DIVERSIFICATION PRODUCTIVE : SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGIE, INNOVATION … ÉDUCATION ? Egidio Luis Miotti Université de Paris Nord (CEPN-CNRS) Directeur Scientifique (Adj.) – Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche (MESR) Direction générale de la recherche et de l’innovation – Politiques d'incitation à la R&D des entreprises 02 Session : Global change, labour market dynamics and the sectoral structure of production Europe and Latin America in the wake on global paradigm shifts and new trends in the world economy Paris, OCDE Headquarters, 20-21 May 2014
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
DIVERSIFICATION PRODUCTIVE :
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGIE, INNOVATION
… ÉDUCATION?
Egidio Luis Miotti
Université de Paris Nord (CEPN-CNRS)Directeur Scientifique (Adj.) –
Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche
(MESR)Direction générale de la recherche et de l’innovation
– Politiques d'incitation à la R&D des entreprises
02 Session : Global change, labour market dynamics and the sectoral
structure of production
Europe and Latin America in the wake on global paradigm shifts and
new trends in the world economy
Paris, OCDE Headquarters, 20-21 May 2014
LA PROBLEMATIQUE
o Most countries in Europe and Latin America and the Caribbean
have been very much affected by competition from emerging
Asian countries in manufacturing. This raises the following
questions: What policies can governments adopt to reduce
vulnerability and improve the competitiveness of their
economies in this new scenario? To want extent have these
global trends redefined production and technological leads and
lags and created imbalances?
o The optimal policy emphasis might not be on industry per se, but
more generally on the diversification of the sectoral structure of
production …
Science, technologie, production
LOCALISATION DES ACTIVITÉS
LOCALISATION DES ACTIVITÉS PRODUCTIVES(AVANTAGES COMPARATIVES RÉVÉLÉS – 2009)
SIMILARITÉS DES SPÉCIALISATIONS SCIENTIFIQUES (2011)
BREVETS ET PUBLICATIONS SCIENTIFIQUES(AXES 1 ET 2 – ANALYSE EN COMPOSANTES PRINCIPALES)
BREVETS ET PUBLICATIONS SCIENTIFIQUES(VAGUES SCIENTIFIQUES ET TECHNOLOGIQUES ET PAYS CONCERNÉS)
DEMANDES DE BREVETS AUPRÈS D’EPO(1978-2013, NOMBRE ET %0)
1978-1990 1990-2000 2000-2013 TOTAL 1978-1990 1990-2000 2000-2013 TOTAL
Corée du Sud 199 5 620 46 038 51 857 0.403 6.929 32.284 18.990
Taiwan 54 324 8 156 8 534 0.109 0.399 5.719 3.125
DEMANDES DE BREVETS AUPRÈS D’EPO (NOMBRE)
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
19
78
19
79
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
Amérique Latine Australie Canada
L'EFFORT EN RD : L’ABSENCE DE L’AMÉRIQUE LATINE (RD/PIB – 2007-2010)
0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0%
IndonésieParaguay
PhilippinesPérou
EquateurColombieThaïlande
BolivieUruguayMexique
SlovaquieBulgarie
ArgentineGrèce
RoumanieLettoniePologneMalaisie
ChiliTurquieLituanie
IndeCroatieHongrieRussieBrésilItalie
EstonieNouvelle Zélande
EspagneIrlandeChine
Rép. TchèquePortugalNorvège
Pays-BasSlovénie
Royaume-UniCanada
BelgiqueFrance
SingapourAllemagne
IslandeAutriche
DanemarkEtats-Unis
SuisseCorée du Sud
JaponFinlande
Suède
L’INNOVATION COMME MODELE DE CATCHING-UP
L’ÉVOLUTION DES POLITIQUES STRUCTURELLES
Période Légitimité Ampleur InstrumentsHiérarchie des politiques
structurelles
1950-1970Monde fermé avec rareté dans la disponibilité des devises
Sectoriel Droits de douane Politiques industrielles
Guerre froide Verticales Politiques fiscales/subventions Politiques de la concurrence
Régimes de croissance autocentrés Infrastructure (parcs industriels)
Grands programmes (Nucléaire, Aéronautique, Télécommunications, Industrie lourde)
1980-1990 Perte de légitimité Démantèlement des procédures et barrières Politiques de la concurrence
Globalisation commerciale et financière
Politiques de compétitivité
1990-2000Nouvelle légitimité dans les politiques d'innovation
Globales Politiques fiscales/subventions Politiques de la concurrence
"Nouvelle économie" Horizontales Infrastructure (pôles technologiques) Politiques de compétitivité
Industries et services
Politiques scientifiques et technologiques
2010 - … Accélération des délocalisations .. Secteurs émergents Politiques fiscales/subventionsPolitiques scientifiques et technologiques
Ré-industrialisation ? …Le retour des Grands programmes ? (Santé, Economie verte, dénucléarisation, …)
Politiques de compétitivité
Politiques de la concurrence
LES RISQUES DE L’INTERVENTION
o Il ne s’agit pas uniquement d’un problème d’évaluation d’impact des politiquespubliques, même si celui-ci est un sujet d’importance cruciale. Il s’agit deminimiser les risques que telle politique peut engendrer en termes declientélisme, corruption et de recherche des rentes (Rodrick, 2004).
o Tel que signalé par Rodrick et Hausmann (2003), l’une des grandes différencesentre les politiques industrielles asiatiques et latino-américaines est que lespremières ont utilisé tant le bâton que la carotte, tandis que les dernières ontprivilégié uniquement la carotte. Ainsi, en Amérique latine, à côté de quelquesrares “champions”, on trouve un grand nombre de choix qui se sont avérésinefficaces, donnant lieu à l’idée du “protectionnisme frivole” de Fanjnzylber(1983).
o En effet, l’idée de base est que la véritable difficulté de la mise en œuvre d’unepolitique structurelle d’intervention ne se trouve pas dans la détection de“champions” (tout en demeurant difficile pour certains, impossible pour d’autres),sinon dans la capacité d’abandonner, plus ou moins rapidement, les perdants,en évitant des transferts inutiles (coûts sociaux et d’opportunité pour lesressources publiques) et l’inefficacité en termes productifs.
LES POLITIQUES D’INCITATION À LA R&D
POURQUOI FAUT IL UNE POLITIQUE D’INCITATION À LA
R&D ?
Firms cannot fully appropriate the benefits of their R&D investments: Patents
are circumvented in different ways, and valuable process and product
innovations are emulated more or less quickly. Even when intellectual property
rights are enforced effectively, R&D generates positive externalities that spill
over to other firms and benefit the economy at large. Firms thus tend to invest
less in R&D projects than they should since they know that other firms will
capture part of the returns, or they tend to wait for other firms to engage in R&D
projects rather than doing so themselves. As a result firms will normally tend to
increase their R&D expenditures to the size where their expected private
returns and marginal costs will match, but they will not increase them further to
the level that would equalize marginal social costs and marginal social returns
and maximize economic efficiency and social welfare. This market failure can
be corrected by direct public funding of research activities performed by public
research organizations and universities and by economic policies supporting
private R&D.
Damien Ientile et Jacques Mairesse - 2009
POURQUOI VOULOIR INTERVENIR?
• The closer an economy is to the world technology frontier, the higher the
relative importance of innovation relative to imitation as a source of
productivity growth.
• Because the selection of high-skill entrepreneurs and firms is more
important for innovation than for adoption, firms in countries that are far from
the technology frontier pursue an investment-based strategy, which features
long-term relationships, high average size and age of firms, large
investments, but little selection.
• Closer to the technology frontier, there is less room for copying and adoption
of well-established technologies; consequently, there is an equilibrium
switch to an innovation-based strategy with short-term relationships,
younger firms, less investment, and better selection of entrepreneurs.
POURQUOI VOULOIR INTERVENIR?
• We showed that economies may switch out of the investment-based
strategy too soon or too late. A standard appropriability effect, resulting from
the fact that firms do not internalize the greater consumer surplus they
create by investing more, implies that the switch may occur too soon.
• In contrast, the presence of retained earnings that incumbent entrepreneurs
can use to shield themselves from competition makes the investment-based
strategy persist for too long.
• When the switch is too soon, government intervention in the form of policies
limiting product market competition or providing subsidies to investment may
be useful because it encourages the investment-based strategy.
• Nevertheless, anticompetitive policies can also lead to a non convergence
trap whereby the economy never switches out of the investment-based
strategy and fails to converge to the world technology frontier.
Process innovator 53.7% 23.8% 48.5% 58.8% 59.4% 32.9%
Exporter 57.3% 57.2% 46.5% 80.9% 78.8% 84.1%
Exports share 12.4% 16.4% 8.7% 25.2% 36.9% 22.8%
Public funding 2.0% 1.3% 8.6% 24.6% 5.3% 17.7%
Cooperating with national partner 9.9% 6.7% 10.1% 29.6% 3.8% 22.5%
Cooperating with international partner 8.2% 4.8% 5.1% 13.8% 13.9% 17.6%
R&D ENGAGEMENT AND EXPORTS(SHARE IN TOTAL SAMPLE)
29.1%
18.1%
30.5%
64.7%
54.7%
44.7%
57.3% 57.2%
46.5%
80.9%78.8%
84.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Argentina Mexico Brazil Spain Switzerland France
Internal R&D engagement
Exporter
R&D ENGAGEMENT AND EXPORTS SHARE
29.1%
18.1%
30.5%
64.7%
54.7%
44.7%
12.4%
16.4%
8.7%
25.2%
36.9%
22.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Argentina Mexico Brazil Spain Switzerland France
Internal R&D engagement
Exports share
COOPERATION EN R&D / INNOVATION
9.9%
6.7%
10.1%
29.6%
3.8%
22.5%
8.2%
4.8% 5.1%
13.8% 13.9%
17.6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Argentine Mexique Brésil Espagne Suisse France
Coopération avecpartenaires nationaux
Coopération avecpartenaires étrangers
LA CAPACITÉ DES SNI A CRÉER DES RÉSEAUX
0%
3%
6%
9%
12%
15%
18%
21%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Co
op
éra
tio
n a
ve
c d
es
pa
rte
na
ire
s
étr
an
ge
rs
Coopération avec des partenaires nationaux
France
Espagne
Suisse
Argentine
BrésilMexique
SNI avec faible développement de la coopération pour l’innovation
La taille des bulles représente la part d’entreprises qui s’engagent dans des activités de R&D
LES RÉSULTATS
o We find evidences revealing structural differences between regions,
but also presence of heterogeneity within regions. In particular,
firms tend to face innovation activities to achieve a better economic
performance in similar terms along regions, but their interaction
with national systems and environments is weaker in
developing countries. A heterogeneous effect of MNEs is found
regarding innovativity whereas it induces better productivity in
every country.
« Innovation, productivité et exportation : une comparaison entre pays européens et latino-
américains » Fernando Freitas, Stéphane Lhuillery, João Alberto De Negri, Luis Miotti,
Julio Raffo. (Avril 2011)
« Innovativity in Northern and Southern countries: A comparison across European and
Latin-American countries ». LHUILLERY, Stéphane (EPFL); MIOTTI, Luis (MESR,CEPN)
and RAFFO, Julio (EPFL, CEPN) (2008)
LES RÉSULTATS (CONT.)
o A main conclusion is that there are difficulties for firms in developing countries to buildworking innovative systems where information and knowledge help them to invest intoR&D. A particular difficulty seems to be the link between academic research and industrywhereas some dynamics seems to occur in Brazil. Our results suggest that the lack ofR&D networking and especially interactions with academics may be a problem forinnovativity in these countries.
o It may however encounter some counterbalancing effects: a first one is the role of foreignMNEs being that a positive impact is found for innovativity in Brazil.
o Our results suggest that the bottleneck for developing countries seems to be theinnovativity stage considering that the productivity stage is found capable in the developingcountries to transform technological innovation into productivity and even exports. Ofcourse, investments and education are found important factors for performances. But still,our paper provides evidences that intermediate countries such as Argentina, Brazil andMexico are responsive to technological innovations.
o Last, public support stimulates developing country firms into engaging in innovativeactivities but the limited extent of policies – as in the cases of Argentina and Mexico –seems to prevent it from having an effect on the innovative intensity. Both results suggestthat there is still plenty of scope for policies stimulating firms’ innovative behavior and itsinteraction with the academic sector.
ET L’ÉDUCATION ?
QUALITÉ DE L’ÉDUCATION: PISA 2009
Shanghai-China
Korea
FinlandHong Kong-China
SingaporeCanada
New ZealandJapan
Australia
NetherlandsBelgiumNorway
Switzerland
Poland
United StatesSweden
GermanyIreland
France
Chinese Taipei
Denmark
United Kingdom
Hungary
Portugal
Italy
Slovenia
Greece
Spain
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic
Israel
Austria
Turkey
Russian Federation
ChileBulgaria
Uruguay
MexicoRomania
Thailand
ColombiaBrazil
Jordan
Tunisia
Indonesia
ArgentinaKazakhstan
Albania
Panama
Peru
Azerbaijan
Kyrgyzstan
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sc
ien
ce
s
Mathématiques
La taille des sphères répresente l’évaluation relative en lecture
QUALITÉ DE L’ÉDUCATION: PISA 2009ACP SUR RÉSULTATS DE SCIENCES, MATHÉMATIQUES ET LECTURE (AXE F1)