The role of cities in decentralization of national policies on science, technology and innovation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7433/s105.2018.01Keywords:
regional economy, digital economy, science and technology management, public policies, federative decentralization, tech-based business ecosystemsAbstract
Purpose of the paper: This paper discusses decentralization of national public policies on Science, Technology, and Innovation (ST&I) from the federal to the city government.
Methodology: Empirical data is provided by the case studies of two Brazilian cities: Porto Alegre and São Leopoldo, which were selected because of their comparatively good results in promoting companies and ecosystems of innovation regarding other Brazilian cities.
Findings: The main conclusions of the study are: (a) federal government public policy promotion in ST&I remains crucial to the development of entrepreneurial technologically-based ecosystems; (b) municipalities are capable of mobilizing resources, structuring incentive mechanisms, articulating actors, and organizing governance systems; (c) decentralization via municipalities can improve capillarity and effectiveness, strengthening regional innovation systems and consequently complementing national ST&I policies; (d) increased political and economic power of city governments can promote improvements in federal policies of ST&I.
Research limits: This study requires further empirical validation and analysis of evidence of other initiatives of ST&I decentralization
Practical implications: The study provides managerial implications suggesting how ST&I should be organized in a city to improve a tech-based business ecosystem.
Originality of the paper: Governments around the world have been supporting companies and innovation ecosystems because of their relevance to economic viability and national sustainable development. However, despite the increasing political, social, and economic relevance of cities worldwide, their role has been underestimated in national ST&I policies. In this context, this study considers how municipal decentralization of national ST&I policies enhances capillarity, efficiency, and the strengthening of regional systems of innovation.
References
AMDAM J. (2003), “Structure and strategy for regional learning and innovation: challenges for regional planning”, European Planning Studies, vol. 11, n. 4, pp. 439-459.
ARRETCHE M. (2004), “Federalismo e políticas sociais no Brasil: problemas de coordenação e autonomia”, São Paulo em Perspectiva, vol. 18, n. 2, pp. 17-26.
BANTING K. (2004), Canada - Nation-building in a Federal Welfare State Zentrum für Sozialpolitik, Universität Bremen, Bremen.
BECKMANN M.J., THISSE J.F. (1987), “The location of production activities”, in Nijkamp P., Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, vol. 1, pp. 21-95.
BLOOMBERG M.R. (2011), “Mayors voices: C40 Chair New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. New York”, C40Cities, available at: http://www.c40.org/c40blog/mayors-voices-c40-chair-new-york-city-mayor-michael-r-bloomberg (accessed 10 December 2013).
CASTELLS M. (1999), A Sociedade em Rede, Paz e Terra, São Paulo.
CARAGLIU A., BO C., NIJKAMP P. (2009), “Smart Cities in Europe Smart Cities in Europe”, 3rd Central European Conference in Regional Science - CERS, vol. 732, pp. 45-59.
CENEVIVA R. (2010), O Nível de Governo Importa para a Qualidade da Política Pública? A Municipalização da Educação Fundamental no Brasil, USP - Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas, São Paulo.
CENTRO DE GESTÃO E ESTUDOS ESTRATÉGICOS (CGEE), (2010), “Descentralização do fomento à ciência, tecnologia e inovação no Brasil”, Centro de Gestão e Estudos Estratégicos, ISBN 978-85-60755-28-8, Brasília, DF, available at: www.cgee.org.br (accessed 15 August, 2015).
CONFEDERAÇÃO NACIONAL DOS MUNICÍPIOS (CNM), (2012), “Estudos fiscais: estimativas da participação dos entes da federação no bolo tributário”, Estudos Técnicos CNM, vol. 1, n. 8, pp. 77-81.
DIRKS S., KEELING M. (2009), A Vision of Smarter Cities: How Cities Can Lead the Way into a Prosperous and Sustainable Future, IBM Institute for Business Value, New York.
DUCHACEK I. (1970), Comparative federalism: the territorial dimension of politics, Holt, Rinehartand Winston, New York.
FLORIDA R. (2008), Who’s your City? How the Creative Economy Is Making Where You Live the Most Important Decision of Your Life, Basic Books, New York.
FU S. (2007), “Smart café cities: testing human capital externalities in the Boston metropolitan area”, Journal of Urban Economics, vol. 61, n. 1, pp. 87-111.
HAYEK F.A. (1945), “The use of knowledge in society”, The American Economic Review, vol. 35, n. 4, pp. 519-530.
MAZZUCATO M. (2011), The Entrepreneurial State, Demos, London.
MELO M.A. (1996), “Crise federativa, guerra fiscal e ‘hobbesianismo municipal’: efeitos perversos da descentralização?”, São Paulo em Perspectiva, vol. 10, n. 3.
MONASTERIO L. (2011), “Fundamentos do pensamento econômico regional”, Economia regional e urbana: teorias e métodos com ênfase no Brasil, IPEA - Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada, Brasília, pp. 43.
MYRDAL G. (1957), Teoria econômica e regiões subdesenvolvidas, Ministério da Educação e Cultura, Rio de Janeiro, Original edition.
OATES WALLACE E. (1999), “An Essay on Fiscal Federalism”, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 37, n. 3, pp. 1120-1149.
OLIVEIRA V.E. (2007), O municipalismo brasileiro e a provisão local de sociais: o caso dos serviços de saúde nos municípios paulistas, 237 f. Tese (Doctorate) - Departamento de Ciência Política, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo.
PAIVA C.A. (2004), Como Identificar e Mobilizar o Potencial de Desenvolvimento Endógeno de uma Região, FEE - Fundação de Economia e Estatística, Porto Alegre, RS.
PERROUX F. (1982), Dialogue des Monopoles et des Nations. Presses Universitaires de Grenoble, Grenoble, (original edition 1955).
SAMBAMURTHY V. , BHARADVAJ, A., GROVER, V. (2003), “Shaping agility through digital options: reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms”, MIS Quarterly Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota, USA. vol. 27, n. 2, pp. 237-263.
SANDULLI F., FERRARIS A., BRESCIANI S. (2016), “How to select the right public partner in Smart City projects”, R&D Management, vol. 47, n.4, pp. 607-619.
SASSEN S. (1999), The Global City. New York, London, Tokyo, eBook Princeton University Press, USA. ISBN: 9781400847488.
SASSEN S. (2009), “Cities Today: A new frontier for major developments”, in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 626, n.1, pp. 53-71.
SCRIMGER K., JUBI H. (2000), “Lyon, France: Webb opens first Transatlantic Summit of Mayors”, U.S. Newspaper, New York, vol. 67, n. 7, available at: http://www.usmayors.org/usmayornewspaper/documents/04_17_00/Lyon_front_pg.htm (accessed 5 December 2013).
STEPAN A. (1999), “Para uma nova análise comparativa do federalismo e da democracia: federações que restringem ou ampliam o poder do demos”, Dados [online], vol. 42, n. 2, pp. 197-251.
TECNOVA (2010), Manual Operacional e de Orientação ao Parceiro, FINEP. RJ, available at: http://download.finep.gov.br/noticias/ManualdeOrientacaoaosParceiros programaTECNOVA.pdf (accessed in 2016).
TIEBOUT C.M. (1956), “A pure theory of local expenditures”, The Journal of Political Economy, vol. 64, n. 5, pp. 416-424.
TREGUA M., AMITRANO C.C., BIFULCO F. (2015), “Cultural heritage and multi-actors innovation. Evidences from smart cities”, XXVII Convegno annuale di Sinergie: Heritage, management e Impresa: Quali Sinergie?, pp. 859-872.
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION (UNESCO), (2010), Relatório Unesco Sobre Ciência 2010: O Atual Status da Ciência em Torno do Mundo, Representação da UNESCO no Brasil, Susan Schneegans (ed.), Brasília.
UNITED NATIONS (2008), World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision, New York.
VALENZUELA E., PRESSACCO F., CIENFUEGOS I., PENAGLIA F. (2015), “Pilares necesarios para una descentralización autónoma sin cooptación del poder central: reflexiones para el proceso descentralizador chileno”, Revista de Administração Pública, Fundação Getúlio Vargas, vol. 49, n. 5, pp. 1083-1106.
YIN R. (1999), Case study research, Sage, Thousand Oaks (CA).
WEISS M.A. (2006), “Metropolitan economic strategy: the key to prosperity”, Harvard College Economics Review, Fall, pp. 25-27.
WORLD BANK (1994), World Development Report 1994: Infrastructure for Development, Technical report, Oxford University Press. New York, NY.
