Strengths and weaknesses of Bogotá as an innovation hub: Towards the governance of 
the regional innovation system. 
  
Maria Contreras, Universidad del Rosario 
Leonardo Pineda, Universidad del Rosario  
C. Scheel EGADE, Instituto Tecnológico de Monterrey  
Abstract 
Bogotá is facing constraints implemented in order to strengthen its innovation capabilities 
and to institutionalize itself as a Regional Innovation System (RIS). Even though the city 
has the largest number of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), research institutions, and 
technological development centres in Colombia, it is not yet positioned as an RIS. It will be 
necessary to do an organizational redesign in terms of the entities that comprise Bogotá and 
thereof its governance.  
The main key players of each environment were identified based on the primary role 
played by the different system elements. A comparative analysis was developed over time 
(evolution) and space (with other countries and levels of excellence) of some successful 
innovation cities through a methodology called Innovacities. This methodology allowed for 
identification of the size of the backlog confronted by the city at the frontier of 
technological development worldwide and the most critical factors needed to generate the 
breakthrough innovations to achieve world-class level.  
 
Keywords 
strategic innovation 
regional innovation system 
Colombia 
  
1 
 
Introduction. 
 
The main objective of this article is to present the outcome of a research financed by la 
Universidad del Rosario, carried out in order to identify the capabilities of Bogotá as an 
innovation hub, and thereof, as a contributor towards and the driving force behind the 
modernization of the productive sector of the Colombian economy as a producer of high-
value-added technological products, through incorporating digital-enabling economies. 
The research is framed in the context of the new Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2010–
2014/National Development Plan of Colombia 2010–2014 (DNP, 2010), ‘prosperidad para 
todos’, (prosperity for everyone) in which the issue of science, technology, and innovation 
is considered as one of the engines of growth for the social, economic and technology 
development of the country (DNP, 2010). This is the first time that a Colombian ruling 
party has made a clear-cut proposal giving priority to a subject that in the past was almost 
completely ignored, or at least was not as important as expected by the academia and 
research community. 
According to estimates of the Science and Technology Observatory of Colombia, 
(OCyT, 2011), the net national investment in research and development (R&D) activities is 
less than 0.2% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The DNP 2010–2014 is seeking to 
reach at least 1% of the GDP in the coming four years. For this purpose, a major reform 
was introduced in the so-called Ley de Regalías (Royalties Law) that regulates mining and 
energy-sector exploration, and exploitation royalties by both national and international 
investors. According to this law, 10% of the yearly resources (around US$ 500 million) 
will be invested for the sole purpose of promoting and fostering scientific and technological 
development and innovation, mostly at regional level. 
Bogotá concentrates the largest economic activity of the country, and it is expected 
that the city will be one of the regions that takes advantage of this new condition. However, 
as the findings of this investigation show, research and technological development 
capabilities and local endowments are still far from being world-class players. One of the 
key findings of the study is that the city lacks an organized innovation system, which is 
hindering it on the road to becoming the Colombian innovation-driver, as compared with 
the best practices of other cities with similar conditions in other developing regions. 
Regarding such developments, it is worth asking, ‘Quo Vadis Bogotá?’ (Where is Bogota 
going?) This is because everything seems to indicate that the city is suffering from what 
one could call a paradigmatic sclerosis, which is hampering it from assuming an 
accelerated rhythm towards innovation as a sine qua non of the new knowledge-based 
economy.  
This article has been organized as follows: first, the background and methodology 
of Innovacities are presented. Second, the main features of Bogotá in research, 
development and innovation are described. Third, the main outcomes resulting from the 
application of the methodology are analysed. Finally, the gaps and how to reduce those 
gaps are proposed.  
 
1. Background 
Rapid technological change represents a series of opportunities and challenges for society 
and for countries’ production structures. Those countries which do not succeed in adapting 
to the transformations imposed by new technologies, especially in industry, agriculture, 
health, environment, energy, and education, run the fatal risk of lagging behind in terms of 
2 
 
development and welfare. In particular, the so-called digital and technological information 
separating those countries from the industrialized world is becoming greater (Pineda, 2011; 
Scheel and Rivera, 2013). 
From an economic point of view, the key and repercussions of this process lie on 
the greater importance acquired by technology as a value production factor, due to the 
changes which have been made possible through issues such as the nature of the goods 
being produced, the market, and international competition. All the foregoing has been 
accompanied by (and has mainly been a consequence of) the increased technological 
content of goods and services derived from scientific knowledge, advanced design 
concepts, intelligent materials, automation, software, advanced service concepts, and 
medical and biological discoveries. 
It is considered that innovation plays a central role in different economic processes 
within the new economics of knowledge, as pointed out by Bessant and Dodgson (1997), 
Edquist (1997), Gartnett, Jr (1999) and Pineda (2011). Furthermore, there is evidence at 
macro level that innovation is the dominant factor in international competitiveness and 
thereby in national economic growth and in determining world trade patterns. R&D 
(resulting in innovation) at micro level (within firms) is considered to be a factor which 
improves firms capacities to absorb and exploit all types of new knowledge, not just 
technological know-how, but also how to improve and maintain their competitive position 
(Soete, Bart and Bas, 2009). 
Innovations frequently occur as a result of a linking interaction between multiple 
elements, rather than the effort of an isolated individual (Håkansson, 1987; Von Hippel, 
1988; Lundvall, 1992; Nelson, 1993; Cooke, 2003). This conforms to a Schumpeterian 
view of innovation as a new mix of already existing knowledge with organizing production 
processes and as entering new markets in unconventional ways by improving or 
redesigning goods (Schumpeter, 1934).  
All of this confirms not only the acknowledgment that organizations are unable to 
compete as isolated agents but also that a systemic approach is needed in order to shape the 
innovation process. Governance and proper regional conditions are the key factors 
regarding the interaction of different players and regional conditions in a cluster 
organization. A mature region produces a continuous flow of innovations, provides many 
mechanisms for bringing such innovations from the laboratory to the market, and has a rich 
network of structures facilitating and supporting such a process. The result is a constant 
flow of new ideas which become transformed into new high-value-added business. 
The objective is to strengthen regions’ R&D capacity in technology and strategic 
innovation so that they can attract or retain highly-qualified personnel and technologically-
advanced activities in the region’s production sectors. In addition, assisting other regions by 
fomenting innovation could result in local economy diversification and a highly valuable 
specialization. 
Scheel (2011) and Scheel and Bretones (2011) proposed the following actions 
within such context:  
 Strengthening regions’ physical and ‘smart’ infrastructures for R&D related to 
technology and innovation; 
 Supporting the creation or development of R&D in a technology and innovation 
capacity (agreed upon together between the Colombian State and technology-
based regions) focused on a small number of research fields and for a small 
number of research centres (including universities);  
3 
 
 Sustaining the creation of regional conditions needed to support the linking of 
the industrial growth of the region with the impact on its natural resources and 
adjacent territories; and 
 Prioritizing pre-competitive R&D in technology and innovation considered 
important for broadening the regions’ economic potential. This also favours 
investigation having a direct relationship with natural resources endowments 
and the region’s and adjacent regions’ specific environmental conditions. 
 
2. Methodology 
Analysis of the RIS is conducted under the methodology Innovacities (innovation as a 
competitive advantage of cities-regions). The term was defined as: 
 [A] geographic space with nurturing regional conditions and resources that empower citizens, 
entrepreneurs, policy makers, academics and bankers, with the proper relationships and capabilities, 
to constantly look for high-value opportunities so that they can generate, attract and share 
extraordinary benefits with everyone. (Scheel, 2011: 375).  
This methodology was developed by Scheel, as a result of research conducted between 
2007 and 2010. The study found how a selected group of cities became world-class 
innovative cities (Scheel, 2011). Two groups of findings were determined: first, the city’s 
behaviours, which in most of the cases were disruptive performances but which empowered 
the cities to reach outstanding levels of competitiveness, social development, political 
maturity and environmental balance. The second group was breakthrough innovations, also 
known as the main drivers. They were produced, implemented and maintained by the city’s 
stakeholders. The first group description will be developed as follows: 
 
2.1. Innovation performances  
Scheel and Bretones (2011) summarized the following outstanding behaviours, (products of 
the cities that have made innovative breakthroughs), and categorized the following 
‘disruptive performances’ that those cities developed during a specific period of time.  
For methodological purposes these features have been divided into two groups: the first 
describes those factors that characterize the regions for their social, political and eco-
friendly environment; the second is related to those factors that are measured by the ability 
of the regions to generate significant economic capital. The first group is composed of six 
factors, which are described below: 
1. To achieve high standards in quality of life, the following indicators were commonly 
identified:  
 Regional security levels: 
 Violence and Security Index. 
 Crimes related to the use of violence per 100,000 population.  
 Confidence levels in the region: 
 Corruption and Accountability Index. 
 Level of compliance with laws. 
 Business climate. 
 Vulnerability and Adaptation Index. 
 Inclusive society:  
 Nutrition and Human Development Index. 
 Level of malnutrition.  
 Indicator of income inequality within a country. 
4 
 
 Employment and unemployment rate. 
 Poverty rate. 
 Commuting time. 
 Nutrition and organized sports. 
 Unmet human needs: 
 Coverage of public services (in number of Million inhabitants). 
 Percentage of urban population living in poverty. 
 Rate of education coverage.  
 Health Index. 
2. Existence of urban planning aligned to the equitable growth and sustainable quality of 
life of the region, which is measured by: 
 Territorial infrastructure of the region: 
 Transportation and recreation alternate system (space for bikes, cycle tracks, 
etc.). 
 Excellent urban and inter-regional transportation system and full connectivity 
with other population centres. 
 Territorial accessibility (airports, bus station, seaports, etc.). 
 Distribution and appropriate location of industrial areas (industrial parks). 
 Road and rails quality and dimensions, adequate and efficient. 
 Sustainable community and housing planning: 
 Quality of urban infrastructure oriented mainly towards an inclusive and 
sustainable urban infrastructure. 
 Urban planning designed according to a social plan and sustainable quality of 
life. 
 Well-structured emergency and disaster response programs.  
 Green areas maintained and spread to all sectors of society: 
 Hectares of green areas per 100,000 inhabitants. 
 Green areas, parks, social interaction and intramural activities excellently 
maintained. 
3. Programs of environmental awareness that are achieved through: 
 Sustainable Environmental Management: 
 Improved facilities for public health. 
 Percentage of urban population that has a collection system for solid waste. 
 Percentage of recycling urban solid waste. 
 Concentration of PM10. 
 Emission of greenhouse gas measured in metric ton per capita. 
 Environmental policy implementation: 
 Zero Waste Programs. 
 Planning adequate and effective management of water and lands. 
 Development of suitable programs for disposal, transportation and recycling of 
materials and waste. 
 Programs for efficient use of energy: 
 Per capita consumption of electricity in households. 
 Generation and management of clean energy. 
4. Effective programs of civic and social entrepreneurship, measured in terms of: 
 State effectiveness: 
 Control Corruption Programs and Rule of Law. 
5 
 
 Transparency in the management of public resources. 
 Government expenditure on development of social capital. 
 Percentage of effective population exercising their right to vote. 
 Social inclusion: 
 Design and implementation of public policies that impact a large part of 
society. 
 Regional Care Programs. 
 Entrepreneurship for social enterprises programs. 
 Regional participation for the election of their representatives. 
 Gender, religion, ethnicity and social-class tolerance. 
 Human rights programs. 
5. Territorial assets, which impact the economic and social development of the region by: 
 A natural feature (territorial) that generates a unique advantage over conventional 
indicators. 
 The level of cultural experience (diversity of attractions for international residents 
and travellers). 
 Using natural infrastructure (waterfalls, lakes, beaches, mountains, rainforests, etc.) 
to attract people from outside the region. 
 Strategic geographic location. 
 Geographical advantages (altitude, latitude and climate). 
 Advantages inherent to social centres, attractions, and more. 
6. Holistic awareness of their leaders (with a vision and clear long-term goals), in order to: 
 Develop and monitor a long-term strategic plan. 
 Promote the existence of a powerful state vision of a holistic region (specific 
sectors). 
 Encourage champions (leading people recognized by society) acting as catalysts for 
a ‘Universal Positioning’. 
 Conduct ‘State Planning’ with emphasis on specialist areas of great value. 
 Create a program for economic, social, political and environmental sustainability 
(supported by a champion). 
The second group is composed of five factors as follows: 
7. Brand recognition (branding) as a region, measured by any of the following parameters: 
 Organizations, individuals, products or events that allow a (positive) global 
identification of the region. There is a catalytic activity/driving/vibrant world 
renowned. 
 Regional attractive branding with its own attributes (talent, enterprise and 
infrastructure) (e.g. a regional brand with its own attribution/guarantee of origin). 
 Well-recognized and admired traditions, customs and native culture.  
8. The existence of attractiveness features (effective attractors of talent) that can be 
acquired through: 
 Attracting multinational enterprises anchors and foreign capital: 
 Net FDI as % of GDP. 
 Developing international best practice to attract capital. 
 The region attracting intellectual talent, scientists and business innovators: 
 Quality of universities, research institutes and the education system. 
 Rate of tertiary education (% of EAP: economically active population). 
 Recognized worldwide HEIs (research, entrepreneurship, knowledge): 
6 
 
 Current and specialized educational programs. 
 Quality of business schools. 
 Outstanding research and technological centres. 
  Remarkable entrepreneurship centres. 
 Efficiency in teaching foreign languages. 
 High level of technical and technological training programs. 
 A good climate for doing business: 
 Number of procedures required to start a business. 
 Costs of starting a business (% of GDP per capita). 
 Executive Services Index and Business Services Index. 
 Quality of Life Index for professional positions. 
 The region’s economic sectors with high value and strong competition: 
 Number of researchers (per 100,000 of  EAP). 
 Level that basic, technological, scientific and human resources satisfy 
enterprises. 
 Setting and economic growth. 
 Highly Competitive Specialized Index (industrial). 
 High-quality cultural centres: 
 Development of cultural and social activities with high impact. 
9. Regions with industrial competitiveness (having defined one or more priority sectors) 
that produce large economic and social value to the region, which is measured by: 
 Clearly identified priority sectors. 
 Processes for producing high value and differentiation: 
 Value Added Index in manufacturing per capita. 
 Share of manufacturing exports in total exports. 
 Share of manufacturing exports with medium and high technological content. 
 Talent for production of high value. 
 Royalties. 
 List of transporting goods or production. 
 Specialized economic activity: 
 Existence of a differentiation branding in the region. 
 Existence of competitive industrial clusters in the region. 
 Existence of venture capitals, anchor firms and industries with high added value 
(technology-based and knowledge). 
 1Synergies between the ABIIGS  organizations and institutions effectively aligned to 
wealth creation, where the region, industry and firms are fully integrated (Cluster 
Development readiness): 
 Investment in R&D (private and government as % of GDP). 
 Existence of public policies developed to drive private investment and 
incentives on taxes (viable financial and economic policies). 
 Close relationship with great value between the university and industry.  
 Mobilization of resources (within and outside the region in commodities, 
materials, energy, etc.). 
 Evolution from a conventional industrial centre to an innovative cultural and 
intellectual world-class industry: 
 Quantity and quality of innovation centres. 
7 
 
 Development of new cultural industries or high-impact sports industries for the 
region. 
10. Entrepreneurial culture, which generates programs with a large number of spin-
outs/spin-offs of great value to the region: 
 Innovation Chains (clusters) {from ideas to firms}: 
 Programs that promote academic, business, industrial, social and regional 
innovation. 
 Entrepreneurship programs over the entire innovation chain. 
 Incubators and a business accelerators network for companies based on ecological 
and/or technological approaches, and the existence of a comprehensive  
infrastructure of entrepreneurship activities: 
 Creation of new companies (start-ups creation) per thousand inhabitants aged 
15–64. 
 Integrated network of all innovation activities of:  research-development- 
pattenting -transfering-incubation–acceleration and clustering of Innovation 
Technology Parks. 
 Creation of start-ups. 
 Regional conditions related to research, development and innovation: 
 Regional financial centres of venture capital. 
 Percentage of private investment in R&D. 
 Royalties and licences (from technological innovation) as a percentage of GDP. 
 Number of new patents registered per year. 
 Private investment in R&D. 
 Royalties and licence fees as a percentage of GDP. 
 Number of patents registered in the Global Innovation Index (GII), and its 
respective source (from private or public). 
 Undertaking programs for social enterprises. 
 Regional Attention Programs for entrepreneurship. 
11. Development of plan for positioning for world-class regional markets that is achieved 
through enhancing the local market through global standards of performance: 
 City product per capita. 
 Good-sized domestic market of high value and demand: 
 Size of local market. 
 Buyer Demand Levels. 
 Local markets coordinated and well communicated through chambers or other 
existing organizations. 
 Generation of high-tech exports. (If possible breakdown by region.) 
 International markets (international agreements): 
 Foreign Market Size Index. 
 Number of imports and exports countries +50% of the total. 
 Regional cooperation with other national and international markets (international 
agreements): 
 Trade Agreements with other regions of the world. 
 
2.2. Enabling drivers 
How did these cities make the breakthrough? This methodology is composed of a set of 
eight groups of factors that have empowered the cities to achieve world-class standards. 
8 
 
The enabling drivers have been the common detonators leading these cities to become 
innovative regions and therefore, achieving notable competitiveness and/or social 
disruptions outside of the conventional paradigms, these drivers have been grouped into the 
following areas: 
 
1. Smart Infrastructures, based on special structures built to empower innovative 
strategies, such as connectivity, e-readiness and ICT infrastructures, universities, 
R&D centres, laboratories, etc. 
2. Associativeness, openness and holistic awareness, based on the capacity to adopt 
a systemic vision and synergies to assemble interdependent clusters of industries, 
academies, government, entrepreneurship programs, financial institutions, etc. to 
move toward a sustainable holistic development. 
3. Entrepreneurial/entrepreneurship infrastructure, leveraged by the creation of a 
culture for transforming knowledge and experiences into high-value business 
models, start-ups, spin-offs, business accelerators, etc., such as research and 
technology transfer centres, Financial New Venture Capital (NVC), tools/angel seed 
capital, etc. 
4. Technology, measured in terms of special technological innovations designed to 
support the breakthrough paradigms, such as technology development 
infrastructure, R&D centres, transfer centres, and techno-parks.  
5. Talent, measured in terms of specialized human resource capabilities intended to 
create innovative solutions to support breakthrough innovations at top 
university/research centres with regional specialization areas. 
6. Public policies: special policies designed to leverage, empower and promote 
innovation strategies, such as state strategic plans, rule of law, effective law 
enforcement, and strong synergies among all industries, academe, business and 
local politicians.  
7. Innovation, based on the existence of effective innovation (non-linear) chains:  
science education, research, technology, transfer and application of knowledge to 
innovation processes, innovation strategies, technology transfer, incubators (of start-
ups, spin-offs), business accelerators, landing facilities and technology-based parks. 
8. Spectacular successes, based on the existence of great events planned and executed 
by locals, led by high-level influencers/visionaries/champions/leading institutions, 
governmental authorities, politicians, entrepreneurs, pioneers, scientists, 
businessmen and foundations. 
 
2.3. Benchmarking among some successful innovation cities through the Innovacities 
approach.  
In order to deliver a replicable benchmark, as mentioned before, the study was based on the 
approach Innovacities (Scheel, 2011, Scheel and Rivera, 2013) which makes a deep 
analysis of a few world-class cities such as: Austin (US), Auckland (NZ), Metz (FR), 
Bangalore (IN), Barcelona (SP), Stavanger (NO) and Curitiba (BR) that have implemented 
‘state’ disruptive strategies with which they have made a great leap to spectacular 
successes, and have undergone tremendous transformations, from having a low profile by 
world standards to becoming highly recognized  cities, with vibrant dynamic activities 
globally positioned, not only at the economic level, but in their social and environmental 
behaviours. These cities have broken with conventional paradigms. They have used 
9 
 
innovative practices to deliver outstanding results that have positioned them on world-class 
arenas (Florida and Gates, 2003). 
 Innovacities analyses and identifies the inflection points where cities made great 
transformations in terms of world-class performances, and then identifies the enabling 
mechanisms that made transitions into a harmonious balanced regional development 
possible; producing large-scale changes and creating interdependent spaces in which 
citizens, social communities, businesses, and their local natural environments have become 
articulated (Scheel, 2011). 
 To analyse the data, to understand the terms and to establish a relationship among 
them, a short cross-evaluation was developed (cross-relationship analysis) of the findings in 
order to detect some of the key factors and star performances and their relationships for 
detailed study and worthwhile conclusions. With these three groups of factors (cities, 
drivers and performances), and after two independent rounds of data analysis, a descriptive 
qualitative analysis was developed (see Table 1). Keywords used: Austin (USA) – AUS; 
Auckland (New Zeland) – AKL; Bangalore (India) – BLR; Barcelona (Spain) – BCN; 
Curitiba (Brazil) – CWB; Metz (France) – ETZ; Stavanger (Norway) – SVG. 
 
Table 1 Cross analysis of drivers vs performance metrics  
 
The information inside each cell represents the way that cities use the (enabling drivers) 
mechanisms to achieve a determinate performance. For instance, the city of Metz (ETZ) 
has achieved a high performance due to competitive industries (F); programs or projects of 
entrepreneurship (III); applying efficient public policies (VI) and a well-supported 
innovation system (VII), and all of this through a well-assembled concept of Technopole 
which has been a spectacular success (VIII) for the last twenty years. 
Summarizing, it was observed that some of the cities advanced from a steady 
growth during the decades, to outstanding levels of economic and social developments 
under sustainable standards, due to the articulation of atypical enabling drivers, the creation 
of special regional conditions and public policies, and the presence of spectacular 
successes. Combining these enablers the cities have produced disruptive performances 
mainly by technological innovations, new industrial policies, outstanding social orders, the 
decision-making of exceptional visionaries and champions who have had ‘holistic 
development’ visions, highly attractive regional poles, vibrant economies and equal social 
growth, and most of the cities have developed civic, sustainable decision-making processes, 
designed to preserve the development of future generations. Through these enabling 
mechanisms, these cities have broken the conventional growing paradigms applying 
atypical breakthrough innovations, and have now produced disrupted performances of 
world-class standard (Scheel and Rivera, 2013)  
The number of incidences of cities using each driver to achieve a determined 
performance is shown in Table 3. For example, five cities employed public policies (VI) to 
achieve a better quality of life (B), of course with several other factors. In the final columns 
and rows the total incidences were added. For instance, the enabling driver used by most 
cities to achieve the determined performance is public policies (VI; 40 times), followed by 
an associativeness and holistic awareness (II; 37 times), and the use of infrastructures (I; 
37 times). The combination of these drivers may structure the I-factor that cities use to 
achieve these world-class performances (Scheel 2011; Scheel and Rivera, 2013). 
 
10 
 
Table 2 Drivers vs performance metrics (frequency of incidences) 
 
Public policies have 40 positive impacts out of 235, which represents 17.02% of the total. 
This is a logical behavior due to the fact that most of the initiatives on innovation have 
come from public decisions, and/or from visionaries that have public empowerment for 
decision-making. An interesting figure is the driver with a fewer number of impacts (17), 
Talent (V), which represents 7.23% of the total that deploys some contradictory signals on 
the R&D needed for good performance of innovation activities for industrialized countries. 
50% of the drivers (I, II, IV and VI) represent 61.70% (145 out of 235) of the total number 
of impacts over the performance metrics (Scheel 2011; Scheel and Rivera, 2013). 
According to the Innovacities approach, it was proceeded to obtain the information 
required to develop the study for the city of Bogotá. Two major groups were approached in 
this investigation. The first group involved enterprises, while the second group was 
associated with research groups, Technological Development Centres (TDCs), and the 
public and private non-governmental organizations that undertake Research, Development 
and Innovation (RD&I) activities. In total, 404 organizations received the survey through 
the Internet. A total of 120 answers were received: 71.2% belonged to research groups, 
TDCs or other entities, and 28.8% from organizations of the industrial sector. 
 
3. Main features of Bogotá R&D and innovation issues  
Findings of the research showed that Bogotá as a whole is positioned at a very inferior 
levels, not only regarding cities of developed regions but also in relation to cities with a 
similar degree of development. In a certain way, such data answers the question why 
Bogotá does not fulfill the minimum requirements to become incorporated into the 
knowledge society. 
R&D in Bogotá, and by extension Colombia, concentrates more than 60% of the 
productive activity of the country. This trend continues to be characterized, as identified in 
other developing regions (Bortagaray and Scott, 2000), by:  
 Generally low technological R&D intensity and complexity;  
 Public sector over-representation and less private-sector presence;  
 Primary emphasis on basic research and very low concentration on applied research;  
 Low levels of technology transfer between public and private sectors and within the 
private sector itself; and 
 Little involvement with international R&D in technology and innovation networks. 
Bogotá as a regional innovation system should implement R&D in innovation and 
technology transfer by associating strategies for developing the information and knowledge 
society with the following main objectives: 
 Creating a clear strategic framework for integrating innovation into the city’s 
production structure;  
 Creating cooperation networks among companies and between companies and the 
public sector (articulate a pentagon-helix concept: government, academy, industry, 
new venture capital investment, and entrepreneurship);  
 Reinforcing the R&D activity in technology and innovation in the region; and 
 Creating a strong linking between the industrial sector and the digital-enabling 
economies. 
That implies articulating drivers as:  
11 
 
 Technology: an ongoing source of innovation which could become the basis for a 
new production structure regarding sectors having greater technological value added. 
 Human talent: a highly-trained workforce at all levels, having the abilities and skills 
to become incorporated into new conditions regarding the knowledge economy 
specialization. 
 Capital: access to financing from different sources and a way for investors to obtain a 
yield on their investment. 
 Know-how: a technology transfer and knowledge structure from world-class centres 
of excellence, consolidating communities of practice and learning with a network of 
mentors, assessors, models to imitate, and service providers. 
 
Applying the necessary measures will be guided by policies and strategies governed by 
operational methods and procedures in line with the foregoing philosophy and objectives. 
The common objective is to reinforce the competitive capacity of Bogotá, thereby 
guaranteeing that the policies and strategies adopted in R&D in technology and innovation 
become integrated within the context of knowledge-based cities. Local authorities and 
economic operators must be aware of the necessity for: 
 Reinforcing countries’ ability to integrate R&D in technology and innovation into 
their regional economic development; 
 Improving learning processes so that companies can make themselves more 
innovative; 
 Helping companies and institutions to respond to problems regarding their adaptation 
to new ways of organizing work; and 
 Ensuring better coordination of national sector policies to help regional development 
efforts. All of this is oriented to achieve an ultimate goal, a ‘sustainable wealth 
creation for the city’. 
 
4. Findings Innovation Drivers of Bogotá under the methodology Innovacities  
This methodology provides a benchmarking tool that works very well for analysing the 
strengths and weaknesses of how the city of Bogotá could be inserted successfully into the 
field of knowledge-enabled economies. The main obstacle to completing the study was the 
difficulty of getting updated information on relevant variables. Surveys applied show the 
following findings: 
 
Infrastructure  
 Connectivity, e-readiness and ICT infrastructures: 
 Penetration of fixed broadband (13%) and capacity (1 Mbps). 
 Penetration and coverage of mobile phone (90%). 
 Technology parks:  
 Servicio Nacional de Aprendizaje-SENA Techno Park.  
 Banking: 
 The bank deposits represent 58% of Colombia. 
 3.5 and 8 financial institution ATMs per ten thousand inhabitants. 
 Culture: 
 BibloRed: 36 libraries.  
 2 convention centres and around 50 museums. 
 Higher education (39%) and research (43%).  
12 
 
 Bi-annual ‘Ibero-American Theater Festival’. 
Openness to association and holistic awareness  
 Spaces and initiatives that promote interaction in the city: 
 Regional Council for Competitiveness (CODECyT) and University-Enterprise-State 
Alliance (AUEE). 
 Programs of the Chamber of Commerce of Bogota (CCB). 
 Productive Transformation Program of the Ministry of Industry 
 10 production chains identified in Bogota – Cundinamarca by AUEE 
Entrepreneurship 
 Entrepreneurship programs: 
 More than 50 HEIs have entrepreneurship centres or programs. 
 Entrepreneurship Fund of the SENA. 
 Programs of the Chamber of Commerce of Bogota (CCB). 
 Other agencies and programs: 
 Incubators.  
 Colombia Solidaria – Gestando. 
 Incubar Colombia.  
 Prana – Incubator for Cultural and Creative Industries. 
 Financing tools, venture capital and seed and angel capital: 
 Invest in Bogota. 
 Seed Capital: Entrepreneurship Fund (SENA), Destapa Futuro, Premio Santander, 
Finbatec, SEED, Moot corp, Inter American Development Bank IDB Challenge and 
TIC Americas. 
 Angel Investor: Andes, Bavaria angels’ network. 
 Venture capital: Colombia Capital, Coomeva, Progresa Capital and ECOS LAVCA 
Group. 
 Productive sector: 
 The largest productive chains are related to food, construction and civil engineering; 
followed by chemicals and petrochemicals and health (they do not have TDCs). 
 126,000 companies are registered in manufacturing and services activities – 17% 
service companies and 87% manufacturing companies. 
 88% microenterprises, 9% small enterprises, 2% medium enterprises and 1% large 
enterprises. Most are focused on product transformation, followed by wholesale and 
retail marketing. 15% of all companies are providers of raw materials and supplies. 
 72% belongs to construction and civil engineering, food processing and software 
development.  
Technology  
 About 104 R&D institutions or centres (40% of the national capacity). 
 In 2011, the transportation service of the city was given to a consortium, known as the 
Integrated System for Collection, Monitoring and Information (SIRCI) to the user. 
 Telecommunications Research Centre CINTEL and Tecno Parque Colombia (SENA) is 
the first Latin American Laboratory created for the Development of Knowledge in 
Advanced Networks (NGN). 
Talent  
 Higher education: 
13 
 
 119 (56%) higher education institutions; 75 (30.61%) universities and colleges; 19 
(38.66%) technological institutions and 18 (46.15%) technical institutions (SNIES, 
2012a). 
 HEIs offer 28.3% of the national undergraduate and graduate programs.   
 At undergraduate level, 47% of programs are related to management science and 
economics and accounting; 24 % are offered in electronics and systems and related 
telematics (SNIES, 2012b). 
 At graduate level, 70% of programs are offered in management science, economics 
and accounting, human science and social and political science; 10% in health 
sciences and 15% in engineering. 
 Research capabilities: 
 The majority of the national research group located in the highest categories given by 
Colciencias A1 and A (82 out of 341) are focused mainly in the management, human, 
social and health sciences. 
 Research capacity is oriented to basic research rather than applied research.  
 Development capacity: 
 Most of the TDCs (13) recognized by Colciencias represent 43% of the national 
centres. 
 Research in TDCs is oriented to productive sectors, such as metalworking, 
transportation, information and telecommunication technologies, textiles, 
biotechnology, logistics, shoemakers, and forestry, among others. 
Public policies  
 Regional Competitiveness Plan 2010–2019. 
 Plan for Science, Technology and Innovation Bogota DC 2007–2019. 
 Agenda for Science, Technology and Innovation for Bogota and Cundinamarca. 
 Local social policy programs.  
Innovation strategies  
 World-class companies with a presence in Colombia that promote local innovation. 
 In May of 2011, the IBM Innovation Centre was established.  
 Innovation support:  
 DaVinci Program (promote the creation of spin-offs from research results). 
 Innovation Business Round organized every year. 
Spectacular successes  
 FIFA U-20 World Cup in 2011. 
 World Book Capital City 2007 (UNESCO). 
 Golden Lion Architectural for Best City 2006. 
 Cities for Peace 2002 (UNESCO). 
 
5. How to evaluate the innovation performance of Bogotá 
After observing some of the features that Bogotá has against the best practices that 
emblematic cities have implemented the most important gaps were established and 
analysed. This analysis also helps Bogotá, in order to achieve priority objectives to generate 
necessary conditions to become an innovative city. The main innovation enabling drivers 
were benchmarked in spite of the poor information that could be collected. The following 
gaps were found: 
 
 
14 
 
Table 3 Gaps between Bogota and the best practices 
Drivers Gaps 
 15 square meters/person of green space, below the global Best 
Practices (BP). 
 Position 62 below the global BP of roads quality. 
 Position 72 below the global BP in terms of infrastructure and 
physical connectivity. 
 Not adequate electric transportation corridor in the urban surface 
according to the Index ICUR, 2010.  
Infrastructure 
 A disadvantage of 5.7 percentage points on the global BP related to 
the levels of malnutrition. 
 High level of unemployment compared with other major capitals of 
South America. 
 High levels of poverty compared with BP in urban areas.  
 High rate of violence compared with other capital cities.  
 8.2 points below BP in Branding in Latin America. 
 The Land Use Planning has been partially approved. It shows low 
vision of environmental sustainability compared with global BP.  
 84.1 points below the global BP in the field of environmental 
sustainability. 
 39 positions below the global BP level in terms of clustering. 
 Recycled 350.216 kg/year. Bogotá is ranked as one of the cities 
with the least capacity for waste recycling in the world.  
 Emits 53.1 (Particle Matter – PM), lower than 10 μ. Monthly 
Openness to 
Average PM10 (μg / m³). Placing it 33.1 percentage points over the 
association and 
reference value recommended by OMS. 
holistic awareness 
 46.3 points below the global BP of square meters of green area per 
person. 
 One major weakness with 75.7 percentage points of global BP 
levels of corruption compared with other cities. 
 Electoral abstention for the 2011 elections was 52.6% of the total 
population eligible to vote. 
 78 positions below the global BP on transparency in the 
management of public organizations and corruption control. 
 46.9 points below global BP in business services. 
 41.2 points below global BP in executive services. 
 91.7 points below global BP regarding the creation of new 
Entrepreneurship 
businesses. 
 
 2.5 points below global BP relating to access to venture capital. 
 Colombia is located 99 positions below the global BP regarding the 
efficiency of the market for goods and services. 
  Bogotá had 13.85 broadband connections per 100,000 people 
(2011). 
Technology 
 Colombian Research Centres are located in the positions 975 and 
2.284 (Ranking of Web of World Research Centres). 
Talent  Higher education dropout rate close to 48%. 
15 
 
Drivers Gaps 
 Low rate of staff engaged in R&D (only 0.23 researchers per 
thousand inhabitants). 
 Business schools are located 400 positions below the global BP 
(Best Web Ranking of World Universities).  
 Colombia is 58 positions below the best results in the PISA Test for 
2009. 
 33.7 points below the continental BP in expenditure for social 
Public policies 
capital development 
 1.7 points below the global BP within collaborative university-
industry R&D. 
 98.1 points below the global BP in terms of patents registered per 
year.  
 87.8 points below the global BP in terms of royalties from patented 
Innovation 
inventions. 
strategies 
 3.1 points below the global BP in private investment for R&D. 
 Colombia is located 72 positions below the global BP in terms of 
exports of high added value according to  The Global Information 
Technology Report  GITR – World Economic Forum. 
 Bogota has 79% of Foreign Direct Investment FDI in Colombia. 
Spectacular  ‘Rock al Parque’ is the best festival in the region. The city is also 
successes known as a Rumba City with the best discos and DJs.  
 
6. What should Bogotá do to reduce the gaps?  
Bogotá has the largest number of higher education and research institutions, and 
technological development centers in Colombia (Malaver, Maussa and Vargas, 2005). 
However, Bogotá is not yet positioned as an RIS. An organizational redesign will be 
necessary in terms of the entities that comprise it.  
Bogotá should implement different activities on R&D, technology, innovation, 
entrepreneurship and technology-transfer-associated strategies for developing a knowledge 
and information society, as well as a strong digital-enabling economy designed to support 
sustainable wealth creation, such as:    
 Create a clear strategic framework for integrating innovation chains into the city’s 
production structure.  
 Establish cooperation networks among companies and between companies and the 
public sector. 
 Reinforce R&D activities and programs in technology and innovation in the region. 
 Identify and empower champions such as mayors, businessmen, academics, athletes 
and artists, who can be emblematic and catalyst figures for the world positioning of 
the city. 
 Develop long-term plans for the creation of competitiveness poles for development 
and technology clusters as an engine of social development and wealth creation. 
 Mainly, and above all the other factors, Bogotá must generate a transparent and 
balanced (among all stakeholders) Rule of Law, to attract and maintain talent, 
capital, technological partners, and all kind of stakeholders who can help the re-
positioning of the city as a world-class player. 
16 
 
 Finally, regarding the governance of RIS, according to Scheel (2011), the following 
seven aspects should be considered important for redesigning the RIS in Bogotá: 
 Include strategies to facilitate deeper relationships to help overcome rigid 
barriers that exist today between research and technological development and 
the productive sector. This is to encourage greater and deeper relationship 
between universities and businesses in R&D. 
 Provide a broad portfolio of knowledge-transfer services (mostly e-services) to 
meet specific needs across different types of companies, either as users or 
generators of technology. 
 Apply marketing asset initiatives based on technological innovation and 
scientific management to be aimed at specific target groups of productive 
enterprises. 
 Develop long-term relationships with industrial clusters that are much more 
satisfying than individual projects and technology transfer isolated in exploiting 
the potential of regional collaboration in the RIS.  
 Provide advice on making direct technical-assistance programs for the 
restructuring and modernization of enterprises by defining policies and 
strategies of innovation, even similar to those adopted by industrialized 
countries in the European Union. 
 Strengthen institutions and infrastructure services that are necessary to support 
such industries. A main activity of the RIS will be to foster entrepreneurial 
skills in technological innovation and scientific management. 
 Establish special measures to support mutual inter-company relationships, 
which also include subcontracting programs between large and small 
companies. In addition, it is important to develop other schemes for 
strengthening business alliances with the participation of entities RIS interface. 
 To be able to implement these activities, the city must assemble an RIS, which 
will provide the proper governance for Bogotá to become an innovative city 
with an institutional framework which would provide empowerment to local 
capacities and enhance the ABIIGS (Academy, Bank, Infrastructure and 
innovation, related and complementary Industries, Government and Society) 
synergies, as well as the interactions among all stakeholders, the efficiency of 
regional resource allocation management, and the governance and articulation 
of all stakeholders. Thus, Bogotá would be able to achieve what other 
developed regions have accomplished: an innovative city, where development 
will be based on high value added knowledge, high competitiveness standards, 
the capability to be positioned as a world-class player with recognized 
specialization and branding, and attractor of  foreign investment, high-value 
talent and anchor firms. In general a well-tuned RIS will provide the city with a 
mechanism capable to articulate the three sub-systems: the city  will have a 
high economic impact, due to: High economic value-added growth, with well-
recognized branding. 
 High recognized differentiation as well as a well-articulated specialization. 
 High-value jobs. 
 High impact on the tax structure (regional GDP). 
 Effective innovation clusters, with highly competitive firms. 
 A large body of start-ups with high-value business models. 
17 
 
 As well as a minimal environmental impact: 
 Able to minimize the environmental cycle (Life Cycle Assessment). 
 Free of garbage or able to transform all residues.  
 Possessing an improved environmental impact and a high energetic eco-
Efficient Index. 
  Creating  great social benefit for all citizens: 
 High Life Quality Index. 
 High Global Progress Index. 
 Social inclusiveness mechanisms. 
 Equally shared social capital. 
 Providing a high-level talent organization with: 
 High-quality tertiary education. 
 High-value technology-based niches. 
 Scientific and technological infrastructure of high quality and differentiation. 
 Finally, a highly innovative city will have a great impact on the government 
performance: 
 With a strong platform on an inclusive e-government. 
 A regional holistic vision with all-inclusive stakeholders. 
 A well-structured urban plan as an attractive pole of regional firms, linked to 
key ABIIGS stakeholders. 
 A visionary policy with a robust and inclusive rule of law. 
 
7. Conclusion 
The purpose of this study was to develop a proposal for transforming Bogotá into one of 
the most competitive cities of Latin America (according to world-class indicators), to 
enable the city to attract Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), specialized talent, and high-value 
and specialized services, and to become a city with high quality of life and a sustainable 
environment. 
In order to achieve world-class standards, the city must develop a well-tuned regional 
innovation system strategy which will provide: 
 
 A balanced and effective governance among all stakeholders that enhances the 
strengths, and it transforms  obstructing hurdles, in sound drivers for economic 
growth and social development in a sustainable and long-term way; 
 The ability to insert research centres and universities in the region within the 
innovation chain in a harmonious, effective and sustainable way; 
 A proven ability to incubate new start-ups and accelerate technology-based 
businesses; 
 Flexible tools for financing new venture capital; 
 A more effective and valuable Resource Allocation Management (RAM) system, 
in and outside the region; 
 A mechanism that dynamically and synchronized inserts key resources where and 
when they are required; 
 A high-value-added specialized niche differentiated for the region and for each 
stakeholder; 
 An efficient mechanism for knowledge management and information systems 
necessary to support intelligence, surveillance and trends, as well as a support 
18 
 
system for decision-making (DSS: Decision Support Systems) for proper 
governance of a attractive and well recognized pole; and 
 An efficient mechanism for value creation distributed equitably and to come in 
cycles of increasing returns of win-win value for all participants. 
 
Finally, the RIS of the city must be perfectly aligned to the Science, Technology and 
Innovation Plan, as well as to the inclusive and sustainable wealth-creation strategy of the 
region. Based on this, the city will have all the requirements to be a world-class, well-
recognized innovative city. A well-designed RIS is defined by Carlsson and Stankiewicz 
(1991) as a set of networks of public, private and academic sectors that interact in a specific 
territory, taking advantage of a particular infrastructure for the purposes of adapting, 
generating and/or disseminating technological innovation, social and systemic processes. 
Adapting this definition to Bogotá’s RIS, one may consider that the city  is a geographical 
network, in which different stakeholders are concentrated in order to cooperate permanently 
with each other; their interaction and mobility is essential to developing their activities 
towards a common goal: the creation and sharing of sustainable wealth for the region. 
The purpose of implementing the RIS for Bogotá will be to call, coordinate and 
govern all stakeholders necessary and sufficient to position the city in the ranking of best 
cities in the world. In addition, Bogotá will be recognized for its high industrial 
competitiveness; human capital; R&D technology for enterprises; sustainable development; 
and its excellent quality of life. Therefore, the governance of the innovation chain must be 
associated with key policies and strategies within the RIS itself. Governance practices 
should be applied to two environments: those activities that must govern from within the 
RIS, and those dedicated to governing the activities outside the RIS; but both focused on 
the structure of the chain mentioned above.  
Some of the typical features of RIS governance have three levels: the strategic level 
of local think-tank leaders; the tactical level (i.e. the management tank); and the operational 
level (i.e. the resource management tank). This seems to be the intention with the launching 
of a new undertaking organization known as CONNECT Bogotá-Region, which keeping 
the proportions and scope has some similarities to the Connect branch in San Diego. The 
ground is fertile for this purpose, but still the results are yet to be made a reality in the 
middle and long term. In this context, the RIS of Bogotá is still a long way from being 
positioned according to minimum standards of global  best practices, and certainly the one 
associated to its governance is of paramount importance. This is the main mean adopted by 
other regions and cities: it is not to dictate what should be done, but rather to direct the 
scarce resources available to actual and feasible technological innovation projects. 
 
References  
Bortagaray, I., and Scott, T. (2000). ‘Innovation clusters in Latin America’, In 4th 
International Conference on Technology Policy and Innovation Curitiba, Curitiba, 
Brazil, 28–31 August. 
Bessant, J. and Dodgson, M. (1997), Effective Innovation Policy: A new approach, London: 
International Thomson Business Press. 
Carlsson, B. and Stankiewicz (1991). ‘On the nature, function and composition of 
technological systems’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 1: 2, pp. 93–118. 
Cooke, P. (2003), Strategy for Regional Innovation Systems: Learning transfer and 
applications. UNIDO: Centre for Advanced Studies, Cardiff University. 
19 
 
DNP (Departamento Nacional de Planeación) (2010). Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2010–
2014/National Development Plan of Colombia 2010–2014 ‘prosperidad para todos’. 
http://www.dnp.gov.co/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=mXt-R20LpjA%3d&tabid=1238. 
Accessed 28 September 2011. 
Edquist, C. (1997). Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. 
London: Pinter. 
Florida, R. and Gates, G. (2003). ‘Technology and tolerance: The importance of diversity to 
high-technology growth’. In T. Clark (ed.), The City as an Entertainment Machine. 
The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, USA. 
Garnett. R. Jr (1999). New Economics of Knowledge. London and New York: Routledge. 
Håkansson, H. (1987). Corporate Technological Behaviour: Co-operation and Networks. 
London: Routledge. 
Lundvall, B. A. (ed.) (1992). National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of 
Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter. 
Malaver, F.; Maussa, F. and Vargas, M. (2005). Directorio de Ciencia y Tecnología en 
Bogotá y Cundinamarca. (Directory of Science and Research in Bogotá-
Cundinamarca) Bogotá: Javergraf 
Nelson, R. (eds) (1993). National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: 
Oxford University Press. 
OCyT (Observatorio Colombiano de Ciencia y Tecnología) (2011). Indicadores de Ciencia 
y Tecnología. Bogotá: Observatorio Colombiano de Ciencia y Tecnología. 
Pineda, L. (2011). ‘Strategic innovation and the knowledge society: The case of Latin 
America. In: Piagessi, D., Sund, K., Castelnovo, W. (eds) (2011). Global Strategy and 
Practice of E-Governance: Examples from Around the World. United States of 
America: Information Science Publishing.  
Scheel, C. and Rivera, A. (2013). ‘Innovative cities: In search of their disruptive 
performance. International Journal of Knowledge Based Development. Vol. 4, No. 1 
pp. 79-101. UK 
Scheel, C. (2011) ‘Innovacities: In search of breakthrough innovations producing world-
class performance. International Journal of Knowledge Based Development. Vol. 2, 
No. 4, pp. 372-388. UK.  
Scheel, C. and Bretones, D. (2011), ‘The impact of technology based clusters on holistic 
regional development: The case of the Grand Poitiers Futuroscope Technopole’. 
Revista Universidad & Empresa, Universidad del Rosario. Vol 20. pp 11-43. Bogotá.  
Scheel, C. and Bretones, D. (2011), Fostering innovation: The role of French 
Competitiveness Poles: Critical analysis for an application in Latin American 
Countries’. In: Journal of Global Business Administration, 3:1. pp. 1-18. Canada. 
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge: Harvard 
University Press. 
Soete, L. Bart Verspagen and Bas ter Weel (2009), Systems of Innovation. UNU-MERIT 
Working Papers. Maastricht Economic and Social Research and Training Centre on 
Innovation and technology. 
SNIES (Sistema Nacional de Información en Educación Superior). (2012a). Instituciones 
de Educación Superior.  
http://snies.mineducacion.gov.co/ConsultaSnies/ConsultaSnies/consultarInfoInstitucio
nes.jsp. Accessed 10 February 2012. 
20 
 
SNIES (Sistema Nacional de Información en Educación Superior) (2012b), Programas 
Académicos. 
http://snies.mineducacion.gov.co/ConsultaSnies/ConsultaSnies/consultarInfoPrograma
sAcademicos.jsp. Accessed 10 February 2012. 
Von Hippel, E. (1988). The Sources of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
 
Contributor details 
Maria Andrea Contreras (EdD) is a researcher at the Centre for Knowledge and 
Innovation Management, Universidad del Rosario, responsible for projects and activities on 
the social appropriation of knowledge and technology transfer. Maria’s current research 
interests include triple helix, regional innovation systems, technology transfer and 
commercialization. 
Contact: Coordinator, Social Appropriation of Knowledge and Technology Transfer, 
Centre for Knowledge and Management Innovation, Universidad del Rosario, Cra 7 No. 
12B–41, Bogotá, Colombia. 
E-mail: maria.contreras@urosario.edu.co 
Tel: (571) 2970 200 ext. 7723 
Leonardo Pineda (PhD) is Director of Research. He has extensive international experience 
in programs, projects and activities on strategic management of technology, innovation and 
knowledge, as well as in technical cooperation projects for international organizations. He 
holds a chair at the Management School of the Universidad del Rosario in Bogotá. His 
research area is on the impact of technological change and strategic innovation in resilience 
organizations. 
 
Contact: Management School, Universidad del Rosario, Cra 5 No. 15–37, Bogotá, 
Colombia. 
E-mail: leonardo.pineda@urosario.edu.co 
Tel: (571) 2970 200 ext. 8200 
 
Carlos Scheel (PhD) is Professor Emeritus and Director of the Research Chair on Wealth 
Creation by Innovation and Technology of the EGADE Business School of the Monterrey 
Institute of Technology in Monterrey, Mexico. Professor Scheel’s research interests include 
the design and development of a sustainable wealth-creation model based on industrial 
ecology systems for regional development, regional innovation systems and the application 
of the systemic thinking approach for innovation and technology strategies, and policies for 
developing countries. 
Contact: EGADE Business School – Tecnológico de Monterrey, Monterrey, México. 
E-mail: cscheel@itesm.mx 
Tel: +52 (81) 8625 6174 
 
Note 
                                                                
1
 ABIIGS: Academy, banking system, industrial infrastructure, innovation, research and development systems, 
governance  policies and social capital drivers. 
21