Ética y responsabilidad social corporativa

Desde las dos últimas décadas del pasado siglo, el comportamiento de las empresas está evolucionando hacia una competitividad empresarial que se basa no sólo en la obtención de beneficios económicos, sino también en actuaciones que favorezcan su entorno social y medioambiental, mediante la adopción de políticas de mejora de las condiciones laborales, respeto a los derechos humanos, desarrollo de programas de recuperación de los entornos naturales, etcétera. En la actualidad, el término «responsabilidad social corporativa» es utilizado de forma generalizada para designar el compromiso de las empresas respecto a estas cuestiones demandadas por la sociedad. Este artículo relaciona los aspectos éticos y morales con este cambio en el comportamiento empresarial

La actividad emprendedora y competitividad: factores que inciden sobre los emprendedores

Competitiveness in a broad sense is based on a series of pillars in which entrepreneurships play an important role. Due to this fact together with the positive relationship between entrepreneurship and economic growth it is necessary to design appropriate measures to encourage such activity. In this article, in addition to presenting entrepreneurship characteristics, we analyze the effects that fiscal and monetary policies on entrepreneurships.La competividad en un sentido amplio se fundamenta en una serie de pilares en los que los emprendedores desempeñan un papel importante. Ello junto con la relación positiva que guardan con el crecimiento económico hace que sea necesario que se diseñen medidas adecuadas para estimular dicha actividad. En este artículo, además de exponer las características del emprendedurismo, analizaremos los efectos que ejercen las políticas fiscal y monetaria sobre los emprendedores

Crecimiento, progreso económico y emprendimiento

ResumenLos economistas han estado tradicionalmente interesados en analizar los factores que estimulan el crecimiento económico y uno de los que se han contemplado es el papel desempeñado por los emprendedores. Ahora bien, en este análisis es necesario también contemplar cómo se ve afectado el progreso económico y también la justicia distributiva. Habitualmente se ha considerado que crecimiento y progreso eran sinónimos, pero siguiendo a Holcombe (2007) cabe distinguirlos ya que el primero está relacionado con la cantidad de producto mientras que el progreso económico lo está con la calidad del producto. Ello es importante porque algunas de las medidas de política económica diseñadas para favorecer el crecimiento pueden generar problemas, por ejemplo, desigualdad, que habrá que solucionar, por ejemplo a través de un «principio de compensación» para evitar que la justicia distributiva y el progreso se vean perjudicados. El objetivo de este artículo es analizar estas cuestiones. Para ello comenzaremos refiriéndonos a la relación que existe entre crecimiento y progreso económicos, para pasar después a centrarnos en los aspectos de la justicia distributiva y a exponer algunas medidas a llevar a cabo para favorecer a ambos desde el ámbito de la política económica.AbstractEconomists have traditionally been interest in analyzing economic growth enhancing factors. Entrepreneurship is one of factors considered by economists. However, in this analysis is also necessary to be considered how economic progress and distributive justice are affected. Usually economic growth and progress have been considered as synonymous, but following Holcombe (2007) it is possible to distinguish them since the former is related to the amount of product while economic progress is related to the quality of the product. This is important because some of the economic policy measures designed to promote economic growth can generate problems, for example, inequality. These problems could be solved, for example through a “compensation principle” to avoid that distributive justice and progress will be harmed. The aim of this article is to analyze these issues. We will begin considering the relationship between economic growth and progress in order to focus on the aspects of distributive justice and to design some economic policy measures to enhance economic growth and progress

Perfil del donante tipo en España a partir de las fuentes tributarias. 2002-2010

Este documento analiza las características del donante típico español y las tendencias de sus donaciones a entidades sin fines de lucro (ESFL) a partir del análisis de las declaraciones de Impuesto sobre la Renta de Personas Físicas (IRPF) y del Impuesto de Sociedades (IS) para las Comunidades Autónomas de Régimen Común presentadas entre 2002 y 2012. El estudio, pionero para el sector fundacional, se apoya en una explotación estadística de los microdatos de declarantes, diseñados por el Instituto de Estudios Fiscales y la Agencia Estatal de Administración Tributaría (AEAT), y refleja el nivel mínimo de donaciones efectuadas (aquellas que figuran en la declaración de IRPF e IS por disponer de derecho a deducción)

Progreso económico: diferentes planteamientos y aspectos morales y sociales

El estudio del progreso no es algo nuevo. Los pensadores griegos señalaron que el progreso significa un avance progresivo de la ciencia y la tecnología y, algunas veces, este avance se relaciona con la felicidad. Parte de la literatura existente ha identificado el progreso económico con el crecimiento económico. Sin embargo, existe una diferencia importante entre ambos conceptos. Como afirma Holcombe, el crecimiento económico hace referencia a la cantidad de productos, mientras que el progreso económico se refiere a la calidad de los mismos. El objetivo de este artículo es analizar estos tres puntos de vista, mostrando las diferentes implicaciones para la sociedad, teniendo en cuenta algunos factores que deben considerarse en el progreso económico, como los consumos morales y la distribución del ingreso, entre otros

Relationship between ambidexterity andentrepreneurial intensity

[EN] Within organisational analysis, a concept that has been gaining importance has been organisational ambidexterity, where two factors play an important role: entrepreneurial intensity and innovations. The objective of this article is to analyse the relationship between entrepreneurial intensity and ambidexterity. The conceptualisation of ambidexterity distinguishes between ambidextrous activities and ambidextrous outcomes. To carry out this objective, we have tested several theoretical relationships. We have used partial least squares methodology to develop an empirical study in 25 European countries. Results confirm that collaboration networks have a positive effect on entrepreneurship intensity. This effect is greater than the one obtained by ambidextrous activities or new technologies. We also show that entrepreneurship intensity has a mediating role between ambidextrous activities and ambidextrous outcomes.Castaño-Martínez, M.; Galindo-Martín, M.; Méndez-Picazo, M.; Palacios Marqués, D. (2020). Relationship between ambidexterity andentrepreneurial intensity. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istra ivanja. 33(1):2410-2426. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2019.1595084S24102426331Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: how the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), 306-333. doi:10.1002/smj.821Faisal Ahammad, M., Mook Lee, S., Malul, M., & Shoham, A. (2015). Behavioral Ambidexterity: The Impact of Incentive Schemes on Productivity, Motivation, and Performance of Employees in Commercial Banks. Human Resource Management, 54(S1), s45-s62. doi:10.1002/hrm.21668Ambos, T. C., Mäkelä, K., Birkinshaw, J., & D’Este, P. (2008). When Does University Research Get Commercialized? Creating Ambidexterity in Research Institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1424-1447. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00804.xAntoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. D. (2001). Intrapreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 495-527. doi:10.1016/s0883-9026(99)00054-3Brem, A. (2017). Creativity and routine: conceptual considerations on managing organisational ambidexterity in entrepreneurial ventures. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 21(3), 261. doi:10.1504/ijeim.2017.083472Burgelman, R. A. (1983). Corporate Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management: Insights from a Process Study. Management Science, 29(12), 1349-1364. doi:10.1287/mnsc.29.12.1349Burgers, J. H., Jansen, J. J. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Structural differentiation and corporate venturing: The moderating role of formal and informal integration mechanisms. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(3), 206-220. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.01.006Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking Organizational Ambidexterity: Dimensions, Contingencies, and Synergistic Effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781-796. doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0426Cassis, Y., & Minoglou, I. P. (2005). Entrepreneurship in Theory and History: State of the Art and New Perspectives. Entrepreneurship in Theory and History, 3-21. doi:10.1057/9780230522633_1Cesinger, B., Hughes, M., Mensching, H., Bouncken, R., Fredrich, V., & Kraus, S. (2016). A socioemotional wealth perspective on how collaboration intensity, trust, and international market knowledge affect family firms’ multinationality. Journal of World Business, 51(4), 586-599. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2016.02.004Cooper, A. C., & Dunkelberg, W. C. (1986). Entrepreneurship and paths to business ownership. Strategic Management Journal, 7(1), 53-68. doi:10.1002/smj.4250070106Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75-87. doi:10.1002/smj.4250100107Dai, Y., Du, K., Byun, G., & Zhu, X. (2017). Ambidexterity in new ventures: The impact of new product development alliances and transactive memory systems. Journal of Business Research, 75, 77-85. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.02.009Dakhli, M., & De Clercq, D. (2004). Human capital, social capital, and innovation: a multi-country study. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 16(2), 107-128. doi:10.1080/08985620410001677835Davis, J. P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2011). Rotating Leadership and Collaborative Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(2), 159-201. doi:10.1177/0001839211428131De Carolis, D. M., & Saparito, P. (2006). Social Capital, Cognition, and Entrepreneurial Opportunities: A Theoretical Framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 41-56. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00109.xFornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39. doi:10.2307/3151312Fukuyama, F. (2000). Social capital and civil society (International Monetary Fund Working Paper, 74). Washington, DC: Springer.Galindo, M.-Á., & Méndez, M. T. (2014). Entrepreneurship, economic growth, and innovation: Are feedback effects at work? Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 825-829. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.11.052Gartner, W. B. (1985). A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon of New Venture Creation. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 696-706. doi:10.5465/amr.1985.4279094Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). THE ANTECEDENTS, CONSEQUENCES, AND MEDIATING ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL AMBIDEXTERITY. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209-226. doi:10.2307/20159573Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Project (GEM) (2016). APS-Global data 2012. Retrieved from http://www.gemconsortium.org/data/sets. Accessed 25 May 2016.Gulati, R., & Sytch, M. (2007). Dependence Asymmetry and Joint Dependence in Interorganizational Relationships: Effects of Embeddedness on a Manufacturer’s Performance in Procurement Relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 32-69. doi:10.2189/asqu.52.1.32Heavey, C., & Simsek, Z. (2016). Distributed Cognition in Top Management Teams and Organizational Ambidexterity. Journal of Management, 43(3), 919-945. doi:10.1177/0149206314545652Hitt, M. A., Lee, H., & Yucel, E. (2002). Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2/3), 353-372. doi:10.1023/a:1016247920461Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. (2009). The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9), 1411-1431. doi:10.1057/jibs.2009.24Jones, G. R., & Butler, J. E. (1992). Managing Internal Corporate Entrepreneurship: An Agency Theory Perspective. Journal of Management, 18(4), 733-749. doi:10.1177/014920639201800408Kaasa, A. (2009). Effects of different dimensions of social capital on innovative activity: Evidence from Europe at the regional level. Technovation, 29(3), 218-233. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2008.01.003Kafouros, M. I., Buckley, P. J., Sharp, J. A., & Wang, C. (2008). The role of internationalization in explaining innovation performance. Technovation, 28(1-2), 63-74. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2007.07.009Koryak, O., Lockett, A., Hayton, J., Nicolaou, N., & Mole, K. (2018). Disentangling the antecedents of ambidexterity: Exploration and exploitation. Research Policy, 47(2), 413-427. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2017.12.003Kotabe, M., Srinivasan, S. S., & Aulakh, P. S. (2002). Multinationality and Firm Performance: The Moderating Role of R&D and Marketing Capabilities. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(1), 79-97. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8491006Krauss, S. I., Frese, M., Friedrich, C., & Unger, J. M. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation: A psychological model of success among southern African small business owners. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14(3), 315-344. doi:10.1080/13594320500170227Kuratko, D. F., & Morris, M. H. (2018). Corporate Entrepreneurship: A Critical Challenge for Educators and Researchers. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 42-60. doi:10.1177/2515127417737291Kyoon Yoo, D. (2014). Substructures of perceived knowledge quality and interactions with knowledge sharing and innovativeness: a sensemaking perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(3), 523-537. doi:10.1108/jkm-09-2013-0362LAWSON, B., & SAMSON, D. (2001). DEVELOPING INNOVATION CAPABILITY IN ORGANISATIONS: A DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES APPROACH. International Journal of Innovation Management, 05(03), 377-400. doi:10.1142/s1363919601000427Liao, J., & Welsch, H. (2003). Social capital and entrepreneurial growth aspiration: a comparison of technology- and non-technology-based nascent entrepreneurs. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), 149-170. doi:10.1016/s1047-8310(03)00009-9Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking It to Performance. The Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135. doi:10.2307/258632Lyon, D. W., Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2000). Enhancing Entrepreneurial Orientation Research: Operationalizing and Measuring a Key Strategic Decision Making Process. Journal of Management, 26(5), 1055-1085. doi:10.1177/014920630002600503March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87. doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71Martinez-Conesa, I., Soto-Acosta, P., & Carayannis, E. G. (2017). On the path towards open innovation: assessing the role of knowledge management capability and environmental dynamism in SMEs. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(3), 553-570. doi:10.1108/jkm-09-2016-0403Miller, D. (1983). The Correlates of Entrepreneurship in Three Types of Firms. Management Science, 29(7), 770-791. doi:10.1287/mnsc.29.7.770Morris, M. H., & Paul, G. W. (1987). The relationship between entrepreneurship and marketing in established firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(3), 247-259. doi:10.1016/0883-9026(87)90012-7Morris, M. H., & Sexton, D. L. (1996). The concept of entrepreneurial intensity: Implications for company performance. Journal of Business Research, 36(1), 5-13. doi:10.1016/0148-2963(95)00158-1Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266. doi:10.5465/amr.1998.533225Oparaocha, G. O. (2016). Towards building internal social network architecture that drives innovation: a social exchange theory perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(3), 534-556. doi:10.1108/jkm-06-2015-0212O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present, and Future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338. doi:10.5465/amp.2013.0025Palacios-Marqués, D., Popa, S., & Pilar Alguacil Mari, M. (2016). The effect of online social networks and competency-based management on innovation capability. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(3), 499-511. doi:10.1108/jkm-05-2015-0175Patel, P. C., Messersmith, J. G., & Lepak, D. P. (2013). Walking the Tightrope: An Assessment of the Relationship between High-Performance Work Systems and Organizational Ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1420-1442. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0255Phene, A., Tallman, S., & Almeida, P. (2010). When Do Acquisitions Facilitate Technological Exploration and Exploitation? Journal of Management, 38(3), 753-783. doi:10.1177/0149206310369939Pittiglio, R., Sica, E., & Villa, S. (2009). Innovation and internationalization: the case of Italy. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(6), 588-602. doi:10.1007/s10961-009-9107-5Rezende, J., Torres, A., Nicolini, A., Correia, A., & Bernardes, R. (2016). Integrating enabling contexts and ambidexterity to create Intellectual Capital faculty’s competencies on undergraduate Business Management programs. Intangible Capital, 12(4), 1006. doi:10.3926/ic.724Roldán Bravo, M. I., Ruiz-Moreno, A., & Lloréns Montes, F. J. (2018). Examining desorptive capacity in supply chains: the role of organizational ambidexterity. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 38(2), 534-553. doi:10.1108/ijopm-12-2016-0751Rothaermel, F. T., & Alexandre, M. T. (2009). Ambidexterity in Technology Sourcing: The Moderating Role of Absorptive Capacity. Organization Science, 20(4), 759-780. doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0404Rothaermel, F. T., & Hess, A. M. (2007). Building Dynamic Capabilities: Innovation Driven by Individual-, Firm-, and Network-Level Effects. Organization Science, 18(6), 898-921. doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0291Sarkees, M., & Hulland, J. (2009). Innovation and efficiency: It is possible to have it all. Business Horizons, 52(1), 45-55. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2008.08.002Scheepers, R., Hough, J., & Bloom, J. (2013). Entrepreneurial intensity: A comparative analysis of established companies in South Africa. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 10(2), 238-255. doi:10.4102/sajems.v10i2.585Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J. F., & Souder, D. (2009). A Typology for Aligning Organizational Ambidexterity’s Conceptualizations, Antecedents, and Outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 46(5), 864-894. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00841.xSoto-Acosta, P., & Meroño-Cerdan, A. L. (2008). Analyzing e-business value creation from a resource-based perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 28(1), 49-60. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2007.05.001Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The Influence of Intellectual Capital on the Types of Innovative Capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450-463. doi:10.5465/amj.2005.17407911Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). SOCIAL CAPITAL AND VALUE CREATION: THE ROLE OF INTRAFIRM NETWORKS. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464-476. doi:10.2307/257085Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-29. doi:10.2307/41165852Tushman, M., Smith, W. K., Wood, R. C., Westerman, G., & O’Reilly, C. (2010). Organizational designs and innovation streams. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(5), 1331-1366. doi:10.1093/icc/dtq040Uotila, J., Maula, M., Keil, T., & Zahra, S. A. (2009). Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 30(2), 221-231. doi:10.1002/smj.738Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A., Santoro, G., & Papa, A. (2016). Ambidexterity, external knowledge and performance in knowledge-intensive firms. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(2), 374-388. doi:10.1007/s10961-016-9502-7Heli Wang, & Jiatao Li. (2008). Untangling the Effects of Overexploration and Overexploitation on Organizational Performance: The Moderating Role of Environmental Dynamism†. Journal of Management, 34(5), 925-951. doi:10.1177/0149206308321547Williams, A. M., & Shaw, G. (2011). Internationalization and innovation in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(1), 27-51. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2010.09.006World Bank (2016). World Development Indicators. Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators. Accessed 2 April 2016.Zahra, S. A. (1993). A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior: A Critique and Extension. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(4), 5-21. doi:10.1177/104225879301700401Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G. (1995). Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(1), 43-58. doi:10.1016/0883-9026(94)00004-eZahra, S. A., & Nielsen, A. P. (2002). Sources of capabilities, integration and technology commercialization. Strategic Management Journal, 23(5), 377-398. doi:10.1002/smj.229Zortea-Johnston, E., Darroch, J., & Matear, S. (2011). Business orientations and innovation in small and medium sized enterprises. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 8(2), 145-164. doi:10.1007/s11365-011-0170-

The Relationship between Green Innovation, Social Entrepreneurship, and Sustainable Development

Economic growth is one of the important objectives of economic policy due to the beneficial effects it has on employment and economic well-being. The work carried out in the last few decades has highlighted the roles that entrepreneurship and innovation play in promoting this objective. However, the environmental deterioration resulting from policies implemented to stimulate growth has led to considerations of other objectives that are more compatible with the defense of the environment, such as sustainable development. Therefore, it is important to determine the factors that stimulate them. This paper considers traditional and social entrepreneurship and innovations and green innovation. The effect of institutions as generators of legal and economic environments on both types of entrepreneurship is contemplated. On the other hand, considering the possibility of “bidirectional causality”, the relationship between both types of entrepreneurship and institutions is also analyzed. This will allow us to design measures aimed at stimulating sustainable development. The objective of this paper is to analyze these relationships through two estimates: first, an analysis of the relationship between both types of entrepreneurship and innovations and sustainable development and second, the relationship between social and traditional entrepreneurship and institutions. In both cases, the path coefficient of each of them is compared with respect to the final objective, which would be useful when designing economic policies. Empirical analysis is carried out, producing an estimation of the structural equation modeling (SEM) model using the partial least squares (PLS) technique in the case of 20 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries

Expansion of serotype coverage in the universal pediatric vaccination calendar: Short-term effects on age- and serotype-dependent incidence of invasive pneumococcal clinical presentations in Madrid, Spain

In Madrid, Spain, the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) replaced PCV7 in the pediatric universal vaccination calendar in June 2010. A prospective clinical surveillance that included all children hospitalized with culture- and/or PCR-confirmed invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) was performed in all Madrid hospitals. The incidence rates (IRs) (defined as the number of cases/100,000 inhabitants aged<15 years) in the PCV7 (May 2007 to April 2010) versus PCV13 (May 2011 to April 2012) periods were compared. There were 499 cases in the PCV7 period and 79 cases in the PCV13 period. Globally, the IR significantly decreased from 17.09 (PCV7 period) to 7.70 (PCV13 period), with significant decreases (PCV7 versus PCV13 periods) in all age groups for bacteremic pneumonia (5.51 versus 1.56), parapneumonic pneumococcal empyema (PPE) (5.72 versus 3.12), and meningitis (2.16 versus 0.97). In the PCV13 period, significant reductions (the IR in the PCV7 period versus the IR in the PCV13 period) were found in IPDs caused by PCV13 serotypes (13.49 versus 4.38), and specifically by serotypes 1 (globally [4.79 versus 2.53], for bacteremic pneumonia [2.23 versus 0.97], and for PPE [2.26 versus 1.17]), serotype 5 (globally [1.88 versus 0.00], for bacteremic pneumonia [0.89 versus 0.00], and for PPE [0.55 versus 0.00]), and serotype 19A (globally [3.77 versus 0.49], for bacteremic pneumonia [0.72 versus 0.00], for PPE [0.89 versus 0.00], and for meningitis [0.62 versus 0.00]). IPDs caused by non- PCV13 serotypes did not increase (IR, 3.60 in the PCV7 period versus 3.31 in the PCV13 period), regardless of age or presentation. No IPDs caused by the PCV13 serotypes were found in children who received 3 doses of PCV13. The number of hospitalization days and sanitary costs were significantly lower in the PCV13 period. The switch from PCV7 to PCV13 in the universal pediatric vaccination calendar provided sanitary and economical benefits without a replacement by non-PCV13 serotypesThis work was supported in part by an unrestricted grant from Pfizer S.L.U., Madrid, Spain. J.P. and J.R.-C. have received travel fees from Pfizer for attending and/or speaking at symposiums and congresses. C.M. is an employee of Pfizer S.L.U., Madrid, Spain

Cooperación al Desarrollo en el Aula Universitaria

El proyecto pretende contextualizar las asignaturas implicadas en el mismo para que el alumno perciba algunas relaciones económicas y sociales injustas que generan pobreza, incorporando conceptos y actividades de carácter solidari