Chapter 2: What are the BRIC countries doing?

3 downloads 260 Views 764KB Size Report
graduate programs had been created at the top universities, attracting many young Brazilian ...... International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable.
Chapter 2: What are the BRIC countries doing?

Research capacity, research output and economic impact 1 Rómulo Pinheiro

Agderforskning & Center for Advanced Studies in Regional Strategies (RIS), Norway [email protected]

1. Introduction In the last decade, considerable policy and scholarly attention has been paid to the rise of the so-called BRIC2 (Brazil, Russia3, India and China) countries, not least due to the unique strategic position they occupy on their continents. Together, these four nations encompass o e

% of the

o ld s la d o e age, o tai a out

% of the

o ld s populatio a d

account for close to 17% of the world s economy. Today, China is the second largest economy in the world, while Brazil is the 7th, India is the 10th and Russia is the 11th. Since the late 1990s, on aggregate, this selected group of nations experienced economic growth rates that outpaced that of other mature economies like those of the OECD. Yet, significant socio-economic differences exist amongst the BRICs. The wealthier regions tend to be those that have successfully undergone processes of industrialization in the recent past (Cassiolato and Lastres 2009: 9). A out

% of B azil s GDP is o e t ated i the “outh-Eastern states.

In China the economic gap between coastal and inland provinces continues to grow. Russian industrial development has been centered on a handful of major urban areas, while Eastern regions and Siberia continue to lag behind. In India the gap between the rich South and the poor North as well as between rural and urban areas more generally has remained unchanged. Against the backdrop of the challenges (and opportunities) brought by the knowledge economy (Rooney et al. 2008), one of the strategic means for sustaining economic growth

1

Final version to appear as book chapter in Maassen, P. and Moja, T. (eds.) (forthcoming), Knowledge

production at South African universities: Policies and Practices. Cape Town: CHET. 2 The te B‘IC as fi st oi ed i a epo t Gold a “a hs see Wilson and Purushothaman 2003). 3 The offi ial te is ‘ussia Fede atio , ut the te ‘ussia is used i stead.

1

and competitiveness lies in investments in the capacity to manipulate, create and diffuse knowledge and information. Higher education, particularly with respect to the research mission (Kwiek 2012; Kyvik and Lepori 2010), is seen as playing a critical role in this regard. Investments in scientific, technological and innovation capacity have been identified by many commentators as critical for developing and sustaining regional and national competitive advantages in years to come (Lester and Sotarauta 2007; Porter 1998). Globalization and increasing interdependence – social, cultural, economic, and political (Castells 2010) - have contributed to the rise of science as a world institution (Drori 2003). This chapter takes stock of the developments across the BRIC nations with respect to the policy efforts aimed at strengthening capacity in the realm of scientific research, in addition to shedding light on some of the tangible effects. The chapter is divided into six sections. Section 2 presents some data on public investments in research and sheds light on humancapital related features. Section 3 provides an historical overview of the policy efforts in the area across the BRICs, and section 4 shows some research performance and output indicators. Section 5 provides some measures of economic impact into the four countries, and section 6 concludes the chapter.

2. Research investments and human capital It is widely acknowledged across policy (and academic) circles within the BRICs that scientific capacity plays a critical role in economic progress. Not only does it foster advancements in key areas like science and technology (S&T), but is also a means of providing policy makers with adequate data and robust evidence whilst tackling existing socio-economic challenges. There is a general consensus that the appropriate level of research investment for a mature economy (e.g. EU/OECD region) should not be less than 2% of the GDP. In the last decade or so, average R&D investments (as a percentage of the GDP) in the BRIC region increased only marginally from 0.9% (in 2000) to 1.2% in 20094. At the turn of the century, the largest R&D investments were those of Russia (1.05%) but by 2009 China led the group with 1.7%.

4

The data is taken from UNESCO, OECD and World Bank official databases (available online).The data sets for India are from 2007. I , . % of I dia s GDP as spe t o esearch (Kumar and Asheulova 2011: 235)

2

Figure 1: Gross R&D investments as percentage of GDP (1996-2010)

Source: Adapted from Adams et al. (2013: 6)

Notwithstanding this, the available data (2004) reveal significant variations with respect to R&D investments by economic sector (Soares and Cassiolato 2010: 19). With the exception of India where governmental agencies play a major role, public R&D organizations outside the higher education sector represent between 21 and 26% of total R&D investments. The role of the private sector is particularly pronounced in the cases of China and Russia. Brazil is the most balanced country, with business and higher education sharing the bulk of investments. Finally, the data indicate the private, non-profit sector as playing a rather negligible role. Going forward, both China and Brazil expect to increase their research spending to 2.5% of the GDP by 2020 (Royal Society 2011: 19), with India expected to reach 2% by 2016 (Kumar and Asheulova 2011: 228). The rise of strategic science regimes (Rip 2002) across the BRICs has meant that R&D investments are concentrated around areas considered to be key to the national economy. In addition to the traditional fields of science and technology, BRIC governments have prioritized frontier scientific areas such as atomic energy, electronics, space science, telecommunications, rare earths, green transportation, clean energy and, more recently, biotechnology (Kumar and Asheulova 2011: 228).5 The attractiveness and robustness of any research and innovation system depends on the size and quality of its human resource base. The data for the last decade suggest that, with the exception of Russia, the number of active researchers across the BRIC countries has been on the rise (Figure 2); typically around 100% 5

See also www.globalsherpa.org

3

during the decade 2000-2009. China is a clear outlier here with an exponential growth in human resources involved with R&D activities, even when international definitions of what ou ts as a esea he a e take i to a ou t the easo fo the o se ed de li e f o 2008 to 2009). According to Helene and Ribeiro (

:

:

o e i estigato s

ea

oe

ongoing projects, more collaborations, more [graduate and postgraduate] students being ad ised a d all the othe logi al o se ue es of a la ge [s ie tifi ] o kfo e i a tio . Figure 2: Researchers per country (Full Time Equivalents) – 2000-2009

Source: Adams et al. (2013: 9)

Significant contextual variations exist. For example, in Brazil, the bulk of scientists are located in the main research universities (Helene and Ribeiro 2011: 682), whereas in Russia the various research institutions belonging to Russian Academy of Sciences employed the majority of scientists. When it comes to the relative size of the scientific community (researchers per million inhabitants), in 2007, Russia led with 3,292; followed by China (1,071), Brazil (625), and India (136) (Kumar and Asheulova 2011: 229).6 From a global perspective, the share of world researchers was: 20.1% for China (comparable to the USA with 20.3%); 6.6% for Russia; 2.2% for India; and 1.1% for Brazil (ibid.)

6

The world average was 1,063. The figures for Brazil and India are for 2006 and 2005, respectively. In absolute numbers (thousands researchers), in 2007, the numbers were as follows: China (1423.5); Russia (469,1); India (154,8); and Brazil (124,9) (Kumar and Asheulova 2011: 229).

4

Figure 3: Shares of researchers - world & per million inhabitants (2007)7

Source: Kumar and Asheulova (2011: 229)

3. Policy landscape Over the years, each of the four BRIC countries developed particular approaches to increase domestic research (and innovation) capabilities, as sketched out below. Brazil Balbachevsky and Botelho (2011) provide an insightful historical account of national developments. In the 1960s, when policy instruments and institutions were first established, science policy was perceived as an instrument to address the technological encirclement blamed for the cou t

s poor stage of development. By the end of the decade, new

graduate programs had been created at the top universities, attracting many young Brazilian scholars with PhD education from overseas. The 1970s were characterized by years of economic expansion and significant changes in the regulatory framework targeting science. This was followed by a period of stagnation (1980s), resulting from the long-lasting fiscal crisis that disrupted the national economy. This led to the abandonment of the previously assumed link between investments in science and economic development (c.f. Eliasson 2000), which gradually contributed to the isolation of existing S&T agencies. During the 1980s, initial attempts were made to support business R&D, yet it was not until the 1990s 7

India-2 and Brazil-1 shows figures for 2005 and 2006, respectively.

5

that the federal government began to integrate S&T policy with industrial policy (Sa et al., forthcoming). This, in turn, led to the establishment of new funding programs and regulatory policies aimed at fostering private investment in research and innovation, primarily by stimulating the interactions between firms and universities/research institutes.

By the end of the 1990s, significant policy reforms, including a revamp of the federal S&T agencies, were undertaken (Balbachevsky, forthcoming). Three aspects came to the fore: (i) the adoption of instruments for steering research in light of economic and societal relevance; (ii) S&T age ies p og a

po tfolio, i posi g a

o e o petiti e environment

for research support; and (iii) the reinforcement of instruments for evaluation. The reforms exerted a considerable impact on public universities where most graduate education and research was (and is still) being undertaken. Moreover, they led to an enlargement of the autonomy enjoyed by the S&T agencies, amplified competition for funding, and set a premium on networking-related activities (e.g. between researchers and industry) and the publishing profile of researchers. The reforms also contributed to change dynamics at the regional and local levels, with a number of Brazilian states establishing new research foundations and/or strengthening existing ones, in addition to creating new administrative branches in charge of local S&T policies. Even though states play an important role in funding university-based research, the bulk (about 60%) comes from the federal government, disbursed through a number of federal agencies (Sá et al., forthcoming).8

The policy trends initiated in the 1990s, particularly under Ca doso s

e te -right

government (1995-2002) were continued during the left-oriented government led by Lula da Silva (2003-2011). In 2003, the National Innovation, Technology and Trade Policy, acting as a general framework for innovation policy-making, was adopted (Sá et al. forthcoming). Budgets for ministries and agencies supporting S&T were significantly increased.9 The

8

As far as university research is concerned, both the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) and the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) are major sponsors (Britto and Stallivieri 2011, cited by Sa et al. forthcoming). 9

Between 2000 and 2010, public spending on S&T grew by more than 300%, from R$ 8.65 million to R$ 32.41 million. Private spending on university research (as a share of total sponsored research) grew from .94% to 1.37% during the decade. Yet, non-targeted public R&D spending at public universities declined slightly during this period, to about 56% (Sá et al. forthcoming). 6

passi g of the I

o atio

La , i

, se ed to legiti ize a d fo

alize u i e sit -

industry collaborations. It mandated the creation of Centres for Technological Innovation at public S&T institutions with the aim of managing technology transfers and overall coordination with respect to linkages between academics and industry. Financial and intellectual property regulations were also lifted in order to encourage public- private interactions and partnerships.

In 2007, the Federal government launched the Action Plan in Science, Technology and Innovation for National Development (PACTI). The plan (2007-2010) had four main objectives: increase funding for students and researchers; promote technological innovation in business by fostering a culture of R&D and increasing the number of private sector researchers; support R&D and innovation in strategic areas; and make science, technology, and innovation socially and economically relevant (Rezende 2010, cited by Sá et al. forthcoming). The program ended in 2010 with mixed reviews. In 2008 a new industrial policy, Policy of Productive Development (PDP), was launched. It is geared towards increasing public and private investments in R&D. Balbachevsky and Botellho (2011: 14) report that the rationale of the new policy framework lies in defining a broad spectrum of initiatives, actions and programs in order for science, technology and innovation to play a more decisive role in the country's sustainable development in years to come. Finally, the recently established Greater Brazil Plan (2011-2014), which integrates policy instruments from several federal ministries and agencies, further emphasizes innovation as the centerpiece of the federal go e

e t s i dust ial poli

framework.

Russia One of the distinctive structural features inherited from Soviet-era higher education was an institutional demarcation between advanced research, clustered in the research institutes of the branches of the Academy of Sciences, and the applied research and professional programs of the less-prestigious institutes and state universities (Johnson, forthcoming). Even though repeated initiatives have aimed at integrating research and education activities (teaching-research nexus), this structural demarcation has largely persisted over the years (Graham and Dezhina 2008, in Johnson forthcoming). Until recently, policy efforts in the realms of research and innovation only marginally referred to the role of the higher 7

education sector, to a large degree due to the fact that the sector (in 2010) represented less than 9% of national R&D investments (Smolentseva, forthcoming).10 However, in the last decade, there has been a growing interest in policy and academic circles on how to: restore scientific production; reform the Academy of Sciences; and establish an effective system of research financing (ibid).

Some of the policy instruments currently being assessed include mergers or tighter collaborations between research institutions and universities as well as the intensification of research activities across the entire higher educational sector. Some of these policy efforts can be traced back to the late 1990s. For example, the governmental program of I teg atio

(1997-2000), aimed at the establishment of partnerships between higher

educational institutions and research institutes. However, as a result of financial constraints, the above program ended-up supporting primarily existing partnerships rather than initiating new ones; hence largely benefiting the strongest (already established) research communities. The program has also failed to change the predominantly teaching-focus nature of Russian universities (ibid.). In 1998, a new program, jointly funded by the Ministry of Education and an international aid foundation, focused on the integration of higher education and research by establishing education-research centres. More recently, starting in the mid-2000s, and as a means of enhancing institutional differentiation and building research capacity across the sector, the government enacted a series of regulative changes and targeted programs aimed at establishing a limited number of designated federal and national research universities and at enhancing institutional autonomy, particularly when it comes to financial (budgetary) issues (Smolentseva, forthcoming).11 This has resulted in increasing policy emphasis on such entrepreneurial dimensions such as university endowments, academic start-ups, and academic staff development.

In 2006-07, 57 universities - expected to provide top quality education, research, innovation, and enhance the commercialization of research – and identified on a competitive basis, 10

The bulk of state funding allocated to research is absorbed by the Russian Academy of Science, 80% of which is dedicated to basic research. In 2010, basic research represented a third of the R&D expenditures across the higher education sector (Smolentseva, forthcoming). 11

A 2011 survey found that research income represents 5.4 (public universities) and 6.7% (classical universities) of university budgets (Smolentseva, forthcoming). Classical universities are expected to enhance their research capacity.

8

received federal funding (of up to USD 33 million per institution) for developing innovative programs. In 2008, two institutions (a nuclear university and a technological university based in Moscow) were awarded the prestigious status of

atio al esea h u i e sit , along with

funding for the following ten years (Smolentseva, forthcoming). In 2009/10, 27 national research universities were selected (based on innovative development programs in priority fields designed by the universities themselves) for federal funding of up to USD 60 million per institution (first five years). Following international trends (e.g. in Finland), national research universities are expected to change their legal status from budget organizations to autonomous educational establishments, a measure meant to provide them with enhanced economic freedoms. As far as S&T policy is concerned, the first comprehensive list of strategic priorities for Russia was created in the mid-90s, with the setting of eight priority areas, implemented via traditional instruments like national S&T and innovation programs (Soares and Cassiolato 2010: 80-84). In 1999 this list was submitted to large-scale examination by more than 1000 leading Russian experts. Their analysis revealed that Russia had largely slipped from the forefront of many applied research areas, the weakest aspect being the poor state of the national innovation system and a low demand for research outcomes in the national economy. Russia still maintained strong positions in some areas of basic research and applications that were relevant for the defense sector, such as space research and nuclear power engineering as well as in some applied research that had no serious market prospects (for instance, pipelines for transporting coal suspension) or were country-specific (e. g., open-pit uranium mining). Russian science was unfortunately much weaker in the rapidly developing areas with the greatest demand for research outcomes (e.g. information technologies, telecommunication, and biotechnologies). In 2000-2001, nine S&T priority areas and 52 critical technologies were established, so as to concentrate resources in the most important fields of innovation. In 2002, following a joint high-level meeting of the Security Council and the Presidium of the State Council for Science and Advanced technologies, the Russian President approved

hat is k o

as the Basic

Policies of the Russian Federation in the Sphere of Scientific and Technological Development . This document has e o e a i po ta t ele e t of ‘ussia s so ial a d economic development strategy (up to 2010 and beyond), with its goals of innovation-based 9

economic development, creation of an effective national innovation system and making s ie e a d te h olog

o e of ‘ussia s g eatest p io ities (ibid.). Simultaneously, the

President approved the new priorities of science and technologies, thus boosting their status. More importantly, the implementation of the Basic Policies implied that all decisions relating to the support of science, allocation of budget funds and targeted stimulation of research and innovation should be based on the defined S&T priorities. This document also called for a regular review of S&T priorities based on the goals set in the medium and long term social and economic development platforms, while the priorities and critical technologies should be lined up to form so-called technological corridors leading from research to developing and manufacturing competitive products (Soares and Cassiolato 2010: 80). More recently, Federal efforts are underway with the aim of strengthening government R&D institutions in the form of three specific policy instruments: new organizational forms, i.e. autonomous institutions (goal is 22% of public R&D sector by 2010); the modernisation of the state academies of science (structures, functions and funding); and the integration of education and R&D activities (Belyaev et al. 2007: 5-10). The increasing convergence between higher education and S&T was enacted in 2009 with the passi g of a Ma po e fo I

e

fede al p og a

o ati g ‘ussia

Eu o

.

illio

e titled “&T a d Edu atio

-2012). Its core objective is the modernisation of

manpower for science, education and (high-tech) industries, focusing on the development of young scientific talents (Zaichenko 2008). Examples of specific initiatives include: the establishment of leading research and education centres; esea he s

o ilit

ithi

Russia; foreign and Russian researchers based overseas as guest scholars (in modern S&T areas); and scientific projects at secondary schools.

China Following the esta lish e t of the People s ‘epu li of Chi a, i go e

e t adopted the “o iet U io s

, the Chi ese

odel of s ie e a d te h olog

“&T

development. This was aimed at building a National Innovation System (c.f. Nelson 1993) composed of both comprehensive and specialized universities and a pervasive network of public research institutes, under the governance of a central agency (Segal 2003, cited in Mok and Yue, forthcoming). Public research institutes, most notably those directly 10

associated with the Chinese Academy of Science, the most prolific scientific institution in the country, became exclusively responsible for scientific research, whereas universities took over S&T-related activities with limited involvement in R&D. This developmental model, so widespread across other East Asian countries like Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia, remained in place until the mid-1990s (Trani and Holsworth, 2010: 187). At the beginning of the twenty-first century, some basic research institutes were transferred from the academy to universities. In addition to its massive expansion of higher education in the past few decades, China has started to emphasize intellectual capital production, thereby strengthening the role of higher education institutions, particularly research-intensive u i e sities, i the ou t

s economic development. To further promote the development

of research universities, the central government established R&D funds to support innovative initiatives at universities. Between 1998 and 2004 funding for scientific research increased by 400 per cent. In 2003, approximately 55 national research laboratories existed under the auspices of the Chinese Ministry of Education (ibid.)

In the early 1980s, and in parallel with policy efforts to promote collaboration between industries and universities/research institutes (see below), the Chinese government established a series of national-scale research programs primarily aimed at addressing the problems encountered during the social and economic reform era initiated in the late 70s. One such initiative is the Key Technologies R&D Program (established in 1982), covering a wide range of S&T fields -

agriculture, electronic information, energy resources and

transportation - has attracted tens of thousands of personnel from over 1,000 research institutes nationwide (Mok and Yue forthcoming). In 1986, Deng Xiaoping approved and initiated the National Hi-tech R&D Program, encompassing 20 strategic themes and geared towards high-end technological exploration in emerging fields like biotech, space flight, information and laser (ibid.) Two years later, the Ministry of Science and Technology initiated a nationwide innovation program, the Torch Program. The program plays a critical role in bringing into play the potential and st e gth of Chi a s “&T apa it , i ter alia, by reducing the burden of excessive regulation and by providing physical support for infrastructure (to attract foreign high-tech companies and private investors), in addition to helping promote the commercialization, industrialization and internationalization of the national S&T market (ibid.). 11

In 2006, the State Council promulgated the Medium- and Long-Term National Plan for S&T Development up to 2020, aimed at promoting S&T development across selected key fields and at enhancing indigenous i depe de t innovation capacity. A total of 11 fields, 68 topics, 16 special programs, 27 frontier technologies, 18 basic science questions, and 4 esea h pla s a e ide tified, fo

i g the ou t

s esea h p io it o e the e t fiftee

years (ibid.). Furthermore, this strategic platform encourages stronger integration amongst universities, research institutes and enterprises. By the end of 2008, 54 national S&T industrial parks located in the vicinity of major universities and research institutes had already been established. In short, by doubling R&D investments (from 1.23% in 2004 to 2.5% in 2020) and increasing innovative patents, the policy goal is to make China an i

o atio -o ie ted ou t

a d, consequently, a global leader in S&T by the mid-

21st century (Mok and Yue forthcoming).

India In India, the importance of S&T for national security and economic prosperity has been widely acknowledged e e si e the ou t

s independence. However, the understanding

of science, technology and innovation and their envisioned role in nation-building have changed over the years (Rizvi and Gorur forthcoming). In very broad terms, these can be traced through some of the landmark policy initiatives over the decades. The Scientific Policy Resolution (SPR), of 1958, stressed the effective combination of technology, raw materials and capital, of which the first was considered the most important, as the key to national prosperity (Government of India 1958, cited by Rizvi and Gorur forthcoming). This reflected Prime Minister Nehru s aspiration of using S&T as a way out of poverty, disease, illiteracy and ignorance, thus catapulting India into the mainstream of the world community (ibid.).12 The first step was to develop the infrastructure and systems to promote research, in the form of a newly established Ministry of S&T. To oversee these developments, a number of research agencies were set up, and the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research was expanded. Research was to be conducted through a number of institutes, established especially to work on the needs of the different industries, and defined by the Indian 12

[…] to foste , p o ote a d sustai the ulti atio of s ie es a d s ie tifi esea h i the ou t a d to secure for the people all the benefits that can accrue from the acquisition and application of scientific k o ledge. Go e e t of I dia : , ited ‘iz i a d Go u fo th o i g

12

Planning Commission's strategic focus on development through industrialisation (Rizvi and Gorur forthcoming).

A quarter of century later, in 1983, the Technology Policy Statement (TPS), presented a rather grim picture of the ou t

s esea h apa ilities o etheless (ibid.). The report

sheds light on a nation burdened with so- alled imposed technologies , and expressed a strong desire to develop home-grown technologies better aligned to people s aspi atio s and to the specific needs of local communities. In other words, the report presented a view of R&D unable to break free from its dependence on foreign technologies, and the need to become self-reliant. Twenty years later, in the Science and Technology Policy (STP) of 2003, a confident India that viewed itself as playing a significant part on the global scene is presented instead (Government of India 2003, cited by Rizvi and Gorur forthcoming).13 STP celebrates the achievements of Indian scientists in areas such as agriculture, health care, chemicals and pharmaceuticals, nuclear energy, astronomy and astrophysics, space technology and applications, defence research, biotechnology, electronics, information technology and oceanography, and highlights the successes of Indian science in significantly increasing food production and healthcare. Furthermore, the policy suggests a novel understanding of the relationship between science and technology on the one hand and S&T and economic development on the other, particularly in the light of the ICT revolution and globalization. Knowledge itself is now viewed as a tradable commodity, and innovation is seen as the cornerstone of the S&T system. Reflecting this new paradigm, the Indian Government has declared 2010-2020 as the 'Decade of Innovation', with the Department of Science and Technology playing a critical role in making it a reality (DST 2010). As part of the new strategy, the government has established a number of technological parks (hosting business incubators) and innovation centres/clusters, encompassing more than 400 research laboratories designed to work largely on local problems (Rizvi and Gorur forthcoming).

13

Today India has become one of the strongest in the world in terms of scientific manpower in capability a d atu it […] we have come a long way since our independence, from mere buyers of technology to those of who have made science and technology as an important contributor for national development and societal transformation. (Government of India 2003, cited by Rizvi and Gorur forthcoming)

13

The old innovation paradigm, supported mainly by traditional S&T units within the public sector, is now deemed inadequate to the new national demands and global economy. Instead, the new policy framework stresses the following (five) dimensions:   





Wide i g the platfor of i o atio : seei g i o atio ot e el as high-te h i ludi g a ethi k i poli , se i e deli e , p o esses a d i dset; I clusi ity: a fo us o f ugal i o atio that is espe iall gea ed to a ds the the p a id a d ai s to edu e i e uities;

ut as

otto

of

Creati g a ider i o atio ecosyste : that i ludes go e e t, the p i ate se to , edu atio i stitutio s, esea h o ga isatio s, i di iduals, o su e s, NGOs a d the edia i d a i i te a tio s to sti ulate a d fa ilitate i o atio ; De elopi g e dri ers of i o atio : that a e ultidis ipli a , olla o ati e, dis upti e a d fo us o du a ilit athe tha disposa ilit ; eed athe tha de a d; a d seek ge e atio al athe tha i e e tal ha ge; Creati g roo for e discourses: to de elop th ough the de o atisatio of i fo atio , e po e i g e pe ts, i easi g o u it pa ti ipatio a d passi g igid s ste s ‘iz i a d Go u fo th o i g .

In spite of the fact that the new strategic platform clearly expresses the desire to move away from the notion of innovation as a high-tech science activity, e.g. by emphasising the irrelevance of global indicators such as patents, publications and citations as the locus of I dia s i

o atio poli , the 2013 Science Technology and Innovation Policy still reflects

some of the traditional aspects associated with the old paradigm (ibid.), for example, when it comes to research-lab type R&D activities. As far as the higher education sector is concerned, the lack of adequate research training is seen as a major barrier preventing the contribution of Indian universities to the nation's innovation agenda. U i e sities legal structure, resulting in the lack of adequate incentives, is seen as another major bottleneck. Public-funded universities and autonomous research institutions have traditionally not been allowed to commercialise the knowledge they generate. In 2008, the Government proposed a new Intellectual Property Bill allowing academic institutions to patent publicly funded research, rewarding institutions and inventors with a share of the royalties and licensing fees (Government of India 2008, in Rizvi and Gorur forthcoming). 14

4. Research performance and outputs Scientific publications and citation impact The number of scientific publications amongst the BRICs has significantly increased in the last two decades, but there are considerable differences amongst countries. In 1981, the world share of publications (all fields of science) amongst the four BRICs was 2.4%, compared to 20% for the USA (Kumar and Asheulova 2011: 231). Twenty years later, by 2001, this figure had quadrupled to 9.5%, and in 2009 it accounted for 20.1% of all scientific publications. The largest single recipient was, by far China, with 68% of all the BRIC pu li atio s a d

. % of the

o ld s total. Togethe , I dia

. % , B azil

% a d ‘ussia

(1.6%) represented 6.4% of all the scientific publications registered in 2009. In absolute figures, in the 5-year period (2005-2009), China produced around 1 million peer-reviewed papers, followed by India (234 thousand), Russia (164 thousand), and Brazil (157 thousand). With the exception of Russia, B‘IC s s ie tifi output increased during the above period (ibid.).14 Figure 4: Annual research output (1981-2011)

Source: Adams et al. (2013: 10)

14

As follows: Russia (-1.64%); China (+13.7%); India (+2.84%); and Brazil (+1.97%).

15

With regard to the prolific scientific areas, Brazil, Russia and India tend to prioritize the natural and life sciences, whereas the ulk of Chi ese s hola s pu li atio s are in the field of engineering (Kumar and Asheulova 2011: 232). In the case of India, the highest number of scientific papers has, in the last decade or so, been in the medical sciences, with considerable growth in the fields of engineering and chemistry.15 In Brazil, the medical sciences dominate (18.2% of all publications in 2009), with considerable growth (since 2005) in the agricultural and biological sciences.16 Physics and astronomy are, by far, the leading scientific fields in Russia, with material science growing considerable in recent years.17 Finally, in China, the number of publications in engineering (by far the most prolific field) grew fivefold in the period 2003-2009, followed by material sciences and physics and astronomy.18 Recent projections suggest that, by 2020, the BRIC countries may become the largest world producer of scientific publications with about 36% of the total, with the USA having around 24% (Kumar and Asheulova 2011: 233). By 2025 the figure is expected to increase to close to 45% of the total with China (22%) continuing to be the dominant player, followed by India (4.5%), Brazil (4.4%) and Russia (3.9%). When accounting for scientific performance, it is equally (if not more) important to look at citation impact rather than quantitative figures per se. The historical data (last three decades) show that the impact of science in the BRICS is below world average (figure 5), but that it has been rising in recent years. In the early 1980s Brazil led the group with an overall citation impact of about half the global average, with Russia being the worst performer with slightly below a quarter. Three decades later, somewhat unsurprisingly, China has the highest citation rate amongst all the BRIC countries (all scientific fields), with a score almost twice as high as in the 1980s. By 2011, Russia was still the worst performer amongst the BRICs but is much closer to its Brazilian and Indian counterparts.

15

I dia s share of global publications (2007-2011) in medicine (pharmacology & toxicology), engineering and chemistry was 6.1%, 4.1%, and 6.4%, respectively (Adams et al. 2013: 11). 16 In the period 2007-2011, B azil s share of global publications in agricultural sciences, plant & animal sciences, and pharmacology & toxicology were 8.8%, 6.6% and 3.7%, respectively (Adams et al. 2013: 11). 17 ‘ussia s share of global publications (2007-2011) in physics, space science and geosciences was 7.3%, 6.8% and 6.6%, respectively (Adams et al. 2013: 11). 18 Chi a s share of global publications (2007-2011) in engineering, material sciences, and physics was 14.8%, 24.5% and 17.9%, respectively (Adams et al. 2013: 11).

16

Figure 5: Citation impact of BRIC science relative to world average (1981-2011)

Source: Adams et al. (2013: 13)

The number of highly cited papers in the top 1 percent for each subject category across the BRIC increased three and a half times in the period 2002-2011, from 478 to 1686 publications (ibid. p, 14). Whereas in 2002 the percentage of highly cited papers across the four countries averaged 0.45% of national output, by 2011 this figure reached 0.57%; 0.72% for China alone. In fact, in 2010, China produced as many highly cited papers (about 1,000) as the UK. As far as specific fields are concerned, as expected, variations exist between countries in the light of established scientific traditions and capabilities as well as strategic public R&D investments. In the five year period 2007-2011, the situation was as follows: B azil s highl

ited pape s

e e i the fields of ph si s,

athe ati s a d e gi ee i g;

I dia s s ie tifi i pa t as p e ale t i e gi ee i g, ph si s a d o pute s ie e; Chi a s citation index was highest around engineering, mathematics, social sciences, material science and computer science; with Russian publications (all fields) failing to have any meaningful impact, i.e. citations higher than 0.8 times the world average, despite the fact that ‘ussia s ie tists i oads i the field of ph si s a e glo all a k o ledged (Adams et al. 2013: 15-6).

17

Patents Studies have shown a positive correlation between R&D investments and the levels of innovation activity (measured by the number of patents filed) at the firm, industry and/or country levels (de Rassenfosse and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie 2009; Meliciani 2000). The data for the decade 2001-2010 (figure 6) shows the exponential growth of patents filled by China, in contrast to the other three BRIC countries (particularly Brazil and Russia) which have remained relatively stable during the period.19 For example, Uchôa et al. (2011: 153) report that, in Brazil, the total number of patents filled by local residents increased by only 18% in the period 1997-2006. Based on a thorough analysis of the dynamics within the ge o i s ie tifi field, the autho s state that it appears that only a small part of the scientific knowledge generated is being transformed into products or technological results the atio s i dust , f o

the data o pate t a ti it .

i id. p,

The situation for

China is remarkably different. In 2009, the country generated over 314,000 patents at the rate of 185,100 patents per percent GERD (Adams et al. 2013: 10). In 2011, China overtook the US to become the number one patent filing country in the world (total of 526,412 applications) as well as world leader in patents granted to local residents (ibid. p, 20). The objective set in the latest national (5-year) plan on science and technology aims to increase patent ownership per 10,000 inhabitants from 1.7 (2010) to 3.3 by 2015. Similarly, R&D pe so

el s i e tio pate t appli atio s (by 100 man-years) are set to grow by 20%, from

10 to 12.20

19

These figures should be taken with a pint of salt, partly due to the considerable time-lag between patent application- and granting in countries like Brazil and India (Adams et al. 2013: 21). 20 http://www.cpahkltd.com/EN/info.aspx?n=20110718180126200317

18

Figure 6: Annual Patent Applications (2001-2010)

Source: Adams et al. (2013: 20)

When one takes into account the total patent portfolio across individual industrial sectors in the BRIC a more revealing picture regarding the correlation between R&D investment and technological innovation emerges, is provided in a recent report by Thomson Reuters. Brazil has a relatively even distribution of patents across technologies with some emphasis—as would be expected from its research profile—on life sciences (pharmaceuticals, organic fine chemistry and medical technology) and transport and machinery (other special machines). Russia shows stronger focus in food chemistry and medical te h olog ; I dia s p ofile is do i ated by a spike in pharmaceuticals and organic fine chemistry; China shows preference for high tech areas of electrical machinery, apparatus and energy, digital communication a d o pute te h olog … Ada s et al. : As is the case with scientific publications, one of the means of accessing the impact of technological innovations lies in assessing the degree to which these are cited by new patents. A recent analysis of patent citation across the BRIC reveals that, in the 40-year period 1976-2006, citation ratios were highest in Russia (5.26), followed by Brazil (4.69), India (3.65) and China (3.55) (Tseng 2009: 32). The study also shows that Science Linkage, i.e. the degree through which patent filling is directly associated with basic research (primarily undertaken at public universities and research institutes), is highest in Russia (5.46) and 19

lowest in Brazil (2.18), with India (3.77) and China (2.98) in the between (ibid. p. 32). Based on this and other types of data, the following can be concluded: in Russia the priority is on both fundamental and incremental innovation; India is working closely with applied and incremental innovation; while both Brazil and China tend to focus on applied and radical innovation. Global research rankings In spite of its methodological pitfalls, the Shanghai rankings of world universities21 are seen by many as the most prominent tool to assess the comparative performance of researchintensive universities all over the world. In 2011, only one BRIC university (Moscow State University, rank 80th) was included in the top-100 institutions, compared to 54 for Europe and 37 for the USA. Five BRIC institutions were in the top-200; 3 in China, 1 Russia and 1 in Brazil. The top-300 world universities included 16 BRIC institutions, with the bulk (13) coming from China, followed by Brazil (2) and Russia (1). As for the top-400, in addition to 21 Chinese universities, the group includes 5 from Brazil, 3 from Russia and 1 from India. Finally, the top-500 research universities include a total of 48 BRIC institutions, of which 35 are Chinese, 7 Brazilian, 5 Russian and 1 Indian. The situation is somewhat similar when one takes into account other assessments (e.g. Times Higher Education Ranking), with a stronger international reputation and recruitment component. In 2011-2, the only (2) BRIC universities in the top-100 were from China; 4 universities (3 from China and 1 from Brazil) were part of the top-200; and 16 on the top-400, the bulk (10) of which were Chinese. Table 1: BRIC Universities in World Rankings (2011/2)

Source: CIHE (2011)22, based on data from original sources 21 22

Online at: http://www.shanghairanking.com http://www.shanghairanking.com/wcu/wcu4/13.pdf

20

Looking more closely at the scientific fields of excellence, the most recent figures (2012, Shanghai rankings) reveal the following aspects when it comes to the BRIC countries:     

Natural scie ces a d athe atics: i stitutio Peki g, Chi a i the topf o Chi a f o B azil – “ao Paulo i the top;

,a d

E gi eeri g/Tech ology a d Co puter Scie ces: i stitutio s all Chi ese i the top,a d Chi ese a d B azilia i the top; Life a d Agriculture Scie ces: No e i the topi the top; Cli ical Medici e a d Phar acy: i luded i the topof this field; Social Scie ces:

all f o

,a d

“ao Paulo, B azil i

Chi a i the top-

Chi ese a d the top-

, o e i the top-

B azilia ; the o l

.

5. Economic effects Assessing the direct, economic effects of knowledge structures and (basic) research investments in the local economy is not an easy task. As such, no simple model of the economic benefits from basic research is possible. The literature highlights the importance of knowledge spillovers and the existence of localization effects, thus suggesting that the benefits emanating from public investment in basic research can take a variety of forms (Salter and Martin 2001). For example, various studies suggest a link between sustained investments in scientific capacity and the degree of innovation within firms, assuming efforts are made to transfer academic-generated knowledge, e.g. through the mobility of researchers (Zellner 2003). It is also important to take into account that there are substantial differences across as well as within industries. It is has been shown that, within each industry, firms pursue different R&D strategies, with those emphasizing basic research absorbing more basic (academic generated) scientific knowledge than those focused on applied research (Lim 2004). There is also evidence of the effects of knowledge structures and science and technology (S&T) policy in the overall performance of national and regional innovation systems (Asheim and Coenen 2005; Xiwei and Xiangdong 2007), and, consequently, on the competiveness of local firms (Gassmann and Keupp 2007), regions (Isaksen and Karlsen 2012) and entire nations (Porter 1998). Following this line of evidence, in this section we focus on three aspects intrinsically related to the effects of knowledge structures in the economic performance of the BRIC countries, namely: GDP, global trade 21

and (high-technology) exports; technology transfers; and global innovation and competitiveness. Economic indicators: GDP, global trade & high-tech exports As alluded to earlier, GDP amongst the BRICs has, in the last two decades or so, outpaced that of more developed economies such as those of the OECD. Prior to the current global economic crisis, initiated in the fall of 2008, the combined GDP growth for the BRIC countries in 2007 was 9.65%, with China (14.2%) and India (9.8%) leading the pack.23 This figure is in stark contrast with that of the OECD areas as whole, with a combined growth rate of 2.7%. 24 More recent figures (2011) reveal that the gap between the two regions has decreased, largely due to a 4% decline in economic growth across the BRICs (combined rate of 5.65%); versus a combined 1.9% in the OECD. Historical data (since early 80s) show that, growth across the BRIC has been steadily upwards, albeit with blips in the late 1990s and more recently as a result of the current financial crisis (China being the exception). Yet, it seems that, in contrast with their OECD counterparts, these economies are bouncing back once again. Figure 7: BRICs GDP (1981-2011)

Source: Adams et al. (2013: 5)25

23

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?page=1 http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=SNA_TABLE1 25 Data from the World Bank expressed as US$ current in the year for which the data are recorded (i.e., 2001 data at 2001 prices). Data not adjusted for purchasing power parity. 24

22

However, looking at GDP growth alone has its limitations and it is therefore necessary to gain a broader picture of the overall robustness of the BRIC economies. One way of doing that is by looking at trade with other nations. A recent economic report compiled by the Indian government shows that, in 2010, Russia and China had positive trade (goods and services) and capital account balances, yet Brazil and India had negative ones (Indian Government 2012: 42) The same report shows that the BRICs share in global trade and world exports grew fivefold since the early 90s (ibid, p. 33). In 2010, China accounted for 9.2% of global trade, Russia with 2.3%, India with 1.8% and Brazil with 1.2%. However, exports from these countries tend to be natural resource- and/or manufacturing- intensive26, thus not necessarily reflecting public returns on investment in research capacity building. In this respect, it is useful to look at the figures regarding high-technology exports and (valueadded) services, areas where knowledge structures tend to have a more direct economic impact. In the period 2000-2009, high-tech exports across the BRIC countries (as per cent of manufacturing exports) rose from 14.8 to 15.7% (ibid. p. 36). Interestingly, whereas India and Russia considerably augmented their share of high-tech exports, China and Brazil showed a decline during the 10-year period. Table 2: High-technology Exports (% manufacturing exports)

Source: Indian Government (2012: 36)

Turning now to the BRICs share of world exports with services, the data show that this (aggregated) figure has increased by 550% since 1990, from 1.7 to 9.4% (ibid. p, 36). China leads the group with 4.2%, followed by India (3.1%), Russia (1.2%) and Brazil (0.9%). 26

Manufacturing goods account for close to 94% of exports from China and 52% from India. ‘ussia s e po t basket is dominated by fuel and mining exports (close to 70%), while agriculture products, fuel, and mining account for nearly 60% of all Brazilian exports (Indian Government 2012: 34).

23

A o di g to a al sts; Increased technology-intensive investments and a higher supply of human resources propelled growth in the services sector, which, in turn, led to higher productivity in the BRICs economies. i id. Moreover, the improved living standards of the middle class across the BRICs have also driven the (import) demand of foreign-based services, f o

. % of the o ld s total i

to

%

i id. p,

.

Technology transfers: University- industry linkages There is an assumption, amongst policy and academic circles, that intensifying the relationship between universities and industry in the context of technology transfers and innovation, are likely to result in the rise of localized (regional and/or national) innovation systems (Aghion et al. 2008; Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2000). Empirical evidence from other national and regional contexts (e.g. Nordic region) largely supports such views (Klofsten et al. 1999; Lester and Sotarauta 2007; Nilsson 2006). However, as a process, this does not occur in a linear fashion and is laden with various tensions and dilemmas (Benner and Sandström 2000; Marton 2005; Pinheiro et al. 2012). There is increasing evidence suggesting that higher education institutions across the BRIC, particularly research-intensive universities, are undertaking strategic efforts to promote academic technology transfers into local industry. Recent studies from Brazil suggest that, in recent years, the country has undergone a transition from a top-down national system of innovation to a triple helix model, with the university playing an expanded role (Etzkowitz et al. 2005). A particular emphasis has been attributed to the development of flexible, network-based business incubators located within and/or in the immediate periphery of universities (e.g. in technology parks). In 2005, there were a total of 237 incubators spread across the country (23 located at universities) of which 107 were technology-based, 56 associated with traditional economic sectors, 40 were mixed, 29 cooperatives and 5 private27. Almeida (2004, cited in Etzkowitz et al. 2005: 414), reports that, in 2003, close to 2,000 companies employing around 15,000 people emerged out of these incubators. Up to the early 2000s, technology transfer and entrepreneurship infrastructures to support academic spin-offs were rather weak (Botelho and Almeida 2010).

27

As far as the technology-based incubators are concerned, costs were spread as follows: university 33%; industry 45%; government 19%; and hybrid institutions 3% (Etzkowitz et al. 2005: 416).

24

Most of the policy emphasis during the 1990s was on training highly qualified human resources to work in existing companies (Renault and Mello 2011). However, in 2004, the government passed an Innovation Law to establish a legal infrastructure and financial mechanism to promote innovation. A survey, conducted between 2008 and 2012, revealed that university-industry interactions in Brazil have now surpassed those of other neighboring countries such as Mexico and Argentina (Monteiro 2012, cited in Sá et. al forthcoming). More interestingly, researchers found that low and medium technology-using sectors such as agronomy and agricultural production, forestry, petroleum, electrical equipment are important users of academic-generated knowledge. One company alone, the oil giant Petrobrás (the 7th largest energy company in the world), formed technological partnerships involving 50 networks and more than 100 universities and research institutes since 2006 (Sá et al. forthcoming). “i ila l , B azil s fast isi g iote h olog se to

o posed of

fi

s

in 2011 and concentrated in the Southeast region) has benefited from recent changes in the regulative framework safeguarding IP rights and streamlining bureaucratic procedures. Studies suggest that close to 95% of the sector is connected with academic groups located at Brazilian universities and research centers (ibid.). In Russia, in 2010 the government passed a new market-based policy instrument aimed at stimulating the role of universities in the development of high-tech industries and the innovative outlook of the Russian economy as a whole (Froumin and Kouzminov, forthcoming). Concrete measures include: the establishment of innovative companies; partnerships with business (3-year projects); the commercialization of research results; and the development of the innovative infrastructure of universities (Smolentseva, forthcoming). As of late 2011, Russian universities had already established more than 450 companies, in addition to federal support for 57 companies to establish innovative enterprises with universities (ibid.) The new legal act established a

ega-g a t s he e supporting (USD 5

million) prominent research environments in the fields of science and engineering. A total of 79 such labs received funding during 2010 and 2011. In 2009, the government established a program (EURECA), now in its second stage (2013-2016), aimed at enhancing the research and entrepreneurial capacity of Russian universities by introducing new models of collaboration between Russian universities and their North American counterparts. One of the recipients was St. Petersburg National Research University of information technologies, 25

mechanics and optics which, together with the University of Los Angeles (California), established a business incubator in the form of a startup- school («SUMIT») and laboratory for the development of business models and virtual prototypes of innovative products. A start-up accelerator («iDealMachine») with funding of USD 6 million was created with the support of a US-based venture company. All in all, 6 new units of the R&D University support system were established and a strategy of innovative development for the entire university was adopted.28 Is spite of these positive developments, a number of key challenges remain. The economic effectiveness of academic spin-offs is relatively low (Smolentseva forthcoming). The innovative capacity of firms is still limited; e.g., in 2007, more than 90% of firms were categorized as non-innovative with the share of innovative products in total sales accounting for a mere 6% (Zaichenko 2008).29 Labour productivity across globally competitive high-tech industries was found to be rather low as well. In China, the assumption of a larger role for higher education in facilitating technology transfers into industry is yet another example of how China is modernizing its higher education system, inter alia, by establishing a direct link between university research and knowledge information to promote economic development. Higher education has become more entrepreneurial with the formation of university-based, scientific research and technology innovation parks where industry and scientific communities meet. The most prominent ones are located in/around the largest urban areas - Beijing, Shanghai, Harbin, and Jiangsu – with the first two acting as engines for the system (Trani and Holsworth 2010: 187). In Beijing, the Zhongguancun Life Science Park was established by local government together with the Ministry of Science and Technology. It includes knowledge-laden institutions such as the National Institute of Biological Science; the National Biochip Engineering Research Centre; Novo Nordisk (China) R&D Centre; and the Beijing Biotechnology and Medical Incubators. In Shanghai there are many science parks; some of them have been established by universities – e.g. National University Science Park; Shanghai Jiatong University Science Park; and Shanghai-Zizhu Science and Industrial Park. The consequences of these R&D efforts are that the Chinese university has dramatically changed its function by transforming research findings and discoveries directly into production. At the 28

Online at: http://www.eureca-usrf.org/en/about/ In 2006, innovation activity in industry was 9.4%, compared to 21% and 73% in countries like Hungary and Germany, respectively (Zaichenko 2008).

29

26

turn of the twenty-first century, more than five thousand university enterprises existed in China; approximately 40 per cent were high-tech related. Also, universities are collaborating more with industry and research institutes. Fudan University, in Shanghai, reflects these trends. A ke fa to i Fuda s ise as its i lusio i the elite g oup of te u i e sities that were identified, in 1998, by the Chinese Ministry of Education for additional funding through Project 985. Its research infrastructure includes 77 graduate schools, 126 research centres, and 25 laboratories focusing on a range of key areas; from biodiversity science and ecological engineering to antibiotics and clinical pharmacology. The university has also established a thriving biotechnology research park, and has converted academic-generated knowledge into market applications, through its incubation and tech transfer roles. In addition, Fudan works closely with industry and government in tailoring its research a ti ities to suppo t Chi a s e e ge e i the e

glo al knowledge-based economy. An

illustration of the entrepreneurial spirit that permeates the university is the Fudan-Lucent Technologies Bell Lab, which conducts cutting-edge research in areas like mobile communications, fibre communications, and comprehensive network management. Even the universities that have not been targeted for government funding have made concerted efforts to raise money on their own through a variety of entrepreneurial activities (ibid., p. 187). Finally, in 1999, the State Council introduced a generous rewarding mechanism for commercially useful discoveries and allowed research personnel employed at public universities and institutes to enjoy greater mobility (build bridges) between their research and industrial careers (Mok and Yue forthcoming). In order to support innovation, the Indian government has also established a number of 'Te h ologi al Pa ks' a d I

o atio Ce t es encompassing over 400 research laboratories

designed to work largely on local problems. There is also a huge amount of private investment in innovation as well through individual entrepreneurs as well as giant business houses, non-government organisations (NGOs), and by banks and hospitals. These privately funded innovations are spread throughout India, and in some cases are spilling over the boundaries of the country through collaborations and exports (Gorur and Rizvi, forthcoming: 5). However, the cooperation between universities and industries in the context of technology transfers and innovation is rather limited, largely due to the fact that most universities are not involved with research. Over the years, the hope was that the (7) Indian 27

Institutes of Technology (IITs), the pi

a le of I dia s highe edu atio s ste , togethe

ith

other national institutes and laboratories spread throughout the country would, produce the t pe of s ie e that

ould gal a ise I dia i to e o i g a

ajo i dust ial atio

(Gorur and Rizvi forthcoming). However, given population pressures and growing social demand for higher education, the IITs largely became teaching-only institutions. Recent esti ates suggest that less tha

% of I dia s 229 universities are involved with world class

research, and that this is largely related to their inability to compete with multinational companies for talented scientists rather than research funding per se (Leadbeter and Wilsdon 2007, cited by Gorur and Rizvi, forthcoming). In order to counteract such tendencies, the Indian government has recently announced the future setting up of 14 i

o atio u i e sities expected to function as epicentres for the development of research

excellence across selected scientific fields. The newly created National Innovation Council (NInC) has revealed plans to encourage existing universities to actively participate in networks, along with a range of external stakeholders. This will be facilitated through Cluster Innovation Centres (CICs): The CICs would connect the universities with industry, institutions, and government to share their ideas, develop them, create intellectual property rights, develop new business models, create new markets, and spawn demand-driven collaborative R&D activities and an overall ecosystem subject to organic growth. The CICs would be networked with each other so that ideas could be dynamically shared and resources optimally deployed in order to increase visibility and to spread the knowledge across the ecosystem. (Government of India 2012b, cited in Gorur and Rizvi, forthcoming)

Global indices Every year, since 1979, the World Economic Forum compiles a report with an analysis of more than 140 countries around a set of key dimensions having a direct impact on their global competitiveness outlook. The adopted framework is divided in three key sub-indexes, as visualized below. Each category is thought to be of critical importance depending on the developmental stage a given economy finds itself in. The criteria or formula is continuously being assessed and refined. For example, in 2012/13, the index was adjusted in order to cater for an element related to sustainability (social and environmental) issues (WEF 2013: 52).

28

Figure 8: The GCI Index Framework

Source: World Economic Forum (2013: 8)

The comparative standing of the BRIC economies, in the period 2010-11, reveals the following aspects. Out of 144 nations, China is positioned in the top-30 (GCI index), with the remaining three being part of the top-65 competitive nations. The best BRIC country when it comes to (physical and technological) infrastructure, an aspect thought to affect business performance, labor mobility, and foreign direct investment was Russia (#47), followed by China (#50), and Brazil (#58). India was the worst performer, ranking 86. The other (relatively stable) aspect worth investigating pertains to the robustness and attractiveness of the higher education and training sector of the economy. The best performer was Russia (#50), the worst being India (#85), with three countries placed in the range 50-60. Finally, with respect to innovation capabilities, China led (#26), followed by India (#39), Brazil (#42) and Russia (#57).

29

Table 3: Global Competitiveness Index (GCI), 2010-2011

Source: Indian Government (2012: 12)

From an historical perspective, going back to 2000 (where the ranking index was less sophisticated), the standing of the four BRIC economies - with respect to current competitiveness index - was somewhat different (WEF 2000: 11). Brazil, which in 2010/11 ranked third within the group, led in 2000, ranked 31 out of a total of 58 countries. The country was closely followed by India (#37) and China (#44). As was the case in 2010/11, Russia ranked last amongst the BRIC nations in 52nd place. In addition to the above index, a growth competitiveness ranking was compiled during 2000. Here, China led the BRIC group (#41), followed by Brazil (#46), India (#49) and Russia (#55). In addition to the Global Competitiveness Index, the World Bank compiles its own ranking focusing on metrics directly associated with the knowledge economy (KEI). KEI is composed of four sub-indices: economic and institutional; education; innovation; and ICT. In 2012 (latest), the top-5 (146 countries in total) was occupied by the Nordic countries and the Netherlands (World Bank 2012: 2). The results (2000 and 2012) are shown below. The latest figures show that Russia scored highest amongst the BRIC, closely followed by Brazil. China was third (#84), with India buttoning the group (#104). During the last decade, with the exception of Brazil, all the other BRIC nations improved their relative standing, most notably Russia and China.

30

Table 4: Knowledge Economy Index for BRICs - 2000 and 2012 2000

2012

Change

Brazil

60

59

-1

China

91

84

+7

Russia

64

55

+9

India

110

104

+6

Source: World Bank (2012)

6. Conclusions This chapter has attempted to describe the knowledge, research and innovation landscape in the BRIC countries. It is evident on a number of measures relating to investments in research and human capital; policy development; and research performance and outputs, that considerable progress has been made by all four countries during the past two decades. However, progress varies considerably within the group in each of the above areas. It is also evident that investments in higher education, research and innovation are also paying off in economic development terms enabling these countries, in varying degrees, to achieve considerable progress in terms of such indicators as economic growth and GDP per capita. While considerable progress has been made in terms of economic and broader development indicators, there is still some way to go before the BRICs can be compared favorably with the industrialized countries as a whole.

Acknowledgements: Thanks to Professor Pundy Pillay (South Africa) and to the book editors for their insightful comments on an earlier version of the chapter. Any remaining errors are my own.

31

References Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., Hoxby, C., Mas-Colelle, M., and Sapir, A. (2008). "Higher aspirations: An agenda for reforming European universities", A. Fielding, (ed.). City: Bruegel: Brussels, Belgium. Asheim, B. T., and Coenen, L. (2005). "Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: Comparing Nordic clusters." Research Policy, 34(8), 1173-1190. Balbachevsky, E. (forthcoming). Brazilian higher education policy: internal and external stakeholders. In Schwartzman, S., Pinheiro, R., and Pillay, P. (eds.). Higher Education in the BRICS countries: Investigating the pact between higher education and society. Dordrecht: Springer. Balbachevsky, E. and Botelho, A. (2011). Science and Innovation policies in Brazil: a framework for the analysis of change and continuity. Paper presented to the IPSA-ECPR Joint Conference: Whatever Happened to North-South? University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 16-19 February. Belyaev et al. (2007). State policies in science, technology and innovation in Russia. Research paper 19/07. RedeSist, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Benner, M., and Sandström, U. (2000). "Institutionalizing the triple helix: research funding and norms in the academic system." Research Policy, 29(2), 291-301. Botelho, A. and Almeida, M. (2010). Overcoming institutional shortcomings for academic spin-off policies in Brazil. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 9 (3), 175-190. Cassiolato, J. E., Vitorino, V., and Lundvall, B. A. (2011). BRICS and Development Alternatives: Innovation Systems and Policies, London and New York: Anthem Press. Cassiolato, J. E., Vitorino, V., and Lundvall, B. A. (2011). BRICS and Development Alternatives: Innovation Systems and Policies. London & New York: Anthem Press. Castells, M. (2010). The rise of the network society, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. de Rassenfosse, G., and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2009). "A policy insight into the R&D– patent relationship." Research Policy, 38(5), 779-792. Drori, G. S. (2003). Science in the modern world polity: institutionalization and globalization, Standford, California: Stanford University Press. DST (2010). Decade of Innovation. Press Release, March 10, Ministry of Science and Technology. http://www.dst.gov.in/whats_new/press-release10/pib_10-3-2010.htm Eliasson, G. (2000). "Industrial policy, competence blocs and the role of science in economic development." Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 10(1-2), 217-241. Etzko itz, H., de Mello, J. M. C., a d Al eida, M. . "To a ds eta-i o atio i B azil: The evolution of the incubator and the emergence of a triple helix." Research Policy, 34(4), 411424. Etzkowitz, H., and Leydesdorff, L. (2000). "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations." Research Policy, 29(2), 109-123. Gassmann, O., and Keupp, M. M. (2007). "The competitive advantage of early and rapidly internationalising SMEs in the biotechnology industry: A knowledge-based view." Journal of World Business, 42(3), 350-366. Helene, A., and Ribeiro, P. (2011). "Brazilian scientific production, financial support, established investigators and doctoral graduates." Scientometrics, 89(2), 677-686. Indian Government (2012). The BRICS Report: A Study of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa with special focus on synergies and complementarities. New Delhi, Oxford University Press. Isaksen, A., and Karlsen, J. (2012). "What Is Regional in Regional Clusters? The Case of the Globally Oriented Oil and Gas Cluster in Agder, Norway." Industry and Innovation, 19(3), 249-263. Johnson, M. (forthcoming). The Federal State, Regional Interests and the Reinvention of Russian Univertsities. In Schwartzman, S., Pinheiro, R., and Pillay, P. (eds.). Higher Education in the 32

BRICS countries: Investigating the pact between higher education and society. Dordrecht: Springer. Klofsten, M., Jones-Evans, D., and Schärberg, C. (1999). "Growing the Linköping Technopole—A Longitudinal Study of Triple Helix Development in Sweden." The Journal of Technology Transfer, 24(2), 125-138. Kumar, N. and Asheulova, N. (2011). Comparative analysis of scientific output of BRIC countries. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 58, p.228-236. Kwiek, M. (2012). "Changing higher education policies: From the deinstitutionalization to the reinstitutionalization of the research mission in Polish universities." Science and Public Policy, 39(5), 641-654. Kyvik, S., and Lepori, B. (2010). Research in the Non-University Higher Education Sector in Europe: Springer. Lester, R., and Sotarauta, M. (2007). "Innovation, universities and the competitiveness of regions"Technology Review 214. City: Tekes: Helsinki. Lim, K. (2004). "The relationship between research and innovation in the semiconductor and pharmaceutical industries (1981–1997)." Research Policy, 33(2), 287-321. Marton, S. (2005). "Implementing the Triple Helix: The Academic Response to Changing UniversityIndustry-Government Relations in Sweden", in Å. Gornitzka, M. Kogan, and A. Amaral, (eds.), Reform and Change in Higher Education. Springer Netherlands, pp. 325-342. Meliciani, V. (2000). "The relationship between R&D, investment and patents: a panel data analysis." Applied Economics, 32(11), 1429-1437. Mok, J. and Yue, K. (forthcoming). Promoting Entrepreneurship and Innovation in China: Enhancing Research and Transforming University Curriculum. In Schwartzman, S., Pinheiro, R., and Pillay, P. (eds.). Higher Education in the BRICS countries: Investigating the pact between higher education and society. Dordrecht: Springer. Nelson, R. R. (1993). National innovation systems: a comparative analysis: Oxford University Press. Nilsson, J. E. (2006). The role of universities in regional innovation systems: a Nordic perspective: Copenhagen Business School Press. Pinheiro, R., Benneworth, P., and Jones, G. A. (2012). "Universities and Regional Development: A critical assessment of tensions and contradictions". City: Routledge: Milton Park and New York. Porter, M. E. (1998). Competitive Advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance New York: Free Press. Renault, T. and Mello, J. (2011). Analysis of the relationship between academic spin-offs and their parent organization. Pape p ese ted at T iple Heli IX I te atio al Co fe e e “ili o Valle : Glo al Model o U i ue A o al ? “ta fo d, Califo ia, -14 July. Rip, A. (2002). "Regional Innovation Systems and the Advent of Strategic Science." The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(1), 123-131. ‘iz i, F. a d Go u , ‘. fo th o i g . Highe Edu atio i I dia s De ade of I o atio s. I Schwartzman, S., Pinheiro, R., and Pillay, P. (eds.). Higher Education in the BRICS countries: Investigating the pact between higher education and society. Dordrecht: Springer. Royal Society (2011). Knowledge, networks and nations: Global scientific collaboration in the 21st century. London: The Royal Society. Rooney, D., Hearn, G., and Ninan, A. (2008). Handbook on the Knowledge Economy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Sá, C., Kretz, A., and Sigurdson, K. (forthcoming). ‘esea h a d the Thi d issio i light of glo al events. In Schwartzman, S., Pinheiro, R., and Pillay, P. (eds.). Higher Education in the BRICS countries: Investigating the pact between higher education and society. Dordrecht: Springer. Salter, A. J., and Martin, B. R. (2001). "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review." Research Policy, 30(3), 509-532.

33

Smolentseva, A. (forthcoming). Globalization and the research mission of universities in Russia. In Schwartzman, S., Pinheiro, R., and Pillay, P. (eds.). Higher Education in the BRICS countries: Investigating the pact between higher education and society. Dordrecht: Springer. Soares, M.C. and Cassiolato, J.E. (2010). National Innovation Systems of BRICS Countries: Final technical report. Rio de Janeiro: RedeSist. University of Rio de Janeiro. Trani, E. and Holsworth, R. (2010). The Indispensable University: Higher Education, Economic Development and the Knowledge Economy. New York, American Council on Education. Uchôa, N. N., Ferreira, R. d. P., Sachetto-Martins, G., and Müller, A. C. (2011). "Ten years of the genomic era in Brazil: Impacts on technological development assessed by scientific production and patent analysis." World Patent Information, 33(2), 150-156. Wilson, D. and Purushothaman, R. (2003). Dreaming With BRICs: The Path to 2050. Global Economics, Paper No: 99. Goldman Sachs. World Bank (2012). Knowledge Economy Index (KEI) 2012 Rankings. Washington D.C. World Bank. World Economic Forum (2000). The Global Competitiveness Report 2000. New York. Oxford University Press. Xiwei, Z., and Xiangdong, Y. (2007). "Science and technology policy reform and its impact on China's national innovation system." Technology in Society, 29(3), 317-325. Zaichenko, S. (2008). Harnessing innovation in Russia: Focus on innovation policy and the business sector impact. Paper presented at 6th Globelics International Conference, Mexico city, 22-24 September. Zellner, C. (2003). "The economic effects of basic research: evidence for embodied knowledge t a sfe ia s ie tists ig atio ." Research Policy, 32(10), 1881-1895.

34