Building an Innovation-Driven Economy – The Case of BRIC and GCC Countries
•
2 likes•235 views
Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2491488 Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to undertake an analysis of the attempts of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) countries to catch up in their national development to build an innovation-driven economy on which to base future growth and wealth. We conducted an analysis of GCC and BRIC countries to show the different strategies leaders have taken to try and achieve this aspiration. This paper analyses the various aspects of national innovation systems of BRIC and GCC countries, highlights similar and different approaches and attempts to quantify their success. For example, GCC countries spend extensively on research and development (R&D), but have so far achieved less than meaningful results. Brazil, China and India are catching up to the acknowledged world leaders in innovation, but Russia is lagging. Design/Methodology/Approach – Our comparison was based mostly on secondary data from sources and institutions that use statistical data to build country rankings, such as the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) produced by the World Economic Forum. BRIC and GCC countries were analyzed over 1996-2011 because most of the indicators data are only available from 1996. Data related to intellectual property rights have been collected since 1999 or 2000. The data available for the number of researchers proved problematic for both BRIC and GCC countries. For instance, some data for the GCC countries was missing. To not leave a gap, we extrapolated in line with the overall trend; using the least squares method to approximate a straight line for the missing data based on what had already been reported. Findings – Counter-intuitively, we will argue that the push toward an innovation-based economy is actually not dependent on total expenditure on R&D, but rather relies on the efficient allocation of investments and the rigorous implementation of innovation strategy. And, we will demonstrate this by showing our ideas in relation to both BRIC and GCC countries. This analysis raises fascinating points of discussion for those looking to build an innovation economy in other countries and has practical implications for policy-makers and policy implementers in all countries. Originality/Value – First analysis of the correlation of gross expenditure on R&D (GERD) with gross domestic product (GDP) growth and Straits Times Index (STI) policy measures.
![Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2491488Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2491488
However, building and maintaining a knowledge economy is a complex and difficult
undertaking, itself only one step toward building a genuine innovation ecosystem (Brinkley
et al., 2012; Liu and Chen, 2003; Hui, 2007). And within that system, there are important
layers of emphasis. At the foundation lies publicly supported research, which functions as
the driver of original innovation in the long-term. A second layer of innovation usually comes
from industrial research and spin offs from existing large enterprises. Third, market
development and firm creation are important for the innovation ecosystem to function
effectively (though markets are generally driven through forces of regulation, procurement
or early adoption by risk-taking consumers and so should be seen as part of the interlinked
innovation ecosystem rather than as stand-alone phenomena) (Goedhuys, 2007).
The countries analyzed, namely, BRIC, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates
(GCC) have similar aspirations in attempting to transition toward an innovation-driven
economy, yet they all show very different approaches and success. For instance, Research
and Development (R&D) is an obvious function in a continuous chain of innovation that links
scientific research, market research, development design, first production and market
acceptance. Therefore, it’s perhaps not surprising that the BRIC countries are building and
developing national research and technology infrastructures, investing a significant share
of gross domestic product (GDP) in their science and technology systems. Yet in relative
terms the GCC countries invest significantly less. Therefore, we compared all of the BRIC
and GCC countries to assess their development and achievements, our emphasis lying on
attempting to tease out the strategy at the heart of the initiatives – what impact they’ve seen
to date – and where useful opportunities for growth might lie.
2. Methodology and approach
BRIC countries are usually considered the upcoming nations in terms of economic power
and so we analyzed each of them. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) in a recent study states that “[. . .] Future growth must therefore
increasingly come from innovation-induced productivity growth” (OECD, 2010). Hence,
most nations, including GCC countries, which have a completely different base with a much
smaller population and a much larger capital base, are looking to evolve into an
innovation-driven economy. As many other countries, both the BRIC and the GCC countries
recognize the importance of innovation for future economic wealth. Because much has
been written about developed countries, we chose the BRIC and GCC countries for
analysis to add a new perspective to the discussion. Within GCC, we have selected the
three most important economic players, which constitute 92-94 per cent of all those
countries’ GDP: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.
Our comparison was based mostly on secondary data from sources and institutions that
use statistical data to build country rankings, such as the Global Competitiveness Index
(GCI) produced by the World Economic Forum. BRIC and GCC countries were analyzed
over 1996-2011 because most of the indicators data are only available from 1996. Data
related to intellectual property rights have been collected since 1999 or 2000.
The data available for the number of researchers proved problematic for both BRIC and
GCC countries. For instance, some data for the GCC countries was missing. To not leave
a gap, we extrapolated in line with the overall trend; using the least squares method to
approximate a straight line for the missing data based on what had already been reported.
For Brazil, Russia and Kuwait, data on the number of researchers are available in full-time
equivalent (FTE) and in headcounts. For the remaining countries, data were only available
or in one or the other. For instance, for Saudi Arabia, only head count is accounted for; for
India and China, only FTE representation numbers were available. For UAE no data exist at
all. Given that the majority of countries reported researcher data in terms of FTE
representation, we use those figures for Russia, Kuwait and Brazil.
PAGE 294 foresight VOL. 16 NO. 4 2014
DownloadedbyStateUniversityHigherSchoolofEconomicsAt02:2304September2014(PT)]()
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (18)
Similar to Building an Innovation-Driven Economy – The Case of BRIC and GCC Countries
Similar to Building an Innovation-Driven Economy – The Case of BRIC and GCC Countries (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Building an Innovation-Driven Economy – The Case of BRIC and GCC Countries
- 1. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2491488Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2491488 Building an innovation-driven economy – the case of BRIC and GCC countries Steffen Gackstatter, Maxim Kotzemir and Dirk Meissner Steffen Gackstatter is based at Monitor Company GmbH, Munich, Germany. Maxim Kotzemir is based at National Research University – Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russian Federation. Dirk Meissner is based at Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russian Federation. Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to undertake an analysis of the attempts of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) countries to catch up in their national development to build an innovation-driven economy on which to base future growth and wealth. We conducted an analysis of GCC and BRIC countries to show the different strategies leaders have taken to try and achieve this aspiration. This paper analyses the various aspects of national innovation systems of BRIC and GCC countries, highlights similar and different approaches and attempts to quantify their success. For example, GCC countries spend extensively on research and development (R&D), but have so far achieved less than meaningful results. Brazil, China and India are catching up to the acknowledged world leaders in innovation, but Russia is lagging. Design/methodology/approach – Our comparison was based mostly on secondary data from sources and institutions that use statistical data to build country rankings, such as the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) produced by the World Economic Forum. BRIC and GCC countries were analyzed over 1996-2011 because most of the indicators data are only available from 1996. Data related to intellectual property rights have been collected since 1999 or 2000. The data available for the number of researchers proved problematic for both BRIC and GCC countries. For instance, some data for the GCC countries was missing. To not leave a gap, we extrapolated in line with the overall trend; using the least squares method to approximate a straight line for the missing data based on what had already been reported. Findings – Counter-intuitively, we will argue that the push toward an innovation-based economy is actually not dependent on total expenditure on R&D, but rather relies on the efficient allocation of investments and the rigorous implementation of innovation strategy. And, we will demonstrate this by showing our ideas in relation to both BRIC and GCC countries. This analysis raises fascinating points of discussion for those looking to build an innovation economy in other countries and has practical implications for policy-makers and policy implementers in all countries. Originality/value – First analysis of the correlation of gross expenditure on R&D (GERD) with gross domestic product (GDP) growth and Straits Times Index (STI) policy measures. Keywords Innovation, Globalization, Knowledge economy, Technology-led strategy, Economic growth, International politics Paper type Research paper 1. Introduction Increasingly, economists recognize that knowledge-based innovation is a major driver of competitiveness. That requires a powerful knowledge base, often centered on technology and innovation, as an important precondition for building and developing a genuine innovation economy. For a long time, economists have also believed that countries “in transition” would be well able to adapt the knowledge and competences generated in developed countries (Cohen, Levinthal, 1990; Zahra, George, 2002). That is, by building a robust research and education infrastructure, they would be able to absorb new knowledge and innovation developed elsewhere. And so in the main, that is where countries from Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) have invested. Received 9 July 2012 Revised 13 September 2012 Accepted 26 September 2012 The study was implemented in the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) in 2012. DOI 10.1108/FS-09-2012-0063 VOL. 16 NO. 4 2014, pp. 293-308, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1463-6689 foresight PAGE 293 DownloadedbyStateUniversityHigherSchoolofEconomicsAt02:2304September2014(PT)
- 2. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2491488Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2491488 However, building and maintaining a knowledge economy is a complex and difficult undertaking, itself only one step toward building a genuine innovation ecosystem (Brinkley et al., 2012; Liu and Chen, 2003; Hui, 2007). And within that system, there are important layers of emphasis. At the foundation lies publicly supported research, which functions as the driver of original innovation in the long-term. A second layer of innovation usually comes from industrial research and spin offs from existing large enterprises. Third, market development and firm creation are important for the innovation ecosystem to function effectively (though markets are generally driven through forces of regulation, procurement or early adoption by risk-taking consumers and so should be seen as part of the interlinked innovation ecosystem rather than as stand-alone phenomena) (Goedhuys, 2007). The countries analyzed, namely, BRIC, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (GCC) have similar aspirations in attempting to transition toward an innovation-driven economy, yet they all show very different approaches and success. For instance, Research and Development (R&D) is an obvious function in a continuous chain of innovation that links scientific research, market research, development design, first production and market acceptance. Therefore, it’s perhaps not surprising that the BRIC countries are building and developing national research and technology infrastructures, investing a significant share of gross domestic product (GDP) in their science and technology systems. Yet in relative terms the GCC countries invest significantly less. Therefore, we compared all of the BRIC and GCC countries to assess their development and achievements, our emphasis lying on attempting to tease out the strategy at the heart of the initiatives – what impact they’ve seen to date – and where useful opportunities for growth might lie. 2. Methodology and approach BRIC countries are usually considered the upcoming nations in terms of economic power and so we analyzed each of them. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in a recent study states that “[. . .] Future growth must therefore increasingly come from innovation-induced productivity growth” (OECD, 2010). Hence, most nations, including GCC countries, which have a completely different base with a much smaller population and a much larger capital base, are looking to evolve into an innovation-driven economy. As many other countries, both the BRIC and the GCC countries recognize the importance of innovation for future economic wealth. Because much has been written about developed countries, we chose the BRIC and GCC countries for analysis to add a new perspective to the discussion. Within GCC, we have selected the three most important economic players, which constitute 92-94 per cent of all those countries’ GDP: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. Our comparison was based mostly on secondary data from sources and institutions that use statistical data to build country rankings, such as the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) produced by the World Economic Forum. BRIC and GCC countries were analyzed over 1996-2011 because most of the indicators data are only available from 1996. Data related to intellectual property rights have been collected since 1999 or 2000. The data available for the number of researchers proved problematic for both BRIC and GCC countries. For instance, some data for the GCC countries was missing. To not leave a gap, we extrapolated in line with the overall trend; using the least squares method to approximate a straight line for the missing data based on what had already been reported. For Brazil, Russia and Kuwait, data on the number of researchers are available in full-time equivalent (FTE) and in headcounts. For the remaining countries, data were only available or in one or the other. For instance, for Saudi Arabia, only head count is accounted for; for India and China, only FTE representation numbers were available. For UAE no data exist at all. Given that the majority of countries reported researcher data in terms of FTE representation, we use those figures for Russia, Kuwait and Brazil. PAGE 294 foresight VOL. 16 NO. 4 2014 DownloadedbyStateUniversityHigherSchoolofEconomicsAt02:2304September2014(PT)
- 3. There were other related problems with the data, particularly in regard to GCC countries. For the UAE, data on gross expenditure on R&D (GERD) and its number of researchers were missing; for Saudi Arabia, data on the institutional structure of GERD financing and performance are missing while GERD figures are only available from 2003. GCI estimates of Saudi Arabia are available only from 2007, while for all other sample countries from 2005. In our analysis, we used the following databases: Euromonitor Global Market Information Database (Section “Government, Labour and Education”). UNESCO Institute for Statistics Data Centre (Section “Science and technology”). SCImago Country and Journal Rank database (powered by Scopus). GCI 12th pillar “Innovation” index and its sub-indices (developed by World Economic Forum). Global innovation index developed by Institut Européen d’Administration des Affaires (INSEAD). World Bank (“Knowledge economy index” portal, “KEI and KI indices” section). World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). World Bank (Global Economic Monitor [GEM] database) databases. We used different statistical approaches for analysis, including normalized histograms, visualizations, scatter plots and bubble scatter plots. We also used the dynamic scatter plot, where we plotted the different indicators of each country’s national innovation system (NIS) over several years on horizontal ad vertical axes. This helped us to understand the shifting relationships between the different indicators, and allows us to present the dynamic relationships in visual form. This method also allowed us to estimate the trajectory of the relationship between two parameters within a NIS for several countries. 3. BRIC and GCC innovation system characteristics 3.1 The innovation aspiration At a political level, both BRIC and GCC countries have shown relative stability over the past five years. They have intensified their ambitions to modernize and to develop knowledge-based economies, undertaking various important initiatives. As shown in Table I, the GCC countries are looking to become advanced knowledge-based economies by building a highly competitive innovation ecosystem, empowering the nation, transforming the economy and inspiring the people. Moreover, these countries have developed and applied initiatives to gain the Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) leadership position in the region, to solve current economic development and labor challenges and to establish a long-term foundation for future growth. Major measures to achieve these ambitions are related to building and developing human capital, establishing an R&D environment and developing a future-oriented industrial base. The BRIC countries, meanwhile, have developed long-term strategies at national level, with the common goal of promoting technological innovation, raising awareness for and improving science teaching in schools and eventually upgrading innovation capacity through developing human capital in research- and innovation-related activities (Table II). Short-term initiatives include investments in strategic science and innovation areas, in enhancing the interaction of the R&D sector and the economy as well as in promoting new modes of public–private partnerships (PPP) in higher education. They are also focused on the expansion and commercialization of scientific research results, encouraging technology and innovation collaboration both within national laboratories and abroad. Mid-term measures are targeted at broadening the spread of technologies for inclusion and social development; enhancing the competitiveness of the small- and medium-sized VOL. 16 NO. 4 2014 foresight PAGE 295 DownloadedbyStateUniversityHigherSchoolofEconomicsAt02:2304September2014(PT)
- 4. enterprises (SME) innovation-related sector and establishing a competitive and flourishing R&D sector. 3.2 R&D activities and impact Perhaps not surprisingly, the larger BRIC countries invest several times more than the smaller GCC countries in absolute and also in relative terms. What is surprising, however, is that this gap remains even when comparing GERD as share of GDP. Clearly, the focus on R&D is much higher in BRIC countries than it is in GCC. However, that does not necessarily account for the higher growth rates of the BRIC countries (Table III). 3.2.1 Brazil. In terms of funding and performance, Brazil, Russia and China follow a rather similar structure. Government and business are the two main financers of R&D. Brazil, however, has one key advantage: its higher education sector makes up a significant share of GERD, accounting for an average of 40.8 per cent in 1996-2004. In the other countries, this share did not exceed 12 per cent. The high share of higher education sector in GERD performance is a distinctive feature of Brazilian structure of R&D financing. Table I Comparison of STI initiatives within key GCC countries Criterion Saudi Arabia The UAE/Abu Dhabi Kuwait Lead driver National Industrial Innovation Strategy presented in November 2009, but implementation responsibilities have been decentralized with little overview on implementation status The Abu Dhabi Economic Vision 2030 was published in August 2007 and is the main focus of all public activities. It is likely that the vision will be revised shortly A four-year development plan has been law since 2010: STI is a critical element of many requested policies Lead institutions King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST). Other government institutions such as Sagia and NICDP are responsible for economic development Technology Development Council (TDC) responsible for STI policy. The Department of Economic Development has recently established a Council of Competitiveness (COAD) Kuwait Institute for Science and Research (KISR). A planned STI council will oversee and coordinate STI policy and its implementation STI Policy definition STI policy was written in 2005 STI policy was published in 2011; current activities are underway to implement the concept with agreement of all involved stakeholders. Process is rather slow Two parallel STI policy concepts were developed in 2007; neither of them was implemented. A new STI policy has been requested by the development plan and will be developed in 2012 Current objectives and focus of STI Policy Objective is to “join the advanced knowledge-based economies with a highly competitive STI ecosystem by 2025”. Eight programs and 11 technology priorities were defined Key objective stated as “empowering the nation, transforming the economy, and inspiring the people”. Five focus areas are: Human Capital; R&D environment; Enterprise development; Infrastructure and Laws and Regulations Objective is to regain the STI leadership position in the region, to solve current economic development and labor challenges and to establish a long-term foundation for future growth by fostering the development of STI activities in Kuwait Megaprojects and Investments (bold moves) KAUST (King Abdullah University of Science and Technology) opened in September 2010, with a financial endowment of USD 10 billion MASDAR: CO2-neutral knowledge city in the desert. The project was started in 2006 with expected completion by 2025. Estimated cost of USD 16-22 billion The Economic Development Plan, published in 2010, has an investment volume of USD 104 billion until 2014, mostly for infrastructure projects Economic Cities: Investment of more than USD 60 billion to build four new cities for up to five million residents, who are expected to contribute USD 150 billion to Saudi GDP Internal measurement of progress Unclear, no transparent measurement system in place Emirate-wide performance management system for all government entities was implemented in 2009 Performance management system is being implemented and will be active from 2012 International rankings “10 by 10” was an internal Saudi intiative to have the country feature as one of the top 10 countries in the World Bank’s “Ease of Doing Business” Index. It was number 10 in 2011; from number 67 in 2004 Usually, rankings are measured on the federal UAE level, but Abu Dhabi has now proactively started to work together with WEF and the World Bank to produce emirate-level ranking comparisons Kuwait improved in 2012 in the World Bank’s “Ease of Doing Business” index by four ranks to Number 67, after five consecutive years of going down in the rankings Challenges and difficulties Science personal and motivation Follow-up on plans (see megaprojects) TK TK PAGE 296 foresight VOL. 16 NO. 4 2014 DownloadedbyStateUniversityHigherSchoolofEconomicsAt02:2304September2014(PT)
- 7. 3.2.2 Russia and China. The private sector also plays an important role in funding and in supporting R&D in both Russia and China, though it is important to note the government’s influence on influential companies in these countries. Both Russia and China own or part-own many of the companies whose R&D activities are accounted for as business R&D and as such their industrial R&D activities should be seen as directed by political agendas rather than as following any one company’s individual innovation strategy. 3.3.3 India. Of the BRIC countries, India is lagging behind, sharing distinct similarities with the GCC countries. While India, in absolute terms, provides significant resources, the relative share of GERD/GDP shows that the current level is not sufficient to achieve a lasting momentum based on R&D and innovation. Moreover, the Indian NIS is characterized by inefficient mechanisms of PPP in R&D sector; a low level of integration of Indian scientists into global scientific community and a weak position of Indian SME innovative firms. 3.3.4 Kuwait. Kuwait’s R&D is entirely a function of the government and its related institutions; the business and the higher education sector did not perform R&D at all. However, Kuwait is currently establishing both a research and higher education infrastructure. For now, these institutions are still accounted for as government activities in the national accounts and statistics, while most business enterprises are seen as government-owned. In addition, the share of business sector-financed R&D fluctuated in the range from 18 to 20.9 per cent falling to 4.4 per cent in 2004 but not exceeding 7.5 per cent in subsequent years, eventually decreasing even more to 2.3 per cent in 2008. Thus, the dynamics of the share of business sector financing of GERD in Kuwait had a stepwise character. This decline in share of business sector in GERD financing was due to the increase of the share of GERD financing by government sector. The significance of foreign funds in financing of GERD in Kuwait was very low. Higher education sector did not participate in the financing or in the performance of GERD in Kuwait at all. Thus, investments in R&D were almost entirely under the control of the government. The business sector has had some impact on investment in GERD in the late 1990s and early 2000s, but by 2009, the business sector actually left the sector of R&D. This process was stepwise: in 2003 and 2006, there was a sharp decline in the share of the business sector in the financing of GERD (Huibo and Bingwen, 2010; Tseng, 2009; Osman and Nour, 2011). 3.3.5 Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Arabian National Industrial Innovation Strategy was presented in November 2009. However, the responsibilities have been decentralized resulting in little overview on the current implementation status, making it more difficult to capture evidence for its impact. One remarkable objective of Saudi Arabia is the intention to join the advanced knowledge-based economies with a highly competitive STI ecosystem by 2025. In consequence, 8 programs and 11 technology priorities were defined which are currently being implemented. However, Saudi Arabia is lacking sufficient investment in R&D and innovation until currently with rather modest 4 per cent GERD growth rate which mirrors an R&D intensity of 0.1 per cent GERD/GDP). Accordingly, the number of researchers (head count) grew by 130 per cent in the past 10 years. Compared to other countries in transition to innovation-driven economies, these figures seem rather low. However, one needs to take into account the surrounding conditions, e.g. the structure of the economy which is largely driven by the oil sector. Table III Basic indicators of investments in R&D in BRIC and GCI countries in 1997-2010 All data as average 1997-2010 Brazil China India Russia Kuwait Saudi Arabia GERD volume (USD in billions) 15.6 66.5 18.6 17.9 0.1 0.3 Growth rate of GERD volume (%) 8.4 18.9 7.9 7.2 1.7 4.0 GERD as per cent of GDP 1.0 1.1 0.8 1.1 0.1 0.1 Notes: Growth rates are calculated for volume of GERD in national currencies in constant 2010 prices; no data on dynamics of GERD in the UAE are available for us from the databases listed in Source Source: Authors’ calculations based on Euromonitor, IMF, UNESCO database and national statistics VOL. 16 NO. 4 2014 foresight PAGE 299 DownloadedbyStateUniversityHigherSchoolofEconomicsAt02:2304September2014(PT)
- 8. The initiative “10 by 10” is an internal Saudi initiative to have the country become one of the top 10 countries in the World Bank’s “Ease of Doing Business” Index. Saudi Arabia jumped to number 10 in 2011 from number 67 in 2004 thus the measures taken show first results. Another vehicle for modernization are economic Cities for which more than USD 60bn were invested to build four new cities for up to five million residents, who are expected to contribute USD 150bn to Saudi GDP. In addition the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) was opened in September 2010, with a financial endowment of USD 10bn. Even more impressive is the difference of BRIC and GCC when looking at the number of studies (Table IV). The reason for an even bigger gap is based on relatively higher salaries for the fewer researchers in the GCC countries. The GCC countries have slightly increased the number of researchers over time, but China and Brazil have much higher increases, and even the relatively smaller increase in India means a lot more additional researchers in absolute terms (Liu and Lundin, 2006; Krishna, Bhattacharay, 2009). Only Russia has decreased the number of researchers over the past 12 years. It is remarkable that Russia used to be the country with most researchers of all analyzed countries in 1998 which reduced to only one-third of the force of China in 2009 (Gokhberg, 2011). Considering the investment in R&D measured, GERD Kuwait strongly stands against the other countries. The level of GERD in Kuwait is disparagingly low, as is the index of innovation; however, per capita GDP in Kuwait is several times higher than GDP per capita of the countries near it. Similarly, Saudi Arabia is a statistical outlier with GCI innovation index is much greater than innovation index in countries with comparable GERD. The level of GDP per capita in Saudi Arabia was also much higher than in countries, which had levels of GERD comparable with Saudi Arabia’s level. Accordingly, in Saudi Arabia, the high level of NISs was determined not by investments in R&D, but by some other factor. Consequently, the outputs produced by these researchers have developed in a similar pattern. The publications in GCC have increased on a very small base (Table V). Russia has only slightly increased the number, whereas India, Brazil and China have substantially increased the publications three-, five- and Ͼ elevenfold, respectively. However, this is not an indicator for the quality of the publications. There is no consistent difference between BRIC and GCC countries. Brazil and India have a higher number of citations, whereas China and Russia have a lower number compared to the GCC countries which are relatively homogeneous (Tseng, 2009; Liu et al., 2010; Liu and Lundin, 2006; Gokhberg et al., 2011, Gokhberg, 2003; Dezhina and Zashev, 2007). One more output factor that we looked at was the share of high-tech exports as an indicator for success of innovation efforts in each country. China is here even more dominant than expected from the input data, even when comparing to the huge population Table IV Number of researchers in ’000 in BRIC and GCC countries (1998-2009) Country 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Change (%) Brazil 54.9 63.8 73.9 77.9 82.2 90.0 98.3 1,09.4 116.7 124.9 133.3 139.6 254 China 485.5 531.1 695.1 742.7 810.5 862.1 926.3 1,118.7 1,223.8 1,423.4 1,592.4 1,576.9 325 India 117.5 116.7 115.9 125.7 135.4 135.4 145.1 1,54.8 142.5 144.2 145.9 147.7 126 Russia 492.5 497.0 506.4 505.8 491.9 487.5 477.6 4,64.6 464.4 469.1 451.2 442.3 90 Kuwait 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 133 Saudi Arabia 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.3 130 Notes: For Saudi Arabia, data are in head count representation, for all other countries in FTE representation; for all countries, except Russia and Kuwait, data were restored by method of extrapolation. For Saudi Arabia, data for 2003-2006 are based on extrapolation by the method of linear approximation. For India, data for 1999, 2001-2004 and 2006-2009 are based on extrapolation by the method of linear approximation. For India, data only in FTE are available. For China, data for 2009 are based on extrapolation by the method of linear approximation. For China, data only in FTE representation are available. For Brazil, data for 1998-1999 and 2009 are based on extrapolation by the method of linear approximation Source: Authors’ calculations from UNESCO database PAGE 300 foresight VOL. 16 NO. 4 2014 DownloadedbyStateUniversityHigherSchoolofEconomicsAt02:2304September2014(PT)
- 9. (Dahlman, 2008). Surprisingly, Kuwait’s high-tech exports per capita are relatively high, especially when compared to India and Russia (Table VI). From several global existing rankings, the 12th pillar on innovation of the GCI developed by the World Economic Forum has the broadest acceptance. In result, the GCI shows a broad picture of the different development stages of the seven analyzed countries over the past years (Table VII). It is notable that all countries are close together in the middle of the rating system between 3 and slightly Ͼ 4. India had a relatively high value GCI innovation index— 3.62 points in Table V Estimates of global competiveness index 12th pillar “Innovation” in BRIC and middle east countries in 2005-2011 Country 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 BRIC countries Brazil 3.48 3.51 3.5 3.5 3.52 3.55 3.5 China 3.64 3.51 3.6 3.87 3.93 3.92 3.92 India 3.91 4.03 3.9 3.74 3.73 3.62 3.58 Russian Federation 3.43 3.34 3.31 3.41 3.35 3.25 3.14 GCC countries Kuwait 2.94 2.98 3.16 3.07 2.96 3.03 3 Saudi Arabia 3.44 3.68 3.7 3.92 4.16 The UAE 3.24 3.32 3.37 3.42 3.87 3.91 3.96 Other estimates Highest level The USA 5.93 The USA 5.82 The USA 5.77 The USA 5.84 The USA 5.77 The USA 5.65 Switzerland 5.77 Lowest level Chad 2.09 Albania 2.09 Albania 2.1 Paraguay 2.06 Paraguay 2.14 Kyrgyzstan 2.12 Yemen 1.77 All countries average 3.41 3.41 3.43 3.4 3.38 3.35 3.36 BRIC countries 3.62 3.59 3.58 3.63 3.63 3.58 3.53 Middle east and North Africa 3.12 3.08 3.24 3.24 3.18 3.19 3.11 Note: The estimations are based on the following criteria 1–the worst innovation system, 7–the best one Source: World Economic Forum. Global Competitiveness Reports database Table VI Publication activity of BRIC and GCC countries in 1996-2010 in Scopus database Country Number of publications Citations per one publication in scientific journals 1996 2010 1996-2010 Brazil 8 533 43 386 8.98 China 27 529 313 846 5.27 India 20 428 68 778 6.76 Russia 30 535 35 352 4.87 Kuwait 580 981 6.61 Saudi Arabia 1 941 5 508 5.98 The UAE 345 1 958 6.55 Note: Authors’ calculations SCImago Journal and Country Rank database powered by Scopus Table VII High-tech export in BRIC and GCC countries in 1996-2009 All as average 1996-2009 Brazil China India Russia Kuwait Saudi Arabia The UAE High-tech export as per cent of GDP 0.69 5.72 0.39 0.82 0.021 0.023 0.021 USD of high-tech export per capita 26.23 31.67 0.19 3.59 26.05 1.11 2.04 Note: High-technology exports are products with high R&D intensity, such as in aerospace, computers, pharmaceuticals, scientific instruments and electrical machinery Source: Authors’ calculations from Euromonitor, World Bank and United Nations Comtrade, Euromonitor International databases and national statistics databases VOL. 16 NO. 4 2014 foresight PAGE 301 DownloadedbyStateUniversityHigherSchoolofEconomicsAt02:2304September2014(PT)
- 10. 2010, but the level of GDP per capita in India was several times lower than in other countries, which had the value of GCI innovation index comparable with India’s level. In China, the level of GERD and the index value of innovation was the same as in the Czech Republic, but the level of GDP per capita in China was 3.3 times lower than in Czech Republic. In Russia and Brazil, the level of GDP per capita, the level of GERD and the value of GCI innovation index in 2010 were more or less balanced. Brazil and China were the closest to the line of “optimal” level of the relationship between GERD level and the value of GCI innovation index among the countries of the study sample. It should also be noted that in the BRIC countries mechanisms of transformation of investments in R&D into the NIS did not work very efficiently which is also expressed in a lower values of innovation index than countries with comparable levels of GERD (Liu et al., 2010; Liu and Chen, 2003; Dahlman, 2008). Summarizing the position of the BRIC countries, it shows that Russia has a strong position in higher education with a powerful scientific system and particularly dedicated to space and defense activities (Dezhina and Zashev, 2007; Gokhberg, 2003; Peltola, 2008). In addition, Russia recently shows growing R&D expenditures. Although India’s high-quality scientific system is expanding, industrial R&D remains weak. Human resources, in general, are of high quality and productive capabilities are found, particularly, in information technology (software) and pharmaceuticals (Kulkarni and Bougias, 2008). The Chinese NIS shows considerable effort in mobilizing the national education and innovation systems, especially by accumulating productive, innovative and R&D-related activities. Innovation-related capabilities are growing at high ratios with special emphasis on hi-tech sectors. The Brazilian science system becomes, increasingly, a high quality system with global outreach, while R&D and innovation activities at industry level remain unequal with some success in airspace, energy, metallurgy and agro-business (Huibo and Bingwen, 2011; Cassiolato, 2008; Melo and Rapini, 2012; Balbachevsky and Botelho, 2011; de Brito Cruz and de Mello, 2006; Chandrashekar and Basvarajappa, 2001). 3.3 Findings There is a clear correlation between R&D investment intensity (GERD/GDP) and GCI innovation index, as shown in the red line crossing Figure 2 (Figure 1). This is not a surprising finding because the GCI innovation index composition reflects GERD only marginally. Furthermore, all BRIC countries and Kuwait are very close to this “optimal” line with the exemption of Saudi Arabia which is a complete outlier (Figure 2). That raises the question, how is it possible to be highly innovative without much R&D investments? The following detailed data interpretations will consider each of the analyzed countries. China is a country which is continuously expanding its innovation capacities and capabilities mirrored in the increasing GCI values which are strongly correlated to the growth of R&D investments, number of researchers, scientific publications and patent applications. Consequently, it has the highest high-tech exports of all analyzed countries. Surprisingly, even faster developments and higher GCI rankings are observed in Saudi Arabia and the UAE; however, it needs to kept in mind that these countries start from a lower level of GCI and GERD; moreover, some data are not available for the UAE but R&D investments, number of researchers and, consequently, high-tech exports are minimal. In light of the policies developed and applied in these countries, the openness of the STI regimes toward different types of international collaboration is remarkable. The GCC countries are aiming at building a research and innovation infrastructure by employing international science, technology, innovation and industry leaders to design and implement related initiatives. Thus, the countries’ direct investment in the first instance toward education of a new generation of well-trained human resources which is competitive on a global scale. While China is using this policy approach since the 1980s, Russia is currently PAGE 302 foresight VOL. 16 NO. 4 2014 DownloadedbyStateUniversityHigherSchoolofEconomicsAt02:2304September2014(PT)
- 11. beginning to attract international expertise for laying the foundation of developing a new generation of innovators at a large scale. However, it needs to be reminded that such measures have no short-term direct impact. Brazil and India are ranked in the middle section of GCI without major change or even slight decline in the case of India. Both countries have comparable innovation input and output factors only Brazil has significantly increased the number of researchers (Melo and Rapini, 2012; Kulkarni and Bougias, 2008; Joseph et al., 2010). The least favorable innovation index values are given to Russia and Kuwait which were both innovation leaders within their peer group some years ago. Turbulences at political and world economy levels proved to have negative impact on the STI performance of these countries. Russia can still draw on a very skilled scientific elite as can easily be seen when looking at the, by far, highest ratio of granted patents by applications. On the other side, it is remarkable that the increase of researchers is the lowest of all countries and the number of publications has also decreased. The amount of high-tech exports is about as big as in Brazil, despite having three times as many researchers. Therefore, an obvious conclusion is that Russia has a major problem of commercializing its research results (Peltola, 2008; Gianella and Tompson, 2007). Kuwait seems to have stagnated in its innovation progress since the occupation 20 years ago. Its innovation index is the weakest of all analyzed countries, practically without change in the past years. The country, which was leading technology development in the regions through institutions like the Kuwait Institute of Science and Research and the Kuwait University has stagnated in many ways. R&D investments are the lowest which can be explained by the size of the country, but this does not explain the lowest growth rate of R&D Figure 1 Impact of GERD on NIS development VOL. 16 NO. 4 2014 foresight PAGE 303 DownloadedbyStateUniversityHigherSchoolofEconomicsAt02:2304September2014(PT)
- 12. investments within this group. Further evidence is found in the low number of scientific publications, moreover, in the strong decline of the already low level of scientific publications in absolute terms. Thus, BRIC and GCC have launched initiatives to develop the human resources, which require directing the highest number of students and competent individuals toward the technological and scientific specializations. Besides human resources, financial resources are required which reinforce the innovation and renovation and transform the results of scientific research to products, materials or operations, such as the initiative, primary and supportive capital, particularly by institutional means such as centers of product improvement, centers of renovation and innovation, centers of technology improvement, technological incubators and different forms of and technological parks. Such institutions are meant to aim at cooperative means in the fields of applied STI. The underlying precondition for achieving these ambitions is awareness and media means in the technological and scientific fields (Al- Awahdi, Al-Sultan 2,207; Esteves et al., 2008; Hedner et al., 2013; Wiseman and Anderson, 2012; McGlennon, 2006). 3.4 Limitations of the study The study argues that there is a clear correlation between investment in R&D expressed as GERD and economic development of countries. The analysis is based on the Schumpeterian hypothesis that technological progress and renewal are among the driving forces of the economy. However, GERD, as used in the analysis, is an input indicator which is not necessarily capable of explaining technological progress fully. First, GERD explains technological progress only from the perspective of financial resources invested; the framework conditions of NISs are not included in this indicator but are assumed to be Figure 2 Correlation of GDP per capita and R&D investments (GERD) per GDP PAGE 304 foresight VOL. 16 NO. 4 2014 DownloadedbyStateUniversityHigherSchoolofEconomicsAt02:2304September2014(PT)
- 13. equally important for the generation and adaption of technology, hence, technological progress. Second, there is no evidence so far of the time lag between investment in R&D (GERD) and economic performance of a country. Third, GERD does not necessarily have a national economic impact, but rather there are international spillovers resulting from technology-related activities nationally. Especially in the light of global information exchange among the scientific community, the overall amount of these spillovers is likely to be significant occurring to and from a country. This limits the expressive power of GERD in addition. Fourth, the output indicators used (bibliometric and patent indicators, mainly) are suitable to explain the generation of technologies but are limited in explaining the economic performance of countries eventually. Finally, innovation indexes are composite indexes which suffer from loss of information due to the composition of many different indicators, the assignment of weights to sub-indicators and the quality of the underlying information and data source. The stated results for GCC are only based on data from three countries. The other GCC countries, Bahrein, Qatar and Oman, follow similar objectives but may be at different status of achievements compared to their neighbors. Further research is needed to overcome these limitations not only for analysis of BRIC and GCC countries but in also the overall global context. 4. Discussion of findings The conclusions are based on the analysis of quantitative data and on the analysis of relevant policy initiatives of these countries. The focus of conclusions and recommendations is, thus, to show the impact of these on respective economic growth but not on the comparison of the different countries. The success of BRIC countries evidently correlates with the focus on technology development and the ability to apply its results. China is a good example where both seem to work very well. One indication for this is the high number of business-initiated and performed R&D compared to the strong government and academic focus in the other countries. Brazil and India seem to stagnate somewhat and should further push on the commenced initiatives (Melo and Rapini, 2012; Doctor, 2009; Joseph et al., 2010); Russia has fallen behind and needs to completely rebuild its innovation position in the world. Technological development does not seem to be the key driver for the innovation success of these countries. Acquisition of technologies and a smart use of the existing oil money as practiced in Saudi Arabia and the UAE seems to be well-suited to achieve to superior results. Kuwait has not been able to do equally well in the past years. However, its current economic development plan is clearly focusing to push in the same direction. Transition countries with large populations and little natural resources benefit most from focusing on R&D efforts and technology to drive economic progress. Smaller countries with natural resources do not rely on own R&D efforts but need to find other ways to improve innovation success to move away from its dependence on income from natural resources over time. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have shown progress in innovation without major R&D investments. However, both countries need to continue demonstrating an innovation impact to further progress. Therefore, it is crucial that both countries follow-up on their ambitious growth and innovation plans without the ability to build on a strong R&D base. China, Brazil and India are likely to continue their fast pace with strong technology developments (Doctor, 2009; Joseph et al., 2010). The only change is that instead of copying the Western world and focusing on cheaper disruptive innovations, they will likely come up with world leading technology breakthroughs. Depending on the industry, this may take many years or is just ahead. VOL. 16 NO. 4 2014 foresight PAGE 305 DownloadedbyStateUniversityHigherSchoolofEconomicsAt02:2304September2014(PT)
- 14. Russia and Kuwait are countries that need most change from their current path. Both countries have recognized this need and have defined respective innovation strategies and policies. The jury is out if these countries will be able to implement these strategies in the coming years. BRIC and GCC countries are facing the challenges of enhancing their NISs. This requires the establishment of dedicated education systems which nurture creativity in line with the creation of an R&D culture and evaluation system which eventually is conducive to both basic and applied research and technology development. However, the education systems need to focus on excellence and elite rather than following the widespread belief in many developed countries to increase the number of graduates. In addition, young people are to be encouraged to enter into scientific careers with a clear strong focus on the “hard sciences” rather than the social sciences. In general, BRIC and GCC countries are to build knowledge-driven economies still need to emphasize the real economy considering the service knowledge-based economy a sustainable real-value-creating economy. Furthermore, there is a need to convert the industry culture and influence toward a more open attitude toward open science and open innovation which is the basis for interaction with the science as well as a policy framework conducive innovation which has to go beyond the traditional views on STI policy, e.g. direct or indirect supporting measures, but also including the “softer” framework conditions like a supportive bureaucracy and administration. To achieve sustainable impact on the national innovation capacity countries need to build and maintain competences to scan scientific developments in the world and use foresight techniques. In-depth analysis of STI policies applied in countries beyond BRIC and GCC countries show that countries need to find their own path for national development, e.g. benchmarking other countries but adapting STI policy measures to national conditions, taking into account, especially, cultural and ethical characteristics of the nations and populations, public awareness and attitudes. With such soft factors taken into account, countries need to define their own aspirations and goals including thorough analysis of their current situation and ways to close gaps which can but do not have to lead to an increased R&D spending. Moreover, it proves essential to clearly communicate the plans to national stakeholders and to the outside world to be recognized for the improvements and create attractive innovation hubs. References Balbachevsky, E. and Botelho, A. (2011), “Science and Innovation policies in Brazil: a framework for the analysis of change and continuity”, Paper presented at the IPSA-ECPR Joint Conference: Whatever Happened to North-South?, 16-19 February, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo. Brinkley, I., Hutton, W., Schneider, P. and Ulrichsen, K.C. (2012), “Kuwait and the knowledge economy”, Number 22, Report prepared for The Work Foundation and the Kuwait Programme on Development, Governance and Globalisation in the Gulf States, London School of Economics and Political Sciences, London. Chandrashekar, S. and Basvarajappa, K. (2001), “Technological innovation and economic development: choices and challenges for India”, Economic and Political Weekly, August 25. Cohen, W. and Levinthal, D. (1990), “Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, pp. 128-152. Dahlman, C. (2008), “Innovation strategies of three of the BRICS: Brazil, India and China – what can we learn from three different approaches?”, SLPTMD Working Paper Series, WP No. 023, Oxford: University of Oxford, London. de Brito, C.C.H. and de Mello, L. (2006), “Boosting innovation performance in Brazil”, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, WP No. 532, Paris. Dezhina, I. and Zashev, P. (2007), “Linkages in innovation system in Russia – current status and opportunities for Russian-Finnish collaboration”, Electronic Publications of Pan-European Institute, No 14/2007. PAGE 306 foresight VOL. 16 NO. 4 2014 DownloadedbyStateUniversityHigherSchoolofEconomicsAt02:2304September2014(PT)
- 15. Doctor, M. (2009), “Furthering industrial development in Brazil: globalization and the national innovation system”, Paper presented for delivery at the 2009 Congress of the Latin American Studies Association, 11-14 June, Rio de Janeiro. Esteves, L., lberto, A. and Porcile, G. (2009), “Innovation and cooperation between firms and universities: evidence From Brazil”, Paper presented in the Third Conference on Micro Evidence on Innovation and Development, MEIDE, Rio de Janeiro. Gianella, C. and Tompson, W. (2007), “Stimulating innovation in Russia: the role of institutions and policies, OECD, Economics Department”, Working Paper No 539. Goedhuys, M. (2007), “The impact of innovation activities on productivity and firm growth: evidence from Brazil”, UNU-MERIT Working Papers, WP 2007 – 02. Gokhberg, L. (2003), “Russia: a new innovation system for the new economy“, Background material for First Globelics Conference Innovation Systems and Development Strategies for the Third Millennium, 2-6 November, Rio de Janeiro. Gokhberg, L., Kuznetsova, T. and Zaichenko, S. (2011), “Russia: universities in the context of reforming the national innovation system”, in Goransson, B. and Brundenius, C. (Eds), Universities in Transition – The Changing Role and Challenges for Academic Institutions, Springer, Heidelberg/ New York/ Dordrecht/ London. Hedner, T., Almubaraki, H., Busler, M. and Abouzeedan, A. (2011), “Business and technology incubators and their role in Europe in comparison to the GCC countries: an analysis of current affairs”, ERSA conference papers, European Regional Science Association, WP1283, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Hui, L. (2007), “Subnational innovation system practices in China”, Presented at the National Workshop on Sub-national Innovation Systems and Technology Capacity Building Policies to Enhance Competitiveness of SMEs, organized by UN-ESCAP and Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), 3-4 April, Jakarta. Huibo, Z. and Bingwen, Z. (2011), “Comparison of government functions of BRIC in “National Innovation System” – from the degree of homoplasy and embeddedness”, in Li, Y. (Ed), BRICs and The Global Transformation.- Consideration on the BRICs Summit of Think Tanks in Brasilia, Social Sciences Academic Press, pp. 139-165. Joseph, K.J., Das, K., Kurian, N. and Vivekanandan, J. (2010), “Institutions and innovation systems: understanding exclusion in India”, Paper presented at The 8th GLOBELICS International Conference: Making Innovation Work for Society: Linking, Leveraging and Learning, 1-3 November, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur. Kulkarni, A. and Bougias, G. (2008), “China and India: transforming the global economic landscape through innovation and knowledge”, Paper presented at the 17th Biennial Conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia, 1-3 July, Melbourne. Liu, J., Baskaran, A. and Muchie, M. (2010), “Global recession and the national system of innovation in China: “A Blessing in Disguise”?, Department of Culture and Global Studies, Aalborg University, Working Paper no. 145, Aalborg University Press, Aalborg. Liu, S.G. and Chen, C. (2003), “Regional innovation system: theoretical approach and empirical study of China”, Chinese Geographical Science, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 193-198. Liu, X. and Lundin, N. (2006), “Toward a market-based open innovation system of China”, Paper presented at The Challenges for Knowledge-Based Economies, 21-22 September. McGlennon, D. (2006), “Building research capacity in the gulf cooperation council countries: strategy, funding and engagement”, Paper presented at the Second International Colloquium on Research and Higher Education Policy, 29 November-1 December, UNESCO Headquarters, Paris. Melo, L.M. and Rapini, M.S. (2012), Financing Innovation in Brazil: Empirical Evidence and Implicit S&T Policy, UFMG/CEDEPLAR, Belo Horizonte. OECD (2010), “Innovation to strengthen growth and address global and social challenges – Key findings”, Ministerial report on the OECD Innovation Strategy, Paris. Osman, S.S. and Nour, M. (2011), “Arab regional systems of innovation: characteristics and implications”, UNU-MERIT Working Papers, 2011-058, Maastricht. Peltola, K.K. (2008), “Russian innovation system in international comparison – opportunities and challenges for the future of innovation development in Russia”, Electronic Publications of Pan-European Institute, WP. 11/2008. VOL. 16 NO. 4 2014 foresight PAGE 307 DownloadedbyStateUniversityHigherSchoolofEconomicsAt02:2304September2014(PT)
- 16. Soares, C., Clara, M. and Cassiolato, J.E. (2011), “Innovation systems and inequality: the experience of Brazil”, Paper presented at the VI Globelics Conference at Mexico City, September 22-24, 2008. Tseng, C.Y. (2009), “Technological innovation in the BRIC economies”, Research Technology Management, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 29-35. Wiseman, A.W. and Anderson, E. (2012), “ICT-integrated education and national innovation systems in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries”, Computers and Education, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 607-618. Zahra, S. and George, G. (2002), “Absorptive capacity: a review, re-conceptualization, and extension”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 185-203. Further reading Djeflat, A. (2002), “Knowledge economy for the MENA region – national systems of innovation in the MENA region”, World Bank, WP 50269, Washington DC. Krishnan, R.T. (2003), “The Evolution of a Developing Country Innovation System During Economic Liberalization: The Case of India”, Paper presented at The First Globelics Conference, November 3 – 6, 2003. OECD (2008), OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: China 2008, OECD, Paris. OECD (2011), OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: Russian Federation 2011, OECD, Paris. Rodriguez, A., Dahlman, C. and Salmi, J. (2008), Knowledge and Innovation for Competitiveness in Brazil, The World Bank, Washington, DC. Sharma, S. and Dutta, A. (2008), “Intellectual property rights and innovation in developing countries: evidence from India”, Georgetown University. Soares, C., Clara, M. and Cassiolato, J.E. (2008), “Innovation systems and inequality: the experience of Brazil”, Paper presented at the VI Globelics Conference at Mexico City, 22-24 September. World Bank (2006), “India: national agricultural innovation project”, project appraisal document, Report No: 34908-In., World Bank, Washington, DC. Xiaobo, W. (2007), “The comparison of China and India with the view of national innovation system”, Studies in Science of Science, (Beijing), 2007-S2. Zhang, M. (Ed) (2010), Competitiveness and Growth in Brazilian Cities: Local Policies and Actions for Innovation. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World Bank, Washington, DC. Corresponding author Dirk Meissner can be contacted at: dirk.meissner@gmail.com To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints PAGE 308 foresight VOL. 16 NO. 4 2014 DownloadedbyStateUniversityHigherSchoolofEconomicsAt02:2304September2014(PT) View publication statsView publication stats