Abstract
We show that from 1996 to 2010, Brazil had negative trade balances in its high-tech goods industries (i.e., Brazil was a debtor with regard to goods that feature high levels of technological intensity). On the other hand, the country presented positive trade balances in low-tech goods. Thus, although the country has increased its economic openness, Brazil’s exportation of industrial goods that feature high levels of technological content has been scarce and fragile. Moreover, Brazil relies on a remarkable specialization in exports of low and medium–low-tech goods. In international markets, both importing technological goods and developing domestic technological capabilities are fundamental to the creation of dynamic competitive advantages; through the use of exploratory data, we show that Brazil is lagging behind, since it has maintained certain export dynamics in terms of commodities; however, it has moved backward in terms of being an exporter of manufactured goods—especially of high-tech ones.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This is due to the very nature of the import substitution industrialization (ISI) process. The internal development process originates from external constraints that manifest primarily through the expansion and diversification of industrial production capacity (Tavares 1981). According to Tavares (1981, p. 41), “the dynamics of the development process by import substitution route can be attributed, in short, to a series of responses to successive challenges posed by strangulation of the external sector, through which the economy is becoming quantitatively less dependent from abroad and changing qualitatively the nature of this dependence.” The ISI model implies the creation of isolated branches that have undergone consistent changes in scale and technology, in the presence of highly protected markets and heavily regulated international transactions. The current policy generally induces passive relationships among these branches (with their supply sources of capital goods, inputs, and technologies), with little coordination with the domestic business sector (Vera-Vassallo 1996).
- 2.
Because “innovation system” is a diffuse and fluid concept, one can find several definitions for it. One characterizes it as an institutional arrangement that involves various constituent elements that interact and are linked to each other. These include (1) firms with research and development (R&D) laboratories and which comprise cooperation and interaction networks, (2) universities and research institutes, (3) educational institutions, (4) a finance system that can support the innovation investment, (5) legal systems, (6) market mechanisms and non-market selection, (7) governments, and (8) coordination mechanisms and institutions (Freeman 1995; Lundvall 1988, 1992; Nelson 1993). With these factors in mind, one can apply them from two different approaches (but in a complementary fashion) to help understand a country’s innovation and dynamic development. A more restricted definition equates innovation with science and technology (S&T) and suggests that the use of expertise and performance indicators relates to innovation (i.e., efforts in R&D and S&T). The main indicators proposed in this approach are R&D spending and S&T spending in higher education, the allocation of human resources to R&D and S&T, patents, and scientific publications, inter alia; these are tangible outcomes of the production of knowledge and learning. However, some elements and relationships inherent in an innovation system and which directly affect learning ability are informal and difficult to measure; this is why the innovation system approach used, from this viewpoint, is broad and includes social institutions, communication infrastructure, education, the types of relationships among agents, and the like (Lundvall et al. 2009).
- 3.
Albuquerque (1999) suggests a typology that differentiates national innovation systems (NISs) according to their level of development: a “mature” NIS is found in developed countries; an “immature” NIS in countries at an intermediate level of development, such as Latin American countries, South Africa, and India; and a “non-existent or rudimentary” NIS in less developed countries. A peculiarity of immature-NIS countries like Brazil is the existence of “partial connections” between scientific infrastructure and technological activities (Albuquerque 1999, 2003).
- 4.
The trend of adopting consumption patterns from core countries in peripheral economies has already been pointed out, for example, by Sunkel (1971), Erber (1972), Fajnzylber (1989), and Furtado (1991, 1998), each of which seeks to show how the gap between the production structure and consumption structure can explain underdevelopment. Thus, consumption patterns in Brazil, which mimic those of more developed countries, involve the importation of foreign technology—technology that is designed for countries where the relative cost of labor is higher—and this prevents the development of technologies that are appropriate to national conditions (Prado 2011).
- 5.
Unlike gross domestic product (GDP), trade flow is measured on a gross rather than an aggregate basis. This analytical method can hide important foreign trade characteristics and a country’s true state of international insertion. For example, high-tech products can be said to be exported by developing countries, when those countries may in fact be participating only in their assembly (maquillas)—which requires relatively low levels of capability—while using high-tech parts and components imported from more developed countries. Thus, imported parts and components are recorded between exports, where the assembly of the product took place (e.g., in developing countries). Therefore, the analysis of gross figures would suggest that such a country was a “major player” in the global market for dynamic, technology-intensive products, when in fact it is only a mere assembler (Akyuz 2005).
- 6.
Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva from the Workers’ Party was the democratically elected president of Brazil for two consecutive terms, from 2003 to 2010. Lula is considered one of the most popular politicians in Brazilian history, and his mandates were famous primarily because of their social programs. Before Lula, Fernando Henrique Cardoso served for two terms as president of Brazil from 1995 to 2002. Important features of Cardoso’s administration were the stabilization of monetary policies and the deepening of privatization. Cardoso is identified with neoliberalism and right-wing politics. Lula supported the candidacy of Dilma Rousseff, who was inaugurated in 2011 as the first female president of Brazil and was reelected for 2015–2018.
- 7.
According to World Bank data, the real interest rate in the 2000–2010 period was, on average, 41.17% per annum. Data are available at http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/FR.INR.RINR?cid=DEC_SS_WBGDataEmail_EXT
- 8.
Official exchange rate data are available at http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.FCRF?cid=DEC_SS_WBGDataEmail_EXT
- 9.
We chose the year simply by virtue of data availability. MDIC’s Foreign Trade Secretariat (SECEX)/Ministry of Development, Industry, and Foreign Trade (Ministério do Desenvolvimento, Indústria e Comércio [MDIC]) started using the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) methodology for data pertaining to Brazilian foreign trade, making such data available from 1996 onward.
- 10.
The sharp and steady decline of the manufacturing industry’s share of GDP marks what is known as “de-industrialization.” According to data from Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística [IBGE]) (compiled by IPEADATA), in 1990, the manufacturing industry accounted for 26.54% of Brazil’s GDP (year 2000 prices), while in 2000 and 2010 it accounted for 17.22% and 16.23%, respectively. In the 1970–1980 period, the manufacturing industry represented, on average, 32.29% of GDP. There is an extensive debate concerning the causes and consequences of this process, but there is consensus that this process wrought profound impacts, especially from the viewpoint of dismantling and demobilizing important links in some national production chains. This was the result of, or resulted in, increased imports of parts and components among Brazilian industries. According to Cano (2012), de-industrialization in Brazil is occurring as a result of: (1) exchange rate policy that stemmed from the Real Plan, (2) unregulated opening up of the economy in 1989, (3) high interest rates, and (4) increased flows of foreign direct investment. Hiratuka and Sarti (2015) hold a different view in this debate on de-industrialization in Brazil and show that a consideration of a set of competitive, productive, technological, and financial changes in the global economy helps one understand the de-industrialization process there.
- 11.
The Industrial Export Quality Index, developed by United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), is the simple arithmetic average of the share of exports of manufactured goods in total exports and the share of medium- and high-tech goods in total exported manufactured goods. There are caveats to be made: in addition to problems related to the classification of products by technological level, there is the problem of the extent of local value added in export activities. (An exporter that simply gathers high-tech products is captured as being as “sophisticated” as one that designs and produces similar products with local components; indeed, both kinds of companies report the same export figures.) (UNIDO 2007). The intrinsic logic of this index lies in the fact that the share of manufactured goods in total exports captures the role of production in export activities and, more indirectly, technological complexity (i.e., a company’s ability to make the most advanced products and move into more dynamic areas of export growth). The share of medium- and high-tech goods in total exported manufactured goods gives a positive weight to relatively complex activities, given that they are desirable for competitive performance: a more complex structure denotes industrial maturity, flexibility, and the ability to move to the fastest-growing activities (UNIDO 2007).
- 12.
By sector, this is not true. There are sectors in which Brazil finds itself at the technological frontier, such as civil aviation; this is represented by the good international performance of Embraer, for example. For that matter, we must once again point out that the innovative process is unique in each sector and each particular firm. Thus, the international transfer of technology is also unique for each sector and each firm.
References
Akyuz, Y. (2005). Impasses do desenvolvimento. Novos Estudos CEBRAP, 72, 41–58.
Albuquerque, E. M. (1999). National Systems of Innovation and Non-OCED Countries: Notes about a Rudimentary and Tentative ‘Tipology’. Revista de Economia Política, 19(4), 35–52.
Albuquerque, E. M. (2003). Immature Systems of Innovation: Introductory Notes About a Comparison Between South Africa, India, Mexico and Brazil Based on Science and Technology Statistics (Texto para Discussão n. 221). Belo Horizonte: Centro de Desenvolvimento e Planejamento Regional (CEDEPLAR), Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG).
Almeida, J. G. (2011). Alcance e lacunas da nova política industrial (Texto para Discussão n. 196). Campinas: Instituto de Economia (IE), Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP).
Almeida, J. G., & Reis, C. F. B. (2012). A maior relevância brasileira nas importações mundiais (Texto para Discussão n. 213). Campinas: Instituto de Economia (IE) da Universidade Estadual de Campians (UNICAMP).
Aurea, A. P., & Galvão, A. C. F. (1998). Importação de Tecnologia, Acesso às Inovações e Desenvolvimento Regional: O Quadro Recente no Brasil (Texto para Discussão n. 616). Brasília: Instituto de Economia Aplicada (IPEA).
Bell, M., & Cassiolato, J. E. (1993). The Access of Developing Countires to New Technologies: The Need for New Approaches to Management and Policy for Technology Imports in Brazilian Industry. Campinas: Estudo da Competitividade Brasileira.
Belluzzo, L. G. (2008). A inserção na economia global. Le Monde Diplomatique, 04 de Julho de.
Belluzzo, L. G. (2012a). A indústria em perigo, Valor Econômico.
Belluzzo, L. G. (2012b). Os desafios da (re)industrialização. Valor Econômico, 03 de Abril de.
Cano, W. (2012). A desindustrialização no Brasil. Economia & Sociedade, 21(Número Especial), 831–851.
Cano, W., & Silva, A. L. G. (2010). Política industrial do governo Lula (Texto para Discussão n. 181). Campinas: Instituto de Economia (IE) da Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP).
Carneiro, R. (2002). Desenvolvimento em crise: a economia brasileira no último quarto do século XIX. São Paulo: Editora UNESP.
Chiarini, T., & Silva, A. L. G. (2016). Comércio exterior brasileiro de acordo com a intensidade tecnológica dos setores industriais: Notas sobre as décadas de 1990 e 2010. Nova Economia, 26(3), 1007–1051.
Chiarini, T., Rapini, M. S., & Vieira, K. P. (2014). Produção de novos conhecimentos nas universidades federais e as políticas públicas brasileiras recentes de CT&I. Economia & Tecnologia, 10(3), 71–98.
Coutinho, L., & Belluzzo, L. G. (1996). Desenvolvimento e estabilização sob finanças globalizadas. Economia & Sociedade, 7, 129–154.
Dosi, G., Freeman, C., & Fabiani, S. (1994). The Process of Economic Development : Introducing some Stylized Facts and Theories on Technologies, Firms and Institutions. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(1), 1–45.
Erber, F. S. (1972). Escolha de tecnologias, preços dos fatores de produção e dependência: uma contribuição ao debate. Pesquisa e Planejamento Econômico, 2(1), 105–116.
Erber, F. S. (2000). Perspectivas da América Latina em Ciência e tecnologia. Parcerias Estratégicas, 8, 181–200.
Fajnzylber, F. (1989). Industrialización en América Latina: de la ‘caja negra’ al ‘casillero vacio’. In Comparación de patrones contemporáneos de industrialización. Santiago: CEPAL (ONU).
Figueiredo, N. F. (1972). A transferência de tecnologia no desenvolvimento industrial do Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: IPEA/INPES.
Fransman, M. (1986). Technology and Economic Development. Worcester: Wheatsheaf Books.
Freeman, C. (1987). El reto de la innovación: la experiencia de Japón. Caracas: Editorial Galac.
Freeman, C. (1995). The ‘National System of Innovation’in Historical Perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19, 5–24.
Freeman, C., & Soete, L. (2008 [1974]). A economia da inovação industrial. Campinas: Editora da UNICAMP.
Furtado, C. (1991). Os ares do mundo. São Paulo: Paz e Terra.
Furtado, C. (1998). O capitalismo global. São Paulo: Paz e Terra.
Furtado, A., & Carvalho, R. Q. (2005). Padrões de intesidade tecnológica da indústria brasileira: um estudo comparativo com os países centrais. São Paulo em Perspectiva, 19(1), 70–84.
Hasenclever, L., & Cassiolato, J. E. (1998). Capacidad tecnológica empresarial brasileña y transferencia de tecnología. Revista de Economía y Empresas, 34(XII), 15–31.
Hatzichronoglou, T. (1997). Revision of the High-Technology Sector and Product Classification (OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 1997/02). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Hiratuka, C., & De Negri, F. (2004). Influencia del origen del capital sobre los patrones del comercio exterior brasileño. Revista de la CEPAL, 82, 121–137.
Hiratuka, C., & Sarti, F. (2015). Transformações na estrutura produtiva global, desindustrialização e desenvolvimento industrial no Brasil: uma contribuição ao debate (Texto para Discussão n. 255). Campinas: Instituto de Economia (IE), Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP).
James, D. D. (1988). The Impact of Technology Imports on Indigenous Technological Capacity: The Case Study of Mexico (Working Paper n. 184). Gevene: World Employment Programme Research at International Organization (ILO).
Katz, J. (1976). Importación de tecnología, aprendizaje e industrialización dependiente. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Katz, J. (2000). Pasado y presente del comportamiento tecnológico de América Latina (Serie Desarrollo Productivo de La CEPAL, n. 75). Santiago: División de Desarrollo Productivo y Empresarial de la CEPAL.
Katz, J. (2005). A dinâmica do aprendizado tecnológico no período de substituição das importações e as recentes mudanças estruturais no setor industrial da Argentina, do Brasil e do México. In L. Kim & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), Tecnologia, aprendizado e inovação: as experiências das economias de industrialização recente (pp. 413–448). Campinas: Editora da Unicamp.
Kim, L. (2005 [1997]). Da imitação à inovação: a dinâmica do aprendizado tecnológico da Coreia. Campinas: Editora UNICAMP.
Koeller, P. (2007). O Papel do Estado e a Política de Inovação (Nota Técnica). Rio de Janeiro: Instituto de Economia (IE) da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ).
Laplane, M., & De Negri, F. (2004). Impactos das empresas estrangeiras sobre o comércio exterior brasileiro: evidências da década de 90. Revista de Economia, 30(1), 31–48.
Laplane, M., & Sarti, F. (1997). Investimento Direto Estrangeiro e a retomada do crescimento sustentado nos anos 90. Economia & Sociedade, 8, 143–181.
Lundvall, B. Å. (1988). Innovation as an Interactive Process: From User-Producer Interaction to the National System of Innovation. In G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, & L. Soete (Eds.), Technical Change and Economic Theory (pp. 349–369). London: Pinter Publishers.
Lundvall, B. Å. (1992). National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Printer Publishers.
Lundvall, B.-A., Joseph, K. J., Vang, J., & Chaminade, C. (2009). Innovation System Research and Developing Countries. In B.-A. Lundvall, K. J. Joseph, C. Chaminade, & J. Vang (Eds.), Handbook of Innovation Systems and Developing Countries: Building Domestic Capabilities in a Global Setting (pp. 1–32). Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Matesco, V. R., & Hasenclever, L. (1998). Indicadores de esforço tecnológico: comparação e implicações (Texto para Discussão n. 442). Brasília: Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada (IPEA).
Melo, T. M., Fucidji, J. R., & Possas, M. L. (2015). Política industrial como política de inovação: notas sobre hiato tecnológico, políticas, recursos e atividades inovativas no Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Inovação, 14(esp.), 11–36.
Mortimore, M., Vergara, S., & Katz, J. (2001). La competitividad internacional y el desarrollo nacional: implicancias para la política de Inversión Extranjera Directa (IED) en América Latina (Serie Desarrollo Productivo de La CEPAL, n. 107). Santiago de Chile: Unidad de Inversiones y Estrategias Empresariales, División de Desarrollo Productivo y Empresarial, CEPAL/UN.
Muniz, S. (2000). Investimento recente, capacitação tecnológica e competitividade. São Paulo em Perspectiva, 14(3), 98–107.
Nelson, R. R. (1993). National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
OECD. (2003). Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Pacheco, C. A., & Almeida, J. G. de. (2013). A política de inovação. Texto para Discussão n. 210. Campinas: Instituto de Economia (IE), Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP).
Prado, L. C. D. (2011). Fábio Erber: o economista e suas circunstâncias. Revista de Economia Contemporânea, 15(1), 198–215.
Radosevic, S. (1999). International technology transfer and catch-up in economic development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Rangel, A. S. (1995). Diagnóstico de C&T no Brasil. Documento de Governo. Brasília: Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (MCTI).
Sarti, F., & Hiratuka, C. (2010). Indústria mundial: mudanças e tendências recentes (Texto para Discussão n. 186). Campinas: Instituto de Economia (IE) da Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP).
Sarti, F., Hiratuka, C., Rocha, F., Wilkinson, J., Garcia, R., Sabbatini, R., & Bampi, S. (2010). Perspectivas do investimento na indústria. Rio de Janeiro: Synergia.
Sunkel, O. (1971). Capitalismo transnacional y desintegración nacional. El Trimestre Económico, 150, 03–61.
Tavares, M. C. (1981). Da substituição de importações ao capitalismo financeiro. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar Editores.
UNIDO. (2007). Structure of the CIP Indicators and the Industrial Development Scorboard (Technical Notes). Vienna: United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO/UN).
Vera-Vassallo, A. (1996). La inversión extranjera y el desarrollo competitivo en América Latina y el Caribe. Revista de la Cepal, 60, 129–149.
Zawislak, P. A., Fracasso, E. M., & Tello-Gamarra, J. (2013). Intensidade Tecnológica e Capacidade de Inovação de Firmas Industriais. Paper presented at the XV Congresso Latino-Iberoamericana de Gestão de Tecnologia, Porto.
Acknowledgment
The opinions expressed herein are those solely of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the institutions to which they are affiliated, nor do those institutions bear any responsibility for them. Any errors herein are the responsibility of the authors. The authors would like to thank the Divisão de Corrosão (DICOR) of the National Institute of Technology (Instituto Nacional de Technologia, INT) for its financial support and the Commission on Qualification of Graduated Human Resources (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, CAPES) from the Brazilian Ministry of Education [BEX 5796/15-6].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Annex
Annex
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chiarini, T., da Silva, A.L.G. (2019). International Trade in Goods by Technological Intensity: The Brazilian Case, 1996–2010. In: Grivoyannis, E. (eds) International Integration of the Brazilian Economy. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-46260-2_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-46260-2_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-46295-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-46260-2
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)