This research seeks to answer the following question: What has been the role of the State in the scientific and technological development of Mexico during the period 2000-2020? To this end, a review of the literature on the role of the State in the field of science and technology was carried out, and the analysis of qualitative and quantitative variables was established as a methodological strategy to paint a picture of state intervention. Three main findings were obtained: i) that the State plays a crucial role in promoting the nation’s technological progress, ii) that despite state support, the private sector is reluctant to innovate, iii) that state intervention tends to direct innovation towards social, environmental and energy issues.

In the second decade of the 21st century, a series of academic works began to emerge that sought to justify the State's role in nations' technological development (Block and Keller, 2011; Mazzucato, 2013, 2014 and 2015a; Papaioannou, 2020). This new theoretical movement revives the extensive debate on the State's role in the economic sphere, as well as in science and technology.

Contributions led mainly by Mazzucato (2015a, 2015b, and 2022) suggest a shift in the perception of the State's potential to encourage and support technological progress. Mazzucato's central argument seeks to rethink the role of the state apparatus as part of the innovation process. His idea is to change the perception of the State, justifying its importance based on two principles: i) with the evidence that the state apparatus was –and has been— behind risky innovations, acquiring the role of creator; ii) assuming that this participant has the capacity to take part by stimulating innovation to solve social and environmental problems (Mazzucato, 2015a and 2022).

The emergence of this theoretical approach called Entrepreneurial State (Mazzucato, 2013) is accompanied by the presentation of cases and qualitative evidence that seeks to demonstrate and provide certainty on how the State has played a key role in the technological development of certain nations. However, as recognized by Papaioannou (2020) and Pradella (2017), Mazzucato's (2013) theorization, as well as his evidence and examples, are mainly from the study of developed countries, with very little attention being paid to the situation of developing nations.

Given the emergence of this new current and the debate that has emerged from the contributions of this emerging field of literature, as well as the lack of evidence for the economies of the global south, the objective of this research is to investigate the role that the Mexican State has acquired in the technological development of the nation over the last two decades of the 21st century. Therefore, the paper poses the following question: What has been the role of the State in the scientific and technological development of Mexico in the period 2000-2020?

To address this question, the text attempts to carry out a descriptive study (Hernández et al., 2014). Indicators from the databases of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the European Commission (EC) and the Science and Technology Indicators Network (RICYT) are used as sources of information.

The methodological strategy used was the analysis of quantitative and qualitative Statistical material to determine the direction of state intervention in Mexico during the selected period. The scope of the study is descriptive and offers a look at the dimension of the role of the State in Mexico's technological development without addressing causal or explanatory elements since, according to Hernández et al. (2014), this type of research does not strictly require the formulation of hypotheses.

The main contribution of this paper is to provide an overview of State intervention in science and technology in Mexico over the last 20 years through the analysis and presentation of Statistical evidence. It identifies the areas in which the Mexican state has prioritized spending on Research and Development (R&D) and shows the different incentives and instruments the public sector has designed to encourage innovation in the private sector and the direction of innovation policy.

The contents are divided into six sections, beginning with the first section with an introduction; the second section presents a review of the literature on the role of the State in technological development and presents the new contributions of the entrepreneurial State trend. The third section presents the research strategy, the data collection procedure and the variables used in the study. The fourth section presents the results, while the fifth section outlines a discussion of the findings. Finally, the conclusions and proposals for intervention are presented.

In the field of economics, the State is one of the parties that, both on a theoretical and practical level, has generated a wide range of discussions on its role in the scientific and economic field. Capitalist countries¹ currently have mixed economies, consisting of a private sector (companies) and a public sector (State). Both entities are responsible for carrying out certain activities. For example, the private sector is responsible for the production and distribution of most of the goods and services that exist in an economy, while the State performs functions such as providing security and education, building infrastructure, and producing certain services and public goods (Stiglitz, 2000).

It could be considered that the functions of the State are well-defined; however, as Stiglitz acknowledges: "the precise nature of the role of the State in the economy is still a matter of debate" (2000, p. 14). Since no formula defines the appropriate role of the State, its methods and modes of intervention have always been strongly influenced by different economic doctrines (Ortegón, 2008).

From the classical school of economics —Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, among others— through Keynes and monetarists like Milton Friedman, to the contributions of Mazzucato (2013, 2015b, 2015a, and 2022), we find different proposals for State intervention.

Regardless of the type of economic school of thought consulted, the discussion of state interventionism comes together in two major ideological movements: the neoliberal and the Statistician approaches (Ortegón, 2008). In Wang's words, “The debate on the ideal role of government in an economy seems to be polarized between neoliberalism favoring market-led development and statism favoring government intervention” (2018, p. 399).

Both models have strongly influenced State action throughout history. For example, it is possible to visualize the hegemony of each paradigm at specific points in time if the analysis is limited to the years following World War II.

In the early 1950s, the preponderance of statist ideology led by the welfare state approach became apparent. The central argument of this movement is to promote state intervention through fiscal spending to stimulate economic activity and growth. In addition, the statist paradigm was characterized by strict regulation and control of the economy and individuals' social interactions (Duvall and Freeman, 1981).

During this period, the State favored the industrial development of several countries, including Southeast Asian economies, such as South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan, where the State guided the development of strategic industrial sectors through industrial policy and trade management (Wade, 1990).

Meanwhile, in Latin America, the interventionist ideology was present in the ECLAC School and in structuralist approaches, where the idea of giving the State the responsibility of promoting the scientific and economic development of the region was adopted (Fernandez and Comba, 2012; Hodara, 1976; Wade, 1990).

Thus, in countries such as Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico, the action of the State effectively promoted the development of basic industries during the first phases of import substitution industrialization (Furtado, 1978). In Mexico, in particular, the State promoted industrialization through various economic policies and national development plans from 1960 to 1982. This interventionist period has been called the "stabilizing development" (Núñez, 2014).

What is important in these cases is that the prevalence of the statist movement responded to post-war needs. However, state intervention was excessive in many underdeveloped capitalist countries, such as Mexico. In such economies, the State took over productive and "entrepreneurial" activities in several industries (Duvall and Freeman, 1981). This eventually led to excessive debt. Over the years, the image of the State became blurred, and in the 1970s, interventionist ideas began to be diluted by the adoption of a neoclassical view of the State (Wade, 1990).

As a result of this new approach, the tasks of the state apparatus were reduced, and priority was given to a logic that promoted the complete freedom of markets. Although the new neoliberal movement limited state action, the state retained activities such as maintaining macroeconomic stability, building infrastructure, providing public goods –national security, education, etc.— and redistributing income to favor the poorest, among others (Wade, 1990).

These tasks do not limit the functions of the State. On the contrary, they give it a crucial role. However, the neoliberal movement does not accept that the State should freely intervene in the economic sphere, instead limiting its role exclusively to correcting market failures (Mazzucato, 2015a).

Based on this thinking, the orthodox approach began to spread in Latin America in the 1970s but finally took hold in the 1990s. The new neoliberal logic emerged as an alternative to promote growth and development in said region (Avila, 2005).

With the adoption of this new model, some countries, such as Mexico, experienced a severe contraction of the State. In addition, trade liberalization was promoted, which benefited certain productive sectors but also led to the decline of technology-intensive sectors due to the importing of cheaper intermediate goods (Cimoli and Correa, 2005).

In short, both the neoliberal and statist movements strongly influence the role that the State should play in capitalist nations. Both visions have generated a broad debate about the appropriate role of the State in the economic sphere; however, these discussions have also been transferred to the field of science and technology. In this regard, Dodgson and Gann (2010) acknowledge that: "The debate over the role of government in supporting innovation often reflects ideological politics" (p. 68). These authors reveal the existence of two distinct and well-defined positions. On the one hand, there is a position against the involvement of the State, and on the other, there is a position in favor of State interventionism.

However, despite the coexistence of both perspectives, the neoliberal paradigm currently dominates economic activity and has even managed to significantly impact the teaching of economic sciences (Tello and Ibarra, 2012). There is also a greater prevalence of ideas that reject a more active role for the State in promoting technological development.

Contrary to this predominant doctrine, Mazzucato (2019) presents a series of examples of how the American State intervenes in the promotion of technological development by investing in risky sectors. The author explains how certain US government agencies financed important areas in the innovation chain, mainly for basic and applied research, in many cases providing high-risk financing for companies such as Apple, Compaq and Intel.

Other notable cases in which the state has contributed to the technological development of countries are the industrialization experiences of South Korea, Taiwan, China, and Singapore. These economies experienced accelerated technological progress in the 1980s and 1990s thanks to the industrial policy measures implemented by their governments. In fact, the State of Singapore continues to maintain an active role in promoting R&D, as well as some scientific activities that make the country a leader in innovation (Wang, 2018).

In underdeveloped economies such as Mexico, the State has played a crucial role in developing and implementing National Innovation Systems (SNI). For example, the Mexican state apparatus implemented several programs and mechanisms to promote science and technology through public agencies such as the National Council of Humanities, Sciences and Technologies (CONAHCYT) (Dutrénit et al., 2010).

The emergence of the new theoretical movement led by the contributions of Mazzucato (2014, 2015b, 2015a and 2019) adds to the interventionist position of the State and justifies the role of this agent in the scientific and technological field (Papaioannou, 2020).²

Mazzucato's (2013) ideas focus on positioning the state as an entity capable of driving innovation through the creation of markets. His argument is supported by historical evidence that reveals how the state has been able to intervene –through investment— in high-risk sectors, leading to an increase in the level of invention.

As mentioned above, Mazzucato (2013 and 2015a) provides a series of examples that show how the state –mainly in developed countries— played an important role in promoting innovation. In his papers, he explains that the state apparatus acted as an investor, directing public funds to sectors where private investors did not dare to invest due to the high degree of uncertainty associated with innovation. "In fact, the most successful capitalist economies had active States that made risky investments, some of which led to technological revolutions" (Mazzucato, 2019, p. 232).

The State has used a particular form of intervention –investment in R&D— at certain moments in history, mainly when innovation was risky for firms. By assuming the role of an investor, the state apparatus manages to impact the creation of new inventions positively. Mazzucato (2014) mentioned that "when the State acts as a leading investor and catalyst, it makes the network act and expand knowledge. The State can (and in fact does) act as a creator of the knowledge economy, rather than limiting itself to the role of an intermediary" (p. 58).

A second role of the state identified in the author's works is that of a supporter. According to Mazzucato (2015a), in addition to creating, the State also promotes the development of existing inventions. An example is the support provided by the US government for developing the Internet, GPS, touch screens, voice recognition and commands on electronic devices, as well as funding in pharmaceutical biotechnology; all these inventions served as a basis for other companies to develop new technologies.

In addition to these roles, Mazzucato (2014, 2015a, 2018, 2023), Mazzucato and Penna (2020) and Deleidi and Mazzucato (2021) strongly emphasize the idea of directing the efforts of the State through the implementation of mission-oriented science and technology policies (MOP). MOPs are defined as a set of public initiatives of a systemic nature that coordinate and execute a series of financial and non-financial instruments through which the state apparatus seeks to achieve specific objectives and solve national problems (Carrizo, 2019; Mazzucato, 2018).

Regardless of these three forms of intervention, it is important to highlight that the State has always participated in the technological development of nations, creating the conditions for companies to immerse themselves in the search for new ideas and being innovative agents. Therefore, there are many reasons why the state apparatus should be involved in the field of science and technology, as recognized by Rivas-Aceves (2013):

[...] the government is another economic agent that can invest resources in research and technological development. In this case, the main motivation for investment is not profit-making but the establishment of better structural, economic and social conditions that translate into improvements in the quality of life of its inhabitants; in other words, long-term growth and development goals (p. 74).

Indeed, the State encourages technological progress because it is committed to economic development (Hodara, 1976). The motivations of the State to participate in the innovation process have traditionally been focused on the search for welfare, growth, productivity and competitiveness. However, in recent decades, there has been a change in direction: there is now a greater emphasis on directing innovative efforts to resolve social and environmental problems (Foray et al., 2012; Mazzucato, 2018; Schot and Steinmueller, 2018).

To analyze these issues, it is necessary to reflect on the role of the State in the process of technological development. The current urgency of climate change, the aftermath of COVID-19 and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), among other issues, once again provide an opportunity for the State to intervene.

The new trend of the entrepreneurial state makes interesting theoretical contributions that analyze how states participate in the scientific and technological fields of countries. However, these contributions are based primarily on evidence from developed countries (Papaioannou, 2020), leaving out the case of economies in the global south. Even with this limitation, this research supports state intervention and uses the ideas of Mazzucato (2013, 2014 and 2015a) as a theoretical basis to investigate the role that the Mexican State has assumed in the technological development of the nation over the last two decades. Thus, the following section presents the method of the study, the data collection techniques, and the statistical material used for the analysis.

To determine the role of the Mexican State in scientific and technological development between 2000 and 2020, as well as to outline an overview of its intervention, this paper proposes the review, analysis and presentation of the available quantitative and qualitative statistics as a strategy.

The information obtained is presented in Table 1. The selection of variables is based on the contributions of the literature presented in the previous section (Mazzucato, 2013, 2014 and 2015a). According to the background review, three types of intervention are identified in the vindicatory movement of the State: i) investment in innovation, ii) support for innovation, and iii) formulation of Science, Technology and Innovation Policies (STIP). Table 2 shows the variables selected for each type of intervention.

The period 2000-2020 was selected for two reasons: the first was related to the theory of the entrepreneurial state, where many of Mazzucato's (2014 and 2015a) examples correspond to the 21st century. To contribute to the contemporary debate and offer a modern view of the Mexican situation, the research prioritizes the first two decades of the 21st century. The second reason is related to the availability of data since there is a larger amount of information in the years in question. It should be noted that the period from 2018 to 2020 corresponds to the administration of Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO), who is opposed to the neoliberal doctrine of the State, but the decision to include these last two years is due more to the availability of data than to an attempt to contrast trends since this point falls outside the scope of this analysis.

The EC-OECD (2024) and RICYT databases were used to identify the qualitative variables. The first database, STIP compass, results from a joint initiative between the OECD and the EC and provides access to qualitative and quantitative Statistical information on STIPs from 58 countries (EC-OECD, 2024; Russo and Pavone, 2021).

The EC-OECD (2024) database was downloaded in February 2024, containing a total of 35 initiatives for the period 2000-2020.³ The EC-OECD (2024) offers a series of qualitative data on STIPs, including: year of implementation, description, objective, responsible organization, STIP theme, specificities of the STIP, target groups, etc. (EC/OECD, 2023). Only the categories listed in Table 1 were used for this research.

On the other hand, the RICYT database is a web platform that provides information on the national innovation systems of Latin American countries and their STIP instruments, which are formulated and implemented exclusively at the national level (RICYT, 2016). Although the collection of information for the database began in 2008, a limitation of the platform is the scarcity of information for the years in which the STIPs were implemented. In addition, the platform does not specify how far back the existing data goes. Despite these limitations, the qualitative Statistics of the RICYT remain relevant. In fact, their transcendence is such that some research papers have used the information to conduct various analyses (see Baptista, 2016; Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean [ECLAC], 2022; Sánchez and Osorio, 2014).

The RICYT groups the information on STIP into three classes: i) Axis. Classifies policy instruments according to the objective they pursue, ii) Categories. Sorts initiatives into sub-categories based on their specific goals, and iii) Description. Provides general information about each instrument. Only classes i and ii are used for this research.

Taken together, the qualitative data from the RICYT and the EC-OECD (2024) provide useful information to paint a picture of the landscape of STIP implementation in Mexico over the past two decades.

Figure 1 shows the evolution of the variable percentage of R&D expenditure allocated by the different sectors in Mexico. During the selected period, the State has been the agent that has allocated the most financial resources to R&D activities. On average, the state apparatus contributed more than 50% of total expenditure, while the private sector contributed only 29%.

In terms of companies, the years in which they allocated the most resources to R&D were 2005, 2006 and 2007, when they contributed up to 40% of total expenditure. However, in the last decade their participation has decreased to such an extent that, in 2019, the private sector contributed only 18% of financial resources. Conversely, since 2010, the State has seen an accelerated increase in its contribution to expenditure. In 2014, the state agent financed 80% of the total amount of R&D, while in 2019 the state contributed 76% of the capital. This evidence suggests that the Mexican State has financed most of the R&D activities to promote innovation in the country in the last two decades.

Meanwhile, Figure 2 shows the variable allocation of the public R&D budget by area of interest. According to the data, in the last two decades, State resources have been mainly directed to the energy sector, representing between 30 and 40% of total expenditure. In second and third place are industrial production and technology and health, each with an average share of 15.3% over the period. Together, these three sectors accounted for about 70% of public R&D funding.

These three sectors are of vital importance to any economy. In fact, energy, like industrial and technological production, has contributed significantly to Mexico's economic activity. For example, over the last 17 years, the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, water and gas have contributed an average of 1.5% to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).⁴ In addition, revenues from natural resources –oil, gas, coal, etc.— have represented an average of 4.35% of GDP⁵ over the last two decades.

Industrial and technological production, on the other hand, continues to be important for Mexico, given the weight that production still maintains. For example, according to the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI), the manufacturing sector now accounts for 17% of GDP, making it one of the driving forces of economic growth. In addition, thanks to trade liberalization, several Mexican industries have become more dynamic: the textile sector is Mexico's leading exporter, followed by the automotive and automotive parts sector, the electronics sector and, more recently, the aerospace sector and Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) (De María, 2019).

Finally, in the area of health, Mexican public research institutions play an important role in the generation and diffusion of knowledge to address health issues. In fact, it is thanks to these organizations that remarkable technological capacities have been built and inventions such as the vaccine against black widow spider venom, medical devices such as the soft surgical arm support, and diagnostic methods for epilepsy, among others, have been developed (Torres-Vargas and Jasso-Villazul, 2014). In summary, each of the sectors described has visibly contributed to economic development.

One indicator that allows us to examine the level of financial support that the state apparatus provides to the private sector for science and technology is the percentage of private R&D spending that the State finances. Figure 3 shows that the Mexican state apparatus has supported private R&D spending through incentives and subsidies in varying proportions during the period under study.

In fact, in the first decade of the 21st century, the State financed an average of 7.75% of total spending by businesses, while, in the last ten years, the financed percentage has doubled (16.1%). This suggests that the State has increased its incentives to promote technological development in the private sector.

According to EC-OECD data (2024), Mexico designed and implemented 35 STIPs during the selected years; Figure 4 shows the distribution of policies by year. It can be observed that the highest number of STIPs were designed and implemented for 2019. This coincides with the first year of AMLO’s six-year term when he enacted STIPs such as: the National Strategic Programs (PRONACES), the National Strategic Program for Technology and Open Innovation (PENTA), Frontier Science, the National Plan for Innovation included in the National Development Plan (PND), the Flagship Projects, among others.

Table 3 shows the main organizations responsible for implementing the STIP to complement the above. According to this information, CONAHCYT has been the public institution that has developed the most STIPs in Mexico during the last two decades. This is obvious since this institution is responsible for formulating and implementing STIPs to promote technological development in Mexico (Dutrénit et al., 2010).

In addition, the list of organizations includes public institutions such as the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT), the Ministry of Energy (SENER), and the National Institute of Ecology and Climate Change (INEEC). Policies have been developed in each institution to address priority areas for the country. For example, at SEMARNAT and INEEC, STIPs were designed to address climate change and contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, at SENER, STIPs aimed to improve electricity supply, promote economic growth and facilitate energy source diversification (EC-OECD, 2024).

Figure 5 also shows the distribution of STIPs by theme. According to the EC-OECD (2024),⁶ the STIPs in Mexico addressed different topics. For example, 26% of the strategies focused on the public research system, while 17% of the initiatives addressed issues related to governance and transitions (such as promoting zero emissions).

In addition, 11% of the 35 STIPs focused on innovation issues in businesses and human resources for research and innovation. Likewise, an important point is that 10% of the policies addressed the issue of research and innovation for society. Considering the latter and noting that 17% of the STIPs focused on the issue of energy transitions, this suggests that the STIPs in Mexico not only focused on the problems traditionally addressed by innovation policies –economic growth and competitiveness (Schot and Steinmueller, 2018)—, but also sought to address social and energy issues. Both issues are closely related to the new wave of transformative innovation policies (Haddad et al., 2022).

To expand the panorama of the purposes and priorities of Mexican STIPs, Figure 6 and Table 4 are presented. The first shows the distribution of STIP instruments by objective, while the second lists the number of instruments by sub-objective.⁷ According to the categorization of RICYT (2016), the largest number of instruments is concentrated in the “strategic areas” category, which refers to all scientific-technological fields that can dynamize the country's economic and social system.

Most instruments generated for the "strategic areas" category were sectoral funds. According to RICYT (2016), these aim to create institutional frameworks and incentive schemes focusing on social or economic issues. Examples include the sectoral fund for water research and development, the sectoral fund for health and social security research, and the sectoral fund for environmental research, among others.

To expand the panorama of the purposes and priorities of Mexican STIPs, Figure 6 and Table 4 are presented. The first shows the distribution of STIP instruments by objective, while the second lists the number of instruments by sub-objective.7 According to RICYT's categorization (2016), the largest number of instruments is concentrated in the “strategic areas” category, which refers to all scientific-technological fields that can dynamize the country's economic and social system. To expand the panorama of the purposes and priorities of Mexican STIPs, Figure 6 and Table 4 are presented. The first shows the distribution of STIP instruments by objective, while the second lists the number of instruments by sub-objective.7 According to RICYT's categorization (2016), the largest number of instruments is concentrated in the “strategic areas” category, which refers to all scientific-technological fields that can dynamize the country's economic and social system.

The second major objective of the STIP instruments was “R&D”. In this category, nine funds for the promotion of scientific and technological research were implemented to promote new scientific knowledge, three aerospace R&D plans, and a program to stimulate teaching of scientific and technological research. Finally, the third main priority objective of the STIP instruments in Mexico is “human resources”. Within this category, six scholarship initiatives have been implemented for undergraduate, postgraduate and postdoctoral studies, two postgraduate support programs and a technical training program.

Finally, to determine the type of agents that were the target of the STIPs, Figure 7 shows the target groups prioritized by the initiatives. It shows that 22% of the total number of policies were aimed at education and research organizations, while 17% were aimed at researchers, teachers and students.

In third place, we find the prominent social groups. This evidence is related to what was previously observed. There is a tendency on the part of the State to focus STI on social areas and the support and development of human resources for R&D.

Up to this point, the overview of state intervention in Mexico has been outlined within the scientific field. Below are some reflections that emerge from the presentation of the consulted variables.

After reviewing the empirical evidence, it was observed that the Mexican State has been the principal investor in R&D over the last 20 years, while the private sector has had little participation in innovation. This fact is related to the data available from the indicator "Companies that carried out projects and expenditure on research and technological development" in the Survey on Research and Technological Development (ESIDET)⁸ in INEGI.

According to this variable, between 2012 and 2016, the number of companies that carried out R&D activities increased from 753 to 2099. However, R&D funding did not increase; on the contrary, it decreased by 2.7%. The above suggests that the private sector in Mexico has reduced funding for technological development.

It should be noted that the decline in private participation in R&D requires specific research to determine the causes. However, one possible explanation could be the lack of technological capabilities in many companies and the low interest that Latin American firms generally have in innovation (Dutrénit et al., 2010; Lederman et al., 2014). However, we must continue to study this issue.

Independently of the causes, the lack of business participation should motivate the State to create incentives for the private sector to invest more resources in R&D. As suggested by Navarro (2013), this could be based on cooperation or public-private partnerships in science and technology in areas of national interest, such as agroindustry, energy, health, etc.

Regardless of the situation in the private sector, the results show that the Mexican state apparatus has played a crucial role in supporting R&D funding. Thus, the results can be considered positive in terms of science and technology, so much so that, since 2017, Mexico has been listed on the Global Innovation Index⁹ as winner of the award for leading innovator in the Latin American and Caribbean region. However, the country still needs to increase its total R&D spending to reach at least 1% of GDP, thus joining the trends of more developed countries (Guadarrama, 2018). However, it is also necessary for the nation to continue promoting sustainable technological development.

To achieve both goals, we recommend examining Navarro's (2013) proposal on public-private partnerships in science and technology, as well as exploring the possibility of the State bringing R&D results to the market through the creation of parastatal companies in strategic areas, which should be areas where the private sector is not interested in participating due to high levels of risk and uncertainty (Mazzucato, 2014). However, this type of intervention should be careful not to cover too many activities to avoid repeating past mistakes.

Moreover, the tendency of the State to focus the formulation of STIPs on priority issues that are being discussed by the new trends for innovation policy is striking (Schot and Steinmueller, 2018).

The need to reorient innovation towards the significant challenges of the 21st century, such as climate change, energy transition and inequality, is evident today (Mazzucato, 2018). From the data presented, it is clear that Mexico has implemented STIPs to address social and energy problems, prioritizing attention to social groups and allocating significant amounts of resources to the health and energy sectors.

Empirical evidence shows that Mexico has tried to direct innovation towards the challenges identified in the literature (Mazzucato, 2018). However, more must be done to address existing social, energy, and environmental challenges. While there is evidence that Mexico has directed its innovation policy towards unconventional goals such as growth or competitiveness, it still needs to study the social impact of the implementation of STIPs (Schot and Steinmueller, 2018).

It has also been observed that the State has tried to support and facilitate innovation in the private sector. For example, in the STIPs, a significant percentage of the initiatives were prioritized to benefit firms; in fact, 20% of the target groups are represented in the businesses (see Figure 7). Similarly, the STIP instruments promoted programs to: i) stimulate the creation of small and medium-sized businesses, ii) promote innovation and competitiveness; and iii) support the integration of human capital into the private sector (see Table 4).

In addition, the data on the percentage of private R&D expenditure financed by the State shows the public support given to firms. This support is significant compared to innovation leaders such as Japan, South Korea and the United States, which tend to finance between 1 and 8% of total private spending,¹⁰ while the Mexican government has financed more than 15% of national private investment over the last decade.

While there is no doubt that the State has encouraged the private sector to innovate, private R&D spending has not responded accordingly. Thus, these results suggest the need to continue studying the causes that affect the Mexican business sector's intention to devote more resources to innovation.

Throughout this paper, we have addressed the issue of State intervention in the field of science and technology. A review of the specialized literature revealed the existence of a prominent debate on the role that the state apparatus should play in both the economy and technological development.

Despite the proliferation of ideas that strongly oppose an active role of the State in technological progress, the last decade has seen the emergence of a new body of literature, led by the works of Mazzucato, that seeks to defend the role of the State in the economic sphere, to give it the importance it deserves in the promotion and development of innovation.

Based on this contextualization, this paper has attempted to examine the performance of the Mexican State in science and technology during the last two decades. For this purpose, a review and presentation of quantitative and qualitative variables was carried out to outline a panorama of state intervention.

The evidence suggests that the Mexican State has played a crucial role in encouraging, supporting and promoting the nation’s technological progress during the period under study. The results show that the state apparatus has been the principal investor in R&D. It has also designed initiatives and financed resources for the private sector to encourage it to generate innovation. However, the national business sector is reluctant to innovate.

Therefore, and considering the low level of inventiveness in the country, this paper proposes, on the one hand, the promotion of public-private partnerships in science and technology in areas of national interest and, on the other hand, the exploration of the creation of parastatal companies that bring R&D results to the market as a possible alternative. The idea is to take advantage of the active role of the State in the short and medium term while achieving a balance of forces between the private and public sectors in this field.

The results show that through its STIPs, Mexico has changed the path of innovation toward social, energy and environmental objectives. These facts are related to the current state of STIPs, which seek to redirect innovation towards the challenges of the present century.

This opens new avenues for research. First, it is proposed to analyze to what extent Mexican STIPs are related to the recent wave of innovation policies aimed at social and environmental issues. Second, this research proposes to develop evaluations of STIPs to determine the impact they have had in the energy, social, environmental and health sectors.

Finally, considering the most recent political transition in Mexico, it is suggested that the reference framework of the paper be used to compare state intervention in science and technology of the neoliberal governments with that of AMLO's government to identify differences and/or similarities.

Ávila, F. (2005). Neoliberalismo y globalización: de la racionalidad técnica a la relación sujeto-sujeto. Revista de Artes y Humanidades UnIca, 6(12). https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/1701/170121560005.pdf

Baptista, B. (2016). Los instrumentos de política de ciencia, tecnología e innovación en América Latina. In Albornoz, M. (coord.). El estado de la ciencia principales indicadores de ciencia y tecnología iberoamericanos/interamericanos (pp. 53-64). RICYT-OEI-UNESCO.

Block, F. L. and Keller, M. R. (2011). State of innovation state of innovation: the US government’s role in technology development. Routledge.

Carrizo, E. (2019). Políticas orientadas a misiones, ¿son posibles en la Argentina? Ciencia, Tecnología y Política, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.24215/26183188e027

Cimoli, M. and Correa, N. (2005). La apertura comercial y la brecha tecnológica en América Latina: una “trampa de bajo crecimiento”. In Ocampo, J. A. (ed.). Más allá de las reformas: dinámica estructural y vulnerabilidad macroeconómica (pp. 51-78). CEPAL-Alfaomega Colombiana S. A.

De María, M. (2019). La indispensable política de desarrollo industrial. Opciones para el nuevo gobierno. Economía UNAM, 16(46). https://doi.org/10.22201/fe.24488143e.2019.46.434

Deleidi, M. and Mazzucato, M. (2021). Directed innovation policies and the supermultiplier: An empirical assessment of mission-oriented policies in the US economy. Research Policy, 50(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.res-pol.2020.104151

Dodgson, M. and Gann, D. (2010). Innovation: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.

Dutrénit, G., Capdevielle, M., Corona, J. M., Puchet, M., Santiago, F. and VeraCruz, A. O. (2010). El sistema nacional de innovación mexicano: instituciones, políticas, desempeño y desafíos. Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana.

Duvall, R. and Freeman, J. R. (1981). The state and dependent capitalism. International Studies Quarterly, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.2307/2600212

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) (2022). Ciencia, tecnología e innovación. Cooperación, integración y desafíos regionales. CEPAL Santiago. https://www.cepal.org/es/publicaciones/48263-ciencia-tecnologia-innovacion-cooperacion-integracion-desafios-regionales

European Commission EC/Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD (2023). EC/OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP) Survey. https://one.oecd.org/document/DSTI/STP(2023)1/en/pdf

____________ (2024). STIP Compass: International Database on Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). https://stip.oecd.org

Fernández, V. R. and Comba, D. A. (2012). Estado e innovación en la periferia: ¿por qué y cómo (re)pensar el rol del Estado y las Políticas de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación en América Latina? Desenvolvimento em Questão, 10(19). https://doi.org/10.21527/2237-6453.2012.19.4-42

Foray, D., Mowery, D. C. and Nelson, R. R. (2012). Public R&D and social challenges: What lessons from mission R&D programs? Research Policy, 41(10). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.07.011

Furtado, C. (1978). La economía latinoamericana formación histórica y problemas contemporáneos. Siglo XXI Editores México.

Guadarrama, V. H. (2018). Inversión para Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación en México. Nota-INCyTU número11. Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico, A. C., INCyTU. https://www.foroconsultivo.org.mx/INCyTU/documentos/Completa/INCYTU_18-011.pdf

Haddad, C. R., Nakić, V., Bergek, A. and Hellsmark, H. (2022). Transformative innovation policy: A systematic review. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2022.03.002

Hernández, R., Fernández, C. and Baptista, M. del P. (2014). Metodología de la investigación. McGraw-Hill Education (First edition published in 1991).

Hodara, J. (1976). La conceptuación del atraso científicotécnico de América Latina: el telón de fondo. (Project and research documents). ECLAC Sub-regional Headquarters in Mexico. https://hdl.handle.net/11362/26210

Lederman, D., Messina, J., Pienknagura, S. and Rigolini, J. (2014). El emprendimiento en América Latina muchas empresas y poca innovación. World Bank.

Mazzucato, M. (2013). The entrepreneurial State debunking public vs. private sector myths. Anthem Press.

____________ (2014). El Estado emprendedor mitos del sector público frente al privado. RBA.

____________ (2015a). Building the entrepreneurial state: A new framework for envisioning and evaluating a mission-oriented public sector. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2544707

____________ (2015b). The green entrepreneurial state. En Scoones, I., Leach, M. and Newell, P. (eds.). The politics of green transformations (pp. 134-152). Routledge.

____________ (2018). Mission-oriented innovation policies: challenges and opportunities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5). https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dty034

____________ (2019). El Estado emprendedor: socializar riesgos y recompensas. Revista Propuestas para el Desarrollo, 3. https://www.propuestasparaeldesarrollo.com/index.php/ppd/article/view/PropuestaparaelDesarrollo2019

____________ (2022). The inclusive entrepreneurial state: collective wealth creation and distribution. Institute for fiscal studies. https://ifs.org.uk/inequality/the-inclusive-entrepreneurial-state-collective-wealth-creation-and-distribution/

____________ (2023). Cambio transformacional en América Latina y el Caribe: un enfoque de política orientada por misiones (Project Documents, Studies and Research). ECLAC Headquarters in Santiago. https://repositorio.CEPAL.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/8d9bf156-5243-4d53-8379-94fbbeef7416/content

Mazzucato, M. and Penna, C. C. R. (2020). The age of missions: Addressing societal challenges through mission-oriented innovation policies in Latin America and the Caribbean. Inter-American Development Bank. https://doi.org/10.18235/0002828

Navarro, A. (2013). Asociaciones público-privadas en ciencia y tecnología. Espiral, Estudios sobre Estado y Sociedad, 20(57). https://www.espiral.cucsh.udg.mx/index.php/EEES/article/view/359/386

Núñez, R. (2014). La economía mexicana de la sustitución de importaciones a la promoción de exportaciones. Editorial Trillas, S. A. de C. V.

Ortegón, E. (2008). Guía sobre el diseño y gestión de la política pública. Organización del Convenio Andrés Bello, Colciencias, Instituto de Estudios Latinoamericanos.

Papaioannou, T. (2020). Reflections on the entrepreneurial state, innovation and social justice. Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43253-020-00018-z

Pradella, L. (2017). The entrepreneurial state by Mariana Mazzucato: A critical engagement. Competition and Change, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1024529416678084.

Red de Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología (RICYT) (2016). Protocolo y técnicas de relevamiento de información. http://www.politicascti.net/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=86&Itemid=74 &lang=es

Rivas-Aceves, S. (2013). El sector público y el cambio tecnológico. Revista Políticas Públicas, 1(1). https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/58267/

Russo, M. and Pavone, P. (2021). Evidence-based portfolios of innovation policy mixes: A cross-country analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120708

Sánchez, P. and Osorio, L. (2014). Instrumentos de política científica, tecnológica y de innovación en América Latina. Principales tendencias en Argentina, Brasil y México. In Albornoz, M. and Barrere, R. (coord.). El estado de la ciencia. Principales indicadores de ciencia y tecnología Iberoamericanos / Interamericanos (pp. 45-54). RICYT-OEI-UNESCO.

Schot, J. and Steinmueller, W. E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47(9). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011

Stiglitz, J. (2000). La economía del sector público. Antoni Bosch. (First edition in English 1986).

Tello, C. and Ibarra, J. (2012). La revolución de los ricos. Facultad de Economía UNAM.

Torres-Vargas, A. and Jasso-Villazul, J. (2014). Knowledge and quality innovation in the health sector: The role of public research organisations. In Al-Hakim, L. and Jin, C. Quality innovation: knowledge, theory, and practices (pp. 159-188). IGI Global.

Wade, R. (1990). Governing the market economic theory and the role of government in East Asian industrialization. Princeton University Press.

Wang, J. (2018). Innovation and government intervention: A comparison of Singapore and Hong Kong. Research Policy, 47(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.12.008