Oleg Shatberashvili Georgian Federation for Information and Documentation gfid@caucasus. net

1. International Seminar Multilateral Cooperation in InnovationAlexandria, 15-16 June 2008Innovation Potential of the NIS Countries: View from Outside and Inside Oleg Shatberashvili Georgian Federation for Information and Documentationgfid@caucasus. net

2. 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

3. Innovation channels National R&D Economy Economy Purchase of licenses Imported capital goods

4. 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.

5. Selected countries

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. Majordrivers and barriers to technology implementation 1. Cost and financing 2. Laws and policies 3. Social values, public opinion, andpolitics 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.

10. 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

11. Countries by Number of the Top 16 TAs

12. RAND Assessment of the 4th Group • Countries in this group have the capacity to acquire only the 5 TAs that requirea 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.

13. 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.

14. 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 Country Publications /annum /mill.popul. 1 Russia 180 2 Armenia 140 3 Ukraine 80 4 Belarus 80 5 Georgia 70 6 Moldova 60 7 Azerbaijan 30 8-9 Kazakhstan 20 8-9 Uzbekistan 15 10 Kyrgyz Rep. 10 11 Tajikistan 6 12 Turkmenistan < 2 Latvia 120 RAND data (2006) Comparison of country rates S&T Index Rate Country

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. In spite of the different results by various assessments their accurate consideration shows negative trend of the innovation potential developmentin NIS countries

18. 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.

19. GERD, percent of GDP 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 0.2 na na 0.2 Rep. ~1 (plan 2008) Moldova 0.2 na 0.4 0.8 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

20. The reluctance to negative assessments comes mainly from the way NIS countries draw near current level of the innovation/research potential

21. Time Dependence of Research Potential NIS countries Index Current value for “lagging” countries “Normal” developing countries Time

22. The situation is aggravated by the researchers’ age factor

23. Age Distribution of Researchers Desirable distribution Current distribution 20 40 60

24. 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)

25. Thank you for attention

26. 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

27. 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 saqarTvelo 4 360 ~ 90 Progressive developing countries????