Análisis comparativo de la grafía numérica

The BRICS are leaders among their peers in middle- and low-income economies in terms of inno- vation, but they still lag behind the advanced economies of the global North. Given the ambition of the BRICS to enter the ranks of these advanced economies, innovation capacity has to be signifi- cantly expanded. Instead of relying on resource endowments, or even the efficiencies produced by economies of scale, innovation will allow for longer-term sustainability, and will lift the economy progressively higher along the value chain, leading to improving incomes and quality of life. Cities do not exist independently, and so must be understood as being at least partially embed- ded in the national innovation ecosystem. Cities in China, for example, have the advantage of a national economy that is becoming increasingly more innovation-driven. Russia has the historical advantage of a huge concentration of intellectual resources; but there is an ‘innovation gap’, as this is not translated proportionately into new products, services and processes. South Africa has high-quality institutions that support innovation; but also deficiencies, such as in quality of education, and in human-resource capacity. Brazil has similar advantages, but is lagging behind because of problems including education and its relatively closed economy. India is making pro- gress, especially in expanding education, and is attracting international investors who are form- ing innovation partnerships; but serious problems remain in terms of human capital, inequality of opportunity, and deficient infrastructure.

Despite the significance of these national contexts, each country includes cities of high and low innovation performance. Leading the way are Shanghai, Hong Kong, Beijing, Moscow, St. Peters- burg, Mumbai and Shenzhen. These are all innovators, but for different reasons: Shanghai, for example, has a long history of cosmopolitan openness, but there is enormous attention being given to improving innovation capacity by the city government, strongly supported by central government. Beijing’s innovation is jointly produced by massive investment in R&D by the SOEs concentrated in the city, and by hi-tech incubation in the SME sector, which is supported by the knowledge spillovers from a huge concentration of educational institutions. Moscow and St. Pe- tersburg have the historical advantage of large concentrations of knowledge-based institutions, but are also Russia’s two gateway cities to the rest of the world. Mumbai’s innovation comes from its openness to the global economy, and a strong combination of advanced manufacturing, financial services and cultural industries. Shenzhen is a new city, without the baggage of history and with an ethos of creative experimentation.

While most cities in the BRICS are not among the world leaders in innovation, many have a strong innovation impulse in one or more aspects of their economy. Some cities which may currently be ranked quite low are nevertheless rising rapidly (e.g. Chongqing and Chennai), and may be the innovation hubs of the future.

One of the key factors in terms of innovation is the quality of tertiary education. Beijing, Shang- hai, Moscow and São Paulo are obvious examples, but there are smaller cities such as Cape Town, Nanjing and Wuhan that have comparative strength in education, and therefore have innovation advantages. However, education must be translated into innovation potential, through partner- ships and other linkages between tertiary education and industry.

Innovation may be supported through policy. Here, national governments play a key role in in- centivising and supporting local action, but city governments have a crucial role to play. Not all city governments work actively in support of innovation, but many do; and there is a range of possible instruments and interventions that could be used to strengthen local innovation. Finally, even within specific cities, innovation is spatially uneven. It often happens within clus- ters where the conditions to support innovation are well-developed, e.g. infrastructure, dense networks of relationship between innovation actors, special incentives, and human-resource capital. Some of these clusters have emerged organised (for example, around major universities in Brazil), but many have been deliberately created through national and local programmes, including through the designation of special innovation zones where special support measures are provided.

most important are those recognised and supported by central government, but there are also zones with provincial or city-level status.

Some of the most important innovation zones in China are:

» Zhongguancun Self-development Innovation Demonstration Area in Beijing (in which around 16 000 firms have already been incubated);

» Binhai New Area in Tianjin (as part of the Tianjin Economic-Technological Development Area); » Shanghai Free Trade Zone, including the Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Industrial Park

» Suzhou Industrial Park;

» Shenzhen Hi-Tech Industrial Park (home to ZTE and Tencent) » National Independent Innovation Demonstration Zone in Wuhan; » Chengdu Hi-Tech Industrial Development Zone;

» Xi’an Hi-Tech Industrial Development Zone; » Chongqing Hi-Tech Industry Development Zone.

In Russia, there is a history of innovation clusters around major science and other educational insti- tutions. Russia now has a formal strategy of supporting at least 13 pilot innovative regional clusters. Two of these are in Moscow: one focusing on IT and nuclear physics, and the other on nanotech- nology. The other 11, however, are scattered across Russia, including one each in St. Petersburg (IT, radio electronics and instrumentation) and Novosibirsk (IT and biopharmaceutical). These clusters will complement established clusters such as around the Russian Academy of Science and Moscow University in the south-west of Moscow; the St. Petersburg-Pushkinskaya industrial zone; and the satellite city of Akademgorok outside Novosibirsk, famous for ‘Lavrentyev’s triangle’, which brings together specialist academic science institutes, and a large cluster of public and private R&D facilities. India is now also following a model of spatial targeting. With the trade liberalisation of the 1990s, zones of offshore investment in high-technology services emerged on the edges of Bengaluru, and then around cities such as Chennai, Hyderabad and Pune. As firms established R&D facilities in these cities, they emerged as incipient innovation zones. Hyderabad, for example, now has the Genome Valley, which specialises in biomedical research, while Chennai has the Mahindra Research Valley, where automobile-related R&D is clustered. A major cluster of hi-tech innovation has also emerged in Navi Mumba, a satellite city of Mumbai. There is now a more deliberate attempt to create in- novation zones, with the National Innovation Act of 2008 making provision for the designation of such zones, although progress with their establishment has been slow. Prime Minister Modi has launched a major new initiative with the designation of 100 ‘smart cities’, which will be provided with central government resources for infrastructural and technological development. This is likely to be the focus of city-level innovation efforts under the current political administration.

Industry innovation clusters have emerged organically in parts of Brazil. For example, there is an in- novation cluster that has emerged around the University of Campinas (Unicamp) within the Greater São Paulo Region, including the Unicamp Science and Technology Park, established as a universi- ty-industry partnership. Similar clusters are emerging around the Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro and around the Pontíficie Universidade Católica, located in Porto Alegre. Other innovation clusters have developed around the headquarters of major corporations such as Embraer in São Jose dos Campos. In Recife, a hi-tech innovation cluster known as Porto Digital has developed as a result of a state government initiative launched in 2000.

In South Africa there are emergent innovation clusters in places such as Cape Town, Johannesburg and Tshwane (Pretoria). Although there is no effective national programme for the development of these clusters, there are subnational and local initiatives. The Stellenbosch Technopark, for example, is the result of a partnership between the University of Stellenbosch and the local municipality. The Silicon Cape initiative, with its focus on venture capital and business networking, is a private-sec- tor-initiated project, while the Innovation Hub in Pretoria was established by provincial government.

THEMA

TIC ANAL

YSIS: TRANSPOR

TA

TION, GREEN ENERGY AND INNOV

A

TION ECONOMIES

KEY REFERENCES

This chapter draws primarily on the information in the various city Factsheets. However, additional sources were consulted, including:

2thinknow (2016) Innovation Cities Index, www.innovation-cities.com/ innovation-cities-index-2015-global/9609 Airports Council International (2015) Annual Traffic

Data, www.aci.aero/Data-Centre

Awan, A. (2012) ‘Diverging trends of human capital in BRIC countries’, International Journal of Asian Social Science, 2(12), pp. 2195-2219

Bagchi, N. (2011) ‘A comparative analysis of the factors for fostering innovation in BRICS countries from 1995 to 2009’, ASCI Journal of Management, pp. 1-20

Bound, K. and I. Thornton (2012) Our frugal future: lessons from India’s innovation system, www.nesta. org.uk/sites/default/files/our_frugal_future.pdf BP (2016) BP Statistical Review of World Energy-2015,

www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/energy- economics/statistical-review-2016/bp-statistical- review-of-world-energy-2016-china-insights.pdf Cai, Y. (2011) ‘Factors affecting the efficiency of

the BRICSs’ national innovation systems: A comparative study based on DEA and Panel Data Analysis’, Economics Discussion Papers, No. 2011- 52, www.hdl.handle.net/10419/52679

Cornell INSEAD WIPO (2016) Global Innovation Index, www.globalinnovationindex.org/

EMBARQ (2016) Global BRT Data, www.brtdata.org/ Gupta, M., Weber, C., Peña, V., Shipp, S. and D.

Healey (2013) Innovation policies of Brazil, a report for the Institute of Defence Analysis, www. ida.org/idamedia/Corporate/Files/Publications/ STPIPubs/2014/ida-p-5039.ashx

IBM (2011) Frustration rising: IBM 2011 commuter pain survey, www.profacility.be/piclib/biblio/ pdf_00000552UK.pdf

Innovation Policy Platform (2016) Database, www. innovationpolicyplatform.org/content/statistics-ipp International Energy Agency (2015) World Energy

Outlook, 2015, www.worldenergyoutlook.org/ International Energy Agency (2016) World

Energy Statistics, www.iea.org/publications/ freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2016.pdf Lloyds (2016) Lloyds List – 100 Ports, www.lloydslist.

com/ll/incoming/article506151.ece

NTDPC – National Transport Development Planning Committee (2013) Urban Transport, www. planningcommission.nic.in/sectors/NTDPC/ voulme3_p2/urban_v3_p2.pdf

OECD (2011) OECD territorial reviews: the Gauteng City-Region, South Africa, OECD Publishing, www. dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264122840-en

QS (2016) Qs University Rankings BRICS – 2016, www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/ brics-rankings/

Rezende, S. (2010) ‘Innovation policy around the world: Brazil: challenges and achievements’, Issues in Science and Technology,www.issues.org/26-3/ rezende/

Siegelbaum, L. (2006) ‘Cars, cars and more cars: the Faustian bargain of the Brezhnev era’, in L. Siegelbaum (Ed.) Borders of Socialism: Private Spheres in the Soviet Era, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 83-107

The Economist Intelligence Unit (2013) Hotspots: Benchmarking Global City Competitiveness, available on www.economistinsights.com/sites/ default/files/downloads/Hot%20Spots.pdf The World Bank (2009) Promoting

Enterprise Led Innovation in China, www. siteresources.worldbank.org/CHINAEXTN/ Resources/318949-1242182077395/peic_full_report. pdf

TomTom (2016) TomTom Traffic Index, www.global- traffic-congestion-index.silk.co/

Torvinen, P, and V. Vaatanen (2013) ‘Review of the competitiveness of Russia’s manufacturing industry’, International Journal of Business Excellence, 6(3) pp. 293-309

Trade Mission of the Russian Federation in Germany (2016) Innovative and Industrial Clusters in Russia: Current Agenda of the State Policy, www. innovationpolicyplatform.org/system/files/Russia_ PPT07042016_.pdf

UIC – International Union of Railways (2016) UIC website, www.uic.org/

UNEP – United Nations Environmental Programme (2015) Transport Scenarios for India: Harmonising Development and Climate Benefits, www.unep. org/transport/lowcarbon/PDFs/TransportScenarios. pdf

World Bank (2016) Energy Data, www.data. worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.COAL. ZS?locations=ZA

World Economic Forum (2013) Global Competitiveness Report, 2015- 2016 www.reports.weforum.org/ global-competitiveness-report-2015-2016/ World Shipping Council (2016) Top 50 container

ports, www.worldshipping.org/about-the-industry/ global-trade/top-50-world-container-ports Yao, X., Watanabe, C and Y. Li (2009) ‘Institutional

structure of sustainable development in BRICs: focusing on ICT utilisation’, Technology and Society, 31, 9-28.

CONCLUSION

This chapter has dealt with three out of many possible themes to do with urban development. In relation to each of these themes, cities in the BRICS face considerable challenges. Almost all large cities in the BRICS face massive problems of congestion, for example, which is a consequence of both economic and population growth and of a rapid increase in the level of vehicle ownership. Cities in the BRICS face considerable challenges in terms of energy, in relation to both the security of supply and the emissions and pollution that are produced from using fossil fuels. Cities in the BRICS also face challenges in moving their economies up the value chain, from a dependence on factor endowments to innovation-driven development.

However, although the challenges are considerable, cities in the BRICS have made significant (though uneven) progress in addressing them. Over the past decade, for example, there has been unprecedented improvement in public transport networks, with large-scale investments in new metro, BRT, LRT and NMT networks. These investments have been accompanied by innovations in regulations, management, and institutional coordination. At the same time there has been a shift towards more environmentally-friendly ways of producing electricity, and greener fuels. There is also increasing recognition of the importance of innovation in driving economic growth and change, and a number of cities in the BRICS are emergent hubs of innovation globally.

There is immense opportunity for learning across city contexts in each of these areas of focus. There are also some general lessons. The first is that national policies, targets, incentives, regulations and programmes really do matter. In all three focus areas, national governments played a critical role in provoking or inducing local actors to respond to challenges in particular ways. A decentralisation programme that reduces the capacity of national government, or undermines the willingness of national government to influence outcomes, may be seriously counterproductive. Second is that clearly, local actions also make a difference. Within any country there is huge variation in effective- ness across cities, partly shaped by the effectiveness of local institutions in responding to both the inducements of national government and the contingencies of context.

In general, it is the already-dominant cities that are best able to respond to challenges. Cities such as Beijing, Shanghai, Moscow, São Paulo and Mumbai emerge as leaders time and again. But sec- ond-tier and smaller cities do feature significantly in some areas of focus: Curitiba, for its bus servic- es and sustainable urban planning; Hangzhou, Wuhan and Tianjin, for cycling; Guangzhou, for its BRT; Chengdu, for the way in which it is emerging as a global airline hub; Shenzhen for innovation; Shenyang for its courage in closing down coal-fired plants and furnaces; Cape Town for tertiary education; Wuhan and Hangzhou, for new-energy vehicles; Bengaluru and Chennai, for attracting international investment in IT services; Novosibirsk for its innovation linkages between academia and industry; and many more.

The analysis gives a sense of hope. The cities of the BRICS provide a dynamic environment, where challenges are being confronted and where there are notable successes. However, for cities that lack progressive thinking and action, the message is more sobering – their peers in the BRICS are moving ahead, and the task of catching up is becoming ever greater.

THEMA

TIC ANAL

YSIS: TRANSPOR

TA

TION, GREEN ENERGY AND INNOV

A

TION ECONOMIES