IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/econoa/v18y2024i1p12n1032.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preferences, Institutions, and Policy Makers: The Case of the New Institutionalization of Science, Technology, and Innovation Governance in Colombia

Author

Listed:
  • Pardo Martínez Clara Inés

    (School of Administration, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia)

  • Cotte Poveda Alexander

    (Department of Economics, Universidad Santo Tomas, Bogotá, Colombia)

Abstract

Science, technology, and innovation (STI) are fundamental elements for achieving development and sustainable growth. Developing STI is also currently the main challenge faced by countries, especially those with emerging economies, making it essential that these countries implement comprehensive policies to generate a knowledge-based society. Institutions and policy-makers are responsible for defining the rules by which a society is governed. In particular, it is widely held that institutions should place special emphasis on establishing property rights, legal systems, customs, and the political systems based on which central planners should govern. From this perspective, this study integrates qualitative and quantitative analysis through a preference model with three types of STI policy-makers and projections to better clarify the requirements for new STI institutions in Colombia. It does so by using the time series of STI spending generated by the Administrative Department of STI (Colciencias) from 1968 to 2018. The simulation results show that among the chosen agents, the STI policy preferences of the scientist-manager yield economic outcomes closest to the optimal level. In contrast, the yield of the politician’s preferences is suboptimal and even negative at certain points. These results have implications for public policy, as poor policy choices may lead to undesirable results in terms of STI policy application, implementation, and execution. These findings are important for strengthening STI policy. They also indicate the important role of the government in transforming Colombia from being a receiver of technology to being a generator of knowledge, technology, and innovation in line with the requirements of the country’s population and its natural resource endowments.

Suggested Citation

  • Pardo Martínez Clara Inés & Cotte Poveda Alexander, 2024. "Preferences, Institutions, and Policy Makers: The Case of the New Institutionalization of Science, Technology, and Innovation Governance in Colombia," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 18(1), pages 1-12.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:econoa:v:18:y:2024:i:1:p:12:n:1032
    DOI: 10.1515/econ-2022-0087
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/econ-2022-0087
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/econ-2022-0087?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Goyer, Michel, 2011. "Contingent Capital: Short-term Investors and the Evolution of Corporate Governance in France and Germany," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199578085.
    2. Shan, Yaping, 2019. "Incentives for research agents and performance-vested equity-based compensation," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 44-69.
    3. Garrett, Geoffrey & Lange, Peter, 1995. "Internationalization, institutions, and political change," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 627-655, October.
    4. Viorelia LUNGU, 2019. "Knowledge-based society - a condition to ensure sustainable development," Eastern European Journal for Regional Studies (EEJRS), Center for Studies in European Integration (CSEI), Academy of Economic Studies of Moldova (ASEM), vol. 5(1), pages 96-111, June.
    5. Zaman, Gheorghe & Goschin, Zizi, 2010. "Technical Change as Exogenous or Endogenous Factor in the Production Function Models. Empirical Evidence from Romania," Journal for Economic Forecasting, Institute for Economic Forecasting, vol. 0(2), pages 29-45, July.
    6. Al Mamun, Md & Sohag, Kazi & Hassan, M. Kabir, 2017. "Governance, resources and growth," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 238-261.
    7. Kanbur, Ravi, 2002. "Economics, Social Science and Development," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 477-486, March.
    8. Kwemarira Godwin & Joseph M. Ntayi & John C. Munene, 2021. "Accountability and Public Interest in Government Institutions," International Journal of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(2), pages 155-166, January.
    9. Clara Inés Pardo Martínez & Alexander Cotte Poveda & Nicolas Ronderos, 2019. "An Analysis for New Institutionality in Science, Technology and Innovation in Colombia Using a Structural Vector Autoregression Model," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(2), pages 218-228.
    10. Schot, Johan & Steinmueller, W. Edward, 2018. "Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1554-1567.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bekhet, Hussain Ali & Latif, Nurul Wahilah Abdul, 2018. "The impact of technological innovation and governance institution quality on Malaysia's sustainable growth: Evidence from a dynamic relationship," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 27-40.
    2. Hongyi Mao & Zongjun Wang & Lin Yi, 2021. "Does Entrepreneurial Orientation Lead to Successful Sustainable Innovation? The Evidence from Chinese Environmentally Friendly Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-19, September.
    3. Pietro Moncada-Paternò-Castello, 2022. "Top R&D investors, structural change and the R&D growth performance of young and old firms," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 12(1), pages 1-33, March.
    4. Bin Amin, Sakib & Taghizadeh-Hesary, Farhad & Khan, Farhan & Manal Rahman, Faria, 2024. "Does technology have a lead or lag role in economic growth? The case of selected resource-rich and resource-scarce countries," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    5. Fine, Ben, 2002. "Economics Imperialism and the New Development Economics as Kuhnian Paradigm Shift?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 30(12), pages 2057-2070, December.
    6. Janssen, Matthijs J. & Abbasiharofteh, Milad, 2022. "Boundary spanning R&D collaboration: Key enabling technologies and missions as alleviators of proximity effects?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    7. Pop Silaghi, Monica Ioana & Alexa, Diana & Jude, Cristina & Litan, Cristian, 2014. "Do business and public sector research and development expenditures contribute to economic growth in Central and Eastern European Countries? A dynamic panel estimation," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 108-119.
    8. Xiaoran Zheng & Yuzhuo Cai, 2022. "Transforming Innovation Systems into Innovation Ecosystems: The Role of Public Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-26, June.
    9. Allen, Darcy W.E. & Berg, Chris & Markey-Towler, Brendan & Novak, Mikayla & Potts, Jason, 2020. "Blockchain and the evolution of institutional technologies: Implications for innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    10. Krammer, Sorin M.S., 2022. "Human resource policies and firm innovation: The moderating effects of economic and institutional context," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    11. Jelena Vapa-Tankosić & Vera Miler-Jerković & Dejan Jeremić & Slobodan Stanojević & Gordana Radović, 2020. "Investment in Research and Development and New Technological Adoption for the Sustainable Beekeeping Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-17, July.
    12. Laima Gerlitz & Christopher Meyer, 2021. "Small and Medium-Sized Ports in the TEN-T Network and Nexus of Europe’s Twin Transition: The Way towards Sustainable and Digital Port Service Ecosystems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-24, April.
    13. Švarc, Jadranka & Dabić, Marina, 2021. "Transformative innovation policy or how to escape peripheral policy paradox in European research peripheral countries," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    14. Cantarella, Michele & Fraccaroli, Nicolò & Volpe, Roberto, 2024. "Does language prevent policy take-up? Evidence from the Italian Start-up Act," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(6).
    15. Anne Rainville, 2022. "Green Public Procurement in Mission-Orientated Innovation Systems: Leveraging Voluntary Standards to Improve Sustainability Performance of Municipalities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-22, July.
    16. Jaros³aw Brodny & Magdalena Tutak, 2023. "The level of implementing sustainable development goal "Industry, innovation and infrastructure" of Agenda 2030 in the European Union countries: Application of MCDM methods," Oeconomia Copernicana, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 14(1), pages 47-102, March.
    17. Demircioglu, Mehmet Akif & Vivona, Roberto, 2021. "Depoliticizing the European immigration debate: How to employ public sector innovation to integrate migrants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(2).
    18. Upadhayay, Neha B. & Rocchetta, Silvia & Gupta, Shivam & Kamble, Sachin & Stekelorum, Rebecca, 2024. "Blazing the trail: The role of digital and green servitization on technological innovation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    19. D. G. Webster & Semra A. Aytur & Mark Axelrod & Robyn S. Wilson & Joseph A. Hamm & Linda Sayed & Amber L. Pearson & Pedro Henrique C. Torres & Alero Akporiaye & Oran Young, 2022. "Learning from the Past: Pandemics and the Governance Treadmill," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-26, March.
    20. Mariana Pita & Joana Costa & António Carrizo Moreira, 2021. "Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Entrepreneurial Initiative: Building a Multi-Country Taxonomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-26, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:econoa:v:18:y:2024:i:1:p:12:n:1032. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.