Latin American scholars integrated their research on the National Innovation System (NIS) with the realities of their nations’ pursuit of the development model in the area of science and technology. Raul Prebisch believed that the industrial countries, or the center, benefited more from the advance of modern technology than the developing nations, or the periphery. The rapid the technological progress, the wider the gap between the center and the periphery. Maria Inês Bastos said that a nation’s capability in the field of basic research is the focus of its NIS, and the government plays an important role in strengthening this capacity by undertaking the role of designing proper policy and making investment in related infrastructures. She also noted that a tripartite model of combining the government, the private sector and foreign capital might be applied by all the developing countries. Influenced by the center-periphery theory and structuralism, Ludovico Alcorta held a somewhat pessimistic view, contending that Latin American countries’ shortcomings lie in the specialized economic structures, thus leading to the fact that much more resources are devoted to the sectors producing primary commodities than to the high-tech sectors. Latin America’s NIS has undergone through three stages: 1) From the 1950s to the 1960s the governments established some scientific and technological organizations. 2) From the 1960s to the end of the 1980s more research organizations emerged and policies for the development of national innovation started to take shape in more countries. 3) From the 1990s onward, with the on-going reforms , development of NIS started to show the following characteristics: First, the government is playing a less important role in technological development. Second, the privatization wave changed the role of the public enterprises in high-tech development. Third, evolution of the NIS model has been influenced by economic liberalization. Latin American scholars integrated their research on the National Innovation System (NIS) with the realities of their nations’ pursuit of the development model in the area of ​​science and technology. Raul Prebisch believed that the industrial countries, or the center, benefited more from the advance of modern technology than the developing nations, or the periphery. The rapid the technological progress, the wider the gap between the center and the periphery. Maria Inês Bastos said that a nation’s capability in the field of basic research is the focus of its NIS , and the government plays an important role in strengthening this capacity by undertaking the role of designing proper policy and making investment in related infrastructures. She also noted that a tripartite model of combining the government, the private sector and foreign capital might be applied by all the developing countries. Influenced by the center-periphery theory and structuralism, Ludovico Alcorta held a somewhat pessimistic view, contending that Latin American countries’ shortcomings lie in the specialized economic structures, thus leading to the fact that much more resources are devoted to the sectors producing primary commodities than to the high-tech sectors. Latin America’s NIS has undergone through three stages : 1) From the 1950s to the 1960s the governments established some scientific and technological organizations. 2) From the 1960s to the end of the 1980s more research organizations emerged and policies for the development of national innovation started to take shape in more countries. 3 From the 1990s onward, with the on-going reforms, development of NIS started to show the following characteristics: First, the government is playing a less important role in technological development. Second, the privatization wave changed the role of the public enterprises in high-tech development. Third, evolution of the NIS model has been influenced by economic liberalizat ion.