Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Emerging Economies pp 375–403Cite as

Unveiling Innovation Dynamics and Development Processes: A Mexican Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1204 Accesses

Abstract

Over the past decades, Mexico has undergone a significant process of economic restructuring, characterised by important structural reforms, privatisation of services and openness to world economy. The country incorporated most of the recommendations of structural adjustment, implementing trade liberalisation and the ‘right macroeconomic policies’ in order to restore macroeconomic balance after years of crises and volatility. Mexico’s experience is very significant and illuminating when it comes to analyse the implications of these policies on the economic system and on its development.

The views expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC-UN).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This development strategy was grounded on the ‘infant industry’ argument. The idea of infant industry is based on the idea that although developing countries may have a potential competitive advantage in manufacturing, their lack of experience does not allow them to compete with developed countries, and thus they need temporary protection while acquiring capabilities (Cimoli 2000; see also Fransman and King 1984; Lall 1982).

  2. 2.

    Mexico joined the agreement in January 1994, with the aim of eliminating all tariff and non-tariff barriers over goods and investments over no more than 15 years.

  3. 3.

    By the mid-1990s more than 1000 of the 1155 public enterprises that existed in 1982 had been sold to private organisations. This attitude has not changed in the last decade, and still today the only sector where private participation is restricted and regulated is basic petrochemicals (Moreno-Brid 2009).

  4. 4.

    In dollars, the external debt of the public sector corresponded to US$ 56,000 (check accuracy of the zeros) million in 2008, 40 % less than its value in 1998 (Moreno-Brid 2009).

  5. 5.

    At the beginning of the 1990s industrial export represented almost 15 % of GDP, while in 2010 their value reached 30 % of GDP, 87 % of which is originated by manufacturing segments (Garrido and García 2010).

  6. 6.

    However, the Mexican experience does not imply that trade openness cannot contribute to economic growth. This depends on the pattern of static comparative advantages and the dynamic potentialities of the economic structure: if comparative advantages force the economy to concentrate efforts and specialise in dynamics sectors, with higher returns and higher positive externalities, then trade openness may be beneficial for the economy.

  7. 7.

    For more details see Freeman (1987), Dosi (1988), Dosi et al. (1990), Edquist (1997), Lundvall (2004), Soete et al. (2009), Nelson and Winter (1982).

  8. 8.

    Other similar definitions of the NIS can be found in Lundvall (1988) and Meltcafe Metcalfe (1995).

  9. 9.

    A summary of the evolution of Mexican STI institutions can be found in the Appendix.

  10. 10.

    Examples are: the Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Nucleares (ININ), Instituto de Investigaciones Eléctricas (IIE), Instituto Mexicano de Tecnologíadel Agua (IMTA), Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo (IMP), and the Servicio de Información Consultoría y Capacitación Tecnológica (INFOTEC).

  11. 11.

    Together with the Consejo General de Ciencia y Tecnologia, in 2002 the Foro Consultivo Cientifico y Tecnologico was also established, as permanent advisor to the government on STI policy issues.

  12. 12.

    The PECITI is part of the Plan Nacional de Desarrollo (PND) 2007–2012.

  13. 13.

    See also Table 3, p. 46.

  14. 14.

    This is precisely the idea that underlies the conceptualisation of various classifications of industrial sectors, such as the one proposed by Pavitt (1984) according to sectoral efforts in acquisition of knowledge leading to innovation. For more details see Katz (1984) and Cimoli (1988).

  15. 15.

    Hirschman, Prebisch, Rosenstein-Rodan, Gerschenkron, Chenery and Sirkin are some of the classical authors in development theory.

  16. 16.

    Support and administrative staff are not included.

  17. 17.

    Labour force is represented by economically active population (see RICYT).

  18. 18.

    Number of patent applications of nonresidents over residents (RICYT).

  19. 19.

    See also Capdevielle (2000), ECLAC (2002, 2007, 2008), and Cimoli (2005).

  20. 20.

    See also Moreno-Brid and Ros (2009).

  21. 21.

    The ratio between GDP and the total active population, weighted according to sectoral participation in total employment (based on ILO data), is taken as the indicator for labour productivity.

  22. 22.

    This constitutes the core of the coevolutionary outlook as emphasised by Nelson (1994).

References

  • Amsden A (1989) Asia's next giant: South Korea and late industrialization. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Capdevielle M (2000) Production system and technological patterns. In: Cimoli M (ed) Developing innovation system: Mexico in the global context. Continuum-Pinter Publishers, New York, pp 57–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Capdevielle M, Dutrenit G (1995) Competitividad, dinamismo y patróntecnológico de las exportaciones manifactueras mexicanas en los ochentas. In: Soto E (ed) Globalización, economía y proyecto neoliberal en México. UAM-GRESAL, Mexico City

    Google Scholar 

  • Casalet M (2003) Política scientíficas y tecnológicas en México: evaluación e impacto. Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO), México

    Google Scholar 

  • Cimoli M (1988) Technological gaps and institutional asymmetries in a North-South model with a continuum of goods. Metroeconomica 39(3):245–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cimoli M (ed) (2000) Developing innovation system: Mexico in the global context. Continuum-Pinter Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cimoli M (ed) (2005) Heterogeneidade structural, asimetrías tecnológicas y crecimiento en América Latina, Naciones Unidas-BID, LC/W 35, Santiago, Chile

    Google Scholar 

  • Cimoli M, Dosi G (1995) Technological paradigms, patterns of learning and development. An introductory roadmap. JE vol Econ 5(3):243–269. Working Paper no. 83, IIASA, Luxemburg, Austria

    Google Scholar 

  • Cimoli M, Katz J (2003) Structural reforms, technological gaps and economic development: a Latin American perspective. Ind Corp Change 12:387–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cimoli M, Porcile G (2009) Sources of learning paths and technological capabilities: an introductory roadmap of development processes. Econ Innov New Tech 18(7):675–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cimoli M, Ferraz J, Primi A (2005) Science and technology policies in open economies: the case of Latin America and the Caribbean. ECLAC, Serie de desarrollo productivon. 165, Santiago de Chile (co-authors: CJ Ferraz and A Primi).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cimoli M, Dosi G, Stiglitz EJ (eds) (2009) Industrial policy and development, the political economy of capabilities accumulation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cimoli M, Porcile G, Rovira S (2010) Structural change and the BOT constraint: why did Latin America fail to converge? Camb J Econ 34(20):389–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosi G (1988) “Sources, Procedure, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation,” Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XXVI, September

    Google Scholar 

  • Dosi G, Pavitt K, Soete L (1990) The economics of technological change and international trade. Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • ECLAC (Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe) (2002) ‘Globalización y desarrollo’ (LC/G.2157(SES.29/3)).Documento preparado para el vigésimo noveno período de sesiones de la ECLAC (Brasilia, Brasil, 6 a 10 de mayo), Santiago de Chile

    Google Scholar 

  • ECLAC (2007) Progreso Técnico y Cambio Estructural en América Latina. Division of Production, Productivity and Management, United Nations, Santiago (Chile), Oct 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • ECLAC (2008) ‘La transformación productiva 20 años después: viejos problemas, nuevas oportunidades' (LC/G. 2367(SES.32/3)).Documento preparadopara el trigésimo segundo período de sesiones de la ECLAC (Santo Domingo, República Dominicana, 9 a 13 de junio de 2008), Santiago de Chile

    Google Scholar 

  • ECLAC (2010) La hora de la igualdad: brechasporcerrar, caminosporabrir. Documento preparado para el trigésimo tercero período de sesiones de la ECLAC (Brasilia, Brazil, 1–3 June 2010), Santiago de Chile, (forthcoming)

    Google Scholar 

  • Edquist C (1997) Systems of innovation: technologies, institutions and organizations. Pinter, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez J (2000) The macroeconomic setting for innovation. In: Cimoli M (ed) Developing innovation system: Mexico in the global context. Continuum-Pinter, New York, pp 32–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Fransman M, King K (eds) (1984) Technological Capability in the Third World. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman C (1987) Technology policy and economic performance: lessons from Japan. Pinter, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrido C, Garcia B (2010) Politica para impulsar conductas innovadoras de las P y MEs durante la decada del dos mil. UAM Azacapotzalco, Mexico

    Google Scholar 

  • Ha-Joon C (1994) The political economy of industrial policy. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ha-Joon C (2001) Infant industry promotion in historical perspective. A rope to hang oneself or a ladder to climb with? Document prepared for the conference development theory at the threshold of the twenty-first century, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Aug 2001

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson B, Lundvall B-A (2000) Promoting innovation systems as a response to the globalising learning economy. Paper presented at the seminar ‘Arranjos e Sistemas Produtivos Locais e as Novas Políticas de Desenvolvimento Industrial e Tecnológico’, Río de Janeiro

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz J (1984) Latin American metalworking industries. In:Fransman M, King K (eds) Technological capability in the third world. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz J (1987) Technology generation in Latin American manufacturing industries: theory and case-studies concerning its nature, magnitude and consequences. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz J, Ablin E (1978) From infant industry to technology exports: the Argentine experience in the international sale of industrial plants and engineering works. Working Paper No. 14, Buenos Aires, Research Programme in Science and Technology

    Google Scholar 

  • Lall S (1982) Developing countries as exporters of technology: a first look at the Indian experience. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall B-Ã (1988) Innovation as an interactive process: from user-producer interaction to the national innovation systems. In: Dosi G, Freeman C, Nelson RR, Silverberg G, Soete L (eds) Technology and economic theory. Pinter, London, pp 349–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall B-Ã (2004) National innovation systems-analytical concept and development tool, presented at the DRUID tenth anniversary summer conference 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark, June 2005

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe S (1995) Technology systems and technology policy in an evolutionary framework. Camb J Econ 19:25–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Brid JC (2009) La economía mexicana rente a la cirisis internacional’, Nueva Sociedad, 220(marzo-abril):61–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Brid JC, Ros J (2009) Development and growth in the Mexican economy. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson R, Winter GW (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson RR (ed) (1993) National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson RR (1994) The co-evolution of technology, industrial structure, and supporting institutions. Industrial and Corporate Change 3(1):47–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt K (1984) Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and theory. Res Policy 13(6):343–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ros J (2008) La desaceleracion del crecimiento economico en Mexico desde 1982. El Trimestre Economico 73(3):537–560

    Google Scholar 

  • Soete L et al (2009) Systems of innovation. UNU-MERIT Working Papers ISSN 1871–9872

    Google Scholar 

  • Sollerio JL et al (2007) Evolucion del desarrollo cientifico y tecnologico de America Latina: Mexico. In: Sebastian J (ed) Claves del desarrollo cienfitico y tecnologico de Amreic Latina. Fundacion Carolina, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Teitel S (2004) On semi-industrialized countries and the acquisition of technological capabilities. ICER Working Paper, No. 19–2004, Torino, Italy, International Centre for Economic Research

    Google Scholar 

  • Villavicencio D et al (1995) Aprendizaje tecnológico en la industrial química Mexicana. Perfiles Latinoamericanos 4(7):121–148

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Production, Productivity and Management, UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Santiago, Chile

    Elisa Calza & Prof. Mario Cimoli

  2. University of Venice, Venice, Italy

    Prof. Mario Cimoli

Authors
  1. Elisa Calza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Prof. Mario Cimoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elisa Calza .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Government of India, Tax Administration Reform Commission, New Delhi, India

    Parthasarathi Shome

  2. Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, India Habitat Centre, New Delhi, India

    Pooja Sharma

Appendix

Appendix

Mexican institutional infrastructure for innovation

ISI: Until Mid-1970s

1970: ConsejoNacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT)

1972: Ley sobe el Registro de la Transferenci de Tecnollogia y el Uso y Exploracion de Patentes y Marcas

1973: Ley parapromover la Inversión Mexicana y Regular la Inversión Extranjera

1976: Ley de Invenciones y Marcas

1970s: Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Nucleares (ININ), Instituto de Investigaciones Eléctricas (IIE), Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua (IMTA), and the Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo (IMP), Servicio de Información Consultoría y Capacitación Tecnológica (INFOTEC)

The Transition Period: Mid-1970s–1980s

1976: Plan Nacional Indicativo de Cinencia y Tecnologia

1978–1982: Programa Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia

1984–1988: Programa Nacional de Desarrollo Tecnologico y Cientifico (PRONDETYC)

1983–1988:Programa Nacional de Fomento Industrial y Comercio Exterior (PRONAFICE)

Macroeconomic Reforms: 1990s

1990–1994: Programa Nacional de Ciencia y Modernizacion Tecnologica

1995–2000: Programa de Ciencia y Tecnologia

1998: Ley para el Fomento de la Investigacion Cientifica y Tecnologica

2000s

2000–2006: Programa Especial de Ciencia y Tecnologia (PECYT)

2002: Ley de Ciencia y Tecnologia

2002: Consejo General de Ciencia y Tecnologia, Foro Consultivo Cientifico y Tecnologico

2008–2012: Programa de Ciencia Tecnologia e Innovacion(PECYTI)

2009: Ley de Ciencia y Tecnología (reform)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Calza, E., Cimoli, M. (2015). Unveiling Innovation Dynamics and Development Processes: A Mexican Perspective. In: Shome, P., Sharma, P. (eds) Emerging Economies. Springer, New Delhi. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2101-2_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation