Transcript Innovation Potential of the NIS Countries: View from

International Seminar
Multilateral Cooperation in Innovation
Alexandria, 15-16 June 2008
Innovation Potential of the NIS
Countries: View from Outside and
Inside
Oleg Shatberashvili
Georgian Federation for Information
and Documentation
gfid@caucasus. net
Background
• R&D&I systems - backbone of a
sustainable development of any country
• The growth rate of scientific activity in
many developing countries compared to
the developed ones made up 3:2
• At the start of 1990s all the former Soviet
countries had showed a sharp negative
growth of economy (twofold and more)
• The majority of NIS countries fall,
according to their GDP per capita, in the
range of developing countries
Innovation channels
National R&D
Purchase of licenses
Imported capital goods
Innovation Potential Assessment
• In 2006 RAND CORPORATION had
published a report of an innovation
potential of countries of the World.
• The basic concept was the critical role of
country R&D system not only in countries'
ability to generate innovations, but to
accept innovations as well.
• The NIS countries' potentials were low
ranked, due mainly to preceding
assessment of the state of R&D systems.
Selected countries
Note
• 29 countries represent the World
• Georgia represents Europe-located NIS countries
( such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova)
• Georgia seems also to be the closest
representative of the Central Asian post- soviet
countries
Critical Technologies 2020
1. Cheap solar energy
2. Rural wireless communications
3. Communication devices for ubiquitous
information access anywhere, anytime
4. Genetically modified (GM) crops
5. Rapid bioassays
6. Filters and catalysts for water purification
and decontamination;
7. Targeted drug delivery
8. Cheap autonomous housing
Critical Technologies 2020
9. Green manufacturing
10. Ubiquitous RFID* tagging of commercial
products and individuals
11. Hybrid vehicles
12. Pervasive sensors
13. Tissue engineering
14. Improved diagnostic and surgical methods
15. Wearable computers
16. Quantum cryptography
Major drivers and barriers to
technology implementation
1. Cost and financing
2. Laws and policies
3. Social values, public opinion, and politics
4. Infrastructure
5. Privacy concerns
6. Resource use and environmental health
7. R&D investment
8. Education and literacy
9. Population and demographics
10. Governance and political stability.
Data Used for the Assessment
• United Nations’ Human Development
Index
• RAND S&T Capacity Index
• World Bank’s Knowledge Economy Index
• Central Intelligence Agency’s World
Factbook.
• RAND S&T Capacity Index (2001) – is the
most critical in the study
Countries by Number of the Top 16 TAs
14 to 16 TAs
Australia
Canada
Germany
Israel
Japan
South Korea
United States
10 to 12 TAs
China
India
Poland
Russia
6 to 9 TAs
Brazil
Chile
1 to 5 TAs
Cameroon
Chad
Colombia
Indonesia
Mexico
Dom.Republic
Egypt
Fiji
South Africa
Turkey
Georgia
Iran
Jordan
Kenya
Nepal
Pakistan
RAND Assessment of the 4th Group
• Countries in this group have the capacity
to acquire only the 5 TAs that require a
minimum level of S&T capacity
(institutional, human, and physical
capacity to implement).
• For them, it is more about building
capacity- because there is virtually none rather than reconciling or modifying what
is present with the demands of these TAs.
•
•
•
•
How countries use these assessments?
For a number of reasons assessments of this
sort are hardly accepted in NIS countries.
First, they strongly differ from existing selfestimation, especially in the academic
communities. It creates a psichologicall
problem.
Second, there are other though less
comprehensive assessments showing
different results, including based on the
citation data ones.
There are both rationall assessments and
data misuse based assessments as well.
Comparison of country rates
RAND data (2006)
S&T
Rate
Country
Index
19. Russia
0.89
29. Ukraine
0.32
30. Belarus
0.32
37. Azerbaijan
0.11
47. Uzbekistan
- 0.05
52. Moldova
- 0.11
55. Armenia
- 0.19
69. Turkmenistan
- 0.30
74. Kyrgyz Republic - 0.33
77. Tajikistan
- 0.34
82. Kazakhstan
- 0.38
97. Georgia
- 0.44
ISI data (2000 –2005)
Rate
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8-9
8-9
10
11
12
Country
Russia
Armenia
Ukraine
Belarus
Georgia
Moldova
Azerbaijan
Kazakhstan
Uzbekistan
Kyrgyz Rep.
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Latvia
Publications
/annum
/mill.popul.
180
140
80
80
70
60
30
20
15
10
6
<2
120
Data placed on the right side
• Often correspond to the level of countries with
higher GDP per capita and GERD/GDP.
• Number of articles reflected in the ISI data
bases constitute a much smaller part (3 - 5%) of
the total number of national articles then in the
majority of foreign countries, especially English
speaking ones.
• A transitional scientific communication scheme
on the one hand and the peculiarities of
reflection of non English publications in the ISI
data bases on the other prevent even higher
reflection.
Other estimations
• There are even more optimistic estimations.
• Reflection/visibility in ISI data bases is growing
almost in all NIS countries.
• This fact is often used as a supporting evidence
for positive results of research systems’ reforms –
but it is a misuse of the data.
• The total research output is declining.
• RAND assessments can not be ignored.
In spite of the different results by
various assessments their accurate
consideration
shows negative trend of
the innovation potential development
in NIS countries
GERD, percent of GDP
• In spite of positive economy growth since
mid 1990s, GERD in the majority of
countries is less/much less than 1% of
GDP.
• 1% of GDP is a level above which:
- R&D essentially influences a country
development
- private sector share into R&D
expenditures becomes essential.
GERD, percent of GDP
2003
Armenia
na
Azerbaijan
0.2
Belarus
na
Georgia
0.2
Kazakhstan
0.3
Kyrgyz Rep.
0.2
Moldova
0.2
Russia
0.3
Tajikistan
0.1
Turkmenistan
0.4
Ukraine
0.6
Uzbekistan
0.2
Latvia
0.3
2004
na
na
na
0.2
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
0.4
2005
0.2
na
na
na
na
na
0.4
na
na
na
na
na
na
2006
na
0.1
0.6 1.4 (plan 2013)
< 0.2
0.14 1.5–2(plan 2012)
0.2
0.8 ~1 (plan2008)
~1 2.5 (plan 2015)
na
na
~1
na
0.6
The reluctance to negative
assessments comes mainly from the
way NIS countries draw near current
level of the innovation/research
potential
Time Dependence of Research Potential
Index
NIS countries
“Normal”
developing
countries
Time
Current
value for
“lagging”
countries
The situation is aggravated by the
researchers’ age factor
Age Distribution of Researchers
Desirable
distribution
20
40
Current
distribution
60
Conclusion
• Argent and extraordinary measures
should be taken by NIS to prevent longterm lagging
• The first measure is to adopt National
innovation policies insuring efficient
functioning of all the three innovation
channels (including rehabilitation of the
National research systems)
Thank you for attention
Distribution of Russian Researchers by Age, %
al
22.0
27.8
21.9
13.0
15.3
2004
21.8
27.0
23.9
13.8
13.5
2002
20.7
26.9
26.1
15.6
10.6
2000
18.0
27.9
28.3
18.1
7.7
1998
9.0
26.1
31.7
24.0
9.2
1994
Older
then
60
50-59
4049
30-39
Younger
then 29
Progressive developing countries????
mecnirulad ganviTarebadi qveynebi
qveyana
mosaxleoba,
mln
statiebis
raodenoba
stat. raod
mln mosaxleze
argentina
30
1994
~66
hongkongi
6
743
~120
serbia
10
487
~49
kuveiti
~2
171
~80
Cile
10
808
~80
4
360
~ 90
saqarTvelo