Cet article compare les politiques et institutions d'innovation en Amerique Latine avec les économies et institutions des tigres d'Asie orientale et d'Europe. Nous avons constaté qu'il existe de nettes différences entre les politiques menées par les tigres et celles pratiquées en Amérique latine en ce qui concerne les ressources ainsi que l'importance prépondérante et l'organisation de la science et de la technologie, différences qui peuvent peut-être nous aider à expliquer les déceptionnantes performances économiques de la région au cours des dernières décennies. L'article suggère qu'en Amérique latine, une systématique réorganisation de la politique d'innovation est nécessaire. Les concordances des tigres incitent à penser qu'une telle réévaluation ne doit pas seulement considérer des niveaux de ressources, mais aussi de nouveaux cadres institutionnels pour privilégier, coordonner et commercialiser de nouvelles technologies génératrices de majeurs profits pour toute l'économie et la société.

Este artigo compara as políticas e instituições de inovação na América Latina com as economias e instituições dos Tigres da Ásia Oriental e da Europa. Encontramos que existem claras diferenças na política sobre recursos, priorização e organização da ciência e tecnologia entre a América Latina e os tigres, que talvez ajudem a explicar o decepcionante desempenho econômico da região nas décadas recentes. O artigo sugere que é necessária uma reorganização sistemática da política de inovação na América Latina. As concordâncias dos tigres sugerem que uma reavaliação semelhante não só deve considerar níveis de recursos, como também novos marcos institucionais para priorizar, coordenar e comercializar novas tecnologias geradoras de maiores benefícios para toda a economia e a sociedade.

This article compares innovation policies and institutions in Latin America (LA) with those of the tiger economies of East Asia and Europe. We find that there are clear differences in the resources, prioritization, and organization of science and technology policy between LA and the tigers, which may help to explain the disappointing economic performance of the region in recent decades. The article suggests that a systematic reorganization of innovation policy is needed in LA. The commonalities of the tigers suggest such a reevaluation should not only consider levels of resources, but also new institutional frameworks for prioritizing, coordinating, and commercializing new technologies for greater benefits throughout the economy and society.

Este artículo compara las políticas e instituciones de innovación en Latinoamérica con las economías e instituciones de los tigres de Asia Oriental y de Europa. Encontramos que hay nítidas diferencias en las políticas sobre recursos, priorización y organización de la ciencia y la tecnología entre Latinoamérica y las de los tigres, que tal vez ayuden a explicar el decepcionante desempeño económico de la región en las décadas recientes. El artículo sugiere que es necesaria una sistemática reorganización de la política de innovación en Latinoamérica. Las concordancias de los tigres sugieren que una similar reevaluación no solamente debe considerar niveles de recursos, sino también nuevos marcos institucionales para priorizar, coordinar y comercializar nuevas tecnologías generadoras de mayores beneficios para toda la economía y la sociedad.

The second phase of Import Substituting Industrialization, commonly known as ISI2, involved the move in Latin America to "heavy" industrialization, from around 1950-80. This period of economic history has been reviled on both the Left and the Right as being one of either heightened dependency or one demonstrating the clear failure of state intervention in the economy. In this research note, a basic statistical analysis is used to back up other descriptive claims that the ISI2 period was rather one of mixed success, with macroeconomic volatility accompanying great progress in GDP and manufacturing growth. In a sense, the ISI2 period succeeded in industrializing the large economies of the period, and contrasts favorably with the record of the succeeding paradigm of neoliberalism. This research note seeks to raise questions about the way we look at the historical period of ISI2, and suggests that a more open-minded perspective could lead to a more effective and sustainable political economy paradigm for the region in the future.