Human capabilities and innovation: foundations of technological autonomy in the Global South

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5902/2357797598704

Keywords:

Human capabilities, Innovation capacity, Technological autonomy, Global South, Education

Abstract

This article examines the relationship between human capability development, innovation capacity, and technological autonomy in the Global South, considering its implications for defense and security. It argues that scientific and technological asymmetries stem not only from the availability of resources or human potential, but also from the conditions required to develop capabilities and incorporate them into scientific, institutional, and productive systems. Through a theoretical essay supported by a narrative literature review, the article discusses cognitive capabilities related to innovation and educational approaches that may foster their development. It maintains that developing such capabilities is necessary but insufficient to generate innovation or technological capability. As its analytical contribution, the article proposes two categories. Systemic conversion describes the process through which human capabilities and knowledge distributed among individuals are incorporated, articulated, and accumulated by institutions, networks, and productive structures. Effective capacity to choose conceptualizes technological autonomy as the existence of concrete conditions to set priorities, assess dependencies, absorb and adapt external knowledge, develop alternatives, and preserve domestic capabilities in strategic areas. Technological autonomy depends on the articulation between these processes: the conversion of human capabilities into accumulated scientific and technological capability and the expression of that capability in real strategic alternatives. The article concludes that human development constitutes part of a long-term infrastructure whose contribution to autonomy depends on the conditions that enable its conversion into collective innovation capacity and technological learning.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Erlei Melgarejo, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria

Graduação em Estudos Sociais pela Fundação Educacional de Alegrete; Graduação em Análise de Sistemas pela Sociedade de Ensino de Informática Campograndense; Pós-graduado em Criptografia e Segurança de Redes pela Universidade Federal Fluminense; Pós-graduado em Neurociência, em Inteligência Artificial, em Robótica Educacional, em UX e UI na Educação pela Faculdade do Vale do Aço; Mestrado em Engenharia de Produção pela Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina; Foi coordenador e professor no Curso de Sistemas de Informação e professor no curso de Administração na Faculdade Antônio Meneghetti; Diretor de Tecnologia na Empresa Melgarejo Sistemas Digitais (Defii Atelie de Software) e Kreska Tecnologia Educacional; Doutorando em Educação em Ciência, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, RS, Brasil.

Marcelo Viera Pustilnik, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria

Graduado em Pedagogia pela Universidade Estadual de Campinas; Mestre em Ensino e História de Ciências da Terra pela Universidade Estadual de Campinas; Doutor em Educação pela Universidade Estadual de Campinas; Pós-Doutor em Inovação Pedagógica pela Universidade do Porto; Professor, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, RS, Brasil.

References

ANDERSON, Lorin W.; KRATHWOHL, David R. (ed.). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman, 2001.

AUSUBEL, David P. Educational psychology: a cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968.

BARROWS, Howard S. A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Medical Education, v. 20, n. 6, 1986. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1986.tb01386.x.

BELL, Martin; PAVITT, Keith. Technological accumulation and industrial growth: contrasts between developed and developing countries. Industrial and Corporate Change, v. 2, n. 2, 1993. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/2.2.157.

BRANSFORD, John D.; BROWN, Ann L.; COCKING, Rodney R. (ed.). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. Expanded ed. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000.

BRASIL. Lei nº 10.973, de 2 de dezembro de 2004. Dispõe sobre incentivos à inovação e à pesquisa científica e tecnológica no ambiente produtivo e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União: Brasília, DF, 3 dez. 2004.

BRASIL. Decreto nº 9.283, de 7 de fevereiro de 2018. Regulamenta a Lei nº 10.973, de 2 de dezembro de 2004, e estabelece medidas de incentivo à inovação e à pesquisa científica e tecnológica no ambiente produtivo. Diário Oficial da União: Brasília, DF, 8 fev. 2018.

BRASIL. Lei nº 14.133, de 1º de abril de 2021. Lei de Licitações e Contratos Administrativos. Diário Oficial da União: Brasília, DF, 1º abr. 2021.

BRUNER, Jerome S. The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960.

CHI, Michelene T. H.; WYLIE, Ruth. The ICAP framework: linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, v. 49, n. 4, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823.

CIRERA, Xavier; MALONEY, William F. The innovation paradox: developing-country capabilities and the unrealized promise of technological catch-up. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1160-9.

COHEN, Wesley M.; LEVINTHAL, Daniel A. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, v. 35, n. 1, 1990. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553.

DADOS, Nour; CONNELL, Raewyn. The Global South. Contexts, [s. l.], v. 11, n. 1, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1536504212436479.

DEWEY, John. How we think: a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1933.

EVANS, Peter. Embedded autonomy: states and industrial transformation. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995.

FREEMAN, Chris. The “National System of Innovation” in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, v. 19, n. 1, 1995. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035309.

FURTADO, Celso. Desenvolvimento e subdesenvolvimento. Rio de Janeiro: Fundo de Cultura, 1961.

GÜNALTAY, Münire İrem; BALCI, Sıla; ORHAN ÖZEN, Sevil. The effect of computational thinking on creativity: a meta-analysis for teaching strategies. Pedagogical Perspective, v. 4, n. 2, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/pedper.2025.125.

HMELO-SILVER, Cindy E. Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, v. 16, n. 3, 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3.

ISRAEL-FISHELSON, Rotem; HERSHKOVITZ, Arnon. Studying interrelations of computational thinking and creativity: a scoping review (2011-2020). Computers & Education, v. 176, art. 104353, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104353.

JABBOUR, Elias; DANTAS, Alexis. Ignacio Rangel na China e a “Nova Economia do Projetamento”. Economia e Sociedade, Campinas, v. 30, n. 2, maio/ago. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-3533.2021v30n2art01.

KAPUR, Manu. Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, v. 26, n. 3, 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802212669.

KAPUR, Manu. Examining productive failure, productive success, unproductive failure, and unproductive success in learning. Educational Psychologist, v. 51, n. 2, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155457.

KATSELI, Louka T.; LUCAS, Robert E. B.; XENOGIANI, Theodora. Effects of migration on sending countries: what do we know? Paris: OECD Publishing, 2006. (OECD Development Centre Working Papers, n. 250). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/424438382246.

KRAJCIK, Joseph S.; BLUMENFELD, Phyllis C. Project-based learning. In: SAWYER, R. Keith (ed.). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

LALL, Sanjaya. Technological capabilities and industrialization. World Development, v. 20, n. 2, 1992. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(92)90097-F.

LESH, Richard; DOERR, Helen M. (ed.). Beyond constructivism: models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003.

LUNDVALL, Bengt-Åke (ed.). National systems of innovation: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter Publishers, 1992.

MAZZUCATO, Mariana. O Estado empreendedor: desmascarando o mito do setor público vs. setor privado. São Paulo: Portfolio-Penguin, 2014.

METCALFE, Janet. Learning from errors. Annual Review of Psychology, v. 68, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044022.

MODESTI, Ancelmo. Panorama dos offsets no Brasil: uma visão da negociação internacional de acordos de compensação comercial, industrial e tecnológica. Brasília, DF: Livraria Suspensa, 2004.

MONTUORI, Chiara; GAMBAROTA, Filippo; ALTOÉ, Gianmarco; ARFÉ, Barbara. The cognitive effects of computational thinking: a systematic review and meta-analytic study. Computers & Education, v. 210, art. 104961, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104961.

NASSIF, André. The centre-periphery model and the political economy of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean: past and present. CEPAL Review, n. 144, dez. 2024. Disponível em: https://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/81705.

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: a guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000.

NICOLESCU, Basarab. Manifesto of transdisciplinarity. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002.

NONAKA, Ikujiro; TAKEUCHI, Hirotaka. The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

NUSSBAUM, Martha C. Creating capabilities: the human development approach. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2011.

OECD. The global competition for talent: mobility of the highly skilled. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2008.

OECD. OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2018: adapting to technological and societal disruption. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2018.

OECD. OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2023: enabling transitions in times of disruption. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/0b55736e-en.

OECD; EUROSTAT. Oslo manual 2018: guidelines for collecting, reporting and using data on innovation. 4. ed. Paris: OECD Publishing; Luxembourg: Eurostat, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304604-en.

PEDASTE, Margus et al. Phases of inquiry-based learning: definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, v. 14, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003.

PERIGNAT, Elaine; KATZ-BUONINCONTRO, Jen. STEAM in practice and research: an integrative literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, v. 31, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.10.002.

PERRENOUD, Philippe. Construir as competências desde a escola. Porto Alegre: Artmed, 1999.

PIAGET, Jean. A equilibração das estruturas cognitivas: problema central do desenvolvimento. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 1976.

PREBISCH, Raúl. El desarrollo económico de la América Latina y algunos de sus principales problemas. Santiago: Comisión Económica para América Latina, 1949.

PUSTILNIK, Marcelo Vieira; MENDES, Solange. Pedagogia STEAM: um modelo pedagógico disruptivo para escolas inovadoras. Pau dos Ferros, RN: Edições AINPGP, 2026. ISBN 978-65-87527-53-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.57242/ApSTEAM001.

QUIJANO, Aníbal. Colonialidad del poder, eurocentrismo y América Latina. In: LANDER, Edgardo (org.). La colonialidad del saber: eurocentrismo y ciencias sociales: perspectivas latinoamericanas. Buenos Aires: CLACSO, 2000.

ROSENBERG, Nathan. Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)? Research Policy, Amsterdam, v. 19, n. 2, 1990. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(90)90046-9.

RUNCO, Mark A.; JAEGER, Garrett J. The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, v. 24, n. 1, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092.

SCHWAB, Joseph J. Inquiry, the science teacher, and the educator. The School Review, v. 68, n. 2, 1960.

SEN, Amartya. Desenvolvimento como liberdade. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2010.

SHUTE, Valerie J.; SUN, Chen; ASBELL-CLARKE, Jodi. Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, v. 22, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003.

UNCTAD – UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT. Technology and Innovation Report 2025: inclusive artificial intelligence for development. Geneva: United Nations, 2025. Disponível em: https://unctad.org/publication/technology-and-innovation-report-2025.

UNESCO. UNESCO Science Report: the race against time for smarter development. SCHNEEGANS, Susan; STRAZA, Tiffany; LEWIS, Jake (ed.). Paris: UNESCO Publishing, 2021. ISBN 978-92-3-100450-6.

UNESCO INSTITUTE FOR STATISTICS. 2026 R&D data release: new insights on global investment, researchers and gender gaps. Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2026. Disponível em: https://www.uis.unesco.org/en/2026-rd-data-release.

VINCENT-LANCRIN, Stéphan et al. Fostering students’ creativity and critical thinking: what it means in school. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/62212c37-en.

VYGOTSKY, Lev S. A formação social da mente: o desenvolvimento dos processos psicológicos superiores. 7. ed. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2007.

WING, Jeannette M. Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, v. 49, n. 3, 2006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215.

WORLD BANK. World Development Report 2023: migrants, refugees, and societies. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1941-4.

Downloads

Published

2026-10-02

Issue

Vol. 17 No. 3 (2026): Publicação Contínua - Dossiê "Desafios Tecnológicos para a Construção da Defesa e Segurança no Sul Global"

Section

Artigos Dossiê

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.