Latin American Science and

Technology Policy: New Scenarios

and the Research Community

RENATO DAGNINO and HERNAN THOMAS

The paper begins by analysing the antecedents of the transformations now being faced by
the Latin American Science and Technology Policy (STP). A parallel with the STPs of
advanced countries is drawn in order to make explicit some aspects that have barely
reached the notice of the Latin American research community. Based on a forecasting
approach, which implies introducing in science and technology (S&T) decision-making,
satisfaction of social demands, the paper suggests some of the implications of this scenario.
Besides many other requisites, now hardly feasible for the reorientation of STP, the paper
emphasises the importance of a viable and unilateral first step: the resignification of the
research community.

THERE IS A position, currently held by a minority, but fully accepted

until the late 1970s, with regard to Latin American S&T devdlopment
and the paths to overcome the obstacles it faces. The essence of this
position is the importance it gives to social issues linked to STP What
is more, it contends that the present moment is one of transition: it is
necessary to choose between two paths. The first follows the current
neoliberal trend, which reinforces the excluding nature of the current
socioeconomic model, based on the pursuit of competitiveness at any
price.’ The second is aligned with political democratisation in prog-
ress over the last decade, and the economic democratisation scenario
it brings with it. In order to satisfy material demands compatible
with a more equitable society, quite a different technological mix
compared to the first path is necessary. These two scenarios (paths

Renato Dagnino is at IG-UNICAMP, CP 6512,13083-970, Campinas, Brazil.

Hernan Thomas is at Mexico 671 20-Dpto 15, CP 1097, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
 36

and corresponding final scenes) require quite distinct S&T activities

and STP.
Current changes in the course of Latin American STP are aligned
with that first tendentious scenario.2 They express a relatively recent
concern for international competitiveness, derived economic adjust-
ment processes and from the fact that the model of industrialisation
by import substitution has been abandoned. Both the idealistic con-
ception of S&T as an ’engine of growth&dquo;3 and the critical view formu-
lated by the Latin American thought on Science, Technology and
Society,4 which were responsible for the broad outline of Latin Amer-
ican STP, up to the end of the 1980s, have been set aside to make
room for a new concept. Its core is that S&T activities have to be ori-
ented to foster innovation systems which should serve the competi-
tive standing of individual countries in world markets. As frequently
happens, the scenario of economic democratisation placing the satis-
faction of social demands foremost, seems to arise in sociopolitical
terms as an opposing trend, and in theoretical terms, as a counter
argument. The issue of social needs is not understood here as result-
ing from a linear chain of innovation, where its fulfilment appears as
the last link. It is introduced as a starting point from which to devise
STP Driven by a criticism of neoliberal orientation current in Latin
American public policies, this alternative view is oriented to trans-
form not only the content and objectives of STP but also the decision-
making processes which give rise to it.

The Emergence of the Linear-chain Institutional Model in the

Advanced Countries _

What is currently known as STP had made its appearance by the end
of the Second World War as a consequence of the growing impor-
tance of scientific and technological knowledge, the emergence of
’big science’, and the increasing role of the state in the management
of research activities in advanced societies (Elzinga 1995). Based on
optimistic rationalisation, the scientific and military establishments
in the US capitalised on this situation and started the idea that the
supply of the fruits of scientific research was a sufficient, not just nec-
essary, condition for social development (Ronayne 1984). Born
within the environment of American policy-making, the concept of
the linear chain of innovation and the idea of science as an ’endless
frontier’ (Bush 1945) became part of the new social contract between
 ▪ 37

the scientific community and the state (Kash 1991; Ronayne 1984).
The supply-based institutional models thus created became a core
element in the coexistence of a policy ’of science’ and ’for science’
(Salomon 1977) in advanced capitalist countries.
The success of this model in the reconstruction of the economic,
scientific and technical infrastructure of Europe (Oteiza 1992) and
Japan reinforced its supposed universal validity. Differences result-
ing from the previous history of each country, and from the role they
played in the emerging economic and technological laissez-faire
based on the ’military keynesianism’ of the USA (Dickson 1988), to
variants involving a significant degree of centralisation, such as the
French (Salomon 1977), the Japanese or the Swedish models. From
the 1960s onwards, the indicators of scientific production began to
show that the gap between the USA, on the one hand, and Japan and
Europe on the other, was closing. The indicators of economic perfor-
mance also pointed in the same direction. The simultaneity and

positive correlation suggest a close relationship between scientific-

technological development and economic performance. This was
interpreted by the research community as a corroboration of the ’ex-
planatory power’ and the normative efficiency of the linear chain
model.
The hegemony of this descriptive, normative and institutional
model was maintained until the 1980s. Its decline was due to the
attack made by analysts who had influence on decision-making in the
area of economic policy, finance, etc. For them economic perfor-
mance was understood as a result of a set of variables in which the
role of scientific development was practically negligible. After that,
the internalisation of the S&T variables, under a more encompassing
label of innovation occurred with the neo-Schumpeterian approach.
This did indeed give rise to a new conception of policy-making in the
economic field, in which the creation of an innovative capacity be-
comes a fundamental element. The contemporary developments
related to the abandonment of the linear chain model in the advan-
ced countries are outside the scope of this paper.

The Scienti6c Community and the ’Relationship Web’ in

Advanced Countries

The scientific community of advanced countries play an important

role both in formulating STP and implementing the resulting
 38

activities. The planning style adopted for STP has been incremental,
despite its rational appearances (decision-making in a logical, encom-
passing manner, including the specification of objectives consistent
with future stages to be attained on the path towards the ’best’ pol-
icy). In other words, the STP decision-making incorporates proce-
dures typical of the mutual adjustment among only slightly differenti-
ated ‘partisans’6. Decisions accommodate the political environment
and the wishes of peer groups, looking for a policy expressing ’the art
of the possible’. It should be understood how STP design, despite its
top-down appearance (decision-makers at the top of a centralised
pyramid, feeding a hierarchical implementation process in which
officials at the base implement the established objectives), is charac-
terised by a mixture of styles which include ’bottom-up’ mechanisms.
In practice, there is a design implementation continuum, where many
ad hoc decisions are effectively taken at the hands-on level, on a day-
to-day basis, by descretionary professionals (not bureaucrats) work-
ing in the S&T area. Organisational theory and the more recent pol-
icy analysis approach suggest that bureaucratic structures are not
likely to change. Changes in such structures are rarely autonomous;
they are usually introduced from the outside by signals (and in the
extreme, pressures) generated by interests and actors situated in the
outer environment .7 These signals act by stimulating decision-makers
to accept and catalyse organisational change. Research institutions
(including universities) are not typical bureaucratic structures 8 Even
so, organisational change in research institutions only tends to occur
when pressures from the outer environment (Kingdon 1984) are able
to challenge the intrinsically supply-based institutional culture of
these structures.
In advanced countries, there exists something that may be called a
’relationship web’, linking actors such as the state, the society and the
research community that stimulates institutional change. It was
shaped and works in a subtle, continuous, incrimental and implicit
way.9 In fact, the influence of this web often goes unobserved by the
majority of researchers and is thus considered as non-existent by
many of them, or is perceived as a diffuse outer environment by oth-
ers. This web fosters a process of reciprocal influences between these

actors, disseminating values and establishing research priorities.10

This process locates ’fields of relevance’-the sets of problems
which are the subject of the researcher’s work. Policy measures and
resources that promote the exploration of these ’fields of relevance’
 39

are provided by the action of the ’relationship web’. Research trends,

resource allocation norms and criteria, and specific criteria for ’qual-
ity’ peer (or agency) evaluation are results of this process.ll The eco-
nomic and political interests of the social actors involved in S&T
activities in a given society at a given time (producers, consumers,
funding agencies, or simply those who suffer its consequences) are
represented in this ’relationship web’. However, the manner in which
it operates overshadows the historical processes. The ’field of rele-
vance’ and the ’quality’ evaluation criteria is not perceived in this way.
They tend to be understood as the ’natural’ and logical result of the
scientific realm (Chubin and Hackett 1990).

The ’Relationship Web’ as Origin of the Dynamics of the

Exploration of the S&T Frontier
Advanced countries are defined as economically advanced countries.
But they are also leaders in terms of S&T development. With a rela-
tively even income distribution and massive markets established long
ago, they based their economic growth on the satisfaction of increas-
ingly sophisticated demands. Sectors satisfying such demands are the
most dynamic from an economic viewpoint and, therefore, concen-
trate most of the R&D resources. The hi-tech goods, which initially
the
reach just higher income segments, are rapidly diffused throughout
society. On the one hand, the impact of the learning S curve and the
effect of scale make them cheaper. On the other hand, the benefits of
economic growth tend to be evenly distributed. These characteristics
generate a particular dynamics of the exploration of the S&T frontier
biased towards the demands of the power elite of the richer countries,
which are expressed directly on the market or through the intervention
of the state. As a consequence of a feedback effect intermediated by
enormous economicl2 and geopolitical interestsl3 and enforced by con-
sumerism, the S&T frontier has been consistently expanded in order to
satisfy these particular demands. Similarly, what happens to the ’rela-
tionship web’, the biased character of this dynamics have barely
reached the notice of the research community. It also tends to be
understood as the ’natural’ and logical result of the scientific realm.

The ’Relationship Web’ as Origin of ’Fields of Relevance’ and

Quality Criterion
The web also has other, more direct, implications to the conduct of
the, research community. It contributes two characteristics to the
 40

’quality’ criteria currently formulated and adopted in the advanced

countries for evaluation and foresight. On the one hand, it inbreeds
with respect to the society, in the sense that it reflects widespread pri-
orities adopted by researchers in their work, though in a diffuse,
unconscious manner. On the other, it is dynamic, insofar as demands
for new knowledge are continuously emerging from these societies,
where S&T research has been directed to solve new problems recur-
rently posed by political and economic elite, with broad implications
for national interests and (to a lesser degree) for social interests.&dquo;
Another way to describe this situation is to say that the web is respon-
sible for the enforcement of socioeconomic relevance as an evalua-
tion criterion, which is the counterpart of the economic and political
interests of the social actors involved in it, and which is even more
basic than the ’quality’ criterion, as it is usually understood.
Diverse actors, including entrepreneurs, the bureaucracy (or the
state) and the scientific community, demand knowledge and call for
the utilisation of research outputs. The feasibility and the efficiency
of using such outputs seems to be guaranteed by a mechanism based
on two facets-the second being far more visible than the first. Since
the usefulness and the application of outputs are ’guaranteed’ by the
action of the ’relationship web’, which enforces relevance, ’quality
control’ becomes the only concern of the research community. As a
consequence, quality is made out to be the necessary and sufficient
condition for the diffusion of knowledge to the productive sector and
for wider benefits of the whole society. However, there is a necessary
(though not sufficient) condition that is less noticeable. For a re-
search activity to be considered acceptable and, as a consequence,
stimulated by the STP engendered by the ’relationship web’, it must
remain within the ’field of relevance’ located by that particular
society.
The idea that quality in research is not only justified because it
leads to the ’advancement of knowledge’, but because its results will
ultimately be applied to economic and social development, becomes
a rationale intrinsic to the STP process. In advanced societies, the
social benefits of research are guaranteed by this mechanism, and it is
precisely the same mechanism which ensures that social development
is included from the very beginning among the set of considerations
guiding research and the devising of quality criteria to be adopted.
The assessment of the advanced countries’ STP leads to some impor-
tant conclusions for our counterpoint analysis of the Latin American
 41

case. It is possible to say that, despite being central, the role of the
research community in the S&T decision-making process is counter-
balanced, in the advanced countries, by the operation of the ’relation-
ship web’. As a consequence, STP becomes less biased towards the
supply side. And the supply-based institutional culture of the re-
search structure (and the bias of the research community) can be
more easily exposed to external pressures. Institutional building and
the continuous adaptation of the research structure to the social con-
text are distinctive characteristics of STP in advanced countries.

Conditioning Factors of STP in Latin America

In the light of the analysis of the experience of advanced countries,
this section deals with the STP in Latin American. Its objective is to
analyse its present configuration and determinants, and to point out
how it could be reoriented to satisfy the requirements of the eco-
nomic democratisation scenario. We begin by showing how in Latin
America, the adoption of the same linear chain institutional model,
almost forty years ago, has given STP a dysfunctional character.15 We
then go on to deal with the role of the research community in shaping
Latin American STP, with the aim of showing how it contributed to
exacerbate structural obstacles to S&T development.
The Linear Chain Institutional Model and Latin America

The role played by international institutions such as UNESCO in the

adoption of the institutional model of the linear chain of innovation
was decisive in Latin America. 16 These institutions encouraged the

adoption of the model, planting the idea of ’S&T as engine of growth’

in a rich soil already fertilised by a desire for modernisation and
development. The goal of various stakeholders was to emulate suc-
cessful experiences in the first world through an institutional model
that was unquestioned at that time. 17 The scientific community, the
civil and military bureaucracies and certain sectors of industrial
entrepreneurs were all engaged in this process (Bastos and Cooper
1995). Ideologically speaking, what galvanised these actors was a
nationalistic answer (Adler 1987) to the recommendations made by
the established institutions in the advanced countries. The late-
comer’s argument was used to justify alleged advantages in technology
 42

the ’reinvention of the wheel’. At the same time, economic policy re-
commendations based on emergent theories of national develop-
ment were gaining ground in Latin American countries. They were
based on a concept of development by stages and on the idea that
dualism would be mitigated through the slow absorption of backward
sectors by more modern industrial sectors. According to them, the
transformation of a rural economy into an industrial one would only
be possible through the transference of modern technology from
advanced countries.
As in the S&T area, but stronger and more encompassing, the
Latin American answer to this passive behaviour was the import sub-
stitution model. This was conceived as an answer to the development
model based on raw material (agricultural and mineral) exports. The
rationale of the import substitution model was triggered by the dete-
rioration of terms of trade observed by the Economic Commission
for Latin America’s (ECLA) team. It was a powerful idea-force
against the comparative advantages argument raised by the neo-
classical theoretical mainstream which supported the free-market
recommendations made by the estabiishments of advanced coun-
tries. In Latin America, there were two factors that stressed the nega-
tive side of the STP supply-based institutional model. The first has a
structural character and has been widely analysed by the critical view
formulated by the Latin American thought on Science, Technology
and Society: it is the low demand for S&T knowledge from the pro-
ductive sector. According to the analyses made, it is related both to
the low technological intensity of raw material production for export
and to the manufacturing of products oriented to the high income
segments of the internal market (import substitution model), for
which technology is already available from the advanced countries.
The second factor also has a structural character. Albeit deter-
mined by the first, it has not been sufficiently dealt with by that critical
view. It deserves to be highlighted because of the central role it
apparently played in shaping the STP in Latin America. It is non-
existence, or at most, the extreme fragility of the reciprocal influences
between the state, society and the research community; that is, the
precariousness of the ’relationship web’ in Latin America.
The process of socioeconomic development work that took place
in Latin American countries has inhibited the establishment and
functioning of the ’relationship web’. Part of the scant social contribu~
tion of the results of the research done can be credited to faults which
 43

are not related to the demand of the productive system in itself, but to
inadequate relations between the research community, the state and
in
society general.18 The relative distance of the Latin American
research community from socioeconomic demands (compared to
advance countries) has acted as a brake to the incorporation of a ’sub-
stantive’, endogenous relevance criterion Peer evaluation pressure
and mechanisms related to the subtle process of cultural colonisation
reinforce the adoption of an exogenous, ’adjective’ criterion of qual-
ity (seen here as ’substantive’), whose role has been disproportional
in directing research. It is impossible to deny the fact that the precari-
ousness of the ’relationship web’ is the main cause of the weak signals

given to the research community as ’fields of relevance’. But it is also

impossible to deny that the research community has been unsuscepti-
ble to these weak signals and unwilling to orient its research taking
into account what could be identified as ’fields of relevance’.

The Role Played by the Research Community

in Latin American S&T Decision-making

The role played by the research communities in the design of Latin

American STP exceeds by far the influence it has in advanced coun-
tries. Some members of the research community, mainly related to
traditional university disciplines with power acquired through a
transduction mechanism have considerable influence in designing
STR This mechanism transforms prestige derived from academic
activities, in particular disciplinary communities, into political
authority and representational power of the research community.
What are the factors that enable certain members of the community
to act as spokespersons and participate in a privileged manner in
devising the STP? The combination of processes of logical and ratio-
nal decision, with incremental mechanisms of adjustment, present in
S&T decision-making in advanced countries takes on a distinct char-
acter in Latin America. Here, it has been eminently incremental,
leading to situations which only marginally differ from the status quo
since ’things have always been done this way’. Due to the virtual
absence of other actors in S&T decision-making, which, for the sake
of simplicity could be attributed to the peripheral character of the
region, the research community spokespersons have been the true
designers, implementers and evalutors of STP, to a greater extent
than in advanced countries. More than in these countries, where a
 44

’relationship web’ which gives off a sign of relevance which guides

actions related to S&T, counterbalancing reached a hegemonic posi-
tion in Latin America.
What can be called the density and completeness2l of the ’relation-
ship web’, or the degree to which the different social actors are pres-
ent in it, is quite distinct from what occurs in advanced countries.
Consequently, it is also more difficult to counterbalance the research
community’s bias towards reinforcing the ’supply’ character of the
policies and institutions.22 It seems plausible that the institutional
model of Latin American research could hardly lose its inward-
looking, supply-based characteristics if a process of reinforcing the
’relationship web’, similar to the one that took place in advanced
countries, had not occurred. A simple explanation is the fact that the
Latin American S&T decision-making process takes place at the
intersection of the interest fields of scientific community and civil and
military bureaucracy within an elitist environment marked by a brutal
social exclusion. Another important factor was the characterstic iner-
tia and aversion to change (Vaccarezza 1990) of research institutions
(and universities) that, for decades, have been immersed in that envi-
ronment and, in many cases, submitted to authoritarian regimes that
enforced corporatism and insulation

Towards a New Perspective for STP in Latin America

Even more than in advanced countries, a new and original model of

STP is needed in Latin America to cope with its particular situation.
Technological trajectories, responsive to internal socioeconomic pri-
orities and to the comparative advantages it has and should undoubt-
edly exploit, cannot be determined with the traditional, imitative pat-
tern of STP elaboration adopted until now. At present, adverse
climate in Latin American countries, with a considerable lack of
directives in innovation policy, to consider the prospective scenario
envisaged for Latin America seems to be the best way to call attention
to the new perspective needed to orient Latin American STP

The Scenario of Economic Democratisation as a Framework for STP

The strategic vision, which must necessarily govern our efforts in the
S&T field, demands a long-term perspective. This must emphasise
 45

elements which transcend economic and political directives, and

trends whose life-cycle is shorter than that associated with S&T activ-
ities. The new STP perspective discussed here is supported by a par-
ticular scenario considered by the authors as possible and desirable.
This is the scenario of economic democratisation, which will emerge
from the political democratisation process which started more than
ten years ago in Latin America.24 Within the process, the sectors now
socially and politically marginalised will have an increasing space to
vocalise their interests. The enlargement of their influence in public
opinion and their political power in the decision-making process at
the governmental level will generate, on one hand, stronger pressures
towards income distribution. On the other hand, it will signal ’fields
of relevance’ and will enlarge the now reduced span of opportunities
for original research. There is a need, arising from expected social
transformations, to reconsider and situate oneself with respect to the
old and tricky discussions about the trade off between policies ’of sci-
ence and ’for’ science. More specifically, perhaps such transforma-
tions reveal the advantage of adopting anticipatory policies that,
without disregarding the role played by mutual adjustments among
partisans, provide greater rationality to decision-making and ensure
stricter consistency with national and social goals. This decision
involves a methodological challenge for those responsible for devel-
oping and implementing innovation policies, because there are no
theoretical or historical reference frames that may shed light on the
implications of economic democratisation within an innovative
environment.
What will be the impact on the economic and productive fabric of
change in consumption patterns resulting from the predicted eco-
nomic and social transformations? What will be the technological
demands derived from this new socioeconomic pattern? What are
the priorities of technological demands from different sectors and
how should they be included in a policy that contemplates a wide
range of instruments and actions?
To answer these questions implies a more thorough diagnosis of
the present situation than it is possible to present here. However, and
speaking generically, we could say that the scenario of economic
democratisation should aid internal social integration. Direct and
indirect redistribution of income should lead to changes in demand
profiles towards mass consumption goods (or wage goods), stimulat-
ing an increase in their production. We could also say that despite the
 46

heterogeneity of the industrial sectors producing such goods, most

enterprises involved are small and domestically-owned, are not tech-

nologically intensive and tend to be inefficient. Their technological

behaviour, influenced by economic factors, results in a slow pace of
innovation.

Creating a New Dynamics of the Exploration of the S&T Frontier

One important but not explicit cause of the situation outlined above
is the dynamics of the exploration of the S&T,frontier given by the
advanced countries. As already mentioned, this dynamics is biased
towards the demands of the higher income segments of the advanced
countries. Latin American countries have an average income seven
times lower than advanced countries. Due to this substantial differ-
ence in terms of GNP per capita, it is expectable that the Latin Amer-
ican population would not be able to afford the hi-tech goods that are
continuously entering the markets of advanced countries. The
uneven income distribution aggravates the situation since the huge

majority of Latin American population is behind the average income

level. As a consequence, the introduction of innovation produced in
the advanced countries, and its effects in terms of cost and efficiency,
has only a slight impact on the well-being of the overall population in
Latin America. However, in Latin America, an increase in the growth
rate of productive sectors devoted to mass consumption goods might
lead to a rather different pattern of S&T development. In other
words, the sector that would be pressed by the economic democrati-
sation scenario could stimulate a new dynamics in the exploration of
the S&T frontier.
This concept, as some other arguments presented here, despite its
plausibility, cannot be sustained with empirical evidence,. Even
though, if this conception is accepted as a future carrier fact, to think
about it is an urgent task to be embraced by the research community.
To accept this new dynamics as possible, would lead the research
community to help in its building. ’Fields of relevance’ and research
programmes coherent with the economic democratisation scenario
could be devised in order to trigger (in the beginning in an artificial
way) the new dynamics. This is an important starting element the
research community has to contribute for the technological pattern.
Economic democratisation seems to involve productive and techno-
logical demands that only the anticipated concentration of our S&T
 47

potential can solve in the near future. In short, Latin American

research potential must be applied to generate new technologies
which will address the problems of socioeconomic development.
Given their unique nature, this could give rise to a situation similar to
the one existing in the advanced countries. An increasingly consistent
’relationship web’ would signal ’fields of relevance’ generating an
internalised, self-supporting innovative dynamics, and the exploita-
tion of significant external and internal economic spaces.
z

Criteria for Orienting R&D in Latin America

Economic democratisation presents an important technological pace

for productivity increase. The situation outlined above implies that
the satisfaction of social demands has been widely accomplished by
outdated and inefficient technologies. This should no longer be
accepted as an inexorable fact, but merely as a temporary situation in
Latin America, a region that has the S&T capacity required to over-
come it. A substantial portion of production and employment efforts
in Latin American countries is absorbed, and will be even more in the
future, with satisfying social needs. Hence, any increase in the effi-
ciency of the associated technology has a very high multiplier effect,
be it in economic, social or environmental terms. In extreme cases,
such as Brazil, where it is estimated that 50 per cent of the population
is on the economic fringes of society, the creation of such a consump-
tion market would mean, metaphorically speaking, the creation of
another Brazil (with consequences in terms of telecommunications,
roads, energy, food production, housing, etc.).~ In economic terms,
facing this challenge constitutes, from every point of view, a signifi-
cant accumulation frontier. The economic and social costs and bene-
fits of this process will depend on the efficiency of the technological
pattern Latin American researchers and entrepreneurs are able to
generate.
important to emphasise that, while in the sectors that cater to
It is
high-income consumption, the probable expansion route of the tech-
nological frontier is known, or could be learnt from the monitoring of
trends in advanced countries, in the case of the sectors of mass con-
sumption, there are no visible technological paths. As mentioned
above, the expansion of the S&T frontier is geared by the big enter-
prises from the advanced countries concerned with introducing
 48

innovation in the most dynamic and profitable sectors oriented to

high-income consumption. For the mass consumption goods sectors
in Latin America and also for the ones where our particular resource
base allows the building of comparative advantages, frequently there
will be no choice. Even if one wanted to import technology, one would
not find the proper technology to import. Hence potential should be
assigned for research and training human resources for generating
efficient technologies to solve the problems. The same potential for
increasing efficiency, which scientific and technological knowledge
presents to the sectors, and for the objectives, to which it is being
applied in advanced countries, can be used as long as it is known, con-
trolled and ’engineered’ to cater to the demands of reality. This must
be urgently brought about in the research environment, even before
the expansion of the demand of mass consumption goods that the
scenario of economic democratisation will create.
Obviously, this perspective is not necessarily limited to the internal
market. The development of research aimed at the satisfaction of
social needs can, at the same time, and through the differentiation of
products, generate new market opportunities. Far from having a
nationalistic market bias, this strategy points to development and
cohesion of the national innovation systems in Latin America, trans-
forming social demands into an inducement of user-producer type of
innovations, which consolidate local socio-technical trajectories. This
perspective implies a considerable task ahead for STP analysts. As
often happens, the challenge ahead of STP researchers and decision-
makers in Latin America is even more difficult than it is for their col-
leagues in advanced countries. We are forced by the very nature and
dimension of the problems we must cope with, and by the lack of time
available to solve them, to adopt a more incisive and detailed style of
decision-making in the S&T area.
In short, the transformations imposed by the scenario of economic
democratisation on the Latin American STP are not of an incremen-
tal nature. A quantum leap which demands a rational approach is
required. This approach should start from a theoretical exercise,
based on ideas like the ones discussed here, conducted within the
research environment. The multidisciplinary assessment of techno-
logical demands posed by the scenario of economic democratisation
could help to define the characteristics of the research to be stimu-
lated and to devise the new STP institutional model to be adopted.
 49

The Reification of the Researcher’s Community:

~
Conclusion or Departure Point?

Scientific, technological, economic and social policies needed by the

economic democratisation scenario should converge in strategy to
reduce inequalities, acting on areas of less political resistance, where
the public sector is able to play an effective role. The action of the
state in fostering technological development in areas where its inter-
vention is consensually accepted as legitimate for satisfying the social
demands should be exploited. The political feasibility of the eco-
nomic democratisation scenario depends on the increased productivity
in these areas where immediate positive impact could be greater and
where a reasonable pace of social development must be guaranteed.
More than entrepreneurs, professionals and bureaucrats situated
in the government agencies oriented to these areas are important
partners in this enterprise. They are more sensitive to social needs
and they know how to channel public funds for new kinds of research
activities. Besides, and contrary to what has been said in many circles,
local entrepreneurs do not seem to be good partners. The high bias
towards public expenditure existing in S&T environment of Latin
America speaks for itself.26 The proposed changes in STP demand a
new and active posture of the research community. As a hegemonic

player in the decision-making process, it should introduce in a sys-

tematic way, the perceptions about the future held by the different
social actors involved, in various ways, with S&T
To strengthen the weak signs given by the demands of society, and
by the market itself, it is necessary to highlight the interests of actors
at present under-represented in the decision-making process. What
is more, the different visions and priorities of the already intervening
social actors could be made more explicit. If assumed by the research
community, this posture could contribute to establish a policy agenda
(which is inherently based on politics, not just policy) oriented in an
increasingly effective way in the direction of the desirable scenario.
This posture seems to be a condition for the actual increase in the
density of the ’relationship web’, which seems to be what is principally
lacking in the developing innovation systems in Latin America. Only
in this way will the emergence of a decision-making process, which is
more participative, transparent, and consistent with the desires of the
majority of the population, be possible.
 50

Latin America has amply demonstrated its support change and its
refutation of authoritarianism. The time has come for this feeling to
find its place in the working of daily life and in the way it participates
in the S&T decision-making process. This important step does, how-
ever, demand the reification of the research community. It requires
that outdated prejudice, which instead of helping merely hampers
S&T development and could end up jeopardising the present process
of democratisation, should be reviewed.

NOTES

1. Petrella (1996) coined the expression ’ideology of competitiveness’ to refer to the

implications of the neoliberal trend in advanced and peripheral countries.
2. Dagnino (1994) analyses the main characteristics of this process of change and
trace the emergence of what is called ’technological accumulation approach’ in the
advanced countries, and how it is influencing Latin American STP.
3. Brought to Latin America with the diffusion of the linear model of innovation and
implementation of the UNESCO proposals.
4. This expression is used in Dagnino, Thomas and Davyt (1996) to refer to the
approach created in Latin America in the 1960s. Its founders were Jorge Sabato,
Amilcar Herrera and Oscar Varsavsky in Argentina, Maximo Halty Carrere in
Uruguay, Francisco Sagasti in Peru, and Jose Leite Lopes in Brazil. Despite its crit-
ical content, their work had some influence in the S&T decision-making process of
the region.
5. We follow here the ’rational/incremental’ distinction usual in the policy analysis lit-
erature (Ham and Hill 1993; Hogwood and Gunn 1984).
6. ’Mutual adjustment between partisans’ is the expression used by Lindblom (1977)
in his seminal article on the rational-incremental debate.
7. The attack made by Bachrach and Baratz (1961 and 1963) and Lukes (1974) to the
pluralist argument contributed an interesting perspective to analyse institutional
change through policy agenda shaping in the S&T field. Their analysis on the
inclusion of issues in the decision-making agenda made are quite useful in under-
standing how the STP decision-making process operates.
8. Elmore (1993) suggests an analytical institutional framework that could be used
for analysing research institutions.
9. Authors (Ronayne 1984 and Ergas 1987) analysed these civilisational processes,
adopting a descriptive approach, without referring to the research community’s
central role, indicating the factors that made them possible.
10. The expression ’relationship web’ has some correspondence with concepts such as
’national system of innovation’ (Lundvall 1985, 1988, 1992; Nelson 1988a, 1993;
Nelson and Rosenberg 1993; Niosi et al. 1993). Even without using the expressions
coined here, ’relationship web’ and ’fields of relevance’, many authors had re-
ferred to these concepts in the context of advanced countries and had shown their
idiosyncratic national characteristics: ’sociotechnical ensemble’ (Bijker 1995) and
’sociotechnical constituencies’ (Molina 1989).
 51

11. With rcgard to the social construction of evaluation criteria see, for instance,
Chubin and Connolly (1982), and Chubin and Hackett (1990). For a Latin Ameri-
can contribution on the issue see Davyt (1997).
12. Two evidences seem to be sufficient to illustrate this: the share of the top transna-
tional corporations’ (TNCs) R&D budget in the S&T national expenditures of
their respective countries is on the average 35 per cent (it is 26 per cent for the US,
33 per cent for Japan, 41 per cent for Germany, 44 per cent for the UK and 32 per
cent for France); the R&D budget of the top 20 TNCs is greater than the sum of
the S&T expenditures of countries such France and the UK (UN 1996).
13. The share of military R&D in the US government S&T expenditure reached 70
per cent during the 1980s. If added to the resources allocated to the nuclear and
aerospatial fields, the percentage is 85 per cent, which means that all other fields,
such as health, agriculture, basic sciences, etc., received less than 15 per cent of the
total budget (US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency 1996).
14. Dickson (1988) and Goggin (1986), exploring the social aspect of the STP, show
how this process took place in the US. Their criticism is oriented towards the moral
aspect of the STP implemented. This permits us to stress that the choices made by
society, through what we call the ’relationship web’, could be ’good’ or ’bad’. But
they are expressions of a certain level of—spurious or genuine—consensus.
15. In Dagnino, Thomas and Davyt (1996 and 1997) we discuss how the linear chain
institutional model was adopted in Latin America and how its subsequent evolu-
tion took place.
16. Besides the founders of Latin American Thought on Science, Technology and
Society (specially Herrera 1971), many other researchers agree on this matter.
See, for instance, Oteiza (1993), Albornoz (1995), and Bastos and Cooper (1995).
17. As a result of this normative model, vertical and centralised structures of S&T
were created in Latin American countries. A central element of what has been
called S&T ’complex’ (Oteiza 1992) in the case of Argentina, in opposition to the
term of S&T systems used by the government, were the National Councils for S&T
18. The first mention to this triple relationship, stressing its character in Latin Amer-
ica, was made by Jorge Sabato in the end of 1960s. His Triangle has been quoted
several times in Latin American STP literature.
19. Some particularities of the debate quality/relevance in Latin America are analysed
in Dagnino and Davyt (1995).
20. The concept of ’transduction’ refers to the operation on the meaning of an object
when the idea, notion, mechanism or heuristic tool it alludes to is transferred from
a systemic context to another. In contrast to the operation of translation (in which

a ’signifier’ is changed in order to preserve a ’sigbification’), ’transduction’ implies

the insertion of the same ’signifier’ into another system, generating new meanings.
The concept of ’transduction’ used here is similar to the concept of ’translation’ in
Latour (1987: 132-36).
21. The notion of ’density’ is used to refers to what Callon (1992) calls ’alignment and
coordination’.
22. About the ’supply’ character of the Latin American STP, see Albornoz (1990) or
Dagnino, Thomas and Davyt (1996).
23. Vessuri (1987:548) is particularly caustic in this respect: ’Scientists have often lived
sealed off from the social and economic reality, oriented to the symbols, messages
and rewards of the world centres, as if they were not settled in a continent full of
 52

enormous potential, desperate disease and poverty, military dictatorships, multi-

national corporations and political intrigues.’
24. The following approach acknowledges as a departure point of the views proposed
in Herrera (1995), and Albornoz and Dagnino (1991).
25. The scenario of economic democratisation is similar to one of the three scenarios
envisaged by a recent forecasting made by an important agency of the Brazilian
government (Secretaria de Assuntos Estrategicos 1997).
26. Two evidences (RICYT 1996) seem to be sufficient to illustrate this activity:

1. around 90 per cent of the total S&T expenditure of Latin American countries is
public (entrepreneurs do not invest in R&D); and
2. the percentage of GNP allocated to S&T by the government of countries like
Brazil is higher than the 0.6 per cent designated by the Japanese government
(the Latin American state concentrates large resources to finance R&D).

REFERENCES

ADLER, EMANUEL (1987), The Power of Ideology—The Quest for Technological Auton-
omy in Argentina and Brazil. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
’Consideraciones Historicas sobre la politica cientificay tech-
ALBORNOZ, MARIO (1990),
nologv en la Argentina’, in M. Albomoz and P. Kreimer eds, Cienciay y Technologia:
Estrategias y politicas de largo plazo. Buenos Aires: EUDEBA.
ALBORNOZ, M. and RENATO DAGNINO (1991), Americal Latina: Ajuste con equidad?
Informe para el programa FAST, Buenos Aires.
BASTOS, M.I.E and C. COOPER (1995), Politics of Technology in Latin America. New
York: Routledge.
BIJKER, WIEBE E. (1995), Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of
Sociotechnical Change. London; Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
BusH, V (1945), Science, the Endkss Frontier. Washington: National Science Foundation.
CALLON, MICHEL (1992), The Dynamics of Rchno-economic Networks’, in Rod
Coombs, Paolo Saviotti and Walsh Vivien, eds, Technological Changes and Com-
pany Strategies: Economical and Sociological Perspectives. London: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich Publishers.
CHUBIN, D. and T. CONNOLLY (1982), ’Research Traits and Science Policies: Local and
Extra-local Negotiation of Scientific Work’, in N. Elias, H. Martins and R. Whit-
ley, eds, Sociology of the Science, Vol. VI. London: Reidel Publishing Company.
CHUBIN, D. and E. HACKETT (1990), Peerless Science, PeerReview and US Science Policy.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
DAGNINO, RENATO, HERNAN THOMAS and AMILCAR DAVYT (1996), ’El pensamiento
en Ciencia, Technologia y Socieded en Latinoamerica: una interpretacion politica
de su trayectoria’. Redes, 3 (7).
DAGNINO, RENATO and AMILCAR DAVYT (1995), ’Siete equivocos sobre la invest-
igacion universitaria’, in M. Alboroz et al., eds, Cienciay Socieded en Americal
Latina. Quilmes: Universided Nacional de Quilmes, Argentina.
DAGNINO, RENATO (1991), ’La determinacion de prioridades technologicas: un
enfoque matricial’, in Altec, ed, IV Seminario Latinoamericano de Gestion
Technologica. Caracas: Ediciones Dolvia C. A.
 53

DAGNINO, RENATO, HERNAN THOMAS and AMILCAR DAVYT (1997), ’Racionalidades

de la interaccion universidad-empresa en America’, Espacios, 18 (1), pp. 49-76.
DAVYT, AMILCAR (1997), ’A construcao de excelencia nos processos de avaliacao da
pesquisa’, Dissertacao de Mestrado. Brazil: DPCT-IG/UNICAMP.
DICKSON, D. (1988), The New Politics of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
ELMORE, RICHARD E. (1993), ’Organisational Models of Social Programme Imple-
mentation’, in Michael Hill, ed., The Policy Process—A Reader. London: Harvester-
Wheatsheaf.
ELZINGA, AANT and ANDREW JAMISON (1995), ’Changing Policy Agendas in Science
and Technology’, in Sheila Jasanoff, G.E. Marple, J.C. Peterson and T Pinch, eds,
Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. London: Sage Publications.
ERGAS, H. (1987), ’Does technology policy really matter?’ in B. Guille and H. Brooks,
eds, Technology and Global Industry: Companies and Nations in the World Econ-
omy. Washington: National Academy Press.
GOGGIN, M. (1986), Governing Science and Technology in Democracy. Knoxville: Uni-
versity of Tennessee.
HAM, CHRISTOPHER and MICHAEL HILL (1993), The Policy Process in the Modem Capi-
talist State. London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
HERRERA, AMILCAR (1995[1971]), Los determinantes sociales de la politica cientifica
en America Latina. Politica cientifica explicita y politica cientifica implicita,
Redes, 2 (5), pp. 117-51.
— coord. (1995), Las nuevas technologies y el futuro de America Latina. Riesgo y
oportunidad. Siglo XXI-UNU, Mexico.
HOGWOOD, BRAIN W and LEWIS A. GUNN (1984), Policy Analysis for the Real World.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
KASH, D. E. (1991), ’Priority Science and Technology Policy Research’, in H. Inose, M.
Kawasaki and F. Kodama, eds, What Should be Done?. Tokyo: The proceedings of
the NISTEP International Conference on Science and Technology Policy Research.
KINGDON, JOHN W (1984), Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Boston: Little,
Brown and Company.
LATOUR, BRUNO (1987), Science in Action—How to Follow Scientists and Engineers
Through Society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
LINDBLOM, CHARLES E. (1977), Politics and Markets: The World’s Political-economic
Systems. New York: Basic Books.
LUKES, S. (1974), Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan.
LUNDVALL, BENGT-AKE (1988), ’Innovation as an Interactive Process: From User-Pro-
ducer Interaction to the National System of Innovation’, in G. Dosi, C. Freeman,
R. Nelson, G. Silverberg and L. Soete, eds, Technical Change and Economic The-
ory. London: Pinter.
— ed. (1992), National Systems of Innovation : Towards a Theory of Innovation and
interactive Learning. London: Pinter.
— (1985), Product Innovation and User-Producer Interaction. Aalborg: Aalborg
University Press.
MOLINA, ALFONSO H. (1989), The Transputer Constituency—Building up UK/European
Capabilities in Information Technology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University.
NELSON, RICHARD (1993), ’A Retrospective’, in Richard Nelson, ed, National Innova-
tion System—A Comparative Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
 54

NELSON, RICHARD (1988a), ’Preface to Part V—National Systems of Innovation’, in G.

Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg and L. Soete, eds, Technical Change
and Economic Theory. London: Pinter.
— (1988b), ’Institutions Supporting Technical Change in the United States’, in G.
Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg and L. Soete, eds, Technical Change
and Economic Theory. London: Pinter.
NELSON, RICHARD and NATHAN ROSENBERG (1993), ’Technical Innovation and
National Systems’, in Richard Nelson, ed, National Innovation System—A Com-
parative Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
NIOSI, JORGE, PAOLO SAVIOTTI, BERTRAND BELLON and MICHAEL CROW (1993), ’Na-
tional Systems of Innovation: In Search of a Workable Concept’, Technology in
Society, 15 (2).
OTEIZA, ENRIQUE (1992), La politica de investigacion cientifia y tecnologica argentina.
Historia y perspectivas. Buenos Aires: CEAL.
OTEIZA, ENRIQUE and HEBE VESSURI (1993), Estudios sociales de la ciencia y la
technologia en America Latina. Buenos Aires: CEAL.
OECD (1992): Technology and the Economy; The Key Relationship, Paris.
PETRELLA, RICCARDO (1996), Los limites a la competitividad. Como se debe gestionar la
aldea global, Buenos Aires: Sudamericana-Universided de Quilmes.
RICYT (1996), Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnologia Iberoamericanos/Interamericanos,
Buenos Aires.
RONAYNE, J. (1984), Science in Govemment. Baltimore: Edward Arnold.
SALOMON, JEAN JACQUES (1977), ’Science Policy Studies and the Development of Sci-
ence Policy’, in I. Spiegel-Rosing and D. Price, comps, Science, Technology and

Society: A Cross-disciplinary Perspective. London: Sage Publications.

SECRETARIA DE AssuNTOS ESTRATEGICOS (1997), Cenarios exploratorios do Brasil
2020, Texto para Discussao, Brasilia.
THOMAS, H. (1995), Surdesarrollo. Produccion de tecnologia en paises subdesarrollados.
Buenos Aires: Centro Editor de America Latina.
UNITED NATIONS (1992), World Investment Report, New York.
US ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT AGENCY (1996), World Military Expenditures
and Arms Transfer—1995. Washington: WMEAT
VACCAREZZA, LEONARDO (1990), ’Reflexiones sobre el discurso de la politica
cientifica’, in M. Albornoz and P. Kreimer, eds, Ciencia y tecnologia: estrategias y
politicas de largo plazo. Buenos Aires: EUDEBA.
VESSURI, HEBE (1987), The Social Study of Science in Latin America. Social Studies of
Science, 17 (3), pp. 519-54.