Diego Padgurschi / FolhapressThe University of São Paulo (USP), which celebrated its 90th anniversary on January 25, has always been sparing in awarding emeritus titles—in these 90 years, only 21 faculty members and researchers have been granted this distinction by the University Council. Among the latest recipients, honored at a ceremony in 2022, is Jacques Marcovitch, a researcher at the School of Economics, Business, Accounting and Actuarial Science since the 1970s.
Marcovitch has an extensive background as both a scholar and administrator. During the 1980s, he served as president of the São Paulo State public utility conglomerate (CESP, CPFL, Eletropaulo, and Comgás) and later as Secretary of Economy and Planning in 2002.
Within USP, he served as director at FEA and the Institute of Advanced Studies, as associate dean for Culture and Extension, and as dean from 1997 to 2001. After stepping down from his role as dean, Marcovitch turned his attention to new and contemporary research interests. Currently, he leads research networks on topics ranging from bioeconomy to academic performance metrics. He is also preparing to relaunch an exhibition on pioneering entrepreneurs in the upcoming semester, having already toured states in the Southeast, North, and Northeast of Brazil.
Born in Alexandria, Egypt, in 1948, and having resided in Brazil since the 1960s, Marcovitch now divides his time between São Paulo and Geneva, Switzerland, where he serves on the Board of Trustees of the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (IHEID). Surrounded by Geneva’s Alps, Marcovitch granted the following interview via video conference.
Age 76
Field of expertise
Business administration
Institution
School of Economics, Business, Accounting and Actuarial Science, University of Sao Paulo (FEA-USP)
Educational background
Bachelor’s degree in business administration from FEA-USP, master’s degree from the Graduate School of Management at Vanderbilt University, and PhD in business administration from FEA-USP
You entered USP as a student in 1965, became dean in the late 1990s, and have since continued to pursue research interests related to university policy. How do you compare USP today with the university you knew in 1965?
There are several notable differences. Today, there is a much greater cross-pollination among different fields, after a significant shift from unidisciplinarity to multidisciplinarity and then interdisciplinarity. Until the 1960s, with campuses scattered across São Paulo and in minor cities, and lacking the communication channels we have today, each of us worked within our own silo of knowledge. Another significant change came after the 1988 Constitution. Between the 1960s and 1980s, USP stood as a stronghold in the defense of freedom and democracy in Brazil. With the enactment of the 1988 Constitution, we transitioned into a democracy—an imperfect one, no doubt, but a democracy nonetheless. Living in a democratic environment makes a huge difference. A third dimension is demographic. During the 1970 World Cup, Brazil’s population was 90 million strong. Today, we number 203 million. This demographic shift has profoundly altered the university’s relationship with society, and led to increased pressure to expand enrollment slots. In 1965, I participated in an entrance exam where 100 slots were available at FEA, yet only 33 were filled due to the rigorous selection process—that was the norm at the time. Today, FEA admits nearly 600 new students annually.
How did USP respond to these shifts? Did it become more open as an institution?
USP has evolved tremendously, and it’s no coincidence that it is now regarded as one of the most prominent universities in Latin America. One noticeable outcome from this is the substantial number of graduate alumni that have gone on to serve as professors at other institutions. In terms of research, USP ranks among the world’s best in certain fields. While perhaps not reflected in university rankings, USP is renowned for world-class excellence; publications by USP researchers in crop science, dentistry, and public health carry considerable weight. In terms of university extension and cultural activities, USP boasts an extraordinary heritage. Its four museums are internationally acclaimed. In medicine, extension activities have become ingrained in USP’s DNA. This extends beyond the São Paulo and Ribeirão Preto campuses hosting its medical schools to include initiatives in Brazil’s North, as seen during the pandemic. These efforts, whether independent or collaborative—such as USP’s partnership with the Polytechnic School in manufacturing respirators during the pandemic—underscore an institution that is responsive to societal expectations. USP has also built a strong presence in the global academic landscape, as reflected in the number of papers coauthored with researchers from other universities. Could it do more? Undoubtedly. Several emerging areas, such as responsible evaluation, open science, and metrics for societal impact, present opportunities for the university to expand its horizons and enhance its contributions.
You’ve been heading Metrics since 2017, a project aimed at developing a more comprehensive approach to measuring the societal impact of universities in São Paulo State. What kinds of metrics are you working on?
From the 1960s to the 1980s, most countries were primarily concerned with establishing national innovation systems. The Frascati Manual, which laid out the methodology for collecting research and development statistics in the 1960s, was mostly focused on how much funding a society allocates to science and technology. The measure of a robust innovation system was often equated with the amount of available funding. Subsequently, between 1980 and 2000, the first databases emerged, and the conventional research metrics and citation indexes we are now familiar with gained prominence. Metrics such as the number of publications, citations, and downloads became key indicators of academic performance. However, since the 2010s, there has been a growing recognition of the need for more nuanced metrics. This entails not only measuring citations but also assessing the broader societal impact of research. For instance, how does research influence public policies? Does it lead to the enactment of new laws or the development of novel legal frameworks in areas such as refugee rights, violence prevention, biodiversity conservation, or food security? Other useful metrics would be the number of companies established by alumni and the institution’s reputation among employers. We’re shifting to a new approach in evaluation. While we have numerous metrics for inputs and outputs, there is a shortage of metrics for impact—the tangible effects of public universities on society.
In 1965, I participated in an entrance exam where 100 slots were available at FEA, yet only 33 were filled
In October 2023, the Metrics project team published its third collective report. What have been the project’s contributions so far?
Metrics began in 2017 as an offshoot from Justin Axel Berg’s research. He defended his master’s thesis on the performance of São Paulo State universities in international rankings in 2015 at the USP Institute of International Relations, under my guidance. Originally, the project was created to address the metrics needs of the Council of Deans of State Universities in São Paulo (CRUESP) and the universities themselves. Gradually, the project expanded conceptually to include initiatives such as the establishment of data management offices within universities. These spaces are dedicated to data collection, analysis, and dissemination, serving as intelligence units. In April, we will have a meeting of the heads of these offices. This is one of the tangible deliverables from the project. Another significant contribution was the creation of a dedicated metrics community across Brazil. The project has recently trained an additional 84 faculty members from over 23 institutions throughout the country. Of the collective reports which you mentioned, the most recent, titled “Repensar a universidade 3” (Rethinking the university, 3rd edition), focuses on knowledge and practices. We have curated practices from São Paulo’s three state universities around themes such as social impact, open science, social inclusion, governance, and societal connection. The 2nd edition explored impact metrics frameworks, while the 1st edition covered concepts related to academic performance and international comparisons. These reports are accessible through a portal that periodically publishes analyses of international comparisons, offering insights into the evolution of outcome and impact metrics.
Tell us a little about your personal background. How did you come to immigrate from Egypt to Brazil?
I was born into a Jewish family—my mother was from Aleppo, Syria, and my father from Odessa, Ukraine. So I grew up under the influence of two different Jewish cultures while living in an Islamic country, Egypt, within a French-speaking culture. My father enrolled me in a good French-speaking school with a Catholic tradition, run by the De La Salle Brothers, who were either French or Lebanese. This instilled in me a sensitivity to different cultures and an understanding of both their commonalities and differences in worldviews. In 1956, the Suez Crisis erupted. Egypt’s decision to nationalize and seize control of the Suez Canal led Israel to go to war with Egypt. While my parents were well integrated into the local culture and were able to remain in Alexandria until 1961, there was a growing antisemitism. That year, Egyptian universities stopped admitting Jewish students. My parents, concerned about their children’s education, had to decide where to go. As with many immigrants, the decision ultimately relied on finding someone who could help them settle in another country. A distant cousin invited the family to move to Santos.
Why did you choose to study at FEA?
We left Egypt discreetly, without telling anyone. We didn’t bring any documents about my academic background in Alexandria, which was problematic when it came to enrolling at school in Brazil. One day, passing by Largo São Francisco, my father entered the Álvares Penteado Technical School, right next to the Law School, and spoke to a director who was incredibly helpful: “Don’t worry, we’ll take care of it,” he said. And indeed, he did, allowing me to enroll in an accounting technician course. That’s how it all began. Behind the Law School, there was a preparatory course run by the Visconde de Cairu Academic Center, affiliated with FEA. I lived at the Roosevelt Plaza, a couple blocks away from FEA on Rua Dr. Vila Nova, and occasionally visited there. Since my parents couldn’t afford a private school, I decided I would enter FEA through the Visconde de Cairu prep course. At that time, I barely spoke Portuguese. I attended the technical school from 1962 to 1964 and took the entrance exam in 1965. My performance in French and other oral exams helped compensate for my shortcomings in Portuguese. I was admitted to a class of 33 out of 100 available slots. After some time, in 1968, I became the president of the Visconde de Cairu Academic Center. Shortly after, Professor Sergio Baptista Zacarelli [1932–2013] invited me to be a voluntary lecturer. In this voluntary capacity, I agreed not to receive any pay. The only hope was that when a position became available, being a voluntary lecturer would count in my favor in the selection process. That’s how I eventually became a tenured professor. Later on, I pursued my master’s degree in the US.
While we have numerous metrics for inputs and outputs, there remains a shortage of metrics focusing on impact—the tangible effects of public universities on society
During your master’s program from 1970 to 1972 at Vanderbilt University, your research focused on organizational effectiveness and management in science and technology. Why did you choose the US?
This has to do with my undergraduate years from 1965 to 1968. It was a time of significant exploration. I didn’t want to confine myself to the classroom and felt the need to engage with the external world. This influenced my decision to pursue a master’s program in the US, at a school recently created by Igor Ansoff [1918–2002], one of the pioneers in management and innovation research. Ansoff hailed from the aviation and mobility industry, and he introduced cutting-edge management concepts to the conservative state of Tennessee, at Vanderbilt University, by founding the Graduate School of Management. I was part of the second cohort at this school, alongside Eduardo Pinheiro Gondim de Vasconcellos and a few other professors from FEA who went there to study innovation strategy.
What did you do on returning to Brazil?
When I returned in 1973, the São Paulo government, under Secretary of Planning Professor Miguel Colasuonno [1939–2013], had signed an agreement with the US to launch a Science and Technology Project (PROCET) aimed at revitalizing the state’s scientific and technological research capabilities. The program, overseen by Professor José Pastore, allocated around $15 million to modernize institutions such as the Institute for Technological Research (IPT) and the Institute of Food Technology (ITAL), among others. Initially comprising six international cooperation programs, each involving a Brazilian and a foreign organization, PROCET later expanded to include a seventh program to provide managerial and administrative training to Brazilian organizations. Headed by Eduardo Vasconcellos from FEA, this program—called the Science and Technology Administration Program (PACTo)—partnered with the Graduate School of Management at Vanderbilt University. PACTo expanded on the PROCET software’s core focus on management, adding content on strategy and innovation—with strategy concerned with analyzing the technological landscape and tracking developments; and innovation focused on project management. Early academic work on research and development and innovation management initially emerged at FEA and became a field in its own right with the establishment of the National Association for Industrial Research and Development (ANPEI) and the Latin-Ibero-American Association of Technological Management. I played a role in founding these institutions, alongside several colleagues from PACTo.
During that period, there was also a surge in federal investment in research infrastructure, spearheaded by figures like Minister of Planning João Paulo dos Reis Velloso [1931–2019] and the president of the Brazilian Funding Authority for Studies and Projects (FINEP), José Pelúcio Ferreira [1928–2002]. What role did they play in this context?
You’ve aptly recalled Velloso and Pelúcio. During the latter’s tenure at FINEP, a new training program on research management, called PROTAP, was developed with support from global management consultancy Arthur D. Little. Shortly afterward, we were engaged to implement the program. It is important to recall that, among Brazil’s economic policymakers at the time, exports were believed to be the solution to Brazil’s demand for foreign currency. Innovation was seen as a way to enhance the value of Brazilian exports. It was against this backdrop that the drive to modernize science and technology capabilities in São Paulo State began to take shape. This is what led to the creation of PROCET. There were two concurrent movements—a vision focused on longer-term planning coexisted with an imperative for rapid advancements in technology and innovation to bolster exports.
We’re learning that the Amazon cannot be treated as being monolithic, but as having community-specific needs
How did your interest in climate and bioeconomy develop?
My interest was sparked when I was appointed president of the São Paulo State Energy Complex in the mid-1980s, a public utility conglomerate composed of CESP, Eletropaulo, Paulista de Força e Luz, and Comgás, during Governor Franco Montoro’s administration [1983–1987]. José Goldemberg became dean of USP, and I was asked to succeed him in leading the conglomerate. During this period, Brazil faced a severe drought, leading to electricity rationing to curtail consumption by approximately 15%. Amid the drought, our attention inevitably turned to climate issues. A few years later, as director of the USP Institute for Advanced Studies, I was invited by Canadian Maurice Strong, secretary general of the 1992 Earth Summit, to join the preparatory support group. This afforded me the opportunity to collaborate closely with Strong’s office.
This collaboration included discussions on the legacy from the Earth Summit, and I have since been closely following the implementation of both the Climate Convention and the Biodiversity Convention. Presently, I am heading a bioeconomy project in the Amazon, with funding from both CNPq (Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development) and FAPESP.
What challenges need to be overcome for the bioeconomy to become a viable enabler of sustainable development in the Amazon?
I see two challenges: the multifaceted nature of the Amazon, and time constraints. Almost four years ago, through a project selected by a joint call from FAPESP and the Amazonas State Research Foundation [FAPEAM], we began working with Professor Adalberto Val, then director of the Brazilian Institute for Amazon Research [INPA]. We submitted a proposal along with researchers from USP, the Federal University of Pará, and the Peabiru Institute, and began doing research on the cocoa, pirarucu, açai, and honey value chains. What we are learning, first of all, is that the Amazon cannot be treated as being monolithic. There are different Amazons, each with its own needs expressed by communities. The Human Development Index [HDI] does not adequately express the expectations of these communities. It does not, for example, address security, and we know that today the North region is one of the most violent in Brazil. We have to discover what these different Amazons are through the eyes of their residents. That’s the role of community research or community researchers. When our researchers go there on field trips, they try to identify people who can help them collect data about the culture of that community. We have to determine which value chains are best suited for each region and, as importantly, align with the expectations of local communities, riverside communities, and traditional peoples. What are their aspirations? How do they intend to make them viable? What does security mean to them? And the well-being of local communities must be connected with nature conservation.
What did you mean by time constraints, the second challenge?
No Amazon initiative will yield results in two, four, or five years. We need to have a long-term perspective when it comes to bioeconomy value chains. They must be planned over horizons of 15, 20, 30 years. But democratic governments typically want to see results within a two-year horizon. And companies, no matter how sustainable and environmentally conscious they may be, cannot see more than three years ahead, at most four years—that’s what shareholders expect of them. Nature’s timing is different, and when we talk about the bioeconomy, we are talking about an economic activity that is intrinsically connected to nature. A Brazil nut tree takes at least 12 years to start fruiting. Our vision is to develop communities like Tomé-Açu, in Pará, which produces cocoa and exports chocolate to Japan, a highly demanding market. It took 20 years to develop these communities into chocolate exporters. Another example is the açai value chain, which takes several years to develop. But açai remains problematic because it uses child labor, and occupational safety is suboptimal. Hence the importance of studying açai cultivation from the perspective of the human dimension.
It’s not enough to do the right thing; we need to clearly demonstrate to our community and society that we’re fulfilling our obligations
Another project you have been working on since 2001 is research on pioneering entrepreneurs in Brazil. What inspired you to start this project?
Back in 1970, as a lecturer teaching Introduction to Business Administration, I often explored case studies of business leaders famous for their business management practices. But the surnames that came up were typically foreign: Taylor, Fayol, Pirelli, Rockefeller. Apart from the Baron of Mauá, there were scant examples from Brazil, and I was keen to fill this gap. This idea only germinated some 30 years later. Throughout my tenure as dean, management was pretty much my sole focus. When my tenure ended, I wasn’t sure what I’d do next. It was then that the idea resurfaced to bring these influential figures into the classroom. This led me to create Projeto Pioneiros (“The Pioneers Project”). The first of the three-volume book series features the biographies of legacy-building entrepreneurs primarily from São Paulo. Subsequent volumes cover the South and Central-South, followed by the North and Northeast. This project consumed nearly six years of research. We made some remarkable discoveries. Among them was the role played by Ermelinda de Souza Queiroz, wife of Luiz de Queiroz, in the establishment of the Luiz de Queiroz School of Agriculture at the University of São Paulo (ESALQ-USP). Born to a Rio de Janeiro family, with a sister residing in Paris, she married Luiz de Queiroz, a prominent landowner and industrialist. Following his death in 1898, at the age of 48, she opened the school in 1901. This discovery came from a manuscript cited in a discreet footnote in Joseph Love’s A locomotiva – São Paulo na federação brasileira (The locomotive – São Paulo’s role in the Brazilian Federation). The manuscript was a handwritten autobiography penned by agriculture professor Eugéne Davenport [1856–1941] of Michigan Agricultural College, who later became dean of the University of Illinois. He had spent a year in Piracicaba and offered insight into the couple’s role in creating the school. Professor Maria Cristina de Oliveira Bruno had the idea to transform this trilogy into a traveling exhibition, beginning in Rio before touring Fortaleza and Recife. At the request of the family of the late Samuel Benchimol [1923–2002], an economist and Amazon scholar, and one of the founding members of the project, the exhibition also stopped in Manaus. Subsequently, it spent three months at Palácio dos Campos Elíseos in São Paulo. This and other details about the project can be found on the Pioneiros Empreendedores portal. In the latter half of 2024, we plan to open an exhibition dedicated to these pioneers at the entrance of the FEA library.
You mentioned that during your time as dean of USP, business management consumed your interests entirely. And you held other positions at CESP and at the State Office of Economy and Planning. In what ways did this experience shape your thinking?
As a professor of business administration, I had the advantage of being able to apply what I taught in public governance. But something I learned from the Pioneers project, which proved invaluable in the various roles I served in, is that while you can shape your own future, you must embrace your destiny. That is to say, you must have clarity about where you want to take the institution you’re responsible for leading. Shaping the future means looking at the external context and identifying where you can make a difference. And embracing destiny means that when things don’t go as planned, there’s no use in kicking against the pricks. Instead, we need to rethink our approach and ensure that set goals are achieved regardless. I also learned that, especially in government institutions, we need to always have in mind the best interests of our sources of funding, in this case taxpayers. Every time we make a decision, we must bear in mind that taxpayers could use those funds for something else and ensure that taxpayer money is used to the best possible effect, whether its training future generations, advancing knowledge, or ensuring that university extension activities provide maximum benefit to society. The third and final lesson, learned from the Metrics project, is about accountability. It’s not enough to do the right thing; we need to clearly demonstrate to our community and society that we’re fulfilling our obligations. Perhaps as important as this is practicing the values outlined in the USP Code of Ethics. We must know our institution well and be able to articulate its values and mission.
