Ambassador Gabriel Rodriguez: “Asia’s key factor is its human resources”

But in the case of Korea there are two issues that are important to watch as regards its innovation model. First, the State has invested significant resources, i.e., it has heavily funded development. Secondly, Korea has a special model with large family-run conglomerates like Samsung and Hyundai, which received tax subsidies that were a major cause for such their incredible technological advances of late.  At present, this model is no longer in operation. It also has the disadvantage that it is not repeatable in Chile. What we can apply to Chile is State investment of our leap into innovation. Market forces are not enough.

The third element is education, very decisive in the Korean case and an issue in which we definitely lag behind. Korea has one of the most developed, high quality educational systems in the world. And there are some truly revealing data here. Korea spends on 7% of GDP on education whereas Chile spends 6.6%, almost equal.  Where is the difference? In quality.

The Korean educational model is extremely interesting to us and we have studied it. We have sent our Ministry of Education experts to research the Korean system.

But we also have the exemplary cases of New Zealand, Australia and Singapore. Other "like-minded” countries. In fact, we drew much from the New Zealand model when creating our National Innovation Strategy.

Another emerging nation is India where the model seems based on knowledge rather than manufacturing. What results these policies resulted in?

India is truly a country of contrasts. With its 1 billion inhabitants, we must take into account the diversity of its history when studying their model. India is a former British colony, which is not a minor detail because much of its population (educated or not) speaks English. This puts them at an obviously advantage vis-à-vis global innovation networks. We do not have this advantage. English represents a big problem for Chile.

And, here again, they have made huge investments in education that has yielded nearly two million higher education graduates per year, including 400 thousand engineers and 9 thousand PhDs. With that capacity they have managed to detect opportunities, set up manufacturing firms and offer tax subsidies and rebates. They have built specialized industrial parks and have also been installed global outsourcing networks by using their ability to speak English and engineering.

If I call Microsoft for tech support, someone in Bangalore answers.   This labor costs Microsoft less than in the United States. This is how India positioned itself in the field of information technology and communication, not to mention biotechnology.

Chile is trying to repeat that very achievement, but in the Spanish services market; in programming or legal matters, or other such possibilities.

How high is the quality and level of training of Chilean workers compared to the Indians?

In terms of the quality of our professionals, apart from the English problem, I would say we're good. The problem is that there are so very few of us. We have not reached critical mass. For example, we have the Oracle case. To set up operations in Chile, Oracle would need 200 to 300 top-level engineers. Do we have them?

India has concentrated its resources. That is, along with sending their students to the best PhD programs in the world, it also strengthened its programs. When students of doctoral and post-doctoral write their thesis, they are also researching.

When we review the cases of China, India, Japan or Korea, and even New Zealand and Australia, we always see the same issue: human resources. Therefore, we definitely need to invest in education, along with laboratories and infrastructure.

How has Asia increased its energy capabilities? At a time when this item has become so vital for the world.

I have the impression that Asia is unconcerned about clean energy. They need energy. That is clear. Its development is experiencing a manufacturing boom. But, in general, their energy grids are fairly conventional, due to their being enormous consumers of oil, gas and coal.

The Chinese are determined to grow at a 12% annual rate. This takes more energy capacity than the cleaner, renewable or non-conventional are able to provide at present. They use coal plants, building one of these plants at least once a month. So I do not think they are the best example of countries trying to find new sources of energy.

How important is nuclear power development in Asia?

Of the 34 reactors under construction, most are in Russia, but India, China and Korea aren’t far behind. Even Japan continues to build despite the accident it had a few years ago. It is clear that nuclear energy is going strong in Asia. China is manufacturing five, and already has 11. So nuclear energy will become increasingly important.

But nuclear plants are declining in size. Formerly over the thousand or 200 thousand megawatts, they are smaller. Also, the technology is improving and is becoming cheaper. The megawatts are now about $1 million, comparable to hydroelectric plants.


Biofuels are also considered an alternative. What is the status of their development in Asia?

Asia is investigating the biofuel option. Though in its early stages, there is an important discussion going on.

First generation biofuels, produced from grain, conflicts with food production, a key theme in Asia. This is, accordingly, not viable.

But there are more possibilities with second-generation biofuels, generated from cellulose, as in Chile. In the forestry industry, forest and agricultural wastes can generate fuel. It is much more convenient to use agricultural land for food production.