Higher Education

, Volume 56, Issue 2, pp 205–220 | Cite as

University–industry relations in Bolivia: implications for university transformations in Latin America

  • Jaider Vega-Jurado
  • Ignacio Fernández-de-Lucio
  • Ronald Huanca


This article examines the implications of how academics respond to the debate on the production of knowledge and its transfer to the productive sector, for the transformation of Latin American universities. The empirical analysis is based on a survey of 349 lecturers from Bolivian public universities, which inquired into aspects of university–industry relations (UIR). Although the results indicate that lecturers are in favour of relations with firms, there are several barriers to such relationships, such as lack of institutional support, generally unfavourable atmosphere in universities, and an industrial structure comprising few firms in knowledge-intensive sectors and firms with low absorptive capacity. In the context of Bolivia, unlike what occurs in developed countries, UIR have been configured around scientifically unimportant activities—technological support and internship schemes to place students in firms—which has had a negative effect on the consolidation of research, an academic activity, to which lecturers devote little of their time. The results of our study show the tensions that exist in efforts to change the university model; there is a reluctance to intensify the commercialisation of research results, and a lack of enthusiasm for introducing complex relationship mechanisms, such as the creation of hybrid structures.


Latin American universities University–industry relations University transformations Scientific research Hybrid practices 


  1. Arocena, R., & Sutz, J. (2005). Latin American universities: From an original revolution to an uncertain transition. Higher Education, 50, 573–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arocena, R. & Sutz, J. (2002). Sistemas de innovación y países en desarrollo [Electronic version]. SUDESCA Research Papers 30.Google Scholar
  3. Azagra, J., Archontakis, F., Gutierrez, A., & Fernández, I. (2006). Faculty support for the objectives of university–industry relations versus degree of R&D cooperation: The importance of regional absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 35, 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azagra, J., Archontakis, F., Gutierrez, A., & Fernández, I. (2003, october). University–industry interaction: support to cooperation versus actual cooperation in peripheral regions. Paper presented at the 10th seminario Latino-Iberoamericano de Gestión Tecnológica—Altec, México.Google Scholar
  5. Etzkowitz, H. (1990). The second academic revolution: The role of the research university in economic development. In: S. Cozzens, P. Healey, A. Rip, & J. Ziman (Eds.), The research system in transition (pp. 109–124). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (Eds.). (1997). Universities and the global knowledge economy. A Triple Helix of University–Industry-Government Relations. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  7. Geuna, A. (1999). The economics of knowledge production. Funding and the structure of university research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  8. Guimerá, R., Uzzi, B., Spiro J., & Nunez, L. (2005). Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science, 308, 697–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lee, Y. S. (1996). Technology transfer and the research university: A search for the boundaries of university–industry collaboration. Research Policy, 25, 843–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lundvall, B. A. (Ed.). (1992). National systems of innovation. Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  11. Mendoza, R. (2002). Construyendo una visión de futuro a partir de la pequeña empresa (In FES-ILDES (Eds.)), (pp. 363–389). La Paz, Bolivia: visiones de futuro.Google Scholar
  12. Molas-Gallart, J., Salter, A., Patel, P., Scott, A., & Duran, X. (2002). Measuring third stream activities. Final report to the Russell Group of Universities. SPRU, University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  13. Nelson R. (Ed.). (1993). National innovation systems. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Osca, J., Castro, E., Fernández, I., & Serra, P. (2002). La producción científico-técnica de la Comunidad Valenciana. Revista Valenciana d’Estudis Autonomics, 38, 179–280.Google Scholar
  15. Peterson, B., & Harrell, F.E. (1990). Partial proportional odds models for ordinal response variables. Applied Statistics, 39, 205–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. RICYT. (2001). El Estado de la Ciencia: Principales Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología. Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
  17. Sábato, J., & Botana, N. (1968). La ciencia y la tecnología en el desarrollo futuro de América Latina. Revista de Integración, 3.Google Scholar
  18. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L.L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Tellería, J. L. (2001). Manual y glosario razonado sobre ciencia, tecnología e innovación en Latinoamérica. La Paz: CEUB.Google Scholar
  20. Thomas, H., Davyt, A., & Dagnino, R. (1997). Racionalidades de la interacción Universidad-empresa en América Latina (1955–1995).[Electronic version]. Revista Espacios, 18.Google Scholar
  21. Tuunainen, J. (2005). Hybrid practices? Contributions to the debate on the mutation of science and university. Higher Education, 50, 275–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jaider Vega-Jurado
    • 1
  • Ignacio Fernández-de-Lucio
    • 1
  • Ronald Huanca
    • 2
  1. 1.INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), Institute of Innovation and Knowledge Management, Ciudad Politécnica de la InnovaciónValenciaSpain
  2. 2.Universidad Técnica de OruroOruroBolivia

Personalised recommendations