Download (15.04 MB)

(1)

SCIENCE REPORT 2010

The Current Status of Science around the World

UNESCO Publishing

(2)

(3)

UNESCO

SCIENCE

REPORT

2010

(4)

The designations employed and the presentation of material

throughout this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

The opinions expressed by the authors are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit the Organization.

UNESCO Publishing: www.unesco.org/publishing;

[email protected] Printed by DB Print in Belgium Design and pre-press production

Baseline Arts Ltd, Oxford, United Kingdom

Cover photos: top image: microscopic image of a corn grain tissue;

bottom image: microscopic image of the cross section of the root of a buttercup (crowfoot) plant, Ranunculus repens. The propeller shaped pattern in the centre is the vascular tissue for transporting water and nutrients up and down the plant. The circles are the individual cells.

© UNESCO

(5)

UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT 2010

The Current Status of Science around the World

UNESCO Publishing

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

(6)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The UNESCO Science Report 2010has been produced by the following team within the Division for Science Policy and Sustainable Development at UNESCO:

Director of Publication: Lidia Brito, Director

Editor: Susan Schneegans

Administrative Assistant: Sarah Colautti

Every five years, the UNESCO Science Reportseries updates the status of science worldwide. Each edition is heavily reliant on the expertise of the authors invited to write about the main trends and developments in scientific research, innovation and higher education in the country or region from which they hail. We would thus like to take this opportunity to thank each of the 35 authors for their commitment to making this an authoritative report.

The picture they have painted in the following pages is of a world that it is changing at a quickening pace. A greater number of chapters on individual countries have been included in the present report than in its predecessor to reflect the widening circle of countries emerging on the world scene. No doubt the UNESCO Science Report 2015, the next in the series, will have pursued its own mutation by 2015 to reflect the world it seeks to depict.

We would like to thank the following staff from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics for contributing a vast amount of data to the report: Simon Ellis, Ernesto Fernández Polcuch, Martin Schaaper, Rohan Pathirage, Zahia Salmi, Sirina Kerim-Dikeni and the Education Indicators team.

(7)

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

PAGE

Chapter 1 The growing role of knowledge in the global economy 1

Table 1: Key indicators on world GDP, population and GERD, 2002 and 2007 2

Table 2: Key indicators on world researchers 2002 and 2007 8

Table 3: World shares of scientific publications, 2002 and 2008 10 Table 4: USPTO and Triadic patent families by inventor's region, 2002 and 2007 13

Table 5: Internet users per 100 population, 2002 and 2008 14

Figure 1: World share of GDP and GERD for the G20, 2002 and 2007 (%) 4 Figure 2: Global investment in R&D in absolute and relative terms, 2007 6 Figure 3: BERD/GDP ratio for selected countries, 2000–2007 (%) 7 Figure 4: Scientific specialization of the Triad, BRIC countries and Africa, 2008 9 Figure 5: The systemic matching between key S&T indicators 15 Figure 6: Industrial production in the BRIC countries, USA and Euro zone, 2006–2010 16

Chapter 2 United States of America 29

Table 1: Federal R&D in the USA by major socio-economic objective, 2007–2009 36 Table 2: Basic research budget for the primary US federal agencies, 2003 and 2008 37 Table 3: Funding of industrial R&D in the USA by major industry, 2003, 2005 and 2007 40

Table 4: Top R&D spending corporations, 2003 and 2004 42

Figure 1: GERD in the USA by type of research and source of funds, 2007 (%) 33

Figure 2: GERD in the USA by source of funds, 1990–2007 34

Figure 3: Trends in GERD in the G8 countries, 1990–2006 35

Figure 4: Trade balance for high-tech goods in the USA, 1995–2008 40 Figure 5: Regional shares of R&D performed abroad by foreign affiliates

of US multinationals, 1994–2004 (%) 43

Figure 6: US trade receipts and payments for intellectual property, 1989–2005 44 Figure 7: Basic research in the USA by performing sector and source of funds, 2007 (%) 46 Figure 8: University R&D in the USA by type of research and source of funds, 2006 (%) 47 Figure 9: Share of doctorates awarded to female US citizens, 1985, 1995 and 2005 (%) 49 Figure 10: Doctorates awarded to US citizens in science and engineering,

by ethnic minority, 1985–2005 49

Figure 11:Bachelor’s degrees earned in selected S&T fields, 1985–2005 51 Figure 12:Doctoral degrees earned in the USA in selected S&T fields, 1985–2005 52

Box 1: Breakthroughs of the year 31

Box 2: Basic research: a cornerstone of US science policy for 65 years 46 Box 3: Growing concern about conflict of interest in scientific journals 48

Chapter 3 Canada 61

Table 1: Trends in GERD in Canada, 1999–2008 63

Table 2: Trends in scientific publications in international collaboration for

G8 countries, 2002 and 2008 63

Figure 1: Annual growth in GERD and GDP in Canada, 1967–2007 (%) 61

Figure 2: GERD/GDP ratio for the G8 countries, 2008 62

Figure 3: Publications in Canada by major field of science, 2002 and 2008 64

(10)

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

^PAGE

Figure 4: Scientific publications in the G8 countries and China, 2000 and 2008 65 Figure 5: GERD in Canada by performing sector and source of funds, 2002 and 2007 (%) 66

Figure 6: GERD in Canada by source of funds, 2002 and 2007 67

Figure 7: Enrollment in scientific disciplines in Canada, 2002/2003 and 2006/2007 69

Figure 8: S&T labour force in Canada, 2006 70

Chapter 4 Latin America 77

Figure 1: Distribution of GDP in Latin America, 2007 78

Figure 2: Sectors benefiting from FONCYT’s Programme in Strategic Areas, 2008 80

Figure 3: GERD in Latin America, 1997–2007 82

Figure 4: GERD/GDP ratio in Latin America, 2007 (%) 82

Figure 5: Distribution of GERD among Latin American countries, 2007 83 Figure 6: Share of GERD funded by the business sector in Latin America, 2007 83

Figure 7: Researchers in Latin America, 2000–2007 84

Figure 8: Distribution of scientists and engineers in Latin America, 2000 and 2007 85

Figure 9: PhDs awarded in Latin America, 2007 86

Figure 10: Scientific publications in Latin America, 1996–2007 88 Figure 11: Latin America’s presence in various bibliographic databases, 1997 and 2007 89 Figure 12: Evolution in patent applications in Latin America, 1997–2007 89 Figure 13: Patent applications in Latin America by residents and non-residents, 2007 90 Figure 14: Patents held by Latin Americans in international databases, 2000–2007 91

Box 1: Promoting innovation in Argentina 80

Box 2: Public perception of science 81

Box 3: R&D technology business consortia in Chile 92

Box 4: Aeronautics in Brazil: the case of EMBRAER 94

Box 5: Argentina’s technological showcase: the case of INVAP 95

Box 6: ICTs in Costa Rica 96

Chapter 5 Brazil 103

Table 1: GERD in Brazil by source of funds, 2008 105

Table 2: Brazilian state industries targeted by sectoral funds, 1999–2002 107 Table 3: R&D tax laws and subsidies for business R&D in Brazil, 1991–2005 109 Table 4: Scientific articles published by Brazil’s main research universities, 2000–2009 114

Figure 1: Trends in GERD in Brazil, 2000–2008 104

Figure 2: Government expenditure on R&D by socio-economic objective, 2000 and 2008 (%) 105

Figure 3: GERD/GDP ratio in Brazil, 2008 (%) 106

Figure 4: Evolution in Brazilian National Fund for Scientific and

Technological Development (FNDCT), 1994–2009 107

Figure 5: The Brazilian State of São Paulo’s contribution to GERD, 2007 108

Figure 6: Researchers in Brazil, 2008 111

Figure 7: Researchers in Brazil by performing sector, 2008 (%) 111 Figure 8: Scientiﬁc articles written by authors aﬃliated to Brazilian institutions, 1992–2008 112 Figure 9: Scientific articles published in Brazilian journals, 2000 and 2008 114 Figure 10: USPTO patents awarded to Brazilian inventors, 2000–2009 115

(11)

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

^PAGE

Box 1: Procurement policies to develop essential vaccines 110

Box 2: Mapping biodiversity in São Paulo 113

Box 3: Bioenergy R&D in Brazil 116

Box 4: China and Brazil developing space technology together 118

Chapter 6 Cuba 123

Table 1: Cuba’s top 20 S&T research institutions 124

Table 2: Cuba’s National Research Programmes, 2009 127

Figure 1: Growth in Cuba’s GDP and per-capita GDP, 2003–2007 (%) 123 Figure 2: Cuban expenditure on S&T and R&D, 2001–2007 (%) 125

Figure 3: GERD in Cuba by source of funds, 2001–2007 126

Figure 4: GERD in Cuba by source of funds, 2001 and 2008 (%) 126 Figure 5: Cuban visibility in international scientific publications, 2001–2007 128 Figure 6: Publications in Cuba by major field of science, 2000–2008 129

Chapter 7 The CARICOM countries 133

Table 1: Key socio-economic indicators for the CARICOM countries, 2008 134 Figure1: Undergraduate enrollment at the three campuses of the

University of the West Indies, 2001–2006 134

Figure 2: Internet users per 100 population in the Caribbean, 2002 and 2008 136 Figure 3: Articles published in the basic sciences in the CARICOM countries, 2001–2007 139 Figure 4: Scientific publications in the CARICOM countries by broad discipline, 2001–2007 (%) 139 Figure 5: Cumulative number of scientific publications in the CARICOM countries, 2001–2007 140 Figure 6: Scientific publications by university in the CARICOM countries, 2001–2007 (%) 140 Figure 7: Patent applications in Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago, 2000–2007 141 Box 1: A centre of excellence to safeguard food security in Jamaica 135

Box 2: Cariscience 138

Box 3: The Mokhele Report 142

Chapter 8 European Union 147

Table 1: Population and GDP in the EU, 2008 147

Table 2: Comparison between key US and European research universities, 2006 151 Table 3: Development contracts for Aarhus University in Denmark, 2006 and 2010 154

Table 4: International research organizations in Europe 157

Table 5: EUREKA projects, 2010 160

Table 6: Structure and budget of EU’s 7th Framework Programme for Research, 2007–2013 162

Table 7: GERD in the EU-27, 2004 and 2007 (%) 166

Table 8: EU publications by major field of science, 2002 and 2008 168 Table 9: EU government expenditure on R&D by socio-economic objective, 2005 170 Table 10: Growth in R&D expenditure and PhDs in the 12 newest EU member states,

2003–2007 (%) 172

Table 11: Public–private co-publications in the 12 most recent EU countries, 2007 173 Table 12: Trends in GERD for the Triad and China, 2003 and 2007 178

Table 13: S&T personnel in the Triad and China, 2007 179

(12)

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

^PAGE

Table 14: Publications in the Triad by major field of science, 2008 179

Figure 1: Number of top European and US universities 151

Figure 2: Starting grants from European Research Council per million inhabitants, 2007 163 Figure 3: Share of women among European researchers, 2006 or latest available year (%) 164 Figure 4: GERD in the EU by source of funds and performing sector,

2007 or latest available year (%) 165

Figure 5: Summary Innovation Index for EU-27, 2007 or latest available year 167 Figure 6: Performance of EU-27 countries for seven components of innovation, 2007 167 Figure 7: Regional Innovation Index for regions within EU-27 member states,

2005 or latest available year 174

Figure 8: Professions trusted by the European public to explain the impact

of S&T on society, 2005 (%) 176

Figure 9: Triad patent families, 2003 and 2007 178

Figure 10: The EU Innovation gap with the USA and Japan, 2004–2008 (%) 180

Box 1: The Bologna Process 150

Box 2: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor 158

Chapter 9 Southeast Europe 183

Table 1: Key socio-economic indicators for Southeast European economies, 2008 184

Table 2: R&D output in Southeast Europe, 2006 190

Table 3: Scientific publications in Southeast Europe, 2002 and 2008 191 Figure 1: Drivers of growth: ranking of Southeast European economies, 2010 185 Figure 2: GERD/GDP ratio in Southeast Europe, 2000–2008 (%) 186

Figure 3: GERD per capita in Southeast Europe, 2007 186

Figure 4: GERD in Southeast Europe by perfoming sector, 2008 (%) 187 Figure 5: GERD in Southeast Europe by source of funds, 2008 (%) 187 Figure 6: Growth in numbers of tertiary graduates in Southeast Europe, 2002–2008 (%) 188 Figure 7: Growth in researchers (FTE) in Southeast Europe, 2002 and 2008 (%) 189 Figure 8: Researchers (FTE) in Southeast Europe by sector of employment, 2008 (%) 189 Figure 9: Scientific papers per million population in Southeast Europe, 2008 191 Figure 10: Publications in Southeast Europe by major field of science, 2008 (%) 192 Figure 11: Internet users per 100 population in Southeast Europe, 2001 and 2008 193

Box 1: The Lisbon Strategy’s elusive 3% target 194

Box 2: The Venice Process 196

Box 3: Measuring implementation of the Science Agenda 197

Chapter10 Turkey 201

Figure 1: Economic performance of key industries in Turkey, 2002–2007 201

Figure 2: GERD/GDP ratio in Turkey, 2002–2007 (%) 202

Figure 3: R&D personnel in Turkey, 2003 and 2007 203

Figure 4: GERD in Turkey, 2002–2007 203

Figure 5: Government expenditure on R&D in Turkey by

socio-economic objective, 2003–2007 (%) 204

(13)

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

^PAGE

Figure 6: GERD in Turkey by source of funds, 2002 and 2007 (%) 205

Figure 7: Scientific publications in Turkey, 2002–2007 207

Figure 8: Scientific publications in Turkey by

major field of science, 2000–2008 207

Figure 9: Patent applications in Turkey, 2002–2007 208

Figure 10: The Turkish STI system 210

Box 1: The Tale of a Turkish PhD Returnee 206

Box 2: Learning about innovation in Turkey’s schools 209

Box 3: The Aegean Innovation Relay Centre 211

Chapter 11 Russian Federation 215

Table 1: Major socio- economic indicators in Russia, 2005–2009 215 Table 2: Evolution of priority areas for R&D in Russia, 1996, 2002 and 2006 225

Figure 1: GERD in Russia, 1990–2008 217

Figure 2: Government expenditure on R&D in Russia by socio-economic

objective, 2004 and 2008 (%) 218

Figure 3: Higher education system in Russia for scientific disciplines, 2009 220 Figure 4: Staffing levels at Russian public universities, 1996–2008 221 Figure 5: R&D units in Russia by type and breakdown of personnel, 2008 (%) 223 Figure 6: Ranking of ICT areas by importance for Russia, 2008 (%) 225 Figure 7: Level of Russian R&D in nanosystems and materials, 2008 (%) 226

Box 1: Russia’s inadequate facilities for research 216

Box 2: Higher education popular in Russia 219

Box 3: Modernizing Russia’s Academies of Science 227

Chapter 12 Central Asia 235

Table 1: Socio-economic indicators for Central Asia, 2002 and 2008 or

most recent year available 236

Table 2: Investment trends in Central Asia, 2002 and 2008 237

Table 3: R&D institutions in Central Asia, 2009 237

Table 4: R&D personnel in Central Asia, 2009 or most recent year available 238 Table 5: Age pyramid for Central Asian researchers,

2009 or most recent year available 238

Figure 1: Composition of GDP in Central Asia by economic sector, 2009 (%) 235 Figure 2: GERD by source of funds in Central Asia,

2009 or most recent year available (%) 238

Figure 3: Distribution of research institutions in Central Asia, 2009 or

most recent year available (%) 238

Figure 4: Internet users per 100 population in Central Asia, 2000–2008 241 Figure 5: R&D in Central Asia by type of research, 2007 (%) 243

Box 1: The Big Solar Furnace 246

Box 2: A blue dye to the rescue of the Aral Sea Basin 248

(14)

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

^PAGE

Chapter 13 Arab States 251

Table 1: Government bodies responsible for R&D policies and

co-ordination in the Arab world, 2006 258

Table 2: Arab countries hosting a national or supranational academy of science, 2009 258 Table 3: Internet penetration in the Arab region, 2002 and 2009 269 Table 4: Arab universities in top 50 for Islamic countries 270 Table 5: Public expenditure on education in the Arab world, 2002 and 2008 271 Table 6: Tertiary student enrollment in the Arab region, 2002 and 2008 272 Table 7: Postgraduate students at Arab universities, 2006 273

Figure 1: Population growth in the Arab region, 2002–2008 252

Figure 2: GDP per capita in the Arab region, 2002 and 2008 254 Figure 3: Military expenditure in selected Arab countries, 2002 and 2008 255 Figure 4: GERD/GDP ratio for Arab countries, 2007 or latest year available (%) 259 Figure 5: Researchers per million population in the Arab world, 2007 261 Figure 6: Scientific publications per million population in the Arab world, 2002 and 2008 265 Figure 7: Scientific articles published in the Arab world, 2000 and 2008 266 Figure 8: Scientific co-publications in the Arab world, 2000 and 2008 267 Figure 9: USPTO patents granted to residents of Arab countries, 2003 and 2008 267 Figure 10: Share of Arab high-tech exports in total manufactured

exports, 2002 and 2007 (%) 268

Figure 11: Knowledge Economy Index for selected Arab countries, 2008 269

Box 1: The Islamic World Academy of Sciences 259

Box 2: The Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Foundation 260

Box 3: The Middle East Science Fund 261

Box 4: The International Centre for Biosaline Agriculture 262

Box 5: The Regional Centre for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency 263

Box 6: The SESAME Story 264

Box 7: The Bibliotheca Alexandrina 269

Box 8: Education City, Qatar 273

Box 9: The Masdar Institute of Science and Technology 273

Box 10: King Abdullah University of Science and Technology 274

Chapter 14 Sub-Saharan Africa 279

Table 1: Investment in sub-Saharan Africa, 2008 or most recent year available 280

Table 2: Education in sub-Saharan Africa, 2008 283

Table 3: Researchers in sub-Saharan Africa, 2007 or most recent year available 284 Table 4: Patents awarded to African inventors by USPTO, 2005–2009 289 Figure 1: Poverty levels in sub-Saharan Africa, 1990, 1999 and 2005 (%) 279 Figure 2: Scientific publications in sub-Saharan Africa, 2000–2008 286 Figure 3: Publications in Sub-Saharan Africa by major field of science, 2008 (%) 288 Figure 4: Internet access per 100 population in sub-Saharan Africa, 2002 and 2007 293 Figure 5: Composition of GDP in sub-Saharan Africa by economic sector, 2009 (%) 304 Figure 6: Breakdown of government expenditure on R&D in South Africa by

field of research, 2006 (%) 314

(15)

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

^PAGE

Box 1: South–South co-operation on biofuels: the case of Sudan 290

Box 2: Songhai: an agricultural centre of excellence 291

Box 3: Science, ICTS and space, an EU–Africa partnership 292

Box 4: The Network of African Science Academies 294

Box 5: The African Science Academy Development Initiative 298

Box 6: Knowledge Management Africa 298

Box 7: Technology transfer in Cameroon 301

Box 8: Africa invests in biotech 308

Box 9: African Institutes of Science and Technology 310

Box 10: The largest telescope in the Southern Hemisphere 315

Chapter 15 South Asia 323

Table 1: Socio-economic indicators for South Asia, 2000 and 2008 324 Table 2: Gross enrollment ratio in South Asia for secondary

and tertiary education, 2007 (%) 327

Table 3: Priorities for public spending in South Asia, 1990 and 2008 327 Table 4: Researchers and S&T enrollment in South Asia, 2007 328

Table 5: Scientific publications in South Asia, 2000–2008 329

Table 6: Patent applications in South Asia, 2008 or most recent year 330 Table 7: Inward FDI Performance Index of South Asia, 2005–2007 333 Table 8: South Asia’s innovation capacity and competitiveness, 1995 and 2009 344 Figure 1: Composition of GDP in South Asia by economic sector, 2009 324

Figure 2: GERD/GDP ratio in South Asia, 2000–2007 (%) 325

Figure 3: Scientific collaboration involving South Asian authors, 2007 (%) 330 Figure 4: Internet users per 100 population in South Asia, 2003 and 2009 332

Figure 5: Royalties and license fees in Asia, 2007 332

Figure 6: Total outlay for Tenth Development Plan in Nepal, 2002–2007 (%) 338 Figure 7: Distribution of project cost for higher education reform in Pakistan, 2007–2008 (%) 341 Box 1: Social research and the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission 326

Box 2: The story of CASE and CARE 331

Box 3: Two examples of e-networks for education and research 333

Box 4: The City Cluster Economic Development Initiative 336

Box 5: The Nepal Development Research Institute 339

Box 6: Pakistan’s research collaboration with China and the USA 342

Box 7: Initiatives to promote industry in Sialkot 342

Box 8: The Sri Lanka Institute of Nanotechnology 344

Chapter 16 Iran 349

Table 1: Socio-economic indicators for Iran, 2000–2007 350

Table 2: Socio-economic indicators for Iran and other

South West Asian countries, 2000 and 2007 351

Figure 1: Share of oil revenue in Iran’s budget, 2000–2009 (%) 352 Figure 2: Share of economic sectors in Iranian GDP, 2001–2007 (%) 352 Figure 3: Public expenditure on education and GERD in Iran, 1999 and 2007 (%) 354

(16)

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

^PAGE

Figure 4: GERD by source of funds in Iran, 2001 and 2006 (%) 354 Figure 5: Female university students in Iran, 2000 and 2007 (%) 355 Figure 6: Trends in university enrollment in Iran, 2000–2007 355 Figure 7: Articles published in international journals by Iranian scientists, 1997–2008 356 Figure 8: Share of scientific disciplines in Iranian publishing, 1993–2008 356 Figure 9: International scientific co-authorship in Iran, 1996–2008 357 Figure 10: Iranian attitudes toward towards success in life, 1975 and 2005 360 Box 1: Biolarvicides and beauty products from biotechnology research 357

Box 2: Developing high-tech industries via IDRO 358

Box 3: The Iranian Fisheries Research Organization 359

Chapter 17 India 363

Table 1: Share of knowledge-intensive production in India's GDP, 2005–2009 364

Table 2: Trends in GERD in India, 1992–2008 371

Table 3: India’s scientific publication record, 1999–2008 375

Figure 1: High-tech content of India’s manufactured exports, 1988–2008 (%) 365 Figure 2: Average R&D expenditure per firm in India’s pharmaceutical industry, 1992–2008 369 Figure 3: Distribution of GERD in India by type of research, 2003 and 2006 (%) 371 Figure 4: Government outlay for the major science agencies in India, 2006 (%) 371 Figure 5: Distribution of GERD in India by industrial sector, 2000–2006 372 Figure 6: Stock of scientists and engineers engaged in R&D in India, 2005 374 Figure 7: Total scientific publications in India, 2002 and 2008 374 Figure 8: Focus of Indian publications by major field of science, 2002 and 2008 (%) 375 Figure 9: Trends in the number of patents granted to Indian inventors in the USA, 1991–2008 376

Box 1: A space odyssey 367

Box 2: The incredible feat of Indian pharma 368

Chapter 18 China 379

Table 1: GERD in China by performing sector, 2000–2008 390

Table 2: Researchers in China, 2000–2008 390

Table 3: Citation rate for Chinese scientific papers, 1998–2008 391 Table 4: China’s global share of publications by major field of science, 1999–2008 391 Table 5: Domestic invention patent grants and PCT patent filings in China, 2007 392 Figure 1: Priorities of China’s National Programme for High-tech R&D, 2008 (%) 387 Figure 2: Priorities of China’s National Programme for Key Technology R&D, 2008 (%) 388 Figure 3: Priorities of China’s National Programme for Key Basic R&D, 2008 (%) 388

Figure 4: GERD/GDP ratio in China, 2000–2008 (%) 389

Figure 5: GERD in China by type of research, 2000–2008 390

Figure 6: Growth in Chinese domestic resident invention patents, 2000–2008 392 Figure 7: Intramural expenditure on R&D of China’s high-tech industries, 2003–2008 393 Figure 8: R&D personnel in China’s high-tech industries, 2003–2008 394 Figure 9: Domestic patent applications by Chinese high-tech industries, 2003–2008394

Figure 10: Share of high-tech exports in manufactured exports in China, 2000–2008 395

(17)

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

^PAGE

Figure 11:Travel by Chinese and foreign scientists by type of project, 2001–2008 396 Figure 12:China’s leading international research partners, 1999–2008 397 Box 1: Accelerating development and use of renewable energies 380

Box 2: The world’s first photonic telephone network 381

Box 3: China’s supercomputers 381

Box 4: The Shanghai Synchrotron Radiation Facility 382

Box 5: Milestones on the road to a national innovation system 384 Box 6: China’s role in an international clean energy project 397

Chapter 19 Japan 401

Table 1: Socio-economic indicators for Japan, 2003 and 2008 402 Table 2: Collaboration between universities and industry in Japan, 2002 and 2007 404 Table 3: International exchange of Japanese and foreign-born researchers, 2001 and 2006 408 Table 4: Japan’s world share of scientific publications, 2007 (%) 409 Table 5: Japanese patent applications and grants in Japan, USA, Europe and China,

in thousands, 2002 and 2007 410

Figure 1: GERD and government R&D expenditure in Japan, 2002 and 2007 405 Figure 2: GERD in Japan by performing sector and source of funds, 2002 and 2007 (%) 405 Figure 3: Government spending on R&D by major field of science, 2002 and 2007 (%) 406

Figure 4: Numbers of researchers in Japan, 2003 and 2008 406

Figure 5: Trends in enrollment and graduation in higher education in Japan, 1999–2008 407 Figure 6: Single authorship and co-authorship in Japan and the world, 2002 and 2007 (%) 409 Figure 7: Share of other countries in Japan’s internationally co-authored scientific

publications, in thousands 2002 and 2007 (%) 410

Figure 8: Patent activity of Japanese universities, 2002 and 2007 411

Chapter 20 Republic of Korea 415

Table 1: R&D indicators for the Republic of Korea, 2001 and 2007, and targets for 2012 416 Table 2: Trends in GERD in the Republic of Korea, 2003–2008 420 Table 3: Key achievements of Korean policy for S&T human resources, 2002–2008 423 Table 4: R&D expenditure and industrial sales in the Republic of Korea, 2007 and 2008 428 Figure 1: GERD in the Republic of Korea by socio-economic objective, 2008 419 Figure 2: Trends in R&D investment in the Republic of Korea, 1994–2008 421 Figure 3: International comparison of R&D intensity in the Republic of Korea, 2008 421 Figure 4: Level of interest in S&T among Koreans 2006 (%) 426 Figure 5: GERD in the Republic of Korea by type of research, 1994–2008 427 Figure 6: R&D budget of Korean small and medium-sized venture enterprises, 2003–2006 427 Figure 7: Number of FTE researchers in the Republic of Korea, 2008 429 Figure 8: Trends in patent registrations for the Republic of Korea, 1994–2007 429 Figure 9: Triadic patent family registrations and patent productivity in the

Republic of Korea, 1993–2005 430

Figure 10:Volume of Korean technology trade and revenue and expenditure ratio, 1993–2007 430

Figure 11: Korean scientific articles, 1993–2008 431

Figure 12: Korean publications by major field of science, 2003 and 2007 (%) 431

(18)

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

^PAGE

Figure 13: Volume of Korean publications by major field of science, 2008 432 Figure 14: Changes in the Republic of Korea’s competitiveness ranking in S&T, 1994–2009 432

Box 1: Preparing for the future with innovation 422

Box 2: Brain Korea 21 423

Box 3: The Global Research Laboratory 425

Chapter 21 Southeast Asia and Oceania 437

Table 1: Socio-economic and R&D input indicators for Southeast Asia and Oceania,

2009 or most recent year available 438

Table 2: Knowledge Economy Index and Knowledge Index for

Southeast Asia and Oceania, 2009 439

Table 3: English-language scientific articles by authors from Southeast Asia

and Oceania, 1998–2008 441

Table 4: English-language scientific articles by authors from Pacific islands, 1998–2008 442 Table 5: Top three countries for international co-authorship with Southeast

Asia and Oceania, 1998–2008 443

Table 6: Scientific papers and citations of authors from Southeast Asia

and Oceania, 1999–2009 444

Table 7: USPTO registered patents from Southeast Asia and Oceania, 2000–2007 444 Figure 1: Internet users per 100 population in Southeast Asia and Oceania, 2001 and 2008 440 Figure 2: Publications in Southeast Asia and Oceania by major field of science, 2008 (%) 443 Figure 3: High-tech exports from Southeast Asia and Oceania, 2008 (%) 445

Box 1: The Secretariat of the Pacific Community 458

(19)

FOREWORD

The UNESCO Science Report 2010holds a mirror to the evolving status of science in the five years since its predecessor was published in 2005. It shows in particular how, while the disparities between countries and regions remain huge, the proliferation of digital information and communication technologies is increasingly modifying the global picture. By making codified information accessible worldwide, it is having a dramatic effect on the creation, accumulation and dissemination of knowledge, while at the same time providing specialized platforms for networking by scientific communities operating at a global level.

The distribution of research and development (R&D) efforts between North and South has changed with the emergence of new players in the global economy. A bipolar world in which science and technology (S&T) were dominated by the Triad made up of the European Union, Japan and the USA is gradually giving way to a multipolar world, with an increasing number of public and private research hubs spreading across North and South. Early and more recent newcomers to the S&T arena, including the Republic of Korea, Brazil, China or India, are creating a more competitive global environment by developing their capacities in the industrial, scientific and technological spheres. One consequence is greater competition between countries to attract scientific personnel from abroad and to retain or recall their best researchers and graduates living abroad.

One encouraging finding of the report is that R&D funding has continued to expand globally as the result of greater

recognition by governments worldwide of the crucial importance of science for socio-economic development. Those developing countries that have progressed fastest in recent years are the ones that have adopted policies to promote science, technology and innovation. Although Africa still lags behind other regions, signs of progress can be found in some countries on the continent, which today represents a growing contributor to the global R&D effort. The continent’s mounting contribution to the global stock of knowledge comes as good news – all the more so since Africa is a priority for UNESCO. This progression shows that deliberate, well-targeted policies can make a difference when implemented with commitment and dedication even in difficult circumstances.

However, the report also points to persistent disparities between countries and, in particular, the marginal contribution that the least developed countries (LDCs) make to global

science. This situation calls for all stakeholders, including UNESCO, to renew their support to LDCs for investing in science, transforming the policy environment and making the necessary institutional adjustments – in other words, for enabling S&T to realize its potential as a prime lever for development. This is a vast and complex task that can only be met through a major policy mobilization for science.

Mobilizing policy for science remains critical to building the human and institutional capacities needed to overcome the knowledge gap and empower developing countries to build appropriate scientific research capabilities so as to address national and global challenges. We have a moral imperative to make science globally inclusive.

There are two possible scenarios for the way in which the geopolitics of science will shape the future. One is based on partnership and co-operation, and the other on efforts towards national supremacy. I am convinced that, more than ever, regional and international scientific co-operation is crucial to addressing the interrelated, complex and growing global challenges with which we are confronted. Increasingly, international diplomacy will take the form of science diplomacy in the years to come. In this respect, UNESCO must and will pursue its efforts to strengthen international partnerships and co-operation, in particular South–South co- operation. This science dimension of diplomacy was one of the original reasons for including science in UNESCO’s mandate. It has fundamental significance for UNESCO nowadays, at a time when science has tremendous power to shape the future of humanity and when it no longer makes much sense to design science policy in purely national terms. This is most vividly evident in issues relating to global climate change and how societies will address it through green economies.

In line with my intention to place science at the centre of UNESCO’s efforts to eradicate extreme poverty and foster social inclusion and sustainable development, I am confident that the UNESCO Science Report 2010will prove a useful tool in the necessary redefinition of the science policy agenda at national, regional and global levels and will provide valuable insights into the prospects for science and related policy challenges in the years ahead.

Irina Bokova

Director-General of UNESCO

(20)

Policies for science and technology must always be a mixture of realism and idealism.

Chris Freeman(1921–2010)

father of the ‘national innovation system’ concept

(21)

THE GLOBAL PICTURE

The UNESCO Science Report 2010takes up from where its predecessor left off five years ago. The aim of this first chapter is to provide a global overview of developments over the past five years. We shall pay particular attention to ‘new’, ‘less known’, or ‘unexpected’ features revealed by the data and the chapters that follow.

We shall begin by briefly reviewing the state of the support system for science against the backdrop of the long, historically unique period of rapid global economic growth from 1996 to 2007. This ‘growth spurt’ has been driven by new digital technologies and by the emergence of a number of large countries on the world stage. It was brought to a sudden and somewhat brutal halt by the global economic recession triggered by the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the USA in the third quarter of 2008.

What impact has this global economic recession had on investment in knowledge? Before we endeavour to answer this question, let us take a closer look at some of the broad trends that have characterized the past decade.

First and foremost,cheap and easy access to new digital technologies such as broadband, Internet and mobile phones have accelerated the diffusion of best-practice technologies, revolutionized the internal and external organization of research and facilitated the implantation abroad of companies’ research and development (R&D) centres (David and Foray, 2002). However, it is not only the spread of digital information and communication

technologies (ICTs) that has shifted the balance in favour of a more transparent and more level playing field¹. The growing membership and further development of global institutional frameworks like the World Trade Organization (WTO) governing international knowledge flows in trade, investment and intellectual property rights have also sped up access to critical knowledge. China, for example, only became a member of WTO in December 2001. The playing field now includes a wide variety of capital- and

organization-embedded forms of technology transfer which include foreign direct investment (FDI), licenses and other forms of formal and informal knowledge diffusion.

Secondly,countries have been catching up rapidly in terms of both economic growth and investment in knowledge,

as expressed by investment in tertiary education and R&D.

This can be observed in the burgeoning number of graduates in science and engineering. India, for example, has opted to establish 30 new universities to raise student enrollment from less than 15 million in 2007 to 21 million by 2012. Large emerging developing countries such as Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa are also spending more on R&D than before. This trend can also be observed in the transition economies of the Russian Federation (Russia) and some other Eastern and Central European countries which are gradually climbing back to the levels of investment under the Soviet Union. In some cases, the rise in gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) has been a corollary of strong economic growth rather than the reflection of greater R&D intensity. In Brazil and India, for example, the GERD/GDP ratio has remained stable, whereas in China it has climbed by 50% since 2002 to 1.54% (2008). Similarly, if the GERD/GDP ratio has declined in some African countries, this is not symptomatic of a weaker commitment to R&D. It simply reflects an acceleration in economic growth thanks to oil extraction (in Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria, etc) and other non- R&D-intensive sectors. If each country has different priorities, the urge to catch up rapidly is irrepressible and has, in turn, driven economic growth worldwide to the highest level in recorded history.

Thirdly,the impact of the global recession on a post-2008 world is not yet reflected in the R&D data but it is evident that the recession has, for the first time, challenged the old North–South technology-based trade and growth models (Krugman, 1970; Soete, 1981; Dosi et al., 1990). Increasingly, the global economic recession appears to be challenging Western scientific and technological (S&T) dominance.

Whereas Europe and the USA are struggling to free themselves from the grips of the recession, firms from emerging economies like Brazil, China, India and South Africa are witnessing sustained domestic growth and moving upstream in the value chain. Whereas these emerging economies once served as a repository for the outsourcing of manufacturing activities, they have now moved on to autonomous process technology

development, product development, design and applied research. China, India and a few other Asian countries, together with some Arab Gulf states, have combined a national targeted technology policy with the aggressive – and successful – pursuit of better academic research within a short space of time. To this end, they have made astute use of both monetary and non-monetary incentives, as well as

Introduction

1. This does not mean that each player has an equal chance of success but rather that a greater number are playing by the same set of rules.

The Earth at night, showing human population centres Photo: © Evirgen/

iStockphoto

(22)

Table 1: Key indicators on world GDP, population and GERD, 2002 and 2007

GDP (PPP$ billions)

2002 2007

World 46 272.6 66 293.7

Developed countries 29 341.1 38 557.1

Developing countries 16 364.4 26 810.1

Least developed countries 567.1 926.4

Americas 15 156.8 20 730.9

North America 11 415.7 15 090.4

Latin America and the Caribbean 3 741.2 5 640.5

Europe 14 403.4 19 194.9

European Union 11 703.6 14 905.7

Commonwealth of Independent States in Europe 1 544.8 2 546.8

Central, Eastern and Other Europe 1 155.0 1 742.4

Africa 1 674.0 2 552.6

South Africa 323.8 467.8

Other sub-Saharan countries (excl. South Africa) 639.6 1 023.1

Arab States in Africa 710.6 1 061.7

Asia 14 345.3 22 878.9

Japan 3 417.2 4 297.5

China 3 663.5 7 103.4

Israel 154.6 192.4

India 1 756.4 3 099.8

Commonwealth of Independent States in Asia 204.7 396.4

Newly Industrialised Economies in Asia 2 769.9 4 063.1

Arab States in Asia 847.3 1 325.1

Other in Asia (excl. Japan, China, Israel, India) 1 531.5 2 401.1

Oceania 693.1 936.4

Other groupings

Arab States all 1 557.9 2 386.8

Commonwealth of Independent States all 1 749.5 2 943.2

OECD 29 771.3 39 019.4

European Free Trade Association 424.5 580.5

Sub-Saharan Africa (incl. South Africa) 963.4 1 490.9

Selected countries

Argentina 298.1 523.4

Brazil 1 322.5 1 842.9

Canada 937.8 1 270.1

Cuba – –

Egypt 273.7 404.1

France 1 711.2 2 071.8

Germany 2 275.4 2 846.9

Iran (Islamic Republic of) 503.7 778.8

Mexico 956.3 1 493.2

Republic of Korea 936.0 1 287.7

Russian Federation 1 278.9 2 095.3

Turkey 572.1 938.7

United Kingdom 1 713.7 2 134.0

United States of America 10 417.6 13 741.6

institutional reforms. Although data are not easy to come by, it is well-known that many academic leaders in American, Australian and European universities have, in the past five years, been offered positions and large research budgets in fast-growing universities in East Asian countries.

In short, achieving knowledge-intensive growth is no longer the sole prerogative of the highly developed nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Nor is it the sole prerogative of national policy- making. Value creation depends increasingly on a better use of knowledge, whatever the level of development, whatever its form and whatever its origin: new product and process technologies developed domestically, or the re-use and novel combination of knowledge developed elsewhere.

This applies to manufacturing, agriculture and services in both the public and private sectors. Yet, at the same time, there is striking evidence of the persistence – expansion even – in the uneven distribution of research and innovation at the global level. Here, we are no longer comparing countries but regions within countries. Investment in R&D appears to remain concentrated in a relatively small number of locations within a given country². In Brazil, for example, 40% of GERD is spent in the São Paulo region. The proportion is as high as 51% in South Africa’s Gauteng Province.

PRE-RECESSION FACTS AND FIGURES

Economic trends: a unique growth spurt

Historically, global economic growth in the years bridging the Millennia has been unique. Over the period 1996–2007, real GDP per capita increased at an average annual rate of 1.88%³. At the broad continental level, the highest per-capita growth was witnessed by East Asia and the Pacific (5.85%), Europe and Central Asia (4.87%) and South Asia (4.61%). The figure was 2.42% for the Middle East and North Africa, 2.00% for North America, 1.80% for Latin American and the Caribbean and 1.64% for sub-Saharan Africa. The greatest divergence in growth rates occurred in sub-Saharan Africa: in 28 countries, GDP per capita grew by more than 5% but more than half of the 16 countries which witnessed negative per-capita growth rates were also in sub-Saharan Africa (Table 1).

2. For a more detailed analysis of specialization at the regional level within countries, see the World Knowledge Report(forthcoming) published by UNU-Merit.

3. Growth rates reported in this section reflect the average annual increase between 1996 and 2007 of per capita GDP in constant US$ 2 000 from World Bank data.

Note: Dollar amounts are in constant prices. The sum of GERD for some regions does not correspond to the total because of changes in the reference year. Furthermore, in numerous developing countries, data do not cover all sectors of the economy. Therefore, the data presented here for developing countries can be considered a lower bound of their real R&D eﬀort. For the list of countries encompassed by the groupings in this chapter, see Annex I.

(23)

World GDP (%) Population (millions) World population (%) GERD (PPP$ billions) World GERD (%) GERD as % of GDP GERD per capita (PPP$)

2002 2007 2002 2007 2002 2007 2002 2007 2002 2007 2002 2007 2002 2007

100.0 100.0 6 274.3 6 670.8 100.0 100.0 790.3 1 145.7 100.0 100.0 1.7 1.7 126.0 171.7

63.4 58.2 1 203.4 1 225.0 19.2 18.4 653.0 873.2 82.6 76.2 2.2 2.3 542.7 712.8

35.4 40.4 4 360.5 4 647.3 69.5 69.7 136.2 271.0 17.2 23.7 0.8 1.0 31.2 58.3

1.2 1.4 710.4 798.5 11.3 12.0 1.1 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.5 1.9

32.8 31.3 861.2 911.4 13.7 13.7 319.9 433.9 40.5 37.9 2.1 2.1 371.4 476.1

24.7 22.8 325.3 341.6 5.2 5.1 297.8 399.3 37.7 34.9 2.6 2.6 915.3 1 168.8

8.1 8.5 535.9 569.8 8.5 8.5 22.1 34.6 2.8 3.0 0.6 0.6 41.2 60.8

31.1 29.0 796.5 804.8 12.7 12.1 238.5 314.0 30.2 27.4 1.7 1.6 299.4 390.2

25.3 22.5 484.2 493.2 7.7 7.4 206.2 264.9 26.1 23.1 1.8 1.8 425.8 537.0

3.3 3.8 207.3 201.6 3.3 3.0 18.3 27.4 2.3 2.4 1.2 1.1 88.5 136.1

2.5 2.6 105.0 109.9 1.7 1.6 13.9 21.7 1.8 1.9 1.2 1.2 132.6 197.2

3.6 3.9 858.9 964.7 13.7 14.5 6.9 10.2 0.9 0.9 0.4 0.4 8.0 10.6

0.7 0.7 46.2 49.2 0.7 0.7 2.3^-1 4.4 0.3 ^e 0.4 0.7 ^-1 0.9 49.5 ^-1 88.6

1.4 1.5 623.5 709.2 9.9 10.6 1.8 2.6 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 2.9 3.7

1.5 1.6 189.3 206.3 3.0 3.1 2.5 3.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 13.4 15.9

31.0 34.5 3 725.6 3 955.5 59.4 59.3 213.9 369.3 27.1 32.2 1.5 1.6 57.4 93.4

7.4 6.5 127.1 127.4 2.0 1.9 108.2 147.9 13.7 12.9 3.2 3.4 851.0 1 161.3

7.9 10.7 1 286.0 1 329.1 20.5 19.9 39.2 102.4 5.0 8.9 1.1 1.4 30.5 77.1

0.3 0.3 6.3 6.9 0.1 0.1 7.1 9.2 0.9 0.8 4.6 4.8 1 121.4 1 321.3

3.8 4.7 1 078.1 1 164.7 17.2 17.5 12.9 24.8 1.6 2.2 0.7 0.8 12.0 21.3

0.4 0.6 72.3 75.4 1.2 1.1 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 7.0 10.2

6.0 6.1 373.7 399.3 6.0 6.0 40.1 72.3 5.1 6.3 1.4 1.8 107.3 181.1

1.8 2.0 107.0 122.9 1.7 1.8 1.1 1.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 10.0 11.8

3.3 3.6 675.0 729.7 10.8 10.9 4.8 10.4 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.4 7.1 14.3

1.5 1.4 32.1 34.5 0.5 0.5 11.2 18.3 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.9 349.9 529.7

3.4 3.6 296.3 329.2 4.7 4.9 3.6 4.7 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 12.2 14.3

3.8 4.4 279.6 277.0 4.5 4.2 18.9 28.2 2.4 2.5 1.1 1.0 67.4 101.9

64.3 58.9 1 149.6 1 189.0 18.3 17.8 661.3 894.7 83.7 78.1 2.2 2.3 575.2 752.5

0.9 0.9 12.1 12.6 0.2 0.2 9.8 13.6 1.2 1.2 2.3 2.3 804.5 1 082.8

2.1 2.2 669.7 758.4 10.7 11.4 4.3 7.0 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.5 6.4 9.2

0.6 0.8 37.7 39.5 0.6 0.6 1.2 2.7 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 30.8 67.3

2.9 2.8 179.1 190.1 2.9 2.9 13.0 20.2 1.6 1.8 1.0 1.1 72.7 106.4

2.0 1.9 31.3 32.9 0.5 0.5 19.1 24.1 2.4 2.1 2.0 1.9 611.4 732.3

– – 11.1 11.2 0.2 0.2 – – – – 0.5 0.4 – –

0.6 0.6 72.9 80.1 1.2 1.2 0.5^-2 0.9 0.1 ^e 0.1 0.2 ^-2 0.2 6.8 ^-2 11.4

3.7 3.1 59.8 61.7 1.0 0.9 38.2 42.3 4.8 3.7 2.2 2.0 637.7 685.5

4.9 4.3 82.2 82.3 1.3 1.2 56.7 72.2 7.2 6.3 2.5 2.5 689.0 877.3

1.1 1.2 68.5 72.4 1.1 1.1 2.8 4.7^-1 0.3 0.5 ^e 0.5 0.7 ^-1 40.3 65.6^-1

2.1 2.3 102.0 107.5 1.6 1.6 4.2 5.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 40.9 52.1

2.0 1.9 46.9 48.0 0.7 0.7 22.5 41.3 2.8 3.6 2.4 3.2 479.4 861.9

2.8 3.2 145.3 141.9 2.3 2.1 15.9 23.5 2.0 2.0 1.2 1.1 109.7 165.4

1.2 1.4 68.4 73.0 1.1 1.1 3.0 6.8 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.7 44.0 92.9

3.7 3.2 59.4 60.9 0.9 0.9 30.6 38.7 3.9 3.4 1.8 1.8 515.8 636.1

22.5 20.7 294.0 308.7 4.7 4.6 277.1 373.1 35.1 32.6 2.7 2.7 942.4 1 208.7

Introduction

-n= data refer to nyears before reference year

e = UNESCO Institute for Statistics estimation based on extrapolations and interpolations

Source:for GERD: UNESCO Institute for Statistics estimations, June 2010; For GDP and PPP conversion factor:

World Bank, World Development Indicators, May 2010, and UNESCO Institute for Statistics estimations; for population:

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Aﬀairs (2009) World Population Prospects: the 2008 Revision, and UNESCO Institute for Statistics estimations

(24)

Argentina

Brazil

China

France

Germany India Indonesia

Italy Mexico

Russian Federation Saudi Arabia South Africa

Rep KorTurkey

European Union

Canada UK USA World share of GERD, 2002 World share of GDP, 2007

World share of GDP, 2002 World share of GERD, 2007

0.6 0.8

0.1 0.2

22.5 20.7 13 742

0.7 0.7 0.3 0.4

3.3 2.8

1.2 1.4 0.4

3.7 3.1

3.7 3.2 4.9

4.3 25.3

22.5 26.1

2.8

3.2 3.8

4.7 7.9

10.7

2.0 0.04

0.03 1.3 1.2

0.8 0.8

2.9 2.8

0.5 0.5 2.3

2.1 1.9

Figure 1: World share of GDP and GERD for the G20, 2002 and 2007 (%) 2.0 Source:UNESCO Institute for Statistics

1.6 1.8

2.1 2.4

5.0 8.9

4.8 3.7 7.2

6.3

1.6 2.2

2.2 1.9 2.0

2.0

0.03 0.02 0.6

3.4 3.9

35.1 32.6

23.1

(25)

Figure 1 presents the 20 largest economic powers in the world. This list includes the Triad⁴and the newly industrializing countries of Mexico and the Republic of Korea, some of the most populated countries in the world such as China, India, Brazil, Russia and Indonesia, and a second layer of emerging economies that include Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Argentina and South Africa. With their newfound economic weight, these countries are challenging many of the rules, regulations and standards that governed the G7 and the Triad with respect to international trade and investment⁵. As we shall now see, they are also challenging the traditional dominance of the Triad when it comes to investment in R&D.

Trends in GERD: a shift in global influence

The world devoted 1.7% of GDP to R&D in 2007, a share that has remained stable since 2002. In monetary terms, however, this translates into US$ 1 146 billion⁶, an increase of 45% over 2002 (Table 1). This is slightly higher than the rise in GDP over the same period (43%).

Moreover, behind this increase lies a shift in global influence. Driven largely by China, India and the Republic of Korea, Asia’s world share has risen from 27% to 32%, to the detriment of the Triad. Most of the drop in the European Union (EU) can be attributed to its three biggest members: France, Germany and the United Kingdom (UK).

Meanwhile, the shares of Africa and the Arab States are low but stable and Oceania has progressed slightly.

We can see from Figure 1 that China’s share of world GERD is approaching its world share of GDP, unlike Brazil or India which still contribute much more to global GDP than to global GERD. Of note is that the situation is reversed for the Triad, even though the disparity is very small for the EU. The Republic of Korea is an interesting case in point, in that it follows the pattern of the Triad. Korea’s world share of GERD is even double its world share of GDP. One of Korea’s top priorities is to raise its GERD/GDP ratio to as much as 5% by 2012.

Introduction

Figure 2 correlates the density of both R&D and researchers for a number of key countries and regions. From this figure, we can see that Russia still has a much greater number of researchers than financial resources in its R&D system.

Three large newcomers can be seen emerging in the bottom left-hand side of the picture, namely China, Brazil and India, together with Iran and Turkey. Even Africa, as a continent, today represents a sizeable contributor to the global R&D effort. The R&D intensity of these economies or their human capital might still be low but their contribution to the stock of world knowledge is actually rising rapidly.

By contrast, the group of least developed countries – the smallest circle in the figure – still plays a marginal role.

Catching up in business R&D

It is the trends in business investment in R&D (BERD) which best illustrate the rapid geographical changes taking place worldwide in privately funded R&D centres. Increasingly, multinational companies are decentralizing their research activities to parts of both the developed and developing worlds within a strategy to internalize R&D at the global level (Zanatta and Queiroz, 2007). For multinationals, this strategy reduces labour costs and gives companies easier access to markets, local human capital and knowledge, as well as to the host country’s natural resources.

The favoured destinations are the so-called Asian ‘tigers’, the ‘old’ newly industrialized countries in Asia, and, secondly, Brazil, India and China. However, this is no longer a one-way traffic: firms from emerging economies are now also buying up large firms in developed countries and thereby acquiring the firms’ knowledge capital overnight, as the chapter on India neatly illustrates. As a

consequence, the global distribution of R&D effort between North and South is shifting rapidly. In 1990, more than 95% of R&D was being carried out in the developed world and just seven OECD economies accounted for more than 92% of world R&D (Coe et al.,1997). By 2002,

developed countries accounted for less than 83% of the total and by 2007 for 76%. Furthermore, as the chapters on South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa underscore, a number of countries not generally considered to be R&D-intensive are developing particular sectors like light engineering as a strategy for import substitution, among them Bangladesh and Cameroon.

From 2002 to 2007, the share of BERD in GDP rose sharply in Japan, China and Singapore, with a particularly steep curve in the Republic of Korea. The ratio remained more or

4. Composed of the European Union, Japan and USA

5. The great majority of the standards governing, for instance, trade in manufactured goods, agriculture and services are based on USA–EU norms.

6. All US$ in the present chapter are purchasing power parity dollars.

Download (15.04 MB)

SCIENCE REPORT 2010

The Current Status of Science around the World

UNESCO

SCIENCE

REPORT

2010

UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT 2010

The Current Status of Science around the World

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

CONTENTS

CONTENTS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

FOREWORD

Policies for science and technology must always be a mixture of realism and idealism.

THE GLOBAL PICTURE

PRE-RECESSION FACTS AND FIGURES