Regional innovation life cycle - Milken Institute...17 University of Virginia Patent Fdn. 66.53...
Transcript of Regional innovation life cycle - Milken Institute...17 University of Virginia Patent Fdn. 66.53...
Regional innovation life cycle
Knowledge
CreationTechnology
Transfer
Commercialization
Clusters and
Networks
Patents
Licenses
Incubation/
Research Parks
Venture Capital
Business Planning
IPOs/gazelles
Job Creation
Labor Market/ Graduates
M&A Activity
Economies
of Scale
Federal R&D
Industry Consortia
and Partnerships
Regulatory Environment
Value-add
Conception Formation
GrowthMaturity
Clinical Trials
Regulatory
Approval
Industry R&D
Universities and
Research Institutions
Product Pipeline
Proof of Concept
Testing
Collaborations/
Partnerships
Knowledge
CreationTechnology
Transfer
Commercialization
Clusters and
Networks
Patents
Licenses
Incubation/
Research Parks
Venture Capital
Business Planning
IPOs/gazelles
Job Creation
Labor Market/ Graduates
M&A Activity
Economies
of Scale
Federal R&D
Industry Consortia
and Partnerships
Regulatory Environment
Value-add
Conception Formation
GrowthMaturity
Clinical Trials
Regulatory
Approval
Industry R&D
Universities and
Research Institutions
Product Pipeline
Proof of Concept
Testing
Collaborations/
Partnerships
Knowledge
CreationTechnology
Transfer
Commercialization
Clusters and
Networks
Patents
Licenses
Incubation/
Research Parks
Venture Capital
Business Planning
IPOs/gazelles
Job Creation
Labor Market/ Graduates
M&A Activity
Economies
of Scale
Federal R&D
Industry Consortia
and Partnerships
Regulatory Environment
Value-add
Conception Formation
GrowthMaturity
Clinical Trials/Prototype
Regulatory
Approval
Industry R&D
Universities and
Research Institutions
Product Pipeline
Proof of Concept
Testing
Collaborations/
Partnerships
Knowledge
CreationTechnology
Transfer
Commercialization
Clusters and
Networks
Patents
Licenses
Incubation/
Research Parks
Venture Capital
Business Planning
IPOs/gazelles
Job Creation
Labor Market/ Graduates
M&A Activity
Economies
of Scale
Federal R&D
Industry Consortia
and Partnerships
Regulatory Environment
Value-add
Conception Formation
GrowthMaturity
Clinical Trials
Regulatory
Approval
Industry R&D
Universities and
Research Institutions
Product Pipeline
Proof of Concept
Testing
Collaborations/
Partnerships
Knowledge
CreationTechnology
Transfer
Commercialization
Clusters and
Networks
Patents
Licenses
Incubation/
Research Parks
Venture Capital
Business Planning
IPOs/gazelles
Job Creation
Labor Market/ Graduates
M&A Activity
Economies
of Scale
Federal R&D
Industry Consortia
and Partnerships
Regulatory Environment
Value-add
Conception Formation
GrowthMaturity
Clinical Trials
Regulatory
Approval
Industry R&D
Universities and
Research Institutions
Product Pipeline
Proof of Concept
Testing
Collaborations/
Partnerships
Knowledge
CreationTechnology
Transfer
Commercialization
Clusters and
Networks
Patents
Licenses
Incubation/
Research Parks
Venture Capital
Business Planning
IPOs/gazelles
Job Creation
Labor Market/ Graduates
M&A Activity
Economies
of Scale
Federal R&D
Industry Consortia
and Partnerships
Regulatory Environment
Value-add
Conception Formation
GrowthMaturity
Clinical Trials
Regulatory
Approval
Industry R&D
Universities and
Research Institutions
Product Pipeline
Proof of Concept
Testing
Collaborations/
Partnerships
Knowledge
CreationTechnology
Transfer
Commercialization
Clusters and
Networks
Patents
Licenses
Incubation/
Research Parks
Venture Capital
Business Planning
IPOs/gazelles
Job Creation
Labor Market/ Graduates
M&A Activity
Economies
of Scale
Federal R&D
Industry Consortia
and Partnerships
Regulatory Environment
Value-add
Conception Formation
GrowthMaturity
Clinical Trials/Prototype
Regulatory
Approval
Industry R&D
Universities and
Research Institutions
Product Pipeline
Proof of Concept
Testing
Collaborations/
Partnerships
Knowledge
CreationTechnology
Transfer
Commercialization
Clusters and
Networks
Patents
Licenses
Incubation/
Research Parks
Venture Capital
Business Planning
IPOs/gazelles
Job Creation
Labor Market/ Graduates
M&A Activity
Economies
of Scale
Federal R&D
Industry Consortia
and Partnerships
Regulatory Environment
Value-add
Conception Formation
GrowthMaturity
Clinical Trials
Regulatory
Approval
Industry R&D
Universities and
Research Institutions
Product Pipeline
Proof of Concept
Testing
Collaborations/
Partnerships
Knowledge
CreationTechnology
Transfer
Commercialization
Clusters and
Networks
Patents
Licenses
Incubation/
Research Parks
Venture Capital
Business Planning
IPOs/gazelles
Job Creation
Labor Market/ Graduates
M&A Activity
Economies
of Scale
Federal R&D
Industry Consortia
and Partnerships
Regulatory Environment
Value-add
Conception Formation
GrowthMaturity
Clinical Trials/Prototype
Regulatory
Approval
Industry R&D
Universities and
Research Institutions
Product Pipeline
Proof of Concept
Testing
Collaborations/
Partnerships
New Economy Strategies and Milken Institute
Entrepreneur
Top 10 U.S. states in human
capital investments, 2008
DEVTVAUTNYMNCTCOMAMD
80
78
76
74
72
70
68
66
64
Level
Source: Milken Institute.Source: Milken Institute
Top 10 U.S. states in R&D
input, 2008
NMVAWACTRINHCOCAMDMA
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
Level
Source: Milken Institute.Source: Milken Institute
Top 10 U.S. states in risk and
entrepreneurial infrastructure, 2008
AZNCGAPAMDNYWACOMACA
82
80
78
76
74
72
70
68
66
Level
Source: Milken Institute.Source: Milken Institute
Top 10 U.S. states in technology
concentration, 2008
NHNJWACAAZCONMVAMDUT
86
84
82
80
78
76
74
72
70
Level
Source: Milken Institute.Source: Milken Institute
Top 10 U.S. states in technology
and science work force, 2008
NJCTTXDECAVAWAMDCOMA
95
90
85
80
75
70
Level
Source: Milken Institute.Source: Milken Institute
Percentage of high-tech workers
Top U.S. states, 2006
UTNJCTMDKSVACOCAMAWA
9.5
9.0
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
Percent
Source: Milken Institute.Source: Milken Institute
Number of Tech Fast 500 companies
Per 100,000 businesses, top U.S. states, 2007
GATXUTCOVAMDCACTNJMA
25
20
15
10
5
Number
Source: Milken Institute.Source: Milken Institute
Average annual high-tech growth
Top U.S. states, 2002-2006
CTAZMTKYWYRIINAKWAID
25
20
15
10
5
0
Percentage
Source: Milken Institute.
US Total Industries
Average Growth 2.74%
Source: Milken Institute
R&D expenditures in life sciences
per capita
Top U.S. states, 2006
NHNYMOIANCNECTMAVTMD
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
US$
Source: Milken Institute.Source: Milken Institute
R&D expenditures in math and science
per capita
Top U.S. states, 2006
ORUTCAILPARIMAHIAKMD
25
20
15
10
5
US$
Source: Milken Institute.Source: Milken Institute
Top U.S. states in science and
technology, 2008
RINHUTCTVAWACACOMDMA
85.0
80.0
75.0
70.0
65.0
Level
Source: Milken Institute
State Technology and Science
Index 2008
Top TenSecond TierThird TierBottom TenSource: Milken Institute
Research and development inputs
component
Top TenSecond TierThird TierBottom TenSource: Milken Institute
Risk capital infrastructure component
Top TenSecond TierThird TierBottom Ten
Top TenSecond TierThird TierBottom Ten
Human capital investment component
Source: Milken Institute
Tech and science work-force
component
Top TenSecond TierThird TierBottom Ten
Source: Milken Institute
Technology and dynamism component
Top TenSecond TierThird TierBottom Ten
Source: Milken Institute
Overview
• Role of National Innovation Policies
• Faculty Research Quality
• Incentives and Culture
• Human Capital Investment in OTT
• Absorptive Capacity of Regional Ecosystem
• Measures on Commercialization Outcomes
9. University of Washington
1. Harvard University
21. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
30. University of Toronto
23. Universites de Paris (I-XIII)
3. University of London
2. University of Tokyo
6. Univ of CA, San Diego
5. Univ. of Pennsylvania
7. Johns Hopkins University
10. Univ. of CA, Los Angeles
8. Washington University
29. SUNY at Yeshiva University
28. Univ. of NC at Chapel Hill
22. Univ. of TX at Dallas
27. Cornell University
26. Case Western Reserve University
25. Univ. of CA, Berkeley
24. Columbia University
12. Stanford University
11. Yale University
13. Rockefeller University
14. Univ. of WI, Madison
16. Baylor College of Medicine
18. Duke University
19. Osaka University
20. Kyoto University
17. Univ. of Oxford
15. Univ. of Cambridge
4. Univ. of CA, San Francisco
Top 10
11-20
21-30
Top 10
11-20
21-30
29. Yeshiva University
University biotechnologypublication ranking
Top 30, 1998-2002
Source: Milken Institute
11. Harvard University
28. MA Institute of Technology
8. Univ of CA, San Diego15. Univ. of Pennsylvania
3. Johns Hopkins University
23. Univ. of CA, Los Angeles
22. Washington University
5. Cornell University
7. Univ. of CA, Berkeley
6. Columbia University
4. Stanford University
18. Yale University
9. Univ. of WI, Madison
2. Univ. of CA, San Francisco
27. Univ.of Minnesota
29. Univ. of Chicago
1. University of Texas
16. Rockefeller University
20. Thomas Jefferson University
26. University of Utah
17. CA Institute of Technology
30. Univ. of Alabama
25. Univ. of British Columbia
10. University of London
12. Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem
13. University of Michigan14. McGill University
19. Univ. of Melbourne
21. Tel-Aviv University
24. University of Oxford
Top 10
11-20
21-30
Top 10
11-20
21-30
University biotech patent ranking Top 30, 2000-2004
Source: Milken Institute
University technology transfer andcommercialization index
Top 10 U.S. and Canadian, 2000-2004
Rank Institution Name
Patents
Issued
Score
Licenses
Executed
Score
Licensing
Income
Score
Startups
Score
Overall
Score
1 Massachusetts Inst. of Technology (MIT) 95.17 79.89 90.64 100.00 100.00
2 University of California System 97.26 85.25 95.16 83.24 96.59
3 California Institute of Technology 100.00 70.77 87.12 86.60 92.94
4 Stanford University 91.56 84.28 93.76 77.02 92.65
5 University of Florida 84.82 71.41 92.57 69.26 86.11
6 University of Minnesota 78.92 77.46 91.02 69.24 85.55
7 Brigham Young University 66.87 80.60 86.13 77.57 85.41
8 University of British Columbia 74.36 74.09 82.73 77.42 84.23
9 University of Michigan 82.70 72.25 77.98 74.89 82.54
10 New York University 73.68 63.30 100.00 58.16 81.63
Weights 15% 15% 35% 35%
Source: Milken Institute
University technology transfer andcommercialization index
11-25 cont’d, U.S. and Canadian, 2000-2004
Rank Institution Name
Patents
Issued
Score
Licenses
Executed
Score
Licensing
Income
Score
Startups
Score
Overall
Score
11 Georgia Institute of Technology 76.80 60.51 72.79 83.41 80.95
12 University of Pennsylvania 76.41 72.05 83.95 67.15 80.83
13 University of Illinois, Chicago, Urbana, Champaign 72.80 74.55 77.60 72.72 80.35
14 University of Utah 77.08 70.80 81.56 66.01 79.40
15 University of Southern California 70.77 79.81 70.37 75.72 79.28
16 Cornell Research Fdn., Inc. 86.31 75.99 77.99 61.51 78.69
17 University of Virginia Patent Fdn. 66.53 75.11 79.41 68.48 78.52
18 Harvard University 78.82 76.06 87.54 52.45 77.68
19 University of California, San Francisco 88.60 11.63 99.73 62.39 77.19
20 North Carolina State University 78.41 73.80 74.40 64.77 76.94
21 SUNY Research Foundation 79.51 64.36 84.63 58.01 76.90
22 W .A.R.F./University of W isconsin 87.59 86.65 90.52 38.99 76.86
23 McGill University 77.47 68.76 72.12 69.24 76.80
24 University of W ashington/W ash. Res. Fdn. 75.11 76.10 88.49 50.03 76.54
25 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 78.48 76.86 71.14 64.21 76.00
Weights 15% 15% 35% 35%
Source: Milken Institute
AUTM and ASTP universityperformance measures
Per million research expenditures, 2004
U.S. Canada Europe U.S./Canada U.S./Europe
Average Research Expenditures (US$ M il.) 225 178 100
Invention Disclosures 0.40 0.14 0.32 2.98 1.25
Patent Applications 0.25 0.06 0.12 4.21 2.06
Patents Granted 0.09 0.01 0.04 6.09 2.38
Licenses Executed 0.11 0.07 0.09 1.58 1.25
Licensing Income (US$) 27,825 12,934 11,988 2.15 2.32
Startups Established 0.01 0.01 0.03 1.74 0.37
Per Million Research Expenditures Ratio
Source: Milken Institute
U.S. university licensing income
Actual vs. fitted, 2003
Universities in Descending Order
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
US$ Millions
Actual ValuesFitted Values
Source: Milken Institute
Actual
Licensing
Income
Simulated
Licensing
Income
University
University of California System 99.7 83.2 224 156 20 14.8
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 33.4 28.3 103 79 22 19.1
University of Washington 26.1 22.7 91 75 7 5.7
Stanford University 50.6 47.4 133 117 12 10.5
University of Wisconsin 25.5 19.4 116 86 3 1.8
Johns Hopkins University 8.8 6.0 101 83 6 4.3
University of Michigan 5.9 3.7 55 44 7 5.5
State University of New York 14.6 11.1 39 27 5 3.8
Harvard University 19.3 16.9 68 58 3 2.3
University of Minnesota 17.8 13.7 84 67 7 5.8
U.S. Total 639.14 505.84 2,734 2,101 247 197
Actual
Licenses
Executed
Simulated
Licenses
Executed
Actual
Startups
Simulated
StartupsUS$ Millions
Simulation 2―income attributed to
office of technology transferTop 10 U.S. universities based on labor cost value
1997- 2003 average
Source: Milken Institute
Conclusions: national
innovation policy and culture
• Commitment to Financing University
Research
• University Mission Must Include
Commercialization
• IP Protection System Is Important
• Industry Involvement Critical to Success
Conclusions: national
innovation policy and culture, cont’d.
• Entrepreneurial Support and
Financing Key
• Human Capital Investment Essential
• Biotechnology Cluster Formation
Promotes National Success
Conclusions: university
level findings
• Faculty
– Research Capacity
– Entrepreneurial Incentives and Culture
– “Star Scientist”
Conclusions: university
level findings, cont’d.
• OTT
– Professional OTTs Generate High Returns
– Age of OTT Office (Networking Effect)
– Critical Mass Required for Returns
– Absorptive Capacity of Regional Ecosystem
Significant
– Exclusive Licensing Important for Spinouts
and Startups
– Without OTT, Commercialization Occurs,
Just Not as Efficiently
Conclusions: overall
• Gaps Remain Between Research Quality and
Commercialization Outcomes
• Commercialization Increasing Over Time
• U.S. Tops in Research and Commercialization
• Other Countries Making Sizeable Investments
Top 50 tech centers in North America
#
#
#
#
San Jose
Montreal
Distrito Federal
Phoenix Atlanta
Denver
Houston
St. Louis
Portland
Albuquerque
Salt Lake City
Austin
Kansas City
Wichita
Minneapolis
Pittsburgh
Orlando
San Diego
IndianapolisDurhamColorado Springs
Huntsville
Dallas
Seattle
Chicago
New YorkWarren
Washington
Los Angeles
EdisonOakland
Ottawa
Toronto
Vancouver
Chihuahua
Baja California
Tampa
Raleigh
Baltimore
Bethesda Philadelphia
Nassau
Cambridge
Newark
Hartford
Lake County
Fort Worth
Santa Ana
BoulderSan Francisco
Oakland
Source: Milken Institute
Total high tech Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007
CanadaOttawa46
MexicoChihuahua36
MexicoDistrito Federal33
CanadaMontreal22
MexicoBaja California19
CanadaToronto14
U.S.A.Santa Ana -Anaheim -Irvine, CA Metropolitan Division10
U.S.A.New York -White Plains -Wayne, NY -NJ Metropolitan Division9
U.S.A.San Francisco -San Mateo -Redwood City, CA Metropolitan Division8
U.S.A.San Diego -Carlsbad -San Marcos, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area7
U.S.A.Dallas -Plano -Irving, TX Metropolitan Division6
U.S.A.Washington -Arlington -Alexandria, DC -VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division5
U.S.A.Los Angeles -Long Beach -Glendale, CA Metropolitan Division4
U.S.A.Cambridge -Newton -Framingham, MA Metropolitan Division3
U.S.A.Seattle -Bellevue -Everett, WA Metropolitan Division2
U.S.A.San Jose -Sunnyvale -Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area1
CountryRegionRank
CanadaOttawa46
MexicoChihuahua36
MexicoDistrito Federal33
CanadaMontreal22
MexicoBaja California19
CanadaToronto14
U.S.A.Santa Ana -Anaheim -Irvine, CA Metropolitan Division10
U.S.A.New York -White Plains -Wayne, NY -NJ Metropolitan Division9
U.S.A.San Francisco -San Mateo -Redwood City, CA Metropolitan Division8
U.S.A.San Diego -Carlsbad -San Marcos, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area7
U.S.A.Dallas -Plano -Irving, TX Metropolitan Division6
U.S.A.Washington -Arlington -Alexandria, DC -VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division5
U.S.A.Los Angeles -Long Beach -Glendale, CA Metropolitan Division4
U.S.A.Cambridge -Newton -Framingham, MA Metropolitan Division3
U.S.A.Seattle -Bellevue -Everett, WA Metropolitan Division2
U.S.A.San Jose -Sunnyvale -Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area1
CountryRegionRank
Source: Milken Institute
Pharmaceuticaland medicine manufacturing Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007
Source: Milken Institute
CanadaWinnepeg53
MexicoMexico16
CanadaMontreal11
CanadaToronto10
U.S.A.Philadelphia, PA Metropolitan Division9
U.S.A.San Francisco -San Mateo -Redwood City, CA Metropolitan Division8
MexicoDistrito Federal7
U.S.A.Durham, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area6
U.S.A.Oxnard -Thousand Oaks -Ventura, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area5
U.S.A.Indianapolis, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area4
U.S.A.Edison, NJ Metropolitan Division3
U.S.A.Newark -Union, NJ -PA Metropolitan Division2
U.S.A.Lake County -Kenosha County, IL -WI Metropolitan Division1
CountryRegionRank
CanadaWinnepeg53
MexicoMexico16
CanadaMontreal11
CanadaToronto10
U.S.A.Philadelphia, PA Metropolitan Division9
U.S.A.San Francisco -San Mateo -Redwood City, CA Metropolitan Division8
MexicoDistrito Federal7
U.S.A.Durham, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area6
U.S.A.Oxnard -Thousand Oaks -Ventura, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area5
U.S.A.Indianapolis, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area4
U.S.A.Edison, NJ Metropolitan Division3
U.S.A.Newark -Union, NJ -PA Metropolitan Division2
U.S.A.Lake County -Kenosha County, IL -WI Metropolitan Division1
CountryRegionRank
Computer and peripheralequipment manufacturing Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007
CanadaToronto21
CanadaOttawa20
MexicoTammaulipas16
U.S.A.Poughkeepsie -Newburgh -Middletown, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area10
U.S.A.Boulder, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area9
U.S.A.Binghamton, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area8
MexicoJalisco7
MexicoChihuahua6
U.S.A.Cambridge -Newton -Framingham, MA Metropolitan Division5
U.S.A.Austin -Round Rock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area4
U.S.A.Rochester, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area3
U.S.A.Durham, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area2
U.S.A.San Jose -Sunnyvale -Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area1
CountryRegionRank
CanadaToronto21
CanadaOttawa20
MexicoTammaulipas16
U.S.A.Poughkeepsie -Newburgh -Middletown, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area10
U.S.A.Boulder, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area9
U.S.A.Binghamton, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area8
MexicoJalisco7
MexicoChihuahua6
U.S.A.Cambridge -Newton -Framingham, MA Metropolitan Division5
U.S.A.Austin -Round Rock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area4
U.S.A.Rochester, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area3
U.S.A.Durham, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area2
U.S.A.San Jose -Sunnyvale -Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area1
CountryRegionRank
Source: Milken Institute
Communications equipmentmanufacturing Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007
CanadaMontreal20
MexicoJalisco15
MexicoTamaulipas11
U.S.A.San Diego -Carlsbad -San Marcos, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area10
MexicoBaja California9
MexicoChihuahua8
U.S.A.Fort Wayne, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area7
U.S.A.Bethesda -Gaithersburg -Frederick, MD Metropolitan Division6
MexicoSonora5
CanadaKitchener -Waterloo4
U.S.A.Dallas -Plano -Irving, TX Metropolitan Division3
U.S.A.San Jose -Sunnyvale -Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area2
CanadaOttawa1
CanadaMontreal20
MexicoJalisco15
MexicoTamaulipas11
U.S.A.San Diego -Carlsbad -San Marcos, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area10
MexicoBaja California9
MexicoChihuahua8
U.S.A.Fort Wayne, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area7
U.S.A.Bethesda -Gaithersburg -Frederick, MD Metropolitan Division6
MexicoSonora5
CanadaKitchener -Waterloo4
U.S.A.Dallas -Plano -Irving, TX Metropolitan Division3
U.S.A.San Jose -Sunnyvale -Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area2
CanadaOttawa1
Source: Milken Institute
Semiconductor and otherelectronic component manufacturing Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007
CanadaMontreal50
CanadaToronto37
CanadaOttawa34
MexicoSonora15
U.S.A.Palm Bay -Melbourne -Titusville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area10
U.S.A.Burlington -South Burlington, VT Metropolitan Statistical Area9
MexicoChihuahua8
U.S.A.Dallas -Plano -Irving, TX Metropolitan Division7
U.S.A.Phoenix -Mesa -Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area6
U.S.A.Boise City -Nampa, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area5
U.S.A.Austin -Round Rock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area4
U.S.A.Portland -Vancouver -Beaverton, OR -WA Metropolitan Statistical Area3
MexicoBaja California2
U.S.A.San Jose -Sunnyvale -Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area1
CountryRegionRank
CanadaMontreal50
CanadaToronto37
CanadaOttawa34
MexicoSonora15
U.S.A.Palm Bay -Melbourne -Titusville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area10
U.S.A.Burlington -South Burlington, VT Metropolitan Statistical Area9
MexicoChihuahua8
U.S.A.Dallas -Plano -Irving, TX Metropolitan Division7
U.S.A.Phoenix -Mesa -Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area6
U.S.A.Boise City -Nampa, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area5
U.S.A.Austin -Round Rock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area4
U.S.A.Portland -Vancouver -Beaverton, OR -WA Metropolitan Statistical Area3
MexicoBaja California2
U.S.A.San Jose -Sunnyvale -Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area1
CountryRegionRank
Source: Milken Institute
Aerospace product and partsmanufacturing Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007
Source: Milken Institute
MexicoChihuahua110
MexicoBaja California44
CanadaToronto25
CanadaWinnepeg24
U.S.A.St. Louis, MO -IL Metropolitan Statistical Area10
U.S.A.Bridgeport -Stamford -Norwalk, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area9
U.S.A.Phoenix -Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area8
CanadaMontreal7
U.S.A.Tucson, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area6
U.S.A.Los Angeles -Long Beach -Glendale, CA Metropolitan Division5
U.S.A.Hartford -West Hartford -East Hartford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area4
U.S.A.Fort Worth -Arlington, TX Metropolitan Division3
U.S.A.Seattle -Bellevue -Everett, WA Metropolitan Division2
U.S.A.Wichita, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area1
CountryRegionRank
MexicoChihuahua110
MexicoBaja California44
CanadaToronto25
CanadaWinnepeg24
U.S.A.St. Louis, MO -IL Metropolitan Statistical Area10
U.S.A.Bridgeport -Stamford -Norwalk, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area9
U.S.A.Phoenix -Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area8
CanadaMontreal7
U.S.A.Tucson, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area6
U.S.A.Los Angeles -Long Beach -Glendale, CA Metropolitan Division5
U.S.A.Hartford -West Hartford -East Hartford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area4
U.S.A.Fort Worth -Arlington, TX Metropolitan Division3
U.S.A.Seattle -Bellevue -Everett, WA Metropolitan Division2
U.S.A.Wichita, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area1
CountryRegionRank
Medical equipment and suppliesmanufacturing Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007
CanadaQuebec46
CanadaVancouver43
U.S.A.San Jose -Sunnyvale -Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area10
U.S.A.Bloomington, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area9
U.S.A.Salt Lake City, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area8
U.S.A.Glens Falls, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area7
U.S.A.Santa Ana -Anaheim -Irvine, CA Metropolitan Division6
U.S.A.Lake County -Kenosha County, IL -WI Metropolitan Division5
MexicoChihuahua3
U.S.A.Minneapolis -St. Paul -Bloomington, MN -WI Metropolitan Statistical Area2
MexicoBaja California1
CountryRegionRank
CanadaQuebec46
CanadaVancouver43
U.S.A.San Jose -Sunnyvale -Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area10
U.S.A.Bloomington, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area9
U.S.A.Salt Lake City, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area8
U.S.A.Glens Falls, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area7
U.S.A.Santa Ana -Anaheim -Irvine, CA Metropolitan Division6
U.S.A.Lake County -Kenosha County, IL -WI Metropolitan Division5
MexicoChihuahua3
U.S.A.Minneapolis -St. Paul -Bloomington, MN -WI Metropolitan Statistical Area2
MexicoBaja California1
CountryRegionRank
Source: Milken Institute
Software publishers Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007
MexicoAguascalientes108
MexicoDistrito Federal80
CanadaMontreal34
CanadaVancouver21
CanadaOttawa14
U.S.A.Portland -Vancouver -Beaverton, OR -WA Metropolitan Statistical Area10
U.S.A.Atlanta -Sandy Springs -Marietta, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area9
U.S.A.Austin -Round Rock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area8
U.S.A.Provo -Orem, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area7
U.S.A.Raleigh -Cary, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area6
U.S.A.San Jose -Sunnyvale -Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area5
U.S.A.Boulder, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area4
U.S.A.San Francisco -San Mateo -Redwood City, CA Metropolitan Division3
U.S.A.Cambridge -Newton -Framingham, MA Metropolitan Division2
U.S.A.Seattle -Bellevue -Everett, WA Metropolitan Division1
CountryRegionRank
MexicoAguascalientes108
MexicoDistrito Federal80
CanadaMontreal34
CanadaVancouver21
CanadaOttawa14
U.S.A.Portland -Vancouver -Beaverton, OR -WA Metropolitan Statistical Area10
U.S.A.Atlanta -Sandy Springs -Marietta, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area9
U.S.A.Austin -Round Rock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area8
U.S.A.Provo -Orem, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area7
U.S.A.Raleigh -Cary, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area6
U.S.A.San Jose -Sunnyvale -Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area5
U.S.A.Boulder, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area4
U.S.A.San Francisco -San Mateo -Redwood City, CA Metropolitan Division3
U.S.A.Cambridge -Newton -Framingham, MA Metropolitan Division2
U.S.A.Seattle -Bellevue -Everett, WA Metropolitan Division1
CountryRegionRank
Source: Milken Institute
Motion picture and video industries Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007
Source: Milken Institute
MexicoMichoacan de Ocampo67
U.S.A.New Orleans -Metairie -Kenner, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area10
U.S.A.Nashville -Davidson --Murfreesboro, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area9
U.S.A.Oakland -Fremont -Hayward, CA Metropolitan Division8
CanadaToronto7
U.S.A.San Francisco -San Mateo -Redwood City, CA Metropolitan Division6
CanadaMontreal5
MexicoDistrito Federal4
CanadaVancouver3
U.S.A.New York -White Plains -Wayne, NY -NJ Metropolitan Division2
U.S.A.Los Angeles -Long Beach -Glendale, CA Metropolitan Division1
CountryRegionRank
MexicoMichoacan de Ocampo67
U.S.A.New Orleans -Metairie -Kenner, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area10
U.S.A.Nashville -Davidson --Murfreesboro, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area9
U.S.A.Oakland -Fremont -Hayward, CA Metropolitan Division8
CanadaToronto7
U.S.A.San Francisco -San Mateo -Redwood City, CA Metropolitan Division6
CanadaMontreal5
MexicoDistrito Federal4
CanadaVancouver3
U.S.A.New York -White Plains -Wayne, NY -NJ Metropolitan Division2
U.S.A.Los Angeles -Long Beach -Glendale, CA Metropolitan Division1
CountryRegionRank
Wired telecommunications carriers Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007
MexicoVeracruz de Ignacio de la Llave238
MexicoOaxaca231
CanadaVancouver11
U.S.A.New York -White Plains -Wayne, NY -NJ Metropolitan Division10
CanadaMontreal9
U.S.A.Edison, NJ Metropolitan Division8
U.S.A.Dallas -Plano -Irving, TX Metropolitan Division7
CanadaToronto6
U.S.A.Atlanta -Sandy Springs -Marietta, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area5
U.S.A.Washington -Arlington -Alexandria, DC -VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division4
U.S.A.Denver -Aurora, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area3
U.S.A.Kansas City, MO -KS Metropolitan Statistical Area2
MexicoDistrito Federal1
CountryRegionRank
MexicoVeracruz de Ignacio de la Llave238
MexicoOaxaca231
CanadaVancouver11
U.S.A.New York -White Plains -Wayne, NY -NJ Metropolitan Division10
CanadaMontreal9
U.S.A.Edison, NJ Metropolitan Division8
U.S.A.Dallas -Plano -Irving, TX Metropolitan Division7
CanadaToronto6
U.S.A.Atlanta -Sandy Springs -Marietta, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area5
U.S.A.Washington -Arlington -Alexandria, DC -VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division4
U.S.A.Denver -Aurora, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area3
U.S.A.Kansas City, MO -KS Metropolitan Statistical Area2
MexicoDistrito Federal1
CountryRegionRank
Source: Milken Institute
Wireless telecommunicationscarriers (except satellite) Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007
MexicoBaja California76
CanadaVancouver17
MexicoDistrito Federal14
CanadaMontreal12
U.S.A.Tampa-St. Petersburg -Clearwater, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area10
U.S.A.Albuquerque, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area9
CanadaToronto8
U.S.A.Lubbock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area7
U.S.A.Little Rock -North Little Rock, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area6
U.S.A.Dallas -Plano -Irving, TX Metropolitan Division4
U.S.A.Atlanta -Sandy Springs -Marietta, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area3
U.S.A.Seattle -Bellevue -Everett, WA Metropolitan Division2
U.S.A.San Diego -Carlsbad -San Marcos, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area1
CountryRegionRank
MexicoBaja California76
CanadaVancouver17
MexicoDistrito Federal14
CanadaMontreal12
U.S.A.Tampa-St. Petersburg -Clearwater, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area10
U.S.A.Albuquerque, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area9
CanadaToronto8
U.S.A.Lubbock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area7
U.S.A.Little Rock -North Little Rock, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area6
U.S.A.Dallas -Plano -Irving, TX Metropolitan Division4
U.S.A.Atlanta -Sandy Springs -Marietta, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area3
U.S.A.Seattle -Bellevue -Everett, WA Metropolitan Division2
U.S.A.San Diego -Carlsbad -San Marcos, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area1
CountryRegionRank
Source: Milken Institute
Internet service providers andweb search portals Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007
MexicoVeracruz de Ignacio de la Llave79
MexicoNuevo Leon76
MexicoDistrito Federal49
CanadaToronto17
U.S.A.Cambridge -Newton -Framingham, MA Metropolitan Division10
U.S.A.Dayton, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area9
U.S.A.Provo -Orem, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area8
U.S.A.New York -White Plains -Wayne, NY -NJ Metropolitan Division7
U.S.A.San Francisco -San Mateo -Redwood City, CA Metropolitan Division6
U.S.A.Los Angeles -Long Beach -Glendale, CA Metropolitan Division5
U.S.A.Atlanta -Sandy Springs -Marietta, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area4
U.S.A.Dallas -Plano -Irving, TX Metropolitan Division3
U.S.A.Washington -Arlington -Alexandria, DC -VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division2
U.S.A.San Jose -Sunnyvale -Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area1
CountryRegionRank
MexicoVeracruz de Ignacio de la Llave79
MexicoNuevo Leon76
MexicoDistrito Federal49
CanadaToronto17
U.S.A.Cambridge -Newton -Framingham, MA Metropolitan Division10
U.S.A.Dayton, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area9
U.S.A.Provo -Orem, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area8
U.S.A.New York -White Plains -Wayne, NY -NJ Metropolitan Division7
U.S.A.San Francisco -San Mateo -Redwood City, CA Metropolitan Division6
U.S.A.Los Angeles -Long Beach -Glendale, CA Metropolitan Division5
U.S.A.Atlanta -Sandy Springs -Marietta, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area4
U.S.A.Dallas -Plano -Irving, TX Metropolitan Division3
U.S.A.Washington -Arlington -Alexandria, DC -VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division2
U.S.A.San Jose -Sunnyvale -Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area1
CountryRegionRank
Source: Milken Institute
Other information services Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007
MexicoJalisco154
MexicoDistrito Federal49
CanadaVancouver10
CanadaMontreal9
U.S.A.Chicago -Naperville -Joliet, IL Metropolitan Division8
U.S.A.Glens Falls, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area7
CanadaToronto6
U.S.A.Washington -Arlington -Alexandria, DC -VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division5
U.S.A.San Francisco -San Mateo -Redwood City, CA Metropolitan Division4
U.S.A.Boston -Quincy, MA Metropolitan Division3
U.S.A.San Jose -Sunnyvale -Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area2
U.S.A.New York -White Plains -Wayne, NY -NJ Metropolitan Division1
CountryRegionRank
MexicoJalisco154
MexicoDistrito Federal49
CanadaVancouver10
CanadaMontreal9
U.S.A.Chicago -Naperville -Joliet, IL Metropolitan Division8
U.S.A.Glens Falls, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area7
CanadaToronto6
U.S.A.Washington -Arlington -Alexandria, DC -VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division5
U.S.A.San Francisco -San Mateo -Redwood City, CA Metropolitan Division4
U.S.A.Boston -Quincy, MA Metropolitan Division3
U.S.A.San Jose -Sunnyvale -Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area2
U.S.A.New York -White Plains -Wayne, NY -NJ Metropolitan Division1
CountryRegionRank
Source: Milken Institute
Architectural, engineering, andrelated services Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007
MexicoNuevo Leon189
MexicoDistrito Federal61
CanadaVancouver24
U.S.A.Los Angeles -Long Beach -Glendale, CA Metropolitan Division10
CanadaToronto9
U.S.A.San Diego -Carlsbad -San Marcos, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area8
U.S.A.Cambridge -Newton -Framingham, MA Metropolitan Division7
U.S.A.Denver -Aurora, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area6
CanadaCalgary5
U.S.A.Huntsville, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area4
U.S.A.Washington -Arlington -Alexandria, DC -VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division3
U.S.A.Warren -Farmington Hills -Troy, MI Metropolitan Division2
U.S.A.Houston -Sugar Land -Baytown, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area1
CountryRegionRank
MexicoNuevo Leon189
MexicoDistrito Federal61
CanadaVancouver24
U.S.A.Los Angeles -Long Beach -Glendale, CA Metropolitan Division10
CanadaToronto9
U.S.A.San Diego -Carlsbad -San Marcos, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area8
U.S.A.Cambridge -Newton -Framingham, MA Metropolitan Division7
U.S.A.Denver -Aurora, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area6
CanadaCalgary5
U.S.A.Huntsville, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area4
U.S.A.Washington -Arlington -Alexandria, DC -VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division3
U.S.A.Warren -Farmington Hills -Troy, MI Metropolitan Division2
U.S.A.Houston -Sugar Land -Baytown, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area1
CountryRegionRank
Source: Milken Institute
Computer systems design andrelated services Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007
MexicoJalisco150
MexicoDistrito Federal70
U.S.A.Chicago -Naperville -Joliet, IL Metropolitan Division10
CanadaMontreal9
CanadaOttawa8
U.S.A.New York -White Plains -Wayne, NY -NJ Metropolitan Division7
U.S.A.Bethesda -Gaithersburg -Frederick, MD Metropolitan Division6
CanadaToronto5
U.S.A.San Francisco -San Mateo -Redwood City, CA Metropolitan Division4
U.S.A.Cambridge -Newton -Framingham, MA Metropolitan Division3
U.S.A.San Jose -Sunnyvale -Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area2
U.S.A.Washington -Arlington -Alexandria, DC -VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division1
CountryRegionRank
MexicoJalisco150
MexicoDistrito Federal70
U.S.A.Chicago -Naperville -Joliet, IL Metropolitan Division10
CanadaMontreal9
CanadaOttawa8
U.S.A.New York -White Plains -Wayne, NY -NJ Metropolitan Division7
U.S.A.Bethesda -Gaithersburg -Frederick, MD Metropolitan Division6
CanadaToronto5
U.S.A.San Francisco -San Mateo -Redwood City, CA Metropolitan Division4
U.S.A.Cambridge -Newton -Framingham, MA Metropolitan Division3
U.S.A.San Jose -Sunnyvale -Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area2
U.S.A.Washington -Arlington -Alexandria, DC -VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division1
CountryRegionRank
Source: Milken Institute
Scientific research and developmentservices Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007
MexicoDistrito Federal175
MexicoQueretaro de Arteaga162
CanadaVancouver48
CanadaToronto44
CanadaMontreal40
U.S.A.Detroit -Livonia -Dearborn, MI Metropolitan Division10
U.S.A.San Francisco -San Mateo -Redwood City, CA Metropolitan Division9
U.S.A.Durham, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area8
U.S.A.Philadelphia, PA Metropolitan Division7
U.S.A.San Jose -Sunnyvale -Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area6
U.S.A.Bethesda -Gaithersburg -Frederick, MD Metropolitan Division5
U.S.A.Albuquerque, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area4
U.S.A.San Diego -Carlsbad -San Marcos, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area3
U.S.A.Washington -Arlington -Alexandria, DC -VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division2
U.S.A.Cambridge -Newton -Framingham, MA Metropolitan Division1
CountryRegionRank
MexicoDistrito Federal175
MexicoQueretaro de Arteaga162
CanadaVancouver48
CanadaToronto44
CanadaMontreal40
U.S.A.Detroit -Livonia -Dearborn, MI Metropolitan Division10
U.S.A.San Francisco -San Mateo -Redwood City, CA Metropolitan Division9
U.S.A.Durham, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area8
U.S.A.Philadelphia, PA Metropolitan Division7
U.S.A.San Jose -Sunnyvale -Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area6
U.S.A.Bethesda -Gaithersburg -Frederick, MD Metropolitan Division5
U.S.A.Albuquerque, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area4
U.S.A.San Diego -Carlsbad -San Marcos, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area3
U.S.A.Washington -Arlington -Alexandria, DC -VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division2
U.S.A.Cambridge -Newton -Framingham, MA Metropolitan Division1
CountryRegionRank
Source: Milken Institute
Top 10 Mexican states in
high-tech employment, 2003
Source: Milken Institute
Queretaro de ArteagaNuevo Leon
MorelosAguascalientes
JaliscoDistrito Federal
SonoraTamaulipas
ChihuahuaBaja California
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Employment concentration
Top 10 Canadian CMAs in
high-tech employment, 2007
Source: Milken Institute
Kitchener WaterlooQuebec
ReginaWinnipeg
St. JohnVancouver
CalgaryToronto
MontrealOttawa
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
Employment concentration
Top 10 US MSAs in high-tech
employment, 2007
Source: Milken Institute
Manchester,NHBethesda,MD
Binghamton,NYDurham,NC
Seattle,WAWichita,KS
Cambridge,MAHuntsville,AL
Boulder,COSan Jose,CA
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
Employment concentration
HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD
CURRENT VIEW
HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD
PROPOSED
MISSION BAY
2003
MISSION BAY
TODAY
MISSION BAY
2010
MISSION BAY
AT BUILDOUT
Tech Centers of North America:Tech Centers of North America:
How to Build and Sustain a Knowledge EconomyHow to Build and Sustain a Knowledge Economy
MEXICOMEXICO
Salvador MaloSalvador Malo
28 28 AprilApril 20082008
Milken Institute, Beverly Hills, CA
Contents
Education, public policies, and companies’ attitude
regarding science, technology and innovation in Mexico
1. Mexico’s Human Capital
2. Public policies regarding science and technology
3. Recent developments, and case examples
4. Policy mix and implementation practices needed to
improve the innovation performance of Mexico’s
economy
Some Facts
Canada Mexico United States
GENERAL
Population (millions) 32 104 294
GDP per capita (in USD
converted using PPP)32,413 10,145 39,660
Public Expenditure on
Education (as Percentage of
Total Public Expenditure)
(GDP)
23.1 (5.4) 14.4 (5.3)
Population Groups All (25/34) (55 -64) All (25/34) (55/64) All (25/34) (55/64)
Upper Secondary Education
(as Percentage of Age Group) 85 – 91 – 75 21 – 24 - 12 88 – 87 - 86
Tertiary Education (as
Percentage of Age Group) 46 – 54 - 36 15 – 18 - 8 39 – 39 - 37
Advanced Tertiary Education
(as Percentage of Age Group) 23 – 28 - 19 14 – 17 - 7 30 – 30 -28
Canada Mexico United States
GENERAL
Population (millions) 32 104 294
GDP per capita (in USD
converted using PPP)32,413 10,145 39,660
Public Expenditure on
Education (as Percentage of
Total Public Expenditure)
(GDP)
23.1 (5.4) 14.4 (5.3)
Population Groups All (25/34) (55 -64) All (25/34) (55/64) All (25/34) (55/64)
Upper Secondary Education
(as Percentage of Age Group) 85 – 91 – 75 21 – 24 - 12 88 – 87 - 86
Tertiary Education (as
Percentage of Age Group) 46 – 54 - 36 15 – 18 - 8 39 – 39 - 37
Advanced Tertiary Education
(as Percentage of Age Group) 23 – 28 - 19 14 – 17 - 7 30 – 30 -28
Education at a Glance 2007, OECD
PISA 2006 Results in Science
Percentage of students at each proficiency level
Below Level 1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6
Canada 2.2 7.8 19.1 28.8 27.7 12.0 2.4
Mexico 18.2 32.8 30.8 14.8 3.2 0.3 0.0
USA 7.6 16.8 24.2 24.0 18.3 7.5 1.5
Percentage of students at each proficiency level
Below Level 1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6
Canada 2.2 7.8 19.1 28.8 27.7 12.0 2.4
Mexico 18.2 32.8 30.8 14.8 3.2 0.3 0.0
USA 7.6 16.8 24.2 24.0 18.3 7.5 1.5
STATE STATE STATE STATE
DF 3
0
Guanajuato 6 Yucat án 5 Aguascaliente
s1
Estado de
México
1
3
Oaxaca 6 Chiapas 4 Colima 1
Puebla 1
1
Quer étaro 6 Michoac án 4 Guerrero 1
Coahuila 9 Tamaulipas 6 Sonora 4 Hidalgo 1
Jalisco 9 Sinaloa 6 Baja California
Sur
3 Nayarit 1
Morelos 9 Chihuahua 5 San Luis Potos í 3 Tabasco 1
Veracruz 9 Durango 5 Campeche 2 Zacatecas 1
Baja
California
8 Nuevo Le ón 5 Tlaxcala 2 Quintana Roo 0
STATE STATE STATE STATE
DF 3
0
Guanajuato 6 Yucat án 5 Aguascaliente
s1
Estado de
México
1
3
Oaxaca 6 Chiapas 4 Colima 1
Puebla 1
1
Quer étaro 6 Michoac án 4 Guerrero 1
Coahuila 9 Tamaulipas 6 Sonora 4 Hidalgo 1
Jalisco 9 Sinaloa 6 Baja California
Sur
3 Nayarit 1
Morelos 9 Chihuahua 5 San Luis Potos í 3 Tabasco 1
Veracruz 9 Durango 5 Campeche 2 Zacatecas 1
Baja
California
8 Nuevo Le ón 5 Tlaxcala 2 Quintana Roo 0
Universities and institutions Universities and institutions
granting doctoral degreesgranting doctoral degrees (by state)by state)
Public policies regarding S&T
Closed economy
1980 20001960
Population Growth
Industrialization
Urbanization
One-party government
Public universities expansion
(full professorships )
National Energy Labs
National Health Institutes
Sectorial Funds
Population Growth slow down
Industrialization
Urbanization
Communications
End of one party government
Economy begins to open Open economy
Public universities growth
Private universities growth
Non university S&T centers
National Council for Science and Technology
National Researchers System
Competitivenes and
innovation at State
level
Public universities R&D growth
Private universities R&D growth
Non university S&T centers
Technology /Innovation
Centers
FIELD Programs %
Agriculture Sciences 42 8
Health Sciences 55 10.4
Education and Humanities 80 15.1
Natural and Exact Sciences 111 21.0
Engineering and Technology 116 21.9
Social Sciences and
Management
125 23.6
TOTAL 529 100.0
FIELD Programs %
Agriculture Sciences 42 8
Health Sciences 55 10.4
Education and Humanities 80 15.1
Natural and Exact Sciences 111 21.0
Engineering and Technology 116 21.9
Social Sciences and
Management
125 23.6
TOTAL 529 100.0
Doctoral Programs by Field of Study
CONACYT, 2007
Doctoral Degrees Granted (per year and field of study)
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
201 225 264 251 324 403 510 701 833 826 1076 1075 1238 1414 1678 1910 2085
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
201 225 264 251 324 403 510 701 833 826 1076 1075 1238 1414 1678 1910 2085
FIELD %
Agriculture 7.3
Health Sciences 13.0
Education and Humanities 12.5
Natural and Exact Sciences 27.6
Engineering and Technology 15.2
Social Sciences and Management 24.4
TOTAL 15,014 100.0
FIELD %
Agriculture 7.3
Health Sciences 13.0
Education and Humanities 12.5
Natural and Exact Sciences 27.6
Engineering and Technology 15.2
Social Sciences and Management 24.4
TOTAL 15,014 100.0
IMCO with WEF data.
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
47
33
3231
42 42
48
55
Correlation IMCO-WEF = 0.94
Mexico ’s loss of competitiveness (1996 -2006)
54
2006
3232
31
424242
4245
424748
4855554854
WEF
545530 545530
545532545533
IMCO
Mexico’s economy is heavily oriented to well established areas and
sectors rather than to those associated with the new economy
Com
merc
ial
Goods
• Industrial Production
• Commodities and primary products
• Components
• Raw materials
• Computer Equipment
• High Tech Equipment and Machinery
• Software & Patents
• Marketing and Innovation -Intensive Goods
•Tourism
Serv
ices a
nd
non c
om
merc
ial
Good
•Transportation
• Basic Services
• Banking
• Freight services
•Communications
• Capital Market
• Entertainment
IMCO
Old Economy New Economy
Pattern of development and innovation potential
Innovation
S&T Human Resources
Internet Users
Employed population with HE
Guanajuato
Micro Electro Mechanical Systems Cluster
• Design centersUniversidad Nacional Aut ónoma de México, Mexico CityInstituto Nacional de Astrof ísica, Óptica y Electrónica, PueblaUniversidad Autónoma de Ciuda Juárez, Chihuahua, Mexico ACJ,MexicoUniversidad Popular Autonoma de Pueblas , Puebla
• Innovation Labs Network• Manufacturing capabilities
• Interested sectors• Packaging Cluster, Paso del Norte
New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (NMT), Socorro, NM , USANew Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, USATecnol ógico de Monterrey, Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, M éxicoUniversidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez, Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, M éxicoUniversityof Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX, USAEl Paso Community College, El Paso, TX, USATVI Community College, Albuquerque, NM, USACIMAV Advanced Materials Lab, Chihuahua, MexicoSandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM, USAWhite Sands Missile Range, White Sands, NM, USADelphi, Ciudad Juárez , Chihuahua, M éxico Bi -National Sustainablity Laboratory , Santa Teresa, New Mexico , USA
1. Area: 30,320 km 2
2. Population 2008: 5.02 millions (4.70 % total Mexico).
3. Labor Force IV trim 2007; 2.01 million persons
4. State GDP 2007:29, 561 million USD; Growth 2007, 3.8 %.
5. Recent Investments in Guanajuato: 2,992.1 million USD
State of Guanajuato
150,800 businesses
Only state having 14 middle -size cities with over 100,000 habitantesOnly state having 14 middle -size cities with over 100,000 habitantes
Six Economic Corridors
Yuriria
Ciudad M anuel
Doblado
Pur ísima
del
Rinc ón
Cortazar
Abasolo
Pueblo
Nuevo
Sta Cruz
de Juventino
Rosas
Comonfort
Silao
Guanajuato
Xich ú
Atarjea
Santa Catarina
Victoria
Doctor M ora
San Diego
de la Uni ónSan Luis de la Paz
San Jos é
Iturbide
Tierra
Blanca
Dolores Hidalgo
San Felipe
Allende
O campo
Le ón
San Francisco
del
Rinc ón
Romita
Irapuato
Tarimoro
Valle de
Santiago Jaral del
ProgresoHuan ímaro
Pénjamo
Cuer ámaro
Salamanca
Celaya
Apaseo
el G rande
Apaseo
el Alto
Jer écuaro
Acambaro
Tarandacuao
Coroneo
Uriangato
M orole ón
Santiago
M aravat ío
Villagr án
Salvatierra
Technologícal intensive
1. Energy
2. Biotechnology
3. Nanotechnology
4. Aeroespace
5. Information Technolog íes
6. Automotive industries
1. Intermediate Technology
2. Manufacturing
1. Agroindustries
2. Textile
3. Home appliances
South
North
Industrial Corridor
6.8% of State GDPGDP growth 2001-2007=18.3%
Industrial Corridor85.5% of State GDP
GDP growth 2001 -2007=27.4%
7.6% of State GDPGDP growth 2001-2007=14.9%
Six Economic Corridors
Yuriria
Ciudad M anuel
Doblado
Pur ísima
del
Rinc ón
Cortazar
Abasolo
Pueblo
Nuevo
Sta Cruz
de Juventino
Rosas
Comonfort
Silao
Guanajuato
Xich ú
Atarjea
Santa Catarina
Victoria
Doctor M ora
San Diego
de la Uni ónSan Luis de la Paz
San Jos é
Iturbide
Tierra
Blanca
Dolores Hidalgo
San Felipe
Allende
O campo
Le ón
San Francisco
del
Rinc ón
Romita
Irapuato
Tarimoro
Valle de
Santiago Jaral del
ProgresoHuan ímaro
Pénjamo
Cuer ámaro
Salamanca
Celaya
Apaseo
el G rande
Apaseo
el Alto
Jer écuaro
Acambaro
Tarandacuao
Coroneo
Uriangato
M orole ón
Santiago
M aravat ío
Villagr án
Salvatierra
Technologícal intensive
1. Energy
2. Biotechnology
3. Nanotechnology
4. Aeroespace
5. Information Technolog íes
6. Automotive industries
1. Intermediate Technology
2. Manufacturing
1. Agroindustries
2. Textile
3. Home appliances
South
North
Industrial Corridor
6.8% of State GDPGDP growth 2001-2007=18.3%
Industrial Corridor85.5% of State GDP
GDP growth 2001 -2007=27.4%
7.6% of State GDPGDP growth 2001-2007=14.9%
Six Economic Corridors
Yuriria
Ciudad M anuel
Doblado
Pur ísima
del
Rinc ón
Cortazar
Abasolo
Pueblo
Nuevo
Sta Cruz
de Juventino
Rosas
Comonfort
Silao
Guanajuato
Xich ú
Atarjea
Santa Catarina
Victoria
Doctor M ora
San Diego
de la Uni ónSan Luis de la Paz
San Jos é
Iturbide
Tierra
Blanca
Dolores Hidalgo
San Felipe
Allende
O campo
Le ón
San Francisco
del
Rinc ón
Romita
Irapuato
Tarimoro
Valle de
Santiago Jaral del
ProgresoHuan ímaro
Pénjamo
Cuer ámaro
Salamanca
Celaya
Apaseo
el G rande
Apaseo
el Alto
Jer écuaro
Acambaro
Tarandacuao
Coroneo
Uriangato
M orole ón
Santiago
M aravat ío
Villagr án
SalvatierraYuriria
Ciudad M anuel
Doblado
Pur ísima
del
Rinc ón
Cortazar
Abasolo
Pueblo
Nuevo
Sta Cruz
de Juventino
Rosas
Comonfort
Silao
Guanajuato
Xich ú
Atarjea
Santa Catarina
Victoria
Doctor M ora
San Diego
de la Uni ónSan Luis de la Paz
San Jos é
Iturbide
Tierra
Blanca
Dolores Hidalgo
San Felipe
Allende
O campo
Le ón
San Francisco
del
Rinc ón
Romita
Irapuato
Tarimoro
Valle de
Santiago Jaral del
ProgresoHuan ímaro
Pénjamo
Cuer ámaro
Salamanca
Celaya
Apaseo
el G rande
Apaseo
el Alto
Jer écuaro
Acambaro
Tarandacuao
Coroneo
Uriangato
M orole ón
Santiago
M aravat ío
Villagr án
SalvatierraYuriria
Ciudad M anuel
Doblado
Pur ísima
del
Rinc ón
Cortazar
Abasolo
Pueblo
Nuevo
Sta Cruz
de Juventino
Rosas
Comonfort
Silao
Guanajuato
Xich ú
Atarjea
Santa Catarina
Victoria
Doctor M ora
San Diego
de la Uni ónSan Luis de la Paz
San Jos é
Iturbide
Tierra
Blanca
Dolores Hidalgo
San Felipe
Allende
O campo
Le ón
San Francisco
del
Rinc ón
Romita
Irapuato
Tarimoro
Valle de
Santiago Jaral del
ProgresoHuan ímaro
Pénjamo
Cuer ámaro
Salamanca
Celaya
Apaseo
el G rande
Apaseo
el Alto
Jer écuaro
Acambaro
Tarandacuao
Coroneo
Uriangato
M orole ón
Santiago
M aravat ío
Villagr án
Yuriria
Ciudad M anuel
Doblado
Pur ísima
del
Rinc ón
Cortazar
Abasolo
Pueblo
Nuevo
Sta Cruz
de Juventino
Rosas
Comonfort
Silao
Guanajuato
Xich ú
Atarjea
Santa Catarina
Victoria
Doctor M ora
San Diego
de la Uni ónSan Luis de la Paz
San Jos é
Iturbide
Tierra
Blanca
Dolores Hidalgo
San Felipe
Allende
O campo
Le ón
San Francisco
del
Rinc ón
Romita
Irapuato
Tarimoro
Valle de
Santiago Jaral del
ProgresoHuan ímaro
Pénjamo
Cuer ámaro
Salamanca
Celaya
Apaseo
el G rande
Apaseo
el Alto
Jer écuaro
Acambaro
Tarandacuao
Coroneo
Uriangato
M orole ón
Santiago
M aravat ío
Yuriria
Ciudad M anuel
Doblado
Pur ísima
del
Rinc ón
Cortazar
Abasolo
Pueblo
Nuevo
Sta Cruz
de Juventino
Rosas
Comonfort
Silao
Guanajuato
Xich ú
Atarjea
Santa Catarina
Victoria
Doctor M ora
San Diego
de la Uni ónSan Luis de la Paz
San Jos é
Iturbide
Tierra
Blanca
Dolores Hidalgo
San Felipe
Allende
O campo
Le ón
San Francisco
del
Rinc ón
Romita
Irapuato
Tarimoro
Valle de
Santiago Jaral del
ProgresoHuan ímaro
Pénjamo
Cuer ámaro
Salamanca
Celaya
Apaseo
el G rande
Apaseo
el Alto
Jer écuaro
Acambaro
Tarandacuao
Coroneo
Uriangato
M orole ón
Santiago
M aravat ío
Villagr án
Salvatierra
Technologícal intensive
1. Energy
2. Biotechnology
3. Nanotechnology
4. Aeroespace
5. Information Technolog íes
6. Automotive industries
1. Energy
2. Biotechnology
3. Nanotechnology
4. Aeroespace
5. Information Technolog íes
6. Automotive industries
1. Intermediate Technology
2. Manufacturing
1. Intermediate Technology
2. Manufacturing
1. Agroindustries
2. Textile
3. Home appliances
1. Agroindustries
2. Textile
3. Home appliances
South
North
Industrial Corridor
6.8% of State GDPGDP growth 2001-2007=18.3%
Industrial Corridor85.5% of State GDP
GDP growth 2001 -2007=27.4%
7.6% of State GDPGDP growth 2001-2007=14.9%
State of Guanajuato ’s Development Plan
Public policies needed
• Revamp education sector (starting at the
university level)
• Invest in multiplying number of PhD ’s
• Attract scientists (especially Mexican)
• Increase programs to foster demand of
technology and applied science
• Strengthen venture capital market
• Stimulate competition in key sectors
Pragmatic approach to introduce a cultural change
Change business
culture to accelerate
tehcnology adoption
Introduce changes
that can be more
readily introduced
(optimize SMES Fund )
Induce radical changes
through policies that detonate
use of high technology and
innovation (Structural
Changes in Higher
Education )
Impact
Time
Conclusions 1
Although:
• Mexico is still far away from building a knowledge society – We have a low educated population and are not investing enough i n human
capital formation and research
– Although our expenditure per scientist is not too low, we have a still small number of scientists and few of them are working in technology a nd innovation related activities, and there are even less in the productive an d services sectors
• Business corporations and companies invest little in innovation or R&D– Global or international companies because they rely on their hom e research
– Mexican large companies because they are either in traditional s ectors or in protected economic sectors; lack the culture and have no incenti ves to do; or are small and medium businesses struggling to survive financial
• Public policies have not yet attained the effective mix of incentives, programs and regulations to make Mexico ’s economy become more knowledge and information intensive.
Conclusions
• The number of higher education students keeps growing, as well as those of doctoral programs and of PhD ’s obtained.
• There is a general awareness in government and business circles that Mexico needs to become competitive and innovative in order not only to compete internationally but to attain a better society
• Many state governments, industrial and business associations, foundations and NGOs, or higher education institution are working in research and development or promoting initiatives, strategic plans, participating in network s and clusters focused on innovation, competitiveness and technology
• There are now some success stories.
These are signs that things will improve in the future
Commercial Scale (110 tpd)
Demonstration Facility (Ottawa, Canada)
NO Emissions from
Conversion of waste to
synthetic fuel gas and
other valuable co
products.
Proposed Facility for the
City of Los Angeles
Maximum
Value from Waste
Maximum Environmental Protection
Zero Risk to Community
Social Acceptability
99.8% Diversion from Landfill