The dominant view in development studies in Latin American Countries (LAC) is that Natural Resources (NR) are problematic (or have low potential to contribute to development), and that we should induce structural change away from these industries towards more knowledge intensive sectors. This view is based on ideas coming from the sectoral innovation literature, which assumes that industries posse intrinsic characteristics which make them more or less dynamic (in terms of innovation), and therefore with more or less potential to contribute to development. In this study we test this view. In line with the socio-technical transition literature, we believe that industries or activities, which are problematic, can get transformed (or transitions can be encouraged, so that economic, social and environmental challenges are addressed). Our interest is thus not so much how to move away from NRs but how to transform NR activities, so they can best serve economic (resilience), social (justice) and environmental (sustainability) priorities in the region.
Industries get transformed and re-structured; the literature on innovation tells us, through the creation of alternatives, or new projects which propose technologies and organisational practices that depart from the conventional ones in a given industry. Within each industry there are dominant ways of solving problems, and alternative ways of addressing them. The dominant ways are the ones more widely spread that privilege the mainstream, and are highly institutionalised, benefiting typically from a historic accumulation of technological, institutional, infrastructural and social supports. The alternatives are practices that departure from these highly institutionalised ways of solving problems, and typically promise different economic, social and/or environmental results than the dominant ways. Alternatives can be more or less radical. The more radical ones, will be truly path- breaking, in the sense of transforming the industry and eventually taking it in a different direction of change - or pathway. The less radical ones, instead, will be of two types: path-repairing, when they offer partial solutions to some of the problems of the dominant regime, but do not challenge its main logic of development, and path creating when they create new pathways for innovation in sectors or industries closed but different to the dominant one, augmenting the density of links among different industrial sectors.
The overall aim of this proyect is to:
(a) identify different types of alternatives (more or less radical, we are interested in both) within selected NR based industries,
(b) study the evolution of different types of alternatives in relation to their capacity to survive, expand, and eventually transform problematic NR industries, either through path repairing, creating or breaking processes.
We have selected to study in Argentina, the exploitation of land for agricultural purposes, in Chile the exploitation of copper mines, and in Brazil, the exploitation of the Amazonia. In the first stage of the project we have studied in detail the dominant trajectory of the selected activities in each country. We have identified the main problems and challenges faced by these activities and, have provided a first overview of the alternatives existing that could possibly be studied.
During the second stage of the project (now we are working on it) we have two main aims:
1. Study in depth selected alternatives, to assess whether current dynamics have the potential to significantly influence the transformation of dominant trajectories, or how those dynamics need to be augmented (e.g. through policy interventions) in order to enable the alternatives to play a bigger role in transformations.
2. Get a general overview of the characteristics of available alternatives in the sector/country.
