Artigo - Open Access.

Idioma principal | Segundo idioma

INCUBADORAS DE EMPRESAS E DESENVOLVIMENTO DO ECOSSISTEMA DE INOVAÇÃO: ANÁLISE DOS DIFERENCIAIS DA INCUBADORA EM REDE DO INSTITUTO FEDERAL DO ESPÍRITO SANTO

BUSINESS INCUBATORS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE ECOSYSTEM OF INNOVATION: ANALYSIS OF THE DIFFERENTIALS OF THE NETWORK INCUBATOR OF THE INSTITUTO FEDERAL DO ESPÍRITO SANTO

Potin, Gabriel Adolfo Gomes; Grassi, Robson Antonio; Brasil, Gutemberg Hespanha;

Artigo:

O trabalho teve como objetivo analisar o funcionamento e os resultados da Incubadora em Rede do Instituto Federal do Espírito Santo (IFES). Partindo da fundamentação teórica schumpeteriana e neoschumpeteriana, buscou-se verificar o papel de uma incubadora de empresas no desenvolvimento de um ecossistema de inovação. Com foco na gestão da incubadora e de seus Núcleos Incubadores (NI) espalhados por diversas microrregiões capixabas, foram coletados dados por meio de entrevistas e de pesquisa documental. Dentre os achados, destaca-se o papel de uma incubadora no ecossistema e os principais diferenciais da incubadora do IFES, que são: a sua atuação pioneira e às vezes como única opção viável para a introdução da cultura da incubação de empresas e da inovação nas regiões interioranas do Estado, facilitada pela atuação em rede; o amplo leque de áreas de atuação e de apoio disponibilizados pela incubadora; a original busca pela Certificação Cerne em uma incubadora em rede; e o decisivo apoio às Indicações Geográficas capixabas como instrumento de desenvolvimento regional. Foi apurado também que tal diferencial não surgiria sem o papel decisivo dos editais da Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e Inovação do Espírito Santo (FAPES), que proporcionaram uma forma acessível e efetiva de se contratar recursos humanos e equipar os NIs. Por fim, conclui-se que este modelo de apoio público a incubadoras pode ser replicado facilmente em outras Unidades da Federação, contribuindo para a massificação do empreendedorismo inovador na economia brasileira.

Artigo:

This work aims to analyze the functioning and results of the Network Incubator of the Federal Institute of Espírito Santo (IFES). Based on the Schumpeterian and neo-Schumpeterian theoretical foundation, we sought to emphasize the important role of a business incubator for any innovation ecosystem. Focusing on the management of the incubator and its Incubator Nucleus (NI) spread across several microregions of Espírito Santo, data were collected through interviews and documentary research. Among the findings, it is highlighted that the main differentials of the IFES incubator are: its pioneering work and sometimes as the only viable option for the introduction of the culture of business incubation and innovation in the interior regions of the State, facilitated by its work in network; the wide range of areas of action and support provided by the incubator; the original quest for Cerne Certification in a networked incubator; and the decisive support for Espirito Santo's Geographical Indications as an instrument of regional development. It was also found that such a difference would not arise without the decisive role of the notices of the Espírito Santo Research and Innovation Foundation (FAPES), which provided an accessible and effective way to hire human resources and equip the NIs. Finally, it is concluded that this model of public support for incubators can be easily replicated in other Federation Units, contributing to the massification of innovative entrepreneurship throughout the Brazilian economy.

Palavras-chave: Inovação; Ecossistema de Inovação; Incubadora de Empresas; Desenvolvimento Regional; Espírito Santo,

Palavras-chave: Innovation, Innovation Ecosystem, Business Incubator, Regional development, Espírito Santo,

DOI: 10.5151/vi-enei-831

Referências bibliográficas
  • [1] ANVISA - Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Resolução da Diretoria Colegiada - RDC Nº 60. Disponível em: https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/saudelegis/anvisa/2014/rdc0060_10_10_2014.pdf. Acesso em 20 jan 2020.
  • [2] ARELLANO, M.; BOND, S. Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations. The Review of Economic Studies, v. 58, n. 2, p. 277, abr. 1991.
  • [3] ARELLANO, M.; BOVER, O. Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of Econometrics, v. 68, n. 1, p. 29–51, jul. 1995.
  • [4] BAGLIERI, D.; BELUSSI, F.; ORSI, L. Which alliance partners become attractive targets for acquisitions in biotech? Prior experience versus relational capabilities. In: Innovation, Alliances, and Networks in High-Tech Environments. [s.l.] Routledge, 2015. p. 157–185.
  • [5] BATALGI, B. H. Econometric analysis of panel data. 4. ed. England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2008.
  • [6] BAUM, C. F. et al. A new approach to estimation of the R&D–innovation–productivity relationship. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, v. 26, n. 1–2, p. 121–133, 17 fev. 2017.
  • [7] BLUNDELL, R.; BOND, S. Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, v. 87, n. 1, p. 115–143, nov. 1998.
  • [8] BOND, S.; HOEFFLER, A. GMM Estimation of Empirical Growth Models. CEPR Discussion Papers / Centre for Economic Policy Research Discussion Papers, 2001.
  • [9] CAMERON, A. C.; TRIVEDI, P. K. Microeconometrics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
  • [10] CREPON, B.; DUGUET, E.; MAIRESSEC, J. Research, Innovation And Productivi[Ty: An Econometric Analysis At The Firm Level. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, v. 7, n. 2, p. 115–158, 1998.
  • [11] CRESPI, G.; ZUNIGA, P. Innovation and Productivity: Evidence from Six Latin American Countries. World Development, v. 40, n. 2, p. 273–290, fev. 2012.
  • [12] DANZON, P. M. Economics of the pharmaceutical industry. NBER Reporter Online, 2006.
  • [13] DIAZ, M. A.; SÁNCHEZ, R. Firm size and productivity in Spain: a stochastic frontier analysis. Small Business Economics, 30(3), 315-323, 2008.
  • [14] DIESTRE, L.; RAJAGOPALAN, N.; DUTTA, S. Constraints in acquiring and utilizing directors’ experience: An empirical study of new-market entry in the pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal, v. 36, n. 3, p. 339–359, mar. 2015.
  • [15] DONZÉ, P.; IMER, R. Innovation in the global medtech industry: An empirical analysis of patent applications, 1960-2014. Osaka Economic Papers, v. 69, n. 5, 2020.
  • [16] DORASZELSKI, U.; JAUMANDREU, J. R&D and Productivity: Estimating Endogenous Productivity. The Review of Economic Studies, v. 80, n. 4, p. 1338–1383, 1 out. 2013.
  • [17] DOROCKI, S. Contemporary Trends in the Development of the Pharmaceutical Industry in the World. Studies of the Industrial Geography Commission of the Polish Geographical Society, v. 25 p. 108-131, 2014.
  • [18] FDA - Food and Drug Administration. Biological Products Definition. Disponível em: https://www.fda.gov/files/drugs/published/Biological-Product-Definitions.pdf. Acesso em 20 jan 2020.
  • [19] FERNALD, K.; PENNINGS, E.; CLAASSEN, E. Biotechnology Commercialization Strategies: Risk and Return in Interfirm Cooperation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, v. 32, n. 6, p. 971–996, 2015.
  • [20] GITTELMAN, M. National institutions, public-private knowledge flows, and innovation performance: A comparative study of the biotechnology industry in the US and France. Research Policy, v. 35, n. 7, p. 1052-1068, 2006.
  • [21] GRIFFITH, R. et al. Innovation and productivity across four European countries. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, v. 22, n. 4, p. 483–498, 2006.
  • [22] GRILICHES, Z. Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth. The Bell Journal of Economics, v. 10, n. 1, p. 92, 1979.
  • [23] HALL, B. H.; LOTTI, F.; MAIRESSE, J. Employment, innovation, and productivity: evidence from Italian microdata. Industrial and Corporate Change, v. 17, n. 4, p. 813–839, 3 jul. 2008.
  • [24] JEON, J. et al. How technological innovation affects the structure of an industry: entrepreneurship evolution in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry since 1980. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, v. 28, n. 6, p. 733–754, 2016.
  • [25] LEUNG, D., MEH, C., & TERAJIMA, Y. Firm size and productivity (No. 2008-45). Bank of Canada, 2008.
  • [26] MALERBA, F.; ORSENIGO, L. The evolution of the pharmaceutical industry. Business History, n. June 2015, p. 37–41, 2015.
  • [27] MEDTRACK. Biomedtracker: banco de dados. Disponível em: https://pharmaintelligence.informa.com/products-and-services/data-and-analysis/biomedtracker. Acesso em dez 2019.
  • [28] MCKELVEY, M.; RICKNE, A.; LAAGE-HELLMAN, J. The economic dynamics of modern biotechnology. The Economic Dynamics of Modern Biotechnology, p. 1–418, 2004.
  • [29] MOHNEN, P.; HALL, B. H. Innovation and Productivity: An Update. Eurasian Business Review, v. 3, p. 47–65, 2013.
  • [30] OCDE. Oslo Manual - Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data. 3rd. ed. Paris: OCDE Publishing, 2005.
  • [31] PISANO, G. P. The Evolution of Science- Based Business : Innovating How We Innovate. Industrial and Corporate Change, v. 19, n. 2, p. 465–482, 2010.
  • [32] RADAELLI, V. A nova conformação setorial da indústria farmacêutica mundial: redesenho nas pesquisas e ingresso de novos atores. Revista Brasileira de Inovação, v. 7, n. 2, p. 445–482, 2008.
  • [33] ROODMAN, D. How to do xtabond2: An introduction to difference and system GMM in Stata. Stata Journal, v. 9, n. 1, p. 86–136, 2009.
  • [34] SHIN, K.; KIM, E.; JEONG, E. S. Structural relationship and influence between open innovation capacities and performances. Sustainability (Switzerland), v. 10, n. 8, p. 1–18, 2018.
  • [35] TAVEIRA, J. G.; GONÇALVES, E.; FREGUGLIA, R. D. S. The missing link between innovation and performance in Brazilian firms: a panel data approach. Applied Economics, v. 51, n. 33, p. 3632–3649, 15 jul. 2019.
  • [36] TOMA, A.; SECUNDO, G.; PASSIANTE, G. Open innovation and intellectual property strategies: Empirical evidence from a bio-pharmaceutical case study. Business Process Management Journal, v. 24, n. 2, p. 501–516, 2018.
  • [37] UMEMURA, M. Globalization and Change in the Japanese Pharmaceutical Industry, 1990–2010. In: UMEMURA, M.; FUJIOKA, R. Comparative Responses to Globalization (pp. 204-226). Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2013.
  • [38] U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS. Consumer Price Index. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 20 nov. 2020.
  • [39] UGUR, M. et al. R&D and productivity in OECD firms and industries: A hierarchical meta-regression analysis. Research Policy, v. 45, n. 10, p. 2069–2086, dez. 2016.
  • [40] VAN BIESEBROECK, J. Firm size matters: Growth and productivity growth in Africanmanufacturing. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 53(3), 545-583, 2005.
Como citar:

Potin, Gabriel Adolfo Gomes; Grassi, Robson Antonio; Brasil, Gutemberg Hespanha; "INCUBADORAS DE EMPRESAS E DESENVOLVIMENTO DO ECOSSISTEMA DE INOVAÇÃO: ANÁLISE DOS DIFERENCIAIS DA INCUBADORA EM REDE DO INSTITUTO FEDERAL DO ESPÍRITO SANTO", p. 647-670 . In: Anais do VI Encontro Nacional de Economia Industrial e Inovação (ENEI): “Indústria e pesquisa para Inovação: novos desafios ao desenvolvimento sustentável”. São Paulo: Blucher, 2022.
ISSN 2357-7592, DOI 10.5151/vi-enei-831

últimos 30 dias | último ano | desde a publicação


downloads


visualizações


indexações