Innovation for whom? The case of innovation policy of Federal University of Juiz de Fora

• Autor(a) principal: Feres, Marcos Vinício Chein
• Data de Publicação: 2014
• Outros Autores: Cunha Filho, Marcelo Castro
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas (Online)
• Texto Completo: https://www.publicacoesacademicas.uniceub.br/RBPP/article/view/2789
• topic: Ciências Sociais Aplicadas; Direito; Políticas Públicas; Administração; Políticas de Inovação

This article aims to harmonize the criteria for adoption of public policies in the area of innovation within the Institutions of Science and Technology of Brazil (ICT) to a post-positivistic interpretation of legal norms regarding the topic. From Ronald Dworkin ‘s theory of Integrity and Habermas´s theory of Communicative Action applied the law, the intent is to rebuild arguably the institutional framework of innovation in the country so that it serves as normative support for the adoption of public policies that aim to mitigate the effects of an unfair planning in the sector. For this, it is argued that the adoption of public policies by Institutions of Science and Technology should distance itself from a purely utilitarian conception of innovation, that is, a conception oriented exclusively by the quantitative balance of aspects such as time and cost. Takes place, from this new perspective, a case study on innovation policy of the Federal University of Juiz de Fora, namely the Innovation Incentive Program (IIP). In conclusion, it is assumed that the policy adopted by the University should be changed according to the proposed theoretical understanding. Although this study constitutes an acidic critique on methods of adoption of public policies in the area of innovation in Brazil, it was not able to restore, due to the early stage of the research, specific criteria to propose public policies by ICT. The originality of the work consists in the problematization of the unquestioned practice, however morally and legally deficient.