Complejidad, Transición y Desarrollo. Una Agenda Convergente para las Políticas de CT+I en Latinoamérica

Leandro Lepratte

Abstract


The paper presents the progress of a theoretical analysis developed to create a framework between social studies of science and technology and the economics of innovation and technological change. The framework aims to formulate for Latin America a question about the scope of the ST & I policies. This question, involves from the framework, that ST & I policies must be approached from a multidimensional: narrative, critical and explanatory. But that in turn resume the momentum of political praxis implicit in the tradition of Latin American thought science, technology and society. These hybrid research efforts, arising from the framework, must exist by political praxis articulatory emergency. These emergency spaces recognize the plurality of theoretical and political positions, which in turn raise the horizon of action shape spaces for developing new sociotechnical configurations capable of orienting the multidimensional sense development (social inclusion, economic development and structural change).


Keywords


neo-Schumpeterian evolutionary economics oriented to complex systems; Science and Technology Studies; convergence; articulatory policies; sociotechnical configurations; multidimensionality of development; economic development; innovation

Full Text:

PDF (Español)

References


ALBUQUERQUE, E. M. (2007), Inadequacy of technology and innovation systems at the periphery, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31, pp. 669 - 690.

ANTONELLI, C. (2011), Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA, Edward Elgar.

ARELLANO, ANTONIO ET AL. (2012). “Circulación y conexión mundial de saberes. Elementos de antropología de los conocimientos en América Latina”. En Revue d'anthropologie des connaissances, 2012/2 Vol. 6, n° 2, p. I-XXVIII. DOI : 10.3917/rac.016.i

AROCENA, R.; J. SUTZ (2003), “Knowledge, innovation and learning: systems and policies in the north and in the south”, en: Cassiolato J.; H. Lastres; M. Maciel M. (eds.), Systems of innovation and development. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 291–310.

BERKHOUT, F., SMITH, A., & STIRLING, A. (2004). Socio-technological regimes and transition contexts. System innovation and the transition to sustainability: theory, evidence and policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 48-75.

BIJKER, W. E.; T. P. HUGHES; T. J. PINCH (1987), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, The MIT Press.

BIJKER, W. E. (1993), Do Not Despair: There Is Life after Constructivism, Science, Technology and Human Values, 18, (1).

BIJKER, W. E. (1995). Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs. Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Londres, MIT Press.

BIJKER, W. E. (2010). How is technology made?—That is the question!. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1), 63-76.

BLOCH, H.; METCALFE, J. (2011), “Complexity in the theory of the developing firm”, En Antonelli, C. (ed), Handbook on the economic complexity of technological change. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA, Edward Elgar, Cap. 3.

BRUUN, H.; J. HUKKINEN (2003), Crossing boundaries: An integrative framework for studying technological change, Social Studies of Science, 33, (1), pp. 95-116.

CALLON, M. (1987), “Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis”, en Bijker, W et al. (eds), Social Construction of Technological Systems, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

CALLON, M. (1989), La Science et ses Réseaux: Gènese et Circulation des Faits Scientifiques, Découverte, Paris.

CALLON, M. (1992), “The dynamics of Techno-economic Networks”, en Coombs, R.; P. Saviotti, y V. Walsh (eds.), Technological Changes and Company Strategies: Economical and Sociological Perspectives, London, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers.

CALLON, M. (1995). Algunos elementos para una sociología de la traducción: la domesticación de las vieiras y los pescadores de la bahía de St. Brieuc. En Sociología de la ciencia y la tecnología. J.Manuel Iranzo, J.Rubén Blanco, Teresa González de la Fe, Cristobal Torres y Alberto Cotillo, Comps. Madrid: CSIC.

CALLON, M. (1998), “El proceso de construcción de la sociedad. El estudio de la tecnología como herramienta para el análisis sociológico”, en Doménech, M. y F. Tirado, Sociología simétrica, Barcelona, Gedisa, pp. 143-170.

CALLON, M. (2001), Redes tecnoeconómicas e irreversibilidad, Redes – Revista de estudios sobre ciencia y tecnología, Junio 8, (17), pp. 85-126.

CALLON, M. (2006). “Luchas y negociaciones para definir qué es y que no es problemático. La socio-lógica de la traducción”. En REDES - Revista de estudios sobre ciencia y tecnología, 12 (23).

CALLON, M. (2008). “La dinámica de las redes tecno-económicas”. En Thomas, H.; A. Buch (Coords.), Actos, actores y artefactos. Sociología de la tecnología, Bernal, Universidad Nacional de Quilmes.

CALLON, M.; MILLO, Y.; MUNIESA, F (2007), Market Devices, Oxford, Blackwell.

CONSOLI, D.; PATRUCCO, P. (2011), “Complexity and the coordination of technological knoweledge: the case of innovation platforms”, en Antonelli, C. Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA, Edward Elgar.

DABAT, A.; RODRIGUEZ VARGAS, J. (2009). Globalización, conocimiento y desarrollo. La nueva economía global del conocimiento. Estructura y problemas, UNAM, México. Tomo 1.

DAGNINO, R. (ED.) (2010), Tecnología social. Ferramenta para construir outra sociedade, Campinas, SP, Komedi.

DAGNINO, R.; THOMAS, H. (2000), Elementos para una renovación explicativa-normativa de las políticas de innovación latinoamericanas, Revista Espacios, 21 (2).

DI MAGGIO, P.J. (1995), Comments on “What theory is not”, Administrative Science Quarterly 40, (3), pp. 391–397.

DOPFER, K.; J. POTTS, (2008), A Cultural Science (Kulturewissenschaft) Manifesto. Short paper prepared for FEAST, QUT, March.

DOPFER, K. (2011), “Mesoeconomics: a unifed approach to systems complexity and evolution”, en Antonelli, C. “Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change”. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, 2011. Cap. 13.

DUTRÉNIT, G., M. CAPDEVIELLE, J.M. CORONA ALCANTAR, M. PUCHET ANYUL, F. SANTIAGO Y A.O. VERA-CRUZ (2010), El sistema nacional de innovación mexicano: estructuras, políticas, desempeño y desafíos, UAM/Textual: México, 448 pág.

DUTRÉNIT, G. Y KATZ, J. (2005), Innovation, growth and development in Latin-America: Stylized facts and a policy agenda, en Innovation Management, Policy & Practice, 7, (2-3).

FAGERBERG, J., LANDSTRÖM, H., y MARTIN, B. R. (2012). Exploring the emerging knowledge base of ‘the knowledge society’. Research Policy, 41(7), 1121-1131.

FIGUEIREDO, P. (2004), Aprendizagem Tecnológica e Inovação Industrial em Economias Emergentes: uma Breve Contribuição para o Desenho e Implementação de Estudos Empíricos e Estratégias no Brasil, Revista Brasileira de Innovación, 3 (2), pp. 323-361.

FOSTER, J. (2005), From simplistic to complex systems in economics, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 29, pp. 873-892.

FOSTER, J.; S. METCALFE (2001), Frontiers and Evolutiorary Economics: Competition, Self-Organization and Innovation Policy, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.

FOSTER, J.; S. METCALFE (2009), Evolution and economic complexity: an overview, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 18, (7), pp. 607-610.

FRESSOLI, M; H. THOMAS (2010), “En búsqueda de una metodología para investigar tecnologías sociales”, en Dagnino, R. (Ed.) Tecnología social. Ferramenta para construir outra sociedade. Campinas, SP, Komedi, pp. 113-137.

GEELS, F.W. (2010), Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective, Research Policy, 39, (4), pp. 495-510.

GEELS, F.W. (2007), Feelings of discontent and the promise of middle range theory for STS: Examples from technology dynamics, Science, Technology & Human Values, 32, (6), pp. 627-651.

GEELS, F.W., (2002), Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study, Research Policy, 31, pp. 1257–1274.

GEELS, F.W. (2005), Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: refining the co-evolutionary multi-level perspective, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 72, pp. 681–696.

GIOIA, D.A.; E. PITRE, (1990), Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building, Academy of Management Review, 15, pp. 584–602.

IIZUKA, M., Y KATZ, J. M. (2010). Natural resource industries,'tragedy of the commons' and the case of Chilean salmon farming. UNU-MERIT, Maastricht Economic and Social Research and Training Centre on Innovation and Technology.

KREIMER, P.; H., THOMAS (2004) “Un poco de reflexividad o ¿de dónde venimos? Estudios sociales de le ciencia y la tecnología en América Latina”, en Kreimer, P. et al. (eds.), Producción y uso social de conocimientos, Estudios de sociología de la ciencia en América Latina, Bernal, Universidad Nacional de Quilmes, pp. 11-90.

KREIMER, P. (2007), Estudios sociales de la ciencia y la tecnología, ¿para qué? y ¿quién?, Revista REDES, 13, (26), pp. 54 – 64.

LACLAU, E.; C. MOUFFE, C. (1987), Hegemonía y estrategia socialista, Madrid, Editorial Siglo XXI.

LATOUR, B. (1999), “Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world” en Biagioli, M. (ed.), The science studies reader, Nueva York, Routledge.

LATOUR, B. (2007), Nunca fuimos modernos. Ensayo de antropología simétrica. Buenos Aires. Siglo XXI.

LATOUR, B. (2008), Reensamblar lo social. Una introducción a la teoría del actor red, Buenos Aires, Manantial.

LAW, J. (1987), “Technology and heterogeneous engineering: the case of Portuguese expansion”, en Bijker, W.; T. Hughes y T. Pinch (eds.). The social construction of technical systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology, Cambridge, MIT Press, pp. 111-134

LAW, J. (2009), Actor Network Theory and Material Semiotics, en Turner, B. (edit), The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, Blackwell Publishing. Cap. 7.

METCALFE, S. (2010), Dancing in the dark, la disputa por el concepto de competencia, en Desarrollo Económico, Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 50, (197), pp. 59-79.

PÉREZ, C. (2010), Dinamismo tecnológico e inclusión social en América Latina: una estrategia de desarrollo productivo basada en los recursos naturales, Revista CEPAL 100, pp. 123-145.

PINCH, T.; W. BIJKER, (1984), The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other, Social Studies of Science, 14, pp. 399–441.

PINCH, T. J.; W. BIJKER (1987), “The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other”, en W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes; T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, pp. 17 – 50.

PINCH, T. (1996), “The social construction of technology: A review”, en R. Fox (Ed.), Technological change: Methods and themes in the history of technology”. Amsterdam: Harwood, pp. 17–36.

PINCH, T. (2008), Technology and institutions: living in a material world, Theor. Soc., 37, pp. 461–483.

PINCH, T. (2010). On making infrastructure visible: putting the non-humans to rights. Cambridge journal of economics, 34(1), 77-89.

PINCH, T.; R. SWEDBERG (2008), Living in a material world. Economics sociology meets science and technology studies, Cambridge, MIT Press.

RIVERA RÍOS, MIGUEL; V. ROBERT; G. YOGUEL (2009), Cambio tecnológico, complejidad e instituciones: Una aproximación desde la estructura industrial e institucional de Argentina y México, Revista Problemas del Desarrollo, 40 (57).

ROBERT, V.; G. YOGUEL (2011), La dinámica compleja de la innovación y el desarrollo económico, en Antonelli, C. Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, 2011.

SAVIOTTI, P.; A. PYKA (2008), Micro and macro dynamics: Industry life cycles, inter-sector coordination and aggregate growth, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 18, (2), pp. 167-182.

SAVIOTTI, P. (2011), Knowledge, complexity and networks, en Antonelli, C. (2011), Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, Cap. 6.

SWEDBERG, R. (2014). Theorizing in Social Science. The Context of Discovery. Stanford University Press.

THOMAS, H. (2008). “Estructuras cerradas vs. Procesos dinámicos: trayectorias y estilos de innovación y cambio tecnológico”, en Thomas, H.; A. Buch (Coords.), Actos, actores y artefactos. Sociología de la tecnología, Bernal, Universidad Nacional de Quilmes.

THOMAS, H. (2010), Los estudios sociales de la tecnología en América Latina, Íconos. Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 37, pp. 35-53.

YOGUEL, G., BARLETTA, F., Y PEREIRA, M. (2013). De Schumpeter a los postschumpeterianos: viejas y nuevas dimensiones analíticas. Problemas del desarrollo, 44(174), 35-59.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242014000400006



Copyright (c)



2017 © Universidad Alberto Hurtado - Facultad de Economía y Negocios. 
Erasmo Escala 1835 - Santiago, Chile.
Economic Analysis Review | Observatorio Económico | Gestión y Tendencias 

Journal Supported by Chimera Innova Group