UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT

Recommendations

Info

UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT We shall also be establishing a profile of where foreign direct investment (FDI) is going around the world. Instead of ranking countries from ‘most to least or best to worst,’ we shall be identifying common features, as well as dissimilarities, presented by firms in countries of different income levels which are engaging in innovation. The second part of our essay will be devoted to analysing current trends in scientific mobility and the implications of these trends for a country’s capacity to innovate. TRENDS IN INNOVATION Innovative behaviour varies according to income level The role played by innovation in the process of economic development has long been acknowledged. Some would even argue that this relationship was first evoked more than 200 years ago in the works of English economist Adam Smith (1776) or in those of German essayist Karl Marx (1867), long before the term was formally coined by the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter (1942). In the second half of the 20th century, countries began gradually including innovation in their political agenda, which raised the need to provide policy-makers with empirical evidence. Over the past two decades, a lot of work has been done to standardize the international definition of innovation and design indicators. This work culminated in the first version of the Oslo Manual in 1992, subsequently updated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and Eurostat, the European statistics office, in 1997 and 2005. Despite these efforts, measuring innovation 1 remains a challenge and the variations in the methodological procedures adopted by countries – even when the guidelines of the Oslo Manual are followed – hinders the production of fully harmonized indicators. According to the 2013 survey of firms, product innovation is the most common form of innovation in 11 high-income countries and process innovation in 12 high-income countries (Figure 2.2). In Germany, around half of firms are product innovators and almost as many are marketing innovators (48%) and organizational (46%) innovators, a profile similar to that found in Canada. Among the low- and middle-income countries that responded to the questionnaire, the profile of innovation varies considerably from one country to another; in Costa Rica, for instance, 68% of manufacturing firms are product innovators; Cuba, on the other hand, has a high share of organizational innovators (65%), whereas marketing innovators prevail in Indonesia (55%) and Malaysia (50%). In the group of low- and middle-income countries surveyed, process innovation is the least implemented type. This is somewhat preoccupying, given the supportive role that process innovation plays in the implementation of other types of innovation. Overall, marketing innovation is the least implemented type of innovation among the 65 countries surveyed. In addition, the share of innovators among manufacturing firms varies from 10% to 50%, regardless of the type of innovation being implemented, and only a few highincome countries present even shares for all four types of innovation. Germany has the highest innovation rate among high-income countries From this point on, the discussion will focus only on product and process innovation. Overall, the innovation rate found in high-income countries – in other words, the share of firms engaging actively in innovation – matches the share of innovative firms. This means that the innovation rate is chiefly composed of firms that have implemented at least one product or process innovation over the reference period covered by the national innovation survey, which is usually three years. Germany presents the highest innovation rate among high-income countries. The fact that many firms have abandoned innovation altogether or are living off ongoing activities does not hamper Germany’s innovative performance as, when these firms are set aside, Germany still has one of the highest shares of innovators: 59%. A similar trend can be observed in the group of low- and middle-income countries surveyed, with some exceptions. In Panama, for instance, around 26% of the firms surveyed declared they had only abandoned or ongoing innovation activities. This means that, despite having an innovation rate of 73%, the share of firms actually implementing innovation in Panama only amounts to 47%. In the BRICS countries, product innovators prevail in South Africa and the Russian Federation, whereas China and India present similar shares of both types of innovators (Figure 2.3). In Brazil, the share of firms implementing process innovation is remarkably higher than the share implementing product innovation. In India, almost half of the innovation rate is composed of firms with abandoned or ongoing innovation activities. 1. See the glossary on p. 738 for the definition of terms related to innovation in the present chapter. For more information about the timeframe and methodology adopted by the countries surveyed, see UIS (2015). 60
Tracking trends in innovation and mobility Figure 2.2: Types of innovator around the world Share of manufacturing firms (%) Types of innovator in high-income countries Portugal Poland Norway Slovakia Russian Federation Uruguay United Kingdom Sweden Spain Australia 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Austria Belgium Canada China, Hong Kong SAR Croatia Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Chapter 2 New Zealand Netherlands Malta Finland France Germany Luxembourg Iceland Product innovators Organizational innovators Process innovators Marketing innovators Lithuania Latvia Korea, Rep. Japan Italy Ireland Israel Types of innovator in low- and middle-income countries Ukraine Argentina 70 Belarus Turkey 60 Brazil Romania South Africa Serbia 50 40 30 20 10 0 Bulgaria Colombia Costa Rica Philippines Cuba Mexico Ecuador Malaysia Egypt Indonesia India Hungary El Salvador Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics, September 2014 61
Page 1:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Towards 2030
Page 4 and 5:
Published in 2015 by the United Nat
Page 6 and 7:
Report team Director of the Publica
Page 8 and 9:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT A closer look
Page 10 and 11:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Illustrations
Page 12 and 13:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Figure 6.1: E
Page 14 and 15:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Figure 10.2:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Table 25.1. S
Page 22 and 23:
Foreword Irina Bokova, Director-Gen
Page 24 and 25:
xxii
Page 26 and 27:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT 2016 Internat
Page 28 and 29:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT strained in m
Page 30 and 31:
A more developmental approach to sc
Page 32 and 33:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT in the contex
Page 34 and 35: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT There are cou
Page 36 and 37: Science for a sustainable and just
Page 38 and 39: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT provides a ne
Page 40 and 41: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT subjectivity,
Page 42 and 43: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT 2016 20 18
Page 44 and 45: Many dilemmas appear increasingly c
Page 46 and 47: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT complement th
Page 48 and 49: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT contraried by
Page 50 and 51: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Table 1.2: Wo
Page 52 and 53: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Figure 1.1: G
Page 54 and 55: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT The danger is
Page 58 and 59: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Figure 1.4: L
Page 62 and 63: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Table 1.5: Pa
Page 64 and 65: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Figure 1.7: W
Page 66 and 67: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT The countries
Page 68 and 69: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Research Coun
Page 70 and 71: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT to create res
Page 72 and 73: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT So far, the r
Page 74 and 75: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT a number of r
Page 76 and 77: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Southeast Asi
Page 78 and 79: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT major implica
Page 80 and 81: Policy-makers should ... focus not
Page 82 and 83: Figure UNESCO 2.1: SCIENCE Trends i
Page 86 and 87: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Figure 2.3: I
Page 88 and 89: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Figure 2.5: T
Page 90 and 91: Figure UNESCO 2.6: SCIENCE Trends i
Page 92 and 93: Figure UNESCO 2.6 SCIENCE (continue
Page 94 and 95: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Firms prefer
Page 96 and 97: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Table 2.2: Hi
Page 98 and 99: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Figure 2.9: F
Page 100 and 101: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT drain. In 199
Page 102 and 103: UNESCO Figure 2.12: SCIENCE Preferr
Page 104 and 105: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Figure 2.13:
Page 106 and 107: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT CONCLUSION In
Page 108 and 109: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Gender equali
Page 110 and 111: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Figure 3.1: T
Page 112 and 113: 88 Figure 3.2: Share of female rese
Page 114 and 115: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Figure 3.3: S
Page 116 and 117: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Table 3.2: Sh
Page 118 and 119: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Factoring in
Page 120 and 121: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT views of wome
Page 122 and 123: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT POLICY ISSUES
Page 124 and 125: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT are defined a
Page 126 and 127: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT CONCLUSION A
Page 128 and 129: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT 2016 22 104
Page 130 and 131: Science powers commerce - but not o
Page 132 and 133: UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Some challeng
Page 134 and 135:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Table 4.2: R&
Page 136 and 137:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT How best to i
Page 138 and 139:
Figure 4.5: Scientific publication
Page 140 and 141:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Figure 4.6: M
Page 142 and 143:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT businesses of
Page 144 and 145:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Canadian Acad
Page 146 and 147:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Figure 4.8: D
Page 148 and 149:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT In 2014, the
Page 150 and 151:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT CONCLUSION Sc
Page 152 and 153:
The future looks brighter for busin
Page 154 and 155:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Figure 5.2: G
Page 156 and 157:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Policy and Co
Page 158 and 159:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Box 5.1: The
Page 160 and 161:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Box 5.2: Indu
Page 162 and 163:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Figure 5.4: R
Page 164 and 165:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Figure 5.5: P
Page 166 and 167:
UNESCO Figure 5.6: SCIENCE Science
Page 168 and 169:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT federal inves
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
UNESCO Figure 5.11: SCIENCE Scienti
Page 176 and 177:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT More foreign
Page 178 and 179:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT had an advers
Page 180 and 181:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT In the absenc
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Table 6.2: Ov
Page 188 and 189:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Chronic under
Page 190 and 191:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT The campus ha
Page 192 and 193:
168 Source: Thomson Reuters Web of
Page 194 and 195:
Bahamas UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Beliz
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT A variety of
Page 200 and 201:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT In Venezuela,
Page 202 and 203:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Figure 7.3: T
Page 204 and 205:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT A shift towar
Page 206 and 207:
Figure 7.4: Trends in higher educat
Page 208 and 209:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT The Start-Up
Page 210 and 211:
UNESCO Figure 7.7: SCIENCE Trends i
Page 212 and 213:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT TRENDS IN R&D
Page 214 and 215:
Figure 7.8 (continued) Life science
Page 216 and 217:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT For example,
Page 218 and 219:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Figure 7.9: P
Page 220 and 221:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT the major cha
Page 222 and 223:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Table 7.4: Na
Page 224 and 225:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT these service
Page 226 and 227:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT n the creatio
Page 228 and 229:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Box 7.4: Ikia
Page 230 and 231:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT n Strengtheni
Page 232 and 233:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT A second grou
Page 234 and 235:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Industry must
Page 236 and 237:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT have regained
Page 238 and 239:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT The Fourth 3
Page 240 and 241:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT average in ma
Page 242 and 243:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Figure 8.5: S
Page 244 and 245:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Figure 8.7: G
Page 246 and 247:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Box 8.5: Inno
Page 248 and 249:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Table 8.1: In
Page 250 and 251:
UNESCO Figure 8.12: SCIENCE Relativ
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT The European
Page 256 and 257:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT The first sig
Page 258 and 259:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT 72 months. Wh
Page 260 and 261:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Table 9.2: GE
Page 262 and 263:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Figure 9.4: B
Page 264 and 265:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Table 9.4: To
Page 266 and 267:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Figure 9.6: I
Page 268 and 269:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Table 9.7: (c
Page 270 and 271:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Table 9.7: (c
Page 272 and 273:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT EU had alread
Page 274 and 275:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT demand and fu
Page 276 and 277:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Table 9.11: E
Page 278 and 279:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Table 9.12: E
Page 280 and 281:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Box 9.2: Gali
Page 282 and 283:
UNESCO Figure 9.9: SCIENCE Scientif
Page 284 and 285:
Figure 9.10: Publication profiles i
Page 286 and 287:
Figure 9.11 (continued) All EU memb
Page 288 and 289:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT comprises a p
Page 290 and 291:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT GREECE Aligni
Page 292 and 293:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT SPAIN Making
Page 294 and 295:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT CONCLUSION In
Page 296 and 297:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Southeast Eur
Page 298 and 299:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT The effects o
Page 300 and 301:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Box 10.2: Sou
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT COUNTRY PROFI
Page 310 and 311:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT According to
Page 312 and 313:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Box 10.3: A f
Page 314 and 315:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT n a small num
Page 316 and 317:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT has facilitat
Page 318 and 319:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Countries wil
Page 320 and 321:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT A few adjustm
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Table 11.1: I
Page 326 and 327:
Figure 11.3: Scientific publication
Page 328 and 329:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT NORWAY Knowle
Page 330 and 331:
Page 332 and 333:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT polytechnique
Page 334 and 335:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Taken togethe
Page 336 and 337:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT All seven cou
Page 338 and 339:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Many post-Sov
Page 340 and 341:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Table 12.2: T
Page 342 and 343:
Page 344 and 345:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT n On the whol
Page 346 and 347:
UNESCO Figure 12.6: SCIENCE Scienti
Page 348 and 349:
Page 350 and 351:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT currently wor
Page 352 and 353:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Next steps fo
Page 354 and 355:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT corruption an
Page 356 and 357:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT schemes inclu
Page 358 and 359:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT A highly cent
Page 360 and 361:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT UKRAINE Co-op
Page 362 and 363:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT For one thing
Page 364 and 365:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT REFERENCES Ci
Page 366 and 367:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Boosting supp
Page 368 and 369:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT of Economic D
Page 370 and 371:
Figure 13.1: Trends in GERD 1.29% 1
Page 372 and 373:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT In 2009, the
Page 374 and 375:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT an imbalance
Page 376 and 377:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT In recent yea
Page 378 and 379:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT n assigning i
Page 380 and 381:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Box 13.2: Ref
Page 382 and 383:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Along with th
Page 384 and 385:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT More bridges
Page 386 and 387:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT CONCLUSION A
Page 388 and 389:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Progress in C
Page 390 and 391:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Bakiyev was d
Page 392 and 393:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT A focus on un
Page 394 and 395:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Table 14.2: C
Page 396 and 397:
RUSSIAN FEDERATION UNESCO Figure 14
Page 398 and 399:
Page 400 and 401:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Table 14.3: K
Page 402 and 403:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT reliant on en
Page 404 and 405:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Kyrgyzstan ne
Page 406 and 407:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT it comes to i
Page 408 and 409:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT One of the fi
Page 410:
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Box 14.5: Uzb
show all

UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?