Structural Transformation and Structural Transformation and Innovation Systems: Innovation Systems:

industrial dynamics and innovation systemsindustrial dynamics and innovation systems

(a value added approach)(a value added approach)

Prof. Luciano G. Prof. Luciano G. CoutinhoCoutinhoProf. Mariano LaplaneProf. Mariano LaplaneNEIT/IE - UNICAMPNEIT/IE - UNICAMP

Globelics: BRICS – Globelics: BRICS – WorkshopWorkshop

Aalborg February 2006Aalborg February 2006

2/41

BRICS portrait: population, area, density, BRICS portrait: population, area, density, total and per capita domestic producttotal and per capita domestic product

Brazil 183.913 8.547.403 22 593.091 3.225

Mexico 105.699 1.958.201 54 676.148 6.397

South Africa 47.208 1.221.037 39 212.777 4.507

China* 1.285.342 9.560.961 134 1.895.000 1.474

India 1.087.124 3.287.263 331 680.682 626

Republic of Korea 47.645 99.268 480 679.675 14.266

Russian Federation 143.899 17.075.400 8 582.319 4.047

* revised.

Source: UNCTAD Handbook of Statistics, 2005.

Density inhabitants

per km2

Population Nominal GDP 2004

total per capitatotal 2004 thousands

Area km2

3/41

BRICS and selected countries: BRICS and selected countries: Gini index/ social unequalityGini index/ social unequality

Is the highly unevenly distributed income a serious development problem for Brazil and South Africa? Is China increasing social unequality a problem for the future?

Source: UNDP

Most recent dataBrazil 59.3Russia 31.0India 32.5China 44.7South Africa 57.8Mexico 54.6Korea, Rep. 31.6USA 40.8Japan 24.9

4/41

BRICS growth performance in the last 25 BRICS growth performance in the last 25 years: as well known...years: as well known...

• China is the world’s fastest growing economy in the last 25 years, with a very high investment rate

• Brazil’s economy has shown an irregular and mediocre performance, well bellow its potential

• India: since the nineties GDP is growing quite well and more regularly; however it can do better

• Russia: after the deep crisis of the nineties (disorganization of the state-socialist economy) oil prices have helped an economic recovery

5/41

BRICS growth performance in the last 25 BRICS growth performance in the last 25 years: as well known...years: as well known...

• South Africa: GDP growth performance has improved slowly, however well bellow its potential as investment lags behind

• Korea: GDP growth is high in per-capita terms and its per-capita income has approached the level of a developed economy

• Mexico: plugged to the US economy it shows a relatively weak performance, below its potential

6/41

Annual average growth rates of Annual average growth rates of total real GDP (%)total real GDP (%)

1980-89 1990-00 2001-04

Brazil 3,1 2,9 1,8

Mexico 0,8 3,1 1,7

Rep. of Korea 8,5 5,8 4,6

China 10,6 10,4 8,8

India 5,7 6,0 6,1

Russia - -4,7 6,1

South Africa 1,4 2,1 3,2

Source: UNCTAD Handbook of Statistics, 2005.

7/41

BRICS: gross fixed capital formation BRICS: gross fixed capital formation (% GDP), 1970-2003(% GDP), 1970-2003

1970-79 1990-99 2000-2003Brazil 21.7 19.5 20.5

Russia na 20.8 17.6India 15.8 22.3 22.4China 27.0 33.2 39.2

South Africa 26.4 16.3 14.8World 24.4 22.1 21.1

Source: NEIT-IE-UNICAMP from BIRD’s World Development indicators

8/41

Industrial performance and growthIndustrial performance and growth

• China: spectacular GDP growth is certainly related to the high competitiveness of its manufacturing system

• Brazil, Russia, South Africa: manufacturing has lost relative importance and weight; international competitiveness has faltered…

• India: manufacturing has grown, on average, at the same pace of GDPQuestion: is an improvement of

manufacturing’s competitiveness an important factor for long term growth?

9/41

BRICS: manufacturing value added BRICS: manufacturing value added (% GDP), 1993 and 2003(% GDP), 1993 and 2003

1993 2003 Var 1993-2003Brazil 20.5 18.6 -9.3Russia 22.8 22.5 -1.3

India 14.7 15.6 6.1China 32.8 37.6 14.6

South Africa 18.9 18.0 -4.8Developed 18.9 19.0 0.5Developing 22.7 22.8 0.4Source: UNIDO

10/41

Growth and competitivenessGrowth and competitiveness

• East-Asian economies have grabbed an additional 13 percentage points of world trade in the last 25 years

• China’s performance is, by far, the more dynamic

• Brazil’s share of world exports has stagnated (with a slight recent improvement)

• India has also shown some moderate improvement from a low start basis

• South Africa has lost relative importance in world exports

• Russia’s recent improvement related to oil and gas price boomApparently, global competitiveness has been a key factor for fast growth

11/41

Evolution of market share of world Evolution of market share of world merchandise exportsmerchandise exports

1980 1990 2003 2004Developed Countries 65,3 72,0 64,8 63,1

Developing Countries 29,5 24,3 32,1 33,5. Latin America+ Caribbean 5,5 4,1 5,0 5,1

. Brazil 1,0 0,9 1,0 1,1

. Mexico 0,9 1,2 2,2 2,1. Developing Asia 18,0 16,9 24,7 25,8

. West Asia 9,9 3,9 4,1 4,4. Russia - - 1,8 2,0

. South Asia 0,7 0,8 1,1 1,1. India 0,4 0,5 0,8 0,8

. East Asia 7,1 12,0 19,4 20,1. China 0,9 1,8 5,8 6,4. Rep. of Korea 0,9 1,9 2,6 2,8

. Africa 5,9 3,2 2,4 2,5.South Africa 1,3 0,7 0,5 0,5

Memo: PED's excl. first-tier NIEs and China 24,8 14,8 16,8 17,4Source: UNCTAD

CountryValue of Exports

12/41

BRICS’ share in world manufacturing BRICS’ share in world manufacturing value added (1993-2003)value added (1993-2003)

• China has doubled its share in global manufacturing (in value added terms)

• India’s manufacturing share grew but its relative size is yet small

• Brazil and Russia: their manufacturing systems have lost share in the world economy; however some improvement is taking place after 2003

• South Africa’s share in global manufacturing has stagnated

13/41

BRICS and selected countries: share in BRICS and selected countries: share in world manufactured value added, world manufactured value added,

1993 and 20031993 and 2003

1993 2003 Var 1993-2003Brazil 2.5 2.1 -16.0

Russia 2.0 1.6 -20.0India 0.9 1.2 33.3China 3.5 6.9 97.1

South Africa 0.5 0.5 0.0

Korea, Rep. 2.2 3.4 54.5

USA 21.2 23.3 9.9Japan 22.4 18.2 -18.8

Mexico 1.0 1.1 10.0

Source: UNIDO

14/41

BRICS manufactured value added BRICS manufactured value added per capitaper capita (95’ constant US$), 1993 and 2003(95’ constant US$), 1993 and 2003

1993 2003Var 1993-2003

(%)

Brazil 838 850 1.4

Russia 724 792 9.4

India 50 82 64.0China 157 388 147.1

South Africa 681 749 10.0

Developed 4,784 5,710 19.4Developing 239 356 49.0

The evolution of manufacturing productivity seems to be in line with overall growth performance in manufacturing

15/41

Competitiveness in manufacturing high tech products seems to be a relevant driver of fast growth and yet an even more important factor for a strong export record

• China has almost quadrupled its share of world’s high tech production. It has surpassed Korea and is now equivalent to Japan!

• India has shown important advance but her share in high tech products is still small

• Brazil and Russia: have shown a stagnant performance in world’s manufacturing of high tech products

• South Africa’s presence in high tech is quite small

16/41

BRICS and selected countries: share in BRICS and selected countries: share in world high-tech products exports (%), world high-tech products exports (%),

1993 and 20031993 and 2003

1993 2003 Var 1993-2003BRICS 2.7 8.5 217.8Brazil 0.4 0.4 1.1Russia 0.5 0.5 -11.0India 0.2 0.4 100.9China 1.5 7.0 359.3South Africa na 0.1 -Mexico 1.2 2.0 75.9Korea, Rep. 2.8 4.0 42.0USA 18.1 13.3 -26.6Japan 13.7 7.5 -45.4

World 100.0 100.0 -Source: NEIT-IE-UNICAMP from UNCTAD primary data

17/41

BRICS and selected countries: high-tech BRICS and selected countries: high-tech products share in countries’ total exports products share in countries’ total exports

(%), 1993 and 2003(%), 1993 and 2003

Source: NEIT-IE-UNICAMP from UNCTAD primary data

1993 2003 Var 1993-2003BRICS 11.5 24.3 111.0Brazil 9.7 12.2 26.3Russia 8.3 7.3 -13.0India 8.1 13.6 67.3China 15.0 34.0 126.9South Africa na 10.0 -Mexico 19.9 26.0 30.2Korea, Rep. 30.4 43.2 42.2USA 35.0 39.0 11.3Japan 34.1 33.6 -1.5

World 24.1 28.8 19.9

18/41

Growing importance of high-tech sectors in Growing importance of high-tech sectors in China’s economy (“two tunnels” strategy)China’s economy (“two tunnels” strategy)

• China’s industrial system has diversified extraordinarily in the last 25 years: it has a very large intermediate goods base (steel, cement, petrochemicals) and a very large non-durable consumption goods sector. In recent years the development of durable consumption goods and of high-tech sectors (computers, consumer electronics, etc.) has speeded up

• High-tech products already accounts for 36% of Chinese exports (2005)

• Employment in high-tech sectors is growing fast and has accounted for 19% of the total in 2002

19/41

Growing importance of high-tech sectors in Growing importance of high-tech sectors in China’s economy (“two tunnels” strategy)China’s economy (“two tunnels” strategy)

• China has escalated R&D expenditures from 0,6% of GDP in the mid nineties to almost 1,9% last year

• Enrollment in high education (specially in engineering) has expanded very rapidly, as well as students pursuing graduate studies abroad (circa 150 thousand)

• China’s recent record in global patent applications is impressive

20/41

China: manufacturing employment (% total China: manufacturing employment (% total manufacturing employment), 2002manufacturing employment), 2002

Rubber and Plastics products

ISIC (Revision 2) ChinaFood products 6.0Beverages 2.0Tobacco 0.5Textiles 10.6

Wearing apparel,except footwear 5.9Leather products 3.1Wood products,except furniture 1.1Furniture,except metal 0.8Paper and products 2.6Printing and publishing 1.2Industrial chemicals 10.1Petroleum refineries 1.2

4.3Pottery,china,earthenware 1.5Glass and products 1.0Other non-metallic mineral prod. 6.1Iron and steel 5.3Non-ferrous metals 2.3Fabricated metal products 3.9Machinery,except electrical 9.8Machinery electric 10.4

Transport equipment 6.6Professional & scientific equipm. 1.3

Other manufactured products 2.4

Source: UNIDO

21/41

Selected countries: R&D expenditures Selected countries: R&D expenditures (%/GDP), 1996 and 2001(%/GDP), 1996 and 2001

1996 2001 Var 1996-2001Brazil 0.77 1.05 36.0

Russia 0.90 1.16India na na -China 0.60 1.09 82.4

South Africa na na -

Korea, Rep. 2.60 2.96 13.7

USA 2.55 2.80 9.9Japan 2.77 3.09 11.4

Mexico 0.31 0.34 11.2

World 2.06 2.46 19.5Source: NEIT-IE-UNICAMP from BIRD’s World Development Indicators

22/41

Selected countries: enrollment in high Selected countries: enrollment in high education as a % of the total, education as a % of the total,

1990 and 20001990 and 2000

Source: NEIT-IE-UNICAMP from BIRD’s World Development Indicators

1990 2000 Var 1990-2000Brazil 11,2 16,2 44,0Russia 52,1 62,8 20,5India 6,1 10,6 74,6China 3,0 12,7 326,6South Africa 13,2 14,6 10,4Korea, Rep. 38,6 77,6 101,1USA 75,2 70,7 -6,0Japan 29,6 47,7 61,1Mexico 14,5 20,5 41,1World 16,0 23,9 49,9

23/41

BRICS and selected countries: stock of BRICS and selected countries: stock of patent applications, residents, 2001patent applications, residents, 2001

Number %Brazil 6,706 0.7

Russia 25,046 2.7India 234 0.0China 30,324 3.2

South Africa 175 0.0

Korea, Rep. 74,001 7.9

USA 190,907 20.3Japan 388,390 41.4

Mexico 594 0.1

World 939,267 100.0

24/41

Comparison of manufacturing structuresComparison of manufacturing structures

• Whereas the share of high-tech sectors in manufacturing (value added) ranges between 14% and 17% (automotive-complex included) in Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa it has attained circa 35% in the case of China

• By the same token, employment in high-tech sectors varies around 8,5% of the total manufacturing employment (for Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa) whereas in China it represents 19%

• If the automotive-complex is excluded the share of employment in high-tech sector (to Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa) would vary from 2,6% to 5,5% of the total

25/41

Comparison of manufacturing structuresComparison of manufacturing structures

• Relative shares of so-called “traditional” consumer-goods manufacturing (e.g. food and beverages, tobacco, textiles and wearing apparel, leather products and footware) are higher in Brazil, India, Russia and South Africa

• On the other hand, the relative shares of natural resource-based and of primary commodity-based manufacturing is quite different among the BRICS, reflecting different geography and natural endownments

26/41

BRICS: manufacturing structure BRICS: manufacturing structure (share in countries’ MVA), 2002(share in countries’ MVA), 2002

ISIC Description Brazil India S. Africa World15 Food and beverages 13.5 8.7 14.8 10.516 Tobacco products 0.8 0.6 1.7 0.717 Textiles 2.6 6.9 2.0 2.118 Wearing apparel, fur 1.7 0.7 2.5 1.519 Leather, leather products and footwear 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.520 Wood products (excl. furniture) 3.7 0.1 2.8 1.921 Paper and paper products 2.8 2.3 4.5 3.022 Printing and publishing 2.2 1.7 3.1 4.523 Coke,refined petroleum products,nuclear fuel 12.8 5.2 5.1 3.124 Chemicals and chemical products 11.1 21.3 11.1 10.525 Rubber and plastics products 3.7 3.1 3.8 3.426 Non-metallic mineral products 4.6 5.4 3.2 3.627 Basic metals 4.5 10.4 13.8 5.228 Fabricated metal products 8.3 2.6 7.4 5.929 Machinery and equipment n.e.c. 5.6 6.4 6.3 6.930 Office, accounting and computing mach. 1.3 0.7 1.6 4.531 Electrical machinery and apparatus 2.7 7.8 1.4 6.232 Radio,television and communication equip. 3.4 1.5 1.3 9.833 Medical, precision and optical instruments 2.2 0.8 0.4 2.434 Motor vehicles, trailers, semi-trailers 4.3 6.9 8.7 8.135 Other transport equipment 5.1 5.8 1.4 2.536 Furniture; manufacturing n.e.c. 2.4 0.2 2.2 3.2

Source: UNIDO

27/41

BRICS: manufacturing employment BRICS: manufacturing employment (% total manufacturing employment), 2002(% total manufacturing employment), 2002

ISIC (Revision 3) Brazil Russia India S. AfricaFood and beverages 19.8 14.7 17.4 13.8Tobacco products 0.3 0.2 6.6 0.2Textiles 5.2 3.7 15.7 5.3Wearing apparel, fur 7.9 2.8 4.2 9.6

Leather, leather products and footwear 6.9 1.0 1.9 1.5Wood products (excl. furniture) 4.0 3.8 0.7 6.1Paper and paper products 2.7 1.5 2.2 3.2Printing and publishing 3.6 2.0 1.5 4.8

Coke,refined petroleum products,nuclear fuel 0.5 1.2 0.9 1.0Chemicals and chemical products 5.7 6.0 10.1 7.8Rubber and plastics products 5.3 2.2 3.6 5.5Non-metallic mineral products 5.4 6.9 6.2 3.3Basic metals 3.1 7.7 7.2 7.6Fabricated metal products 6.1 4.0 3.6 4.8Machinery and equipment n.e.c. 6.6 16.3 5.4 5.5

Office, accounting and computing machinery 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1Electrical machinery and apparatus 2.6 2.9 3.0 6.2

Radio,television and communication equipment 1.3 - 1.3 1.1Medical, precision and optical instruments 1.0 2.8 0.8 0.4Motor vehicles, trailers, semi-trailers 5.2 5.4 3.3 5.9Other transport equipment 1.0 1.3 2.2 1.0

Furniture; manufacturing n.e.c. 5.2 1.9 1.7 5.4Recycling 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.1

Source: UNIDO

28/41

Different manufacturing profilesDifferent manufacturing profiles

• Russia: a very strong defense-related industrial complex, specially in aeronautics & space; a large production-base in non-electric machinery and equipment; a powerful manufacturing complex related to oil and gas

• Brazil: a broad set of competitive natural-resource-based and agricultural-based manufacturing (steel, non ferrous metals, pulp and paper, wood products, sugar and ethanol, orange juice, soya-derivates, coffee); a fairly diversified durable-consumption goods industry; one leading firm in the aeronautic sector

29/41

Different manufacturing profilesDifferent manufacturing profiles

• India: a very large service-economy, her manufacturing capability is relatively small and concentrated in basic non-durable consumption goods (textiles and wearing apparel, food and beverages); with the exception of a strong chemical and chemical products-complex the base of intermediate goods production is relatively small, as well as the automotive-complex

• South Africa: has a powerful mineral resource-based industry (steel and non-ferrous metals) and her manufacturing system is concentrated in non-durable consumption goods (food and beverages, tobacco, textiles and apparel); relatively strong in the automotive sector

30/41

Innovation and S&T SystemsInnovation and S&T Systems

• Russia: strong position in high education, with a powerful scientific system particularly dedicated to space and defense-related activities; expanding R&D expenditures and patent activities are related to the former specializations

• India: an expanding scientific system with good quality but very weak in industrial R&D (and patenting); employment of highly qualified human resources biased towards services (IT related)

• Brazil: an improving scientific system (with good international rating); R&D activities are very uneven and concentrated, with some success cases (like in agribusiness) patent activity is weak; some key sectoral innovation systems have been disintegrated in the nineties

31/41

Innovation and S&T SystemsInnovation and S&T Systems

• South Africa: very weak R&D and industrial innovation activities; limited scientific capability

• China: a remarkable effort in building up a national scientific and technological innovation system as a purposeful strategy; R&D activities growing at a very fast pace given the increasing economic importance of high-tech sectors

32/41

BRICS: recent export performance with BRICS: recent export performance with remarkable improvement of foreign remarkable improvement of foreign

exchange positionexchange position

• China’s large trade surplus derived from her highly competitive performance in manufacturing exports and…

• Very favourable terms of trade (prices of oil, metals and other commodities) in last three years have helped Brazil, South Africa, Russia and India to strengthen their foreign exchange position

Question: could this recently gained foreign exchange robustness help to put in place new national development strategies? Or could it result in indulgence (in relation to current performance and to the historical record)?

33/41

Recent external robustnessRecent external robustness

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005p 2006pChina 115,5 126,7 172,5 210,8 275,6 317,5 323,8Korea, Rep. 64,7 78,6 84,3 98,2 120,4 133,2 140,8India 35,6 45,4 60,7 85,1 99,2 110,0 115,5Russia 13,9 19,4 25,9 36,6 55,7 85,7 103,6Mexico 23,9 31,0 35,9 42,0 43,7 47,3 49,3South Africa 16,5 19,6 18,1 17,5 36,0 38,8 40,9Brazil 15,2 17,1 18,0 22,9 26,3 32,1 35,1

Reserves/external debt (%)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005p 2006pChina 0,50 0,55 0,45 0,39 0,32 0,27 0,24

Korea, Rep. 0,70 0,70 0,72 0,67 0,55 0,47 0,42Mexico 0,80 0,82 0,79 0,78 0,67 0,59 0,55Russia 1,46 1,39 1,34 1,22 1,02 0,82 0,81India 1,75 1,74 1,52 1,36 1,16 1,00 0,87South Africa 0,93 0,82 0,85 0,78 0,81 0,86 0,88Brazil 3,94 3,61 3,49 2,94 2,09 1,42 1,28

External debt/exports (%)

Source: JP Morgan, Consensus Forecasts and projections.

34/41

Source: JP Morgan, Consensus Forecasts and projections.

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005p 2006pKorea, Rep. 4,2 4,6 1,9 1,3 1,8 1,5 1,4China 8,3 7,7 5,4 4,6 3,8 3,1 2,9South Africa 6,1 5,2 4,7 4,0 4,5 4,5 4,5Mexico 14,8 16,0 13,0 9,4 12,5 6,7 5,1India 19,4 18,3 16,5 17,1 11,8 11,2 10,2Russia 8,0 10,9 9,4 8,8 7,0 13,6 12,1Brazil 84,8 86,1 73,3 55,0 48,3 39,3 30,6

External debt service/exports

Recent external robustnessRecent external robustness

35/41

Are there domestic financial constraints?Are there domestic financial constraints?

• Brazil and Russia: their banking systems had retracted but can they expand in order to finance capital formation? How can the capital market help?

Issues: how to create reliable institutional conditions and juridical protection for investors,

creditors and for securitized assets?

• China: how to cope with the low risk-standards of the banking system? Is there a role for the capital market?

• India: how to enhance the contributions of both (bank credit and capital market)?

• South Africa: is everything fine? What is lacking to accelerate private investment?

36/41

Financial Structure: outstanding domestic Financial Structure: outstanding domestic debt securities, stock market capitalization debt securities, stock market capitalization

and bank credit, 2004and bank credit, 2004% GDP

Government Securities

Financial Institutions

Corporate Issuers

Total Outstanding

Stock Market Capitalization

Bank Credit

Emerging Markets 25,3 8,4 4,6 38,1 61,2 65,2Africa 32,1 5,0 5,8 42,8 186,5 72,6South Africa 32,1 5,0 5,8 42,8 186,5 72,6Asia 22,3 13,4 6,9 42,6 74,1 103,6China 17,4 11,1 0,7 29,3 38,8 140,5Hong Kong SAR 9,6 15,1 3,5 28,2 522,5 148,5India 34,2 0,2 0,4 34,8 56,4 36,9Korea 22,8 31,5 21,1 75,5 56,9 80,4Europe 26,9 0,5 1,0 27,7 34,1 24,3Russia 3,3 - 1,5 3,3 44,3 23,7Latin America 28,9 5,3 2,6 36,8 40,2 20,9Brazil 44,7 10,8 0,6 56,2 50,0 25,2Chile 19,6 10,2 11,3 41,0 114,8 56,8Mexico 22,6 0,8 2,7 26,1 25,4 14,3

Mature Markets 66,5 57,3 16,4 140,2 91,4 76,8Euro Area * 53,6 29,8 10,0 93,3 54,6 103,9Japan 141,0 25,6 16,3 182,9 78,5 94,4United States 47,1 94,4 22,0 163,5 129,0 45,8

Source: Global Financial Stability Report, September 2005.

* Euro area includes Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain, excluding Luxembourg.

37/41

Outstanding Domestic Corporate Debt Outstanding Domestic Corporate Debt (Securities)(Securities)

% GDP

Emerging markets 4,1 4,4 5,5Africa 10,2 6,4 6,0South Africa 10,2 6,4 6,0Asia 5,5 6,8 8,1China 1,0 0,7 0,9Hong Kong SAR 0,8 2,3 4,0India 0,1 0,2 0,4Korea 15,0 20,4 26,1Europe 0,6 0,9 1,4Russia - - 1,0Latin America 1,4 1,1 2,1Brazil - 0,4 0,5Chile 4,1 3,0 10,1Mexico 1,7 1,1 1,8

Mature Markets 11,9 13,0 15,9Euro Area * 3,3 3,1 8,3Japan 9,1 12,4 16,1United Kingdom 2,6 2,4 1,8United States 22,8 23,3 23,2

Source: Global Financial Stability Report, September 2005.

* Euro area includes Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain, excluding Luxembourg.

Average 1989-94

Average 1995-99

Average 2000-04

38/41

Some lessons and questions for researchSome lessons and questions for research

• There is not a single development model to be mimetized. The Chinese model may elicit many useful lessons but cannot be automatically copied. An interesting view-point: how did the Chinese successfully “copied” many of the Korean strategies (of the 70’s and 80’s)?

• The strengthening of competitiveness and innovation in manufacturing seems to be a necessary condition for a better long term growth performance

39/41

Some lessons and questions for researchSome lessons and questions for research

• Keeping up and developing new competitive conditions in low and medium tech intensive sectors, such as to allow for dynamic trade performances and for the creation of employment opportunities, seems to be a wise strategy for BRICS

• Innovation (including DUI and STI modes), education and skill-apprenticeship (thru experience and thru training) should be a key focus for promotion of local development, as sub-regional promotion policies seem absolutely prioritary to BRICS’ efforts to reduce social and regional unequality

40/41

Some lessons and questions for researchSome lessons and questions for research

• How to take advantage of existing capabilities and of revealed competitive (sub-sector/niche) activities to capture dynamic potential of the high-tech sectors? In other words, how to build up from existing competitive advantage (however scarce) in high-tech?

• How to take full advantage of the ICT-revolution as smart users/adaptors (to the rest of the economy)? How to avoid the risks of info-exclusion?

• How to capture/explore new opportunities in activities/niches/services related to ICT waves? How to create some fundamental conditions (what are they?) in order to minimize policy-risks?

41/41

Some lessons and questions for research: Some lessons and questions for research: macro-questionsmacro-questions

• Are the fundamental macroeconomic conditions ready for building up a new national development strategy? From the outlook of the foreign-exchange position the answer seems to be yes, but how about the fiscal and financial conditions?

• Are there sufficient political and societal aspiration and cohesion around a new (potential) development strategy? Is such national strategy consistent and clear enough?

• What are the critical challenges to be surpassed in order to reach it?