re-
search university after their degree (Velloso and
Velho, 2001).
While aspirations may be interpreted as reflecting
knowledge of the job market, where firms do not
seem interested in hiring PhD holders, the fact re-
mains that research is seen as an activity typical of
the public sector, which already faces difficulties in
absorbing the very same research work force that is
so needed by the countries. The best known result is
the brain drain, or the emigration of highly trained
researchers to countries where they can find better
working conditions.
Although countries like Brazil, Costa Rica and
Chile, in contrast to the other LAC countries, have
been able so far to retain most of the researchers
they have trained, some estimate they have now
reached a level where more aggressive retention
policies will have to be implemented (Guimarães,
2002). No doubt LAC countries cannot afford to
waste research resources in this way and therefore it
is urgent that the problem be addressed of how to
make PhD holders more attractive to the enterprise
sector.
102
Public research institutes
Research activities in most LAC countries started in
the 19th century with the creation of government
research institutes in specific fields, and aimed to
produce relevant knowledge to solve practical prob-
lems. Therefore it is not surprising that the institutes
concentrate on fields related to natural resources
(botanical gardens, agriculture, forestry, geology)
and health, which, being locally specific, could not
rely only on knowledge from the North (Dantes,
1980). A look at Table 2 reveals that all LAC
countries have established research institutes in such
fields — agriculture, for obvious reasons, is the most
common.
The significance of natural resources for the re-
gion has also led to the establishment of some
regional and international research institutes, such
as: the Inter-American Institute for Co-operation in
Agriculture and three centres of the Consultative
Group on International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR) (for maize in Mexico; for potato in Peru;
and for tropical agriculture in Colombia). Despite
the importance of such international institutes in
terms of knowledge generation, the general feeling
is that they are not part of the R&D structure of LAC
countries. The international research centres are per-
ceived to be too much oriented towards the scientific
mainstream and far from the needs of the countries
where they are physically located.
LAC countries also established industrial technol-
ogy research institutes to support the process of in-
dustrialisation that was taking place. In addition,
some countries created state enterprises in strategic
sectors, such as oil, telecommunications, electricity
and space; they also established dedicated R&D in-
stitutes attached to these sectors. The assessment of
the performance of such institutes is mixed, but there
is a tendency to accept that they used to enjoy a dis-
proportionate share of the national research budgets
and delivered proportionately little to the productive
sector, for two reasons. First, government research-
ers have relatively little understanding of the specific
needs of industry and hence the necessary feedback
is absent. Second, it is difficult to provide research-
ers in public institutes with strong incentives to be
responsive to industrial needs (Ferranti et al, 2003,
page 224).
With the fiscal crisis faced by LAC in the 80s and
the shift in mainstream political thought concerning
the role of government in economic growth, public
research institutes were called to modernise and
pressed to obtain part of their budget needs in the
market, establishing partnerships with the productive
sector. This required a reorganisation of the insti-
tutes in terms of setting up the research agenda,
stimulating interdisciplinarity, acquiring skills in
planning, management, monitoring and evaluation
and foresight.11
On the negative side, the institutes now tend to
work for clients who can pay; they thus neglect
Science and Public Policy April 2005

others such as small farmers and SMEs (small and
medium-sized enterprises) that cannot afford to con-
tract out S&T services. Budget cuts have been made
that have eliminated what little independent long-
term research and development projects the insti-
tutes had and, in the poorer countries, the institutes
are increasingly dependent on foreign financial as-
sistance. In addition, a complete absence of wage,
recruitment, promotion and training policies has
provoked professional frustration and low morale
among researchers and many have expressed a de-
sire to leave the institutions and the countries
(Alcorta and Peres, 1998).
Some institutes have been able to adjust better
than others. It seems that agricultural institutes in
LAC have been able to reinvent themselves and are
often cited as examples of success (for instance, the
Brazilian EMBRAPA, see OECD (2001)). There are
also success stories in industrial fields, such as the
Institute for Rubber and Plastic in Colombia, which
is an important source of technology transfer to the
revived Colombian plastic industry (Ferranti et al,
2003). In all cases, it seems that, when the institutes
have strong links with the private sector, they are
able to do relevant R&D and thus raise part of the
funds they need. The issue remains of the unsatisfied
demand or needs of users who cannot pay.
Business enterprises
The business enterprises in LAC contribute 33% to
R&D expenditure and perform about the same share,
36% (RICYT, 2002). This has been an increasing
trend from past decades, but seems to have reached a
plateau since 1995. Yet, businesses hire only 11% of
the researchers in LAC, which is an indication that,
whatever R&D they are performing, it does not re-
quire highly qualified personnel. These figures may
also be interpreted as enterprise researchers being
well funded in their activities. Although this may
seem reasonable, it does not find support in the
available evidence.
The composition of business enterprises in LAC in-
cludes state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and the private
sector, which can be grouped into three categories of
firms: local subsidiaries of transnational corporations
(TNCs); SMEs, most of which are family-owned
firms; and large domestic conglomerates.
SOEs were created in LAC after World War II, as
the state took on the production of goods and services
in energy, transport, telecommunications, and some
industries related to the defence sector, such as oil and
petrochemicals, iron and steel. It was then found nec-
essary for the SOEs to create their own R&D and en-
gineering departments, which were intensive in R&D,
had strong links with some universities and with
SMEs in the private sector (Dagnino and Velho,
1998). A number of studies document the success of
such an arrangement, but also recognise that “the in-
novation system developed was fragmented … and
Science and Public Policy April 2005
S&T institutions in Latin America and the Caribbean
failed to serve as true engine for growth in the domes-
tic environment” (Katz, 2001, page 6).
With the privatisation of SOEs during the 90s, a
significant reduction in enterprise investment in
R&D took place (Amann and Baer, 1999). Since
these enterprises are now foreign-owned, they are
operating on the basis of imported capital equipment
and engineering know-how, which they bring from
their respective headquarters (Katz, 2001). Firms
that have readily available technological assets al-
ready developed elsewhere do not replicate their in-
vestment under conditions where there are fewer
economies of scale and scope (Erber, 2000). Authors
tend to agree that privatisation in LAC
“involved the ‘destruction’ of human capital
and domestic technological capabilities and
their substitution by capital ‘embodied’ new
technology, as in the case of imported capital
goods, or by foreign-produced R&D and engi-
neering services, as in the case of the telecom
and energy companies now operating in the re-
gion.” (Cimoli and Katz, 2001, page 16)12
In short, privatisation of SOEs has diminished the
technological gap between LAC and advanced
countries, but has had a large negative impact on
LAC R&D institutions by excluding them from the
technological development process.
Together with privatisation of SOEs, an important
macroeconomic policy adopted by all LAC countries
during the 90s relates to the liberalisation of the
market. The main argument against the market pro-
tectionist measures adopted by LAC during the
phase of industrialisation by the import substitution
(ISI) process is that the incentive for firms and gov-
ernments to act in the technology creation direction
is often provided by market competitive pressures,
both domestic and external.
Therefore, opening up the economy to external
competition, as LAC countries increasingly did in the
90s, should have had a beneficial effect on techno-
logical innovation. Actually, TNCs have been rapidly
moving into LAC countries as a result of the opening
of the national markets. They have not only moved
into the sphere of activities of the privatised SOEs,
but also into SMEs and locally owned conglomerates.
LAC countries compare very favourably with
newly industrialised countries in securing foreign
direct investment (FDI). In LAC, FDI flows in-
creased from 0.5 % of PPP/GDP (gross domestic
product) in 1989 to 3.2% PPP/GDP in the region in
1999: Chile was the largest receiver with 10.3%
PPP/GDP (Ferranti et al, 2003). Given this trend
towards increased participation by TNCs in LAC
countries, the immediate question is whether FDI
encourages or discourages local research activities.
Most studies in this area agree that recipient firms
benefit from foreign investment. However, results
on intra-industry spillovers are more ambiguous.
The composition of FDI matters: in a number of
103
S&T institutions in Latin America and the Caribbean
countries, a large component of FDI has been in the
service sector and retail distribution, both of which
are low R&D intensive (for example, Brazil and
Mexico). There, the level of technology and knowl-
edge transfer is relatively small.
Studies in the manufacturing sector, such as in car
assemblers and pharmaceuticals in Brazil and Ar-
gentina, found that, despite differences in compa-
nies’ strategy, the tendency is for a downsizing of
R&D personnel and infrastructure in Latin America,
and, in Brazil, an increasing role for production
(Quadros and Queiroz, 2000). In pharmaceuticals,
not only is R&D excluded from the subsidiaries in
Brazil, but also the local production is regarded as
simpler and of lower aggregated value products than
the medicaments produced in developed countries
(Queiroz, 2001).
In Mexico, most of the high-tech products are
produced in the export processing zones. Only weak
linkages are built to the domestic economy and even
in the vehicle industry, which is based in mainland
Mexico, earlier stronger linkages with local special-
ised suppliers seem to be waning (Alcorta and Peres,
1998, page 876).
In short, relatively little FDI in LAC is in R&D-
intensive activities; and when it is, most R&D is
done at the parent firm. Therefore, there seems to be
little demand from TNCs for local R&D institutions,
meaning that the liberalisation process in LAC de-
termines that such countries participate more in the
globalisation of production and less in the globalisa-
tion of S&T, which remains very poor (Katz, 2002).
The general assessment presented above about the
low incentive for R&D investment by enterprises in
LAC is confirmed by the innovation surveys con-
ducted in a few LAC countries since the mid-90s. In
Brazil, for example, PAEP, which stands for Survey
of Economic Activity in the State of São Paulo, is a
large sample survey of firms in the most industrial-
ised Brazilian federate state. The first PAEP col-
lected data in 1997, referring to 1996, in more than
10,000 industrial firms, related to a number of eco-
nomic variables, and following as closely as possible
the Oslo Manual. The main conclusion from the
survey was that
“there has been much innovation and little
knowledge in the innovation process of the in-
dustry of São Paulo. … such innovative
performance has relied little on internal R&D
activities carried out by firms. They rely
primarily on sources of information other than
R&D to innovate, such as clients and competi-
tors and other firm departments.” (Quadros et
al, 2001, pages 215–216)
A comparative analysis of the innovation surveys
conducted in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico,
Venezuela and Uruguay has pointed out as its main
conclusion that “industrial innovation in Latin
America is still highly informal” (Arocena and Sutz,
104
2000, page 64).This statement means that, even if a
fair proportion of firms innovate in process and
product, they do not carry out R&D. Neither do they
fund research activities in the local universities and
public research institutes.
In fact, the surveys revealed very little interaction
between firms and universities: not more than 6% of
firms surveyed in all the countries indicated some
form of interaction with local universities. This pic-
ture is compatible with the low private-sector in-
vestment in R&D in the region: below 30% of R&D
investment comes from the enterprise sector, which
includes SOEs (RICYT, 2002), and there is low pat-
enting activity — less than 400 patents were granted
to LAC residents by the USPTO (US Patent and
Trademark Office) in 2000, compared to over 8,000
granted to Taiwan residents (RICYT, 2002).
Non-governmental organisations
In most developing countries, non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) have mushroomed in the last
ten years. In Nicaragua, for example, during the
1980s, the Government registered 114 NGOs. From
1990 to 1997, the number increased to 1615. Be-
tween 1990 and 1995, these organisations chan-
nelled US$316 million into the country in
development aid (Toni and Velho, 2000). Only a
very small proportion of these NGOs carry out some
form of R&D and, when they do, it is mostly con-
nected to diagnosis and is action-oriented.
The available figures show a somewhat conflicting
picture of the share of NGOs in R&D activities in
LAC. On the one hand, R&D financing and perform-
ance by NGOs has decreased during the 90s; on the
other, the number of researchers in these organisa-
tions has more than doubled, representing in 2000
almost 10% of the total number of scientists and engi-
neers. This is a quite significant share, similar to the
number of researchers in enterprises (RICYT, 2002).
Interpretation of this figure is not straightforward.
It may just be a problem with data collection, but it
may also be a fact that young researchers are joining
NGOs in increasing numbers, either because of
The R&D conducted in NGOs is
gaining recognition and is being
published in mainstream journals: this
has happened because external donors
have elected NGOs to be privileged
receivers of funds, giving donors an
entry point to the community or
society they want to reach
Science and Public Policy April 2005

difficulty in finding jobs in the formal R&D sector or
simply by choice. There is evidence, though, that the
R&D conducted in NGOs is gaining recognition and
is nowadays being published in mainstream journals
along with the research of their colleagues from uni-
versities. This has only been possible because exter-
nal donors have elected NGOs to be privileged
receivers of funds. This gives an entry point to the
community or society that donors want to reach, thus
bypassing local governments and universities, which
are regarded as corrupt and inefficient (Stiles, 1998).
The focus of research conducted by NGOs is much
more in tune with the agenda of donors, who tend to
have a strong commitment to environmental issues
(including biodiversity conservation), poverty alle-
viation (which is easily associated with education and
support to poor farmers and SMEs), issues of social
justice (including gender and minorities’ rights) and
to the maintenance of cultural diversity (bilingual
education and indigenous knowledge). These are
themes that are commonly marginal in the research
agenda of universities and research institutes.
Table 2 gives some examples of research-oriented
NGOs in a few LAC countries for which it was pos-
sible to gather reliable information. The research
fields in which such NGOs concentrate resemble the
preferences of donors.
Research-oriented NGOs play an important role in
the recollection, preservation, transmission and use
of indigenous knowledge in LAC. A number of them
attempt to record local peoples’ knowledge of
plants, their medicinal uses, and the ways they are
prepared and administered, thus helping communi-
ties control their increasing dependence on external
medical support.13 Others report stories of traditional
knowledge being best adapted to local conditions
and more environmentally friendly.
One of the most fascinating such cases is about
the communities inhabiting the Pacific region of Co-
lombia, where a network of about 140 local organi-
sations was able to develop what might be described
as an alternative political ecology framework that
includes conceptualisations of development, conser-
vation and sustainability (Escobar, 2001). This and
other examples show how transnational develop-
ment, environmental and cultural rights networks —
involving the linkage of indigenous organisations,
the state, universities and international actors —
have helped to reconfigure traditional power rela-
tions and increase indigenous peoples’ access to
land, resources and state institutions, thus preserving
their culture and strengthening their knowledge.
In terms of promoting interactions between stake-
holders, government policy-making bodies seem to
have a lot to learn from NGOs.
Articulating supply and demand of R&D
The traditional way to make research results available
to users is by publication. LAC scientific journals
Science and Public Policy April 2005
S&T institutions in Latin America and the Caribbean
are not well known and not properly distributed;
they scarcely reach libraries outside the region and,
since many of them are published in Spanish or Por-
tuguese, they have limited potential readers in the
international scientific community. There is, how-
ever, an initiative in place to enhance the visibility
of the region’s journals: LATINDEX is a regional
information system based on a co-ordinated network
of national resource centres, each taking responsibil-
ity for the collection of bibliographical informa-
tion in all knowledge areas from their respective
countries within LAC (Cetto and Gamboa, 1998).
Electronic publishing has also started to develop
at very dissimilar paces in parts of LAC: Brazil,
Cuba and Mexico are already offering a number of
online titles, while Argentina and Colombia offer lim-
ited online information about their journals. Most
countries in LAC, however, especially the smaller
ones, do not have the communication infrastructure to
support these online services. This affects not only the
access of researchers to journals (they are the local
actors most likely to have access to information and
communication technologies) but mainly the dis-
semination of results to potential users in society.
The number of Internet hosts (per 10,000 people)
and personal computers (per 1,000 people) in indus-
trial countries is 811 and 353 respectively. In LAC,
the corresponding numbers are 23 and 44, but vary
across the region. Costa Rica has the highest pene-
tration of computers in the region (100 per 1,000
people), while in Cuba and Bolivia the penetration is
only 10 per 1,000 people. Argentina, Chile and Mex-
ico have between 40 and 50 hosts per 10,000 people,
whereas Cuba and Bolivia are again the countries
with the lowest numbers (one per 10,000 people)
(Hansen et al, 2002).
Other forms of articulating supply and demand of
R&D, such as extension services in agriculture, have
been dismantled in LAC under the allegation that
they were outdated and had not been effective
(Souza, 1988). It is true that such ex-post mecha-
nisms of interaction, whereby research takes place
and then a dissemination of results to users is im-
plemented, is generally believed to be inconsistent
with a systemic approach to innovation. It seems to
be that interactions among ‘nodes’ of an innovation
system need to be fostered ex-ante, that is, already in
the definition of the research agenda.
Conclusions
It is known that the transition of the current ad-
vanced countries to a knowledge society took place
with an enormous growth in R&D expenditure and
performance, not on the part of government only but
mainly from the private sector. The public sector is
still responsible for over 70% of R&D funding and
performance in LAC and, although there are slight
signs that this may be changing, the movement is too
slow to allow a catch up.
105
S&T institutions in Latin America and the Caribbean
It is an important feature of the advanced countries
that they were able to articulate a national system
of innovation, which has created strong links among
its diverse components (firms, universities, research
institutes, financing institutions, regulation agencies,
and so on) and operates under the right incentives
provided by the state, in terms of macroeconomic
policies and political climate. LAC countries (at
least some of them), however, concentrated their
efforts (erratically) on creating a strong research sys-
tem in the public sector (with variable results) but
did not foster the links between this system and the
business enterprises.
In the sectors where such links were established,
this took place under a protectionist economic pol-
icy: this created a research bureaucracy that did not
have the incentive to be creative, and public firms
that did not have to face competition to survive.
With the liberalisation and privatisation measures
adopted in the 90s, LAC countries found themselves
ill-equipped to face fierce competition from foreign
firms.
If the current trend is maintained, where local
firms (SMEs, large domestic conglomerates and
SOEs) are acquired by TNCs that bring their own
technology developed elsewhere and force the same
technology-import pattern on the few local firms that
wish to be competitive, it is very unlikely that LAC
countries will be able to articulate their own national
innovation systems. In these circumstances, local
R&D will continue to be disconnected from poten-
tial users.
Such a scenario can only be avoided with gov-
ernment intervention in the form of the right macro-
economic policies and incentives to innovate,
creating the famous links among the components of
a potential system of innovation. Governments can-
not do this for the whole economy, but specific
industries where the countries have particular
strengths and interests could well be the focus to
start the process.
Finally, one notable trend of the R&D sector in
LAC is its distance from, or lack of links with, the
needs of the various social groups in civil society.
Such needs seem to have been addressed by re-
searchers working in NGOs and funded by external
donors. It is extremely important that the connection
is made between research-oriented NGOs together
with the groups they assist and the formal R&D sys-
tems. Both NGOs and the universities have a lot to
gain from tackling problems together and society is,
ultimately, the greatest beneficiary. It is to reach this
goal that public investment in R&D is justifiable.
Notes
1. Institutions are understood here as the combined environ-
ment of physical organisations and the practised routines,
norms, shared expectations, morals, and so on (Edquist and
Johnson, 1997).
106
2. For a comprehensive discussion on how different authors
have defined the concept of national innovation systems see
Edquist (1997). The current state of the art is presented in
Lundvall et al (2002).
3. Research councils, as both policy and funding organisations
for S&T, were established in LAC mostly through the 60s
and 70s, under advice and support of UNESCO and the Org-
anisation of American States (OAS). A number of authors
have analysed the consequences and impacts of this ‘blue-
print; (see, among others, Amadeo, 1978; Oteiza, 1992;
Bastos and Cooper, 1995).
4. For an analysis of the case of Bolivia, see Escobar (2002); for
Paraguay, see Davyt (1997); and for Nicaragua, Velho (2004).
5. This is what has been called by Latin American authors an
‘ofertista’ S&T policy, meaning one that takes care of the
supply side only (Sagasti, 1980; Avalos, 1991). According to
this logic, by supporting scientific research and strengthen-
ing research training capabilities in universities, government
was, indirectly, contributing to the technological development
of the firms.
6. Policy analyses of university–industry relations in LAC have
been done in: Mexico (Casas, 1997), Argentina (Chud-
novsky and López, 1996); Brazil (Velho and Saenz, 2002);
and the whole region (Arocena and Sutz, 2001), among
many others.
7. A special issue of Interciencia (21(2), 1996) presents and
analyses the case of salary supplements as a policy adopted
by research councils in different LAC countries.
8. In some LAC poorer countries, such as Nicaragua, Bolivia and
Dominican Republic, the public universities have no research
tradition, although most faculty members are hired on a full-
time basis. Academic career does not reward degrees or
research publications, but is based on seniority. Faculty mem-
bers get extra pay when they take on administrative positions
(see Velho (2004) for Nicaragua, Souza Paula et al (2000) for
Bolivia and Pimentel (2002) for Dominican Republic).
9. A number of studies present convergent findings in this re-
spect. For a review see Velho and Saenz (2002) and Sutz
(2000).
10. The exact number of foreign graduate students in Brazil is
difficult to estimate since there is no centralised system col-
lecting this data for all universities. The Brazilian Govern-
ment provides a special scholarship for foreign students from
some poorer countries of LAC and Africa (see <www.capes.
gov.br>, last accessed 8 August 2004.
11. A number of case studies about the reorientation and mod-
ernisation of the public research institutes in Brazil can be
found in Salles-Filho (2000).
12. For the same argument see also Alcorta and Peres (1998);
Katz (2002); Cimoli and Correa (2002)
13. Examples of this kind of programme are: Royal Botanical
Gardens, Kew about the Yanomami Indians of the northern
Brazilian Amazon (Milliken, 2002), and Project Tramil in the
Caribbean (see <www.funredes.org/endacaribe/tramil>, last
accessed 14 July 2004).
References
Alcorta, L, and W Peres (1998), “Innovation systems and techno-
logical specialization in Latin America and the Caribbean”,
Research Policy, 26, pages 857–881.
Amadeo, Eduardo (1978), “Los consejos nacionales de ciencia y
tecnología en América Latina. Éxitos y fracasos del primer
decenio”, Comercio Exterior, 28(12), December, pages 1439–
1447.
Amann, Edmund, and Werner Baer (1999), “From technology
absorption to technology production: industrial strategy and
technological capacity in Brazil’s development process”,
Economia Aplicada, 3(1), pages 109–138.
Arocena, Rodrigo, and Judith Sutz (2000), “Looking at national
systems of innovation from the south”, Industry and Innova-
tion, 7(1), pages 55–75.
Arocena, Rodrigo, and Judith Sutz (2001), “Changing knowledge
production and Latin American universities”, Research Policy,
30, pages 1221–1234.
Avalos, I (1991), “La politica technologica Venezolana: de la
economia protegida a la economia abierta”, Espacios, 12(2).
Bastos, Maria Inês, and Cooper, Charles (1995), “A political ap-
proach to science and technology in Latin America”, in M I
Science and Public Policy April 2005

Bastos and C Cooper (editors), Politics of Technology in Latin
America (Routledge/UNU Press, London/New York).
Brazilian Research Council (2005), <www.cnpq.br> last accessed
15 March 2005.
Cardoza, G (1997), “Learning, innovation and growth: a compara-
tive policy approach to East Asia and Latin America”, Science
and Public Policy, 24(6), December, pages 377–393.
Casas, Rosalba (1997), “El gobierno: hacia un nuevo paradigma
de política para la vinculación”, in R Casas and M Luna (edi-
tors) Gobierno, Academia y Empresas en México: hacia una
nueva configuración de relaciones (Plaza Y Valdés, Mexico).
Cetto, Ana Maria, and A Gamboa (1998), “Scientific periodicals in
Latin America and the Caribbean: a global perspective”, Inter-
ciencia, 23(2), pages 84–93.
Chudnovsky, D, and A López (1996), “Política Tecnológica en la
Argentina: Hay Algo mas que Laissez Faire?”, REDES, VI,
pages 33–75.
Cimoli, M, and N Correa (2002), “Trade openness and techno-
logical gaps in Latin America: a ‘low growth’ trap”, Working
Paper Series, Laboratory of Economics and Management,
Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies.
Cimoli, M, and J Katz (2001), Structural Reforms, Innovation and
the Technology Gap: a Latin American Perspective (CEPAL,
Santiago, Chile).
Clark, Norman, A Hall, R Sulaiman and G Naik (2003), “Research
as capacity building: the case of an NGO facilitated post-
harvest innovation system for the Himalayan Hills”, World
Development, 31(11), pages 1845–1863.
Dagnino, Renato, and Lea Velho (1998), “University–industry–
government relations on the periphery: the University of
Campinas, Brazil”, Minerva, XXXVI(3), pages 229–251.
Dagnino, Renato, H Thomas and A Davyt (1996), “El pen-
samiento en ciencia, tecnologia y sociedade en Latinoamérica:
una interpretación de su trayectoria”, Redes, 3, pages 13–51.
Dantes, Maria A (1980), “Institutos de Pesquisa Científica no
Brasil”, in M Ferri and S Motoyama (editors), História das
Ciências no Brasil (EDUSP, São Paulo).
Davyt, Amilcar (1997), “Cooperación en ciencia y tecnología en
los países del MERCOSUR. Estudio de caso de Paraguay”, in
Lea Velho (editor), Cooperação em Ciência e Tecnologia no
Mercosul- Fase I. Síntese Final e Estudos de caso (Ministério
de Ciência e Tecnologia, Organização dos Estados America-
nos, Brasília).
Edquist, C (1997), Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institu-
tions and Organisations (Pinter Publishers/Cassell Academic,
London).
Edquist, C, and B Johnson (1997), “Institutions and organisations
in systems of innovation”, in C Edquist (editor), Systems of In-
novation: Technologies, Institutions and Organisations (Pinter
Publishers/Cassell Academic, London).
Erber, F (2000), Structural Reforms and Science and Technology
Policies in Argentina and Brazil, available at <http://www-
tecno.inti.gov.ar/erber.htm>, last accessed 28 June 2003.
Escobar, Arturo (2001), “Culture sits in places: reflections on
globalism and subaltern strategies of localization”, Political
Geography, 20, pages 139–174.
Escobar, Silvia Cristina Pabón (2002), Institucionalização da
Política Científica e Tecnológica na Bolívia: avanços e ret-
rocessos, Master Thesis presented to the University of
Campinas, Brasil, Graduate Programme in Science and
Technology Policy.
FAPESP/MEC/INEP (2001), Indicadores de C&T em São Paulo
(FAPESP, São Paulo).
Ferranti, D, G E Perry, I Gill, G J Luis, W F Maloney, C Sánchez-
Páramo and N Schady (2003), Closing the Gap in Education
and Technology (The World Bank, Latin American and
Caribbean Studies, Washington DC).
Freeman, Christopher (1987), Technology Policy and Economic
Performance: Lessons from Japan (Francis Pinter, London).
García Guadilla, Carmen (1998), Situación y principales dinámi-
cas de transformación de la educación superior en América
Latina (CRESAL/UNESCO, Caracas).
Guimarães, Reinaldo (2002), “A migração de pesquisadores do
Brasil”, Ciência Hoje, 32(187), pages 40–43.
Hansen, Thomas N, N Agapitova, L Holm-Nielsen and O G Vuk-
mirovic (2002), “The evolution of science and technology: Latin
America and the Caribbean in comparative perspective”,
LCSHD Paper Series 80, The World Bank.
Herrera, Amilcar (1975), “Los determinantes sociales de la
política científica en América Latina”, in Jorge Sabato (editor),
El pensamento latinoamericano en la problemática ciencia-
Science and Public Policy April 2005
S&T institutions in Latin America and the Caribbean
tecnología-desarrollo-dependencia (Paidos, Buenos Aires).
IDB, Inter-American Development Bank (2001), Science and
Technology for Development: an IDB Strategy (Inter-American
Development Bank, New York).
Katz, Jorge (2001), “Structural reforms and technological behav-
iour. The sources and nature of technological change in Latin
America in the 1990s”, Research Policy, 30, pages 1–19.
Katz, J (2002), “Efficiency and equity aspects of the new Latin
American economic model”, in Economics of Innovation and
New Technology, 11, August/October.
Lopez, Ramon (2003), “The policy roots of socio-economic
stagnation and environmental implosion: Latin America 1950–
2000”, World Development, 31(2), pages 259–280.
Lundvall, Bent-Ake (1992), National Innovation Systems: Towards
a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning (Frances Pin-
ter, London).
Lundvall, Bent-Ake, B Andersen and R Dalum (2002), “National
systems of innovation and competence building”, Research
Policy, 31(2), pages 213–231.
Milliken, William (2002), “People, plants and publishing”, in Sarah
Laird (editor), Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge
(Earthscan Publications Ltd, London).
Mullin, James, R M Adam, J E Halliwell and L P Milligan (1999),
Science, Technology and Innovation in Chile (International
Development Research Centre, IDRC, Ottawa).
Nelson, Richard (1993), National Innovation Systems: a Com-
parative Analysis (Oxford University Press, New York and
Oxford).
NSB, National Science Board (2002), Science and Engineering
Indicators 2002 (National Science Foundation, Washington
DC) on CD-ROM.
OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop-
ment (2001), Using Knowledge for Development. The Brazilian
Experience (OECD Publications, Paris).
Oteiza, Enrique (1992), “El complejo científico y tecnológico ar-
gentino en la segunda mitad del siglo XX: la transferencia de
modelos institucionales”, in E Oteiza (editor), La política de
investigación científica y tecnológica argentina. Historia y
perspective (Centro Editor de América Latina, Buenos Aires).
Pavitt, Keith (1998), “The social shaping of the national science
base”, Research Policy, 27, pages 793–805.
Pimentel, Josefina (2002), “Renovation and reform in Dominican
higher education”, Academe, 88(3), available at <www.aaup.
org/publications/Academe/02MJ/02MJpim.htm>, last accessed
12 August 2004.
Quadros, Ruy, and Sergio Queiroz (2000), “The implications of
globalisation for the distribution of design competencies in the
auto industry in the Mercosur”, paper presented at the VIII In-
ternational Colloquium of GERPISA, Paris, 8–10 June.
Quadros, Ruy; A Furtado, R Bernardes and E Franco (2001),
“Technological innovation in Brazilian industry: an assessment
based on the São Paulo innovation survey”, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 67(2/3), pages 203–219.
Queiroz, Sérgio (2001), “Internationalization of R&D and the
development of technological capabilities in the Brazilian
pharmaceutical industry”, DPCT/IG Research Report, Campi-
nas, Brazil, mimeo.
RICYT, Red Latino Americana de Indicadores de Ciencia y Tec-
nología (2002), available at <www.ricyt.org>, last accessed 12
August 2004.
Sabato, Jorge (1975), El pensamento latinoamericano en la prob-
lemática ciencia-tecnología-desarrollo-dependencia (Paidos,
Buenos Aires).
Sagasti, F (1980), “Science and technology for development, a
review of schools of thought on science, technology, develop-
ment and technical change”, International Development
Research Centre, Ottawa, mimeo).
Salles-Filho, Sérgio (2000), Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação. A
reorganização da pesquisa pública no Brasil (Editora Ko-
medi/CAPES, Campinas).
Schwartzman, Simon (2001), “The future of education in Latin
America and the Caribbean”, paper presented at the Seventh
Meeting of the Intergovernmental Regional Committee of the
Major Project in the Field of Education in Latin America and
the Caribbean, ED-01/PROMEDLAC VII/REF2 working
document.
Souza, Ivan S F (1988), “A importância do relacionamento pes-
quisa/extensão para a agropecuária”, Cadernos de Ciência e
Tecnologia, 5(1/3), pages 63–76.
Souza Paula, Maria C, Léa Velho and A Barreiro (2000), “Com-
parative study of the impacts of donor-initiated programmes on
107
S&T institutions in Latin America and the Caribbean
research capacity in the south. The case of Bolivia”, report
presented to the Ministry of Development Co-operation
(DGIS), The Hague, NL.
Stiles, Kendall (1998), “Civil society empowerment and multilat-
eral donors: international institutions and new international
norms”, Global Governance, 4, pages 199–216.
Sutz, Judith (2000), “The university–industry–government rela-
tions in Latin America”, Research Policy, 29, pages 279–290.
Toni, Fabiano, and Léa Velho (2000), “Comparative study of the
impacts of donor-initiated programmes on research capacity in
the south. The case of Nicaragua”, report presented to the
Ministry of Development Co-operation (DGIS), The Hague, NL.
Varsavsky, Oscar (1969), Ciencia, política y cientificismo (Centro
Editor de América Latina, Buenos Aires).
Velho, Lea (1990), “Sources of influence on problem choice in
Brazilian Agricultural Research”, Social Studies of Science, 20,
pages 5030–517.
Velho, Lea (1995), “Fontes de Influência na Construção da
Agenda de Pesquisa Acadêmica”, Educação Brasileira,
17(35), pages 870û105.
Velho, Léa (2004), “Building research capacity and contributing to
108
development: from old to new assumptions”, Science, Tech-
nology and Society, 9(2), pages 173–207.
Velho, Léa, and Elena León (1998), “A Construção Social da
Produção Científica por Mulheres”, Cadernos Pagu, 10, pages
309–344.
Velho, Léa and Saenz, T (2002), “Public and Private R&D in Bra-
zil: Complements or Substitutes?” UNU/INTECH Discussion
Paper, 2002-8, July.
Velho, Léa, Paulo Velho and Amilcar Davyt (1998), “Politicas e
instrumentos de vinculación Universidad — Empresa en los
paises del MERCOSUR”, Educación Superior y Sociedad,
9(1), pages 51–76 (UNESCO, Caracas Venezuela).
Velloso, Jacques and Lea Velho (2001), Mestrandos e Doutoran-
dos no País. Trajetórias de Formação (UNESCO & CAPES,
Brasília).
Vonortas, Nicholas S (2002), “Building competitive firms: technol-
ogy policy initiatives in Latin America”, Technology in Society,
24, pages 433–459.
World Bank (2002), Constructing Knowledge Societies: New
Challenges for Tertiary Education (World Bank Report, Wash-
ington DC).
Science and Public Policy April 2005