Barriers to Local Use of Publicly Funded Knowledge: Cognitive Appropriation and Technology Transfer in Argentina
Keywords:
Cognitive Appropriation, Intellectual Property, Technology Transfer, Invention Patents, Economic DevelopmentAbstract
This paper examines the limited domestic utilization of publicly funded scientific knowledge in Argentina, focusing on patentable innovations generated by public researchers. The analysis investigates how, and by whom, these innovations are transferred. The study proceeds in three stages: (1) identifying patent applications filed by scientists with public funding and determining their ownership; (2) surveying those inventors about licensing and commercial use; and (3) conducting in-depth interviews with selected inventors to explore barriers to local transfer. The results indicate that very few public inventions are exploited domestically: only 12% of patents have been commercially used and 28% licensed—figures comparable to those reported in other countries. Moreover, more than half of the patents are not owned by Argentine institutions, and 22.9% are owned by foreign entities, most of which are filed abroad. This pattern points to a significant “cognitive appropriation” of knowledge by external actors. On the basis of these findings, a typology of constraints on technology transfer is proposed, and policy implications are discussed to ensure that publicly funded research more effectively supports national development.
Downloads
References
Aggio, C., Erbes, A., Lengyel, M. y Milesi, D. (2017). Experiencias internacionales en asociatividad público-privada para la innovación (Documento de Trabajo Nº 9). Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios en Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación.
Álvarez, R., Benavente, J. M., Contreras, C. y Contreras, J. L. (2010). Consorcios Tecnológicos en América Latina: una primera exploración de los casos de Argentina, Chile, Colombia y Uruguay (Notas Técnicas # idb-tn-127). Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo.
Aoki, K. (1998). Neocolonialism, Anticommons Property, and Biopiracy in the (Not-so-Brave) New World Order of International Intellectual Property Protection. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 6(1), Art. 2.
Arocena, R. y Sutz, J. (2010). Weak knowledge demand in the South: learning divides and innovation policies. Science and Public Policy, 37(8), 571-582.
Arrow, K. J. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. En The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors (pp. 609-626). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Arza, V. (2013). ¿Cómo mejorar el impacto socioeconómico de la colaboración público privada en I+D en el sector de biotecnología agropecuaria? El caso del desarrollo de un algodón resistente a la plaga más importante del Mercosur (Documento de trabajo N° 2). Red Mercosur.
Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R. y Sobrero, M. (2007). To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics, 70(2), 333-354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-0206-5
Ben-Atar, D. (2004). Trade secrets: Intellectual piracy and the origins of American industrial power. Yale University Press.
Bhardwaj, M. y Sandhu, A. (2021). A Study on Working/Non-working Status of Patents Granted to HEIs and NRLs of India. Current Science, 120(1), 34-42.
Biagioli, M. (2006). From Print to Patents: Living on Instruments in Early Modern Europe. History of Science, 44(2), 139-186. https://doi.org/10.1177/007327530604400202
Caviggioli, F., De Marco, A., Montobbio, F. y Ughetto, E. (2020). The licensing and selling of inventions by US universities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120189
Chang, H.-J. (2001). Intellectual property rights and economic development: Historical Lessons and Emerging Issues. Journal of Human Development, 2(2), 287-309.
Chang, H.-J. (2013). Patada a la escalera: La verdadera historia del libre comercio. Ensayos de Economía, 23(42), 27-57.
Chudnovsky, D. (1999). Políticas de ciencia y tecnología y el Sistema Nacional de Innovación en Argentina. Revista de la CEPAL, 67.
Cimoli, M., Dosi, G. y Stiglitz, J. (Eds.). (2009). Industrial policy and development: The political economy of capabilities accumulation. Oxford University Press.
Codner, D., Becerra, P. y Díaz, A. (2012). Blind Technology Transfer or Technological Knowledge Leakage: a Case Study from the South. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 7(2), 184-195.
Codner, D. y Perrotta, R. M. (2018). Blind Technology Transfer Process from Argentina. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 13(3), 47-53.
Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R. y Walsh, J. P. (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Coriat, B. (1985). El taller y el cronómetro. Ensayo sobre el taylorismo, el fordismo y la producción en masa. Siglo XXI.
Dias, A. A. y Silveira Porto, G. (2018). Technology transfer management in the context of a developing country: evidence from Brazilian universities. Knowledge Management Research & Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2018.1514288
Drahos, P. y Braithwaite, J. (2002). Information Feudalism: Who owns the knowledge economy? The New Press.
Dutrénit, G. y Arza, V. (2010). Channels and benefits of interactions between public research organizations and industry: comparing four Latin American countries. Science and Public Policy, 37(7), 541-553.
Erbes, A. y Suárez, D. (2016). Repensando el desarrollo latinoamericano. Una discusión desde los sistemas de innovación. UNGS.
Fernández-Arias, E., Sabel, C., Stein, E. y Trejos, A. (2016). Two to tango: public-private collaboration for productive development policies. Inter-American Development Bank.
Goldstein, D. (1989). Biotecnología, universidad y política. Siglo XXI Editores.
Gould, D. M. y Gruben, W. C. (1996). The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in Economic Growth. Journal of Development Economics, 48(2), 323-350.
Hernández, L. F. R. (2020). Factors that Affect the Ability of Universities to Commercialize Their Patents in a Latin American Country [Tesis doctoral, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú].
Herrera, A. (1971, 14 de julio). Los determinantes sociales de la política científica en América Latina. Política científica explícita y política científica implícita. Diario La Opinión.
Johns, A. (2010). Piracy. The Intellectual Property Wars from Gutenberg to Gates. University of Chicago Press.
Kreimer, P. y Thomas, H. (2006). Production des connaissances dans la Science périphérique: l'hypothèse CANA en Argentine. En J. B. Meyer y M. Carton (Eds.), La société des savoirs. Trompe-l’oeil ou perspectives? L’Harmattan.
Kreimer, P. y Zukerfeld, M. (2014). La explotación cognitiva: Tensiones emergentes en la producción y uso social de conocimientos científicos tradicionales, informacionales y laborales. En P. Kreimer, H. Vessuri, L. Velho y A. Arellano (Coords.), Perspectivas latinoamericanas en el estudio social de la ciencia, la tecnología y el conocimiento (pp. 178-193). Siglo XXI.
Leite, R. A. S., Walter, C. E., Reis, I. B., de Sousa, P. E. F., de Aragão, I. M. y Au-Yong-Oliveira, M. (2023). Towards a model for determining patent revenue odds: An empirical study of technology transfer offices. Expert Systems, 40(5), e13037. https://doi.org/10.1111/exsy.13037
May, C. y Sell, S. K. (2006). Intellectual property rights: a critical history. Lynne Riener Publishers.
Motohashi, K. (2008). Licensing or not licensing? An empirical analysis of the strategic use of patents by Japanese firms. Research Policy, 37(9), 1548-1555. https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v37y2008i9p1548-1555.html
Nagaoka, S. y Walsh, J. P. (2009). Commercialization and Other Uses of Patents in Japan and the U.S.: Major findings from the RIETI-Georgia Tech inventor survey (Discussion Paper 09011). Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry.
Posner, R. (2005). Intellectual Property: The Law and Economics Approach. Journal of Economic Perspective, 19(2), 57-73.
RICYT. (2025). Indicadores. Red Iberoamericana de Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología. https://www.ricyt.org/category/indicadores/
Rikap, C. y Lundvall, B.-A. (2020). Big tech, knowledge predation and the implications for development. Innovation and Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2020.1855825
Romer, P. (1993). Two Strategies for Economic Development: Using Ideas and Producing Ideas. En L. H. Summer y S. Shah (Eds.), Proceedings of the World Bank: Annual Conference On Development Economies 1992 (pp. 63-115). World Bank.
Sábato, J. A. y Botana, N. R. (1968). La ciencia y la tecnología en el desarrollo futuro de América Latina. Revista de la Integración, 1(3), 15-36.
Torrisi, S., Gambardella, A., Giuri, P., Harhoff, D., Hoisl, K. y Mariani, M. (2016). Used, blocking and sleeping patents: empirical evidence from a large-scale inventor survey. Research Policy, 45(7), 1374-1385.
Varian, H. (1998). Markets for Information Goods. https://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/Papers/japan
Vessuri, H. (1994). La ciencia académica en América Latina en el siglo XX. Redes, 1(2), 41-76.
