Innovation amid Embargo:
Cuba's Scientific-Technological Development
under Austerity
Cuba remains, in 2026, one of the more arresting paradoxes in the study of development and innovation. By the usual measures of late twentieth- and early twenty-first-century modernization, the island should have been condemned to technological marginality. It has endured decades of economic sanctions, limited access to foreign capital, shortages of raw materials and spare parts, weak participation in global production chains, and the familiar rigidities of centralized economic planning. These conditions would ordinarily be expected to produce scientific stagnation, industrial backwardness, and dependence on imported knowledge.
Yet Cuba has not followed that simple pattern. Against these constraints, it has developed a distinctive and selective capacity for innovation, particularly in biotechnology, medicine, vaccine development, public health, and resource-constrained engineering. Its laboratories and medical institutions have produced vaccines, pharmaceuticals, diagnostic tools, and therapeutic products that have given the country a reputation beyond what its small economy would suggest. Its public health system, meanwhile, has functioned not merely as a welfare apparatus but as an institutional platform through which scientific work could be tested, distributed, and applied on a national scale.
This is the Cuban contradiction. Innovation there has not emerged chiefly from venture capital, consumer markets, or the restless competition of private firms. It has emerged from scarcity, state direction, public education, medical necessity, and the long discipline of having to make do with less. Cuban technicians, doctors, engineers, and scientists have often been compelled to repair, adapt, improvise, and manufacture solutions where richer economies would simply import replacements. In this sense, Cuban innovation is not the polished innovation of abundance but the austere innovation of constraint.
Still, the Cuban case should not be mistaken for a complete model of technological success. The very system that enabled concentrated investment in strategic sectors also restricted wider industrial dynamism. Biotechnology and public health advanced because the state treated them as national priorities. But consumer technology, advanced manufacturing, digital enterprise, and broad-based industrial modernization remained comparatively weak. The result is an economy capable of notable scientific achievement in selected fields, yet unable to convert those achievements into a general transformation of productivity, industry, and living standards.
Cuba therefore stands as neither a simple failure nor a romantic triumph. It is better understood as a state-led innovation system of unusual resilience and equally unusual limits. Its experience demonstrates that a poor and sanctioned country can still produce serious scientific work when it possesses human capital, institutional commitment, and a disciplined sense of national purpose. But it also shows that innovation confined to islands of excellence cannot by itself overcome the wider problems of capital scarcity, bureaucratic rigidity, technological isolation, and weak economic diffusion. Cuba’s achievement is real; so too are the boundaries within which that achievement remains trapped.
Innovation Under Scarcity
One of the defining characteristics of Cuban innovation is that it developed not from abundance, but from scarcity. This scarcity, however, should not be understood as an absence of scientific tradition. Cuba did not begin innovating only after the Revolution, nor only after the imposition of the United States embargo. The island already possessed a long history of applied medicine, tropical science, agronomy, public health, and technical adaptation. The Academy of Sciences of Cuba traces its origins to the Royal Academy of Medical, Physical and Natural Sciences of Havana, founded in 1861, and the InterAcademy Partnership describes it as the “oldest still active” national science academy outside Europe. After 1959, however, this inherited scientific tradition was reorganized under a new political and economic setting, in which science became a matter not only of professional expertise but of national survival and state development strategy.
The most important change came with the post-revolutionary transformation of Cuba’s external environment. U.S. sanctions began in stages after the Revolution and culminated in President John F. Kennedy’s 1962 order imposing an embargo on trade with Cuba. The National Security Archive describes the embargo as a “complex patchwork” of laws and regulations that developed over time rather than as a single, simple measure. From that point onward, Cuban scientific and technical development increasingly took place under conditions of restricted trade, limited access to foreign equipment, shortages of spare parts, and difficulties in obtaining finance, laboratory materials, medicines, and industrial inputs.
Unlike innovation systems in advanced capitalist economies, which often depend on venture capital, private research and development, competitive markets, and access to global supply chains, Cuba’s innovation system was shaped by shortage, restriction, and necessity. Scientific and technical work had to proceed without the normal material abundance associated with modern technological development. Cuban institutions therefore developed a habit of adaptation: repairing what could not be replaced, redesigning what could not be imported, and locally manufacturing substitutes for equipment, parts, medicines, and technologies that were either unavailable or too costly.
This gave Cuban innovation a distinctly frugal and constraint-driven character. In the broader innovation literature, frugal innovation refers to useful and affordable solutions produced under limited-resource conditions. Weyrauch and Herstatt define frugal innovation through three criteria: “substantial cost reduction,” concentration on core functions, and optimized performance. Applied to Cuba, this concept helps explain why innovation was often less concerned with consumer novelty, luxury markets, or commercial differentiation than with survival, substitution, and public need.
In practical terms, scarcity became both a burden and a discipline. It was a burden because it limited access to machinery, capital, advanced inputs, and international markets. Yet it also became a discipline because it forced scientists, physicians, engineers, and technicians to concentrate on what was essential, reproducible, and socially useful. Machines were repaired beyond their normal life cycles. Industrial equipment was modified. Medical technologies were adapted. Replacement parts were fabricated locally. Health institutions had to find domestic responses to diseases and shortages that wealthier countries could address through imports.
This pattern was especially visible in biotechnology and public health. Since the early 1980s, Cuba directed a major share of scientific research and development toward biotechnology, including interferon, vaccines, biofertilizers, and medical products. The History of Science in Latin America and the Caribbean project notes that Cuba’s shortages of fuel, medicines, and food, partly connected to the embargo, made these achievements more striking, while also helping push the country toward biotechnology as a means of reducing dependence on traditional commodities such as sugar and tobacco.
The Cuban case therefore shows that innovation under scarcity is not merely improvisation in the narrow sense. It can become an institutional strategy. The revolutionary state inherited older scientific capacities, but reorganized them into a mission-oriented system intended to meet public needs and reduce external dependence. In 1962, the revolutionary government created a National Commission for the Academy of Sciences of Cuba, giving the Academy an effective national scope for the first time; by 1980, the Academy had acquired ministerial rank and responsibility for scientific and technological activity throughout the country.
Still, this model should not be romanticized. Scarcity may stimulate ingenuity, but it also imposes severe limits. It can encourage repair, efficiency, substitution, and public-oriented science, but it can also delay modernization, weaken industrial quality, limit experimentation, and make large-scale diffusion difficult. Cuba’s scientists and engineers often demonstrated remarkable creativity, yet creativity could not fully overcome shortages of advanced equipment, bureaucratic rigidity, restricted access to global markets, and weak commercialization channels.
Cuban innovation under scarcity is therefore best understood as a historical accumulation. Pre-embargo Cuba already possessed scientific institutions, a medical tradition, and technical expertise, but these capacities were unevenly distributed and often dependent on imported technology, foreign capital, and the needs of sugar, trade, tourism, and urban services. Post-embargo Cuba reorganized these inherited capacities into a state-led innovation system directed toward health, education, biotechnology, and national self-reliance. The result was not a fully diversified technological economy, but a distinctive pattern of selective excellence: strong in biotechnology, public health, tropical medicine, and adaptive engineering, yet limited in consumer technology, advanced manufacturing, digital enterprise, and broad industrial modernization.
In this sense, Cuba’s experience demonstrates both the promise and the limits of innovation under constraint. It shows that technological capability does not depend solely on wealth, private capital, or integration into global capitalism. Human capital, institutional commitment, public necessity, and national discipline can produce serious scientific achievements even under adverse conditions. But it also shows that scarcity-driven innovation tends to create islands of excellence rather than general technological abundance. Cuba’s achievement lies in making science function under constraint; its limitation lies in the persistence of the constraints themselves.
Historical Background and the Cuban Case
Cuban innovation should not be understood as a phenomenon that began only with biotechnology or with the crisis conditions of the late twentieth century. Its deeper background lies in a longer history of scientific institution-building, tropical agriculture, public health, engineering adaptation, and state-directed modernization. By 2026, Cuba’s innovation system remains paradoxical because it combines real scientific capacity with chronic material shortage. Its achievements are not simply the product of revolutionary policy, nor merely the consequence of the United States embargo. Rather, they emerged from the interaction of older scientific traditions, post-1959 state planning, socialist international cooperation, and the severe discipline imposed by scarcity.
Before the embargo, Cuba already possessed important scientific and technical traditions. The Academy of Sciences of Cuba traces its origins to May 19, 1861, when the “Royal Academy of Medical, Physical and Natural Sciences of Havana” was founded under Spanish rule. This indicates that organized scientific life in Cuba long predated both the socialist state and the U.S. embargo. Its early fields reflected the needs of a tropical island society: medicine, hygiene, natural history, meteorology, agriculture, and the technical problems associated with sugar production. Science was therefore not abstract; it was tied to disease, climate, crops, ports, and export production.
In the colonial and republican periods, Cuban technical development was closely connected to sugar. Cuba became one of the major sugar-producing societies of the modern world, and sugar demanded more than plantation labor. It required mills, rail transport, boilers, chemistry, land surveys, irrigation, port systems, and commercial organization. Yet this was an uneven form of modernization. It created islands of technical sophistication inside a dependent export economy. The problem was not the absence of technology, but its concentration around a narrow agro-industrial structure. As one historical survey notes, Cuba became a “principal exporter of sugar cane,” but this also made the country illustrative of the risks of monoculture.
Agricultural science also developed before the embargo. In the early twentieth century, the Cuban government founded an Agricultural Experiment Station, whose first director, Franklin S. Earle, helped institutionalize tropical agricultural research. Leida Fernández Prieto’s work on Cuban agricultural science emphasizes that the station was important in “breaking the predominance of sugar” in Cuban agricultural research. This matters because it shows that pre-revolutionary Cuba had scientific efforts aimed at diversification, experimentation, plant disease, botany, and tropical agronomy. However, these efforts remained limited by the structure of the economy: large estates, export crops, foreign capital, and a weak link between science and broad national development.
Thus, prior to the embargo, Cuba had scientific institutions, technical expertise, and agro-industrial knowledge, but it lacked a fully integrated national innovation system. The republican economy produced competence in selected fields, especially sugar, tobacco, medicine, and tropical agriculture, but it did not transform science into a mass developmental project. Science existed, but it was socially uneven. Technical knowledge served export sectors and professional elites more than a universal program of industrialization, rural transformation, or technological sovereignty.
The post-1959 revolutionary state changed the meaning of science and technology by treating them as instruments of national development. The new government linked scientific modernization to literacy, education, public health, industrial policy, and sovereignty. A Cuban science-policy account argues that the beginning of science, technology, and innovation policy should be traced to the 1961 Literacy Campaign, which declared Cuba the “First Latin-American Country Free from Illiteracy.” Whether one accepts the political framing or not, the campaign expanded the human-capital base from which later scientific and technical training could draw.
This educational foundation was followed by institutional expansion. In 1965, Cuba created the National Center for Scientific Research, or CENIC, which became an important training ground for modern scientific work. Later accounts emphasize that Cuba made the unusual choice, for a poor country, to invest heavily in advanced scientific training. One historical summary notes that CENIC began with only twelve scientists in 1965, but by 1989 Cuba had created a much broader scientific workforce.
The embargo intensified the logic of technological self-reliance. The first U.S. trade embargo was imposed in 1960, and President John F. Kennedy extended the restrictions in 1962. This did not merely restrict consumer goods; it affected access to laboratory equipment, machinery, spare parts, reagents, computing technologies, and industrial inputs. The result was a form of innovation shaped by substitution. Cuban institutions had to learn how to repair, reproduce, adapt, or redesign technologies that other countries could simply buy.
This helps explain why Cuban innovation became highly state-directed. In market economies, innovation often arises from private firms, venture capital, patents, and consumer demand. In Cuba, it emerged through ministries, universities, research institutes, state enterprises, and public-sector priorities. Pérez-Riverol describes how Cuba “developed a system of scientific institutions” during the second half of the twentieth century to address economic, social, cultural, and health problems. This system was not limited to medicine. It included agriculture, computing, education, environmental sciences, nuclear applications, meteorology, and industrial problem-solving.
Agriculture became one of the clearest examples of innovation under scarcity. Before the collapse of the Soviet bloc, Cuban agriculture depended heavily on imported fuel, fertilizers, pesticides, machinery, and guaranteed sugar markets. The Special Period of the 1990s destroyed much of that external support. Cuba was forced to reduce dependence on high-input agriculture and move toward biological pest control, urban agriculture, animal traction, crop diversification, biofertilizers, and agroecology. Rosset and colleagues describe this shift as the “largest conversion from conventional high-input chemical agriculture to organic or semiorganic farming in human history.”
This agricultural transformation was not simply a return to backwardness. It involved scientific and social innovation. Cuban farmers, researchers, extension workers, and cooperatives experimented with composting, biological controls, integrated pest management, seed adaptation, and low-input production. Leitgeb and colleagues specifically examine the role of “farmers’ experiments and innovations” in Cuba’s agricultural innovation system. In this sense, the Special Period forced a partial decentralization of knowledge: innovation came not only from laboratories, but also from farmers, urban gardeners, local technicians, and agricultural cooperatives.
Urban agriculture became one of the most visible Special Period innovations. Havana and other cities developed organopónicos and intensive urban gardens that used local resources, compost, biological pest control, and diversified planting. Research on Cuban urban agriculture describes a nationwide system of gardens managed along agroecological principles, emphasizing recycling and local resource use instead of synthetic chemical dependence. This was innovation not in the sense of high technology, but in the sense of institutional adaptation: land use, food distribution, biological knowledge, urban planning, and community labor were reorganized under crisis conditions.
Cuban science during the Special Period also extended into agricultural biotechnology. The crisis made food security a technological priority. Cuban researchers worked on biofertilizers, animal vaccines, crop strains, and biological inputs designed to reduce dependence on imported chemicals. A historical overview of Cuban medicine and biotechnology notes that after the fall of the USSR, the Fourth Congress of the Communist Party of Cuba made biotechnology a priority for strengthening the country’s food capacity. Thus, biotechnology in Cuba was not only medical; it also had agricultural and veterinary applications.
Computing and informatics formed another important field. Cuba’s digital development was constrained by embargo restrictions, limited hardware access, and state controls over information. Yet the country still developed domestic computing education, software training, and computer-literacy institutions. A study of Cuban computing and education notes that the post-1959 period involved “domestic hardware and software capacities,” while the Youth Computer Clubs, launched in the late 1980s, were intended to spread computer education beyond elite institutions. This was a modest and restricted form of digital innovation, but it showed the same Cuban pattern: limited equipment, strong educational ambition, and state-led diffusion.
Cuba also invested in meteorology, disaster science, and environmental monitoring. This field is especially important because the island is highly exposed to hurricanes. The Cuban Institute of Meteorology has played a role in forecasting, climate analysis, and severe-weather warnings. Disaster-risk studies have noted that Cuban meteorological institutions monitor, track, and disseminate hurricane information, often cooperating through regional meteorological systems. In this field, innovation is less about commercial technology than about public preparedness, scientific communication, and the integration of weather science with civil defense.
Nuclear science and applied radiation technologies also formed part of the broader Cuban science system. Although Cuba’s large nuclear-energy ambitions were not realized, nuclear science found applications in medicine, agriculture, industry, and environmental monitoring. A study of Cuban nuclear science states that nuclear technologies were applied in “medicine, industry, agriculture and the environment.” This reinforces the point that Cuban science cannot be reduced to vaccines alone. Even when major industrial projects failed or stalled, technical capacities were often redirected into applied sectors.
The Special Period therefore marks a decisive moment in Cuban innovation history. It did not create Cuba’s scientific system from nothing; rather, it tested the system under extreme stress. Soviet aid disappeared, trade contracted, fuel became scarce, and imported inputs collapsed. Under those conditions, Cuba could have abandoned advanced science as a luxury. Instead, it preserved selected strategic sectors while forcing other sectors—especially agriculture, repair engineering, transport maintenance, and urban food systems—to innovate through austerity. Baracca and Franconi argue that even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba reaffirmed its “strategic choice” to support advanced scientific development, especially biotechnology.
However, the Cuban case should not be romanticized. Scarcity may stimulate invention, but it also imposes real costs. It can encourage repair, improvisation, and substitution, but it can also produce technological delay, low productivity, outdated infrastructure, emigration of scientists, and weak commercialization. Pérez-Riverol’s analysis of Cuban research output notes that economic crisis, reduced investment, and the emigration of scientists have significantly affected Cuban scientific production. This means that innovation under scarcity is not a miracle formula. It is a survival strategy with achievements and losses.
In scholarly terms, Cuban innovation is best understood as a layered historical formation. Before the embargo, Cuba possessed scientific institutions and technical knowledge, especially in medicine, agriculture, sugar, and natural sciences. After 1959, the revolutionary state transformed science into a national development project tied to education, sovereignty, and planning. During the Special Period, that project was forced to adapt through agroecology, repair, biological substitutes, urban agriculture, computing education, public-health technology, and selective preservation of advanced research. By 2026, the result is neither a simple success story nor a simple failure. Cuba demonstrates that a small and constrained country can build scientific capacity when it invests in human capital and organizes knowledge around public needs. Yet it also shows that innovation under scarcity remains bounded by the scarcity that produced it.
Biotechnology as Cuba’s Flagship Sector
Biotechnology is widely regarded as Cuba’s most important scientific achievement and the clearest example of the country’s capacity to innovate under constraint. In a country marked by limited foreign capital, restricted access to advanced equipment, and the long-term effects of the United States embargo, biotechnology became more than a research field. It became a strategic national project linking science, public health, industrial production, and technological sovereignty. Cuba’s success in this sector is striking because biotechnology is normally capital-intensive, risky, and dependent on advanced laboratories, specialized personnel, international exchange, and long development cycles. Yet Cuba entered the field in the early 1980s and, by the 1990s and 2000s, had produced vaccines, recombinant proteins, monoclonal antibodies, diagnostic systems, and therapeutic products of international significance.
The origins of Cuba’s biotechnology sector are often traced to the 1981 dengue epidemic and the government’s decision to make interferon production an urgent scientific priority. Cuban researchers began producing natural interferon in a small laboratory setting, and this early experience helped create the scientific and institutional base for later biotechnology. Limonta’s 1989 account notes that in March 1981 “six researchers started production of natural interferon,” a modest beginning that nevertheless became foundational for the country’s biomedical industry. By the mid-1980s, Cuba was already recognized as a significant producer of human leukocyte interferon, and this work helped consolidate the idea that advanced biomedical technologies could be developed domestically rather than merely imported.
This early work led to a broader institutional architecture. The Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, or CIGB, was established in 1986 and became one of the central institutions of Cuban biotechnology. The CIGB’s role was not limited to laboratory research. It was designed as a research-production complex capable of moving from discovery to manufacturing, quality control, clinical evaluation, and public application. A World Health Organization study of Cuban local medicine production notes that CIGB was created in 1986 and produced new products intended to address the health problems of the Cuban population.
The Finlay Vaccine Institute became another pillar of the Cuban biotechnology system. Its institutional background is tied to Cuba’s earlier work on meningococcal disease. The Developing Countries Vaccine Manufacturers Network states that the former Finlay Institute was created in 1991 to expand the work of Cuban scientists who had researched, developed, and produced the VA-MENGOC-BC vaccine against Neisseria meningitidis. The same source notes that the vaccine’s introduction had a major impact in controlling the meningitis epidemic that affected Cuban children and adolescents.
One of Cuba’s most important biotechnology achievements was the development of VA-MENGOC-BC, the meningococcal B and C vaccine. This was significant because serogroup B meningococcal disease had been especially difficult to address through conventional vaccine strategies. A PubMed-indexed review describes VA-MENGOC-BC as the first vaccine of its type in the world that was “safe, effective, and commercially available” against serogroup B meningococcus, while another article notes that by 1989 Havana researchers had developed “the world’s first” vaccine against serogroup B meningococcal disease.
Cuban biotechnology also made important contributions in recombinant proteins and biosimilars. Recombinant interferon alfa-2b became one of the sector’s emblematic products, both as a biomedical achievement and as a symbol of Cuba’s ability to master complex technologies under constrained conditions. The development of interferon was particularly important because it required advanced molecular biology, fermentation, purification, formulation, and clinical evaluation. Cuba’s decision to continue producing interferons also reflected the country’s public-health orientation: the goal was not only commercial export but also domestic access to products that might otherwise be unaffordable or unavailable.
Another major product was Heberprot-P, developed for the treatment of advanced diabetic foot ulcers. Heberprot-P contains recombinant human epidermal growth factor and is administered by peri-lesional and intra-lesional infiltration. Berlanga and colleagues describe it as an “innovative Cuban product” for advanced diabetic foot ulcers. The CIGB states that Heberprot-P is used to stimulate progressive healing and reduce the risk of lower-limb amputation. Its importance lies not only in the product itself but also in the public-health problem it addresses: diabetic foot ulcers are costly, disabling, and often lead to amputation, especially in health systems with limited resources.
Cuba also developed therapeutic cancer vaccines and immunotherapies, particularly through the Center of Molecular Immunology. These products include CIMAvax-EGF, a therapeutic vaccine associated with non-small cell lung cancer. Unlike preventive vaccines, therapeutic cancer vaccines aim to stimulate the immune system against disease processes already present in the body. Their development illustrates a distinctive feature of Cuban biotechnology: the country did not confine itself to low-complexity generic medicine, but attempted to enter high-risk fields such as immuno-oncology, monoclonal antibodies, and targeted biological therapies. This made biotechnology not simply a health program but a form of high-technology industrial policy.
The COVID-19 pandemic provided a later test of this institutional model. Cuba developed several domestic COVID-19 vaccine candidates, including Abdala, Soberana 02, and Soberana Plus. Abdala was developed by CIGB as a protein subunit vaccine, while the Soberana vaccines were associated with the Finlay Vaccine Institute. A 2022 study in The Lancet Regional Health – Americas concluded that the Cuban Abdala protein subunit vaccine was “highly effective” in preventing severe illness and death under real-world conditions. A later phase 3 trial likewise reported that Abdala was “safe, well tolerated, and highly effective.”
The Soberana line also reflected Cuba’s accumulated experience in conjugate-vaccine technology. The Finlay Vaccine Institute notes that during the COVID-19 pandemic it developed Soberana 01, Soberana 02, and Soberana Plus. In 2024, a Lancet Regional Health – Americas study evaluated the real-world effectiveness of the heterologous Soberana 02–Soberana Plus schedule in children aged two to eleven. The significance of these vaccines was not simply that Cuba produced them, but that it did so as a small, sanctioned country in a period when much of the developing world depended on imported vaccines, donations, or delayed access through international procurement mechanisms.
The institutional strength of Cuban biotechnology lies in what Cuban and international analysts often describe as integration. Instead of separating universities, research institutes, manufacturers, hospitals, and public-health agencies into weakly connected sectors, Cuba built a system in which research, development, clinical testing, production, and application were closely linked. A World Intellectual Property Organization presentation described this as a “Closed cycle” strategy, meaning an institutional chain running from research to post-marketing follow-up. It also emphasized “National collaboration instead of individual competition,” a phrase that captures the Cuban model’s emphasis on coordination rather than firm-level rivalry.
This “closed cycle” system explains why Cuba is often described as having built a bench-to-bedside model under socialist conditions. Scientific research was tied to public-health demand, and public-health demand guided research priorities. Helen Yaffe argues that Cuba’s biopharmaceutical sector was integrated into the public health system and that “National health needs are prioritised.” This is a key distinction between Cuba’s biotechnology system and the dominant pharmaceutical model in richer economies. In the Cuban case, the state assumed the roles of investor, planner, producer, regulator, purchaser, and distributor.
This model was later reorganized under BioCubaFarma, created in 2012 as a state holding group for biotechnology and pharmaceutical institutions. A WHO-linked study states that BioCubaFarma was created by Decree 307 and comprised biotechnology research institutions and other centers. Yaffe’s account notes that it integrated dozens of companies, manufacturing facilities, and thousands of workers, including many scientists and engineers. This reorganization attempted to consolidate the sector as both a public-health asset and an export-oriented industry.
The achievements of Cuban biotechnology should therefore be understood in three connected ways. First, they represent scientific achievement: Cuba developed vaccines, recombinant proteins, immunotherapies, and diagnostic technologies in fields that normally require significant capital and expertise. Second, they represent institutional achievement: Cuba created a research-production-public-health system that allowed discoveries to be translated into national programs. Third, they represent political-economic achievement: biotechnology became a way for a small, resource-constrained country to pursue technological sovereignty and reduce dependence on imported medicines.
However, this success must be interpreted with caution. Cuban biotechnology is impressive, but it exists within a broader economy marked by shortages, limited financing, migration of skilled personnel, and constrained commercialization. The same centralized system that allowed the state to concentrate resources in biotechnology also limited private-sector dynamism and sometimes restricted international collaboration. Pérez-Riverol’s analysis of Cuban research output notes that economic crisis, reduced investment, and emigration of scientists have affected Cuban scientific production. Thus, biotechnology is Cuba’s flagship sector, but it is also an island of excellence within a more fragile national innovation system.
In scholarly terms, biotechnology demonstrates both the strength and the limitation of the Cuban innovation model. It shows that a developing country can create sophisticated scientific capacity when it combines education, state investment, public-health planning, and institutional coordination. At the same time, it shows that even successful state-led innovation remains vulnerable when it lacks abundant capital, open markets, modern infrastructure, and stable channels of international exchange. Cuba’s biotechnology sector is therefore not merely a story of scientific triumph; it is a case study in how high technology can be produced under scarcity, and how such success remains bounded by the economic conditions that made it necessary.
Public Health and Agriculture as Innovation Platforms
Innovation in Cuba extends beyond laboratory science. Although biotechnology is often treated as the flagship of Cuban scientific achievement, the broader Cuban experience shows that innovation has also operated through public systems: health care, epidemiological surveillance, vaccination, medical education, international medical cooperation, agriculture, and food security. In this sense, Cuba’s innovation system has not been confined to the laboratory or the factory. It has depended on institutions capable of identifying social problems, mobilizing trained personnel, and applying scientific or technical solutions across the population.
The Cuban health system is central to this model. Its universal and state-organized structure has allowed public health to function not only as a social service but also as a national platform for the testing, distribution, and evaluation of medical innovations. The system’s emphasis on primary care, prevention, and epidemiology gives it a distinctive role in Cuban science and technology. Keck argues that Cuba’s Family Doctor and Nurse Program joined clinical medicine with “prevention and epidemiologic analysis,” making the neighborhood clinic a site of both treatment and population-level observation. By aggregating information from office visits, home visits, and community diagnoses, Cuban physicians and nurses could identify health risks, organize preventive campaigns, and connect local needs with national health priorities.
This structure gave Cuban public health a practical advantage: it could rapidly implement nationwide health interventions. Vaccination campaigns, maternal-child health programs, infectious-disease control, and preventive medicine could be coordinated through a network of family doctors, nurses, polyclinics, hospitals, and research institutes. In this arrangement, public health became a deployment mechanism for innovation. A vaccine, diagnostic method, or treatment protocol developed in a research institute did not have to depend primarily on private markets or fragmented insurance systems. It could be inserted into a national health apparatus that already reached households, schools, workplaces, and local communities.
The health system’s local embeddedness also created a feedback loop between science and practice. Cuban health workers were not only passive recipients of centrally designed policies. They generated information from communities, identified risk factors, and transmitted practical problems upward through the system. This helped shape priorities in maternal health, infectious disease control, chronic disease management, and vaccination. Thus, the Cuban model blurred the line between health service delivery and applied research. Its innovation lay not only in producing medical technologies, but in possessing a public apparatus able to translate scientific knowledge into population-wide practice.
This helps explain why Cuba has often achieved health outcomes disproportionate to its economic resources. The country’s resource base has remained limited, and its health system has suffered from shortages of medicines, equipment, salaries, and infrastructure. Yet scholars have repeatedly noted that Cuba’s organized primary-care system allowed it to deliver broad coverage despite austerity. Keck describes the Cuban case as evidence that population health can be achieved “in the absence of wealth” when resources are organized toward measurable health goals. The lesson is not that scarcity is desirable, but that institutional design can partly compensate for material scarcity when trained personnel, preventive care, and public planning are coordinated.
Medical internationalism further extended this public-health innovation platform. Since the 1960s, Cuba has sent physicians, nurses, and other health workers abroad, particularly to developing countries and underserved regions. This practice has been interpreted in different ways: as solidarity, diplomacy, soft power, export of services, and, by critics, a source of state revenue under restrictive labor conditions. Even so, it has also functioned as a practical learning system. Cuban medical workers deployed abroad have gained experience in epidemic response, disaster medicine, rural health care, low-resource clinical practice, and public-health organization in difficult environments. Kirk and Erisman describe Cuba as having tens of thousands of medical staff abroad and note that its Latin American School of Medicine trained thousands of students from the developing world.
The contemporary relevance of Cuban medical internationalism remains visible in 2026. The Associated Press reported that more than 200 Cuban doctors were serving in hospitals in Calabria, Italy, where local shortages had forced some departments to close. The report noted that Cuban doctors have long worked in developing nations and are skilled in providing care with “scarce resources.” This illustrates a recurring feature of the Cuban model: the country’s medical system produces practitioners trained for low-resource settings, and those experiences abroad can reinforce the same practical knowledge needed at home. However, the political economy of these missions remains contested, especially because host-country payments and physician compensation have been criticized by the United States and by some human-rights advocates. A balanced assessment must therefore recognize both the medical value of the missions and the controversies surrounding their organization.
Agriculture provides a second major example of innovation as a platform rather than a narrow sector. During the Soviet period, Cuban agriculture relied heavily on imported fuel, machinery, fertilizer, pesticides, and guaranteed sugar trade. The collapse of the Soviet bloc after 1989 produced a severe shock. Zepeda notes that the Special Period saw oil imports fall by 50 percent, fertilizer and pesticide availability fall by 70 percent, food imports fall by 50 percent, and calorie intake fall by 30 percent. These conditions forced Cuba to rethink food production, not as a matter of ideological preference alone, but as a crisis of national survival.
The result was a shift toward low-input, agroecological, and locally organized forms of agriculture. Cuba expanded urban agriculture, biological pest control, composting, animal traction, crop diversification, local markets, and cooperatives. Rosset described the Cuban experiment as “the largest attempt” to convert conventional agriculture toward organic or semi-organic farming. This was innovation under pressure: the island had to produce food with fewer imported inputs, less fuel, fewer chemicals, and a weakened export economy. The innovation was not only technical but institutional, involving changes in land use, farmer organization, research-extension relations, and urban food systems.
Urban agriculture became one of the most visible forms of this transformation. Altieri and colleagues found that Havana’s urban farms and gardens emerged rapidly after the collapse of socialist-bloc trade and helped stabilize the supply of fresh produce. They described a nationwide system of thousands of gardens managed along “agroecological principles,” emphasizing recycling, diversification, local resources, and the elimination of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. This made the city itself an agricultural innovation platform. Vacant lots, neighborhood gardens, organopónicos, and local cooperatives became sites for experimentation in soil fertility, pest management, water use, seed adaptation, and local food distribution.
Agricultural innovation in Cuba also differed from purely top-down modernization. While the state provided policy direction, research institutions, and organizational support, farmers and local technicians played an important role in experimentation. The agricultural crisis made practical knowledge valuable. Farmers tested biological inputs, planting combinations, soil improvements, and pest-control strategies suited to local conditions. This form of innovation was less spectacular than biotechnology, but it was socially significant because it attempted to solve an everyday problem: how to feed cities and rural communities under conditions of fuel and input scarcity.
Public health and agriculture therefore reveal a common Cuban pattern. Both sectors became innovation platforms because they combined science, state organization, trained personnel, and mass deployment. In public health, the family doctor system, polyclinics, epidemiological surveillance, and vaccination campaigns translated biomedical knowledge into population-level practice. In agriculture, the Special Period forced the reorganization of food production through agroecology, urban farming, biological substitutes, and farmer experimentation. In both cases, innovation emerged not simply as invention, but as the capacity to organize knowledge and labor around urgent social needs.
Yet the limitations are equally important. Cuba’s public-health and agricultural systems have often depended on heroic levels of human labor, low wages, and administrative discipline. Shortages of medicines, equipment, food, fuel, and infrastructure have repeatedly weakened the quality and reliability of services. Agroecology and urban agriculture reduced dependence on imported inputs, but they did not eliminate Cuba’s food-security problems. Medical internationalism generated experience and foreign exchange, but it also produced controversy over labor conditions and state control. Thus, Cuban innovation in public health and agriculture should be understood neither as a simple triumph nor as a failure. It is better seen as a resource-constrained model of social innovation: capable of mobilizing science for public purposes, but constantly limited by the economic scarcity that made such innovation necessary.
Engineering Through Repair and Adaptation
Outside its banner programs in biotechnology, medicine, and public health, Cuban innovation has often taken the form of repair, adaptation, substitution, and technical improvisation rather than frontier invention. This does not mean that such innovation is unimportant. On the contrary, repair has been one of the most socially visible and economically necessary forms of Cuban technological practice. In a country repeatedly affected by sanctions, shortages of spare parts, limited foreign exchange, fuel scarcity, and uneven access to imported machinery, the ability to keep machines working has become a practical foundation of survival. Cuban engineering through repair is therefore best understood not as a marginal activity, but as a parallel innovation system: less glamorous than biotechnology, yet deeply embedded in daily life, transport, agriculture, household production, and industrial maintenance.
Historically, this repair culture emerged from several overlapping conditions. After the 1959 Revolution, Cuba faced the departure of many skilled professionals and technicians, the reorientation of its trade relations, and restrictions on access to U.S.-made equipment and spare parts. Cuban accounts of the National Association of Innovators and Rationalizers, or ANIR, trace its origins to the early revolutionary period, when workers’ “creative activity” was said to have helped sustain the economy during the “exodus of skilled technicians” and shortage of spare parts. ANIR later became one of the formal institutions through which Cuba organized worker-led innovation, rationalization, repair, and import substitution. Its stated activities included the “recovery and manufacture of equipment, machinery and spare parts,” as well as the maintenance of existing technologies.
This shows that Cuban repair culture was not merely informal tinkering. It also had a formal, organized, and ideological dimension. In socialist vocabulary, the “innovator” and “rationalizer” were workers who found practical ways to save materials, extend machinery life, improve processes, and substitute domestic solutions for imported inputs. This was especially important in factories, transport depots, farms, hospitals, schools, and public utilities. The Cuban repair system therefore combined state organization with local improvisation: ministries and unions promoted technical saving, while mechanics, workers, farmers, and households developed practical solutions to immediate shortages.
The Special Period of the 1990s intensified this culture dramatically. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the loss of favorable trade, Cuba faced shortages of fuel, machinery, industrial inputs, and consumer goods. In this context, old objects became resources rather than waste. Rognoli and Oroza argue that Cubans “had no choice but to create and repair,” not only in state factories but also inside their homes. Their account describes the Cuban home as a “laboratory of invention and survival,” where broken appliances, discarded components, and obsolete machines were kept because they might later become useful.
One of the most famous symbols of this period was the 1992 manual "Con nuestros propios esfuerzos" — With Our Own Efforts — published by Editora Verde Olivo. The Technological Disobedience Archive describes it as a Cuban book issued during the Special Period, while Rognoli and Oroza characterize it as a collection of crowdsourced ideas on “manipulating, repairing or reusing” everyday objects. The manual is significant because it institutionalized improvisation: it transformed emergency household practices into shared technical knowledge. Rather than treating repair as private desperation, it presented repair as collective method.
Cuban designer Ernesto Oroza later conceptualized this practice as “technological disobedience.” The phrase refers to the Cuban tendency to open, modify, rewire, cannibalize, and repurpose objects whose original industrial design assumed a closed and finished life cycle. In this view, an imported machine is not treated as a sacred finished product. It becomes raw material. A washing machine may become a grinder or agricultural tool; a broken radio may become a source of components; a bicycle may be motorized; a car body may be kept alive with parts from several incompatible technical lineages. Benjamin describes Oroza’s project as an archive of “accumulation, repair, and reuse” shaped by political crisis and economic sanctions in Cuba.
Transportation offers the clearest historical example. Cuba’s automobile fleet famously includes large numbers of pre-1959 American cars known as almendrones, many of which remain in use as shared taxis. These vehicles survived not because spare parts remained readily available, but because Cuban mechanics learned to rebuild engines, fabricate parts, modify bodies, and combine American, Soviet, European, Japanese, and locally made components. A 2026 Associated Press report notes that for decades “engines were swapped” and bodies rebuilt as mechanics sourced replacements wherever they could. Al Jazeera’s 2026 documentary summary gives an even more concrete example: a 1950s Plymouth Fury convertible containing a Soviet engine, Japanese gearbox, and handmade parts.
The almendrón is therefore not simply a tourist image or nostalgic relic. It is a mobile artifact of scarcity engineering. Its value lies in the accumulated labor of mechanics who repeatedly translate one technical system into another. In conventional automotive engineering, a vehicle is maintained according to manufacturer specifications. In the Cuban case, maintenance often means redesigning the vehicle’s technical identity. A car may retain its 1950s body but operate with a later engine, improvised electrical systems, locally machined fittings, and substitute components from unrelated vehicles. This is repair as hybrid engineering.
The Special Period also forced major changes in mass transportation. The loss of fuel and spare parts reduced bus service and pushed Cubans toward walking, cycling, hitchhiking, animal traction, and improvised mass transit. A study of Cuban transport practices found that reduced bus service caused by “lack of spare parts” and fuel shortages significantly increased walking trips, with average walk trips estimated at five kilometers by 2002. The same period saw bicycles become essential urban transport, even though bicycles had been relatively uncommon in Cuba before 1990.
Improvised transport solutions also included the famous camellos, large truck trailers converted into passenger carriers, as well as truck-buses, bicitaxis, horse-drawn taxis, and other hybrid mobility systems. These were not elegant solutions, but they were technically and socially adaptive. They demonstrated how Cuban transport innovation often arose not by designing entirely new technologies, but by modifying existing platforms for new uses. A freight truck could become a passenger vehicle; a bicycle could become a taxi; a trailer could become a mass-transit device; a tunnel-crossing bus could be adapted to carry both passengers and bicycles.
Contemporary Cuba shows the persistence of this logic. In 2026, renewed fuel scarcity again pushed Havana residents toward bicycles, electric motorcycles, and repaired mobility systems. Reuters reported that residents were pulling old bicycles from storage, patching tires, and learning to cycle because fuel had become scarce and transport costs had risen. Bicycle repair businesses saw increased demand, although even repairers faced shortages of parts. This shows the recurring cycle of Cuban adaptation: one scarcity produces a solution, but the solution itself soon creates new shortages that require further improvisation.
Similarly, Cuba’s Ciclobús illustrates institutional adaptation in transport. The Associated Press reported in 2026 that the bus, originally associated with the Special Period, had become newly important during the fuel crisis. It carries commuters and their bicycles, scooters, or electric motorcycles through the Havana Bay Tunnel, where such vehicles are otherwise not permitted. The Ciclobús is not technologically advanced in the conventional sense, but it is an example of systems innovation: infrastructure, vehicles, and user practices are recombined to solve a mobility problem under scarcity.
Electric mobility adds a newer layer to Cuban adaptation. Reuters reported in 2024 that electric scooters and vehicles assembled with Chinese parts had become increasingly important as fuel and public transportation became less reliable. Cuban-based companies produced more than 23,000 electric vehicles between 2020 and 2022, and a Cuban-Chinese joint venture assembled scooters, bikes, and mini-tricycle trucks in Havana. The company was also testing an electric tractor and experimenting with other electric-powered machinery. This development suggests that repair culture is not frozen in the 1990s. It can shift toward new technologies when new supply chains, such as Chinese components and lithium batteries, become available.
Agriculture provides another important field of repair and adaptation. During the Special Period, shortages of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, imported machinery, and spare parts forced Cuba to reduce dependence on high-input mechanized farming. Agricultural equipment had to be maintained longer, modified for local conditions, or replaced by lower-energy alternatives such as animal traction, urban agriculture tools, biological pest-control systems, and locally fabricated implements. In this sense, Cuban agricultural adaptation was not only about organic farming. It also involved engineering substitution: making or modifying the tools necessary to farm without the imported inputs that earlier mechanized agriculture had assumed.
The same pattern appeared in water systems, utilities, and infrastructure. A 1995 analysis of the Special Period and the environment observed that Cuba’s transportation stock was aging and that “poor maintenance and lack of spare parts” affected vehicles, trucks, and buses. It also noted that water distribution was affected by insufficient fuel to pump and distribute water, as well as by difficulties in maintaining purification systems. These examples show that repair culture was not restricted to private households. It affected the entire infrastructure of daily life: transport, water, sanitation, agriculture, and energy.
At the household level, repair became a form of domestic engineering. Fans, pressure cookers, washing machines, radios, bicycles, refrigerators, and stoves were disassembled, rewired, repurposed, or combined with parts from unrelated objects. Such practices were not merely expressions of individual ingenuity. They reflected a material culture in which objects were rarely disposable. In wealthier consumer economies, a broken appliance often becomes waste. In Cuba, a broken appliance may become a source of parts, a new tool, or a modified machine with a second life. This is why Oroza’s concept of the “potential object” is useful: an object’s value does not end when it fails in its original function.
Still, Cuban repair culture should not be romanticized. Repair under scarcity is evidence of resilience, but also of deprivation. It shows skill, but also the absence of adequate supply chains. It extends the life of machines, but may also preserve inefficient, unsafe, polluting, or outdated equipment. The almendrones demonstrate mechanical brilliance, but they also burn scarce fuel and often depend on obsolete engines. Bicycle repair and electric scooters help mobility, but they also reveal the failure of public transport and fuel supply. Improvised household technologies save resources, but they may also reflect the lack of reliable access to modern goods.
Scholarly interpretation should therefore hold two truths together. First, Cuban repair and adaptation constitute a real form of innovation. They involve diagnosis, redesign, material substitution, reverse engineering, fabrication, and practical experimentation. Second, this innovation is often defensive rather than expansive. It is aimed at preserving function under constraint, not necessarily at raising productivity, safety, or technological sophistication to global standards. Repair keeps society moving, but it does not by itself solve the structural causes of shortage.
In this sense, engineering through repair and adaptation is one of the most revealing dimensions of Cuban innovation. It shows how a constrained society turns maintenance into invention and scarcity into technical practice. It also shows the limits of such ingenuity. Cuba’s repair culture demonstrates that innovation is not always found in laboratories, patents, or high-technology firms. It may also appear in workshops, kitchens, garages, bus depots, farms, and bicycle stalls. Yet the very need for such repair points to the larger problem: Cuba has developed extraordinary capacities to prolong the life of things because it has too often lacked the resources to replace them.
Comparison with Other Innovation Models
Cuba’s innovation model differs substantially from the more familiar models associated with South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, Singapore, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela. These comparisons are useful because they show that “innovation” is not a single path. Some countries innovate through export-led industrialization; some through venture capital and private start-ups; some through state-directed strategic industries; some through sanctions-driven self-reliance; and some through military, energy, or resource-based systems. Cuba belongs to none of these categories perfectly. Its model is best understood as a small, state-directed, socially oriented, scarcity-conditioned innovation system, strongest in public health, biotechnology, vaccines, medicine, agroecology, and repair-based engineering.
The East Asian capitalist developmental states—South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore—offer the sharpest contrast. South Korea built its innovation capacity through export-oriented industrialization, large conglomerates, state industrial policy, heavy manufacturing, electronics, shipbuilding, semiconductors, and later digital technologies. The OECD describes South Korea as “the second-highest R&D spender among OECD economies” and notes its strengths in “semiconductors, 6G, and ICT infrastructure.” This is a very different pattern from Cuba. Korea’s innovation system was state-guided, but it was also deeply tied to private conglomerates such as Samsung, Hyundai, LG, and SK, as well as to export markets and global competition. Cuba, by contrast, concentrated resources in state-owned scientific institutions and public-health priorities rather than in globally competitive private industrial firms.
Taiwan followed a related but distinct path. Its innovation system developed through export manufacturing, small and medium-sized enterprises, state research institutes, semiconductor policy, foreign technology absorption, and later indigenous upgrading. UNCTAD notes that Taiwan “switched to an export-oriented strategy in the 1960s,” while also using import protection, directed credit, support for domestic skills, and technology development. This combination produced firms and institutions capable of moving from contract manufacturing to high-value electronics and semiconductors. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, for example, became central to the global chip economy. Cuba never developed a comparable export-manufacturing base. Its excellence remained concentrated in selected scientific and medical fields, not in electronics, precision machinery, or global value-chain manufacturing.
Singapore represents another variant: a highly open, state-managed, foreign-investment-driven innovation model. The IMF’s historical account notes that Singapore abandoned early import substitution and “embraced an industrialization program based on investment- and export-led growth.” Its Economic Development Board continues to define Singapore as a “global hub for innovation, technology, and economic growth,” with strong emphasis on foreign direct investment, multinational corporations, logistics, finance, biomedical manufacturing, semiconductors, and professional services. Cuba’s system is almost the inverse. Singapore used openness, global capital, multinational firms, and regulatory efficiency; Cuba used state ownership, national planning, import substitution, and public-sector scientific missions.
Israel provides a different contrast. Its innovation system is much more venture-capital-intensive and start-up-oriented. It combines military research, universities, immigrant human capital, private entrepreneurship, venture finance, and close integration with U.S. and global technology markets. The Israel Innovation Authority states that Israel ranks first in venture-capital investment as a percentage of GDP and has thousands of active start-up companies. Reuters reported that Israel’s high-tech sector remained a major economic engine in 2025, accounting for roughly one-fifth of GDP and more than half of exports. Cuba has scientific talent and state-backed research, but it lacks Israel’s deep venture-capital ecosystem, private start-up density, large exit markets, and multinational R&D integration.
China is more complicated because it is both socialist-led and deeply integrated into global capitalism. Like Cuba, China uses state planning, strategic sectors, public research, and national technology goals. Unlike Cuba, however, China combined those tools with massive manufacturing scale, special economic zones, foreign direct investment, export-led growth, private enterprise, and global supply-chain integration. The World Bank notes that global value chains allow countries to “import skills and technology” and move toward higher-value activities. China used that pathway on a vast scale, first becoming the “world’s factory” and then moving into electric vehicles, batteries, telecommunications, artificial intelligence, solar panels, and advanced manufacturing. Its Made in China 2025 strategy, according to the OECD STIP database, was designed to strengthen Chinese manufacturing and support innovation-led growth. Cuba also sought technological sovereignty, but without China’s market size, industrial depth, foreign-investment inflows, or manufacturing ecosystems.
Vietnam, although politically closer to Cuba as a socialist republic, followed a very different development path after Đổi Mới. The World Bank describes Vietnam as a “remarkable development success story” after reforms launched in 1986. Its 2024 report notes that Vietnamese export volumes rose from less than 4 percent of GDP in 1988 to nearly 100 percent in 2023, while total trade reached around 200 percent of GDP. However, Vietnam’s innovation model remains heavily dependent on foreign direct investment and global value chains; a World Bank science, technology, and innovation report notes that Vietnam’s export model remains “FDI-led” and focused on import-dependent assembly tasks. Cuba, by contrast, remained far less integrated into global production networks and did not build an export-manufacturing platform comparable to Vietnam’s electronics, textiles, phones, and industrial assembly sectors.
North Korea offers a closer comparison in terms of sanctions, socialist language, and self-reliance, but the similarities are limited. North Korea’s science and technology policy has been shaped by Juche ideology, military priorities, cyber capabilities, missile development, nuclear weapons, and regime survival. A Korea Economic Institute study notes that North Korea’s isolation was intensified by sanctions after its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs and that its closed economy produced “a low level of technology” compared with advanced economies. Cuba, unlike North Korea, invested heavily in public health, civilian biotechnology, medical internationalism, and education-driven human development. Both countries used self-reliance rhetoric, but North Korea’s most visible technical achievements are military and security-centered, while Cuba’s are medical, agricultural, and public-health-centered.
Russia represents another contrasting model: a large post-Soviet scientific power with deep legacies in aerospace, nuclear energy, mathematics, defense engineering, metallurgy, oil and gas, and military technology. Russia inherited a far larger scientific-industrial base than Cuba, but its innovation system has long struggled with commercialization, diversification, and the conversion of research strength into broad civilian productivity. An OECD report on Russia noted “considerable achievements” in building the groundwork for an innovation system, but also concluded that the “innovation climate” still needed improvement. Cuba shares with Russia a strong state role and a tradition of scientific prestige, but it lacks Russia’s scale, resource base, military-industrial depth, and Soviet-era technological inheritance.
Iran is a useful comparison because it has also developed science and technology under sanctions. Like Cuba, Iran has treated technological self-reliance as a strategic necessity. UNCTAD observed that Iran had shown capacity for “top-notch research” in fields such as nanotechnology, but that the central challenge was to commercialize this knowledge. The same source notes that sanctions limited access to finance, technologies, and markets, while also forcing Iran toward self-reliance. Iran’s innovation system, however, is broader and more security-industrial than Cuba’s, with major emphasis on nuclear technology, missiles, drones, nanotechnology, pharmaceuticals, engineering, and defense-related fields. Cuba’s comparative advantage lies less in hard-power technologies and more in health biotechnology, vaccines, clinical deployment, and low-resource medical systems.
Venezuela, Cuba’s major political ally in Latin America during the Chávez and post-Chávez periods, followed a different and less successful innovation path. Its economy remained heavily dependent on oil rents. A Springer study notes that by 2015, oil accounted for 96 percent of Venezuela’s exports and more than 60 percent of government revenues. Venezuela did possess universities, research institutes, and scientific capacities; a Global Development Network report notes that an institutional framework for science and technology had existed since the creation of CONICIT in 1967. However, oil dependence, economic collapse, political conflict, institutional decay, and mass migration badly weakened research and innovation capacity. Cuba was poorer and more sanctioned, but it built a more coherent public-health and biotechnology system than Venezuela’s more rent-dependent model.
These comparisons show why Cuba should not be grouped too easily with either capitalist “success stories” or socialist allies. It did not follow South Korea or Taiwan into export-led industrial upgrading. It did not follow Singapore into foreign-investment-centered global services and manufacturing. It did not follow Israel into venture-capital-backed start-ups. It did not follow China or Vietnam into large-scale integration with global value chains. It did not follow North Korea into a primarily military-technological system. It did not resemble Venezuela’s oil-rent economy, nor Russia’s large post-Soviet military-industrial model, nor Iran’s sanctions-driven but more defense-heavy technology system.
Cuba’s model was instead mission-oriented and socially concentrated. Its strongest sectors were those that the state considered nationally necessary: health care, vaccines, biotechnology, epidemiology, medical training, agriculture, and education. The World Health Organization’s study of Cuban medicine production emphasizes Cuba’s experience in local production, technology transfer, and improving access to health. Helen Yaffe similarly argues that Cuban biotechnology was integrated into the public health system and that “National health needs are prioritised.” This is the central difference: Cuba did not build innovation primarily around private profit, export manufacturing, or venture finance, but around state-defined social needs.
The strength of this model is that Cuba produced world-class achievements in selected domains despite severe constraints. Examples include the meningitis B vaccine, recombinant interferons, Heberprot-P for diabetic foot ulcers, therapeutic cancer vaccines, and COVID-19 vaccines such as Abdala and Soberana. The weakness is that these achievements did not produce broad-based technological modernization. Cuba remained comparatively weak in consumer technology, advanced manufacturing, digital industries, private entrepreneurship, industrial productivity, and mass commercial scaling. Pérez-Riverol’s study of Cuban research output notes that Cuban science is known for achievements in health and biotechnology, but also that economic crisis, reduced investment, and emigration have hurt scientific output.
In summary, Cuba’s innovation model is best described as an island-of-excellence model: highly capable in selected public sectors, but weak in economy-wide technological diffusion. South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, China, Vietnam, and Israel transformed innovation into export power, industrial upgrading, or private-sector growth. Iran, Russia, North Korea, and Venezuela show alternative forms of state-directed or sanctions-conditioned innovation, often shaped by defense, energy, or resource dependence. Cuba stands apart because its most successful innovations were civilian, biomedical, preventive, and public-health-oriented. Its achievement was to make advanced science serve a poor and constrained society. Its limitation was that this science did not become the basis for a diversified, productive, and technologically modern economy.
Is It Innovation, or Resilience-Hustle? Rethinking the Cuban Case
If one looks at Cuba from the perspective of Silicon Valley, Seoul, Tel Aviv, Singapore, or Shenzhen, the Cuban case can appear confusing. The island has produced vaccines, cancer immunotherapies, diabetic-foot treatments, epidemiological systems, agroecological practices, repair cultures, and improvised engineering solutions. Yet many of these do not fit neatly into the standard Western image of innovation: venture-funded start-ups, patents, high-growth firms, disruptive consumer products, global value chains, scalable platforms, or private-sector technological competition. Cuba’s “innovation” therefore raises a conceptual question: is it innovation in the conventional Western sense, or is it better understood as reinforced resilience, survival ingenuity, or what might colloquially be called “hustle”?
The answer is that it is both—but not equally in every sector. Cuban biotechnology, vaccine development, and some medical technologies clearly qualify as formal innovation even under conventional definitions. Cuban repair culture, agroecology, transport improvisation, and household adaptation, however, often belong to a different category: resilience-driven innovation, bricolage, and technological improvisation. They are innovative in the sense that they create new uses, new processes, and new combinations. But they do not always become innovation in the capitalist sense of commercial scaling, market disruption, high productivity growth, or globally competitive industrial upgrading.
The standard Western policy definition of innovation is usually associated with novelty, implementation, and measurable economic use. The Oslo Manual 2018, used by the OECD and Eurostat, defines innovation around a “new or improved” product or process that is either “introduced on the market” or “brought into use” by an organization. This matters because innovation is not merely an idea; it must be implemented. Under this definition, Cuba’s vaccines, biotechnology products, public-health systems, agroecological production methods, and repair processes can count as innovation when they are actually used in institutions, clinics, farms, factories, or public systems.
But the Western concept of innovation is also heavily shaped by Schumpeterian capitalism. Joseph Schumpeter famously treated development as the carrying out of “new combinations.” In this tradition, innovation is not merely coping; it reorganizes production, creates new markets, destroys old routines, and raises productivity. The entrepreneur, in Schumpeter’s framework, is not simply a clever survivor but an agent of transformation. This is where Cuba partly diverges. Much Cuban innovation recombines existing materials, but often to preserve function rather than to revolutionize markets. It is not always “creative destruction”; often it is creative preservation.
This distinction is crucial. In a market-led innovation system, success usually means that a new product, firm, or process grows, attracts capital, expands productivity, and displaces less efficient alternatives. In Cuba, success has often meant that a clinic continues to function, a bus keeps running, an old car remains usable, a farm produces without imported fertilizer, or a vaccine reaches the population despite foreign-exchange shortages. These are not minor achievements. But they belong to a different grammar of innovation. The question is not, “Can this scale into a billion-dollar company?” The question is, “Can this keep society alive, healthy, mobile, and minimally functional under constraint?”
This is why the concept of frugal innovation is useful. Weyrauch and Herstatt argue that frugal innovation is defined by three criteria: “substantial cost reduction,” “core functionalities,” and “optimised performance level.” Cuba fits this logic in many fields. Its innovations often strip technology down to essential functions: a treatment must be affordable, a machine must be repairable, a farm input must be locally reproducible, a public-health campaign must reach the whole population, and a transport system must move people despite fuel scarcity. The Cuban case is therefore not anti-innovation; it is innovation under a severe design brief: do more with less, and do it for public necessity rather than consumer abundance.
Yet “frugal innovation” alone is not enough to describe Cuba. Frugal innovation can still be commercial, exportable, and market-oriented. Many firms in India, China, and Africa design low-cost products for mass markets. Cuba’s case is more deeply political and infrastructural. It is also a case of bricolage. Baker and Nelson’s concept of entrepreneurial bricolage refers to “creating something from nothing,” meaning the construction of resources by recombining what is already at hand. This describes much of Cuban technical life: mechanics adapt parts from incompatible machines, farmers substitute biological inputs for imported agrochemicals, households transform broken appliances into new devices, and public institutions stretch old infrastructure far beyond its original life cycle.
This is also where the word “hustle,” if used carefully, becomes meaningful. It should not be understood merely as informal street cleverness or petty improvisation. In the Cuban context, “hustle” points to a broader survival economy of making, fixing, substituting, exchanging, and repurposing. It is the social knowledge of how to keep going when formal supply chains fail. It includes the mechanic who keeps a 1950s car alive with Soviet, Japanese, Chinese, and handmade parts; the technician who fabricates a missing component; the farmer who replaces imported pesticide with biological control; the household that refuses to throw away a broken appliance because it may become tomorrow’s spare-parts bank. This is not innovation as glamour. It is innovation as endurance.
Ernesto Oroza’s concept of “technological disobedience” captures this Cuban practice with unusual precision. Oroza describes Cuban repair culture as a refusal to accept the object as closed, finished, or obedient to its original design. In his words, he believes in reuse and the “potential object.” This means an object is not limited to what the manufacturer intended. A fan motor, a washing-machine drum, a bicycle frame, or a car engine may be reassigned to another purpose. Cuban users become designers because scarcity forces them to break the authority of the finished product.
This also connects Cuba to the literature on user innovation. Eric von Hippel argues that users increasingly develop their own products and services, and that firms should learn from user-developed innovations. In Cuba, however, user innovation is not mainly a hobbyist or consumer movement. It is often compulsory. Cubans innovate as users because formal producers, importers, and markets fail to provide what is needed. The result is a society where many users become maintainers, modifiers, and informal engineers.
The National Association of Innovators and Rationalizers, or ANIR, illustrates how Cuba tried to institutionalize this practical creativity. ANIR has been described in Cuban sources as directing “effort, ingenuity and innovation toward concrete solutions,” especially in import substitution, repair, and production efficiency. This is important because it shows that Cuban repair culture was not only spontaneous or informal. The state attempted to organize it as an economic resource. Worker-inventors were expected to save materials, fabricate parts, keep machinery operating, and reduce dependence on imports.
Still, this raises a harder question: when does resilience become innovation, and when does it merely hide stagnation? A society that keeps obsolete machines alive demonstrates skill, but it may also be trapped by necessity. Repair can be creative, but endless repair may also signal blocked modernization. Cuba’s old cars, improvised transport, household hacks, and aging industrial machinery are impressive as evidence of technical ingenuity. But they also point to weak supply chains, low incomes, limited consumer choice, and insufficient capital investment. Resilience can become a virtue only because deprivation has made it necessary.
This is why the Cuban model must be read dialectically. On one side, it proves that innovation is not the monopoly of rich capitalist societies. Poor and sanctioned countries can innovate when they possess human capital, institutional discipline, scientific education, and social urgency. Cuba’s biotechnology sector is a strong example. Cárdenas argues that Cuban biotechnology shows the importance of “country-specific institutional innovations” in moving toward more technology-intensive industries. Baracca and Franconi likewise describe Cuba’s commitment to advanced scientific development as a strategic choice made to overcome “subalternity.”
On the other side, Cuba also proves that resilience is not the same as development. A resilient system can withstand shocks, but that does not mean it is flourishing. Resilience literature commonly defines resilience as the capacity to resist, absorb, adapt, and recover from disruption. That definition fits Cuba well: the country has repeatedly adapted to sanctions, the Soviet collapse, fuel shortages, food shortages, and limited access to technology. But resilience is not automatically prosperity. A society can be resilient and still underproductive, undercapitalized, and technologically constrained.
The strongest Cuban innovations are those that move beyond mere coping and become institutional capabilities. Biotechnology did this. Public health did this. Some agroecological practices did this. In these cases, Cuba did not merely improvise; it built systems. It trained scientists, created research institutes, linked laboratories to clinics, organized nationwide vaccination programs, and developed domestic production capacity. That is innovation in a strong sense. It is not simply hustle; it is mission-oriented, state-led innovation. Mazzucato’s concept of mission-oriented policy is helpful here, since such policies use frontier knowledge to pursue public goals—what she calls “big science deployed to meet big problems.”
But other Cuban practices remain closer to survival bricolage. A repaired bus, a modified car, a homemade machine, or a repurposed appliance may be ingenious, but it may not transform the productive structure of the economy. Such practices preserve use-value rather than generate systemic technological upgrading. They keep things alive, but they do not necessarily create new industries, new export sectors, or rising productivity. In this sense, Cuban “hustle” is both admirable and tragic: admirable because it shows intelligence under pressure; tragic because it reveals how much human creativity is spent compensating for shortage rather than expanding possibility.
The contemporary Cuban innovation system therefore contains at least three layers. The first is formal scientific innovation: biotechnology, vaccines, pharmaceuticals, public-health technologies, medical research, and selected agricultural sciences. The second is institutional-social innovation: universal health care, epidemiological surveillance, medical internationalism, urban agriculture, farmer experimentation, and cooperative forms of food production. The third is resilience-hustle: repair, reuse, substitution, informal engineering, household invention, and the constant recombination of scarce materials. All three are real. But they should not be confused.
The first layer can be judged by conventional scientific and technological standards: patents, clinical trials, publications, vaccines, therapeutics, manufacturing capacity, and export potential. The second layer should be judged by social effectiveness: whether institutions deploy knowledge across the population. The third layer should be judged by adaptive capacity: whether people can maintain function under scarcity. Cuba’s paradox is that it has all three, but the third layer often dominates everyday life because scarcity remains chronic.
Thus, Cuban innovation is not simply Western-style innovation, nor is it merely “hustle.” It is a hybrid formation produced by sanctions, socialist planning, human capital, public-health priorities, material scarcity, and long habits of repair. Its best achievements show genuine scientific capability. Its everyday practices show resilience and ingenuity. Its weaknesses show the limits of survival as a development strategy.
The final judgment must therefore be balanced. Cuba’s innovation should not be dismissed because it lacks the appearance of Western capitalist dynamism. A vaccine developed under embargo, a national public-health platform, an agroecological transition, or a worker-built replacement part can all be innovative. But neither should Cuban improvisation be romanticized as if scarcity itself were liberating. Scarcity can force creativity, but it also consumes it. The Cuban case teaches that resilience may sustain innovation, but it cannot substitute for abundance, modernization, open exchange, and productive transformation. In Cuba, innovation thrives because people and institutions have learned to survive; it struggles because survival has too often become the horizon of innovation itself.
Scholarly Assessment and Conclusion
Cuba should be assessed neither as a technological failure nor as an innovation powerhouse in the conventional sense. A more accurate scholarly judgment is that Cuba represents a distinctive, uneven, and historically specific innovation model: state-led, socially directed, institutionally integrated, and persistently constrained by scarcity. Its achievements are real, especially in biotechnology, vaccines, public health, medical training, agroecology, epidemiology, and repair-based engineering. Yet these achievements have not produced broad technological modernization across the whole economy. Cuba has created islands of scientific excellence, but not a diversified innovation economy comparable to South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Israel, China, or even Vietnam.
The Cuban case therefore challenges narrow assumptions about innovation. If innovation is defined only as private enterprise, venture capital, consumer technology, patent races, and high-growth firms, Cuba appears weak. But if innovation is understood more broadly as the production and implementation of new or improved products, processes, institutions, and systems, then Cuba clearly belongs within the study of innovation. The *Oslo Manual* defines innovation as a “new or improved product or process” that is made available or brought into use, a definition broad enough to include Cuban vaccines, public-health systems, agroecological methods, and repair-based technological adaptations.
Cuba’s strongest evidence lies in biotechnology and public health. The World Health Organization has treated Cuba as a significant case in local medicine production, technology transfer, and improved access to health. The WHO report on Cuba emphasizes local production not merely as industrial activity, but as part of a wider public-health strategy. Helen Yaffe similarly argues that Cuba’s biotechnology sector took on a strategic role in both public health and national development despite the blockade, and notes that “National health needs are prioritised” in the Cuban model. This explains why Cuba’s biotechnology cannot be understood simply as a small pharmaceutical industry. It is better understood as a mission-oriented public system connecting research institutes, hospitals, manufacturing facilities, state planning, and national health campaigns.
At the same time, Cuba’s scientific achievements should not be romanticized. The country’s model has depended heavily on state prioritization, human capital, and institutional discipline, but it has also suffered from chronic shortages, restricted access to equipment, limited foreign exchange, bureaucratic rigidity, and weak commercialization pathways. Pérez-Riverol’s bibliometric study notes that Cuban science is known for achievements in health care and biotechnology, but also finds that economic crisis, reduced investment, and emigration of scientists have harmed Cuban research output. The same study reports that Cuban scientific publications increased more slowly than those of many Latin American countries and that annual Cuban publications declined after 2014.
This tension is central to any serious conclusion. Cuba demonstrates that innovation does not depend solely on wealth, market size, or private capital. A poor country can produce internationally recognized science when it invests in education, builds public institutions, trains technical personnel, and organizes research around urgent national needs. Baracca and Franconi argue that Cuba made a “strategic choice” to pursue advanced scientific development after 1959, especially in fields that could address urgent problems of national development and reduce subordination. The Cuban experience therefore supports the argument that the state can play a formative role in innovation, especially when markets are absent, weak, or unable to meet social needs.
Yet Cuba also shows that state-led innovation alone is insufficient. Mission-oriented policy can concentrate resources and solve selected problems, but a national innovation system also requires diffusion, competition, investment, feedback, collaboration, and productive absorption across the wider economy. Cuba’s biotechnology sector produced high-level achievements, but the broader economy remained weak in advanced manufacturing, information technology, consumer industries, logistics, industrial productivity, and large-scale commercialization. In other words, Cuba proved that a state can build excellent scientific enclaves, but it did not prove that enclaves alone can modernize an economy.
This is why Cuba’s innovation system is best described as resilient but bounded. Its resilience lies in its ability to keep producing knowledge, medicines, public-health interventions, agricultural adaptations, and repair-based solutions under severe constraint. Its boundedness lies in the fact that many of these innovations remain trapped within scarcity. Repair culture keeps machines alive, but does not necessarily replace them with more productive ones. Agroecology reduces dependence on imported inputs, but does not fully solve food insecurity. Public health deploys limited resources efficiently, but still suffers from shortages of medicines, equipment, and personnel. Biotechnology produces world-class products, but faces problems of financing, scaling, regulation, and market access.
International collaboration further complicates the picture. Cuba has not been scientifically isolated in an absolute sense. Ronda-Pupo’s study of Cuba–U.S. scientific collaboration found sustained growth in joint publications from 1980 to 2020 and notes that by 2020 Cuba had expanded scientific links to “80% of the countries in the world.” This indicates that Cuba’s science survived partly because it remained connected to international networks despite political obstacles. However, those networks have operated under restrictions, sanctions, and diplomatic volatility. Cuba’s innovation system has therefore depended on a paradoxical combination of self-reliance and selective international exchange.
The Cuban case also forces a distinction between innovation and modernization. Cuba has innovated; this is difficult to deny. It developed vaccines, recombinant medicines, therapeutic products, epidemiological systems, urban agriculture, low-input farming practices, and extraordinary repair capabilities. But modernization requires more than innovation in isolated sectors. It requires rising productivity, industrial diversification, infrastructure renewal, digital capacity, firm formation, export competitiveness, and broad diffusion of technology across society. Cuba’s weakness is not the absence of innovation; it is the limited translation of innovation into generalized economic transformation.
Thus, the most balanced scholarly assessment is that Cuba represents a successful case of selective, mission-oriented innovation and an incomplete case of national technological development. Its achievements reveal the power of human capital, public investment, scientific planning, and social purpose. Its failures reveal the limits of scarcity, centralization, weak markets, low capital access, and constrained international integration. Cuba’s innovation system is impressive precisely because it has achieved so much under adverse conditions. But those adverse conditions also explain why its achievements remain partial.
In conclusion, Cuba’s experience expands the meaning of innovation. It shows that innovation can emerge not only from abundance but from scarcity; not only from private firms but from public institutions; not only from consumer markets but from social need; not only from competition but from coordination. However, it also warns against confusing resilience with prosperity. Scarcity may force ingenuity, but it also consumes it. Cuba’s scientific achievement is genuine, but it remains bounded by the economic and political constraints within which it was produced. The Cuban lesson is therefore double: a nation can innovate without abundance, but it cannot fully flourish on scarcity alone.
***
References
Academy of Sciences of Cuba. (n.d.). About us: Brief history. https://www.academiaciencias.cu/en/about-us
Altieri, M. A., Companioni, N., Cañizares, K., Murphy, C., Rosset, P., Bourque, M., & Nicholls, C. I. (1999). The greening of the “barrios”: Urban agriculture for food security in Cuba. Agriculture and Human Values, 16, 131–140. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1007545304561
Associated Press. (2026, June 8). Cuba’s iconic antique cars sit idle as U.S. energy blockade deepens fuel crisis. https://apnews.com/article/cuba-embargo-blockade-fuel-old-cars-b3ac1b1ed82fe3c3d1999351ad31d67d
Associated Press. (2026). An underwater bus in Havana becomes the ride that matters during Cuba’s fuel crisis. https://apnews.com/article/651702a70d12c3f54ee6018d532e9e54
Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329–366. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.329
Baracca, A., & Franconi, R. (2016). Cuba: The strategic choice of advanced scientific development, 1959–2014. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.00311
Benjamin, L. (2025). Repairability as a condition of the world: Ernesto Oroza’s archive of dis/repair. Theory, Culture & Society. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02632764231204858
Berlanga, J., Fernández, J. I., López, E., López, P. A., del Río, A., Valenzuela, C., Baldomero, J., & Muzio, V. L. (2013). Heberprot-P: A novel product for treating advanced diabetic foot ulcer. MEDICC Review. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23396236/
Cárdenas, A. (2009). The Cuban biotechnology industry: Innovation and universal health care. Institute for Institutional and Innovation Economics, University of Bremen. https://university.open.ac.uk/ikd/sites/www.open.ac.uk.ikd/files/files/events/innovation-and-inequality/andres-cardenas_paper.pdf
Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology. (n.d.). Heberprot-P. https://www.cigb.edu.cu/en/product/heberprot-p-2/
CMKC Radio Revolución. (2022, October 10). ANIR Santiago in the face of today’s economic changes. https://www.cmkc.cu/2022/10/anir-santiago-economic-changes/
Developing Countries Vaccine Manufacturers Network. (n.d.). Instituto Finlay de Vacunas. Retrieved July 10, 2026, from https://dcvmn.org/member/instituto_finlay_de_vacunas/
Enoch, M., Warren, J., Valdés Ríos, H., & Henríquez Menoyo, E. (2004). The effect of economic restrictions on transport practices in Cuba. Transport Policy, 11(1), 67–76. https://oro.open.ac.uk/2531/1/Enoch_Warren_TP_11.pdf
Fernández Prieto, L. (n.d.). Making tropical agriculture: Science, knowledge and practice in Cuba, 1881–1906. https://www.academia.edu/7086891/Making_Tropical_Agriculture_Science_Knowledge_and_Practice_in_Cuba_1881_1906
Global Development Network. (2020). Doing research in Venezuela: Science, technology and innovation capabilities to overcome the crisis in Venezuela. https://www.gdn.int/sites/default/files/u115/Venezuela%20Report%20English%20with%20ISBN.pdf
Gorry, C. (2022). Vaccines and public trust: Containing COVID-19 in Cuba. MEDICC Review. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35157633/
Hernández-Bernal, F., et al. (2023). A phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the Abdala COVID-19 vaccine. The Lancet Regional Health – Americas. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667193X23000716
Hossain, M. (2018). Frugal innovation: A review and research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, 926–936. https://newglobal.aalto.fi/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/hossain-frugal-innovation-a-review-and-research-agenda.pdf
International Monetary Fund. (1995). Singapore: A case study in rapid development. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/display/book/9781557754639/ch003.xml
Israel Innovation Authority. (n.d.). Strategy and policy. Retrieved July 10, 2026, from https://innovationisrael.org.il/en/strategy-and-policy/
Jiménez, T. L., Martínez, M., & Núñez, J. (2008). Cuban experiences on computing and education. International Federation for Information Processing. https://dl.ifip.org/db/conf/ifip3/histedu2008/JimenezMN08.pdf
Keck, C. W. (2021). Health equity, Cuban style. AMA Journal of Ethics, 23(3), E258–E264. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/health-equity-cuban-style/2021-03
Keck, C. W., & Reed, G. A. (2012). The curious case of Cuba. American Journal of Public Health, 102(8), e13–e22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3464859/
Kirk, J. M., & Erisman, H. M. (2009). Cuban medical internationalism: Origins, evolution, and goals. Palgrave Macmillan. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1057/9780230622227
Lage, A. (2012). The biotechnology sector in Cuba. MEDICC Review, 14(4), 7–12.
Lage, A. (2019). Science and challenges for Cuban public health in the 21st century. MEDICC Review. https://mediccreview.org/science-and-challenges-for-cuban-public-health-in-the-21st-century/
Leitgeb, F., Funes-Monzote, F. R., Kummer, S., & Vogl, C. R. (2011). Contribution of farmers’ experiments and innovations to Cuba’s agricultural innovation system. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/renewable-agriculture-and-food-systems/article/contribution-of-farmers-experiments-and-innovations-to-cubas-agricultural-innovation-system/816C1861C77040C63B3CAA0967E24F35
Limonta, M. (1989). Biotechnology and the Third World: Development strategies in Cuba. Interciencia. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2698096/
Machín Sosa, B., Roque Jaime, A. M., Ávila Lozano, D. R., & Rosset, P. M. (2013). Agroecological revolution: The farmer-to-farmer movement of the ANAP in Cuba. Asociación Nacional de Agricultores Pequeños / La Vía Campesina. https://viacampesina.org/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/07/Agroecological-revolution-ENGLISH.pdf
Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented innovation policies: Challenges and opportunities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5), 803–815. https://academic.oup.com/icc/article/27/5/803/5127692
Mesa-Lago, C. (2021). Voices of change in Cuba: Non-state actors speak out. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Mu, X. Z., et al. (2018). Analysis of Venezuela’s oil-oriented economy from the perspective of entropy. Petroleum Science. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12182-018-0215-4
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2001). Bridging the innovation gap in Russia. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2001/09/bridging-the-innovation-gap-in-russia_g1ghg991/9789264195769-en.pdf
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). OECD reviews of innovation policy: Korea 2023. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-reviews-of-innovation-policy-korea-2023_bdcf9685-en.html
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2024). Made in China 2025. STIP Compass. https://stip.oecd.org/stip/interactive-dashboards/policy-initiatives/2023%2Fdata%2FpolicyInitiatives%2F16861
OECD/Eurostat. (2018). Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for collecting, reporting and using data on innovation (4th ed.). OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2018/10/oslo-manual-2018_g1g9373b.html
Ojeda, J. H. (2024). Evolution of nuclear science and technology in Cuba from 1959 to the end of the 20th century. https://southam.pub/journals/files/mo/mo2024117en.pdf
Oroza, E. (2016). Con nuestros propios esfuerzos. Technological Disobedience Archive. https://www.technologicaldisobedience.com/2016/05/16/book-con-nuestros-propios-esfuerzos-verde-olivo-cuba-1992/
Oroza, E. (2018). Ernesto Oroza on technological disobedience in Cuba. Walker Art Center. https://www.walkerart.org/reader/ernesto-oroza-technological-disobedience-cuba/
Pérez-Riverol, Y. (2020). Trends in Cuban research output: Publications and patents. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.09638
Reid-Henry, S. (2010). The Cuban cure: Reason and resistance in global science. University of Chicago Press.
Reuters. (2024, July 18). Havana’s roads change as Cubans adopt electric bikes and vehicles. https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/havanas-roads-change-cubans-adopt-electric-bikes-vehicles-2024-07-18/
Reuters. (2026, February 27). Havana rides a bicycle boom as U.S. chokes off fuel to Cuba. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/havana-rides-bicycle-boom-us-chokes-off-fuel-cuba-2026-02-27/
Rognoli, V., & Oroza, E. (2015). “Worker, build your own machinery!” A workshop to practice technological disobedience. PLATE Conference Proceedings. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277326650_Worker_build_your_own_machinery_A_workshop_to_practice_the_Technological_Disobedience
Ronda-Pupo, G. A. (2021). Cuba–U.S. scientific collaboration: Beyond the embargo. PLOS ONE, 16(7), e0255106. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0255106
Rosset, P. M. (n.d.). Cuba’s national policy for alternative agriculture. International Institute for Environment and Development. https://www.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/migrate/6346IIED.pdf
Rosset, P. M., Machín Sosa, B., Roque Jaime, A. M., & Ávila Lozano, D. R. (2011). The Campesino-to-Campesino agroecology movement of ANAP in Cuba: Social process methodology in the construction of sustainable peasant agriculture and food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(1), 161–191. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49801215_The_Campesino-to-Campesino_Agroecology_Movement_of_ANAP_in_Cuba_Social_Process_Methodology_in_the_Construction_of_Sustainable_Peasant_Agriculture_and_Food_Sovereignty
Rúa de Cabo, A. (1995). The Special Period and the environment. Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy. https://ascecubadatabase.org/asce_proceedings/the-special-period-and-the-environment/
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Harvard University Press. https://www.essentialscholars.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/essential-joseph-schumpeter-ch2_0.pdf
Sotolongo, F., Campa, C., Casanueva, V., Fajardo, E. M., Cuevas, I. E., & González, N. (2007). Cuban meningococcal BC vaccine: Experiences and contributions from 20 years of application. MEDICC Review. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21487356/
The Wall Street Journal. (2026). U.S. targets one of Cuba’s last lifelines: Its army of overseas doctors. https://www.wsj.com/world/americas/u-s-targets-one-of-cubas-last-lifelines-its-army-of-overseas-doctors-439d479e
Thorsteinsdóttir, H., Sáenz, T. W., Quach, U., Daar, A. S., & Singer, P. A. (2004). Cuba—Innovation through synergy. Nature Biotechnology, 22(Suppl.), DC19–DC24. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15583679/
Toledo-Romaní, M. E., et al. (2024). Real-world effectiveness of the heterologous Soberana 02–Soberana Plus immunization scheme in children aged 2–11 years. The Lancet Regional Health – Americas. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(24)00077-2/fulltext
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. (2016). Opening up, Iran has opportunity to commercialize its science and technology skills. https://unctad.org/news/opening-iran-has-opportunity-commercialize-its-science-and-technology-skills
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. (2021). Industrial strategy and policies on foreign direct investment in East Asia. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/iteiitv4n3a2_en.pdf
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. (2004). Weathering the storm: Lessons in risk reduction from Cuba. https://www.eird.org/isdr-biblio/PDF/Cuba%20Weathering.pdf
United States Department of State. (n.d.). Cuba sanctions. Retrieved July 10, 2026, from https://www.state.gov/cuba-sanctions/
von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. MIT Press. https://direct.mit.edu/books/book/2821/Democratizing-Innovation
Weyrauch, T., & Herstatt, C. (2017). What is frugal innovation? Three defining criteria. Journal of Frugal Innovation, 2(1), 1–17. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40669-016-0005-y
World Bank. (2020). Global value chains. https://www.worldbank.org/ext/en/topic/trade/global-value-chains
World Bank. (2021). Vietnam: Science, technology and innovation report. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/929681629871018154/pdf/Vietnam-Science-Technology-and-Innovation-Report.pdf
World Bank. (2024). Viet Nam 2045: Trading up in a changing world. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099111424204523679/pdf/P1787841e077190d919b24181b4dcb14765.pdf
World Bank. (2026). Viet Nam overview. Retrieved July 10, 2026, from https://www.worldbank.org/ext/en/country/vietnam
World Health Organization. (2015). Cuban experience with local production of medicines, technology transfer and improving access to health. WHO. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241509718
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2008). IP policy at the Cuban biotechnology. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_ip_lss3_08/wipo_ip_lss3_08_www_114637.pdf
Yaffe, H. (2019). The curious case of Cuba’s biotech revolution. In I. Inkster (Ed.), History of technology: Volume 34. Bloomsbury Academic. https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/181175/
Zepeda, L. (2003). Cuban agriculture: A green and red revolution. Choices Magazine. https://www.choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/submitted-articles/cuban-agriculture-a-green-and-red-revolution