Multi-methodological prospective analysis of SDG 9 in Cartagena: infrastructure, innovation, and industry toward 2040

Authors

  • José Morelos Gómez Universidad de Cartagena, Cartagena, Colombia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0334-0575
  • Diego Cardona-Arbeláez Universidad de Cartagena, Cartagena, Colombia.
  • Harold Lora-Guzmán Universidad de Cartagena, Cartagena, Colombia.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61799/2216-0388.2021

Keywords:

territorial foresight; SDG 9; MICMAC; MACTOR; morphological analysis; SMIC-PROB-EXPERT; innovation; Cartagena de Indias.

Abstract

The article, resulting from a research exercise, prospectively analyzes the territorial conditions that favor, affect, or restrict the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 9 (SDG 9) in the city of Cartagena, capital of the department of Bolívar, by the year 2040. Regarding the methodology employed, a prospective design of a systemic, applied, and multi-methodological nature was adopted, integrating structural analysis, stakeholder analysis, morphological analysis, and hypothesis probability through the application of the SMIC-PROB-EXPERT software. Based on the documentary diagnosis conducted during the exercise, 15 variables were delimited. Using the MICMAC software, seven variables were identified as strategic, classified as having high motoricity and dependency. The application of the software reveals that public investment registered the highest motoricity and dependency (30/28), followed sequentially by resilient infrastructure (28/26) and logistical coverage (26 and 25). Using the MACTOR software, 23 stakeholders were examined, among which, as key actors, the Mayor's Office of Cartagena, the Government of Bolívar, citizen organizations, the Port Group of Cartagena, and the Ministry of Transport were positioned as influential nodes. The resulting modal configuration combines progress in infrastructure and logistics with a persistent low level of R&D investment, coupled with low industrial employment. The application of SMIC indicates that sensitivity matrices identify business innovation as having the highest total influence (1.722), while industrial employment reaches the highest dependency (1.172). These results suggest that territorial policy should not focus solely on physical infrastructure but should instead establish articulation processes for investment in innovation capacity, efficient and effective productivity, and multilevel governance. As proposals, concrete guidelines for public policy are put forward, along with explicit limitations regarding traceability toward specialized consultancy.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Naciones Unidas, Transformar nuestro mundo: la Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda

[2] Naciones Unidas, The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2026. United Nations, 2026. En prensa/citado como documento de referencia.https://www.caf.com

[3] B.-Å. Lundvall, Ed., National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. Pinter, 1992.https://www.iadb.org

[4] P. Cooke, M. Heidenreich, and H. Braczyk, Eds., Regional Innovation Systems: The Role of Governance in a Globalized World, 2nd ed. Routledge, 2004.https://www.iadb.org

[5] B. Asheim and M. Gertler, “The geography of innovation: Regional innovation systems,” in The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, and R. R. Nelson, Eds. Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 291–317.

[6] A. Rodríguez-Pose, “Do institutions matter for regional development?” Regional Studies, vol. 47, no. 7, pp. 1034–1047, 2013, doi: 10.1080/00343404.2012.748978.

[7] A. Rodríguez-Pose, “The revenge of the places that don’t matter (and what to do about it),” Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 189–209, 2018, doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsx024.https://www.cepal.org

[8] M. Godet and P. Durance, La prospectiva estratégica para las empresas y los territorios. Dunod, 2011.https://www.cepal.org

[9] R. Popper, “Foresight methodology,” in The Handbook of Technology Foresight, L. Georghiou, J. C. Harper, M. Keenan, I. Miles, and R. Popper, Eds. Edward Elgar, 2008, pp. 44–88.

[10] Naciones Unidas, Informe sobre los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible 2020, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2020

[11] Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), Panorama regional del progreso hacia el ODS 9: infraestructura, industrialización e innovación en América Latina y el Caribe. Naciones Unidas, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.cepal.orghttps://www.dnp.gov.co

[12] Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), La inversión en ciencia y tecnología en América Latina: brechas y desafíos. Naciones Unidas, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.cepal.orghttps://www.dnp.gov.co

[13] Departamento Nacional de Planeación (DNP), Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2022–2026: Colombia potencia mundial de la vida. Bogotá, Colombia, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.dnp.gov.co

[14] Cámara de Comercio de Cartagena, Informe de competitividad regional 2022. Cartagena, Colombia, 2022.https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2014.925745

[15] J. D. Sachs, G. Lafortune, G. Fuller, and F. Woelm, Sustainable Development Report 2022. Cambridge University Press, 2022.

[16] UN-Habitat, Cities and Pandemics: Towards a More Just, Green and Healthy Future, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://unhabitat.orghttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121601

[17] Organización de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo Industrial (ONUDI/UNIDO), Industrial Development Report 2024: Turning Challenges into Sustainable Solutions. United Nations Industrial Development Organization, 2024.

[18] Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos (OECD), Main Science and Technology Indicators 2022. OECD Publishing, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.oecd.org

[19] Banco de Desarrollo de América Latina (CAF), Caminos para la integración: infraestructura en América Latina, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.caf.com

[20] Departamento Nacional de Planeación (DNP), Documento CONPES 4069: Política Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación 2022–2031. Bogotá, Colombia, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.dnp.gov.co

[21] Minciencias (Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación), Indicadores de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación en Colombia 2022. Bogotá, Colombia, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.minciencias.gov.cohttps://www.minciencias.gov.co

[22] Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID), Innovación y productividad en América Latina: retos y oportunidades, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.iadb.org

[23] Cámara de Comercio de Cartagena (CCC), Informe de competitividad regional 2023: Cartagena hacia el desarrollo sostenible. Cartagena, Colombia, 2023.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105140

[24] S. Mora and J. García, “La prospectiva territorial como herramienta para la planificación estratégica local,” Revista de Estudios Urbanos y Regionales, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 113–132, 2021.https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda

[25] R. Popper, “Foresight: Theory and practice in policy and strategic planning,” Futures, vol. 133, Art. no. 102817, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2021.102817.https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2020

[26] A. Vázquez-Barquero, Desarrollo económico local y descentralización productiva. Editorial Síntesis, 2016.

[27] M. Godet, Prospectiva y planificación estratégica. UNESCO, 2007.https://www.unido.org

[28] UNESCO, Futures Literacy and Anticipatory Governance for the SDGs, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://en.unesco.org/futuresliteracy

[29] A. Wilkinson and R. Kupers, “Living in the futures,” Harvard Business Review, vol. 91, no. 5, pp. 118–127, 2013.https://www.oecd.org

[30] J. Morato and J. Marull, “Prospective scenarios for sustainable territorial development: A systemic planning approach,” Land Use Policy, vol. 101, Art. no. 105140, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105140.https://www.oecd.org

[31] T. Durand, “Strategic foresight for corporate strategy and public policy,” in Thinking about the Future, R. Popper, Ed. Routledge, 2014, pp. 135–154.

[32] J. Gavigan, M. Keenan, I. Miles, O. Saritas, and R. Popper, Eds., The Handbook of Technology Foresight: Concepts and Practice. Edward Elgar, 2020.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102817

[33] UNESCO, Futures Literacy: A Capability for the 21st Century, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://en.unesco.org/futuresliteracy https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.748978

[34] Organización de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo Industrial (ONUDI/UNIDO), Industrial Development Report 2023: Sustainable Industrialization in a Digital Era, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.unido.orghttps://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsx024

[35] I. Fernández de Lucio, E. Castro Martínez, and A. Gutiérrez Gracia, “Sistemas regionales de innovación: teoría, práctica y políticas,” Revista Española de Desarrollo Regional, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 33–56, 2020.

[36] Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos (OECD), Building Local Ecosystems for Innovation and Entrepreneurship. OECD Publishing, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.oecd.org

[37] Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID), El futuro del trabajo en América Latina: Innovación, inclusión y desarrollo regional, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.iadb.orghttps://en.unesco.org/futuresliteracy

[38] G. Crespi and G. Dutrénit, Eds., Innovation and Productivity in Latin American and Caribbean Firms: Empirical Evidence. Inter-American Development Bank, 2014.https://en.unesco.org/futuresliteracy

[39] D. Rodrik, Straight Talk on Trade: Ideas for a Sane World Economy. Princeton University Press, 2018.https://unhabitat.org

[40] D. Fiorentino and A. Beretta, “Green industrial strategies: A systems thinking approach for inclusive innovation,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 178, Art. no. 121601, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121601.

[41] G. Dutrénit and J. Sutz, “National innovation systems, social inclusion and development: The Latin American experience,” Innovation and Development, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 277–292, 2014, doi: 10.1080/2157930X.2014.925745.

Published

2026-09-01

Issue

Section

Artículo Originales

How to Cite

[1]
Morelos Gómez, J. et al. 2026. Multi-methodological prospective analysis of SDG 9 in Cartagena: infrastructure, innovation, and industry toward 2040. Mundo FESC Journal. 16, 36 (Sep. 2026). DOI:https://doi.org/10.61799/2216-0388.2021.

Most read articles by the same author(s)