Call for papers: Early career researchers workshop 'From Rising Powers to Interdependent Futures', 21 June 2017, Manchester

The emergent economies, most notably China, India, Brazil, South Africa, and Russia are no longer ‘emergent’. They are at the centre of the global stage. As economic actors, these Rising Powers exercise large-scale influence on: global governance; global production, trade, labour and financial flows; the environment; the generation of new knowledge and innovation; and geo-political relationships. These changes have implications for other developing countries' engagement with the Rising Powers. They also have consequences for the developed world as it negotiates new relationships and partnerships with the Rising Powers. We are, thus, witnessing a key transformative moment in world history, with implications that will shape the global economy, and global economic and social relationships over the next few decades.

This early career researchers’ workshop is linked to a larger international conference on the same core themes, which concludes the ESRC ‘Rising Powers and Interdependent Futures’ research programme. The workshop aims to give early career researchers an opportunity to present and discuss their research related to the Rising Powers, and to exchange their ideas and findings with peers, senior academics and other experts on the subject.

We encourage proposals for papers from across the social sciences, including but not limited to anthropology, political science, development studies, geography, law, and economics.

Contributions are especially invited around the following themes:

• Innovation systems, emerging technologies, and the roles of the Rising Powers in shaping global innovation
• The roles of the Rising Powers in peace and security architectures at regional and global levels
• The roles played by the Rising Powers in cross-border relations and in shaping regional integration with neighbouring countries
• South-South cooperation and the emergence of Rising Powers as actors in international development
• Rising Powers, global partnerships and financing for development
• The impact of the Rising Powers on developing countries through changes in the global economy
• Social and environmental issues within the Rising Powers
• Impact of the Rising Powers on social and environmental issues beyond their borders, e.g. South-South cooperation and investment in low carbon technologies, engagement in global governance on social and environmental standards, climate change, etc
• Changing geographies of global development in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals
• Southern identities or the cultural dimension of ‘Southerness’ that is implicit in claims of affinities within the global South
• Rising Powers roles in changing geographies and governance of global value chains and global production networks
• Papers on any other areas that help understand the ways in which the Rising Powers shape our interdependent future

Deadlines:
- Abstract submission: 10 March 2017. Please send your abstract (max. 300 words) to natalie.langford@manchester.ac.uk and corinna.braun-munzinger@manchester.ac.uk indicating 'early career workshop' in the subject line

- Full paper submission: 12 May 2017 (max. 8,000 words excl. abstract, notes, references etc.) Papers will be circulated to discussants prior to the workshop.

There is no registration fee for the workshop. Refreshments and lunch will be provided. Unfortunately, we are unable to reimburse travel and accommodation expenses.

Call for papers: Workshop on ‘Rising Powers and Labour Standards in Global Production Networks’, 19-20 June 2017, Manchester

The ‘Rising Powers’, especially China, India and Brazil, have now become key players in the global economy. Yet, we still know too little about how these economies are engaging with and potentially shaping, the rules that govern international trade and global production, in particular global labour and social standards. For producers around the world, meeting international standards on social and environmental sustainability is increasingly critical. We are now more aware about the food we eat and how it came to our plates, or whether what we wear implied sweatshop labour. Nonetheless, gains from social compliance – especially for workers and poor producers – remain unclear. Expanding trade between the Rising Power economies, their growing domestic consumer markets and the emergence of leading firms from China, India and Brazil raise questions on how global standards will be shaped in the future, who the key drivers will be, and what implications arise for workers in both these emerging economies and throughout the global economy.

This workshop will present findings from work undertaken in Brazil, China, India and the EU, as part of an ESRC funded project on labour standards and the governance of global production networks. It also aims to bring together a wider community of academics and practitioners working on labour and sustainability standards in the global economy, but with a particular interest on the ‘Rising Powers’ and how they might sustain, challenge, or change the global discourse on labour and sustainability standards. Hence, we particularly invite proposals for papers around the following themes:

• The emergence of rising power MNCs, their engagement with CSR and social standards, and the implications for global labour and social standards in global value chains
• The role of innovation, CSR, and human rights in global value chains
• The engagement of civil society actors in the rising powers with local and/or global CSR initiatives and social standards
• Public labour regulation in Brazil, China and India and the engagement of these countries in the international institutions where trade rules on labour and social standards are defined
• The implications of the rise of Brazil, China and India for labour and social standards in OECD and developing economies

Deadlines:

• Abstract submission: 24 February 2017. Please send your abstract (max. 300 words) to khalid.nadvi@manchester.ac.uk and natalie.langford@manchester.ac.uk

• Full paper submission: 12 May 2017 (max. 8,000 words excl. abstract, notes, references etc.) Papers will be circulated to discussants prior to the workshop.

Accommodation costs in Manchester will be covered for authors of accepted papers.

Giving workers employment rights increases productivity and profitability

By Boni Sones, University of Cambridge

Image by Stuart Miles. FreeDigitalPhotos.net

We live in a globalised world and buy products produced by workers’ from all over the World. Increasingly consumers are demanding that those who produce our goods are employed on decent terms and conditions whether they work in Europe, Africa, India, Russia, China or South America. Sweatshop labour used in one continent is often named and shamed in another and these reputational effects can affect demand for goods. But as consumers ask for more fairtrade goods from the developing world, workers in the so called global North are finding that their employment is more insecure, as greater numbers are employed on zero hour contracts, while all workers are finding it harder to access employment tribunals to enforce their employment rights.

The Centre for Business Research at the University of Cambridge has turned conventional wisdom on its head, and through a series of quantitative research projects over a number of recent years, has constructed a new database that reveals how improvements in labour rights can lead to increased productivity and employment as well as greater equality in society. These datasets are now online for others to access and use.

International organisations are taking note of these findings and national governments would do well to consider them. Globalisation, rather than inducing a so called ‘race to the bottom’ as many commentators predicted, is making governments more aware of the need for improved protections for workers, and of the importance of enforcement. Better informed and discerning consumers who are switched on to the web and social media where they can check the sourcing of the products they buy, along with campaigning civil society groups and NGOs, are helping to enforce these values.

The statistical studies carried out by the CBR complement qualitative research carried out by the Global Development Institute at The University of Manchester.

In a recent CBR workshop held in Cambridge in September 2016 researchers from both Universities discussed the findings from ESRC-funded research on labour law reforms, labour standards and corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices in Rising Powers, including China, India, South Africa and Brazil.

Many commentators have doubted that worker-protective labour laws can be made effective in developing countries with high levels of informal work and weak states. This has led to interest in alternative modes of regulation including codes of practice and consumer boycotts focused on global supply chains. But this focus neglects important changes on the ground in low- and middle-income countries in Africa and Asia which over the past decade have been implementing systematic reforms to their labour laws and codes, sometimes after much publicised strikes.

Admittedly the aims of these reforms are diverse: they include promoting industrial peace, encouraging employers to invest in training, and cushioning the effects of labour migration. Often these interventions have had the effect of encouraging formalisation of work and building state capacity. They have also operated in conjunction with, rather than in opposition to, voluntary measures and soft-law initiatives aimed at improving labour governance in value chains.

Encouragingly, while there are still many difficulties associated with the operation of labour standards in emerging markets, empirical work is revealing a more complex and differentiated picture than that frequently presented. There is good reason to be optimistic about these trends.

The two day workshop presented findings of two main types:

• Results from quantitative research analysing a unique dataset of labour laws around the world, constructed at the CBR in Cambridge. 
• Research from fieldwork conducted in case study countries, including China, Brazil, India, and South Africa, by teams based respectively at the Universities of Cambridge (Simon Deakin and colleagues) and Manchester (Khalid Nadvi and colleagues). 

The research undertaken by the Cambridge team deploys a unique dataset, the CBR Labour Regulation Index, which codes for labour laws in 117 countries over the period 1970 to 2013 (43 years). It is the first time that the laws of so many countries have been coded in this way and the dataset will be of very considerable interest to research users and policy makers.

The fieldwork research also breaks new ground in offering in-depth analyses of the implementation of labour law reforms in such contexts as Guangdong province in China, and on the interaction of labour laws with private labour standards operating in global supply chains.

The qualitative case studies undertaken by the Manchester team explore how lead firms in the rising powers engage with labour standards and CSR practices in their now increasingly global supply chains, and investigate the influence of civil society actors as well as the state in the development of private regulatory initiatives and in framing the discourse on labour standards.

For more details:

Listen to our CBR podcast series that features interviews with speakers at the workshop on Labour Standards and Labour Law Reforms in the Rising Powers, held in Cambridge on 5-6 September 2016.

Publications from the two projects are also available here:

• output from the Manchester project on the Rising Powers website 
• output from the Cambridge project on the Rising Powers website and on the University of Cambridge website

Are China and Brazil transforming African agriculture?

By Ian Scoones

A new Open Access Special Issue in World Development based on our work on the changing role of China and Brazil in Africa’s agriculture is now available (links to individual articles are below, and also via here).

The work was developed under the ‘China and Brazil in African Agriculture’ project of the Future Agricultures Consortium. The project was supported by the UK Economic and Social Research Council (grant: ES/J013420/1) under the Rising Powers and Interdependent Futures programme.

The research involved studies in Ghana, Ethiopia, Mozambique and Zimbabwe, as well as China and Brazil. There were over 20 research collaborators involved, from Africa, China, Brazil and Europe, and it was a massively rich, if sometimes challenging, experience. Our research looked at 16 different case studies, involving a mix of agricultural investments by private and state owned enterprises, tri-lateral development cooperation efforts, technology demonstration initiatives, training programmes, as well as ‘under-the-radar’ involvement in agriculture by Chinese migrants.

There was no single story emerging, but a complex set of engagements, which contrast in important ways with existing patterns of western-led development and investment, and offer important opportunities for reflection and learning. These 8 papers (along with over 20 other Working Papers on the project website) are the result. Do download, read and send us feedback! It’s been a lot of work putting them together!

Ian Scoones, Kojo Amanor, Arilson Favareto and Gubo Qi: A new politics of development cooperation? Chinese and Brazilian engagements in African agriculture

Kojo Amanor and Sérgio Chichava: South-South cooperation, agribusiness and African agricultural development: Brazil and China in Ghana and Mozambique

Jing Gu, Zhang Chuanhong, Alcides Vaz and Langton Mukwereza: Chinese state capitalism? Rethinking the role of the state and business in Chinese development cooperation in Africa

Alex Shankland and Euclides Gonçalves: Imagining agricultural development in South-South Cooperation: the contestation and transformation of ProSAVANA

Lídia Cabral, Arilson Favareto, Langton Mukwereza and Kojo Amanor: Brazil’s agricultural politics in Africa: More Food International and the disputed meanings of ‘family farming’

Seth Cook, Jixia Lu, Henry Tugendhat and Dawit Alemu: Chinese migrants in Africa: Facts and fictions from the agri-food sector in Ethiopia and Ghana

Henry Tugendhat and Dawit Alemu: Chinese agricultural training courses for African officials: between power and partnerships

Xiuli Xu, Xiaoyun Li, Gubo Qi, Lixia Tang and Langton Mukwereza: Science, technology and the politics of knowledge: the case of China’s Agricultural Technology Demonstration Centres in Africa

The papers examine how agricultural technologies, practices and policies travel across the world as part of investment and development cooperation. Technologies and policies always have histories, and emerge in particular social and political contexts. Yet China and Brazil both argue that theirs are perhaps especially relevant to Africa, given common agroecological conditions, and similar histories of agricultural development. We were interested in finding out how things travelled, and what happened during the journey.

Of course the transfer of technologies and policies, as we’ve long known, is not simple or linear. Assumptions are often deeply embedded (such as what a farmer is, what scale is appropriate, and how different sorts of technology are important), but they do not always translate into new contexts. Not surprisingly, despite the claims, not everything generated in Brazil and China has landed easily in Africa. There have been rejections, resistances, and so revisions and recastings; all of which highlight the importance of ‘development encounters’ and the negotiations about knowledge (and technology, practice, policy) that must go on during development cooperation – whether with a western aid agency or with Brazilian and Chinese actors.

Together, the papers show how historical experiences in Brazil and China, as well as domestic political and economic debates, affect how interventions are framed, and by whom, and so influence what technologies are chosen, which investments are funded, and who gets trained. The papers argue for a focus on the encounters on the ground, moving beyond the broader rhetoric and generic policy statements about South-South cooperation. For example, a key feature of Brazilian and Chinese engagements in African agriculture is the role of state-business relations in shaping and steering development; something that other agencies such as DFID interested in the role of the private sector, and public-private partnerships, might usefully learn from.

The special issue asks if a new paradigm for development cooperation is emerging, and argues that we must move beyond the simplistic narratives of either mutual benefit and ‘South-South’ collaboration or ‘neo-imperial’ expansion of ‘rising powers’. As the introductory paper argues, we need a more sophisticated account than this simplistic binary, and to “look at the dynamic and contested politics of engagement, as new forms of capital and technology enter African contexts”.

Do read, share and comment on the papers. We hope they will generate a debate about the role of the ‘rising powers’ in African development, and help us move towards a more nuanced appreciation and away from the rather simplistic frames that have dominated the debate to date.

This post was written by Ian Scoones and first appeared on Zimbabweland

A new economic geography of trade and development?

By Rory Horner

In a new article published via Territory, Politics, Governance, Rory Horner reviews emerging evidence of the growth of South-South trade and argues for the need to move beyond win-win notions from development cooperation to highlight the commercial realities and very uneven geographies and development outcomes associated with this new economic landscape. 

The new geography of trade
More than a decade ago, UNCTAD declared that “a new geography of trade is emerging and reshaping the global economic landscape”. In 2012, a milestone was passed with the value of trade between developing countries (South-South trade) overtaking developing country exports to the global North.

Various indicators confirm this shifting geography as demonstrated in the below table. Claims such as those outlined in the UNDP’s The Rise of the South or the increasingly widespread notion of an “Africa Rising” are reflected in the growing share of global GDP generated in the global South. South-South trade is growing significantly, while the geography of demand is also changing – with import demand increasing rapidly within the global South. Notably, these trends are led by the rising power economies of Brazil, India, China and South Africa.

Summary indicators of the shifting geography of income and trade in the world economy:

	Then	2012
South % of global GDP	21.7 (1980)	35.8
Export as % of GDP for Southern countries	16.7 (1981)	29.5
South % of world exports	29.6 (1980)	44.7
South-South % of global trade	11.7 (1995)	25.5
North-North % of global trade	51.2 (1995)	33.9

Source: Horner (2015, 7)

South-South trade raises the exciting prospect of moving beyond the more unequal and hierarchical North-South trade relationship. Specifically, South-South trade has been heralded as “vital for development” (OECD, 2006) and such trade integration viewed as “key to rebalancing the global economy” (UNCTAD, 2011). Much of the excitement in relation to South-South trade draws on “win-win” ideas of horizontal, more equal interaction drawn from the arena of development cooperation. Given that North-South trade has been characterised by high levels of inequality and hierarchy, the implicit suggestion is that South-South may offer at least some better opportunities.

Many of these optimistic viewpoints are somewhat speculative, however. It is questionable whether and how the intended “win-win” notions of South-South development cooperation translate into the commercial realities of South-South trade. The now quite significant body of research on China, and to a lesser extent India, in Africa suggests that while trading relationships may overlap with some of the intended aims of South-South cooperation, the associated impacts are not necessarily win-win. New hierarchies can characterise these relationships, leading to some suggestions of forms of neo-colonialism.

An emerging agenda on South-South value chains and production networks
Research on global value chains (GVCs) and global production networks (GPNs) can move beyond some more macro-scale, geopolitical interpretations to take an actor-centric approach to understand the variegated, region and industry-specific development implications of trade. However, such research has, to date, largely had a North-South orientation, focussing on those firms and farms in the global South participating in chains and networks mostly governed by lead firms from the global North.

Emerging evidence on South-South value chains also highlights two competing possibilities. As summarised in the table below, nascent empirical evidence has charted the potential for easier access to South-South markets in comparison to those of the global North, but also the new competition and unevenness within the South.

Emerging evidence on South-South value chains and production networks:

	Pros: More accessible markets	Cons: Greater competition
Volume/price	Greater volumes	Lower prices, more competitors
Standards	Lower requirements	Lower requirements may be short-lived
Upgrading	Learning and functional upgrading opportunity	Uneven capabilities among firms to benefit
Dependency	Diversification of end-market risk	Potential new dependency

Source: Author’s construction

Governance of, and upgrading within, South-South value chains and production networks are two issues which deserve particular attention. In relation to private governance, new lead firms from the global South are playing increasingly prominent roles in coordinating trade. With firms from outside the global North comprising an increasing share of the world’s largest firms, it is necessary to understand the forms of governance these firms exert, including through private standards requirements. Public governance, a less focussed-on topic within GVC and GPN research, is also crucial to understand in terms of the varying capacity of state policymakers to shape South-South GVCs and GPNs. Upgrading opportunities deserves attention, including in relation to the possibilities arising from different end markets and the associated strategies required. With increasing heterogeneity within the South, the differential possibilities for upgrading, but also the possibilities for downgrading and negative outcomes from South-South trade warrant attention.

In June 2015, I organised an early career conference on this theme of “Global production networks and new contours of development” at the University of Manchester. We had 20 presentations from early career scholars moving beyond the North-South orientation of much research on GVCs and GPNs.

In two ongoing projects, I am now researching more deeply the nature of South-South production networks and their development implications, through an investigation of the economic, social and political relationships that constitute India’s “pharmacy to the developing world”. In South Africa, funded by a British Academy small research grant, I am exploring the various engagements of Indian firms and their local development implications. In East Africa (specifically, Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania and with the support of a Regional Studies Association early career grant), I am investigating the challenges for local pharmaceutical production and its viability vis-à-vis competition from Indian supply. The initial stages of these projects confirm comparatively lower entry barriers in such production networks, and find quite diverse implications for local stakeholders – with key differences, for example, between local industrial and consumer interests. Such outcomes fall in various positions along the spectrum between the two polar extremes of the discourse on South-South relations – as “win-win” development cooperation or neocolonialism.

Ultimately, new research can move beyond the win-win notions often drawn from an earlier era of South-South cooperation to unveil the commercial realities, varied outcomes and very uneven geographies of expanding South-South trade.

This blog post was originally published on Development@Manchester on 10 November 2015.

Rising Power multinationals and global development

Image by jscreationzs, FreeDigitalPhotos.net

By Mo Yamin and Rudolf Sinkovics

Mo Yamin and Rudolf Sinkovics introduce a special issue of critical perspectives on international business, Vol 11, No.3/4 on the developmental impact of Rising Power firms.

Huawei phones, Nando’s chicken, Tata cars – brands from Rising Power countries are present in more and more countries across the globe. The new multinationals that produce these brands are increasingly competing with established Western multinationals, in the Europe and America as well as in Africa and Asia. But what impact do these Rising Power multinationals have on global development? As they expand their global operations, how do they influence the economy, people and the environment? These questions are at the core of a special issue in Critical Perspectives on International Business.

The developmental promises and challenges of Chinese, Indian, or Brazilian companies’ international operations are controversial. One argument in favour of South-South FDI is that firms from emerging economies might adapt more easily to local realities in a developing country than multinationals from the US or Europe. So, do they better understand the needs of low-income consumers, and can they provide these with goods and services that used to be available only for the rich? Or, on the other hand, should we believe media reports on land grabbing and giant infrastructure projects by Chinese or Indian investors that destroy the environment and harm local communities?

Against this debate, the special issue takes a closer look at the nature and strategies of these Rising Power firms. Four articles in the collection look at how capabilities of these firms differ from those of Western multinationals. First, Peter J. Williamson finds that Rising Power firms have distinctive capabilities of innovation and reconfiguration that can give them an edge over competitors. Peter Konijn and Rob van Tulder examine “Resources-for-infrastructure (R4I) Swaps” as a specific market entry strategy of Chinese firms in African countries.  Taking a different angle, Jaya Prakash Pradhan and Keshab Das highlight regional differences within Rising Power countries and their effects on export performance of local SMEs. Further, Rory Horner shows how the emergence of Rising Power firms in the pharmaceutical sector has led established multinationals to increase pressure around intellectual property rights in India and South Africa.

Three further articles examine how the concept of global value chains (GVCs) can help to understand Rising Power firms’ developmental impact. Zaheer Khan, Yong Kyu Lew and Rudolf R. Sinkovics show why Pakistani automobile suppliers have benefited relatively little from their integration into GVCs. Joonkoo Lee and Gary Gereffi  point out that new markets in emerging economies and new regional value chains can be an opportunity for developing country firms to upgrade economically. However, they warn of a risk that this economic upgrading may be accompanied by negative social effects. Finally, contributing to the debate about the social impact of Rising Power firms, Noemi Sinkovics, Rudolf R. Sinkovics, Samia Ferdous Hoque and Laszlo Czaban propose a reconceptualization of social value creation, focusing on the “root causes” of constraints to creating social value.

Overall, the special issue contributes both conceptual thinking and empirical insights to the debate around the developmental impact of Rising Power firms. In sum, the articles show that there is no easy answer to the question of whether these new Chinese, Indian or Brazilian multinationals are good or bad for global development. But one thing is sure: We should keep an eye on them.

For more details, please refer to:

Mo Yamin , Rudolf R. Sinkovics , (2015) "Rising power firms – the developmental promises and challenges: an introduction", critical perspectives on international business, Vol. 11 Iss: 3/4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/cpoib-04-2015-0016

Read the full special issue of critical perspectives on international business, Vol 11, No. 3/4.

China and Brazil in African Agriculture: new papers published!

By Henry Tugendhat

Image by Gualberto107, FreeDigitalPhotos.net

If you think that the biggest story about Brazilian and Chinese agricultural engagements in Africa is land grabs, you’d be wrong. In fact, the big stories consist of almost everything else. From migration, to technology transfers, to development assistance programmes, Brazil and China have been having an impact on agricultural development in different ways across sub-Saharan Africa.

For the past three years, a team of 25 researchers has been looking at these engagements in great detail. We come from institutions across Brazil, China, Ghana, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and the UK, and often found that what was most interesting was not what we’d originally set out to observe.

This was particularly so with our ambition to map out all of the Brazilian and Chinese development cooperation engagements in the agricultural sectors of our four African case study countries. The data were simply not available, and when they were they were almost invariably incomplete or plain wrong. Agricultural engagements are still nascent in most of Africa, so initiatives were just unfolding as we did our research. Furthermore, we came up against the perennial problem of what constitutes aid and what constitutes trade, investment or public relations in relation to Chinese and Brazilian engagements. ‘Development cooperation’ is a mix of all of these, and we wanted to get to grips with this hybrid mix.

So rather than get more confused by the official statistics, we instead launched ourselves into some detailed case study research, using a mix of ethnographic methods. In the end we studied 16 different cases across the case study countries, as well as the domestic political economy in Brazil and China framing these interventions. Our aim was to understand both day-to-day practices, but also situate these within the broader political-economic drivers. As a team of anthropologists, economists, political-economists, agronomists, and international relations experts, we have therefore combined our expertise to pick out what we think are some of the most important insights from these engagements to date.

In Mozambique we looked at Brazil’s Prosavana project and the rise of civil society contestations; in Zimbabwe we looked at tractor deals coming in from both Brazil and China; and in Ghana and Ethiopia we looked at the migration patterns of Chinese farmers and their impacts on the local economies - to name but a few examples. Some of these papers look at the drivers for Brazil and China to engage in these cooperation projects in the first place, others analyse what is already happening as these projects hit the ground and how local African farmers, communities and officials engage with them. In total, we now have a series of over 20 Working Papers, alongside an earlier IDS Bulletin and a special issue of a journal which is under review. We had our UK launch event in London last month, and public events are also taking place across the six other countries involved to engage policy makers, businesses, development practitioners, civil society groups and researchers.

The papers are free to download from the Future Agricultures Consortium website, and together they present an original take – and much new empirical information - on the nature of Brazilian and Chinese engagements in African agriculture.

The emergence of an industry cluster: Brazil’s ‘Oil Island’

By Alec Waterworth

Ilha do Fundao is an island complex constructed in the Guanabara Bay north of downtown Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. The island’s transformation reflects broader trends of technological and industrial development and also some of the challenges seen in Brazil in recent years. For fifty years, Ilha do Fundao was home to CENPES (the primary research and development centre of Petrobras, Brazil’s massive semi-public oil and gas company), and to the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro’s (UFRJ) Institute for Graduate Studies and Research in Engineering (COPPE). Yet, large areas of this mostly artificial island had laid empty. Today, that has changed. Ilha do Fundao is now also occupied by technology centres from nine leading companies in the global oil and gas industry and is emerging as a cluster of innovation in the oil and gas sectors. I have visited the island several times over the last two years in order to interview the actors in this emerging industry cluster. As a technology manager at CENPES told me during my most recent visit, “a new world has been created”.

General Electric’s US$100m research centre on Ilha do Fundao, opened in late 2013

Ilha do Fundao’s makeover has centred around the university-owned technology park in the south of the island. Next door to this is the university’s business incubator, which has expanded from one multi-firm building to three. A thirty-minute walk from the technology park takes you to CENPES and in between this lies COPPE. COPPE and CENPES have a long history in collaborating together: Over the last fifty years, COPPE has been instrumental in establishing Petrobras as a technology leader in the exploration and production of oil and gas, and most recently, as a specialist in deep and ultra-deep water technologies. “There has always been an exchange of knowledge. […] Petrobras has never worked completely alone,” said one of my interviewees at Petrobras. “Petrobras not only used their knowledge, it shared knowledge … so the university [could] help us.”

Technological and innovation capabilities on the island are now further enhanced with the arrival of new residents on the island, including Schlumberger, Baker Hughes, Halliburton, FMC Technologies, Siemens, BG Group, General Electric and Vallourec. These firms have invested heavily in the area, establishing large and expensive R&D centres. For example, FMC’s 20,000 square metre facility cost around US$25million to build. Why there? FMC hopes to tap into the university campus, to create a collaborative environment and enable access.

Yet, despite these new R&D investments, operational challenges remain. As yet, cooperation between the new companies on the island is still weak. Several companies identified this as a source of concern. Perhaps with strong relationship already built by Petrobras, it is hard for newcomers to forge links with local academics. But there may be other reasons. These issues will be examined in an academic paper in preparation this year which addresses the motivations of foreign multinational enterprises in Brazil in locating in industry clusters, how they participate in those clusters, the extent to which the collaborative efforts of such firms are inhibited by barriers to entry, and the implications for industrial innovation in Brazil. 

Alec Waterworth is a doctoral student with the Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, UK, and a researcher with the Project on Emerging Technologies, Trajectories and Implications of Next Generation Innovation Systems Development in China and Russia (ES/J012785/1). Alec is completing his doctoral research on path dependence, path renewal, and the evolution of innovation in Brazil’s petroleum sector. For further information, contact: alec.waterworth@postgrad.mbs.ac.uk