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 Colombia Indonesia Mexico South Africa Turkey 1 to 5 TAs Cameroon Chad Dom.Republic

Egypt Fiji Georgia Iran Jordan Kenya Nepal Pakistan

RAND Assessment of the 4 th 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 RAND data (2006) ISI data (2000 –2005) Rate Country S&T 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

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 Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Georgia Kazakhstan Kyrgyz Rep.

Moldova Russia Tajikistan Turkmenistan Ukraine Uzbekistan Latvia 2003 na 0.2

na 0.2

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.1

0.4

0.6

0.2

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

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 Current distribution 20 40 60

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

100 Distribution of Russian Researchers by Age, % 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 100 100 18.0

9.0

27.9

26.1

28.3

18.1

31.7

24.0

7.7

9.2

Total Older then 60 50-59 40 49 30-39 Younger then 29 1998 1994

Progressive developing countries????

mecnirulad ganviTarebadi qveynebi qveyana

argentina hongkongi serbia kuveiti Cile saqarTvelo

mosaxleo ba, mln

30

statiebis raodeno ba

1994 6 10 743 487 ~2 10 4 171 808 360

stat. raod mln mosaxleze

~66 ~120 ~49 ~80 ~80 ~ 90