Файл: Na_puti_k_dolgosrochnoy_strategii_stran_BRIKS_angl.pdf

CHAPTER 5

PROGRESS THROUGH SHARING KNOWLEDGE AND INNOVATION 

PILLAR

To enhance cooperation between and among member states and to capitalise on comparative 
advantages, BRICS should commit to investing greater effort and resources to increase joint 
research among member states. It is, therefore, important to support intra-BRICS knowledge 
production and dissemination and to facilitate researcher and student exchange.

BRICS should aspire to nurture world-class research institutions and education facilities that can 
make a significant contribution to global education and knowledge systems.

1 CURRENT SITUATION

Over the past two decades China and India have experienced fast economic growth, 

based, among other factors, on high levels of capital accumulation. During the 

early 2000s Brazil, Russia and South Africa benefited from increased demand for 

commodities and also experienced growth. The emergence of BRICS countries 

brought international attention to several aspects of their social, political 

and economic environments. This interest is also reflected with regard to 

technological development.

BRICS countries’ recent scientific and technological developments have posi-

tive and negative aspects. On the one hand, the countries saw significant progress 

in their science, technology and innovation (STI) input and output indicators (see 

Table 1). Brazil and India, for instance, almost doubled the number of their scientific 

and technical publications between 2000 and 2009, while China quadrupled the 

number of its publications in the same period. This increasing number of publications 

results in a significant participation of BRICS countries in the scientific 

production of areas such as material sciences, chemistry and physics (see figure 1). 

China was able to increase its share of total Triadic patent families from 0.2 

per cent in 2001 to 2.2 per cent in 2011, while the figures for India were 0.2 per 

cent and 0.4 per cent for the same period. China was also able to increase its gross 

domestic expenditure on research and development (GERD) as a percentage of 

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from 0.6 per cent in 1996 to almost 2 per cent 

in 2012 (see figure 2). 

Education is also showing some positive indicators. Gross enrolment in 

tertiary education increased in BRICS countries, as can be observed in figure 3. 

The Russian Federation is showing very high percentages, but figures are improving  

for the other countries. 

BRICS Long-Term Strategy

120 

|

Despite all this progress, BRICS countries still lag behind richer countries 

in important variables. As shown in figure 4, even China, which has the largest 

GERD as a percentage of GDP among BRICS countries, is still far behind countries 

such as South Korea, Sweden and Japan. Only Russia has a significant number of 

researchers per thousand workers. 

Table 2 shows that Russia, India and especially China managed to improve 

their total factor productivity (TFP). Nevertheless, the level of TFP in these countries 

as a percentage of US levels is still very low, showing that there is a long way 

to go with respect to increasing productivity. Similarly, figure 5 illustrates that, 

despite China’s and India’s progress, BRICS countries’ share of Triadic patents is 

still very low. China is the only BRICS country that has a high share of its exports 

originating from high-tech products (see table 3). 

Two clear conclusions emerge from the figures presented above. First, among 

BRICS nations, China is the leading performer in STI indicators. Overall, its STI 

and productivity indicators have grown faster than other BRICS countries, in line 

with the growth of its economy. Due to the size of its population and GDP, China 

may lag behind in some indicators that consider these variables in their denominators, 

as shown in Figure 4. Nevertheless, in absolute terms, China is among the 

world leaders in variables such as the number of people employed in research and 

development (R&D) activities, and R&D expenditures. 

Second, despite the progress in some indicators such as the number of 

scientific publications, there is still much room for improvement when compared 

to the most technologically advanced countries. 

At this point, it is worth introducing some conceptual aspects to the discussion. 

First of all, there is a consensus that scientific and technological developments are 

positively associated with growing productivity. How is it possible to improve in 

this area? Countries that excel in technology have more mature National 

Innovation Systems (NISs). A NIS represents a set of institutions involved in STI 

creation – notably government, universities and research institutes, and firms – 

and the knowledge that flows between them. In a mature NIS there is a smooth 

flow of knowledge, with highly innovative firms – competitive in global markets – 

generating technologies in their own research laboratories or in partnerships with 

universities and research institutions. Innovations are introduced to the market to 

solve specific technological or non-technological problems and especially due to 

competitive pressures. There is integration and coherence between STI initiatives 

and other policies: economic, environmental, educational, industrial etc. 

It is natural that BRICS countries have not reached this situation. History 

plays an important role in the development of a country’s NIS. Brazil, India and 

South Africa’s colonial pasts influenced the way their NISs developed. Similarly, 

Progress through Sharing Knowledge and Innovation 

|

 121

the past of planned economies was also important for the development of China’s 

and Russia’s NISs. As would be expected, the deep social, economic and political 

changes that Russia and South Africa faced in the 1990s also affected the way in 

which these two countries reorganised their NISs. Russia, Brazil and South Africa 

are highly dependent on primary or resource-based products. 

These are examples of factors that hindered the development of a mature 

NIS in BRICS countries. Nevertheless, despite all the odds, these countries have 

shown considerable progress, and even some success stories of domestic firms being 

able to compete in high-tech markets. The following sections will illustrate some 

of the achievements made by BRICS countries and also some of the challenges 

they still face.

This report is structured as follows. Section 2 will present the general features 

of each BRICS country’s NIS, including the main actors as well as the regulatory 

and policy framework. The section also includes a table with the distinguishing 

features, key accomplishments and main challenges of each NIS. Section 3 presents 

the main challenges BRICS countries face in common with regard to their NIS. 

Section 4 presents successful international experiences of cooperation and knowledge 

sharing. Finally, Section 5 presents proposals for specific actions to be undertaken 

in respect to promoting cooperation and knowledge sharing.

Due to editorial limitations regarding the length of the document, there is no 

ambition to provide an exhaustive list of actors, policies, challenges and statistics 

for BRICS countries. For further information, there are a number of recent studies 

that can be consulted.

1

1.1 General features of BRICS National Innovation Systems

This section presents general features of each BRICS country’s NIS, including the 

main actors – parliament, government and intermediary agencies, academia and 

higher education system, research institutes, enterprises – as well as regulatory 

and policy framework – the main recent plans and programmes, financial and tax 

mechanisms and relevant legislation.

1.1.1 Brazil

Brazil experienced a late development of its universities and also a late industrialisation 

process. Despite this disadvantage, the country managed to develop a complex 

innovation system.

2

 Brazil has a post-graduate and research system that produces an 

increasing number of doctoral graduates and scientific studies. Brazilian STI policies 

1. See, for instance: OECD, 2014c; Cassiolato & Vitorino, 2009a; Kahn, Melo & Matos, 2014; Arroio & Scerri, 2014; 

Scerri & Lastres, 2013; and Cassiolato et al., 2014b.
2. See: <http://goo.gl/OnI2jv>, p. 18.

BRICS Long-Term Strategy

122 

|

have traditionally focused on academia, based on a linear model of innovation, with 

little interaction with the business sector. Only in the past 10 years there has been 

greater emphasis on the promotion of innovation in enterprises. During this period, 

there has been an improvement in the integration of innovation policies and in the 

interaction among agents such as Financiadora de Estudos e Pesquisas (FINEP)

3

 and 

the Brazilian Development Bank

4

 (Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico 

e Social – BNDES). Integration of innovation policies with other policies has also 

improved, but there is much room for improvement.

With regard to the productive sector, performance is ambiguous. The Brazilian 

Agricultural Research Corporation (Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária –  

Embrapa) and other research institutes have helped Brazilian farmers to achieve 

increasing levels of productivity,

5

 and Brazil has become an agribusiness power. 

On the other hand, the industrial and service sectors face stagnant levels 

of productivity and relatively low indicators of innovation when compared to 

developed nations. STI investments are deeply dependent on government spending. 

Three of the most successful cases related to STI in Brazil were the result of 

governmental initiatives: Embrapa, Embraer and Petrobras. 

Main actors in the National Innovation System

Parliament

Brazilian Congress comprises the Senate (with representatives of each of the states) 

and the Chamber of Deputies (with representatives of the citizens). Both have 

standing committees that deal with science and technology. 

Government and intermediary agencies

The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation

6

 (Ministério da Ciência, 

Tecnologia e Inovação – MCTI) and its financial agency, FINEP, are at the core of 

the Brazilian NIS. However, the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Development, 

Industry and Trade (MDIC) and BNDES also play a relevant role. Other ministries 

that also participate include the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply 

(MAPA), Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Communications 

and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. The Ministry of Finance is also consulted 

on subjects related to spending resources. 

Brazil has 26 states and the Federal District (Brasília). Each one of these 27 

federal units may develop its own STI policy and structure. The most relevant 

3. Financiadora de Estudos e Pesquisas was founded in 1952.
4. Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social was founded in 1952.
5. Productivity is quite low in family agriculture.
6. Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação was founded in 1985.

Progress through Sharing Knowledge and Innovation 

|

 123

state programmes are in the Southeast and South regions. São Paulo, the richest 

state, invests at least 1 per cent of its tax income in the Foundation for Supporting 

Research of the State of São Paulo (FAPESP). São Paulo state also has its own 

Institute for Technological Research (IPT) and Agronomical Institute (IAC).

At a national level, besides FINEP, there are a number of government agencies 

participating – to varying degrees – in the NIS: the Brazilian Agency of Industrial 

Development

7

 (Agência Brasileira de Desenvolvimento Industrial – ABDI), Centre 

for Strategic Studies and Management in Science, Technology and Innovation

8

(CGEE), National Commission for Nuclear Energy (CNEN), Brazilian Space 

Agency (AEB), National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI), National Institute 

of Meteorology (INMET), National Institute of Metrology and Quality (Inmetro), 

National Telecommunications Agency (Anatel), National Electric Energy Agency 

(Aneel), National Oil Agency (ANP), National Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa) 

and the Institute for Information in Science and Technology (IBICT).

Academia and higher education system

Brazil has 67 universities directly funded by federal government. Furthermore, 

most of the 26 states fund local universities named state universities. Likewise, 

there are more than 2,000 private post-secondary education institutions. Most of 

the research is conducted in government and confessional universities. Academic 

societies – such as the Brazilian Academy of Sciences (ABC) and the Brazilian 

Society for the Progress of Science (SBPC) – are different from their Chinese or 

Russian counterparts. The ABC and SBPC are civil societies, bringing together 

scientists from diverse institutions, especially higher education institutions (HEI). 

There are two federal post-graduate research support agencies: the National 

Council for Scientific and Technological Development

9

 (Conselho Nacional de 

Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico – CNPq), linked to the MCTI, and the 

Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel

10

 (Coordenação 

de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Capes), linked to the Ministry of 

Education. Capes is also responsible for the evaluation of post-graduate programmes 

in universities. State agencies, such as Fapesp, have their own support programmes. 

The National Institute of Educational Studies and Research Anísio Teixeira (Inep), 

linked to the Ministry of Education, conducts an exam for incoming students 

(ENEM) and HEI graduates (Enade) as part of its role in the National System of 

Evaluation of Higher Education (Sinaes).

7. Agência Brasileira de Desenvolvimento Industrial was founded in 2004.
8. ABDI and CGEE are para-public organisations.
9. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico was founded in 1951.
10. Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior was founded in 1951.