1. 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

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 Economy National R&D Imported capital goods Purchase of licenses

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. 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.

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. 14 to 16 TAs10 to 12 TAs6 to 9 TAs1 to 5 TAs AustraliaChinaBrazilCameroon CanadaIndiaChileChad GermanyPolandColombiaDom.Republic IsraelRussiaIndonesiaEgypt JapanMexicoFiji South KoreaSouth AfricaGeorgia United StatesTurkeyIran Jordan Kenya Nepal Pakistan Countries by Number of the Top 16 TAs

12. 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.

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. Comparison of country rates 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) RateCountry Publications /annum /mill.popul. 1Russia180 2Armenia140 3Ukraine80 4Belarus80 5Georgia70 6Moldova60 7Azerbaijan30 8-9Kazakhstan20 8-9Uzbekistan15 10Kyrgyz Rep.10 11Tajikistan6 12Turkmenistan< 2 Latvia120 S&T Index CountryRate RAND data (2006)

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 development in 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. 2003 2004 2005 2006 Armenia na 0.2 na Azerbaijan 0.2 na 0.1 Belarus na 0.6 1.4 (plan 2013) Georgia 0.2 na < 0.2 Kazakhstan 0.3 na 0.14 1.5–2(plan2012) Kyrgyz Rep. 0.2 na 0.2 Moldova 0.2 na 0.4 0.8 ~1 (plan 2008) Russia 0.3 na ~1 2.5 (plan2015) Tajikistan 0.1 na Turkmenistan 0.4 na Ukraine 0.6 na ~1 Uzbekistan 0.2 na Latvia 0.3 0.4 na 0.6 GERD, percent of GDP

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 Time Index Current value for “lagging” countries NIS countries “Normal” developing countries

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

23. Age Distribution of Researchers 204060 Current distribution Desirable distribution

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 22.027.821.913.0 15.3 2004 10021.827.023.913.813.52002 10020.726.926.115.610.62000 10018.027.928.318.17.71998 1009.026.131.724.09.21994 Total Older then 60 50-5940- 49 30-39Younger then 29

27. Progressive developing countries???? mecnirulad ganviTarebadi qveynebi qveyanamosaxleo ba, mln statiebis raodeno ba stat. raod mln mosaxleze argentina301994~66 hongkongi6743~120 serbia10487~49 kuveiti~2171~80 Cile10808~80 saqarTvelo4360~ 90