IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/col/000431/011390.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quao efetivas sao políticas tecnológicas de cunho impositivas? Evidencias do programa de P&D capitaneadas por uma empresa do setor elétrico brasileiro

Author

Listed:
  • Edmundo Inácio Júnior
  • Cássio Garcia Ribeiro
  • André Tosi Furtado
  • Gabriela Silva

Abstract

Este artigo apresenta novas evidencias sobre a efetividade de uma política setorial de inovacao adotada pelo governo federal Brasileiro que se apoia em um instrumento de “natureza impositiva” : o governo obriga as organizacoes do setor elétrico a investirem uma certa porcentagem de seu faturamento em atividades de pesquisa e desenvolvimento (P&D). A destinacao dos recursos financeiros para as atividades de P&D é regulada pela Agencia Nacional de Energia Elétrica (ANEEL), por forca da Lei Federal No 9.991 de 07 de julho de 2000. Nossa pesquisa cobriu 41 projetos concluídos entre os anos de 2000 a 2006 por uma das subsidiarias do sistema público elétrico de geracao e transmissao, localizada no nordeste brasileiro, responsável pela geracao de 10.615 MW de energia elétrica, aproximadamente 9% do total nacional. Embasados pela teoria evolucionária da mudanca técnica, um amplo quadro de aspectos atinentes a esses projetos foi contemplado pela metodologia de avaliacao, de maneira a cobrir tópicos desde os objetivos dos projetos aos resultados tecnológicos em termos de patentes e artigos gerados, passando pelo número de pesquisadores formados por estes projetos em equivalencia de tempo integral. No total, 53 gerentes de projetos responderam a um questionário de auto resposta que foi aplicado após se coletar informacoes secundárias dos projetos. Como resultados positivos, tem-se a alta taxa de consecucao dos objetivos e um expressivo número de produtos tecnológicos na forma de publicacoes científicas e artefatos. Entretanto, somente uma pequena parcela destes artefatos chegaram a um estágio de desenvolvimento industrial e somente dois deles obtiveram alguma forma de direitos de propriedade intelectual. Apesar de nao poder se negar que alguns avancos foram atingidos, a análise dos dados revela uma substancial dificuldade do quadro dos gestores da empresa de deixar uma cultura escassamente orientada a inovacao para adotar um novo paradigma que realmente internalize os aspectos principais de uma estratégia inovativa.

Suggested Citation

  • Edmundo Inácio Júnior & Cássio Garcia Ribeiro & André Tosi Furtado & Gabriela Silva, 2013. "Quao efetivas sao políticas tecnológicas de cunho impositivas? Evidencias do programa de P&D capitaneadas por uma empresa do setor elétrico brasileiro," Revista Ciencias Estratégicas, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:col:000431:011390
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://revistas.upb.edu.co/index.php/cienciasestrategicas/article/view/2458/2142
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adam B. Jaffe, 2002. "Building Programme Evaluation into the Design of Public Research-Support Programmes," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 18(1), pages 22-34, Spring.
    2. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R., 2001. "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 509-532, March.
    3. Mansfield, Edwin, 1991. "Academic research and industrial innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
    4. Edwin Mansfield & John Rapoport & Anthony Romeo & Samuel Wagner & George Beardsley, 1977. "Social and Private Rates of Return from Industrial Innovations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 91(2), pages 221-240.
    5. Susan E Cozzens, 2000. "Assessing federally-supported academic research in the United States," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 5-10, April.
    6. Georghiou, Luke & Roessner, David, 2000. "Evaluating technology programs: tools and methods," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 657-678, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bayona-Sáez, Cristina & García-Marco, Teresa, 2010. "Assessing the effectiveness of the Eureka Program," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 1375-1386, December.
    2. Bloch, Carter & Sørensen, Mads P. & Graversen, Ebbe K. & Schneider, Jesper W. & Schmidt, Evanthia Kalpazidou & Aagaard, Kaare & Mejlgaard, Niels, 2014. "Developing a methodology to assess the impact of research grant funding: A mixed methods approach," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 105-117.
    3. Del Bo, Chiara F., 2016. "The rate of return to investment in R&D: The case of research infrastructures," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 26-37.
    4. Hird, Mackenzie D. & Pfotenhauer, Sebastian M., 2017. "How complex international partnerships shape domestic research clusters: Difference-in-difference network formation and research re-orientation in the MIT Portugal Program," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 557-572.
    5. Daniel Chudnovsky & Andrés López & Martín Rossi & Diego Ubfal, 2006. "Evaluating a Program of Public Funding of Scientific Activity. A Case Study of FONCYT in Argentina," OVE Working Papers 1206, Inter-American Development Bank, Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE).
    6. Chiara F. DEL BO, 2014. "The rate of return to investment in R&D infrastructure: an overview," Departmental Working Papers 2014-11, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    7. Moore, Michal C. & Arent, Douglas J. & Norland, Douglas, 2007. "R&D advancement, technology diffusion, and impact on evaluation of public R&D," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1464-1473, March.
    8. Ana Lara GÓMEZ, 2015. "Technological Spillovers of Research Infrastructures," Departmental Working Papers 2015-18, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    9. Daniel Gama e Colombo & Jorge Martinez-Vazquez, 2018. "Fiscal Decentralization and Public R&D Policy: A Country Panel Analysis," International Center for Public Policy Working Paper Series, at AYSPS, GSU paper1820, International Center for Public Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    10. David Roessner & Lynne Manrique & Jongwon Park, 2010. "The economic impact of engineering research centers: preliminary results of a pilot study," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 35(5), pages 475-493, October.
    11. Gaunand, A. & Hocdé, A. & Lemarié, S. & Matt, M. & Turckheim, E.de, 2015. "How does public agricultural research impact society? A characterization of various patterns," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 849-861.
    12. Thomas Ã…stebro, 1998. "Basic Statistics on the Success Rate and Profits for Independent Inventors," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 23(2), pages 41-48, December.
    13. Stuart D. Allen & Stephen K. Layson & Albert N. Link, 2013. "Public gains from entrepreneurial research: Inferences about the economic value of public support of the Small Business Innovation Research program," Chapters, in: Public Support of Innovation in Entrepreneurial Firms, chapter 6, pages 105-112, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Roper, Stephen & Hewitt-Dundas, Nola & Love, James H., 2004. "An ex ante evaluation framework for the regional benefits of publicly supported R&D projects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 487-509, April.
    15. José Miguel Benavente & Gustavo Crespi & Alessandro Maffioli, 2007. "The Impact of National Research Funds: An Evaluation of the Chilean FONDECYT," OVE Working Papers 0307, Inter-American Development Bank, Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE).
    16. Gersbach, Hans & Sorger, Gerhard & Amon, Christian, 2018. "Hierarchical growth: Basic and applied research," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 434-459.
    17. Rank, Dennis & Williams, Douglas, 1999. "Partial benefit/cost in the evaluation of the Canadian Networks of Centres of Excellence," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 121-129.
    18. Bekkers, Rudi & Bodas Freitas, Isabel Maria, 2008. "Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1837-1853, December.
    19. Martin, Fernand, 1998. "The economic impact of Canadian university R&D," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(7), pages 677-687, November.
    20. Malo, Stéphane, 2009. "The contribution of (not so) public research to commercial innovations in the field of combinatorial chemistry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 957-970, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Políticas tecnológicas e de inovação; Setor elétrico brasileiro; Avaliação de programas de P&D;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • Q40 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:col:000431:011390. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Revista Ciencias Estratégicas (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.