ERAWATCH COUNTRY REPORTS 2012: Mexico - RIO · Lorena Rivera León. ... Acknowledgements and further information: This analytical country report is one of a series of annual ERAWATCH

COUNTRY REPORTS 2012: Mexico

1

ERAWATCH COUNTRY

REPORTS 2012:

Mexico

ERAWATCH Network – Technopolis Group Belgium

Lorena Rivera León


Page 2 of 47

Acknowledgements and further information:

This analytical country report is one of a series of annual ERAWATCH reports which cover the EU Member States, Countries Associated to the EU Seventh Research Framework Programme (FP7) and, since 2011, selected third countries (ERAWATCH International).

ERAWATCH is a joint initiative of the European Commission's Directorate General for Research and Innovation and Joint Research Centre - Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (JRC-IPTS). The reports are produced, under contract, by the ERAWATCH Network.

The analytical framework and the structure of the reports have been developed by the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies of the Joint Research Centre (JRC-IPTS) with contributions from Directorate General for Research and Innovation and the ERAWATCH Network.

The report is only published in electronic format and is available on the ERAWATCH website (http://erawatch.jrc.ec.europa.eu/). Comments on this report are welcome and should be addressed to [email protected].

The opinions expressed are those of the authors only and should not be considered as representative of the European Commission’s official position.


3

Executive Summary

Mexico is a large country with a population of 114.9m inhabitants in 2012 (estimate). It is the second largest Latin American (LA) country just after Brazil, accounting for about 19.5% of all population in LA. Mexico’s GDP was €830.2b in 2011 (current prices, MXP 14,352b). The average real GDP growth for the period 2007-2011 was 1.2%, after recovering from a negative GDP growth of 6% in 2009 (OECD, 2012a). Unemployment rates have decreased in the last years, reaching 5.2% in 2011, but remain higher than the level of 4% in 2008.

Research is primarily conducted in research institutions operating under the responsibilities of the sectorial ministries; through 27 CONACYT research centres; public and private HEIs; and through private sector institutions (research centres, universities and individual enterprises). With an R&D intensity of 0.44% in 2009, Mexico has one of the lowest levels of public investment in R&D in Latin America and the second lowest in the OECD area (only higher than Chile). It is also well below the EU27 average of 1.17% in the same year. However, the approved budget exerted by the CONACYT for 2013 (€1.5b) is the largest registered in the last 8 years, representing an absolute increase of €400k compared to 2012.

Mexico’s business sector is characterised by having a low overall innovative performance. The preference for imported technology over the development of domestic innovation capacity has resulted in a lack of absorptive capacity in Mexican firms and particularly in SMEs, which hinders technology diffusion and transfer. Moreover, industries classified as high technology do not invest significantly more in R&D and innovation than those in lower technology categories.

Following the Presidential elections in 2012, the Special Programme for Science, Technology and Innovation (PECiTI) 2012-2037 will govern the current period and it is the first with a policy horizon of 25 years. From now on, the plan will be updated every three years and more flexibility will be given to evaluate and adapt its objectives. A larger focus is given to science for society and better inclusion and interactions between the public and the private sectors, as well as regional development and the decentralisation of S&T activities. It is expected that more schemes will be implemented in the future to generate innovative behaviours and creativity, entrepreneurship, and encouraging patenting and processes that would increase the country’s competitiveness and stimulate industry-science links.

Also as a consequence of the Presidential elections, the landscape for S&T policies has been slightly modified, with a new appointed head to the CONACYT and the creation of the Coordination Unit for Science, Technology and Innovation of the Mexican Presidency in April 2013.

Despite the efforts of the Mexican government in increasing the number of HRST and researchers, the levels have remained rather static in the last years. Together with a lack of absorptive capacity from the private sector, there is still not enough critical mass in the knowledge base that can translate into spill over to the productive sector.

The increase in international co-operation, notably with the EU, is a strategic element of the national policy and seen as a good way to pursue excellence. The Agreement for Scientific and Technological cooperation between Mexico and the European Union was renewed for the period 2010-2015 and constitutes a solid agreement to continue S&T collaboration between both parties. This has contributed to the limited opening up of the system, since it is almost exclusively focused on individual researchers, and the efforts are very modest in attracting foreign talents that contribute to strengthening the knowledge base. Bureaucracy, lack of managerial capacity, and the lack of co-ordination between funding organisations constitute a risk for the successful implementation of policies needed to tackle the country’s challenges.

The following table gives a short assessment of the interaction between different policies in place in the knowledge triangle.


4

Knowledge Triangle Recent policy changes Assessment of strengths and

weaknesses Research policy

Programmes created for stimulating entrepreneurship by researchers, PROs, and the private sector, and promoting knowledge circulation among all stakeholders in the RTDI system.

- The level of public support of R&D has been steady at low levels.

- National R&D investment targets are still not met. + For the first time in years, industry employed the largest share of researchers in 2011 (41%).

Innovation policy

The current strategic plan of S&T policy consolidates research and innovation under a single policy framework.

New measures for fostering HEI-industry linkages and promoting intermediate institutions that facilitate linking the private sector to academia and other public sector organisations.

+ Increased focus on the business sector and R&D and innovation.

- Low efforts for creating adequate framework conditions in support of business innovation.

- Lack of clear objectives that result in a large variety of weakly financially endowed funds, and overlapping instruments.

- Credibility issues for enterprises when engaging in co-operation projects and agreements with PRCs given the governance structures.

- Direct support programmes have suffered from major governance weaknesses, co-ordination problems in managing institutions, dilution of responsibilities and fragmentation.

- Most of the available instruments are focused on post R&D activities (i.e. commercialisation)

- Institutional and structural weaknesses continue to affect the Mexican innovation system.

Education policy

Education policies have suffered from important budgetary cuts.

- Higher Education expenditures in R&D have considerably decreased in the last years.

- Lack of critical mass in the knowledge base (HRST and researchers).

- Growing pressure for shifting public resources from tertiary levels to elementary education levels.

Other policies

Recent creation of the Venture Capital Programme of the Fund of Funds aiming to generate venture capital resources from several public development agencies which can operate jointly with private venture capital funds.

- Intellectual Property Rights enforcement does not adequately protect the generated knowledge, notably in relation to the existence of ‘free riding’ practices, and the absence of intermediate organisations that distribute and diffuse the generated knowledge.

+/- Risk capital is limited. However, new instruments have been put in place, notably in support of SMEs such as the Venture Capital Programme.

The following table gives a short assessment of the national policies/measures.


5

Assessment of the national policies/measures Objectives Main national policy changes

over the last year Assessment of strengths and weaknesses

1 Labour market for researchers

Continuous importance given to academic professionalization policies, and the mobility of researchers (nationally and abroad).

- The number of researchers and HRST has remained nearly unchanged in the last years and the levels remain very low.

- The basic salary of Mexican researchers is very low.

- Working conditions are very fragile.

+/- Low-intersect oral mobility of researchers. However, it is growing in importance at the policy level.

2 Research infrastructures

There is a slight increase in the public resources allocated to financing scientific and technological infrastructure.

Policies supporting the decentralisation of S&T activities and capacities, seek to increase the contribution of Mexican states to the financing of infrastructures.

The CONACYT has launched an information system on available research infrastructures in Mexico: the National Information System on Scientific and Technological Infrastructure (SNIICyT).

+/- There is no roadmap for the building of new research infrastructures. However, the launch of the SNIICyT is a step forward towards achieving a national infrastructures policy.

- Despite recent policy attention, technological infrastructure is insufficient and one of the main weaknesses of the RTDI system.

3 Strengthening research institutions

Total funds spent on universities have increased modestly in the last years; the increases only match the growth of students’ enrolments.

- There are no specific criteria or quality-related indicators for the allocation of block funds for public universities.

- Low public funds available for research.

+/- The quality and reputation of Mexican HEIs is regarded as high in the Latin American region, but remains poor at international level.

4 Knowledge transfer

Instruments have been put in place for promoting the linkages between the private sector, HEI and PROs (including inter-sectoral mobility).

- Public-private knowledge transfer is limited.

+/- There is no appropriate articulation and linkages between actors in the RTDI system. However, increased importance is given at policy level.


6

+/- Lack of intermediary institutions that promote knowledge transfer and technology upgrading services. However, increased importance is given at policy level.

- Policy measures supporting technological parks and incubators have had limited impact and are weakly funded.

5 International R&D cooperation with EU member states

Mexican-EU cooperation on S&T continues to be reinforced.

CONACYT promotes the national participation in inter-governmental research infrastructures, particularly with EU countries.

- The capacity to open up R&D programmes and benefit from foreign talent is not exploited.

+ Mexican participation in the EU’s Framework Programme (FP) for RTD has almost tripled between FP6 and FP7.

+ Numerous existing institutional bilateral agreements with EU countries.

+ Specific formalised agreements with research organisations in France and Spain.

6 International R&D cooperation with non-EU countries

Increased importance given to coordination of S&T priorities and policies in the Latin American and Ibero-American regions.

Growing number of bilateral cooperation agreements focusing on the mobility of researchers and joint financing of research projects.

+ Important number of bilateral and multinational agreements in S&T co-operation with non-EU countries.

+/- Closer cooperation on S&T issues with Asian countries (i.e. China, Japan, Singapore), however still to be further developed and formalised.


7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 9

2 PERFORMANCE OF THE NATIONAL RESEARCH AND INNOVATION SYSTEM AND ASSESSMENT OF RECENT POLICY CHANGES ........................................... 10

2.1 MAIN POLICY OBJECTIVES / PRIORITIES, SOCIAL AND GLOBAL CHALLENGES ......................................................................................................................... 10

2.2 STRUCTURE OF THE NATIONAL RESEARCH AND INNOVATION SYSTEM AND ITS GOVERNANCE .......................................................................................... 11

2.3 RESOURCE MOBILISATION ......................................................................................... 13 2.3.1 Financial resource provision for research activities (national and regional mechanisms) ................................................................................................ 13 2.3.2 Providing qualified human resources ............................................................. 17 2.3.3 Evolution towards the national R&D&I targets ............................................ 18

2.4 KNOWLEDGE DEMAND .............................................................................................. 20

2.5 KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 22 2.5.1 Quality and excellence of knowledge production .......................................... 22 2.5.2 Policy aiming at improving the quality and excellence of knowledge production ............................................................................................... 22

2.6 KNOWLEDGE CIRCULATION ...................................................................................... 23 2.6.1 Knowledge circulation between the universities, PROs and business sectors ......................................................................................................... 23

2.7 OVERALL ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................. 24

3 NATIONAL POLICIES FOR R&D&I .................................................................................. 25

3.1 LABOUR MARKET FOR RESEARCHERS .................................................................... 25 3.1.1 Stocks of researchers ...................................................................................... 25 3.1.2 Providing attractive employment and working conditions ........................... 25 3.1.3 Open recruitment and portability of grants .................................................. 26 3.1.4 Enhancing the training, skills and experience of researchers ....................... 26

3.2 RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURES ................................................................................ 27

3.3 STRENGTHENING RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS ........................................................ 28 3.3.1 Quality of National Higher Education System .............................................. 28 3.3.2 Academic autonomy ....................................................................................... 29 3.3.3 Academic funding .......................................................................................... 30

3.4 KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER ............................................................................................. 31 3.4.1 Intellectual Property (IP) Policies .................................................................. 31


8

3.4.2 Other policy measures aiming to promote public-private knowledge transfer ..................................................................................................... 31

3.5 ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................ 32

4 INTERNATIONAL R&D&I COOPERATION ..................................................................... 33

4.1 MAIN FEATURES OF INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION POLICY ........................... 33

4.2 NATIONAL PARTICIPATION IN INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS AND SCHEMES ........................................................................................ 34

4.3 COOPERATION WITH THE EU ................................................................................... 34 4.3.1 Participation in EU Framework Programmes ............................................... 35 4.3.2 Bi- and multilateral agreements with EU countries ...................................... 37

4.4 COOPERATION WITH NON EU COUNTRIES OR REGIONS ..................................... 39 4.4.1 Main Countries ............................................................................................... 39 4.4.2 Main instruments ........................................................................................... 39

4.5 OPENING UP OF NATIONAL R&D PROGRAMMES ................................................... 40

4.6 RESEARCHER MOBILITY ............................................................................................ 40 4.6.1 Mobility schemes for researchers from abroad ............................................. 40 4.6.2 Mobility schemes for national researchers ..................................................... 41

5 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 42

6 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... XLIV

7 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... XLVI


9

1 INTRODUCTION

The main objective of the ERAWATCH International Analytical Country Reports 2012 is to characterize and assess the evolution of the national policy mixes of the 21 countries with which the EU has a Science and Technology Agreement. The reports focus on initiatives comparable to the ERA blocks (labor market for researchers; research infrastructures; strengthening research institutions; knowledge transfer; international cooperation). They include an analysis of national R&D investment targets, the efficiency and effectiveness of national policies and investments in R&D, the articulation between research, education and innovation as well as implementation and governance issues. Particular emphasis is given to international research cooperation in each country.


Page 10 of 47

2 PERFORMANCE OF THE NATIONAL RESEARCH AND INNOVATION SYSTEM AND ASSESSMENT OF RECENT POLICY CHANGES

2.1 MAIN POLICY OBJECTIVES / PRIORITIES, SOCIAL AND GLOBAL CHALLENGES

The Special Programme for Science Technology and Innovation (PECITI) is the framework document and planning instrument for science, technology and innovation (STI) policy in Mexico. The PECITI 2012-2037 will govern the current period and it is the first with a policy horizon of 25 years, in contrast to its predecessors with a horizon of only six years linked to the Presidential elections’ political cycle. In addition, it will be updated every three years and more flexibility will be given to evaluate and adapt its objectives. Despite its expected launch by the end of 2012, the PECITI 2012-2037, by mid-2013 it is still under design and public consultations are being held in order to contribute to its final structure.

In January 2013, the Advisory Forum for Science and Technology (FCCyT) published a series of proposals in order to contribute to the design of the PECITI 2012-2037 (FCCYT, 2013). The proposals suggest that the methodology for identifying national strategic S&T objectives should be based on the principles of a long-term vision; having an approach that recognises the different governance levels (national, regional and local); taking into account the S&T governance system; favouring ex-ante social inclusion; and increasing the role of the government as facilitator, coordinator, promoter and evaluator of the accomplishment of the national objectives.

To endorse the new government’s approach for S&T, the strategic document “Towards a National Agenda for Science, Technology and Innovation” was written by about 60 Mexican institutions and submitted to the President, the Congress, and the local governments in September 2012. The most important recommendations included in the document are:

Science should be a national priority;

Specific national and regional objectives should be defined, in response to the major challenges of the country, social needs and future strategic knowledge issues;

A medium and long-term planning strategy should be consolidated in order to promote and achieve the national strategic objectives, and through active participation of all relevant actors in the Science, Technology and Innovation system;

Transforming and expanding the STI system must be a priority, by consolidating economic, legal and organisational support mechanisms in order to establish a knowledge-based society;

In order to expand and strengthen the STI system, it should be a priority to create new research centres and public universities with clear objectives and the adequate infrastructure in order to produce quality scientific research;

A fundamental objective should be to consolidate the linkages between science and higher education, and technological development and innovation in the private sector through knowledge transfer; and

The governance of the national STI system should be ensured following the Science and Technology Law, or alternatively, through the creation of a special Ministry that coordinates the national efforts on Science and Technology.


11

The use of S&T for solving societal challenges is strongly addressed in the PECITI’s design as a priority. It is proposed to give more emphasis to the social appropriation of science, technology and innovation. Even though there is no specific list of challenges at national level, some of the most frequently mentioned are security, environment, transport, water, renewable energies and human rights.

Societal challenges have been referred to in the framework of international co-operation, notably with the EU and the USA. At bilateral level, S&T co-operation with the USA is mostly based on strategic themes, notably security issues following an agreement in 2008. Other strategic themes include agriculture, public health, higher education, governance, support to SMEs, the prevention of natural disasters, environmental engineering, ecology, urban and rural planning, biotechnology, nanotechnology and renewable energies (SRE, 2012).

In the framework of bilateral cooperation between Mexico and the EU, the thematic priority areas are vast and include transport; ICTs; economic and social development; biotechnology; aeronautics and space research; environment and climate change; biomedicine and health; agriculture; industrial technologies and processing; electronics, materials and metrology; and non-nuclear energy.

2.2 STRUCTURE OF THE NATIONAL RESEARCH AND INNOVATION SYSTEM AND ITS GOVERNANCE

Mexico is a large country with a population of 114.9m inhabitants in 2012 (estimate). It is the second largest Latin American (LA) country just after Brazil, accounting for about 19.5% of all population in LA. Since its enforcement in 1994, Mexico is a member of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), together with the United States of America (USA) and Canada. Mexico’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was €830.2b in 2011 (current prices, MXP 14,352b). The average real GDP growth for the period 2007-2011 was only 1.2%, after recovering from a negative GDP growth of 6% in 2009 (OECD, 2012a). Unemployment rates have decreased in the last years, reaching 5.2% in 2011, but remain higher than the level of 4% in 2008. In 2009, Mexico’s gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) was 0.44% of GDP (OECD, 2013b) well behind the EU27 average of 1.92% in the same year.

Main actors and institutions in research governance

Figure 1 offers an overview of the main actors and institutions in the Mexican research and innovation system (R&IS).

The government is the main regulating body of the R&I. The National Council for Science and Technology (CONACYT) is the most important government body in the S&T sector and is the authority responsible for ensuring inter-ministerial co-ordination of the design, financing and implementation of S&T policy. With a role that remains largely formal, the government body responsible for the design and implementation of policies is the General Council for Scientific Research and Technological Development (CGIDT) chaired by the President of the Republic, and also including the Minister of Finance, eight sectorial ministers with budgets for S&T programmes (Education, Foreign Affairs, Economy, Health, Energy, Environment, Agriculture and Communications and Transport), and four members of the Advisory Forum for Science and Technology (FCCyT). The mission of the Council is to define strategic policy orientation; promote inter-ministerial policy co-ordination; and approve S&T plans. The federal financing of S&T policy has two main channels: budgetary appropriations of sectorial ministries that fund research institutions and S&T funds or programmes; and budgetary appropriations of CONACYT financing funds, programmes and research centres. The main intermediary body formally instituted to provide science policy advice is the FCCyT. The Forum was created in 2002 in the framework of the S&T Law in order to ensure the involvement of scientific and business stakeholders in the S&T policy making process and also to facilitate consensus building.


12

Figure 1: Overview of Mexico’s research system governance structure

Source: Author, based on (Villavicencio, 2007)

Some deficiencies have been identified in relation to the institutional setting and governance of the Mexican S&T system. The FCCYT’s proposals for the PECITI identify as barriers for the correct articulation of the system the lack of functioning of the CGIDT; expenditures in R&D being consistently below of what is established in the S&T law; the existence of different visions of what the role of S&T is in promoting development which act as obstacles for the implementation and monitoring of the existing norms; and the lack of definition of the responsibilities of the different Ministries with regard of S&T activities (FCCYT, 2013). Some studies (Dutrénit et al., 2010) have also questioned the appropriate articulation and linkages between actors in the research system, notably in respect to the ‘isolation’ of the private sector. This hinders the innovation capability of enterprises.

The political changes that occurred with the Presidential elections in 2012 slightly modified the landscape for S&T policies. In the framework of this reorganisation, a new Director was appointed at the head of the National Council for Science and Technology (CONACYT) and it is being restructured as a Secretariat. Moreover, the approved budget exerted by the CONACYT for 2013 is equal to about €1.5b, which represents a relative increase of 28.6% if compared to the 2012 budget of €1.1b. This is the largest budget increase registered in the last 8 years, beyond the increase of 26.9% in 2009.

Strategic changes are also on-going in other S&T public organisations. The Coordination Unit for Science, Technology and Innovation of the Mexican Presidency was created in April 2013. One of the main priorities of this new unit is to study the legal framework, jointly with CONACYT, in order to articulate better the governance of the STI system. The Advisory Forum for S&T (FCCyT) released its proposals for a 2012-2014 work plan, focusing on the transition from a top-down approach to a more participative approach for S&T advice, review the Forum’s substantive functions and reconsider links with CONACYT to concentrate on strategic matters and achieving more autonomy. The restructuring exercise also set the definition of a new strategy to approach regions.


13

The institutional role of regions in research governance

Mexico is a federal republic divided into thirty-two federal entities (31 states and 1 Federal District). Each state is free, sovereign, autonomous and independent. Two entities promote collaboration between the state and federal levels on issues of policy priority setting and implementation of support programmes, and the decentralisation of S&T activities through the interaction of state-level councils: the National Conference of Science and Technology, and the National Network of State Councils and Organisations for Science and Technology (REDNACECYT), respectively. CONACYT has six regional offices, each in charge of several federal states. By the end of 2011, all 32 federal entities had established S&T councils; 31 had S&T state Laws; 28 had an S&T Commission; and 26 had regional Programmes for S&T. The regional S&T Councils select S&T related projects; their implementation is jointly funded by the CONACYT and the federal states.

There is an increased effort to decentralise R&D activities. However, financing is still highly concentrated spatially. According to the National Ranking on Science, Technology and Innovation 2011, total investments in STI at state-level were concentrated in the larger states, notably Nuevo León, Distrito Federal, Querétaro, Jalisco and Morelos. Regarding the investments for the development of human capital at state level, the major concentrations are in the Distrito Federal, Estado de México, San Luis Potosí, Jalisco and Nuevo León (FCCYT, 2011d).

Main research performer groups

Research is primarily conducted in research institutions operating under the responsibilities of the sectorial ministries; through 27 CONACYT research centres; public and private HEIs, and through private sector institutions (research centres and individual enterprises). The most important HEIs performing R&D, in terms of scientific outputs in the period 2005-2011, are the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), the Centre for Research and Advanced Studies (CINVESTAV), the National Polytechnic Institute (IPN), and El Colegio de México, A.C (FCCYT, 2011c).

National expenditures in S&T are divided between experimental R&D (and R&D projects); expenditures directed to human resources qualifications (i.e. post-graduate programmes); and S&T services. In 2011, 52% of all S&T expenditures were financed by the public sector, share that has increased in the last years. The business sector performs more R&D (in terms of expenditure) than the government or higher education sectors, accounting for 39% of GERD in 2011 (OECD, 2013b). The prominence of the business enterprise sector, to the detriment of public research organisations, started around 2005 and it is the consequence of the shift of R&D funds focusing on innovation, and on interactions in the knowledge triangle.

2.3 RESOURCE MOBILISATION

2.3.1 Financial resource provision for research activities (national and regional mechanisms)

Progress towards national R&D investment targets and public support for RDI

Mexico’s gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) amounted to about €3.6b (based on current national currency) in 2011. In constant prices, the level of spending has seen substantial ups and down in the last years, with its maximum growth achieved in 2010 (11.3%), and its highest decrease in 2011 (-3.2%). According to OECD data, R&D intensity (GERD as a percentage of GDP) has slightly increased between 2006 and 2010, reaching its highest levels in 2009 equal to 0.44%. According to data from the Mexican government, R&D intensity equalled 0.41% in 2011. These values are well behind the target set by the Mexican government for 2018 of achieving 1% of R&D intensity as stipulated by the Science and Technology Law (Article 9 Bis), and the General Education Law (Article 25).


14

Table 1: R&D expenditures (GERD and BERD) as a percentage of GDP (2006-2010)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

GERD/GDP Mexico 0,38% 0,37% 0,41% 0,44%

GERD/GDP EU27 1,76% 1,77% 1,84% 1,92% 1,91%

BERD/GDP Mexico 0,19% 0,18% 0,16% 0,18% 0,16%

BERD/GDP EU27 1,11% 1,11% 1,15% 1,17% 1,17% Source: (OECD, 2012b)

Main funding instruments, competitive versus institutional funding

Government funding for S&T is managed (or co-managed) by two sources: the sectoral ministries and the CONACYT. Exact figures on the division of funds in institutional and competitive funding are not easy to calculate using official government documents.

Table 2: Government expenditures in S&T by managing organisation, 2011

Government expenditures in S&T Budget 2011, Million Euros Percentage of total

CONACYT 1198 35%

CONACYT Funds and instruments 762 22% Postgraduate Scholarships Programme 276 8% National Researchers System Awards (SNI) 148 4%

FORDECYT 22 1%

Basic scientific research 48 1%

Innovation Support Programme 134 4% Complementary Funding for the renewal of scientific equipment 10 0% Other support for strengthening the scientific, technological and innovation infrastructure 5 0%

Mixed Funds 26 1% Other CONACYT Funds (including CONACYT's contribution to the Sectoral Funds) 92 3%

CONACYT Research Centres 437 13%

Ministry of Education (SEP) 933 27%

Ministry of Energy (SENER) 619 18% Ministry of Health and Social Security (SSA) 302 9% Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development, Fishing and Nutrition (SAGARPA) 151 4%

Ministry of Economy (SE) 118 3% Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) 29 1%

Other sectors/Ministries 51 1%

Total 3402 100% Source: Author, based on (CONACYT, 2012c); and (CONACYT, 2012b).


15

However, with the exception of their contributions to the Sectoral Funds, all ministries devote the vast majority of their S&T budgetary allocations to the institutional funding that finances their research institutes. Including the financing of CONACYT research centres (that accounted to about 13% of all expenditures in S&T in 2011), institutional funding represented broadly 78% of all public expenditures in S&T in 2011 (see Table 2).

Competitive funding is characterised by a large variety of financially weakly endowed and sometimes overlapping instruments. Funding is mainly co-ordinated and managed by the CONACYT, in some cases in co-operation with the sectorial ministries (i.e. sectorial funds); and the public authorities at state level (i.e. mixed funds). The most important measures by budget size are the Postgraduate scholarships programme, the National Researchers system Awards and the Innovation Support Programme.

Thematic S&T priorities are mainly implemented through the CONACYT Sectoral Funds1. As of May 2013, there are 21 sectorial funds that are jointly financed and operated between the CONACYT and the sectorial ministries in order to promote STI based on strategic needs. Their budgetary allocations are limited and in 2011, €34.7m were allocated for the funds. During the discussion on the Revenue Act 2013, strong debates were held to reallocate accumulated funds from the sectorial funds on hydrocarbons2. The efficiency of the sectorial Funds has been questioned and it has been suggested that they are replaced (OECD, 2009) given their limited focus, the multiplicity of very detailed eligibility criteria that distorts the selection process, and management and co-ordination problems.

The Innovation Support Programme has three different sub-programmes (INNOVAPYME, PROINNOVA and INNOVATEC) aimed at fostering R&D and innovation, and focusing particularly on SMEs and micro-enterprises, and on the co-operation between enterprises and between these and public research centres (PRC) and HEIs. Although the programme was only introduced in 2009, its budget has been reduced since 2010 (€142m), passing from €134m in 2011, to a budget of €108m in 2012. Even though the amount of financial resources has decreased, the number of supported projects has increased from 503 in 2009 to 543 in 2011. These reductions have been introduced despite the programme being welcomed by the OECD (2009) as an instrument that recognised the diversity of the private sector and the inadequacy of a “one-size-fits-all” approach of innovation support measures.

The Mixed Funds3 were introduced in 2001 and are the most direct instrument promoting applied research and/or innovation capacity at the state and municipal levels. Their aim is to help the articulation of federal and regional STI policies and programmes. In 2011, the Mixed Funds were equal to €56.6m, out of which 46% were CONACYT funds (CONACYT, 2012a). The total budget for the 2001-2012 period accounted for €434m, of which 45% came from the state governments and 55% from the CONACYT. In terms of regional distribution, Nuevo León is the state that receives the largest share of funds (13.6%). The Mixed Funds are a valuable means of federal/state co-ordination. In the period 2002-2012, 66% of all funded projects focused on applied research, followed by technology development (28%) and fundamental research (6%).

A recent impact evaluation by the FCCyT on the Mixed Funds has found that the increase of available funds in the last years went hand in hand with an improved overall management of the funds, leading to better results. Moreover, 49% of funded projects have developed product’s prototypes and/or are in production phases, and are usually accompanied by complementary activities such as technical assistance, patent applications and scientific publications (FCCYT, 2011b). At the occasion of the 10 years of the implementation of the Mixed funds, the CONACYT published several studies (e.g., Marco Estratégico de Difusión

1 See also ERAWATCH Research Inventory, Mexico Country Fiche: http://erawatch.jrc.ec.europa.eu/erawatch/opencms/information/country_pages/ 2See: http://noticias.universia.net.mx/ciencia-nn-tt/noticia/2013/01/10/992709/aumenta-presupuesto-destinado-ciencia-tecnologia.html (in Spanish) 3 Also called “Joint Funds”, or in Spanish, “Fondos Mixtos”, deserve their name for being a budgetary “mix” of CONACYT funds and State funds, as well as joint effort between the federal and the state/municipal levels for their implementation.

http://www.conacyt.gob.mx/FondosyApoyos/Mixtos/Paginas/Publicaciones.aspx

http://noticias.universia.net.mx/ciencia-nn-tt/noticia/2013/01/10/992709/aumenta-presupuesto-destinado-ciencia-tecnologia.html

http://noticias.universia.net.mx/ciencia-nn-tt/noticia/2013/01/10/992709/aumenta-presupuesto-destinado-ciencia-tecnologia.html


16

de Resultados) with the aim to disseminate results of the projects implemented in regions’ based on a joint dissemination effort by the FFCYT, the CONACYT and the REDNACECYT. According to the latest report released by the CONACYT on Mixed funds, the programme has enabled to better take into account the States needs and encouraged an increased intersectoral and interagency collaboration. This has resulted in more co-investment across States and tackling joint problems across sectors. The programme enabled an intense process of structural change within the States. A two-volume study on the impacts of Mixed Funds in regional development was also recently published in the same context. The report presents a general overview and a detailed assessment of impacts of the programme per region. The programme benefitted the States not only through direct support but a structural effect occurred leading to build a strong partnership between the Federal level and the States.

Recent policy changes affecting the funding of research

The current policy mix gives an increased importance to innovation and the role of the business sector in the articulation of the S&T system. New programmes have been created for stimulating innovation and entrepreneurial activities in public research centres and the private sector, and to stimulate researchers to become entrepreneurs; and promoting intermediate organisations that facilitate the linkages between industry, academia and the public sector (i.e. Innovation Support Programme).

Mechanisms to build mutual trust between science and society

Building mutual trust between science and society has increased in importance in the last years. It is part of the 20 strategic areas set by CONACYT on Science and Society (priority 3) and civil society and democracy (priority 20). Most of the efforts are directed towards the diffusion of scientific results and the promotion of a “scientific culture” in Mexican society. One of the main events focusing on the diffusion of science in society is the National Week of Science and Technology (SNCyT), organised every year in a different Mexican state, and with a different thematic focus. The target audience is children and young people, and the activities generally include the presentation of scientific results, interactive workshops, concerts, and S&T exhibitions. In 2011, the focus of the Week was on Chemistry. It was estimated that more than 4 million people attended various events during the Innovation Week. In order to gain a better understanding of the public perceptions, interest in and citizen empowerment through science is surveyed by the ENPECYT, the latest being conducted in 2011.

The FCCyT recently launched an interactive online platform - InteraCTIv@ - aiming at gathering citizens and experts to discuss about Science and Technology issues. It offers six thematic virtual discussion rooms that are monitored by members of the FCCyT board and experts from various fields. Participation of the private sector is particularly welcome.

Funding for societal challenges

The use of S&T for solving societal challenges is slowly starting to be addressed and is gaining political attention. The most important challenges at national level are related to the environment – including renewable energies, transport, water, and the management and alleviation of natural disasters. At bilateral and multilateral levels the key challenges are security, environment and climate change, and the fight against organised crime (see section 2.1 Main policy objectives/priorities, social and global challenges).

http://www.conacyt.gob.mx/tecnologica/estimulo/Paginas/default.aspx


17

2.3.2 Providing qualified human resources

National context

The number of full-time equivalent R&D personnel was 83,641 in 2009, out of which 51% were researchers. In 2010, this number reached 57% of the total R&D personnel. Between 1993 and 2010, the average annual growth rate was 6.6% for researchers and 6.2% for total R&D personnel (RICYT, 2012). Industry employed the largest share of researchers in 2011 (41, 09%), followed by HEIs (36.19%), and to a lesser extent by the government sector (19, 85%). Similar to the period 2004-2007, in 2011 the largest share of researchers was employed by industry.

The supply of HRST increased by about 421,ooo people in 2010 (tertiary education graduates), and the total HRST was about 2.7 million people in 2009, which represents an increase of 26% relative to the levels in 2002 (CONACYT, 2011b, ANUIES, 2002, ANUIES, 2009). The number of researchers per thousand labour force was of only 0.91 in 2009, which is slightly above the Latin American average (0.83), but behind Argentina (2.66) and Brazil (1.25) (RICYT, 2012). These levels are one of the lowest in the OECD. In 2006, 53% of all HRST were men. The gender gap has decreased in comparison to the levels of 1997, where 58% of all HRST were male.

Despite the considerable increases in the number of HRST, the total volume is still insufficient for influencing the innovative capacities of enterprises, or even those of HEIs and PRCs (Dutrénit et al., 2010). The bulk of the labour force is largely unskilled or low skilled

Articulation of education policies within the knowledge triangle

During the last two decades, the Mexican government has reinforced all programmes and launched new ones for stimulating the training, increase and retention of HRST. The most important is the CONACYT post-graduate scholarship Programme that has been in place for more than 30 years. Other relevant programmes supporting the increase in quality and the training of HRST are the National Researchers System (SNI) awards; the Excellence Postgraduate Programme (PNPC); the Institutional Consolidation Programme (PCI) promoting the repatriation of HRST; and the Professorial Improvement Programme (PROMEP).

The post-graduate scholarship programme is the most important source of funding for Mexicans wishing to pursue postgraduate studies in Mexico or abroad, also supporting the mobility of researchers. Since its creation, it has benefited more than 150,000 students. In 2011, 20,141 new scholarships were granted - 5% less than in 2010. The total number of benefiting students was 40,596 in 2011. The growth rates of scholarships have been high: between 2001 and 2004 the increase was 43% and between 2007 and 2011, it reached 57%. Around 65% of all national scholarships were granted for studies in institutions outside the Mexican capital of Mexico City, showing a more regionally balanced distribution.

The SNI was launched in 1984 by Presidential decree, in order to mitigate the effects of worsening remuneration of researchers and their working conditions, and reducing the risks of brain drain, following the 1982 economic crisis in Latin America. The number of applications of membership to the SNI has grown considerably through the years. In 2011, there were 17,639 researchers registered, accounting for a growth of 5.9% relative to 2010. The funds assigned to the programme have also increased considerably from €87.4m in 2007 to €156m in 2011. The system has been effective in improving the productivity of Mexico’s science system, especially in increasing the volume of scientific production and its quality; contributing to the number and density of internationally recognised Mexican researchers; developing a quality research base; and ensuring the attractiveness of research careers (OECD, 2009). It has contributed to prevent brain drain, and the affiliated researchers play a central role in increasing the scientific productivity of the country, particularly in supporting the excellence postgraduate programme PNPC. Among its main limitations, is the fact that the SNI looks at performance of researchers based on number of publications, instead of

http://www.conacyt.gob.mx/Becas/Calidad/Paginas/Becas_ProgramasPosgradosNacionalesCalidad.aspx


http://promep.sep.gob.mx/


18

promoting the training of new researchers, the involvement of researchers in teaching activities, technological development and innovation?

The performance evaluation 2009-2010 of CONACYT’s Programmes, by the National Council for the Evaluation of Social Development Policies (CONEVAL) provides a thorough characterisation of the SNI, and presents recommendations for improvement. The external evaluators highlighted as one of the main strengths of the SNI the compilation of a very complete database of national researchers that could be used for linking them to the private sector or other organisations. The main challenge is ensuring fixed criteria, that are public and transparent, and that depend less on subjective criteria for granting affiliation, notably through commissions with changing memberships.

The PNPC is jointly managed by the CONACYT and the Ministry of Education in order to ensure the quality of postgraduate studies (Master, Doctorate and specialisation levels) in HEIs. In 2011, 1,374 programmes were registered in the Excellence Postgraduate Programme, representing a 5.3% increase from 2010. In the same year, the majority of registrations were in Master degree programmes (57%), followed by Doctorate Programmes (31%), and Specialisation Programmes (12%). The total number of registrations increased 110% in the period 2007 2011. The growth in the number of registered programmes has influenced the increase in the number of national post-graduate scholarships (in comparison to international), and strengthened the local production of knowledge.

Main societal challenge

Mexico has a supply and demand problem that creates imbalances in the national market of HRST. The most important of the problems is the low supply of PhDs. This problem requires changes to education and employment policies favouring a higher flow of enrolment and graduation of PhDs. In addition, low demand in HRST is influenced by the lack of managerial skills in a large majority of enterprises that hinder their capacity to absorb technology and the willingness to invest in innovation.

2.3.3 Evolution towards the national R&D&I targets

Evolution of BERD

For the last available time series, business expenditures in R&D (BERD) intensity in Mexico has remained very low and steady in comparison to OECD standards (see Table 1). In 2010, BERD as a percentage of GDP was equal to 0.16% showing a decrease from its peak in 2006 (0.19%). BERD data is not available by sector of performance. Total BERD financed by industry was equal to 82.2% in 2010, followed by the government with 14.5%, financing from abroad with 3.2%, and other national sources with 0.07%. The share of BERD financed by government has increased considerably in the last years from its low levels of 2.6% of total in 2003. The level of BERD as a percentage of value added in industry was of only 0.21% in 2010. Compared to the OECD average, the structural composition of BERD in 2009 shows that it is relatively concentrated in medium-high and low-technology manufacturing and low knowledge-intensive services with a relative absence of business expenditure on R&D in knowledge-intensive services and high-tech manufacturing (OECD, 2013a). As a consequence, the high-tech sector in Mexico does not have a role in the dissemination of knowledge and technology and in the formation of technology-based value chains. Moreover, business-financed R&D in Mexico has historically been very responsive to the business cycle (OECD, 2010), and as a consequence it was affected by the global financial crisis.

Public expenditures in S&T are giving an increasing focus to leveraging private sector investments. At central level, the CONACYT and the Ministry of Economy are the main sources of support for business R&D and innovation


19

Barriers and risks for attaining the national business R&D investment targets

Mexico’s business sector is characterised by having a low overall innovative performance. The World Bank’s Enterprise Survey (2010) identified as main obstacles to all businesses the informal sector (viewed as unfair competition by formal businesses), tax rates, and access to finance (WorldBank, 2011). The preference for imported technology over the development of domestic innovation capacity has resulted in the lack of absorptive capacity in Mexican firms and particularly in SMEs, which hinders technology diffusion and transfer (OECD, 2009). Product market competition is also weak in many sectors (i.e. state owned monopolies dominating in electricity and oil production), which locks entries of new enterprise and SME growth (OECD, 2013a).

The low levels of qualifications of the workforce and in the management structures, the lack of leadership qualities – particularly in SMEs – and entrepreneurial orientation in the young population are other factors affecting the lack of capacity to introduce and manage innovative activities. Counteracting this implies a need for more business management training, and paying greater attention to entrepreneurship education (OECD, 2013a). Risk capital is almost non-existent and thus innovative enterprises have limited sources of available capital for financing their R&D activities. Tax rates and access to finance are also considered of particular concern to businesses, especially SMEs and micro enterprises. The tax system is not only perceived as very complex, but Mexico has also one of the highest corporate tax rates in the OECD with 30%.

Some authors (Dutrénit et al., 2010) argue that the main distortion that prevents innovation activities in enterprises is economic instead of technological: the activities that generate the most revenue in the short run are industrial and thus are not directly linked to innovation. Hence, enterprises have no real long-term incentives in investing in R&D. Mexico’s main challenge is to establish supportive conditions for innovation through different channels, including education and environments enabling competition sustained by a strong regulatory framework (OECD, 2010).

Improvements occurred regarding for example the ease to start a business, In 2010, the average number of days for registering was lower in Mexico than the OECD average, showing great improvements since 2003 (OECD, 2013a).

Policy Mixes towards increased private R&D investment

As shown in Table 1, a limited number of funds are directed to increasing the competitiveness of enterprises through innovation and R&D. The focus of public expenditures in S&T continues to be concentrated on the development of human resources, and in increasing the productivity of basic and applied research and research infrastructure. There is a low budget allocation committed to promote R&D investment in enterprises. The most important instrument at national level for fostering private R&D investment is the Innovation Support Programme, representing 4% of all government expenditures in S&T in 2011. There are other support measures managed and funded solely by the Ministry of Economy, such as the PROSOFT Programme, the SME Fund, and the business accelerators Initiative while the Technological and Innovation Trust Sectoral Fund (FIT) is managed jointly by the Ministry of Economy and the CONACYT.

The current policy mix has many design problems. Most of the available instruments are focused on post-R&D activities (i.e. commercialisation) and in innovation activities not linked to R&D. For example, the Innovation Support Programme, created as an alternative to the R&D fiscal incentive system (expired in 2008), focuses mostly on the development of SMEs' technological and innovation potential, and not properly in the development of new technologies.

Additionally, most of the programmes existing in the last 10 years supporting private investment in R&D, were non-selective, only lasted for a few years, and had highly volatile budgets and governance rules and regulations (FCCYT, 2013). The currently available


20

instruments are directed at enterprises with R&D and innovation capacities, but there are no instruments focusing on increasing the stock of enterprises investing in R&D. Finally, there is a lack of explicit articulation and complementarities between instruments, which results in overlaps (e.g., the Innovation Support Programme, as mentioned before).

Programmes managed by a single institution (i.e. the PROSOFT Programme and the SME Fund) are in terms of co-ordination and in terms of outcomes4 more efficient.

The impact of initiatives such as the Sectoral Fund of the Ministry of Economy-CONACYT FIT - supporting R&D and innovation of new products, processes, services or materials - has been hindered by excessive eligibility criteria and co-ordination problems between the co-managers. Although the fund has been successful in creating positive links between the private sector, HEIs and PRCs, the available funds do not satisfy the large demand.

Innovation-oriented procurement policies

In 2009, the Inter-American Development Bank characterised Mexico, together with Chile and Brazil as leaders in Latin America in the transformation and innovation of public procurement. Mexico has implemented reforms to several laws and allowed the transparency of public procurement and acquisitions mainly through the service Compranet. This service was implemented in 1997 at federal level, and was soon expanded to other levels of government and institutions.

However, the Intersectoral Committee for Innovation of the Ministry of Economy highlighted recently the lack of information with respect to innovation components in public procurement and urged for the implementation of proper innovation-oriented procurement policies (Economía, 2011).

Other policies that affect R&D investment

In some areas of the business environment that affect the propensity of firms to innovate, advances have not met expectations (OECD, 2009). Mexico has adapted its Intellectual Property Law in order to comply with international standards. However, there is a lack of private intermediate organisations such as “technology brokers” for promoting knowledge transfer and providing technology-upgrading services. Available instruments, such as the AVANCE National patents and – to some extent – the Innovation Support Programme, do not provide enough and efficient mechanisms in support of inventions.

Debt and equity financing is difficult, particularly for SMEs. Mexico is characterised for having low levels of equity, partially due to the financial habits of SMEs to rely predominantly on internal resources. Available risk capital is very limited, and the available instruments do not remedy this lack. The government’s most important instrument in response to the lack is the National Credit Guarantee Programme operated by the NAFIN development bank and funded through the SME Fund of the Ministry of Economy.

2.4 KNOWLEDGE DEMAND

The industrial structure of Mexico is dominated by micro-enterprises and SMEs operating in the services sector and in the low-and-medium technology manufacturing sectors. The export-oriented manufacturing sector (maquila industry and special export regimes) is of great importance. It is well known however that these do not require high levels of local added value, and hence do not have positive spillovers in support of innovation and R&D activities in enterprises.

4 For more details, see ERAWATCH Analytical country report 2011 – Mexico: http://erawatch.jrc.ec.europa.eu/erawatch/opencms/search/?tab=reports&country=mx#listado


21

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Mexico continued growing in 2011, as a result of a strategy for attracting enterprises in nine key sectors: aerospace, agri-food, automotive, medical appliances, electronics, renewable energies, creative industries, information technologies services and software. Manufacturing in the aerospace sector has increased substantially in the last years, and in the beginning of 2011 there were 241 aerospace enterprises in Mexico supplying markets in the United States, Canada, Germany and France. The green energies sector is also peaking, and FDI is focusing on the generation of energy, manufacturing of equipment and components, production of bio-fuels, treatment of solid waste, and the production of raw material for bio-fuels. The main investors are from the United States, Spain, Germany, Taiwan and Japan. However, the sectorial composition of FDI (see Table 3) reflects a relative specialisation in sectors oriented to exports and/or financial services, which are characterised for having weak linkages with other national production chains and do not create new internal capacities.

Table 3: Foreign Direct Investment by economic sector, Million Euros 2008-2011

Industry 2008 2009 2010 2011

Share of total, 2011

Manufacturing industries 5392 3973 8546 6901 49%

Financial services and insurance 2836 1761 1356 1804 13%

Trade 1275 1095 2035 1476 10%

Construction 922 506 92 1071 8%

Mass media and communication 1015 116 142 810 6%

Housing 1031 649 890 653 5%

Mining 3232 522 705 633 4% Professional, scientific and technical services 1737 270 173 478 3%

Transports, mail and warehouse 260 73 120 203 1%

Electricity, water and gas 315 44 3 157 1%

Other sectors -3 118 227 74 1%

Business support services 356 2069 484 40 0%

Agriculture 28 17 47 16 0%

Total 18397 11212 14819 14159 100% Source: Ministry of Economy, Directorate General on Foreign Investment (November 2010), as presented in (INEGI, 2011)

According to the Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012, Mexico registered one of the highest improvements in competitiveness in the regional rankings. The country has made progress in boosting competition, and in improving the regulatory framework that facilitates the establishment of new businesses. The large internal market size, fairly good transport infrastructure, sound macroeconomic policies and high levels of technological adoption have strengthened Mexican competitiveness in the last years (WEP, 2011).

New programmes have been created for stimulating entrepreneurship in research, public research centres, and the private sector; and promoting intermediate institutions that facilitate the linkages between industry, academia and the public sector. These programmes are characterised by responding to the demand of sectors (i.e. Sectoral Funds), and specific needs of the federal states (i.e. Mixed Funds). However, their budget allocations and impact remain low.


22

2.5 KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION

2.5.1 Quality and excellence of knowledge production

The Mexican research and innovation system is characterised for having low inputs in research (measured by the public funds for R&D), and a low scientific output (measured by the number of ISI publications and their citation rates). Indicators on HRST vary. The number of tertiary graduates in science and engineering is above the OECD average, accounting for 24.7% of all new degrees. In contrast, there is only one researcher per thousand employees, which is one of the lowest ratios in the OECD. Tertiary-level graduates accounted for only 18% of total employees. Moreover, Mexico has the second lowest R&D intensity in the OECD area with 0.44% in 2009. , (OECD, 2013b) .

Regarding the performance of HEIs measured by scientific production through the number of publications and citations in the period 2007-2011, Mexico was placed in 22nd position in the world rankings, representing about 0.82% of the world’s scientific production. In 2011, the number of Mexican scientific articles was estimated to be 10,449, which was 6% higher than in 2010. The academic topics that increased the most in number were Plants and Animals (13.6%), Medicine (10.3%), and Chemistry (10%) (CONACYT, 2012c). In the period 2008-2012, the Web of Knowledge database registered 49,512 Mexican publications. The number of publications in scientific journals of the ISI database increased particularly in the last years. In fact, in 2011 Mexico ranked 7th in terms of growth in scientific production worldwide. In the period 2007-2011, the scientific articles produced by Mexicans received more than 153,000 citations.

According to the Ibero-American Ranking SIR 2013, Mexico ranks 3rd in scientific production (i.e. number of scientific documents produced) in Ibero-America, just after Spain and Brazil. Taking into account the number of HEIs per country, Mexico ranks 2nd just after Brazil (269 HEIs contributing to the country’s scientific productivity). However, Mexican scientific production is highly concentrated at institutional level, with less than 10% of HEIs (23) producing more than 85% of the scientific outcomes. The most prolific Mexican HEIs are the UNAM (rank 2 in Latin America), the Centre for Advanced Studies of the IPN (11), the IPN (16), the UAM (27), and the University of Guadalajara (44) (SIR, 2013).

Mexico’s innovation outcomes are weak. In 2011, the Mexican Institute of Intellectual Property (IMPI) received a total of 14,055 patent applications, which accounts for a 3.6% decrease in comparison to 2010. Non-Mexicans filed 92.4% of all applications. The countries that filed most applications were the United States (6.182), Germany (1,252) and Switzerland (820). In 2010, only 77 enterprises obtained 15 or more patents in Mexico, out of which 41 were US-American companies (53.2% of total), followed by enterprises from Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands and France (CONACYT, 2012c). The patenting trends mirror largely the patterns of FDI in Mexico.

2.5.2 Policy aiming at improving the quality and excellence of knowledge production

The research policy evaluation culture is weakly developed. The evaluation of research activities is rare, and in many cases the exercises only involve the revision of compliance of operating rules, budgetary control, the revision of resource allocations, or the quality of the management. On the basis of the Transparency and Public Information Access Law of 2002 and the Social Development Law of 2004, and with the objective of public accountability, CONACYT performs specific performance evaluations on a few of its programmes through the National Council for the Evaluation of Social Development Policy (CONEVAL).

Regarding the evaluation of project proposals, the National System for the Evaluation of Science and Technology (SINECYT) was created in 2002 in order to give transparency to the evaluation processes and the selection of projects in programmes financed by the CONACYT. It consolidates a database of external evaluators for the selection of projects: the CONACYT

http://medusa.coneval.gob.mx/cmsconeval/rw/pages/quienessomos/index.en.do

http://www.conacyt.mx/registros/sinecyt/Paginas/default.aspx

http://www.conacyt.mx/registros/sinecyt/Paginas/default.aspx


23

registry of accredited evaluators (RCEA). In 2011, the RCEA had 20,470 registered evaluators, which corresponds to an increase of 12% relative to 2010. In addition, public research institutes, research centres, private and public enterprises and individuals wishing to become eligible for S&T public funding through CONACYT Programmes have to be affiliated to the National Registry of Scientific and Technological Institutions and Enterprises (RENIECYT). The registry is aggregated in a database that is made public through the Integrated System for information on S&T research (SIICYT).

For the quality assurance of teaching programmes at postgraduate level, the Ministry of Education and the CONACYT introduced assessment mechanisms in 2002, in the framework of the Excellence Postgraduate Programme (PNPC). Post-graduate programmes are assessed with a view to organise two types of Registers of Excellence: “International quality” and “high quality”. In 2011, 1,374 programmes were registered in the Excellence Postgraduate Programme. The majority of registrations were in Master degree programmes (57%), followed by Doctoral Programmes (31%), and Specialisation Programmes (12%). The total number of registrations increased 110% in the period 2007-2011.

At individual level, the National Researchers System (SNI) promotes and strengthens the quality of scientific and technology research and innovation. The SNI awards a grant based on the scientific outputs (mainly publications, but also including technology training, teaching and supervision of post-graduate students) of individual researchers. These are awarded by CONACYT on the basis of a peer review process, generally every three years (the initiative is further described in section 2.3.2). The number of affiliations to the SNI has grown considerably through the years: in 2011, there were 17,639 researchers registered, accounting for a growth of 5.9% relative to 2010. Between 2001 and 2011 the number of registered researchers more than doubled.

Finally, the design of R&D and innovation policy in Mexico has been historically influenced by evaluations from international panels of experts (i.e. notably the OECD).

2.6 KNOWLEDGE CIRCULATION

2.6.1 Knowledge circulation between the universities, PROs and business sectors

Although the incentives structure for academic researchers in Mexico does not favour the construction of linkages with the private sector, there is an increased importance given to innovation and the role of the business sector in the articulation of the Mexican S&T system. A monitoring report of the FCCYT of programmes and services supporting business development and knowledge circulation in Mexico identified 21 programmes that have as main objective promoting knowledge circulation between HEIs and the business sector. These programmes are managed by 8 different public and private sector organisations. These initiatives are directed towards enterprises, private and public research centres, HEIs, researchers, students and civil society organisations. Support is provided through training, technical assistance, scholarships for the insertion of researchers in the private sector, awards and grants (FCCYT, 2011a).

New programmes have been implemented to promote intermediate institutions that facilitate the linkages between industry, academia, and the public sector. The most important initiatives are the Sectoral Funds and the Mixed Funds (for both see section 2.3.3). However, most of these initiatives correspond to the final stages of R&D (i.e. post R&D and commercialisation phases), are under-funded, and have little demand from the private sector.

The Ministry of Education and the FFCyT support researchers to spend time and get inserted in enterprises, and the Ministry of Education gives grants for business incubators.

http://www.conacyt.mx/registros/reniecyt/Paginas/default.aspx

http://www.conacyt.mx/registros/reniecyt/Paginas/default.aspx

http://www.siicyt.gob.mx/siicyt/



24

2.7 OVERALL ASSESSMENT

The PECiTI, with its current long-term view of 25 years, shows a coherent approach towards research and technological development. Even though the plan itself has not been finalised for the period 2012-2037, a series of consultations organised by CONACYT and the FCCyT with all relevant stakeholders have produced a good set of ideas for the long-term design of the plan. The set of proposed objectives are ambitious and in line with previous plans, mainly focusing on giving greater focus on innovation by enterprises and in particular by SMEs; consolidating the research and innovation capacities of public research centres and HEIs – it is also proposed to increase the number of centres and institutions as well as its accessibility at regional level –, including human resources development and links with the private sector, sustaining efforts to improve S&T infrastructures and greater decentralisation of S&T and innovation activities. Moreover, regarding the governance of the system, it is proposed to ensure the overall articulation through the Science and Technology Law, or alternatively, through the creation of a special Ministry that coordinates the national efforts on Science and Technology.

Despite the changes in focus and the introduction of the most targeted policy framework to date, there have been no improvements in the resource mobilisation, and the levels of public expenditures in R&D remained very low in the Latin American region, and in international comparisons (i.e. is the second lowest in the OECD). Even though increases have been registered regarding R&D intensity, the major share of the increase came from government, while the share of the business sector has decreased.

Despite the existence of new programmes focusing on SMEs and the private sector, the demand is hindered by the structure of the productive sector and the lack of absorptive capacity in Mexican firms –i.e. R&D performed in the business sector is concentrated in large enterprises and medium-high to low-technology manufacturing. Moreover, Mexican firms have a preference for imported technologies over the development of domestic capacity. At the current low levels of HRST, there is no real critical mass in the knowledge base that can translate positive spillovers to the productive sector. The production and commercial exploitation of knowledge is difficult to increase, given the low levels of knowledge demand.

Public funding to the business sector is now direct and competitive as a response of criticisms by the OECD. The Innovation Support Programme gives strong emphasis to SMEs and promotes links to research institutes as a necessary feature. New innovation programmes financed by the Ministry of Economy have also been introduced. However, despite the progress, the available financial resources allocated to this effort are very low, and other policies obtain the essential attention of the government, including education and research policies supporting the expansion of the HRST and the researchers’ base. Despite various support measures to boost business R&D investment, the overall results have been disappointing in terms of increased expenditure and innovative outputs as measured by patent applications. Although recent policy measures have encouraged industry-science linkages, R&D expenditures financed by industry in public research centres and universities remain very low.

Furthermore, too little emphasis is given to promoting training, incremental innovations and technology and knowledge transfer that stimulate the lack of absorptive capacity in Mexican enterprises. Limitation of the policy mix might delay further the achievement of the BERD/GDP targets.


25

3 NATIONAL POLICIES FOR R&D&I

3.1 LABOUR MARKET FOR RESEARCHERS

3.1.1 Stocks of researchers

Mexico has experienced a slow increase in the number of (FTE) researchers in the last few years. In 2010, it reached 45,045 (RICYT, 2012). Between 2005-and 2010, an average growth of 2.5% can be recorded. Moreover, this only represented 0.94 researchers per thousand labour force in 2011, which is far from the EU27 average of 6.49 (OECD, 2012b).

The labour market for researchers (academic) is in need of growth. It is also a very competitive market, with a set of formal and informal rules set by experienced researchers. Competition is limited by the existence of “internal markets” in academia with barriers to entry, depending on the level of research experience and sharing of similar (academic) ideologies. The market for researchers is highly institutionalised. The research institutions define the barriers to entry, as well as the research groups and researchers susceptible of competing (Rios et al., 2010). Vacant positions are usually given to experienced researchers in the same research team, or to research assistants linked to the “old generations” inside the research institutions. Moreover, there is no open and transparent replacement strategy at the institutional or federal policy levels, which will lead to important challenges in terms of retirement and replacement in the next 5 to 10 years.

Inequalities exist in relation to gender and age. In respect to young researchers, only 20.6% of researchers under the age of 40 found an academic research position (UAM, 2010). Based on data of the SNI and a survey among researchers in four Mexican states, results show that female researchers face barriers to entry, as these only represent 32.5% of all affiliations to the SNI.

Information about the professional trajectory of Mexican faculty shows that there is a large proportion that has no work experience outside higher education (from 20.9% in 1992, to 49.3% in 2007. Authors (Galaz-Fontes et al., 2009) argue that this shows that the workspace for academics has allowed faculty members to devote themselves solely to their work. Moreover, the authors argue that the many changing processes in which Mexican faculty have been involved in the last year show a process in which the Mexican academic profession has been built.

Mexico has one of the lowest proportions of highly skilled expatriates (born in Mexico) in the OECD area (OECD, 2009). Despite this, and given the large number of Mexican emigrants (notably unskilled Mexicans seeking to immigrate to the United States), the country has a large net outflow of skilled migrants. In the period 2002-2011, the number of Mexican professionals abroad increased from 411,000 to more than 1 million people.

3.1.2 Providing attractive employment and working conditions

The base salary of academic staff in Mexico is very low and insufficient for sustaining a middle-class lifestyle (OECD, 2009). The salaries are perceived as non-competitive if compared with employment in the private sector, especially in the early career stage. In general terms, the salary of a Mexican researcher is composed of the base salary, a merit-based component, and a supplement for researchers being members of the SNI. For researchers affiliated to the SNI, the base salary usually represents only a third of the overall remuneration, whereas for non-affiliates, the merit-based supplement represents the most important part of their remuneration. This composition has negative effects with regards to their pension. In fact, this prevents many researchers in the age of retirement to stop working and vacate their position, as this implies losing about 75-80% of their total income.


26

Staff researchers (full-time and part-time personnel) of public universities and PRCs are civil servants and thus the federal laws pertaining to public servants govern the conditions of employment, remuneration and pensions. However, the pension benefits of the academic workforce are generally linked only to the base salary, which in the cases of researchers affiliated to the SNI only represents about one-third of their overall remuneration. This has negative effects on the national and international mobility of researchers, as there are few incentives for academics to retire given the significant fall in income that this would entail. This also contributes to the ageing of the researcher community in Mexico. Moreover, career structures are mostly defined at institutional level, rather than at the national level, which encourages the majority of researchers that start their careers in a given institution to remain there throughout their working life (OECD, 2009).

Recommendations by international panels of evaluators (OECD, 2009) have suggested that the non-taxable complement of the remuneration (i.e. SNI awards) should become part of the researchers’ regular salary. However, this has important implications in terms of the provision of pensions and would also require modifications to labour laws that seem unlikely to happen.

Studies showed that the labour market for researchers in Mexico is unbalanced and unequal (Rios et al., 2010). Inequalities arise at the level of salaries (which vary between €833 and €4,700 per month), barriers to entry, and career-development barriers. Women researchers account for about one third of the labour market (28% of all SNI affiliations, and 37% of all PROMEP bursaries). Although the number of women researchers has grown in recent years, the gap between men and women remained relatively constant over time. Moreover, the salaries of women researchers are 14% below the national average.

The market is geographically still very much centralised 41% of all affiliated researchers to the SNI in 2011 worked in the Distrito Federal (D.F.), the country’s capital (CONACYT, 2012b). However, significant progress has been done in decentralising the market: in 1984, 80% of all researchers affiliated to the SNI worked in the D.F. Salaries of researchers working in institutions located in the D.F. are 27% higher than the national average; whereas researchers working for institutions in any other state have salaries 38% lower than the average.

3.1.3 Open recruitment and portability of grants

Mexican permanent academic staff in public institutions has the status of civil servants. Recruitment of academic positions for any of the CONACYT research centres is made public through CONACYT’s website5. However, there are no common rules regarding competition procedures. In most of the cases, including private research centres, these respond to internal rules. In general, non-nationals are eligible for permanent research and academic positions. However, most of the academic positions require Spanish to be the main language for teaching.

The portability of grants is limited, as most of the grant agreements are signed by the HEIs or PRCs to which the researcher is affiliated and not to the researcher. It thus depends on specific institutional rules or other rules established by the funder to extend the grant.

3.1.4 Enhancing the training, skills and experience of researchers

The Mexican government has implemented academic professionalization policies and academic training since the beginning of the 1990s. Of particular importance is the Professorial Improvement Programme (PROMEP) for full-time academic staff at all institutions of higher education. The purpose of the programme is to reconstitute the academic staff of Mexican universities and facilitate its appropriate generational renewal. The

5 See (in Spanish): http://www.conacyt.gob.mx/Acerca/Paginas/Acerca_BolsaTrabajo.aspx

http://promep.sep.gob.mx/

http://www.conacyt.gob.mx/Acerca/Paginas/Acerca_BolsaTrabajo.aspx


27

programme supports four types of activities: scholarships for post-graduates nationally and abroad; the financing of full-time contracts for professors that hold a Master degree and/or PhDs; the participation of professors in academic management and training; and the integration of thematic collaboration networks of academics for financing the costs associated to publications, patent applications, and post-doctoral scholarships. The PROMEP considers different educational modalities, disciplinary specialities, and types of contracts; thus it recognises differentiated academic trajectories that require different academic training policies. Despite its relatively limited budget (€42.2m in 2010), between 1996 and 2011 the PROMEP granted about 7,741 scholarships to full-time professors undertaking post-graduate studies, out of which 62% have obtained a post-graduate degree; 26.8% obtained this degree outside Mexico. About 70.7% of all PROMEP beneficiaries were granted a scholarship for PhD studies. In the same period 5,155 grants were extended to projects for the generation and application of knowledge presented by former PROMEP beneficiaries, and 11,968 new academic positions were created for the incorporation of new full-time professors with a post-graduate degree –preferably with a PhD.

Regarding the mobility of researchers, the CONACYT post-graduate scholarship Programme is the main financing instrument (see Section 2.3.2 providing qualified human resources). Candidates for PhD scholarships are preferred over lower levels. As a sub-call of the main programme, CONACYT also supports doctorate graduates spending post-doctorate research periods abroad and sabbatical research periods. In 2010, the vast majority of scholarships were at Masters Level (60.3%), followed by PhDs (37.5%). The support for certificates and exchange periods abroad amounted to only 2.1%. In the period 2010-2012, 452 projects were supported to encourage the mobility of researchers (Estancias Posdoctorales en el Extranjero in Spanish), out of which 308 were for post-doctoral students (68%). The total number of CONACYT scholarships for studies abroad was of 4.082 in 2011 (CONACYT, 2012).

Regulatory and legal obstacles related to the civil servant status of personnel from public research institutions hinder the inter-sectorial mobility of researchers. Since 2012, as part of the Excellence Postgraduate Programme (PNPC), the Ministry of Education, together with the CONACYT launched the programme ‘Post-graduate degrees with Industry’ with the objective of finding new ways in which enterprises, HEIs and research centres jointly organise postgraduate studies that link science with industry. The 2012 call focused on applied sciences in the fields of engineering and technologies, biotechnology and agro-fishing sciences. The final beneficiaries –HEIs or public research centres, apply for obtaining a quality certification of the post-graduate degree with the characteristic of being oriented and designed jointly with industry.

3.2 RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURES

There is no national roadmap for the building of new research infrastructures in Mexico. As reflected in a recent evaluation of the Programme supporting the Strengthening and Development of Scientific and Technological Infrastructure (COLMEX, 2012), even though there have been important efforts for strengthening research infrastructures in Mexico, the investments have not been sustained and the levels have been considerably lower than the country’s global competitors (i.e. only 42% of the total investments in Spain, and 28% of investments in Brazil). Efforts to alleviate this problem are framed in the PECiTI and it is supported by actions aiming at the decentralisation of S&T activities and capacities, by which the Mexican states are to increase their contributions to the financing of infrastructures.

The government’s investment in scientific and technological infrastructure was of €102.4m in 2011 (CONACYT, 2012c), which represented a slight increase of 1.6% from 2010. The CONACYT was the actor investing the most (29.3% of total), followed by the Ministry of Education (17.7%) and the Ministry of Energy (17.5%).



28

The CONACYT has launched an information system on available research infrastructures in Mexico with the National Information System on Scientific and Technological Infrastructure (SNIICyT). The system will help in planning and investment decisions, providing up-to-date information on the available infrastructures and helping in identifying the demands of the scientific community to orientate priority areas towards a national infrastructures policy. It also helps in improving visibility of the available infrastructures and guiding researchers.

Through the Programme supporting the Strengthening and Development of Scientific and Technological Infrastructure, the CONACYT allocated €2.9m for 5 infrastructure projects in CONACYT research centres. Additionally, three specific calls for projects supporting research infrastructures were launched by the CONACYT in 2011. One providing complementary funding for the renewal of scientific equipment, funding 66 projects for a total of €9.8m; a second one focusing on complementary funding to HEIs (or groups of HEIs) for new scientific equipment, funding 17 projects for a total of €3.9m; and one focusing on supporting infrastructure for genetically modified organisms (GMOs), with a budget of €804k and supporting 15 projects.

Regarding Latin American co-operation in research infrastructures, the RedCLARA –Latin American Cooperation of Advanced Networks, is a non-profit International Law Organisation that serves as a Latin American collaboration system by means of telecommunications advanced networks for research, innovation and education. RedCLARA develops and operates the only Latin American advanced Internet network that was established for regional interconnection and that is linked to GEANT2 (pan European advanced network). Since its creation in 2003, the network empowers the work of the academic advanced networks of the region.

3.3 STRENGTHENING RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS

3.3.1 Quality of National Higher Education System

The higher education system in Mexico is composed of public and private universities, institutes, centres, normal schools (for the training of teachers) and colleges. As of 2012, there are 2,907 HEIs registered in the National Directory of Higher Education of the Mexican Association of Universities and Higher Education Institutions (ANUIES), out of which 39% are public and 61% are private. HEIs employed 36.2% of all researchers in Mexico.

Higher Education expenditures in R&D (HERD) equalled €881m in 2009, constantly decreasing since 2005 (i.e. HERD in constant prices decreased by almost 10% relative to 2005 values). Only about 13,9% of HERD is financed by industry. As a percentage of GDP, HERD has decreased from 0.11% in 2005 to 0.09% in 2007, but grew again to 0.13% in 2009.

HEIs in Mexico have several missions, including the training of human resources; undertaking scientific research; and technology and knowledge transfer, mainly through the commercialisation of research results. The main HEIs are affiliated to the Mexican Association of Universities and Higher Education Institutions (ANUIES). About 80% of all tertiary level students are enrolled in those.

Regarding the performance of Mexican HEIs, the QS University Rankings in Latin America 2012/2013 places Mexico as 2nd best country in this year’s rankings with 46 universities in the top 250, just behind Brazil with 65 universities in the ranking (QSIntelligenceUnit, 2012). Academic performance is measured through academic and employer reputation surveys in combination with data on research productivity and citations, student/faculty ratio, the proportion of PhD holding staff, and web presence. In 2008, Mexico spent only €4b on research, compared to €15b spent by Brazil. However, when it comes to the perception of Latin American academics and employers, the Mexican UNAM (overall rank 5 in LA) is the number one institution for the second year in the QS academic reputation survey, identified as the currently leading Latin American university in the way research is conducted within its field of expertise. In contrast, the Tecnológico de Monterrey (ITESM) (overall rank 7) tops

http://www.anuies.mx/





29

the employer reputation survey, in which employers from across Latin America name the institutions that they regard as providing the best graduates. This shows ITESM’s successful focus on skills-based education, as well as being well linked to other academics. In terms of scientific performance it only ranks 84th and 90th regarding the number of academic papers and citation rates respectively. The Institute Politécnico Nacional (IPN) (overall rank 16) and the Institute Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM) (rank 19), also make it to the top 20 ranking of Latin American universities.

An analysis of the Web-based indicators on the world rank of universities showed that only two Mexican universities are among the 500 top world universities: the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) in rank 70 and the ITESM in rank 460. No Mexican universities appear in the World University Rankings 2011-2012 of the Times Higher Education.

The national instrument for assuring the quality of teaching programmes at postgraduate level is the Excellence Postgraduate Programme (PNPC) (see section 2.3.2 providing qualified human resources). In 2011, 400 researchers of the National Researchers System (SNI) undertook an evaluation of 414 postgraduate programmes registered in the PNPC (around 30% of all programmes). The peer-reviewed evaluation concerned the possible extension of the registration and included the assessment of indicators of academic performance, including the quality of the study plans, the plans for the creation and application of knowledge, graduation rates that are comparable with international standards, and the linkages of the programme’s actions with other sectors (i.e. knowledge circulation).

3.3.2 Academic autonomy

Universities’ autonomy is guaranteed by the Mexican constitution. Following the decree of the Organic Law of the UNAM in 1945 that decreed its autonomy, congresses at local and state level decreed organic laws for several universities at state level. In 1980, the autonomy of universities became established in the national Constitution of Mexico, which among other principles, guarantees self-governance, the freedom of research and teaching, the self-determination of plans and academic programmes, and the rules for hiring and promoting academic personnel. Regarding the financing system, universities are free to fix academic and tuition fees, and to prepare and execute their budgets. However, they are dependent on the government for the allocation of budgets.

Nowadays, there are mainly three groups of autonomy and governance systems. The first group includes public federal and some public universities at state level that are self-governed according to their statues. The second group of public institutions includes non-autonomous state universities, technological, polytechnic and intercultural universities, and state and federal technological institutes that do not have autonomous status. These institutions have to report directly to the government through the Ministry of Education at federal level, or the Department of Education at state level. The third group are private institutions that are theoretically autonomous, but are dependent on government authorities to award them their university status and approve their academic programmes.

Regarding public research centres, these are quasi-public entities that have a certain level of autonomy as stipulated in the S&T Law. They are autonomous in terms of budget management, as well as in technical, operative and administrative aspects. In addition, following reforms to the S&T Law in 2006, the centres can now co-operate with public and private firms (i.e. including joint projects), form technology-based firms and obtain funds for research by means of self-generated resources and donations. However, they are less autonomous for the management of human resources and for the creation of spin-offs. In fact, the degree of autonomy is determined to a significant extent by the President of the Republic. The appointment of the directors of the different CONACYT research centres also remains a prerogative of the President. This generates credibility issues for enterprises and other entities when engaging in co-operation projects and agreements with the centres (OECD, 2009). There are also no clear rules regarding the sharing of proceeds of the sale of



30

intellectual property rights (IPRs) or licensing between PRC, researchers and the private sector.

Some authors (Alcántara, 2010) have questioned the real autonomy of universities, and have given terms such as “restricted autonomy” or “conditional autonomy” to the prevailing situation in Mexican universities. The problems are related to the financing of their activities and their budgetary allocations. Social policies including education policies, have suffered from important budgetary cuts in recent years. In an effort to “rationalise” limited budgets, the government allocates increasingly reduced budgets based on evaluations of the outputs generated in universities. This has made some HEIs introduce some “privatisation” measures in aspects related to the management of their activities. They are also looking for new sources of financing, including from private sector enterprises.

3.3.3 Academic funding

Mexican public HEIs obtain their revenues from four major sources: federal funding, state funding, student tuition fees and other external sources (i.e. research contracts). There is no systematic data on the shares of each type in total academic funding. However, some authors (Dutrénit et al., 2010) have estimated that public subsidies (excluding tuition fees revenues and other sources) account for 75% of all funds. Also, as an approximate of the shares, 78.3% of the overall Mexican education system in 2012 was financed by the public sector (62.3% federal and 16% state level funds) while the private sector contributed with 21.7% (SEP, 2012). In 2011, the total public funds for higher education were equal to €1.5b (down from €1.6b in 2010), which equals 16.8% of all public education funding. For the school year 2012-2013, the total amount of public funds invested per student in the higher education system was of around €3,910. Five years earlier, this amounted to €3,564

The federal funding has three components: an ordinary funding part (i.e. block or institutional funding); an extraordinary funding (i.e. targeted funding); and a part based on the annual expansion of the number of students enrolled. The most important of these components is the ordinary funding with about 90% of the total funding, covering the expenses such as personnel costs as well as funding for research. The federal government only funds federal public universities; whereas autonomous public universities at state level receive mixed funds from federal and state governments.

There are no specific criteria or quality-related indicators for the allocation of block funds. However, these normally reflect the size of the associated academic body, and most importantly, historical trends based on the lobbying power of the institutions. This produces few incentives for HEIs to improve teaching and research quality (OECD, 2009). Although the legislative power (Parliament) decides budget allocations, the federal government manages the monetary flows. Once the education budget is approved, the exact monetary allocations that HEIs receive are adjusted by ad hoc criteria determined by agreement between the federal government and each specific HEI (Varela-Petito, 2011).

The financing of Mexican tertiary education faces relevant challenges. Total funds spent in 2011 decreased after modest increases in the previous years, and these increases had only matched the growth in student enrolments. The sustainability of the heavy reliance on public money has been questioned (OECD, 2009). Moreover, HEI’s political and financial dependence on the government is accentuated in times of economic crisis and restriction on public spending. Education at lower levels has also been limited, and hence there is a growing pressure for shifting resources from tertiary levels to elementary education levels. Given the decreased availability of public funds, HEIs have introduced private sector ‘tools’ for attracting revenue, which has put in question their real autonomy (see section 3.3.2 Academic autonomy).


31

3.4 KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER

3.4.1 Intellectual Property (IP) Policies

Advances in institutional development of intellectual property rights (IPR) regimes, standards and quality certification have been limited and have not met expectations (OECD, 2009). The Industrial Property Law of 1991 is the framework legal document protecting ownership rights (inventions, patents, industrial designs, and industrial secrets) in Mexico. The laws entitling inventor rights are the Federal Law of Labour, and the Innovation Law of 2010. Inventor compensation rights are set for up to 70% of income (WIPO, 2011). However, intellectual property and industrial protection policies are not referred to in the S&T legislation (i.e. S&T Law). This disconnection makes the design of incentives and specific regulations for HEI, S&T and private sector enterprises more difficult.

Inventions involving academics are not regulated specifically. The governing bodies or PRCs are deciding individually, as a consequence of reforms to the S&T Law in 2006 (sees Section 3.3.2 Academic autonomy). The legal modifications are building on the model of high-income countries. They confer IP ownership to PRCs, spurring them to commercialise, and empowering the bodies to establish the conditions of use and to appropriate the results generated by their researchers. They can also set confidentiality rules when profitable knowledge is generated in the framework of collaborative projects involving industry. These changes were implemented in order to increase the intensity of science-industry relationships. However, its long-term impact needs still to be proved.

The demand for technological services remains low. Although CONACYT’s research centres play an important role in technology transfer, Mexico lacks intermediary institutions (i.e. technology brokers) that promote knowledge transfer and technology upgrading services.

3.4.2 Other policy measures aiming to promote public-private knowledge transfer

Public-private knowledge transfer has been growing in importance in the last years. New instruments have been put in place for promoting the linkages between the private sector and researchers, such as the Sectoral Funds and the Mixed Funds, the FIT programme, and the Sectoral Fund for Innovation.

The legal changes on the governance systems of the PRCs (see section 3.3.2 Academic Autonomy) also favour the interactions between public research institutes and the private sector. These legal changes, particularly those related to increase third party’s funding, have also contributed to the generation of channels for the commercialisation of publicly financed research.

Spinoffs and venture capital Nacional Financiera (NAFIN) is a public development bank that provides capital and financial services to enterprises that lack access to the private financial sector. NAFIN provides bank guarantees allowing firms to apply for private funding that would otherwise be impossible to access.

The Venture Capital Programme of NAFIN, funded by the recently created Fund of Funds is an initiative aiming to generate venture capital resources from several public development agencies, such as NAFIN and the Ministry of Economy that can leverage and operate jointly with private venture capital funds. Target beneficiaries are enterprises; mainly SMEs, and S&T based firms seeking equity capital investment to finance their business expansion. The programme has four components: Mexico Venture One, public matched funding to private capital funds; the development of training programmes for fund administrations in collaboration with private institutions; technical assistance and coaching for entrepreneurs; and support for the development of angel and venture capital networks.

http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/50.pdf


32

Promoting research institutions - SME interactions The Ministry of Economy has undertaken efforts to promote entrepreneurship through incubators in public and private institutions for decades. Incubators are supported by the Ministry through a programme of the SME Fund and are part of the National System of Business Incubators (SNIE). Public support for incubators in public or private institutions is provided at the development stage for the adoption of a business model and at the consolidation stage for equipment and infrastructure expenditures. Incubators generally receive support also from other entities, such as state governments or professional associations. According to the Ministry of Economy there are about 500 incubators located in 190 cities in Mexico. About 217 are traditional, 262 are medium-technology and only 21 are high-technology incubators. 13 of the centres hosting high-technology firms are located in the Federal District and the states of Mexico, Jalisco and Nuevo León.

3.5 ASSESSMENT

The Mexican government initiated measures to increase the quantity and quality of HRST and researchers. However, the number of researchers and HRST has remained almost unchanged in the last years and the current levels remain very low. This weak supply of HRST is a major bottleneck in Mexico’s research and innovation system. The amount of scholarships in higher education has increased steadily, and collaboration with the business sector is encouraged. The academic labour market for researchers is very small, competitive and with high barriers to entry. The base salary of Mexican researchers is also low, and the working conditions remain unstable. There is also a low-intersectoral mobility of researchers, despite the increased importance given to it at policy level. However, policies in support of technology transfer offices in HEIs are beginning to show positive effects on science/industry linkages.

Instruments are in place for assuring the quality of scientific and technological research, and the quality of teaching programmes at post-graduate level. The National Researchers System (SNI) continues contributing to increase Mexico’s scientific output. So far, outputs remain low and are provided from a few HEIs and public research centres only. Mexican presence in terms of internationally refereed publications has improved slightly in the last ten years. However, the outcomes are low by OECD standards, particularly in terms of output per unit of R&D expenditure and as a proportion of GDP.

Moreover, there is no critical mass of internal knowledge enabling positive spill overs for the Mexican productive system. Since 2000 the government has significantly increased its investments in S&T infrastructures. In fact, increasing the investment in research and technological infrastructures is one of the strategic objectives of the PECiTI, together with the increased contribution of Mexican states to the financing of infrastructures. Moreover, the CONACYT has launched and completed an information system on available research infrastructures to help planning and investment decisions, to improve visibility and to guide researchers.

In regards to knowledge transfer, the development of industry-science linkages is included as an additional objective for project selection in a number of innovation support programmes, and public-private-partnerships are increasingly encouraged. The support for the development of technology transfer offices aims to accelerate the commercialisation of research and facilitate the creation of spin-offs.


33

4 INTERNATIONAL R&D&I COOPERATION

4.1 MAIN FEATURES OF INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION POLICY

International co-operation is recognised as an important source of financing, and as a tool of diversification of S&T investments and technology transfer.

The Mexican government has signed several bilateral and multinational agreements in S&T co-operation. S&T Programmes in the 1990s gave emphasis to S&T co-operation with the United States and Canada (as a consequence of the North-America Free Trade Agreement), as well as the European Union and the Asia-Pacific region because of their dynamism in S&T issues. Currently, the most important is the one with the European Union – the sectorial Agreement for Scientific and Technological Cooperation signed in 2004 –, that has a strong institutional and legal framework and focuses on applied research. The most important bilateral agreements with EU countries are with Spain and France. Bilateral co-operation with other countries include those with the United States (focusing on thematic priority issues (i.e. security)), China, Japan, Brazil, Chile and France.

Bilateral co-operation between the EU and Mexico is being implemented for the period 2007-2013 and focuses on social cohesion, sustainable economy and competitiveness, and education and culture. An indicative allocation of €55m has been earmarked for the period 2007-2013, out of which 35% is allocated to the focal sector on “sustainable economy and competitiveness”. One of the areas of intervention of the focal sector is the support to SMEs, with the aim of improving SMEs’ performance in the EU market; including activities such as technology transfer to increase SMEs’ competitiveness and efficiency, and strengthening entrepreneurial cooperation.

The 5th meeting of the Mexico-European Union bilateral Steering Committee in S&T took place in November 2011 in Mexico. Specific outcomes were agreed in the areas of food, agriculture and biotechnology, where a partnering initiative will be developed on biodiversity with Latin American countries. A formalisation agreement between CONACYT and DG Research and Innovation will involve an estimated €1m by CONACYT. In addition, a workshop was organised on biodiversity in 2012. In the area of Social Sciences and Humanities, it was agreed to look at potential programme-to-programme collaborations on specific thematic subjects to be explored.

A Joint EU-Mexico statement following the EU-Mexico Summit in Los Cabos in June 2012 recognised the importance of scientific and technological cooperation. Both parties will continue harnessing opportunities and greater diffusion of the communication channels under the new Horizon 2020, especially those concerning research and innovation for the best use of the respective research infrastructures and the joint creation of innovative products in the fields such as the fight against climate change, food security and energy production. Mexico and the EU will work together in the project EU-MEX INNOVA contemplated to start in the second half of 2013, which will be the third stage of bilateral cooperation between CONACYT and the European Commission. This project will continue and consolidate the efforts of its predecessor, the UEMEXCYT project in its phases I and II.

A recent event was held under the frame of the EU-Mexico-Civil society forum. The 5th Forum of Dialogue with the theme of “Dialogue between the Civil Society and Institutions of the Mexican Government and the European Union” gathered in October 2012 various stakeholders for three workshops on the status of the implementation of the EU-Mexico global agreement in the fields of political dialogue, trade and cooperation.

In the frame of the EU-CELAC Summit in Chile, January 2013, the EU-CELAC Action Plan for 2013-2015 was presented. This Action Plan defines eight strategic areas for projects and activities to focus on: Science, Research, Innovation and technology (e.g. development of EU-LAC Knowledge area); sustainable development, environment, climate change, biodiversity, energy (e.g. work on the Lima agenda on Sustainable Development); regional integration and interconnectivity to promote social inclusion and cohesion (e.g. Forum on Social inclusion);

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_290/l_29020051104en00170024.pdf


34

migration (e.g. Structured and Comprehensive Dialogue on Migration); education and employment to promote social inclusion and cohesion (e.g programmes fostering formal employment); drugs (e.g. EU-LAC Coordination and cooperation on drugs); gender (e.g. actions for women empowerment); and investments and entrepreneurship for sustainable development (e.g. development of investment-friendly regulatory frameworks).

Societal challenges have been referred to in the framework of international co-operation, notably with the EU. At bilateral level, S&T co-operation with the USA is mostly based on strategic themes.

4.2 NATIONAL PARTICIPATION IN INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS AND SCHEMES

Mexico is part of the Ibero-American Programme for Science Technology and Development (CYTED) focusing on ICTs, health, sustainable development, energy, science and society, and industrial development. The programme promotes the dialogue between Ibero-American researchers and helps to extend the national knowledge base. The focus is on research, innovation and the exchange of knowledge and experiences. Research projects must include private sector enterprises involved in business networks –especially at Ibero-American and international levels. In the framework of the CYTED, the PhasIbeAm project – co-funded by the Ministry of S&T and Productive innovation (Argentina), the National Council for S&T development (Brazil), the Ministry of Science and Technology (Spain), and the CONACYT - aimed at genome of a bean to enable the improvement and development of new varieties and conservation was successfully completed.

Mexico also takes part of the Initiative on Innovation Policies in Latin America and the Caribbean (PILAC). The initiative promotes high-level dialogue for gathering international best practices on innovation in the Latin American and Caribbean region. It aims to facilitate the implementation of cooperation projects on science, technology and innovation. The Strategic Committee is formed of the Ministers in charge of innovation policy in each of the participating countries, and receives expert and technical advice from multilateral and regional organisations, such as the OECD, the Inter-American Development Bank (BID), the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), and the Ibero-American General Secretary (SEGIB). The initiative was launched in March 2011.

The country is also a member of the Inter-American Committee on Science and Technology (COMCYT) of the Organisation of American States (OAS). COMCYT is a Committee of the Inter-American Council for Integral Development (CIDI) established in 1998. COMCYT's mission is to contribute to the formulation and implementation of the OAS policies for scientific, technological and innovative development within the framework of the partnership for development. Its objective is to coordinate, follow-up and evaluate the partnership for development activities in S&T.

Early 2012, the Presidents of Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru signed the four-nation Pacific Alliance Agreement that specifically encourages joint research. The agreement includes measures on the free movement of people, and it is intended to make its four member nations attractive to major Asian investment. High-level research is aimed to attract business interest in the region from around the world (QSIntelligenceUnit, 2012).

4.3 COOPERATION WITH THE EU

The framework for bilateral collaboration between Mexico and the EU is the on-going partnership agreement of 1997 that entered into force in 2000, with the EU-Mexico Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement. The agreement governs all relations between the EU and Mexico, including high-level political dialogue, and has created the conditions for a wide range of co-operation activities supporting Mexico in

http://eeas.europa.eu/mexico/index_en.htm

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/external_relations/relations_with_third_countries/latin_america/r14011_en.htm


35

areas such as social cohesion, justice and human rights, sustainable economic development, education and culture, and science and technology. Co-operation in research between the EU and Mexico is based on the sectorial Agreement for Scientific and Technological Cooperation signed in 2004. The agreement is regulated by the Mexican S&T Law, and is based on the principles of mutual benefit and access to EU and Mexican research programmes. Co-operation covers all the activities of research, technological development and demonstration included in the “Cooperation” Specific Programme of FP7. The sectorial agreement is also the framework of the EU-Mexico Fund for Science and Technology Cooperation (FONCICYT) as an instrument of S&T cooperation between both parties for the period 2007-2011.

Through the FONCICYT, co-operation took the form of networks and institutional alliances; R&D projects; research exchanges; joint-use of research infrastructures and labs; and knowledge exchange (i.e. best practices). The strategic priority lines were implemented through coordinated calls for proposals in FP7 with matching Funds in Nanotechnology and materials (2009), and Energy (2010); the financial support for the establishment of National Contact Points (with the support of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs); the creation of a CONACYT liaison office for the promotion of S&T cooperation in Brussels; and the development of training workshops. In the framework of the FONCICYT, co-financed by the European Union and the CONACYT, 34 projects were funded (10 research networks and 24 R&D projects) for a total budget of €20m.

Among other instruments of cooperation with the European Union, there is the Enterprise Europe Network (EEN) Initiative. Launched in January 2008 under the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) of the European Union, it has established four contact points in Mexico, 3 in Mexico City and 1 in the state of Nuevo Leon. The aim of the EEN is to provide services in support of business and innovation, including business co-operation, transfer of technology and access to the FP7. The contact points in Mexico are focused on helping European SMEs in boosting business opportunities and to start exporting to Mexico. The network also helps local SMEs in accessing information on EU legislation and funding, and in increasing the chances of Mexican enterprises when applying to EU funding. The EEN’s Mexican contact points are hosted by the National Chamber of Transformation Industries (CANACINTRA), the CONACYT, Promexico Trust, and the ITESM (Nuevo Leon).

4.3.1 Participation in EU Framework Programmes

Mexico is not eligible for funding under the ERA-NETs, the European public-private partnerships, or Joint Programming Initiatives. Due to its co-operation agreement on S&T with the EU, the country was able to participate in some calls funded by FP7.

Mexican participation in the EU’s Framework Programme (FP) for Research and Innovation has increased over the years. According to CONACYT data, there were 59 Mexican organisations participating in the 6th Framework Programme (FP6) in 48 projects.

Table 4 shows a summary of the Mexican participation in FP7. As of May 2013, a total of 618 eligible proposals were submitted in response to FP7 calls for proposals, involving 824 applicants from Mexico. The Mexican application success rate is of 22.6%. Following evaluation and selection, 132 proposals were retained for funding, involving 186 successful applicants for a total budget of projects of €265.5m. The largest number of retained proposals is in the programme People – the Marie Curie Actions (50 proposals retained for funding), while the largest budgets correspond to proposals for the programme ‘Nanotechnology, Materials and New Processes’ (€74m total budget). The largest success rates (66.7%) are in the Space programme. One of the largest proportions of funded projects (28%) is for collaborative projects.

When analysed by type of contract (see Table 5), the largest amount of submitted proposals were for collaborative projects for specific cooperation actions dedicated to international cooperation (138), whereas the largest number of selected proposals were for the International Research Staff Exchange Scheme (IRSES) (a total of 47). The largest success

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_290/l_29020051104en00170024.pdf

http://www.conacyt.mx/fondos/pcti/Paginas/default.aspx

http://www.enterprise-europe-network.ec.europa.eu/index_en.htm

http://www.enterprise-europe-network.ec.europa.eu/index_en.htm

http://www.canacintra.org.mx/


36

rates are for projects on integrating activities/e-Infrastructures (50%), followed by IRSES (48%) and supporting actions (31%).

Table 4: Mexican participations in FP7

All submitted Mainlisted

Success Rate:

applicants in mainlisted proposal /

applicants in all submitted

proposals Proposal Program

Number of Proposals

Number of Applicants

Number of Proposals

Number of Applicants

Proposal Total Cost

ENERGY 21 32 2 5 5.782.359 15,63%

ENV 87 125 11 17 44.665.232 13,60%

HEALTH 29 41 6 7 20.289.242 17,07%

ICT 61 72 11 13 27.161.456 18,06%

KBBE 73 96 11 12 26.465.751 12,50%

NMP 53 102 15 35 74.765.606 34,31%

SEC 1 1

SPA 6 9 2 4 6.350.653 44,44%

SSH 72 86 7 8 23.701.943 9,30%

TPT 7 7 3 3 7.748.613 42,86%

ERC 13 17 1 1 1.318.840 5,88%

PEOPLE 155 188 50 66 35,11%

COH 1 1

INCO 20 24 9 10 17.797.436 41,67%

INFRA 7 10 3 4 8.274.560 40,00%

REGIONS 1 1

SiS 8 8 1 1 1.229.019 12,50%

SME 2 3

Sum: 618 824 132 186 265.550.710 22,57%

Among the third countries, and up to June 2011, Mexico ranked 11th in terms of number of applicants and 9th in terms of requested EU contributions. The most important priority areas were food, agriculture and fisheries, and biotechnology (8 Mexican grant holders); activities of international co-operation (6); energy (5); environment (5); socio-economic sciences and humanities (5); and health (3). The top five collaborative links were with Italy (78), Spain (66), France (62), Germany (59) and the United Kingdom (44). Top Mexican institutions in FP7 (up to June 2011) were the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) (with 11 participations); the CONACYT (6); the Technological Institute of Higher Studies of Monterrey (ITESM) (6); and the Autonomous University of Nuevo Leon (UANL) (3). The steering committee of the bilateral co-operation Mexico-EU noted the remarkable increase in Mexican participation in FP7 up to 2011.

Funded by FP7, the project ACCESS2MEXCYT promotes high-quality research opportunities for European Researchers in Mexico. To this end, the project wishes to encourage to participation of European researchers to Mexican research programmes. It is acting as a contact point for information on Mexican R&D programmes, bilateral S&T agreements and in general S&T policies and the scientific landscape in Mexico. Partners include the CONACYT


37

from Mexico, the APRE (coordinator in Italy), CERCAL in Belgium, FORTH in Greece and the IRD in France.

Table 5: Contract type of the FP7 projects with Mexican participation

Proposal Sub Funding Description

Number of Proposals Submitted

Number of

Proposals Mainlisted

Share Mainlisted/Submitted

Collaborative project for specific cooperation actions dedicated to international cooperation partner countries (SICA) 138 17 12%

Collaborative project (generic) 20 4 20%

Collaborative Project targeted to a special group (such as SMEs) 14 3 21%

Coordinating action 46 14 30%

ERC Starting Grant 6 1 17%

Integrating Activities / e-Infrastructures 4 2 50%

International Incoming Fellowships (IIF) 25 1 4%

International Outgoing Fellowships (IOF) 23 2 9%

International Research Staff Exchange Scheme (IRSES) 97 47 48%

Large-scale integrating project 46 4 9%

Research for Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) 8 2 25%

Small or medium-scale focused research project 77 11 14%

Small or medium-scale focused research project INFSO (STREP) 15 1 7%

Supporting action 75 23 31%

Other 24 0%

Sum: 618 132

INCONTACT and COOPAIR are other important FP7 projects with Mexican participation. Incontact on trans-national co-operation among National Contact Points (NCPs) for International Cooperation, is aiming at fostering international cooperation through specific NCPs, facilitating interactions and networking through the development of a platform for exchanging information and good practices. Coopair is a project for cooperation of Latin American countries in European aeronautics and air transport research, enabling exchange of information and identification of key stakeholders in the field.

4.3.2 Bi- and multilateral agreements with EU countries

Details on the existing institutional agreements with EU countries are presented in the following table. Most of them are focused on the exchange of researchers, the creation of joint-research programmes, and the organisation of conferences and scientific workshops for knowledge exchange.


38

Table 6: Existing bilateral institutional agreements on S&T between Mexico and EU countries

Country Institutions involved Focus

Belgium National Scientific Research Fund (FNRS) (1987)

Exchange of scientists, researchers and professors; establishment of common research agendas

Bulgaria Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (ACB) (1980)

Exchange of researchers; implementation of research projects on fundamental and applied sciences

Czech Republic

The Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic (ACRCH) (1981)

Exchange of scientists in sabbatical periods in the framework of joint research programmes; exchange of researchers for conferences and workshops

France National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) (1972)

Exchange of researchers with the objective of formulating common research agendas and training

The French National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM) (1991)

Exchange of specialists in the framework of joint research projects; exchange of health and medical research

The National Polytechnic Institute of Toulouse (INP) (1992)

Joint research programme involving industry and focusing on the training of doctoral engineers; sabbatical periods of French researchers in Mexico and of Mexican researchers in France

Germany The German Foundation for Scientific Research (DFG) (1991)

Exchange of researchers and young scientists; organisations of bilateral scientific seminars; exchange of publications and scientific knowledge

The International Bureau of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (DLR) (1974)

Exchange of professors, researchers, technicians, research information; joint research projects; organisation of specific courses, seminars and workshops

German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) (1997)

Academic exchange; training of highly qualified researchers; sabbatical periods of German researchers and professors in Mexican HEIs and PRCs; support for the development of research agendas.

Hungary Hungarian Ministry of Education (1992)

Implementation of joint research projects; exchange of researchers; exchange of research outputs and publications; joint production of technical studies for industry and the agriculture sector

Italy National Research Council (CNR) (1984)

Exchange of researchers and specialists; joint research programmes

Ministry of Foreign Affairs (ESTERI) (2003)

Joint research projects; support for building inter-institutional agreements; exchange of publications and S&T dissertations

Poland The Polish Academy of Sciences (ACP) (1981)

Joint research; exchange of publications and scientific magazines; exchange of researchers; research workshops

Spain The Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) (1978)

Exchange of researchers; information programmes; technology transfer university-private sector; organisation of seminars for the promotion of innovation; formulation of joint research programmes

United Kingdom

British Council (CB) (1998) Organisation of conferences and seminars; definition of joint research programmes

Source: CONACYT, 2011

http://www1.frs-fnrs.be/

http://www.bas.bg/cgi-bin/e-cms/vis/vis.pl?s=001&p=0200

http://www.cas.cz/index.html

http://www.cnrs.fr/en/aboutCNRS/overview.htm

http://english.inserm.fr/what-s-inserm/the-institute-missions

http://uk.inp-toulouse.fr/index.html

http://www.dfg.de/en/research_funding/programmes/international_cooperation/index.html

http://www.internationales-buero.de/en/index.php

http://www.daad.org/

http://www.cnr.it/sitocnr/Englishversion/Englishversion.html

http://www.esteri.it/MAE/EN/Home.htm?LANG=EN

http://www.english.pan.pl/

http://www.csic.es/web/guest/presentacion

http://www.britishcouncil.org/mexico


39

The main instrument for implementing bilateral cooperation agreements between Mexico and other countries is the Bilateral Cooperation programme financed partially by CONACYT’s institutional fund. The programme gives a grant for short research periods abroad and thus supports researchers’ mobility. There are three funding schemes: researchers exchange in the framework of joint research projects; academic exchanges with the objective of sharing knowledge, provide or receive training in order to strengthen research groups, and in order to extend research networks to different specific areas; and funding for academic workshops, seminars and conferences. The following were EU participating organisations in the 2012 calls for projects: the German Foundation for Scientific Research (DFG); the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD); the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS, France); and the National Scientific Research Fund (FRS-FNRS, Belgium).

Mexico holds more specific agreements with European research organisations such as the Spanish Centre for the Development of Industrial Technology (CDTI), the French National Research Agency (ANR), and the OSEO Innovation Agency of France. In the case of Spain, the objective is the promotion of collaborative work between Spanish and Mexican researchers and universities; and the identification of funding sources for the realisation of joint-R&D projects. The co-operation agreement is implemented through a bilateral fund, focusing on staff exchanges and the sharing of good practices. Collaboration with the ANR has a thematic focus and it supports R&D projects between Mexican and French researchers in strategic areas.

The French-Mexican forum for R&D is another instrument linking France and Mexico in the field of S&T and research. Its main objectives are to increase cooperation between the two countries, present respective activities and programmes in the field of research and innovation and define joint priorities and joint activities. The forum organised a meeting of the two Ministries of foreign affairs in June 2013.

4.4 COOPERATION WITH NON EU COUNTRIES OR REGIONS

4.4.1 Main Countries

Bilateral co-operation in research has been encouraged in the last years by active governmental policy. The most important are those with Spain, France, the United States and Brazil, which also include components related to the participation of national teams in inter-governmental research infrastructures.

An important number of other bilateral agreements between Mexico and other countries have been signed, in many cases involving Ministries of S&T, Ministries of Education, and S&T councils. These have been signed with Argentina (since 1986), Brazil (since 1976), Chile (since 1991), Colombia (since 1987), Cuba (since 1999), the United States (since 1972), Peru (since 1989), Venezuela (since 1989), Russia (since 1981), India (since 2000), China (since 1996), Korea (since 1994), Japan (since 1997), and Vietnam (since 2001).

Mexico and China established a strategic partnership in 2003, and a permanent binational commission to guide dialogue between the two countries. S&T constitutes a priority channel of cooperation, together with agriculture, infrastructure development and tourism. In 2010, a meeting was organised with the sub-commission for Technical and Scientific Cooperation (SCTC).

4.4.2 Main instruments

The main instrument for implementing bilateral cooperation agreements between Mexico and other countries is the Bilateral Cooperation programme (see Section 4.3.2). In the 2012 call the following were non-EU participating organisations: the National Council for Scientific and Technical research (CONICET, Argentina); the Ministry of Science, Technology and

http://www.cdti.es/

http://www.agence-nationale-recherche.fr/Intl

http://www.agence-nationale-recherche.fr/Intl

http://www.conacyt.gob.mx/CooperacionInetrnacional/Documents/Cooperacion_Bilateral_Paises.pdf


40

Productive Innovation (MINCYT, Argentina); the National Commission for Scientific and Technical research (CONICYT, Chile); the Colombian Institute for the Development of Science and Technology (COLCIENCIAS, Colombia); the National Research Foundation (NSF, United States); and the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS, Japan).

Several cooperation agreements were signed in 2011. A cooperation agreement was renewed between the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (CITMA) of Cuba and the CONACYT in order to promote the mobility of researchers between both countries, promote joint collaboration through research projects and strengthen the exchange of students through a Scholarships Programme. A cooperation agreement was signed on research and innovation issues between the government of Quebec and CONACYT. The agreement CONACYT-A*STAR of Singapore was signed to support scientific cooperation and the establishment of bilateral networks on biomedicine, energy, environment, nanotechnology and the aerospace industry, as well as joint projects and academic exchange of researchers. Agreements for postgraduate scholarships were signed with the University of Texas Dallas and Arlington. Finally, the CONACYT and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) signed a collaboration agreement to support research projects in areas of common interest.

The United States-Mexico Foundation for Science (FUMEC) promotes bi-national collaboration in S&T between Mexico and the United States. It has programmes and projects in areas related to economic development, human resources, and environment and health. Among the relevant sub-programmes is the TechBa Programme of business international acceleration, created jointly in 2004 between the Ministry of Economy and FUMEC in order to support the strengthening of gazelle firms in international markets. In support of the development of Human Resources in S&T, the INNOVEC Programme promotes the adoption of inquiry based science education programmes that favours scientific development between children in the primary education.

4.5 OPENING UP OF NATIONAL R&D PROGRAMMES

National R&D programmes are technically open to foreign researchers and research teams, as soon as these are affiliated to the RENIECYT. This is the aggregated registry where public research institutes, research centres, private and public enterprises and individuals wishing to become eligible for S&T public funding through CONACYT Programmes have to be affiliated. The criteria for affiliation to the registry required however residence of the researchers in Mexico, as well as proven participation and experience in S&T projects in the country.

The capacity of Mexico to open up its R&D programmes and benefit from foreign talent is very modest.

4.6 RESEARCHER MOBILITY

4.6.1 Mobility schemes for researchers from abroad

There are no specific mobility schemes targeting researchers from third countries in Mexico. The only actions taken in this direction are in the framework of bilateral scientific co-operation agreements implemented through the Bilateral cooperation programme (see sections 4.3.2 and 4.4.2). Because of budgetary constraints, attracting foreign scientists to public research institutions has not been a priority in comparison to other CONACYT human resources development programmes (i.e. the SNI and the post-graduate scholarship programme).

http://www.fumec.org.mx/v5/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=34&Itemid=60&lang=en

http://www.fumec.org.mx/v5/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=40&Itemid=69&lang=en


41

4.6.2 Mobility schemes for national researchers

The main measures supporting the mobility of individual researchers (nationally and internationally) are the CONACYT post-graduate scholarship Programme (see Section 2.3.2 providing qualified human resources), and the Institutional Consolidation Programme (PCI). The PCI focuses on inwards mobility. It promotes the repatriation and retention of researchers by helping them join national HEIs and research centres in Mexico.


42

5 CONCLUSIONS

The knowledge triangle is not operating effectively, although some progress has been made in the last years. Mexican policymakers have slowly recognised the importance of investment in innovation as a driver of growth and competitiveness. The long-term view of the PECiTI reveals a more coherent approach towards research and technological development, and is a good effort in articulating the knowledge triangle.

The government has recognised the weaknesses of the innovation system and policy responses have included the promotion of commercial science-industry linkages through the Science and Technology Law, the funding of innovative projects to enterprises through the Innovation Support Programme, the SME Fund, and other CONACYT programmes (i.e. PROSOFT). These actions have been associated with recent improvements in innovative conditions for enterprises and competitiveness (i.e. improved ranking on the innovation and sophistication factors index of the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index).

Knowledge demand remains the weak factor. The preference for imported technology over the development of innovative capacity has resulted in the lack of absorptive capacity in Mexican firms, which hinders technology diffusion and transfer. Most of the existing instruments supporting the different phases of the innovation process in domestic firms focus mainly on the development of established firms’ innovative activities (i.e. product and process development and market expansion). Thus, most support goes to the established firms that represent lower risks for investors. One of the main priorities for the Mexican economy is to encourage large numbers of innovative start-ups and raise the innovative capacity of enterprises.

Moreover, there is a lack of intermediary institutions that promote knowledge transfer and technology upgrading services. Current policy measures focus on promoting the linkages between the private sector, HEIs and PRCs; yet without visible changes in terms of outcomes and impacts. Limitation of the policy mix might further hamper the already unachieved BERD/GDP and R&D investment targets.

The Mexican government has made important progress and given continuous importance to increasing the quantity and quality of HRST and researchers. Despite these efforts, the number of HRST and researchers remains low and there is no important critical mass of internal knowledge that produces positive spill overs in the Mexican productive system. However, employment of science and engineering graduates, the new-to-market product innovations, and co-patenting with foreign firms are strong in Mexico. Improving general education levels is one of the keys to improving the efficiency of the S&T system and should remain a high priority of the government.

Although increasing the investment in research and technological infrastructures is one of the strategic objectives of the S&T plan, the lack of infrastructure and the low financial resources allocated to its establishment and maintenance constitute a severe weakness of the RTDI system.

There are important regional differences with respect to innovation and research capacities (i.e. high concentration of research activities in four institutions). Governance, institutional and structural weaknesses hamper the RTDI system, notably in relation to the lack of co-ordination among stakeholders, and the co-existence of a large umbrella of weakly financially endowed, and overlapping instruments. There is lack of continuity and poor visibility of existing policy measures. Competitive calls change focus constantly, which results in confusion to potential beneficiaries.

There is a need for a clear system evaluation in order to remedy the weaknesses. Programme evaluation is generally not based on the most robust methods, and it is not undertaken systematically across all programmes and all intermediaries operating a programme, hampering the full assessment of the policy portfolio and informed choices with regards to future policy directions.


43

International co-operation is high on the policy agenda, and recognised as a way of diversifying the knowledge base and benefiting from foreign knowledge. The increase of international co-operation with the EU is a strategic element of the national policy and a good way to pursue excellence. This has contributed to opening up the system, but in a limited way, since it is almost exclusively focused on individual researchers, and research teams. Moreover, the country is still not giving attention to attracting foreign talents, which could contribute to strengthening the Mexican knowledge base.


XLIV

6 REFERENCES

ALCÁNTARA, A. 2010. La autonomía en las universidades públicas mexicanas:

vicisitudes de un concepto y una práctica institucional. Seminario de Educación Superior. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

ANUIES 2002. Anuario Estadístico 2002. México, D.F. : Asociación Nacional de Universidades e Instituciones de Educación Superior.

ANUIES 2009. Anuario Estadístico 2008-2009. México, D.F. : Asociación Nacional de Universidades e Instituciones de Educación Superior.

COLMEX 2012. Evaluación de Consistencia y Resultados Programa de Apoyo al Fortalecimiento y Desarrollo de la Infraestructura Científica y Tecnológica (S236). Informe Final. México, D.F. : El Colegio de México.

CONACYT 2011a. Informe de Labores 2010. México, D.F. : Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología.

CONACYT 2011b. Informe General del Estado de la Ciencia y la Tecnología: México 2010. México, D.F. : Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología.

CONACYT 2012a. Fondos Mixtos CONACYT - Gobierno de los Estados y Municipios. Estadísticas al cierre de Marzo 2012. México, D.F.: Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología.

CONACYT 2012b. Informe de Labores 2011. México, D.F. : Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología.

CONACYT 2012c. Informe General del Estado de la Ciencia y la Tecnología: México 2011. México, D.F. : Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología.

DUTRÉNIT, G., CAPDEVIELLE, M., ALCANTAR, J. M. C., ANYUL, M. P., SANTIAGO, F. & VERA-CRUZ, A. O. 2010. El Sistema de Innovación Mexicano: Instituciones, políticas, desempeño y desafíos, México D.F., Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana.

ECONOMÍA, S. D. 2011. Programa Nacional de Innovación. México, D.F. : Comité Intersectorial para la Innovación.

FCCYT 2011a. Catálogo de Programas para el Fomento Empresarial y la Vinculación 2011. México, D.F. : Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico, A.C.

FCCYT 2011b. El impacto de los Fondos Mixtos en el Desarrollo Regional. México, D.F.: Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico, AC.

FCCYT 2011c. Ranking de Producción Científica Mexicana: Ranking 2011. México, D.F. : Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico, AC.

FCCYT 2011d. Ranking Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación: Ranking 2011. México, Distrito Federal: Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico, AC.

FCCYT 2013. Propuestas para contribuir al diseño del PECITI 2012-2037. México: Documento de trabajo del FCCYT, AC.

GALAZ-FONTES, J. F., GIL-ANTÓN, M., PADILLA-GONZÁLEZ, L. E., SEVILLA-GARCÍA, J. J., ARCOS-VEGA, J. L. & MARTÍNEZ-STACK, J. G. 2009. The Academic Profession in Mexico- Changes, continuities and challenges derived from a comparison of two national surveys 15 years apart. RIHE International Seminar Reports, 13, 193-212.

INEGI 2011. Anuario Estadístico de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos 2011. México, D.F.: Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía.

OECD 2009. OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: Mexico. Paris.


XLV

OECD 2010. Science and Innovation - Country Notes. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

OECD 2012a. Main Economic Indicators. In: OECD (ed.) Volume 2012/6 ed. Paris. OECD 2012b. Main Science and Technology Indicators. Paris. OECD 2013a. Business environment and framework conditions in Mexico. Mexico:

Key Issues and Policies. OECD Publishing. OECD 2013b. Main Science and Technology Indicators. Paris. PADILLA-GONZALEZ, L., METCALFE, A. S., GALAZ-FONTES, J. F., FISHER, D. &

SNEE, I. 2011. Gender Gaps in North American Research Productivity: Examining Faculty Publication Rates in Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 41, 649-668.

QSINTELLIGENCEUNIT 2012. QS University Rankings: Latin America 2012/2013. QS Intelligence Unit.

RICYT 2012. Indicadores de Insumo 2012. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Red Iberoamericana de Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología.

RIOS, G. C., DAZA, G. S. & ITA, M. E. M. D. 2010. La construcción de desigualdades en el mercado de trabajo de los investigadores en México. Facultad de Economía, Benemérita Universidad de las Américas Puebla.

SEP 2012. Sistema Educativo de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, principales cifras, ciclo escolar 2011-2012. México, D.F. : Dirección General de Planeación y Programación, Secretaría de Educación Pública.

SIR 2013. Iberoamerican Ranking SIR 2013. Scimargo Institutions Ranking. Scimargo Research Group.

SRE 2012. Informe Anual de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo 2011. México, D.F. : Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores.

UAM 2010. Encuesta sobre el mercado de trabajo de los investigadores en el centro de México. Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, BUAP

VARELA-PETITO, G. 2011. Evaluating public higher education in Mexico. Higher Education Management and Policy, 23/2.

VILLAVICENCIO, D. 2007. The Mexican National Research System. In: MOUTON, J. & WAAST, R. (eds.) Studies on National Research Systems: a Meta-Review. Paris: UNESCO.

WEP 2011. The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum.

WIPO 2011. World Intellectual Property Report, the Changing Face of Innovation. WIPO Economics & Statistics Series. World Intellectual Property Organisation.

WORLDBANK 2011. Enterprise Surveys: Mexico-2010. The World Bank.


XLVI

7 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ADIAT Mexican Association for Applied Research and Technological Development

(Asociación Mexicana de Directivos de la Investigación Aplicada y el Desarrollo Tecnológico)

AERI Strategic Alliances and Innovation Networks

ANUIES Mexican Association of Universities and Higher Education Institutions (Asociación Nacional de Universidades e Instituciones de Educación Superior)

BERD Business Expenditures for Research and Development

CANACINTRA National Chamber of Transformation Industries (Cámara Nacional de la Industria de la Transformación)

CGIDT General Council for Scientific Research and Technological Development (Consejo General de Investigación Científica y Desarrollo Tecnológico)

CINVESTAV Centre for Research and Advanced Studies (Centro de Investigación y Estudios Avanzados del Instituto Politécnico Nacional)

CONACYT National Council for Science and Technology (Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología)

CONEVAL National Council for the Evaluation of Social Development Policy (Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social)

EEN Enterprise Europe Network

FCCyT Advisory Forum for Science and Technology (Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico)

FOMIX Mixed Funds (Fondos Mixtos)

FONCICYT EU-Mexico Fund for Science and Technology Cooperation (Fondo de Cooperación Internacional en Ciencia y Tecnología Unión Europea – México)

FONCYT New Science and Technology Fund (Fondo Nuevo para la Ciencia y Tecnología)

FORDECYT Institutional Fund for Regional Development through the Promotion of Science, Technology and Innovation (Fondo Institucional de Fomento Regional para el Desarrollo Científico, Tecnológico y de Innovación)

FUMEC United States-Mexico Foundation for Science (Fundación México Estados Unidos para la Ciencia)

GBAORD Government Budget Appropriations or Outlays on R&D

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GERD Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D

GIDE Expenditures in Experimental Research and Development (Gasto en investigación y desarollo experimental)

GOVERD Government Intramural Expenditure on R&D

HEI Higher education institutions

HRST Human Resources in Science and Technology

ICT Information and Communication Technology

IETU Single Rate Corporate Tax (Impuesto Empresarial Tasa Única)

INEGI National Institute of Statistic and Geography (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía)

IPN National Polytechnic Institute (Instituto Politécnico Nacional)

ITESM Technological Institute of Higher Studies of Monterrey (Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey)

LA Latin America

MNE Multinational Enterprise

NAFIN Mexican Development Bank (Nacional Financiera Banco de Desarrollo)

NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement (Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte)

NSF National Science Foundation


XLVII

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

PCI Institutional Consolidation Programme (Programa de Consolidación Institucional)

PECiTI Special Programme for Science, Technology and Innovation (Programa Especial de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación)

PECYT Special Programme for Science and Technology (Programa Especial de Ciencia y Tecnología)

PND National Development Plan (National Development Plan)

PNPC Excellence Postgraduate Programme (Programa Nacional de Posgrados de Calidad)

PPP Public Private Partnership

PRC Public Research Centres

PRI Public Research Institution

RDI Research, Development and Innovation

REDNACECYT National Network of State Councils and Organisations for Science and Technology (Red Nacional de Consejos y Orgtanismos Estatales de Ciencia y Tecnología A.C.)

RENIECYT National Registry of Scientific and Technological Institutions and Enterprises (Registro Nacional de Instituciones y Empresas Científicas y Tecnológicas)

RICYT Ibero-American Network of Science and Technology Indicators (Red Iberoamericana de Indicadores en Ciencia y Tecnología)

RTDI Research Technological Development and Innovation

R&D Research and development

R&IS Research and Innovation System

SIICYT Integrated System for information on S&T research (Sistema Integrado de Información sobre Investigación Científica y Tecnológica)

SINECYT National System for the Evaluation of Science and Technology (Sistema Nacional de Evaluación Científica y Tecnológica)

S&T Science and technology

SMEs Small and Medium Sized Enterprises

SNCyT National Week of Science and Technology (Semana Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología)

SNI National Researchers System (Sistema Nacional de Investigadores)

STI Science, Technology and Innovation

UAM Metropolitan Autonomous University (Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana)

UANL Autonomous University of Nuevo Leon (Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León)

UNAM National Autonomous University of Mexico (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México)

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

USA United States of America

UVTC Intermediary Institutions and Knowledge Transfer Units