Mapping innovations in East Europe and Central Asia

Olha Krasovska STEPS Centre, Ukraine

e-mail olga_krasovska@mail.ru

STEPS CenterSTEPS Center

LevelsLevels of mappingof mapping GlobalGlobal –by comparison of the country blocks, e.g. –by comparison of the country blocks, e.g.

East Europe and Central Asia, America and Europe, East Europe and Central Asia, America and Europe, EU and CIS and so on. Low reliability of the results EU and CIS and so on. Low reliability of the results because of countries specific, existing gap in socio-because of countries specific, existing gap in socio-economic development of the countries, possible economic development of the countries, possible statistical gap are the main problems of global statistical gap are the main problems of global mapping. And of course it is difficult to define set mapping. And of course it is difficult to define set of characteristics by which we make such blocks of of characteristics by which we make such blocks of countries because it is evident that only countries because it is evident that only geographical component is not enoughgeographical component is not enough

InternationalInternational –by comparison of definite –by comparison of definite countries. International mapping is more correct in countries. International mapping is more correct in terms of indicators of countries specific. Often terms of indicators of countries specific. Often countries-neighbors in regional aspect are also countries-neighbors in regional aspect are also close in terms of socio-economic level and close in terms of socio-economic level and mentalitymentality

Regional Regional –by comparison of the regions inside –by comparison of the regions inside one definite country. Regional mapping is one definite country. Regional mapping is allocating regions inside one definite countryallocating regions inside one definite country

Classification Classification of regionsof regions by by Slavo RadosevichSlavo Radosevich

Capital towns and regional centres with a diversified economic structure and developed infrastructure.

Regions with a more diversified economic structure where lower industry share meant that they started with less structural problems. Monostructural regions where a single sector heritage (defence; agriculture; heavy industry) makes restructuring based entirely on endogenous resources very difficult and in some cases almost impossible

Regions defined by these principles in most cases are innovative regions

Source: Slavo Radosevic (2002), Regional Innovation Systems in Central and Eastern Europe: Determinants, Organizers and Alignments, Journal of Technology Transfer, Volume 27, Number 1, p. 87–96

Countries of East Europe and Central Asia

East Europe Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine, Russia

(partially)

Central AsiaUzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan,

Kazakhstan

So, when we talking about Countries of East Europe and Central Asia we have 2 blocks of countries: from the one hand these countries can be defined as East Europe and Central Asia but from the another hand these countries can be defined as EU and CIS

The East European and Central Asian countries are two big blocks of countries that have significant potential, both in terms of their strong academic community and worldwide leading S&T institutes in a variety of scientific disciplines.

STEPS CenterSTEPS Center

Existing statistical gap is

the main problemThere is no indicators could be used

for every countries Sources of information

• European Innovation ScoreboardEuropean Innovation Scoreboard • National innovation statistic of CISNational innovation statistic of CIS• Regional Innovation ScoreboardRegional Innovation Scoreboard• Global Competitiveness Index 2010-Global Competitiveness Index 2010-

2011by the World Economic Forum 2011by the World Economic Forum

STEPS CenterSTEPS Center

1. Innovation leaders (Denmark, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK) with innovation performance well above that of the EU27 and all other countries

2. Innovation followers (Austria, Belgium, France, Ireland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) with innovation performance below those of the innovation leaders but above that of the EU27

3. Moderate innovators (Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain) with innovation performance below the EU27 where the first 4 countries show a better performance than the last 6 countries.

4. Catching-up countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Turkey). Although their innovation performance is well below the EU average, this performance is increasing towards the EU average over time with the exception of Croatia and Lithuania

Blocks of the countries based on Blocks of the countries based on a statistical cluster analysis of a statistical cluster analysis of

Summary Innovation Index (SII)Summary Innovation Index (SII)

The development in innovation performance has been calculated for each

country and for the EU27 as a block using data over a five-year period. This calculation is based on absolute changes in the indicators, as opposed to previous European Innovation Scoreboard reports where trends were calculated relative to the EU average.

All East European countries have innovation performance well below the EU27 average but the rate of improvement above that of the EU27. In spite of declining of some indicators all countries demonstrated positive annual growth rate

Romania and Bulgaria have experienced the fastest growth in performance, albeit from a low starting point. These countries are the growth leaders also showing the overall fastest rate of improvement in innovation performance. In Bulgaria the rate of improvement is one of the highest of all countries and it is a growth leader within the Catching-up countries, while in Romania the rate of improvement is one of the highest of all countries.

Source: European innovation scoreboard 2008: comparative analysis of innovation performance, www.proinno-europe.eu/EIS2008/website/docs/EIS_2008_Final_report.pdf

Relative strengths and weaknessesRelative strengths and weaknesses Bulgaria Czech

RepublicHungary Malta Poland Romania Slovakia

ENABLERS

• Human resources + - - +

• Finance and support + - + - - -

FIRM ACTIVITIES

• Firm investments + + +

• Linkages & entrepreneurship

- - - - -

• Throughputs - - - - - -

OUTPUTS

• Innovators + - - + -

• Economic effects + + + + + + +

As we can see for all countries Economic effects is strengths while Linkages & entrepreneurship and Throughputs are weaknesses. I’d like to stress that strengthening of relationships between science and industry is one of the way of getting additional competitive benefits for the country and weaknesses of Linkages & entrepreneurship for selected countries is one of the reasons of poor competitive countries

Source: developed by the author on the base of European innovation scoreboard 2008: comparative analysis of innovation performance, www.proinno-europe.eu/EIS2008/website/docs/EIS_2008_Final_report.pdf

Unfortunately there is no analogue of European Innovation Scoreboard Unfortunately there is no analogue of European Innovation Scoreboard for non EU and Asian countries. So to get comparable picture we for non EU and Asian countries. So to get comparable picture we had to use additional sources of informationhad to use additional sources of information

There are number of research projects devoted to the creation of There are number of research projects devoted to the creation of innovation trend charts (e.g. Benchmarking Russia and Ukraine with innovation trend charts (e.g. Benchmarking Russia and Ukraine with respect to the Innovation Trend Chart (BRUIT), and Researching respect to the Innovation Trend Chart (BRUIT), and Researching Innovation Policy in Kazakhstan and Armenia (RIPKA project), Innovation Policy in Kazakhstan and Armenia (RIPKA project), coordinated by Giles Brandon. But unfortunately these projects coordinated by Giles Brandon. But unfortunately these projects were not continued and the latest data available on innovation trend were not continued and the latest data available on innovation trend charts for mentioned countries were dated on 2006charts for mentioned countries were dated on 2006

We tried to combine some basic indicators of EIS with the data of We tried to combine some basic indicators of EIS with the data of UNESCO Institute for Statistics and national innovation statistic of UNESCO Institute for Statistics and national innovation statistic of CIS to get comparable data seriesCIS to get comparable data series

We have chosen such indicators as We have chosen such indicators as Public R&D expenditures Public R&D expenditures Business R&D expendituresBusiness R&D expenditures Gross expenditure on R&D Gross expenditure on R&D Ratio between public and business expendituresRatio between public and business expenditures EPO patentsEPO patents Ratio between Ratio between basic, applied researches and experimental basic, applied researches and experimental

developmentdevelopmentSources: Sources: http://www.proinno-europe.eu/page/european-innovation-scoreboard-2009http://www.proinno-europe.eu/page/european-innovation-scoreboard-2009

http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco http://cordis.europa.eu/erawatch/index.cfmhttp://cordis.europa.eu/erawatch/index.cfmhttp://www.epo.org/about-us/office/annual-reports.htmlhttp://www.epo.org/about-us/office/annual-reports.html

Public R&D expenditures, 2008, % of GDPPublic R&D expenditures, 2008, % of GDP

0,33

0,56

0,45

0,18

0,41 0,41

0,26

0,44

0,67

0,47

0,07

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

Business R&D expenditures, 2008, % of GDPBusiness R&D expenditures, 2008, % of GDP

0,15

0,91

0,53

0,19 0,18 0,20,26 0,3

0,43

0,11

0,35

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2

1,4

Bulga

ria

Czech

Rep

ublic

Hunga

ryM

alta

Polan

d

Roman

ia

Slova

kia

Ukrain

e 20

07

Russia

Belar

us 2

007

Kazak

hsta

n

Gross expenditure on R&D, 2008, % of GDPGross expenditure on R&D, 2008, % of GDP

0,49

1,47

1

0,540,610,7

0,47

0,851,030,96

0,55

0,060,230,22

00,20,40,60,8

11,21,41,61,8

2

Share of public, business and financing from Share of public, business and financing from international funds, %international funds, %

33,5

67,9

37,752,6

34,7

69 69,857,1 50,2

61,149,2

31,4

63,9

31

61,945,6

65,3

30,9 3042,9

30,2

28,845,2

50,7

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Public Business International funds

EPO patentsEPO patents

EU countries – number of EPO patents per million populationUkraine, Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus – total number of EPO patents

Total number of EPO patents in CIS

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Ukraine 1 5 1 3 6 4 16

Russia 30 43 50 24 35 34 43

Belarus 0 3 2 1 1 0 1

Kazakhstan 1 1 1 0 0 0 1

Eu-27

Bu

lgaria

Czech

Repu

blic

Hu

ngary

Malta

Polan

d

Rom

ania

Slovakia

Uk

raine

Ru

ssia

Kazakh

stan

Belarus

EPO patents

114,9 3,5 10,8 13,7 33,8 3,4 1,6 6,1 16,0 43,0 1,00 1,00

Unfortunately data not for all countries are available. In Ukraine, Belarus and Unfortunately data not for all countries are available. In Ukraine, Belarus and Tajikistan only 2007 data are available. For public and business R&D Tajikistan only 2007 data are available. For public and business R&D expenditure (BERD and GBAORD) data for Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Moldova expenditure (BERD and GBAORD) data for Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Moldova are also missedare also missed

As we can see all countries we analyzed have lower than average EU level of As we can see all countries we analyzed have lower than average EU level of R&D financing indicators (pink line on the slide is average level of EU-27). R&D financing indicators (pink line on the slide is average level of EU-27). Situation in public R&D expenditure is better than in business financing – Situation in public R&D expenditure is better than in business financing – Russian Federation has the level of public expenditure GBAORD equal to the Russian Federation has the level of public expenditure GBAORD equal to the EU-27 average level. Czech Republic also has the strong position in this EU-27 average level. Czech Republic also has the strong position in this indicator. In spite of the highest level of public financing level of business indicator. In spite of the highest level of public financing level of business financing in Russia is significantly lower than in EU that causes not high level financing in Russia is significantly lower than in EU that causes not high level of GERD. In terms of GERD we can see that all countries are far from the of GERD. In terms of GERD we can see that all countries are far from the Lisbon target (3%). When we compare European and Asian countries we can Lisbon target (3%). When we compare European and Asian countries we can conclude that European countries have stronger positions than Asian in terms conclude that European countries have stronger positions than Asian in terms of GERDof GERD

As for the ratio of business and public R&D expenditure we can see that 2 As for the ratio of business and public R&D expenditure we can see that 2 European (Czech Republic and Malta) and one Asian (Kazakhstan) countries European (Czech Republic and Malta) and one Asian (Kazakhstan) countries are close to the EU ratio. Growth of the business expenditure is necessity are close to the EU ratio. Growth of the business expenditure is necessity condition for making national science more competitive and will be the condition for making national science more competitive and will be the evidence of intensification of science-industry relationshipsevidence of intensification of science-industry relationships

There is a great gap in terms of the EPO patents between EU members and There is a great gap in terms of the EPO patents between EU members and non EU. If in EU members the number of patent is calculated per million non EU. If in EU members the number of patent is calculated per million population, in non EU countries we have common number of patents. So, population, in non EU countries we have common number of patents. So, when in Malta we have 33,8 patents per million population in the same time when in Malta we have 33,8 patents per million population in the same time there is only 43 patents for whole Russia. In spite of the fact Russia and there is only 43 patents for whole Russia. In spite of the fact Russia and Ukraine demonstrate positive trend in the EPO patents their number is Ukraine demonstrate positive trend in the EPO patents their number is extremely low in comparison with EU countries. extremely low in comparison with EU countries.

STEPS CenterSTEPS Center

Share of basic, applied researches and Share of basic, applied researches and experimental development, 2007experimental development, 2007

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Kazakhstan

Belarus

Russia

USA

Denmark

Tajikistan

France

Hungary

Ukraine

Moldova

Bulgaria

Czech Republic

Malta

Slovakia

Basic Applied Experimental development

Share of basic, applied research and experimental development demonstrates Share of basic, applied research and experimental development demonstrates closeness of national scientific results to the implementation. Than higher is closeness of national scientific results to the implementation. Than higher is level of applied and experimental research than links between science and level of applied and experimental research than links between science and industry are closer industry are closer

According to the share of basic research we can divide our countries into 3 According to the share of basic research we can divide our countries into 3 groups – countries with low (under 20%), medium (from 21 to 40%) and high groups – countries with low (under 20%), medium (from 21 to 40%) and high (more than 41%) level of basic research(more than 41%) level of basic research

Slovakia and Malta belong to the high level group; the share of basic research in Slovakia and Malta belong to the high level group; the share of basic research in these countries is extremely high. This doesn’t influence on the share of applied these countries is extremely high. This doesn’t influence on the share of applied researches but influence on the share of experimental research - accordingly researches but influence on the share of experimental research - accordingly share of experimental research in Malta is the lowest among selected countries share of experimental research in Malta is the lowest among selected countries of Europe and Asiaof Europe and Asia

As we can see from the slide almost all NIS countries (except Moldova) have As we can see from the slide almost all NIS countries (except Moldova) have high share of experimental research. As example we also included in our high share of experimental research. As example we also included in our sample 2 old EU members (Denmark and France) and we can see that these sample 2 old EU members (Denmark and France) and we can see that these countries had similar share of basic research from 15 to 25% and accordingly countries had similar share of basic research from 15 to 25% and accordingly share of experimental research 35-55%. A lot of countries have the same share share of experimental research 35-55%. A lot of countries have the same share of basic research but share of applied research are differed to a great extendof basic research but share of applied research are differed to a great extend

There is no single optimal balance between basic, applied and experimental There is no single optimal balance between basic, applied and experimental researches. As the example of efficient balance we can take USA where in 2008 researches. As the example of efficient balance we can take USA where in 2008 the ratio was 17:22: about 60%the ratio was 17:22: about 60%

As we can see Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan are close to the USA level of As we can see Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan are close to the USA level of basic researches, but Kazakhstan has bigger share of applied researches. basic researches, but Kazakhstan has bigger share of applied researches. Bulgaria and Slovakia have too low level of experimental research share. Bulgaria and Slovakia have too low level of experimental research share. Elimination of existing disproportion between these 3 types of research is one of Elimination of existing disproportion between these 3 types of research is one of the ways to intensify the R&D efficiency and to expend the science-industry the ways to intensify the R&D efficiency and to expend the science-industry relationshipsrelationships

STEPS CenterSTEPS Center Regional innovation scoreboardRegional innovation scoreboard

Groups of indicators Groups of indicators

- Enablers- Enablers (Tertiary education, Life-long learning, (Tertiary education, Life-long learning, Public R&D, Broadband);Public R&D, Broadband);

- Firm activities- Firm activities (Business R&D, Non-R&D (Business R&D, Non-R&D expenditures, SMEs innovating in-house, Innovative expenditures, SMEs innovating in-house, Innovative SMEs cooperating with others, EPO patents); SMEs cooperating with others, EPO patents);

- Outputs- Outputs (Technological innovators, Non-technological (Technological innovators, Non-technological innovators, Resource efficiency innovators, innovators, Resource efficiency innovators, Employment in medium-high & high-tech Employment in medium-high & high-tech manufacturing, Employment in knowledge-intensive manufacturing, Employment in knowledge-intensive services, Sales of new-to market and new-to-firm services, Sales of new-to market and new-to-firm products)products)

Source:Source: http://www.proinno-europe.eu/page/regional- http://www.proinno-europe.eu/page/regional-innovation-scoreboardinnovation-scoreboard

Regional innovation scoreboard is based on the NUTS - Regional innovation scoreboard is based on the NUTS - The Nomenclature of The Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics or Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics Territorial Units for Statistics or Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics which is a geocode standard for referencing the subdivisions of countries for which is a geocode standard for referencing the subdivisions of countries for statistical purposes. The standard is developed and regulated by the European statistical purposes. The standard is developed and regulated by the European Union, and thus only covers the member states of the EU in detailUnion, and thus only covers the member states of the EU in detail

At present, innovation at the regional level is captures in the Regional Innovation At present, innovation at the regional level is captures in the Regional Innovation Scoreboard (RIS) which attempts to use the same methodology as the EIS Scoreboard (RIS) which attempts to use the same methodology as the EIS (European innovation survey), but with significantly reduced data availability. The (European innovation survey), but with significantly reduced data availability. The RIS is seriously hampered by the non-availability of regional CIS data and regional RIS is seriously hampered by the non-availability of regional CIS data and regional data for many of the other indicators. Data are not available because they are not data for many of the other indicators. Data are not available because they are not collected by the national statistical offices (NSO) or they are considered to be collected by the national statistical offices (NSO) or they are considered to be unreliable due to sampling methods. Another problem arises from the location of unreliable due to sampling methods. Another problem arises from the location of the headquarters of a company and where the regional activities of a company the headquarters of a company and where the regional activities of a company are reported, at the respective region or at the headquarters’ region?are reported, at the respective region or at the headquarters’ region?

In the RIS regions are ranked into groups from high to low innovation performance In the RIS regions are ranked into groups from high to low innovation performance for overall performance (for all regions using imputed values where data is not for overall performance (for all regions using imputed values where data is not available) and for profiles and relative strengths for the different dimensions of available) and for profiles and relative strengths for the different dimensions of innovation performance (only for regions with available data).innovation performance (only for regions with available data).

The most innovative regions are typically in the most innovative The most innovative regions are typically in the most innovative

countries.countries.

Nearly all the "high innovators" regions are in the group of Nearly all the "high innovators" regions are in the group of "Innovation Leaders" identified in the European Innovation "Innovation Leaders" identified in the European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS). Similarly all of the "low innovators” Scoreboard (EIS). Similarly all of the "low innovators” regions are located in countries that have below average regions are located in countries that have below average performance in the European Innovation Scoreboard EIS. performance in the European Innovation Scoreboard EIS. However, the results also show regions that outperform However, the results also show regions that outperform their country level:their country level:

Praha in the Czech Republic has all medium-high innovating Praha in the Czech Republic has all medium-high innovating regions from moderate innovators and catching up regions from moderate innovators and catching up countries.countries.The capital regions in Hungary and Slovakia show an The capital regions in Hungary and Slovakia show an innovation level at the EU average but are located in innovation level at the EU average but are located in catching up countries whose overall innovation catching up countries whose overall innovation performance is well below average performance is well below average

When we make analysis by regional innovation When we make analysis by regional innovation performance we can see that high or low performance performance we can see that high or low performance depends not on the region but on the type of indicators. So depends not on the region but on the type of indicators. So almost all countries have medium-high or even high almost all countries have medium-high or even high innovation performance in output indicators as in 2004 also innovation performance in output indicators as in 2004 also in 2006. in 2006.

R&D priorities is important indicator of country specialization R&D priorities is important indicator of country specialization and could be used for searching cross points between different and could be used for searching cross points between different countriescountries

R&D priorities in East Europe (EU)R&D priorities in East Europe (EU)

Bulgaria Bulgaria has a strong tradition in mathematics, astronomy, physics, has a strong tradition in mathematics, astronomy, physics, nuclear technology and sciences-oriented education, and has nuclear technology and sciences-oriented education, and has significant experience in medical and pharmaceutical researchsignificant experience in medical and pharmaceutical research

Czech RepublicCzech Republic pay more attention to industrial development; pay more attention to industrial development; biosciences; medical sciences, physics and mathematics, earth biosciences; medical sciences, physics and mathematics, earth sciences, chemistry and SSH sciences, chemistry and SSH

HungarianHungarian strong science areas are: IT, biotechnology, agro- strong science areas are: IT, biotechnology, agro-economy, chemistry, pharmacyeconomy, chemistry, pharmacy

Malta Malta priority areas are ICT, energy-environment, health-biotech priority areas are ICT, energy-environment, health-biotech (biomedical sciences, e.g. medical plants) and high value-added (biomedical sciences, e.g. medical plants) and high value-added manufacturingmanufacturing

PolandPoland has good position in physics, space science, engineering, has good position in physics, space science, engineering, computer science, clinical medicine. Also Polish research is computer science, clinical medicine. Also Polish research is relatively active in chemistry, mathematics, plant & animal relatively active in chemistry, mathematics, plant & animal sciences, materials science and ecology/environmentalsciences, materials science and ecology/environmental

Romania,Romania, The fields of research rank by financing is follow: The fields of research rank by financing is follow: engineering and technology, natural sciences and agricultural engineering and technology, natural sciences and agricultural sciencessciences

R&D priorities in East Europe (CIS) R&D priorities in East Europe (CIS)

Slovakia,Slovakia, The main The main research areas in which Slovakia has considerable research areas in which Slovakia has considerable potential, are: research in the field of polymers, nanotechnology, potential, are: research in the field of polymers, nanotechnology, molecular biology and molecular study of particle physics, nuclear molecular biology and molecular study of particle physics, nuclear physicsphysics

BelarusBelarus has next S&T priorities: has next S&T priorities:

Resource and energy-efficient technologies of production of Resource and energy-efficient technologies of production of competitive products; new materials and new energy sources; medicine competitive products; new materials and new energy sources; medicine and pharmacy; information and telecommunications technologies; and pharmacy; information and telecommunications technologies; production technology, processing and storing agricultural products; production technology, processing and storing agricultural products; industrial biotechnology; ecology and environmental management.industrial biotechnology; ecology and environmental management.

MoldovaMoldova, Strategic directions in research and innovation include:, Strategic directions in research and innovation include:

usage of human, natural and information resources for sustainable usage of human, natural and information resources for sustainable development of economy; biomedicine, pharmaceuticals, maintaining development of economy; biomedicine, pharmaceuticals, maintaining and promoting health; agricultural biotechnology, soil fertility and food and promoting health; agricultural biotechnology, soil fertility and food security; nanotechnology, industrial engineering, new products and security; nanotechnology, industrial engineering, new products and materials; improving the efficiency of the energy sector and energy materials; improving the efficiency of the energy sector and energy security, including through the use of renewable  resourcessecurity, including through the use of renewable  resources

UkraineUkraine has a strong position in material sciences, microelectronics, has a strong position in material sciences, microelectronics, biology and medical sciences (e.g. testing system), computer sciences, biology and medical sciences (e.g. testing system), computer sciences, space sciences space sciences

Russia Russia has still strong positions in physics, space science, earth science, has still strong positions in physics, space science, earth science, chemistry, mathematics, materials science, biological sciences, chemistry, mathematics, materials science, biological sciences, microbiology, geneticsmicrobiology, genetics

R&D priorities in Central Asia R&D priorities in Central Asia

KazakhstanKazakhstan has good potential in following S&T areas: chemistry; has good potential in following S&T areas: chemistry; machinery; agriculture; metallurgy and mining; biotechnology, machinery; agriculture; metallurgy and mining; biotechnology, food industry and transport food industry and transport

Kyrgyzstan: Kyrgyzstan: water and renewable energy; new technologies and water and renewable energy; new technologies and materials; information and telecommunications technology; materials; information and telecommunications technology; problems of mountainous areas and development of mineral problems of mountainous areas and development of mineral resources; biotechnology in medicine and agriculture; conceptual resources; biotechnology in medicine and agriculture; conceptual problems of social sciences of modern Kyrgyzstan; development problems of social sciences of modern Kyrgyzstan; development of technology for the use of organic and natural resources; of technology for the use of organic and natural resources; creation of new materials based on high technology; scientific creation of new materials based on high technology; scientific basis of conservation, restoration and sustainable use of flora basis of conservation, restoration and sustainable use of flora and fauna in Kyrgyzstan; development of animal agriculture; and fauna in Kyrgyzstan; development of animal agriculture; comprehensive assessment of the risks of life and molecular-comprehensive assessment of the risks of life and molecular-genetic basis of human diseases in high mountainsgenetic basis of human diseases in high mountains

TajikistanTajikistan: Formation and implementation of socio-economic policies : Formation and implementation of socio-economic policies in a country's sovereignty and economy; agro-industrial in a country's sovereignty and economy; agro-industrial complex; fuel and energy complex; mineral resources industrial complex; fuel and energy complex; mineral resources industrial complex; health and environment; information technology and complex; health and environment; information technology and managementmanagement

R&D priorities in Central Asia R&D priorities in Central Asia

TurkmenistanTurkmenistan, S&T successful areas according to the message of president; , S&T successful areas according to the message of president; processing of additional energy sources, natural resources, including oil, gas, processing of additional energy sources, natural resources, including oil, gas, mineral and hydro resources; in environmental protection; the development mineral and hydro resources; in environmental protection; the development of medicine and medical industries; studying and promoting the world's of medicine and medical industries; studying and promoting the world's history and culture of Turkmenistan, the ancient and medieval, modern and history and culture of Turkmenistan, the ancient and medieval, modern and contemporary history, rich heritage of the Turkmen classic poetry and contemporary history, rich heritage of the Turkmen classic poetry and prominent thinkers of our peopleprominent thinkers of our people

Uzbekistan:Uzbekistan: Formation and realization of social and economic policy itself; agro- Formation and realization of social and economic policy itself; agro-industrial complex; fuel and power engineering complex; mineral and feed industrial complex; fuel and power engineering complex; mineral and feed stock complex; health care and ecology; information technologies and stock complex; health care and ecology; information technologies and managementmanagement

When we analyze priorities by countries we can see that almost all countries When we analyze priorities by countries we can see that almost all countries have 2 blocks of priorities: specific (for example, social transformation in have 2 blocks of priorities: specific (for example, social transformation in Czech Republic or Czech Republic or Problems of mountainous areas and development of Problems of mountainous areas and development of mineral resources in Kyrgyzstan) and common priorities such as IT, mineral resources in Kyrgyzstan) and common priorities such as IT, biotechnology (biosciences), and healthcare technology. These common biotechnology (biosciences), and healthcare technology. These common priorities should be the scientific bridge between countries, cross points for priorities should be the scientific bridge between countries, cross points for joint researches, international scientific cooperation, and building of joint researches, international scientific cooperation, and building of international networksinternational networks

Global Competitiveness Index 2010-2011Global Competitiveness Index 2010-2011

There are 12 main pillars in this index which reflect whole picture of There are 12 main pillars in this index which reflect whole picture of country competitivenesscountry competitivenessWe used 3 main blocks of ranking indicators We used 3 main blocks of ranking indicators In the first innovation block we have as expert (soft) so statistical (hard) In the first innovation block we have as expert (soft) so statistical (hard) data. data. The next two groups of indicators (technology and finance) contain only The next two groups of indicators (technology and finance) contain only expert data. expert data.

3 main blocks of ranking indicators3 main blocks of ranking indicators 1. Innovation and sophistication factors index (Innovation)1. Innovation and sophistication factors index (Innovation)

Capacity for innovationCapacity for innovationQuality of scientific research institutionsQuality of scientific research institutionsCompany spending on R&DCompany spending on R&DUniversity-industry collaboration in R&DUniversity-industry collaboration in R&DGovernment procurement of advanced Government procurement of advanced technology technology

productsproductsAvailability of scientists and engineersAvailability of scientists and engineersUtility patents (hard data)Utility patents (hard data)

Source:Source: http://gcr.weforum.org/gcr2010/http://gcr.weforum.org/gcr2010/

STEPS CenterSTEPS Center Global Competitiveness Global Competitiveness

Index 2010-2011Index 2010-20112. Technological readiness (technological 2. Technological readiness (technological adoption)adoption)

Availability of latest technologiesAvailability of latest technologiesFirm-level technology absorptions..Firm-level technology absorptions..FDI and technology transferFDI and technology transfer

3. Financial market development (efficiency) 3. Financial market development (efficiency) Availability of financial servicesAvailability of financial servicesFinancing through local equity marketFinancing through local equity marketEase of access to loansEase of access to loansVenture capital availabilityVenture capital availability

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Innovation and sophistication factors Innovation and sophistication factors indexindex

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Technology Availability of latest technologies Firm-level technology absorptions.. FDI and technology transfer

Technological readiness Technological readiness (technological adoption)(technological adoption)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Financing Availability of financial services Affordability of financial services

Financing through local equity market Ease of access to loans Venture capital availability

Financial market development (efficiency)Financial market development (efficiency)

Country rankingCountry ranking

Innovation Technology Financing Common ranking

1 Czech Republic Malta Malta Czech Republic

2 Hungary Slovakia Czech Republic Hungary

3 Malta Czech Republic Slovakia Poland

4 Poland Hungary Poland Slovakia

5 Russia Poland Hungary Bulgaria

6 Ukraine Romania Romania Tajikistan

7 Slovakia Kazakhstan Bulgaria Romania

8 Romania Ukraine Kazakhstan Malta

9 Bulgaria Bulgaria Tajikistan Ukraine

10 Kazakhstan Russia Russia Kazakhstan

11 Tajikistan Tajikistan Moldova Kyrgyzstan

12 Moldova Moldova Ukraine Russia

13 Kyrgyzstan Kyrgyzstan Kyrgyzstan Moldova

Unfortunately GCI does not include all East European and Central Asian countries. Unfortunately GCI does not include all East European and Central Asian countries. Data for Belarus, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are missed.Data for Belarus, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are missed.

Czech Republic demonstrates the best ranking in terms Czech Republic demonstrates the best ranking in terms of innovation indicatorsof innovation indicators, , almost all ranks are higher than 40th places (except Availability of scientists and almost all ranks are higher than 40th places (except Availability of scientists and engineers), when Kyrgyzstan demonstrates poor result in almost all indicators. engineers), when Kyrgyzstan demonstrates poor result in almost all indicators.

Hungary, Slovakia, Ukraine and Russia has low rank by such indicator as Government Hungary, Slovakia, Ukraine and Russia has low rank by such indicator as Government procurement of advanced technology products when other indicators have higher procurement of advanced technology products when other indicators have higher than 80 rate , when Malta has the best rank of this indicator (19). Hungary has than 80 rate , when Malta has the best rank of this indicator (19). Hungary has another high rank (18) by such indicator as Quality of scientific research institutions.another high rank (18) by such indicator as Quality of scientific research institutions.

When we look at the ranking inside of When we look at the ranking inside of Technology blockTechnology block we can see that all non-EU we can see that all non-EU countries have very low positions below than 90 and Kyrgyzstan even lower than 130 countries have very low positions below than 90 and Kyrgyzstan even lower than 130 places. Malta demonstrates best results when Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary places. Malta demonstrates best results when Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary also are also on the approximately high positions.also are also on the approximately high positions.

As for the block of As for the block of financing indicatorsfinancing indicators we can see that Malta again demonstrates we can see that Malta again demonstrates the best position, Poland and Czech Republic also have not bad positions (except the best position, Poland and Czech Republic also have not bad positions (except Affordability of financial services in Czech Republic). Ukraine, Moldova and Affordability of financial services in Czech Republic). Ukraine, Moldova and Kyrgyzstan have poorer positions than other countries. In terms of financial indicators Kyrgyzstan have poorer positions than other countries. In terms of financial indicators all countries demonstrate lower positions than in terms of innovation and technology all countries demonstrate lower positions than in terms of innovation and technology aspects. aspects.

When we looking at When we looking at common picturecommon picture by all 3 blocks of indicators we can see that by all 3 blocks of indicators we can see that Kyrgyzstan and in the most cases Moldova have the worth position across all Kyrgyzstan and in the most cases Moldova have the worth position across all countries, while Czech Republic and Malta have enough good positions by almost all countries, while Czech Republic and Malta have enough good positions by almost all indicators. indicators.

When we When we make ranking by these 3 blocks of indicators and common rank we can see make ranking by these 3 blocks of indicators and common rank we can see that Malta, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary is on the top, while Kyrgyzstan is that Malta, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary is on the top, while Kyrgyzstan is on the last place by the blocks of indicators and on the 11 total place. Tajikistan has on the last place by the blocks of indicators and on the 11 total place. Tajikistan has bad position bybad position by blocks of indicators, but occupy 6th common place. blocks of indicators, but occupy 6th common place.

The common conclusion is: EU countries have better positions than non EU countries The common conclusion is: EU countries have better positions than non EU countries so European as Central Asian (except the Tajikistan that has better common ranking so European as Central Asian (except the Tajikistan that has better common ranking position than Romania and Malta). Malta having good thematic places occupies only position than Romania and Malta). Malta having good thematic places occupies only 8 common places. It could be explained by small size of the country and its low 8 common places. It could be explained by small size of the country and its low competitive potential in comparison with other EU countriescompetitive potential in comparison with other EU countries

R&D and innovation networksR&D and innovation networks are one of the forms of globalizing, are one of the forms of globalizing, international cooperation, intensification of innovation and R&D international cooperation, intensification of innovation and R&D activity, building common innovation area between East Europe and activity, building common innovation area between East Europe and Central Asia. R&D and innovation networks can include so only Central Asia. R&D and innovation networks can include so only European members as European and Asian membersEuropean members as European and Asian members

ECAbit NetworkECAbit Network of Business Incubator & Technology Parks in Eastern of Business Incubator & Technology Parks in Eastern Europe and Central Asia Europe and Central Asia http://http://www.ecabit.orgwww.ecabit.org//

Armenia, Belarus, Bulgaria, Georgia, Germany, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Macedonia, Armenia, Belarus, Bulgaria, Georgia, Germany, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Macedonia, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, Russia, Turkey, Ukraine, United States, UzbekistanMongolia, Poland, Romania, Russia, Turkey, Ukraine, United States, Uzbekistan

S&T International Cooperation Network for Eastern European and S&T International Cooperation Network for Eastern European and Central Asian Countries – Central Asian Countries – IncoNetIncoNet http://www.inco-eeca.nethttp://www.inco-eeca.net//

Greece, Germany, Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, France, Kazakhstan, Sweden, Uzbekistan, Greece, Germany, Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, France, Kazakhstan, Sweden, Uzbekistan, Austria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Moldova, Norway, Estonia, Belarus, Romania, Austria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Moldova, Norway, Estonia, Belarus, Romania, Georgia, Poland, FinlandGeorgia, Poland, Finland

European Regions Knowledge Based Innovation European Regions Knowledge Based Innovation (ERIK)(ERIK) Network Network http://http://www.eriknetwork.netwww.eriknetwork.net

Portugal, Spain, France, Slovakia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Hungary, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Spain, France, Slovakia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Hungary, Netherlands, Austria, Poland , Sweden, Belgium, Romania, Denmark, United KingdomPoland , Sweden, Belgium, Romania, Denmark, United Kingdom

Innovating regions in EuropeInnovating regions in Europe http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/ire/Innovating-regions/www.innovating-rhttp://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/ire/Innovating-regions/www.innovating-regions.org/network/presentation/index.htmlegions.org/network/presentation/index.html

The IRE network currently brings together around 235 member regions from the 27 EU The IRE network currently brings together around 235 member regions from the 27 EU Member States, as well as from Iceland, Israel, Norway, Switzerland and TurkeyMember States, as well as from Iceland, Israel, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey

ConclusionsConclusions Innovation mapping in East Europe and Central Asia is very Innovation mapping in East Europe and Central Asia is very

difficult because of different indicators used in the countries difficult because of different indicators used in the countries which often are non comparablewhich often are non comparable

European countries lead in terms of R&D and innovation European countries lead in terms of R&D and innovation activity in comparison with Asian countries by such indicators activity in comparison with Asian countries by such indicators asas

Public R&D expenditures Public R&D expenditures Business R&D expenditures Business R&D expenditures Gross expenditure on R&D Gross expenditure on R&D

Kazakhstan has relatively strong position among Central Kazakhstan has relatively strong position among Central Asian countries while Czech Republic and Malta are leaders Asian countries while Czech Republic and Malta are leaders as among East European countries so among selected EU as among East European countries so among selected EU countriescountries

All countries we analyzed have lower than average EU level All countries we analyzed have lower than average EU level of R&D financing indicators (only Russia has level of public of R&D financing indicators (only Russia has level of public financing equal to EU-27 level). At the same time all financing equal to EU-27 level). At the same time all countries are far from the Lisbon target (3%)countries are far from the Lisbon target (3%)

ConclusionsConclusions

CIS countries have extremely low indicator on EPO Patents CIS countries have extremely low indicator on EPO Patents that could be partially explained that these countries that could be partially explained that these countries traditionally have high level of internal patents and have traditionally have high level of internal patents and have low orientation on European markets of high and medium low orientation on European markets of high and medium high technology products.high technology products.

Analogue of EIS should be introduced in the CIS countries Analogue of EIS should be introduced in the CIS countries in order to include these countries to the common in order to include these countries to the common statistical area and make innovation mapping more statistical area and make innovation mapping more reliablereliable

Common researches in priority directions could be the Common researches in priority directions could be the bridge between countriesbridge between countries

International R&D and innovation networks are one of the International R&D and innovation networks are one of the ways of searching partners for cooperation, joint projects, ways of searching partners for cooperation, joint projects, and scientists’ exchange. Such networks should include as and scientists’ exchange. Such networks should include as European so Asian countries. European so Asian countries.

Thank you for your Thank you for your attentionattentionDr. Olha KrasovskaDr. Olha Krasovska

Centre for Scientific and Technological Potential and Centre for Scientific and Technological Potential and Science History Studies (STEPS Centre), Science History Studies (STEPS Centre),

National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine

E-mail E-mail olga_krasovska@mail.ruolga_krasovska@mail.ru

STEPS CenterSTEPS Center