Science and Technology Are a Shared Responsibility
For years, people have been suggesting that Mexico move to a knowledge economy
Science, technology, and innovation (STI) in Mexico are in a critical situation, and the numbers do not lie. For decades, our country has had a significant deficit in STI. Compared to the average of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, Mexico invests eight times less in research and development (R&D), has a nine times smaller research workforce, publishes 5.5 times fewer research papers, and its residents apply for 20 times fewer patents at major intellectual property offices. Sadly, this is just the tip of the iceberg. The deficient institutional and organizational frameworks that support STI in Mexico has placed our country in the lowest quartiles of the international rankings for innovation and competitiveness.
This serious condition has been exacerbated by some actions recently taken by the Conacyt (Mexico’s National Council of Science and Technology), the highest entity in STI in the country. Examples are the termination of resources previously allocated for the Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico, an autonomous science think-tank, the extinction of 65 science and technology trusts, the elimination of economic incentives for researchers at private universities affiliated to the National System of Researchers, the unfounded accusation of corrupt handling of public R&D funds by private companies, and incipient messages politicizing science. For many, this situation is driving Mexican STI into an unstoppable decline, for which the government is accused as the main culprit.
However, these voices ignore that STI is the result of the close interaction of several heterogeneous actors, including the private sector, the government, academic institutions, and civil society, in short, of an innovation ecosystem. Successful countries in STI have proposed different approaches for the generation, dissemination, and absorption of knowledge. Nevertheless, we can observe a common pattern among these countries regarding the responsibilities that the STI actors take, as seen in the graphs below.
These graphs show the percentages of the Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D, or GERD, financed and performed by the different actors of the STI ecosystem for the cases of Mexico and the average of OECD countries. The results demonstrate the reverse world in which Mexican STI has to survive. In countries with outstanding STI ecosystems, two-thirds of the financing and performance of R&D comes from the private sector; in Mexico, in contrast, the weight is borne by the government, which is responsible for approximately four-fifths of the financing.
Figure 1. Percentage of GERD financed (left) and performed (right) by different actors (calculated based on OECD data for 2018).
For decades, people have been proposing solutions to lead Mexico towards a knowledge economy, so far without success. In essence, it requires shared responsibility between the government and the private sector through the intermediation of academic institutions and civil society. In turn, this situation involves processes of introspection about the roles and responsibilities that each actor must take in the STI ecosystem.
Private sector actors – start-ups, SMEs and large companies, as well as private equity organizations – should be seen for what they are: the main agents of creative destruction, à la Joseph Schumpeter, i.e., the translators of science and technology into innovations with economic and social impact. To make this a reality, the private sector must significantly increase its participation in the financing and performance of R&D, as well as migrate its business models towards a scientific-technological base with greater value-added solutions. Fortunately, value creation and capture through STI have moved beyond the traditional internal R&D department; companies now have a plethora of innovation mechanisms to choose from, such as open innovation, corporate entrepreneurship, incubators and accelerators, innovation labs, translation offices and crowdsourcing.
For its part, the government must start with the sustained growth of its investment in R&D, but with vision. To this end, it must take on the roles of Entrepreneurial State, à la Mariana Mazzucato, and Developing State, à la Ha-Joon Chang, to implement and facilitate a viable project of STI-driven economic and social transformation. A crucial decision will be the selection, in a consensual manner, of the model of social and economic development towards which the STI efforts of the country will be directed. Unfortunately, there are no "magic recipes," as evidenced by the very different experiences of countries such as South Korea, Singapore, Israel, Taiwan, and now China. In all these cases, STI is regarded as a strategic element, which entails national planning processes, indicative not imperative, prospective studies and control; all of these under the consideration of the culture, history, and idiosyncrasies of our country.
In this context, academic institutions have the opportunity to become the catalysts for STI-driven change, not only through their scientific and technological developments but also through the driving force of the social sciences. Academic meta fields, such as science and technology-based innovation and entrepreneurship, the science of science, and STI mapping, will be instrumental in understanding the processes, determinants, and consequences of STI in Mexico. In parallel, education and training of human capital in innovation and entrepreneurship based on science and technology will be key to the creation of ambidextrous people capable of understanding the worlds of business and STI. In this respect, two lines of action are important: the dissemination of techniques, tools, and methodologies of innovation and entrepreneurship, and the provision of advice and coaching for the effective translation of science and technology into products and services of greater value.
The shift to an economy based on STI will require a gradual and organic process. The problem is that the time to initiate this change was yesterday. However, the COVID-19 pandemic could provide the momentum necessary to recognize the impact of STI on the economic and social well-being of countries. Beyond the need for a joint effort between the actors of the STI ecosystem, which is a determining factor, these actors must be aware of their roles and responsibilities. In the end, a mindset shift towards innovation and entrepreneurship will be essential.
Originally published in Dinero en Imagen.
