The GFCC
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
522
On Slideshare
517
From Embeds
5
Number of Embeds
2

Actions

Shares
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 5

https://www.linkedin.com 3
http://www.linkedin.com 2

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Competitiveness Metrics:A Brazilian contribution for the GFCC competitiveness metrics initiative
  • 2. Summary1. Who we are2. Introduction – Brazil: Innovation and Development3. Innovation studies: the Brazilian experience4. IPS Model: the Brazilian case5. Insights for future developments6. Final remarks
  • 3. [1]Who we are
  • 4. The Brazilian TeamRoberto dos Reis Alvarez (ABDI)Bruno César Araújo (IPEA)Rogério Dias Araujo (ABDI)Mario Sergio Salerno (USP)
  • 5. The Brazilian Team – Short Bios Roberto dos Reis Alvarez - International Affairs Manager at the Brazilian Agency for Industrial Development (ABDI), an organization that he joined in 2005 and where he held other positions like industrial development coordinator (deputy to the director). - A Civil Engineering from the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), he was trained in Quality Control and Productivity Technique in Japan and he holds Ms.C. and D.Sc. degrees in Industrial Engineering, from the Brazilian federal universities of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) and Rio de Janeiro (COPPE/UFRJ), respectively. - Before joining ABDI, Mr Alvarez worked in the private sector as a management and/or operations consultant (manufacturing and logistics) and entrepreneur in the IT sector. - He also taught graduated courses at the federal universities of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) and Parana (UFPR). LinkedIn: http://br.linkedin.com/in/robertodosreisalvarez Twitter: http://twitter.com/robertoalvarez Personal web page: http://flavors.me/robertoalvarez
  • 6. The Brazilian Team – Short Bios Bruno César Araújo - Researcher at Institute for Applied Economic Research – IPEA (2004 – present) - Research fields: innovation metrics and its impacts, foreign trade, microeconometrics. - Coordinator of the books: Brazilian Firms and International Trade (in Portuguese, 2007) and Technological Innovation in Brazilian and Mexican Firms (in English, 2011) - Master Degree on Economics of the Public Sector at University of Brasilia (UnB) - Foreign Trade Analyst at the Ministry of Development, Industry and Foreign Trade (2003/2004)
  • 7. The Brazilian Team – Short Bios Rogério Dias de Araújo - Competitive Intelligence Coordinator at the Brazilian Agency for Industrial Development - ABDI; - Coordinator of many studies on competitiveness and innovation in cooperation with Universities (Innovation Surveys, Innovation Studies, Cases Studies, etc); - Member of the coordination of the task-group that elaborated the Industrial, Technological and Foreign Trade Policy (PITCE) of the Federal Government (2003-2004); - Member of the coordination of the task-group that elaborated the Productive Development Policy - PDP (2008-2010); - Member of the coordination of the task-group that elaborated the “Plano Brasil Maior” (2011-2014); - Master Degree on Economics at University of Campinas – Unicamp - PHD Candidate on Economics at University of Campinas - Unicamp - Researcher at Institute for Applied Economic Research – IPEA (2003/2004)
  • 8. The Brazilian Team – Short Bios Mario Sergio Salerno - Full Professor of The Production Engineering Department, Polytechnic School, University of São Paulo - USP; - Head of the Department from June 2007 to June 2011; coordinator of the Innovation Management Laboratory); - Executive coordinator of The Observatory of Innovation and Competitiveness at The Institute of Advanced Studies, USP (www.observatoriousp.pro.br); - Member of the International Steering Committee of Gerpisa International Network (www.gerpisa.org), a scientific network on mobility, auto industry and its workers; - Regional editor of the International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management and associate editor of Strategy/Organization/Work of Gestão&Produção journal; - Former Director of Industrial Development at the Brazilian Agency for Industrial Development (ABDI) 2005/2006; - Former Director of Sectoral Studies at the Institute of Applied Economic Research (Ipea, 2003-2004); - Member of the coordination of the task-group that elaborated the Industrial, Technological and Foreign Trade Policy (PITCE) of the Federal Government (2003-2004); - Member of the Technical-Scientific Board of the National Institute of Technology (INT); - Member of the Consulting Board of IPT – Institute of Technological Research of the São Paulo State.
  • 9. [2]Brazil: Innovation andDevelopment
  • 10. 1. Who we are2. Introduction – Brazil: Innovation and Development3. Innovation studies: the Brazilian experience4. IPS Model: the Brazilian case5. Insights for future developments6. Final remarks
  • 11. GDP per capita keeps on growing in Brazil since the 70’sand the pace of growth was shifted to a new level in 2003.
  • 12. Brazil: Inequality reached the lowest level Gráfico 2.2a: Evolução da desigualdade na renda familiar per in 32 years capita no Brasil: CoeficienteIndex – (1977-2007) (Gini de Gini 1977-2009) 0,640 0,634 0,630 0,623 0,620 0,615 0,612 0,610 Average Gini Valor médio do Average de Gini 0,604 0,602 coeficiente Gini 0,600 0,600 0,594 0,596 0,600 Coeficiente de Gini 0,593 Ag 3777 0,599 0,593 0,599 0,598 0,590 CC 12393-0 0,587 0,589 Gini 0,592 0,588 0,580 0,587 0,582 0,581 0,580 0,570 0,569 0,566 Lowest Gini Index Lowest Gini Index Valor mínimo do coeficiente de Gini 0,559 0,560 0,552 0,550 0.52 2008 0,520 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 0,509 2007 Source: PNAD – IBGE – 1977-2008 Anos 2009Fonte: Estimativas produzidas com base na Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios (PNAD) de 1977 a 2009.
  • 13. The number of papers published by Brazilian researchersindexed by the ISI has been growing steadly since the80’s.
  • 14. [3]Innovation studies: theBrazilian experience
  • 15. 1. Who we are2. Introduction – Brazil: Innovation and Development3. Innovation studies: the Brazilian experience4. IPS Model: the Brazilian case5. Insights for future developments6. Final remarks
  • 16. A new framework was developed… A. Firms that have product differentiation and have launched a new product to the market B. Firms specialized in standardised products (commodities) C. Firms without product differentiation and with lower productivity
  • 17. …considering variables on firms & the Economy Overview of companies strategy General overview of the food industry Firms internationalisation “C” companies’ profiles & strategies Productivity Cooperation among firms and R&D orgs Origin of capital Cost and income structure Technological content of exports Industrial concentration Work force and wages Governmental acquisitions MNCs-nationals tech spill overs International comparisons (with CIS3) Regional issues spatial distribution of firms technology and innovation Determinants of firms’ growth Sector based analysis Innovation & tech in the agro-industry
  • 18. The framework was applied in other countriesInnovation &economicperformance inBrazilInnovation &performance:Brazil & LatinAmerica
  • 19. The 3 categories have different characteristics… Category Productivity Number of Market P&D (R$1.000/worker) Workers leadership expend. (% income)A) Innovate and 74,1 545,9 0,02 3,06differentiate productB) Specialised in 44,3 158,1 0,004 0,99commoditiesC) No differentiation / 10,0 34,2 0,00028 0,39lower productivity yb dedd a eu la V (Firm income) / P&D rekrow (CNAE sector expenditures / income) income
  • 20. ‘A’ companies perform better in all aspects…Technological innovation is one of the export determinants Innovative companies are 16% more likely to export than othersInnovative companies generate more jobs & pay better salaries Averages A= R$ 1.255,00 / B=R$ 749,00 / C= R$ 431,00 Probabilistic model controlling 200 variables (income, sector, exports, qualification, school time, employment time, turn over, capital origin etc.) A firms pay wages 23% higher than C and 11% higher than B companies Wage premium paid by firms that differentiate and innovate productInnovative effort is greater in Brazilian-owned firms The result is against the common sense largely diffused in Brazil Probabilistic model controlling variables such as income, personnel, sector etc Brazilian-owned (P&D internal expenditures / income) is 80,8% greater than the MNCs ones
  • 21. Brazil x Argentina x Mexico: from ABC to XYZ….X. Firms that innovate and differentiate products i. Firms that launched new products to the national markets according to Innovation Surveys, and… ii. invested more than the sector average in R&D/total revenue (following a common criterion between the countries for the sector averages).Y. Firms that are specialized in standardized products i. The rest of the exporters, or… ii. non-exporters that have higher productivity than the exporters in its industrial sector.Z. Non-innovative firms that have a lower productivity i. Firms that did not fall in the above categories.
  • 22. Firms that are specialized in standardized products havethe largest share of exports, total employment and sales.In Brazil, innovating and product-differentiating firms havea larger share of employment, sales and exports than theyhave in the two other countries.In Mexico, there’s a strong specialization towardsstandardized products and firms in that category are moreproductive than the others.
  • 23. What do results tell us on innovation in LA? Latin American countries innovative efforts are low; R&D/industrial sales: 2.7% in Germany and 2.5% in France. In Brazil, we have more people employed in R&D in each firm, but the % of total employees as a proportion of the total staff is not so different than in Argentina because of scale of Brazilian firms. The lowest value in Mexico (0,08%) illustrates the competitive strategy of Mexican firms (Note: the Mexican Innovation Survey did not interview the Maquila firms). Innovative efforts are biased towards the acquisition of machines and other equipments related to process innovation, while in Spain in house R&D is the main source of innovation.
  • 24. [4]IPS Model: the Brazilian case
  • 25. 1. Who we are2. Introduction – Brazil: Innovation and Development3. Innovation studies: the Brazilian experience4. IPS Model: the Brazilian case5. Insights for future developments6. Final remarks
  • 26. IPS Model: The Brazilian Case Source: IPS National Competitiveness Research, 2011-2012
  • 27. IPS Model: The Brazilian Case Source: IPS National Competitiveness Research, 2011-2012
  • 28. Factor conditions: factors based competitiveness Source: Own elaboration, based on Cho, D. and Moon, H. “Distinctive features of GFCC Approach, 2011”.
  • 29. Factor conditions: factors based competitiveness Source: Own elaboration, based on Cho, D. and Moon, H. “Distinctive features of GFCC Approach, 2011”.
  • 30. Differentiation leads to better results... Source: IPS Notional Competitiveness Report, 2011-2012.
  • 31. What to do to improve competitiveness?Source: Own elaboration, based on Cho, D. and Moon, H. “Distinctive features of GFCC Approach, 2011”.
  • 32. IPS Model: The Brazilian Case: Benchmarking with a single country Factor Conditions 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Brazil Demand Conditions 0 Business Context India Phyisical Factors Related IndustriesSource: Own elaboration, based on Cho, D. and Moon, H. “Distinctive features of GFCC Approach, 2011”.
  • 33. IPS Model: The Brazilian Case Benchmarking with a single country Workers 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Brazil Professionals 0 Politicians & Bureaucrats India Entrepreneurs Human FactorsSource: Own elaboration, based on Cho, D. and Moon, H. “Distinctive features of GFCC Approach, 2011”.
  • 34. IPS Model: The Brazilian Case Benchmarking according to the term-priority Matrix Productivity of workers: Output-input index 5 Quality of life Life expectancy at birth Overall living environment: Personal security, crime 6 International Overall living transportation environment: Medical service New high-technology Consumer sophistication on Industries Overall living health and environment: Finance: Financial environmental 9 Finance: Capital issues Job description & individual roles institutions transparency accessibility Educational Business Context: Social Bureaucracy is responsibility not rigid to system S&T: discourage Information International experience of Politicians Public schools Social safety net business technology Consumer activities Bureaucracy is not rigid to discourage business The legislative Overall living sophistication on IPR environment: Public order activities activity of the parliament E-business International experience of officials Education level IT training & education of PoltiticansSource: Own elaboration, based on Cho, D. and Moon, H. “Distinctive features of GFCC Approach, 2011”.
  • 35. What’s the space for Brasil-Korea cooperation? Source: Own elaboration, based on Cho, D. and Moon, H. “Distinctive features of GFCC Approach, 2011”.
  • 36. The BR case: revealed vs. Potential competitiveness Employment Potential Index (2008) GDP growth potential Index (2009) Quality of life potential Index (2009)Rank Country Rank Country Rank Country Rank Country Rank Country Rank Country 1 Singapore 30 Italy 1 e r o p a g ni S 03 e c e er G 1 United States 30 Romania 2 Sweden 31 Spain 2 l e a r sI 13 n a rI 2 Sweden 31 China 3 Netherlands 32 Mexico 3 gnoK gnoH 23 d n al o P 3 Australia 32 Mexico 4 Denmark 33 Turkey 4 ai d nI 33 tpygE 4 Denmark 33 Turkey 5 Switzerland 34 Brazil 5 d n ali a h T 43 y n a mr e G 5 Netherlands 34 Russia 6 Australia 35 Jordan 6 ail a r t s u A 53 ni a p S 6 United Kingdom 35 South Africa 7 Hong Kong 36 Indonesia 7 nede wS 63 o ci x e M 7 Switzerland 36 Saudi Arabia 8 Iceland 37 Romania 8 s d n al r e h t e N 73 cil b u p e R h c e z C 8 Finland 37 Brazil 9 Israel 38 Panama 9 d n al r e z ti w S 83 a ci r f A h t u o S 9 Germany 38 Thailand 10 Canada 39 Vietnam 01 adanaC 93 ai s e n o d nI 10 France 39 Oman 11 Belgium 40 Saudi Arabia 11 m ui gl e B 04 n a p aJ 11 Austria 40 Colombia 12 Finland 41 Guatemala 21 n a dr oJ 14 y e kr u T 12 Canada 41 Kuwait 13 Austria 42 Greece 31 li z a r B 24 a manaP 13 Belgium 42 Argentina 14 Philippines 43 Russia 41 m o d g ni K d e ti n U 34 ai n a m o R 14 Hong Kong 43 Philippines 15 Korea 44 South Africa 51 s e ni p pili h P 44 d n al e cI 15 Japan 44 Panama 16 United States 45 Peru 61 ai b m ol o C 54 yl a tI 16 New Zealand 45 Peru 17 Germany 46 Kuwait 71 ti a w u K 64 ai t a o r C 17 Singapore 46 Ukraine 18 New Zealand 47 Oman 81 ai r t s u A 74 a ni t n e g r A 18 Spain 47 Jordan 19 Thailand 48 Argentina 91 s e t a t S d e ti n U 84 ai s s u R 19 Italy 48 Indonesia 20 Malaysia 49 Croatia 02 eli h C 94 na m O 20 Iceland 49 Venezuela 21 United Kingdom 50 Colombia 12 a er o K 05 al a m e t a u G 21 Israel 50 Guatemala 22 Czech Republic 51 Morocco 22 d n al a e Z w e N 15 m a n t ei V 22 Czech Republic 51 India 23 Hungary 52 Egypt 32 ur e P 25 e ni a r k U 23 Hungary 52 Egypt 24 France 53 Kyrgyz Republic 42 d n al ni F 35 ai b a r A i d u a S 24 Korea 53 Morocco 25 India 54 Iran 52 kr a m n e D 45 n a t si k a P 25 Poland 54 Sri Lanka 26 China 55 Venezuela 62 e c n ar F 55 cil b u p e R z y g r y K 26 Greece 55 Vietnam 27 Chile 56 Ukraine 72 a ni h C 65 o c c or o M 27 Chile 56 Kyrgyz Republic 28 Poland 57 Pakistan 82 ai s y al a M 75 a k n a L ir S 28 Malaysia 57 Iran 29 Japan 58 Sri Lanka 92 yr a g n u H 85 al e u z e n e V 29 Croatia 58 PakistanSource: Cho, D. and Moon, H. “Distinctive features of GFCC Approach, 2011”.
  • 37. IPS Model: a quick summary on the Brazilian case Brazil ranks 42th: 9th in Factor Conditions; 36th in Business Context and Entrepreneurs; Equal or above 40th in all the remaining factors. Brazil is the 5th country in FDI (US$ 48bi in 2010). Brazil (and all countries) performs better with DS, Benchmarks for Brazil are India (single country Benchmark), Saudi Arabia (Politicians & Bureacrats) and Japan (Education and Overall Living Environment variables). Model 2: Brazil ranks 13th in Potential Growth competitiveness. 207 variables involved (HDI uses 4 variables).
  • 38. [5]Insights for furtherdevelopments
  • 39. 1. Who we are2. Introduction – Brazil: Innovation and Development3. Innovation studies: the Brazilian experience4. IPS Model: the Brazilian case5. Insights for future developments6. Final remarks
  • 40. Insights for future developments Index structure – dimensions/factors Sustainability Innovation Labor issues Data: hard x soft M1 x M2 nexus: variables selection
  • 41. How could sustainability be considered? Carbon emissions Energy consumption and efficiency Water and forest resources ....
  • 42. [6]Final Remarks
  • 43. Competitiveness Metrics:The Brazilian contribution for the GFCC competitiveness metrics initiative Thank you! Porto Alegre, November 21st, 2011