Innovation Policy in Brazil

The amount of patent filings for scientific and technological innovations is a relevant category in regards to producing the superpower index. The reason for this is because it is indicative of quaternary sector employment, which generally equates to higher income due to the high standard of research that can be gathered and then sold on to other countries at a high price. Additionally, a large number of patents enables a country to become dominant sellers of a product, therefore allowing them to be the main exporter, increasing the country’s cultural influence; this also allows a country to gain a large profit. The factor of population is significant here, as a large population may result in a large number of researchers, and therefore a large number of entrepreneurs, contributing to a countrys’ influence on global markets. The figure shows that the USA has the highest ranking in regards to this factor, highlighting its superpower status as the country has 391,000 patents and innovations compared to the lowest ranked country of Brazil, which only has 4,750.

After FDI inflows falling to only 345million in 1986 due to lack of confidence in Brazil’s ability to repay foreign debt, Brazil’s economic situation has been consistently improving as the government strategies for industrialisation were restructured with a movement more to funding industrialisation through FDI rather than borrowing from Foreign markets.

Due to bureaucracy policies and procedures, it sometimes becomes hard to come out with innovative ideas quickly at Rio Tinto. To streamline the bureaucracy, I recommend Rio Tinto to embrace open innovation through collaboration internally and externally. Rio Tinto should assemble a global task force across all the product groups committed to accelerating ideas from concepts to reality. Prioritization of good ideas needs analysis by potential impact, risk and time to market, and should quickly transition open ideation to define the project teams. The open collaboration should embed the four innovation pillars employees reward mechanism, idea generation, idea conversion and idea diffusion.

There are various internal and external factors that can influence the development of innovations positively or negatively. External factors may include firm size, market structure, degree of industry concentration, and macroeconomic factors. Size of the firm tend to be more positive related to innovation in manufacturing and profit-making organizations as compared to non-profit making organization, and relationship that involves size and innovation will become stronger if a non-personnel or a long transformation measure of size has been applied, as compared to application of a personnel or a raw measure of size. Depending on the competition within the market for example a positive competition with favorable atmosphere, the firm will be successful in its kind of innovation. The way industries have been structured and how they change over time may have effect to the innovation among organizations. Their standards, the institutional setting and the process of liberalization and privatization also affect innovation.

Science often sparks many debates because of its controversiality. The scientific advancements that have occurred over the last few decades have received attention because of the funding and regulation from the government that is required. Although some people support government regulation of scientific advancements, others do not. Scientific advancements are the development of the natural world and its surroundings that are meant to enhance life. Government regulation is control by authorities to establish order.

In the Military-Industrial Complex Speech, President Dwight D. Eisenhower admits that “in this [technological] revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.” (Eisenhower 1) He notes that the “solitary inventor” is “being overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields” and warns that “a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.” This is significant because during a period in which government authority and decision making is being questioned to the core, the government’s increased involvement with the direction of scientific and technological research, and by extent education in itself, is deeply concerning the to the 1960s activists. They had reason to believe that the government did not know best, and suspected that the government’s increased role in universities and research could be mishandled. This message is echoed by President Eisenhower, as he warns of the “recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties.” (Eisenhower 2) He warns of an overreliance on technology and science, cautioning that people should not

Technologies are forever changing, some of the biggest breakthroughs in technologies occurred in world war one. Miller (2004), former consultant physician states that because of the time and money governments spent on science

The arguments and findings of the reports can be cross-linked to a number of important concepts in the theory behind science and technology policy. The main concepts that will be used to analyze the finding of the report are the linearity model versus the innovation space and the push-pull concept between R&D and businesses. The linear model of innovation describes as a chain of supply and demand starting with science and ending with economic growth. The science acts a suppler for the demand of technology, and technology supplies the demand of businesses in order to be innovative. The end result of an innovative business is perceived as a contributor to the increase in productivity and as a result economic growth. On the other hand, the concept of innovation space or the innovation ecosystem as referred to in the report regards innovation as the output of an integrated

Technological change is a fundamental driver of economic development and performance, not only at the level of firms and industries but also economies. Innovation is the organizational process through which new

Additionally, advocates of state intervention and promotion (industrial policy) believe that technological development, particularly the nanotechnology sector, requires a substantial amount of government funding and management because of its complexity and challenges. John F. Sargent, specialist in science and technology policy, strongly argues that active federal government role is or almost imperative to allow for commercialization of nanotechnology and further expansion of technological development (Sargent 22). The reason for this is because advocates of state intervention believe that the private sector is insufficient in funding technological development in which, therefore, may cause a stagnant growth and inefficiency. As a matter of fact, without government intervention, advocates believe that the United States' nanotechnology development and research would not have preserved its dominance and high position in the technology business and competition in the first place. Ideally, advocates claim that the influence of industrial policy and appropriate institutional mechanism has allowed the technological benefits to spread worldwide.

Innovation is normally used to denote the process that takes place when a product or a process is developed, from idea to market; the concept of invention only denotes the process that takes place when new ideas or solutions are generated. Baumol (2002) argues “is it possible to have lots of inventions and still lack innovations. Nevertheless, inventions are a necessary precondition for innovation”.

The bifurcation between applied and basic research can be found in R&D expenditure data. Public expenditure growth has been rapid in both absolute and relative terms, especially between the mid-1980s to early 1990s

Innovation offers the companies a competitive advantage. Presently and within the future, more than any time in history, the key to competitive advantage is innovation. However innovation will facilitate businesses meet all of their strategic challenges, not simply competition; to illustrate, in confronting accelerating rates of change, globalization, apace advancing technology, a additional numerous workforce, associated a modification from an industrial to a knowledge-based economy. Meeting all of those challenges helps the firm attain competitiveness, and meeting these challenges suitably depends on innovation. Innovation allows a firm to workout its challenges in distinctive ways in which build competitive advantage either through relative differentiation, a relative low-priced position, or few acceptable level of each. Innovation cannot assure success, however success cannot be achieved within the end of the day without it.

Since independence from the British rule in 1947, India has been investing a significant part of its resources, in creating quality institutions of higher education and research. In 1958 Indian Government passed a “Scientific Policy Resolution 1958”, which stated: “The key to national prosperity, apart from the spirit of the people, lies, in the modern age, in the effective combination of three factors, technology, raw materials and capital, of which the first is perhaps the most important, since the creation and adoption of new scientific techniques can, in fact, make up for a deficiency in natural resources, and reduce the demands on capital. But technology can only grow out of the study of science and its applications.” In keeping with this objective the Government has established a number of scientific publications in regional languages for school children and other groups in the society to increase scientific awareness in India. These publications are available to public at large mostly at subsidized, affordable rates. Finally, in 2003 a “Science and Technology Policy” was announced, which recognized “the changing context of the scientific enterprise”.

The research and innovation policy in Slovakia that motivate the R&D which promote the FDI investors.