Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Nanotechnology in Mexico: Key Findings Based on OECD Criteria

  • Published:
Minerva Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This analysis of Mexico’s nanotechnology policies utilizes indicators developed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, which in 2008 conducted a pilot survey comparing the nanotechnology policies of 24 countries. In this paper, we apply the same questionnaire to the Mexican case, adding business information derived from the National Institute of Statistics and Geography survey on nanotechnologies, also an OECD instrument.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The questionnaire was sent by the WPN to the principal organizations involved in formulating and implementing STI policy related to nanotechnology (WPN 2009).

  2. “The survey was designed to identify 15 different variables of the innovation process in production units of the country. Within those variables, nanotechnology was one of the topics in the survey” (INEGI 2014: 3).

  3. “OECD economies are increasingly knowledge-based, with a shift of economic activity to services, and to high-tech and innovative activities … While manufacturing has declined in importance, its high-tech segment is very dynamic …” (OECD n/d, 3).

  4. “Creating, exploiting and commercializing new technologies has become essential in the global race for competitiveness. High-technology or ‘high-tech' sectors are key drivers of economic growth, productivity and social protection, and are generally a source of high value added and well-paid employment” (Eurostat 2014).

  5. In the case of Mexico, the influence of maquiladora production and strong intra-firm trade between US companies demands a cautious analysis (Delgado Wise and Invernizzi 2002). The ESIDET survey, which will be discussed later, excludes export-oriented maquiladora businesses.

  6. “… high-tech investment criterion is not an unequivocal measure of whether an industry should be classified as high tech” (Hecker 2005: 71).

  7. Another difficulty relating high-tech industry with development is that the indicators include the entire military industry, which can hardly be identified with development, such as in the case of Israel and to a large extent that of the USA.

  8. In 2012 R&D investment as a percentage of GDP was, for example, Israel 3.93; Finland 3.55; Germany 2.92; USA 2.79; France 2.26; Canada 1.73; UK 1.72 (World Bank 2012).

  9. It is worth to note that the percentage of GDP is not the only way to measure R&D investment. There are other ways of sizing this, such as purchasing power parities (PPPs) & funding controlled for inflation. We are citing the most employed indicator as a way of comparison.

  10. The budget in 2015 for CONACYT, which is the governing body in this field in Mexico, was 4.9% higher in real terms than that authorized the previous year (2014), according to the Ministry of Finance (SHCP 2013); but the fall in oil prices has led to a lowering of expectations and no increases are expected at this time.

  11. Examples include economic policy, environment, development, public governance and territorial development, trade and agriculture, financial and business matters, tax policy and administration, science, technology and industry, employment and social issues, education, transportation and energy (OECD 2012b).

  12. The surveyed countries were: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, United States, Finland, France, Holland, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Norway, Poland, Portugal, United Kingdom, Czech Republic, Russia, South Africa, Sweden and Switzerland.

  13. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF for its German acronym); and the next referenced acronyms in the text is for Brazil (PNN Programa Nacional de Nanotecnologia), under the Ministry of Science and Technology (MCT).

  14. Some examples summarized by OECD include (WPN 2009): the Netherlands’ risk observatory in 2007, Australia’s Public Awareness and Engagement Programme, Belgium’s festival in 2007, France’s public debates, UK’s citizens' juries and public dialogues.

  15. "The Citizens Agenda for Science, Technology and Innovation is a nationwide consultation being done for the first time in Mexico, in which the population can choose between 10 challenges, which it considers must be faced with the participation of science and technology to achieve a better quality of life in the horizon of 2030” (FCCT 2015).

  16. “Science push” means that science provides results that businesses should use, in contrast to the “market pull” model, which suggests that businesses determine what should be researched in order to meet their needs.

  17. “VI. To authorize, in general, the program and criteria for the implementation of agreements and contracts for the provision of research services for specific research projects, technological development, innovation or technical services and to approve strategic partnerships and projects, agreements or contracts aimed at establishing technology-based businesses with or without input from the research center in its social capital” (Congreso de la Unión 2014 Cap IX, Art. 55, VI).

  18. The agreements between universities are not considered in this section because they are private initiatives between the institutes and not related to national S&T policy.

  19. The Mexican standards are: NMX-R-10867-SCFI-2014, NMX-R-10929-SCFI-2014, NMX-R-27687-SCFI-2014, NMX-R-80004-1-SCFI-2014, NMX-R-80004-3-SCFI-2014 (Ministry of the Interior 2014).

  20. Between the 1990s and the second decade of this century, México has switched from a “science push” model towards one of “market pull.”

  21. Although these programs explicitly include the prefix “nano” in their title, further research is needed in order to distinguish the real emphasis of the programs and the ones that only fulfill publicity purposes.

  22. Such records are just starting to be kept in France, Belgium, Denmark, and other countries.

  23. See, for example, “California in the nano economy,” carried out by Stacey Frederick, is an exception http://californiananoeconomy.org/.

  24. The Biotechnology and Nanotechnology Module is from the Survey on Research and Technological Development and Activities (ESIDET for its Spanish acronym). “For the production sector, the sample frame consists of businesses with 20 or more employees, and for the higher education, nonprofit private and government sectors the sampling unit is the institution. The sampling frame for the productive sector consists of those businesses included in the 2009 Economic Census (CE 2009) without taking into account the maquiladora, higher education, government and non-profit sectors; also included are the businesses provided by the National Council on Science and Technology (CONACYT) and those which have been part of the same survey in at least 2 previous events occasions. It also includes the list of 703 businesses provided by CONACYT which have received some financial support for the realization of RTD (Research and Technical Development)" (INEGI 2014: 7). It should be noted that export-oriented maquiladoras are not included in the INEGI survey. International recommendations issued by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), expressed in the Frascati Manual, refer to four main areas of study: productive sector, government, higher education and private non-profit institutions (…) The productive sector includes businesses, organizations and institutions classified in mining, manufacturing, construction, electricity, services, transport and communications sectors, whose primary activity is the production of market goods and services (INEGI 2014: 3).

References

  • AMEXCID. 2012. Aprueban México y China Acuerdo sobre Cooperación Científica y Tecnológica.

  • Anzaldo, Mónica. 2014. Gobernanza de la regulación de las nanotecnologías en México: el Comité Técnico de Normalización para las Nanotecnologías presented at the Primer Seminario Iberoamericano Diálogos Sobre Nanotecnologías. Doctorado en Estudios del Desarrollo: Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bejarano, Fernando. 2012. Las nanotecnologías como tema emergente en la agenda ambiental internacional y los restos de la sociedad civil en América Latina. In Perspectivas sobre el desarrollo de las nanotecnologías en América Latina, eds. Guillermo Foladori, E. Záyago, and Noela Invernizzi. México, DF: Miguel Angel Porrúa.

  • Bell, Chris, and Martha Marrapese. 2011. Nanotechnology standards and international legal considerations. In Nanotechnology standards, eds. Vladimir Murashov, and John Howard, 239–255. New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Casalet, Mónica. 2012. Las relaciones de colaboración entre la universidad y los sectores productivos: una oportunidad a construir en la política de innovación. In Dilemas de la innovación en México, eds. Jorge Carrrillo, Alfredo Hualde, and Daniel Villavicencio. Tijuana, BC: El Colegio de la Frontera Norte.

    Google Scholar 

  • CBM-Nano. 2009. Resultados de la primera reunión » Centro virtual brasileño-mexicano de nanotecnología.

  • Cientifica. 2011. Global funding of nanotechnologies & its impact. Cientifica Ltd.

  • CONACYT. 2001. Programa especial de ciencia y tecnología. Tomo II. México D.F.: Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología.

    Google Scholar 

  • CONACYT. 2002. DECRETO por el que se aprueba y se expide el programa denominado Programa Especial de Ciencia y Tecnología 2001-2006. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología. Diario Oficial de la Federación.

  • CONACYT. 2008a. Informe de Labores 2008. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología.

  • CONACYT. 2008b. Programa Especial de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación 2008–2012. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología.

  • CONACYT. 2010. Convocatoria México- Unión Europea nanotecnología. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología. Programa de Cooperación Internacional: Bilateral Convocatoria México- Unión Europea Nanotecnología.

  • CONACYT. 2014. Programa Especial de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación 2014–2018. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología.

  • CONACYT. 2015a. Becas CONACYT-Universidad de Manchester 2014. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología. http://www.uan.edu.mx/d/a/sip/convocatorias/2014/Becas_Conacy_-_Universidad_de_Manchester_2014.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2015.

  • CONACYT. 2015b. Red temática de nanociencias y nanotecnología. Dirección de Redes. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología. http://www.nanored.org.mx/. Accessed 23 Jan 2015.

  • Congreso de la Unión. 2014. Ley de Ciencia y Tecnología.

  • Delgado Wise, Raúl, and Noela Invernizzi. 2002. México y Corea del Sur: Claroscuros del crecimiento exportador en el contexto del globalismo neoliberal. Aportes, Revista Mexicana de Estudios sobre la Cuenca del Pacífico II: 63–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demissie, Hailemichael. 2011. The nano-revolution and economic development: Is Africa ready? Ee-JRIF (Ethiopian e-Journal for Research and Innovation Foresight) 3(2): 35–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drilhon, Gabriel. 1991. Choosing priorities in science and technology—(problems in allocating funds for research and development projects). Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • DS&T. n/d. The national nanotechnology strategy. Pretoria: Department of Science & Technology. Republic of South Africa.

  • Dutrénit, Gabriela, and Martín Puchet. 2015. Approaching the measurement of the critical mass of science, technology and innovation: How far off is Mexico? www.globelics.org. http://www.ungs.edu.ar/globelics/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/ID-195-Dutrenit-Puchet-The-links-between-microeconomic-and-macroeconomic-policies.pdf. Accessed 21 Jan 2015.

  • European Commission. 2013. Nanotechnology: The invisible giant tackling Europe’s future challenges. European Commission. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.

  • Eurostat. 2014. High-tech statistics—Statistics explained. European Commission. Eurostat. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/High-tech_statistics. Accessed 11 Nov 2014.

  • FCCT. 2015. ¿Qué es la Agenda Ciudadana de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación? Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico. http://www.foroconsultivo.org.mx/home/index.php/politicas-publicas/agenda-ciudadana. Accessed 2 Feb 2015.

  • FCCYT. 2010. Catálogo de programas para el fomento empresarial y la vinculación, 2010. Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico.

  • FCCYT. 2015a. ¿Qué es el Foro Consultivo? Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico. http://www.foroconsultivo.org.mx/home/index.php/about-foro/que-es-el-fccyt. Accessed 2 Feb 2015.

  • FCCYT. 2015b. ¿Qué es la Agenda Ciudadana de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación? Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico. http://www.foroconsultivo.org.mx/home/index.php/politicas-publicas/agenda-ciudadana. Accessed 2 Feb 2015.

  • Federal Ministry of Education and Research. 2007. Nano-Initiative—Action Plan 2010. VDI Technologiezentrum GmbH.

  • Foladori, Guillermo. 2015. SAICM en América Latina y las nanotecnologías. In Trabajo, riesgos y la regulación de las nanotecnologías en América Latina. México D.F: Miguel Ángel Porrúa.

  • Foladori, Guillermo, and Noela Invernizzi. 2013. Inequality gaps in nanotechnology development in Latin America. Journal of Arts and Humanities 2: 36–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foladori, Guillermo, and Edgar Zayago-Lau. 2014. The regulation of nanotechnologies in Mexico. Nanotechnology Law & Business Journal 11: 164–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foladori, Guillermo, Fernando Bejarano, and Noela Invernizzi. 2013. Nanotecnología: gestión y reglamentación de riesgos pra la salud y el medio ambiente en América Latina y el Caribe. Trabalho, Educação e Saúde 11: 145–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foladori, Guillermo, Santiago Figueroa, Edgar Záyago, and Noela Invernizzi. 2012. Nanotechnology: Distinctive features in Latin America. Nanotechnology Law & Business Journal 9: 88–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gassler, H., W. Polt, J. Schindler, M. Weber, S. Mahroum, K. Kubeczko, and M. Keenan. 2004. Priorities in science & technology policy. An international comparison. Joanneum Research Forschungsgesellschaft mbH. Institut für Technologie und Regionalpolitik. Project No. RTW.2003. AF.014-01Vienna.

  • GTRN. 2012. Lineamientos para regulaciones sobre nanotecnologías par impulsar la competitividad y proteger al medio ambiente, la salud y la seguridad de los consumidores. Grupo de Trabajo sobre regulaciones para la nanotecnologíaSecretaría de Economía.

  • Hecker, Daniel. 2005. High-technology employment: A NAICS-based update. Monthly Labor Review 128: 57–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • ICM. n/d. Iniciativa Científica Milenio. Memoria Bianual 1999–2000. MIDEPLAN. ICM (Iniciativa Científica Milenio).

  • IINL. 2015. Environmental monitoring and food quality and safety. International Iberian Nanotechnology Laboratory. http://inl.int/research_areas/3. Accessed 20 Apr 2015.

  • INEGI. 2014. Encuesta sobre Investigación y Desarrollo Tecnológico y Módulo sobre Actividades de Biotecnología y Nanotecnología 2012 Síntesis metodológica ESIDET - MBN. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía.

  • Kica, E. 2015. The legitimacy of transnational private governance arrangements related to nanotechnologies: The case of international organization for standardization. Enschede: University of Twente.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loyola-Díaz, Rafael, and Octavio Paredes-López. 2009. La ciencia y la innovación en México, en la encrucijada. La Crónica de hoy.

  • Macilwain, Colin. 1998. World Bank backs Third World centers of excellence plan. Nature 396: 24–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marmolejo, Francisco. 2009. Redes, movilidad académica y fuga de cerebros en América del Norte: el caso de los académicos mexicanos. In Fuga de cerebros, movilidad académica, redes científicas Perspectivas latinoamericanas. México D.F.: IESALC – CINVESTAV - IRD.

  • MCTI. 2012. Programa Nacional de Nanotecnologia. Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação.

  • National Nanotechnology Initiative. 2015. NNI Budget | Nano. Nano.gov.

  • NSF. 1988. Science and technology resources in U.S. industry. Special report. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. National Science Foundation.

  • Observatory Nano. 2015. Communicating nanoethics. http://ethicschool.nl/_files/Communicatingnanoethicsreportfinal.pdf. Accessed 5 Feb 2015.

  • OECD. n/d. Technology, productivity and job creation: Best policy practices highlights. OECD Jobs Strategy. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

  • OECD. 1994. Review of National Science and Technology Policy: México Examiners Report DSTI/STP (94) 11. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development).

  • OECD. 2002. Frascati manual: Proposed standard practice for surveys on research and experimental development, 6th ed. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development).

  • OECD. 2009. OECD reviews of innovation policy: Mexico. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

  • OECD. 2010a. Perspectivas OECD: México Políticas Clave para un Desarrollo Sostenible. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

  • OECD. 2010b. Ministerial report on the OECD innovation strategy: Innovation to strengthen growth and address global and social challenges. Key findings. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

  • OECD. 2012a. Planning guide for public engagement and outreach in nanotechnology. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development).

  • OECD. 2012b. Directory of bodies of the OECD. OECD Publishing.

  • OECD. 2012c. Six years of OECD work on the safety of manufactured nanomaterials: Achievements and future opportunities. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

  • OECD. 2014a. Innovation in science, technology and industry research and development statistics (RDS). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

  • OECD. 2014b. OECD Members and partners. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/. Accessed 8 Dec 2014.

  • OECD. 2014c. Directorate for Science, Technology and innovation key nanotechnology indicators. http://www.oecd.org/sti/nanotechnology-indicators.htm. Accessed 8 Dec 2014.

  • OECD. 2014d. Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation Key Nanotechnology Indicators. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). http://www.oecd.org/sti/nanotechnology-indicators.htm. Accessed 8 Dec 2014.

  • OECD. 2015a. Sponsorship programme for the testing of manufactured nanomaterials. http://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/nanosafety/sponsorshipprogrammeforthetestingofmanufacturednanomaterials.htm. Accessed 21 Apr 2015.

  • OECD. 2015b. OECD Working Party on Nanotechnology. http://www.oecd.org/sti/sci-tech/oecdworkingpartyonnanotechnology.htm. Accessed 21 Apr 2015.

  • OEI. 2009. La nanotecnología en Iberoamérica. Situación actual y tendencias. Informe del Observatorio Iberoamericano de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación del Centro de Altos Estudios Universitarios de la OEI. Organización de Estados Iberoamericanos para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura.

  • OEST. 2004. Science, technology, engineering and innovation for development: A vision for the Americas in the 21st century. OEST (Office of Education, Science and Technology).

  • Robles-Belmont, Eduardo, Guillermo Foladori, Edgar Arteaga Figueroa, Richard Appelbaum, Edgar Záyago Lau, and Rachel Parker. 2015. Patentes e innovación de nanotecnología en México. México D.F.: Miguel Ángel Porrúa.

    Google Scholar 

  • SHCP. 2013. Documentos Recientes Presupuesto de Egresos de la Federación. Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público.

  • SRE. 2015a. Cumbre de Rectores México-Japón y visita a Singapur. Boletín Electrónico: Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo. http://amexcid.gob.mx/boletin/0611/html/cumbre-de-rectores-mex-jap-y-visita-a-singapur.html. Accessed 3.

  • SRE. 2015b. Red de talentos mexicanos—antecedentes. Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores. http://www.redtalentos.gob.mx/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1&Itemid=152. Accessed 1 Feb 2015.

  • SRE CONACYT. 2012. Fondo Sectorial de Investigación SRE CONACYT. Convocatoria México-Argentina. Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores/CONACYT.

  • StatNano. 2015. South Korea plans to stand among top 3 world states in nanotechnology. http://statnano.com/news/45450. Accessed 21 Jan 2015.

  • Stezano, Federico. 2009. El rol de los programas en CyT y organizaciones intermedias en las relaciones ciencia-industria. Revisión analítica y experiencias en México. In Innovación y competitividad en la sociedad del conocimiento, eds. Adriana Martínez Martínez, López de Alba, Alejandro García, and Salvador Estrada. 1. ed. Desarrollo Económico Y Ciencias Administrativas. México, D.F: Guanajuato, Gobierno del Estado, Consejo de Ciencia y Tecnología: Plaza y Valdés.

  • Takeuchi, N., and Miguel Mora Ramos. 2011. Divulgación y formación en nanotecnología en México. Mundo Nano.

  • World Bank. 1998. Project appraisal document on a proposed loan in the amount of US$300 million to Mexico for a knowledge and innovation project. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. 2012. Research and development expenditure (% of GDP). Data.

  • World Bank. 2013. World development indicators | Data. Accessed 16 Oct 2014.

  • WPN. 2009. Inventory of National Science, Technology and Innovation Policies for Nanotechnology 2008. Working Party on Nanotechnology. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy.

  • Záyago, Edgar, Guillermo Foladori, and Edgar Arteaga Figueroa. 2012. Toward an inventory of nanotechnology companies in Mexico. Nanotechnology Law & Business Journal 9: 283–292.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

UC MEXUS-CONACYT Collaborative Grants 2014. Nanotechnology in the Mexican industrial policy. A comparative methodological framework.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Doctoral Program in Development Studies, Autonomous University of Zacatecas, Preparatoria Av., Col. Hidráulica, PO Box 3-138, 98065, Zacatecas, Mexico

    Guillermo Foladori & Edgar Záyago Lau

  2. Master Program in Economics, Autonomous University of Zacatecas, Preparatoria Av., Col. Hidráulica, PO Box 3-138, 98065, Zacatecas, Mexico

    Edgar Arteaga Figueroa

  3. Center for Nanotechnology and Society, University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106-2150, USA

    Richard Appelbaum

  4. Institute of Research in Applied Mathematics and Systems, Building D Second Floor, Administrative External Zone, Cd. Universitaria, 04510, Mexico, DF, Mexico

    Eduardo Robles-Belmont

  5. Economics School, Autonomous University of Zacatecas, Preparatoria Av., Col. Hidráulica, PO Box 3-138, 98065, Zacatecas, Mexico

    Liliana Villa & Vanessa Leos

  6. The Mowat Centre, School of Public Policy and Governance, University of Toronto, 720 Spadina Avenue, Suite 218, Toronto, ON, M5S 2T9, Canada

    Rachel Parker

Authors
  1. Guillermo Foladori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Edgar Arteaga Figueroa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Edgar Záyago Lau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Richard Appelbaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Eduardo Robles-Belmont
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Liliana Villa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Rachel Parker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Vanessa Leos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edgar Arteaga Figueroa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Foladori, G., Arteaga Figueroa, E., Záyago Lau, E. et al. Nanotechnology in Mexico: Key Findings Based on OECD Criteria. Minerva 53, 279–301 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-015-9281-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-015-9281-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation