POLÍTICA DE FOMENTO À INOVAÇÃO TECNOLÓGICA NO BRASIL E AVALIAÇÃO
Palavras-chave:
Avaliação, Política Científica e Tecnológica, Inovação, C&T e BrasilResumo
Neste artigo são apresentados os principais argumentos que justificam a necessidade de o Estado brasileiro institucionalizar as práticas de avaliação de suas ações em C&T. O fomento público à inovação tecnológica pode alterar a competitividade econômica entre as nações, daí ser importante que a sociedade estabeleça formas de monitorar as estratégias e as atividades das agências públicas de fomento à ciência e tecnologia (C&T). No Brasil, o governo e os tomadores de decisão necessitam de informações sobre a eficiência de seus programas. Com um sistema de avaliação poder-se-ia verificar se as agências públicas de fomento tecnológico estão planejando ações, objetivos e metas que sejam justificáveis do ponto de vista social.
Referências
BACH et ai. L'espace est-il rentable? Réalités lndustrielles, pp. 25-56, novembro, 1992.
__________. Measuring andManaging Spinotfs: The case of the spinoffs generated by ESA Programs in: Greenberg, J. S.; e Hertzfeld, H. R. (eds) SpaceEconomics, Washington, D. C., vol. 144, pp. 171-206, 1992.
__________. Evaluation of the Economic Effects of BRITE-EU RAM Programmes on the European lndustry, Scientometrics, vol. 34, n. 3,pp. 325-349, 1995.
__________. Evaluation ofthe Economic Etfects Generated by R&D Service Provided to Industry by Materiais - lreland, Strasburg, France, 1995.
BALLART, Xavier e SUBIRATS, Joan. Science andTechnology Policyfor a Medium-Size Industrial Country: the case of Spain. Science and Public Policy, Inglaterra, vol. 24, n. 3, pp. 197-205,junho de 1997.
BRASIL. (2004) Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia. Indicadores de C&T. http:// www.mct.gov. br/estat/ascavpp/ portugues/ 2_Recursos_Aplicados/tabelas/tab2_1_3a.htm.
BROOKS, H. National Science Policy and a Technological lnnovation, in: Landau, R. & Rosemberg, N.(org.) The Positive Sum Strategy. Washington D.C., National Academy Press, 1986.
CHIANG, Tsong. From 'Mission-oriented' to 'Diffusion-oriented' Paradigm. Technovation, Dorset, UK, 11 (6), 339-356, 1991.
CHUDNOVSKY, Daniel. Capital Goods Production in The Third World: an economic study of technical acquisition. London, Frances Printer, 1983.
ERBER, Fábio S.;CASSIOLATO, José E. Política Industrial: teoria e prática no Brasil e na OECD. Revista de Economia Política, São Paulo, vol. 17, n. 2 (66), abril-Junho de 1997.
ERBER, Fábio S. e ARAÚJO JR., José T. Notas Sobre a Indústria de Bens de Capital: Tecnologia e o Setor Público. Pesquisa e Planejamento Econômico, Rio de Janeiro, 3(1), pp. 117-134, março de 1973.
FAYL, G.; et ai. Evaluation of Research and Technological Development Programmes: atoai for policy design. Research Evaluation, UK,vol. 7, n. 02, pp. 93-97, agosto de 1998.
FRANSMAN, M. (ed). Machinery and Economic Development. London: Macmillan, 1986.
FURTADO, A.; SOUZA, J. H. Levantamento das Principais Metodologias de Avaliação deProjetos e Programas de P&D no Eixo Rio-São Paulo. ALTEC99, Madri, Espanha, 1999.
GABOLDE, Jean. NewChallenges for lndicators ln Science and Technology Policy-making: a european view. Research Evaluation, UK, vai. 7,
n. 02, pp. 99-104, agosto de 1998.
GEORGHIOU, Luke. Research Evaluation in European National Science and Technology Systems. Research Evaluation, UK, vol. 5, pp.3- 1O, n. 01, abril de 1995.
__________. Socio-economic Effects of Collaborative R&D-European experiences. Policy Research inEngineering, ScienceandTechnology (PREST), University of Manchester, UK, s.d. (Mimeografado).
GEORGHIOU, L. e MEYER-KRAMER, F. Evaluation of Socio-economicEffects of European Community R&D Programmes in the SPEAR Network. Research Evaluation, UK, vol. 2, no 01,pp. 5-15, abril de 1992.
GUY, Ken; ARNOLD, Erik. UK Government Pratice in Science and Technology Evaluation. Research Evaluation, UK,vol. 3, n. 03, pp. 179-186, 1993.
HILLS, Philip e DALE, Alison. Research and Technology Evaluation in the United Kingdom. Research Eva/uation, UK,vol. 5, n. 01, pp. 33-44,abril de 1995.
INDUSTRY CANADA. Focusing on Results: a guide toperformance measurement. Discussion Paper, Canadá, março de 1995.
JAFFE, Adam B. (1996) Economic Analysis of Research Spillovers lmplications forthe Advanced Technology Program. http:www.atp.nist.gov/www/cao/ger/J3.htm.
__________. (1997) The lmportance of "Spillovers" in the Policy Mission of the Advanced Technology Program. http:www.atp.nist.gov/.
KASTRINOS, Nikos; ROMERO, Fernando. Policies for Competitiveness in Less Favoured Regions of Europe: a comparison of Greece and Portugal. Science and Public Policy, UK, vai. 24, n. 03, pp. 189-195, junho de 1997.
KOTLER, Philip. Administração de Marketing: análise, planejamento, implementação e controle. São Paulo: Atlas, 2ª edição, 1993.
KUHLMANN, Stefan. Patterns of Science and Technology Policy Evaluation in Germany. Research Evaluation, UK,vol. 5, n. 01, pp. 23-33, abril de 1995.
LARÉDO, Philippe; MUSTAR, Philippe. France, the Guarantor Model and the lnstitutionalization of Evaluation. Research Evaluation, UK, vai. 5,n. 02, pp. 123-129, agosto de 1995.
LIPSETT, M. et ai. R&D and lnnovation at the Firm Levei: improving the S&T policy information base. Research Evaluation, vai. 5, n.1, pp. 11-21, abril de 1995.
MARCIANO DA SILVA, C. eHENRIQUES, Luísa. R&D Evaluation inPortugal Research Evaluation, UK,vol. 5, n. 01, pp. 89-97, abril de 1995.
McDONALD, Robert;TEATHER, George. Science and Technology Evaluation practices in the government of Canada. OECD Conference: best practices in the evaluation of technology and innovation policies. Paris, Junho/1997.
__________. Focusing on S&T Performance in the Government of Canada: practice and utilization. Proceedings ofthe APEC Symposium on the Evaluation of S&T Programmes among APEC Members Economies. APEC-Asia Pacific EconomicCooperation,Wellington, NewZealand, 24/12/1998.
OECD. Manual de Frascati: medición de las actividades científicas y tecnológicas. Paris, France, 1993a.
__________. Oslo Manual. Directorate for Science, Technonogy and lndustry. Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy, Paris, France, 1-2, outubro de 1996.
ORMALA, Erkki. Research Evaluation Benefits for lnternational Exchange. Research Evaluation, UK, vai. 5, n. 01, p. 2, abril de 1995.
PENTZAROPOULOS,A.; HATZIPARADISSIS, G. Evaluation of Publicly-funded Research in Greek: a time-levei analysis of the information technology sector. Research Eva/uation, vol. 4, n. 02, pp. 89-96, agosto de 1994.
PIANTA, M.; SIRILLI, G. lmpact of lnnovation Policies: evidence from the ltalian innovation survey. Science And Public Policy, UK, vol. 24, agosto, pp. 245-253, 1997.
PORTER, Michael. Vantagem Competitiva. 4• edição, Rio de Janeiro: Campus, 1990.
__________. A Vantagem Competitiva das Nações. Rio de Janeiro: Campus, 1989.
RATCHFORD, J. Thomas. Science and Technology inGovernment and lndustry: whence andwhither? Technology ln Society, UK, vol.19, n. 314, pp. 211-236, 1997.
ROTHWELL, RoyeDODGSON, Mark. European Technology Policy Evolution: convergence towards SMES and regional technologytransfer. Technovatíon. Dorset, UK, vai. 12, n. 04, pp. 223-238, 1992.
RUEGG, Rosalie. (1996) Guidelines forProposing Economic Evaluation Studies to The Advanced Technology Program (ATP). National lnstitute of Standards andTechnology Administration(NIST). US Departmentof Commerce. Gaithersburg, MD 20899 USA. http://ww.atp.nist.gov/www.eao/ ir5896.htm#1.1.
__________. (1998) The AdvancedTechnology Program's Evaluation Plan & Progress. National lnstitute of Standards and Technology Administration (NIST). US Department of Commerce, November. Gaithersburg, MD 20899 USA. http://www.atp.nist.gov/www.eao/7 thiftm.htm.
SANZ-MENENDEZ, Luis. Research Actors and the State: research evaluation and evaluation of science and technology policies in Spain. Research Evaluation. UK, vol. 5, n. 01, pp. 9-88, abril de 1995.
SCHUMPETER, Joseph Alais. Teoria do Desenvolvimento Econômico. 2ª edição, São Paulo: Ed. Nova Cultural, 1985.
SILVANI, Alberto e SIRILLI, Giorgio. R&D Evaluation in ltaly: a science and technology policy view. Research Evaluation, UK, vol. 5, n. 01, 1995.
SIRILLI, Giorgio eMELICIANI, Valentina. Research Evaluation at The National Research Council of ltaly: a survey of decision-makers. Research Evaluation, UK, vol. 4, n. 02, pp. 75-88, agosto, 1994.
TAFTIE. Taftie Guidelines on Performance lndicators for Evaluation and Monitoring. The TAFTIE Evaluation Network. Madri, Espanha, Versão 20.11.97.
WILLIAMS, Douglas; RANK, Dennis. Measuring the Economic Benefits of Research and Development: thecurrent stateof theart. Research Evaluation, UK, vol. 2, n. 01, pp. 17-30, abril de
