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 Documentationgfid@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

Eco

no

my

Eco

no

my

E

con

om

yE

con

om

y

National R&DNational R&D

Imported capital goods Imported capital goods

Purchase of licensesPurchase of licenses

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 energy2. Rural wireless communications3. Communication devices for ubiquitous information access anywhere, anytime4. Genetically modified (GM) crops5. Rapid bioassays6. Filters and catalysts for water purification and decontamination;7. Targeted drug delivery8. Cheap autonomous housing

Critical Technologies 20209. 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 financing2. Laws and policies3. Social values, public opinion, and politics4. Infrastructure5. Privacy concerns6. Resource use and environmental health7. R&D investment8. Education and literacy9. Population and demographics10. 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

14 to 16 TAs 10 to 12 TAs 6 to 9 TAs 1 to 5 TAs

Australia China Brazil Cameroon

Canada India Chile Chad

Germany Poland Colombia Dom.Republic

Israel Russia Indonesia Egypt

Japan Mexico Fiji

South Korea South Africa Georgia

United States Turkey Iran

Jordan

Kenya

Nepal

Pakistan

Countries by Number of the Top 16 TAs

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 self-

estimation, 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

19. Russia 0.8929. Ukraine 0.3230. Belarus 0.3237. Azerbaijan 0.1147. Uzbekistan - 0.0552. Moldova - 0.1155. Armenia - 0.1969. Turkmenistan - 0.3074. Kyrgyz Republic - 0.3377. Tajikistan - 0.3482. Kazakhstan - 0.38 97. Georgia - 0.44

ISI data (2000 –2005)

Rate Country

Publications /annum

/mill.popul.1 Russia 1802 Armenia 1403 Ukraine 804 Belarus 805 Georgia 706 Moldova 607 Azerbaijan 30

8-9 Kazakhstan 208-9 Uzbekistan 1510 Kyrgyz Rep. 1011 Tajikistan 612 Turkmenistan < 2  Latvia 120

S&TIndexCountryRate

RAND data (2006)

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 developmentin 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.

2003 2004 2005 2006 Armenia na na 0.2 na Azerbaijan 0.2 na na 0.1 Belarus na na na 0.6 1.4 (plan 2013) Georgia 0.2 0.2 na < 0.2 Kazakhstan 0.3 na na 0.14 1.5–2(plan 2012)

Kyrgyz Rep. 0.2 na na 0.2 Moldova 0.2 na 0.4 0.8 ~1 (plan 2008) Russia 0.3 na na ~1 2.5 (plan 2015) Tajikistan 0.1 na na na Turkmenistan 0.4 na na na Ukraine 0.6 na na ~1 Uzbekistan 0.2 na na na Latvia 0.3 0.4 na 0.6

GERD, percent of GDP

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

Time

Ind

ex Current value for “lagging”countries

NIS countries

“Normal”developingcountries

The situation is aggravated by the researchers’ age factor

Age Distribution of Researchers

20 40 60

Current distribution

Desirabledistribution

Conclusion

• Argent and extraordinary measures should be taken by NIS to prevent long-term 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, %100 22.0 27.8 21.9 13.0 15.3 2004

100 21.8 27.0 23.9 13.8 13.5 2002

100 20.7 26.9 26.1 15.6 10.6 2000

100 18.0 27.9 28.3 18.1 7.7 1998

100 9.0 26.1 31.7 24.0 9.2 1994

Total Older then 60

50-59 40-49

30-39 Younger then 29

Progressive developing countries????mecnirulad ganviTarebadi qveynebi

qveyana mosaxleoba,mln

statiebisraodenoba

stat. raodmln

mosaxlezeargentina 30 1994 ~66

hongkongi 6 743 ~120

serbia 10 487 ~49

kuveiti ~2 171 ~80

Cile 10 808 ~80

saqarTvelo 4 360 ~ 90