LA IMPLEMENTACIÓN DE LAS POLÍTICAS PÚBLICAS
A. La primera generación de estudios de implementación de las políticas. El enfoque top-down (de arriba hacia abajo)
In the last decade the government of the NL (two governmental party periods 2003-2009 and 2009-up to this date), has set strategies and policies to put the Metropolitan city and their region (State) in the international spotlight not only in terms of commerce and industry. One of its main pillars for economic development is the strategic program “Monterrey International City of Knowledge”, which is based on an
alliance between government, higher education institutions, and industry, also known as the Triple Helix, to promote growth through innovation [36].
In the beginning, the project followed some basic strategies which included revising educational contents and methods, the incorporation of technology specialists for industry, increasing the number of researchers and public research centers, promoting business incubators, and strengthening the city’s infrastructure. To strengthen the alliance, several clusters were initiated in sectors including: automotive, IT, medical services, life sciences, agro, nanotech and biotech, accompanied by public and private research centers, innovation and intellectual capital for each sector [36].
The economic support for the creation of new firms, the government launched programs: Integration of Regional Development and Logistics in the Northeast and its Link to Texas (INVITE) from 2005 to 2009, and Nuevo Leon Funds for Innovation (FONLIN) starting 2009 up to now. INVITE consisted in the implementation of new forms of regional development and integration of logistics to boost the 2nd stage of the free trade agreement for North America and for FONLIN helping researchers and local entrepreneurs license and register their knowledge while promoting the creation of new knowledge- based firms. Additionally the Institute for Innovation and Technological Transfer (I2T2) started two grants with seed capital and resources from private investors to help firm start-ups as well as high-growth small and medium enterprises [36].
The Institutional framework that the NL government has established includes policies oriented towards better and effective interactions between de triple helix components.
The science, technology and innovation public policy issue is set in a fast technological development environment, and the composition of various actors taking part of it. There is an evolution in the STI policies in legislation in Mexico and in the State of NL, taking the development of scientific knowledge as an engine of development.
The actions of a government are provided within a planning framework. This process is important because it is represented by a plan that includes explicit and consistent decisions to allocate resources to predetermined purposes. Thus it is important to know the regulatory framework and the establishment of rules.
In the NL case, the efforts of the government have able to support the emerging RIS and create from bottom-up a set of policies. Which was reflected in the NL 2004-2009 State Development Plan. This Plan established the relevance of the interaction among government, industry and academia for economic development through initiatives that involve these actors.
In 2003 the State Congress approved the Law for the Promotion of Knowledge-based Development. This led to the creation of the Coordinating Office for Science and Technology (COCYTENL) in 2004 with the purpose of bringing together all actors of S&T in NL (Coordinacion de Ciencia y Tecnologia de Nuevo Leon, 2010) and creates the Program of Monterrey International City of Knowledge (MICK).
In 2005 the Law was reformatted and create the Institute for Innovation and Technological Transfer (I2T2) replacing the COCYTENL. The I2T2 it is an agency of the State Government of NL, with the authority to sign agreements and allocate financial resources to programs and projects of innovation, science, and technology. The Institute administrates the program MICK (I2T2, 2005).
The I2T2 is in charged to monitor and evaluate the evolution of MICK and foster innovation through the regions. MICKs basic strategies are: 1) redesigning the agenda for the education system; 2) attracting
new research centers and technology-based firms; 3) promoting innovation in firms, universities, and research institutions; 4) creating new innovation firms; 5) widening urban and cultural infrastructure; 6) diffusing a new entrepreneurial culture; and 7) improving instruments that support innovation.
2. Final Considerations
The RIS approach highlights the role of subnational government in supporting innovation activities. This paper has argued that in developing countries there is still a changing process in the public sector and the policy process itself for innovation policies. External to this the public administration is changing from the new public management adopted during the 90s and the first decade of the new century, towards a Strong State in some countries; from centralization to decentralization activities; from the involvement of government in providing public goods to private and public partnerships; from transparency, accountability to open government; from pyramidal structure of organization to new types of governance.
The performance of government through innovation policy can be measured by its capacity to fulfill the objective for what the policy has been designed and implemented: to foster and support innovation processes. The review of the literature allows setting four elements where institutional capacity can be measured in ranges from advance, intermediate to basic capacity. From a public policy perspective the regional policy is itself a sub-system that interacts within the RSI and with external sources.
With the framework proposed RIS and Institutional capacity the organizations at governmental level can be track and see how some strategies and the implementation of policy from local o federal level foster innovation activities and foster the building of an emerging innovation system. This paper is a first approach to a doctoral dissertation work on institutional capacity in fostering innovation activities. The diagnostic presented here is not finished due to many components need to be describe. As well in the upcoming weeks interviews will be made to a major public administration actors.
References
1 Nelson, R. (1988) “Innovation and the evolution of firms” in Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G.,
& Soete, L. L. (1988). Technical change and economic theory. Pp.219-220
2 Lundvall, Bengt-Åke. (1992). National Systems of Innovation. Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive
Learning. London: Pinter Publishers.
3 Cooke, P. (2001). Regional innovation systems, clusters, and the knowledge economy. Industrial and
corporate change, 10(4), 945-974.
4 OECD. (2009). OECD Review of Innovation Policy: Mexico. Paris: OECD.
5 Padilla-Perez, R., Vang, J., & Chaminade, C. (2009). Regional innovation systems in developing countries:
integrating micro and meso-level capabilities. Handbook of Innovation Systems and Developing Countries: Building domestic capabilities in a global setting, 140.
6 Autio, E. (1998). Evaluation of RTD in regional systems of innovation. European Planning Studies, 6(2), 131-
140.
7 Cooke, P., & Memedovic, O. (2003). Strategies for regional innovation systems: learning transfer and
applications. Viena: United Nations Industrial Development Organization.
8 Niosi, J. (2005) Canada’s regional innovation systems: the science-based industries, Montreal: McGill-
Queen’s University Press.
9 COMECYT. (2011). Experiencias internacionales de Sistemas Estatales de Innovación y mejores prácticas
en la creación de Agendas Estatales de Innovación. COMECYT.
10 Cooke, P., Gomez Uranga, M., & Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: Institutional and
11 Malecki, E. (1997). Technology and economic development: the dynamics of local, regional, and national
change. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.
12 Borrás, S. (2011). Policy learning and organizational capacities in innovation policies. Science and Public
Policy, 38(9), 725-734.
13 Cooke, P. (2002). Regional innovation systems: general findings and some new evidence from biotechnology
clusters. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(1), 133-145.
14 Lundvall, B. A., & Borrás, S. (2005). Science, technology and innovation policy. The Oxford handbook of
innovation, 599-631.
15 Sweeney, G (1995) National innovation policy or regional innovation culture. Working papers in European
Industrial Policy, No. 1, EUNIOP.
16 Edquist, C. (2011). Design of innovation policy through diagnostic analysis: identification of systemic
problems (or failures). Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(6), 1725-1753.
17 Nelson, R. R., & WINTER, S. 1993. National innovation systems: A comparative analysis.
18 Lundvall, B. Å. (2007). National innovation systems—analytical concept and development tool. Industry and
innovation, 14(1), 95-119.
19 Edquist, C. (2008). Design of Innovation Policy throught diagnostic analysis: identification of systemic
problems (or failures). Lund: CIRCLE, Lund University.
20 Edquist, C. and Chaminade. (2006) ‘Industrial policy from a systems of innovation perspective’, European
Investment Bank (EIB) Papers, II (I), 108-133.
21 Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2005). One size fits all?: Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy
approach. Research policy, 34(8), 1203-1219.
22 Zucker, Lynne, M. Darby and M. B. Brewer (1998): “Intellectual Human Capital and the Birth of U.S.
Biotechnology Enterprise”, American Economic Review 88 (1): 290-306.
23 Niosi, J., 2000, Canada’s National System of Innovation, Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
24 Edquist, C. and Johnson, B. (1997) “Institutions and Organizations in Systems of Innovation,” in: Edquist, C.
(ed) Systems of Innovation Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. London: Pinter Publishers, pp. 41– 63.Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. and Nelson, R.R. 2004. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25 Nelson, R. R., & Rosenberg, N. (1993). Technical innovation and national systems. National innovation
systems: a comparative analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1-18.
26 HALL, John S. (2002) “Reconsidering the Connection between Capacity and Governance” en Public
Organization Review: A Global Journal 2, 2002. Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 23-43 Hayek 1967
27 Grindle, Merilee ed. (1997) Getting Good Government. Capacity Building in the Public Sectors of Developing
Countries. Harvard Institute for International Development. Harvard University Press.
28 Huerta, A. R. (2008). Una ruta metodológica para evaluar la capacidad institucional. Política y cultura, (30),
119-134.
29 Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. Theories
of the policy process, 118, 188.
30 Bennett, C. J., & Howlett, M. (1992). The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and
policy change. Policy sciences, 25(3), 275-294.
31 Donahue, A. K., Selden, S. C., & Ingraham, P. W. (2000). Measuring government management capacity:
A comparative analysis of city human resources management systems. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 381-412. In Borrás, S. (2011). Policy learning and organizational capacities in innovation policies. Science and Public Policy, 38(9), 725-734.
32 Hou, Y., Moynihan, D. P., & Ingraham, P. W. (2003). Capacity, management, and performance exploring the
links. The American Review of Public Administration, 33(3), 295-315.
33 OECD (2005) Regional Integration Program of Northeastern Mexican States and linkage with the State of
Texas, USA (INVITE Program). Paris: OECD.
34 IDB (2009) Monterrey International City of Knowledge. International Develpoment Bank, The State of Nuevo
35 Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (PNUD, 2010) El Indice de Desarrollo Humano en
México: cambios metodológicos e información para las entidades federativas, United Nations. Retrieved 11 August 2012.