Without productivity there is no sustainability: lessons from agriculture and Embrapa.

Brazil has been grappling with an uncomfortable paradox for decades: it has talent, resources, and a market, but makes little progress when it comes to producing more and better with the same inputs (SILVA FILHO, 2023). In other words, productivity—a central indicator of the efficiency with which labor, capital, and natural resources are used—remains stagnant for long periods, limiting long-term economic growth (SILVA FILHO, 2023; EASTERLY; LEVINE, 2001; PRESCOTT, 1998).

This recurring theme in diagnoses of Brazilian development is not merely a technical debate. Productivity defines income, competitiveness, fiscal capacity, job quality, and ultimately, the country's range of choices (HSIEH, 2015). Therefore, its centrality is inescapable.

At the same time, there is a widely recognized Brazilian exception: agriculture. While much of the economy shows modest performance, agriculture has advanced consistently, mainly due to the continuous incorporation of technology, applied science, and organizational improvements (BUAINAIN et al., 2014; GASQUES et al., 2023). The relevant question, therefore, is not whether productivity can grow in Brazil—it can. The question is how to transform this exception into the rule.

The success of the agricultural sector is not "luck": it's strategy, science, and continuity.

The performance of Brazilian agriculture cannot be explained by a single factor. It results from a combination of knowledge applied to tropical conditions, the capacity for technological diffusion and adoption, institutional coordination between public and private actors, and persistence over time—a crucial element for sustained productivity gains (CARBALO et al, 2017).

Productivity does not change through episodic actions. It is the result of cumulative technological trajectories, in which producers take risks, test solutions, and provide feedback to innovation systems (NELSON; WINTER, 1982). In this process, cooperatives, companies, universities, extension systems, and public policies—credit, insurance, infrastructure, and regulation—played complementary roles, even if not always coordinated in the short term.

The central lesson, therefore, is not to reduce the success of agriculture to the abstract word "innovation," but to understand how the sector has built a relatively complete cycle that connects research, validation, adoption, and effective productivity gains. It is at this point that the discussion ceases to be sectoral and transforms into a national development agenda.

Why innovation doesn't appear on its own (and why that changes everything)

Innovation rarely emerges fully formed or spontaneously. It is a process marked by uncertainty, learning, and selection over time. The central challenge lies not only in generating knowledge but also in the ability to bridge the gap between a technical solution and its productive use—reducing risks, adoption costs, and coordination failures.

When public policies address productivity through fragmented and discontinuous measures—often combined with excessive protection and low stimulus for competition—innovation becomes the exception, not the routine (AGHION et al., 2015). Sustained gains require a long-term vision, coordination between instruments, and risk sharing, creating conditions for private investment to anchor itself in stable learning trajectories.

Embrapa as an anchor institution — and the ecosystem that made innovation productive.

The experience of Brazilian agriculture demonstrates that institutions matter, especially when they operate in a network and with continuity. In this sense, Embrapa played a unique role as an anchor institution for applied science, connecting research, experimentation, regional adaptation, and the development of technological capabilities (AVILA; EVENSON, 2010; ALVES; SOUZA; ROCHA, 2013). More than generating isolated technologies, its contribution lay in building an “invisible infrastructure” of development: qualified human resources, research networks, technical standards, long-term agendas, and validation mechanisms that reduced uncertainties and accelerated technological adoption.

It is important, however, to avoid simplistic interpretations. The performance of agriculture cannot be explained solely by a single institution, but by the interaction between producers, companies, cooperatives, universities, extension systems, and a set of policies that, even if imperfect, have sustained investment, learning, and scale. The lesson, therefore, is not to replicate Embrapa as an organizational chart, but to replicate its function: to continuously articulate the path between knowledge and productive use.

Productivity as an agenda: lessons from agriculture for Brazil.

The main lesson from Agro is that productivity does not grow through good intentions or isolated actions. It advances when there is a clear strategic direction, a few objectives sustained over time, and aligned instruments to reduce the gap between applied research, validation, and adoption (MAZZUCATO, 2015).

Mission-oriented policies require coordination, clear definition of responsibilities, adequate resources, monitoring, and room for course correction. Innovation is a process, rarely linear, and requires a minimum level of stability for companies and producers to invest (FORAY; MOWERY; NELSON, 2012). Furthermore, productivity depends on both the generation and diffusion of technology. In many sectors, the bottleneck is not in the laboratory, but in the capacity to make innovation routine—testing in real-world environments, adapting solutions, training people, creating standards, and financing the transition to scale. This requires coherent incentives and policies that address the so-called "valley of death" of innovation between prototype and productive use (OECD, 2015).

Productivity is strategy — and Brazil already has a tested method.

Brazil will not overcome its productive stagnation with repeated diagnoses or fragmented programs. Productivity grows when there is strategic persistence and an institutional arrangement capable of operating the complete process, from research to adoption and scaling. The experience of agriculture demonstrates that this is possible and sustainable (GASQUES et al, 2025). Not through a magical factor, but through a combination of applied science, productive leadership, networking, and policies that reduced risks and built capacities. In this process, Embrapa stood out as an anchor institution by providing continuity, coordination, and focus to what effectively increases productivity: innovation that reaches the point of use.

As indicated from the outset, productivity is not a neutral indicator. It defines income, well-being, job quality, and the state's fiscal capacity. Treating it as an effective decision-making criterion requires more than rhetorical consensus: it requires incorporating it into the design, implementation, and evaluation of public policies.

Without sustained productivity gains, any agenda—social, environmental, or industrial—becomes more fragile and difficult to sustain. The central challenge is not a lack of ideas, but the difficulty of transforming accurate diagnoses into lasting commitments. Transforming the agricultural sector's experience into a national productivity agenda is, today, less a technical challenge than a political decision.

*By Pedro Abel Vieira, Embrapa researcher, Antonio Marcio Buainain, Professor at the Institute of Economics at Unicamp, e Decio Gazzoni, Embrapa researcher