UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT

33
UNESCO
SCIENCE
REPORT
2010
Executive Summary
The Current Status of Science
around the World
UNESCO
Publishing
United Nations
Educational, Scientiﬁc and
Cultural Organization

The UNESCO Science Report 2010 has 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
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.
The report 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.
© UNESCO 2010
Printed in France
UNESCO
Publishing
United Nations
USR Exec Summary 3a:Layout 1 21/10/10 13:26 Page 2

CONTENTS
Foreword Irina Bokova, Director-General of UNESCO
Chapter 1 The growing role of knowledge in the
global economy
Hugo Hollanders and Luc Soete
Chapter 2 United States of America
J. Thomas Ratchford and William A. Blanpied
Chapter 3 Canada
Paul Dufour
Chapter 4 Latin America
Mario Albornoz, Mariano Matos Macedo
and Claudio Alfaraz
Chapter 5 Brazil
Carlos Henrique de Brito Cruz
and Hernan Chaimovich
Chapter 6 Cuba
Ismael Clark Arxer
Chapter 7 CARICOM countries
Harold Ramkissoon and Ishenkumba Kahwa
Chapter 8 European Union
Peter Tindemans
Chapter 9 Southeast Europe
Slavo Radosevic
Chapter 10 Turkey
Sirin Elçi
Chapter 11 Russian Federation
Leonid Gokhberg and Tatiana Kuznetsova
Chapter 12 Central Asia
Ashiraf Mukhammadiev
Chapter 13 Arab states
Adnan Badran and Moneef R. Zou’bi
Chapter 14 Sub-Saharan Africa
Kevin Urama, Nicholas Ozor, Ousmane Kane
and Mohamed Hassan
Chapter 15 South Asia
Tanveer Naim
Chapter 16 Iran
Kioomars Ashtarian
Chapter 17 India
Sunil Mani
Chapter 18 China
Mu Rongping
Chapter 19 Japan
Yasushi Sato
Chapter 20 Republic of Korea
Jang-Jae Lee
Chapter 21 Southeast Asia and Oceania
Tim Turpin, Richard Woolley, Patarapong
Intarakumnerd and Wasantha Amaradasa
Annexes
Statistical Annex
This Executive Summary is drawn from the first chapter of the UNESCO Science Report 2010.
It has been printed as a supplement in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish.
UNESCO
SCIENCE
REPORT
2010
3

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

1 . The growing role of knowledge
in the global economy
Hugo Hollanders and Luc Soete
5
THE GLOBAL PICTURE
The UNESCO Science Report 2010 takes 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
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

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
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT 2010
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).
6
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.

The growing role of knowledge in the global economy
7
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
-n = data refer to n years 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

Australia
Argentina
Brazil
China
France
Germany
India
Indonesia
Italy
Japan
Mexico
Russian
Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Rep. of
KoreaTurkey
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
13742
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.4
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
1.9
7.4
6.5
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
2.0
Figure 1: World share of GDP and GERD for the G20, 2002 and 2007 (%)
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
13.7
12.9
2.0
2.0
0.03
0.02
2.8
3.6
0.6
3.4
3.9
35.1
32.6
23.1
8
USRExecSummary3a:Layout121/10/1013:27Page8

9
Figure 1 presents the 20 largest economic powers in the
world. This list includes the Triad4
and 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.
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
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.
.

10
less constant in Brazil, the USA and the EU and even
declined in Russia. As a result, by 2007, the Republic of
Korea was challenging Japan for the title of technological
leader, Singapore had nearly caught up to the USA and
China was rubbing shoulders with the EU.
Notwithstanding this, the BERD/GDP ratio still remains
much lower in India and Brazil than in the Triad.
Trends in human capital: China soon to count the
most researchers
Here, we focus on another core area of R&D input: trends
with regard to researchers. As Table 2 highlights, China is
on the verge of overtaking both the USA and the EU in
terms of sheer numbers of researchers. These three giants
each represent about 20% of the world’s stock of
researchers. If we add Japan’s share (10%) and that of
Russia (7%), this highlights the extreme concentration of
researchers: the‘Big Five’account for about 35% of the
world population but three-quarters of all researchers. By
contrast, a populous country like India still represents only
2.2% of the world total and the entire continents of Latin
America and Africa just 3.5% and 2.2% respectively.
Although the share of researchers in the developing world
has grown from 30% in 2002 to 38% in 2007, two-thirds of
this growth can be attributed to China alone. Countries are
training many more scientists and engineers than before but
graduates are having trouble finding qualified positions or
attractive working conditions at home. As a result, migration
of highly qualified researchers from South to North has
become the characteristic feature of the past decade. A 2008
report by the UK Parliamentary Office cited OECD data
indicating that, of the 59 million migrants living in OECD
countries, 20 million were highly skilled.
Brain drain preoccupies developing countries
Despite voluminous literature on migration, it is almost
impossible to draw a systematic, quantitative picture of
long-term migration of the highly skilled worldwide.
Moreover, not everyone perceives the phenomenon in the
same way. Some refer to brain drain, others prefer the term
brain strain or brain circulation. Whatever the preferred
terminology, several chapters in the present report –
among them those on India, South Asia, Turkey and sub-
Saharan Africa – highlight the serious issue that brain drain
Figure 2: Global investment in R&D in absolute and relative terms, 2007
For selected countries and regions
Note: The size of the circle reflects the size of GERD for the country or grouping.
Source: UNU–MERIT based on data from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics and World Bank
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
0
1 000
2 000
3 000
4 000
5 000
6 000
Researcherspermillionpopulation
GERD as % of GDP
USA
Japan
Germany
France
Rep. of Korea
UK
India
Russia
Brazil
Africa
Turkey
Iran
Least developed countries
China

USA
Japan
Germany
Rep. of Korea
India
Russia
Brazil
China
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
France
UK
Singapore
2.16
1.77
0.54
0.14
0.91
2.05
1.34
1.73
1.18
1.11
0.47
2.68
1.93
0.80
0.37
1.15
1.08
2.65
1.74
1.77
1.29
0.50
11
Figure 3: BERD/GDP ratio for slected countries, 2000–2007 (%)
Source: UNU-MERIT based on data from UNESCO Institute for Statistics
Palestinian Autonomous Territories; in Tajikistan from
Uzbekistan; and in Bulgaria from Greece.
A second factor is that the diaspora acts as a useful
departure point for the design of policies for more
effective technology transfer and knowledge spillovers.
This phenomenon motivates countries to elaborate
policies to lure highly skilled expatriates back home. This
was the case in the Republic of Korea in the past and can
be seen in China and elsewhere today. The aim is to
encourage the diaspora to use the skills acquired abroad
to bring about structural change at home. Moreover, the
diaspora may be invited to participate‘from a distance’,
if the prospect of a permanent return home is unlikely.
In Nigeria, Parliament approved the establishment of the
Nigerians in the Diaspora Commission in 2010, the aim of
which is to identify Nigerian specialists living abroad and
encourage them to participate in Nigerian policy and
project formulation.
Trends in publications: a new Triad dominates
The number of scientific publications recorded in
Thomson Reuters’Science Citation Index (SCI) is the most
commonly used indicator for scientific output. It is
particularly valuable, in that it allows both for
international comparisons at the aggregate level and for
has become and the barriers that this flow of knowledge
out of countries creates for domestic R&D. For instance,
a national survey by the Sri Lankan National Science
Foundation found that the number of economically active
scientists in Sri Lanka had dropped from 13 286 to 7 907
between 1996 and 2006. Meanwhile, FDI flowing into India
is creating internal brain drain, as domestic firms cannot
compete with the attractive compensation packages
offered to personnel by foreign firms based in India.
South–South and South–North migration data are not
systematically covered by international statistical
institutes but can be approximated by combining OECD
data on migration of the highly skilled with UNESCO data
on bilateral flows of international students (Dunnewijk,
2008). These data reveal that South to North and North to
North are dominant directions for migration but that,
overall, a much more varied array of destinations is
emerging: South Africa, Russia, Ukraine, Malaysia and
Jordan have also become attractive destinations for the
highly skilled. The diaspora that has settled in South Africa
originated from Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia and
Lesotho; in Russia, from Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus;
in Ukraine, from Brunei Darussalam; in the former
Czechoslovakia from Iran; in Malaysia from China and
India; in Romania from Moldova; in Jordan from the

12
Table 2: Key indicators on world researchers, 2002 and 2007
Researchers World share of Researchers per GERD per researcher
(thousands) researchers (%) million inhabitants (PPP$ thousands )
2002 2007 2002 2007 2002 2007 2002 2007
World 5 810.7 7 209.7 100.0 100.0 926.1 1 080.8 136.0 158.9
Developed countries 4 047.5 4 478.3 69.7 62.1 3 363.5 3 655.8 161.3 195.0
Developing countries 1 734.4 2 696.7 29.8 37.4 397.8 580.3 78.5 100.5
Least developed countries 28.7 34.7 0.5 0.5 40.5 43.4 37.6 43.8
Americas 1 628.4 1 831.9 28.0 25.4 1 890.9 2 010.1 196.4 236.9
North America 1 458.5 1 579.8 25.1 21.9 4 483.2 4 624.4 204.2 252.8
Latin America and the Caribbean 169.9 252.1 2.9 3.5 317.1 442.5 130.0 137.4
Europe 1 870.7 2 123.6 32.2 29.5 2 348.5 2 638.7 127.5 147.9
European Union 1 197.9 1 448.3 20.6 20.1 2 473.9 2 936.4 172.1 182.9
Commonwealth of Independent States in Europe 579.6 551.5 10.0 7.6 2 796.1 2 735.3 31.7 49.8
Central, Eastern and Other Europe 93.2 123.8 1.6 1.7 887.2 1 125.9 149.4 175.1
Africa 129.0 158.5 2.2 2.2 150.2 164.3 53.1 64.6
South Africa 14.2-1
19.3 0.2e
0.3 311.4-1
392.9 158.9-1
225.6
Other sub-Saharan countries (excl. South Africa) 30.8 40.8 0.5 0.6 49.4 57.5 59.5 63.8
Arab States in Africa 84.1 98.4 1.4 1.4 444.1 477.1 30.2 33.3
Asia 2 064.6 2 950.6 35.5 40.9 554.2 745.9 103.6 125.2
Japan 646.5 710.0 11.1 9.8 5 087.0 5 573.0 167.3 208.4
China 810.5 1 423.4 13.9 19.7 630.3 1 070.9 48.4 72.0
Israel – – – – – – – –
India 115.9-2
154.8-2
2.3e
2.2e
111.2-2
136.9-2
102.6-2
126.7-2
Commonwealth of Independent States in Asia 41.4 39.7 0.7 0.6 572.5 525.8 12.3 19.4
Newly Industrialized Economies in Asia 295.8 434.3 5.1 6.0 791.4 1 087.4 135.6 166.6
Arab States in Asia 21.1 24.4 0.4 0.3 197.1 198.7 50.5 59.3
Other in Asia (excl. Japan, China, India, Israel) 93.2 127.1 1.6 1.8 138.1 174.2 51.6 81.8
Oceania 118.0 145.1 2.0 2.0 3 677.6 4 208.7 95.1 125.9
Other groupings
Arab States all 105.2 122.8 1.8 1.7 354.9 373.2 34.3 38.4
Commonwealth of Independent States all 621.0 591.2 10.7 8.2 2 221.1 2 133.8 30.4 47.7
OECD 3 588.1 4 152.9 61.7 57.6 3 121.2 3 492.8 184.3 215.5
European Free Trade Association 48.3 52.9 0.8 0.7 3 976.6 4 209.1 202.3 257.3
Sub-Saharan Africa (incl. South Africa) 45.0 60.1 0.8 0.8 67.1 79.2 96.0 115.8
Selected countries
Argentina 26.1 38.7 0.4 0.5 692.3 979.5 44.4 68.7
Brazil 71.8 124.9 1.2 1.7 400.9 656.9 181.4 162.1
Canada 116.0 139.0-1
2.0 1.9e
3 705.3 4 260.4-1
165.0 170.7-1
Cuba – – – – – – – –
Egypt – 49.4 – 0.7 – 616.6 – 18.5
France 186.4 215.8 3.2 3.0 3 115.7 3 496.0 204.7 196.1
Germany 265.8 290.9 4.6 4.0 3 232.5 3 532.2 213.1 248.4
Iran (Islamic Republic of) – 50.5-1
– 0.7e
– 706.1-1
– 93.0-1
Mexico 31.1 37.9 0.5 0.5 305.1 352.9 134.0 147.6
Republic of Korea 141.9 221.9 2.4 3.1 3 022.8 4 627.2 158.6 186.3
Russian Federation 491.9 469.1 8.5 6.5 3 384.8 3 304.7 32.4 50.1
Turkey 24.0 49.7 0.4 0.7 350.8 680.3 125.4 136.5
United Kingdom 198.2 254.6 3.4 3.5 3 336.5 4 180.7 154.6 152.2
United States of America 1 342.5 1 425.6-1
23.1 20.0e
4 566.0 4 663.3-1
206.4 243.9-1
-n = data refer to n years before reference year e = UNESCO Institute for Statistics estimation based on extrapolations and interpolations
Note: Researchers are full-time equivalents. The sum of researchers and the world share do not correspond to the total for some regions because of changes
in the reference year or the unavailability of data for some countries.
Source: for researchers: UNESCO Institute for Statistics estimations, June 2010; for 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

13
more detailed assessments of particular scientific fields.
We begin with the aggregate analysis of scientific
publications. As Table 3 highlights, the USA is still the
country which leads the world when it comes to scientific
output in absolute terms. However, its world share (28%)
has fallen more than any other country over the past six
years. The leading region for this indicator, the EU, has also
seen its share dip by four percentage points to less than
37%. By contrast, China’s share has more than doubled in
just six years and now represents more than 10% of the
world total, second only to the USA, even if the citation
rate for Chinese articles remains much lower than for the
Triad. Next come Japan and Germany. They are now on a
par at just under 8%, Japan’s world share having fallen
farther than Germany’s.
As for the BRIC7
countries, their share of world
publications has shown impressive growth, with the
exception of Russia, which saw its share decline from
3.5% in 2002 to 2.7% in 2008. At the continental level,
Latin America’s share leapt from 3.8% to 4.9% but this
was mostly thanks to Brazil. Growth in the Arab world
remained sluggish. Africa’s share of publications in the
SCI made a bound of 25% between 2002 and 2008 from
a very low starting point to attain 2.0% of the world total.
Here, the rise was most noticeable in South Africa and the
Maghreb but every African country saw the number of its
articles recorded in the SCI progress. At the global level,
scientific publishing is today dominated by a new triad:
the USA, Europe and Asia. Given the size of Asia’s
population, one would expect it to become the dominant
scientific continent in the coming years.
In terms of the relative specialization of countries in
specific scientific disciplines, Figure 4 points to wide
disparities. The first spider’s web focuses on the
traditionally dominant scientific countries. The black
octagon represents the average, so the lines outside this
octagon indicate a better-than-average performance in a
given field. Of note is France’s specialization in
mathematics, recently confirmed by the award of the
Abel Prize – the mathematical equivalent of the Nobel
Prize – to two French mathematicians in 2010.
Figure 4: Scientific specialization of the Triad, BRIC countries and Africa, 2008
Biology
Biomedical
research
Physics
Clinical
medicine
Engineering and
technology
Earth and space
ChemistryMathematics
Biology
Biomedical
research
Physics
Clinical
medicine
Engineering and
technology
Earth and space
Chemistry
Mathematics
Average
USA
Japan
Germany
France
United Kingdom
Brazil
China
India
Russian Federation
Africa
-0.25
-0.20
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
7. Brazil, Russian Federation, India and China
Source: UNU-MERIT based on data from Thomson Reuters (Scientific) Inc. Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded), compiled for UNESCO by
the Canadian Observatoire des sciences et des technologies, May 2010

14
Table 3: World shares of scientific publications, 2002 and 2008
Total Change World share of Biomedical
publications (%) publications (%) Biology research
2002 2008 2002– 2002 2008 2002 2008 2002 2008
2008
World 733 305 986 099 34.5 100.0 100.0 58 478 84 102 99 805 123 316
Developed countries 617 879 742 256 20.1 84.3 75.3 49 315 62 744 89 927 100 424
Developing countries 153 367 315 742 105.9 20.9 32.0 13 158 29 394 14 493 32 091
Least developed countries 2 069 3 766 82.0 0.3 0.4 477 839 226 471
Americas 274 209 348 180 27.0 37.4 35.3 23 868 33 785 47 500 54 671
North America 250 993 306 676 22.2 34.2 31.1 20 234 24 976 44 700 49 590
Latin America and the Caribbean 27 650 48 791 76.5 3.8 4.9 4 321 10 232 3 426 6 216
Europe 333 317 419 454 25.8 45.5 42.5 24 133 33 809 43 037 50 464
European Union 290 184 359 991 24.1 39.6 36.5 21 522 29 516 39 261 45 815
Commonwealth of Independent States in Europe 30 118 32 710 8.6 4.1 3.3 1 153 1 447 2 052 2 054
Central, Eastern and Other Europe 29 195 48 526 66.2 4.0 4.9 2 274 4 348 3 524 5 014
Africa 11 776 19 650 66.9 1.6 2.0 2 255 3 366 1 122 2 397
South Africa 3 538 5 248 48.3 0.5 0.5 828 1 163 481 690
Other sub-Saharan countries (excl. South Africa) 3 399 6 256 84.1 0.5 0.6 1 072 1 575 381 1 110
Arab States in Africa 4 988 8 607 72.6 0.7 0.9 406 746 281 655
Asia 177 743 303 147 70.6 24.2 30.7 10 796 20 062 19 022 31 895
Japan 73 429 74 618 1.6 10.0 7.6 4 682 5 479 9 723 9 771
China 38 206 104 968 174.7 5.2 10.6 1 716 5 672 2 682 9 098
Israel 9 136 10 069 10.2 1.2 1.0 643 662 1 264 1 411
India 18 911 36 261 91.7 2.6 3.7 1 579 3 339 1 901 3 821
Commonwealth of Independent States in Asia 1 413 1 761 24.6 0.2 0.2 41 57 66 88
Newly Industrialized Economies in Asia 33 765 62 855 86.2 4.6 6.4 1 730 3 364 3 240 6 795
Arab States in Asia 3 348 5 366 60.3 0.5 0.5 200 355 239 447
Other in Asia (excl. Japan, China, Israel, India) 16 579 40 358 143.4 2.3 4.1 1 301 3 203 1 313 3 651
Oceania 23 246 33 060 42.2 3.2 3.4 4 014 5 034 3 120 4 353
Other groupings
Arab States all 8 186 13 574 65.8 1.1 1.4 600 1 078 510 1 063
Commonwealth of Independent States all 31 294 34 217 9.3 4.3 3.5 1 189 1 497 2 110 2 128
OECD 616 214 753 619 22.3 84.0 76.4 49 509 64 020 90 365 102 634
European Free Trade Association 18 223 25 380 39.3 2.5 2.6 1 523 2 262 2 760 3 349
Sub-Saharan Africa (incl. South Africa) 6 819 11 142 63.4 0.9 1.1 1 860 2 636 844 1 751
Selected countries
Argentina 4 719 6 197 31.3 0.6 0.6 826 1 287 664 883
Brazil 12 573 26 482 110.6 1.7 2.7 1 572 5 526 1 583 3 467
Canada 30 310 43 539 43.6 4.1 4.4 3 351 4 571 4 779 6 018
Cuba 583 775 32.9 0.1 0.1 129 156 65 81
Egypt 2 569 3 963 54.3 0.4 0.4 192 259 146 295
France 47 219 57 133 21.0 6.4 5.8 2 975 3 865 6 563 7 169
Germany 65 500 76 368 16.6 8.9 7.7 3 838 5 155 8 742 10 006
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 2 102 10 894 418.3 0.3 1.1 150 772 129 681
Mexico 5 239 8 262 57.7 0.7 0.8 874 1 669 558 911
Republic of Korea 17 072 32 781 92.0 2.3 3.3 617 1 755 1 893 3 824
Russian Federation 25 493 27 083 6.2 3.5 2.7 1 050 1 317 1 851 1 835
Turkey 8 608 17 787 106.6 1.2 1.8 546 1 435 532 1 155
United Kingdom 61 073 71 302 16.7 8.3 7.2 4 515 4 975 9 586 10 789
United States of America 226 894 272 879 20.3 30.9 27.7 17 349 21 234 41 135 45 125
Note: The sum of the numbers for the various regions exceeds the total number because papers with
multiple authors from different regions contribute fully to each of these regions.
Source: data from Thomson Reuters (Scientific) Inc. Web of Science, (Science Citation Index Expanded),
compiled for UNESCO by the Canadian Observatoire des sciences et des technologies, May 2010

15
Publications by ﬁeld of science
Engineering
Chemistry Clinical medicine Earth and space & technology Mathematics Physics
2002 2008 2002 2008 2002 2008 2002 2008 2002 2008 2002 2008
88 310 114 206 229 092 307 043 41 691 60 979 96 194 139 257 23 142 37 397 96 593 119 799
66 585 72 185 203 298 251 857 36 644 50 320 73 868 91 320 19 251 27 961 78 991 85 445
26 002 49 155 32 772 70 921 8 497 17 330 28 019 59 180 5 829 12 938 24 597 44 733
76 132 928 1 635 138 318 103 177 27 52 94 142
22 342 25 803 95 140 126 471 18 611 24 883 29 465 37 841 8 355 12 114 28 928 32 612
19 378 21 690 89 495 114 674 17 123 22 533 27 183 33 763 7 573 10 765 25 307 28 685
3 181 4 401 6 751 14 030 2 122 3 228 2 646 4 535 925 1 570 4 278 4 579
40 404 44 644 104 060 135 042 21 202 30 763 39 625 53 069 11 834 18 064 49 022 53 599
33 183 36 221 93 939 119 230 18 091 26 095 33 845 44 182 10 190 15 239 40 153 43 693
6 117 6 357 1 771 2 115 2 647 3 205 4 108 4 772 1 474 2 066 10 796 10 694
2 874 4 239 11 172 18 623 2 054 3 924 3 091 6 284 671 1 541 3 535 4 553
1 535 2 012 3 075 5 640 918 1 486 1 306 2 358 494 893 1 071 1 498
307 410 841 1 453 434 520 294 467 127 227 226 318
117 183 1 323 2 417 245 477 122 226 44 114 95 154
1 116 1 438 953 1 931 260 527 892 1 688 325 563 755 1 059
30 017 50 501 40 557 65 957 7 456 15 001 32 946 58 754 5 544 11 614 31 405 49 363
9 908 9 809 21 426 21 729 2 505 3 552 10 633 10 194 1 300 1 661 13 252 12 423
9 499 23 032 3 863 13 595 2 036 5 746 8 734 22 800 1 850 5 384 7 826 19 641
694 706 3 134 3 357 372 506 1 011 1 143 524 754 1 494 1 530
4 552 7 163 3 367 7 514 1 160 2 306 2 980 6 108 506 974 2 866 5 036
279 322 95 124 145 168 130 166 125 204 532 632
4 590 7 334 6 748 14 468 1 218 2 540 9 075 16 140 1 102 1 905 6 062 10 309
323 463 1 302 1 934 143 303 721 1 090 154 326 266 448
2 449 5 314 4 134 9 991 765 1 983 3 685 9 219 561 1 603 2 371 5 394
1 552 2 038 7 528 11 598 2 126 3 323 2 497 3 403 716 985 1 693 2 326
1 405 1 840 2 227 3 758 399 808 1 580 2 711 469 855 996 1 461
6 358 6 645 1 856 2 230 2 761 3 333 4 224 4 910 1 589 2 266 11 207 11 208
63 801 71 003 208 163 262 587 35 655 49 492 74 606 94 262 18 435 26 842 75 680 82 779
1 618 2 021 6 328 9 072 1 501 2 600 1 548 2 507 387 656 2 558 2 913
420 582 2 135 3 746 658 962 415 675 170 335 317 455
536 669 1 078 1 316 407 631 362 487 118 229 728 695
1 656 2 390 3 243 8 799 657 1 028 1 259 2 209 398 708 2 205 2 355
2 306 3 022 9 761 14 683 2 620 3 877 3 763 5 971 1 102 1 763 2 628 3 634
71 96 151 214 18 33 57 90 14 26 78 79
672 861 478 992 111 205 510 714 121 167 339 470
5 401 6 090 13 069 16 034 3 457 4 899 5 260 7 123 2 399 3 113 8 095 8 840
7 399 8 344 20 781 24 708 4 256 5 978 7 059 7 746 1 903 2 725 11 522 11 706
645 2 198 369 2 626 57 433 390 2 484 97 554 265 1 146
474 716 994 1 749 484 739 610 996 219 322 1 026 1 160
2 545 4 006 3 017 7 610 539 1 160 4 526 8 004 497 895 3 438 5 527
5 240 5 308 1 599 1 914 2 468 2 981 3 144 3 329 1 251 1 584 8 890 8 815
844 1 639 4 243 7 978 450 1 025 1 223 2 910 162 559 608 1 086
5 469 5 352 22 007 26 754 4 678 6 079 6 715 7 612 1 383 2 197 6 720 7 544
17 334 18 984 81 871 103 835 15 206 19 819 23 939 28 572 6 724 9 356 23 336 25 954

16
France also specializes in Earth and space sciences, like
Germany. As for Japan, it has several strengths: physics,
chemistry, engineering and technology. Interestingly,
both the USA and UK specialize in biomedical research,
clinical medicine and Earth and space.
The second spider’s web focuses on the BRIC countries
and Africa. Here, too, we observe some striking differences
between countries in their scientific specialization. Russia
shows a strong specialization in physics, mathematics and
Earth and space sciences. Typically, China specializes
heavily in physics, chemistry, mathematics and
engineering and technology. By contrast, Africa and Brazil
are strong in biology and India excels in chemistry.
These differences in scientific specialization are mirrored
in the different country profiles that follow this first
chapter. Countries appear to choose areas for scientific
knowledge creation based on their own needs (clinical
medicine), geographical opportunities (Earth and space
sciences and biology) but also based on cultural affinities
(mathematics, physics) and expertise born of industrial
growth (chemistry).
Trends in scientific output: inequality in private
knowledge creation
The fourth indicator on which we focus in this first chapter
reflects the success of countries and regions in privately
appropriating knowledge through, for example, the
number of patents filed with the Triad patent offices,
namely: the US Patents and Trademark Office (USPTO),
European Patent Office and Japanese Patent Office.
Patents filed with these three patent offices are generally
considered to be of a high quality. As a technological
indicator, patents are a good reflection of the strong
cumulative and tacit character of knowledge, embedded
as they are in a formally recognized, long-lasting
intellectual property right. It is this characteristic which
makes it costly to transfer knowledge from one setting to
another.
The overall dominance of the USA is striking. This
highlights the US technology market’s role as the world’s
leading private market for technology licenses. Japan,
Germany and the Republic of Korea are the other
countries with the most patent-holders. India’s share
amounts to barely 0.2% of all Triadic patents, a share
comparable to that of Brazil (0.1%) and Russia (0.2%).
Table 4 illustrates the extreme concentration of patent
applications in North America, Asia and Europe; the rest of
the world barely accounts for 2% of the total stock of
patents. Most of Africa, Asia and Latin America play no role
at all.
India’s patents tend to be in chemistry-related fields.
Interestingly, the chapter on India considers that the
introduction of the Indian Patent Act in 2005 to bring
India into compliance with the Agreement on Trade-
Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) has
not had a negative effect on the country’s pharmaceutical
industry. In support of this argument, the author cites the
strong growth in R&D investment since 2000, which was
continuing unabated in 2008. However, he also observes
that most of these patents are being granted to foreign
companies located in India, based on R&D projects carried
out in India, in a growing trend.
Of all the indicators used in the UNESCO Science Report, it
is the patent indicator which points most strikingly to the
inequality of knowledge creation at the global level.
The following trend helps to explain the huge volume of
patents among OECD economies. In high-income
countries, the lifespan of high-tech products is shortening,
obliging companies to come up with new products more
quickly than before. This can be seen in the rate at which
new computers, software, video games and mobile phones,
for instance, are appearing on the market.
High-tech firms are themselves largely responsible for this
phenomenon, as they have deliberately set out to create
new consumer needs by bringing out more sophisticated
versions of their products every six months or so. This
strategy is also a way of keeping ahead of the competition,
wherever it may be. As a consequence, patents that used to
be economically valid for several years now have a shorter
lifespan. Developing new products and registering new
patents every six months or so is an extremely labour- and
investment-intensive exercise which obliges companies to
innovate at a frenetic rate. With the global recession,
companies are finding it harder to maintain this pace.
Knowledge appropriation versus knowledge
diffusion
We now take a look at the opposite variable to patents, the
number of Internet users. This variable should enable us to
gauge whether easier access to information and
knowledge has provided opportunities for a more rapid
diffusion of S&T. The data on Internet usage in Table 5 paint

17
Table 4: USPTO and Triadic patent families by inventor's region, 2002 and 2007
USPTO patents Triadic patents*
Total World share (%) Total World share (%)
2002 2007 2002 2007 2002 2006 2002 2006
World 167 399 156 667 100.0 100.0 56 654 47 574 100.0 100.0
Developed countries 155 712 141 183 93.0 90.1 55 456 45 923 97.9 96.5
Developing countries 12 846 17 344 7.7 11.1 1 579 2 125 2.8 4.5
Least developed countries 13 13 0.0 0.0 4 1 0.0 0.0
Americas 92 579 85 155 55.3 54.4 25 847 20 562 45.6 43.2
North America 92 245 84 913 55.1 54.2 25 768 20 496 45.5 43.1
Latin America and the Caribbean 450 355 0.3 0.2 115 101 0.2 0.2
Europe 31 046 25 387 18.5 16.2 17 148 13 249 30.3 27.8
European Union 29 178 23 850 17.4 15.2 16 185 12 540 28.6 26.4
Commonwealth of Independent States in Europe 350 332 0.2 0.2 151 97 0.3 0.2
Central, Eastern and Other Europe 2 120 1 708 1.3 1.1 1 203 958 2.1 2.0
Africa 151 134 0.1 0.1 47 48 0.1 0.1
South Africa 124 92 0.1 0.1 38 37 0.1 0.1
Other sub-Saharan countries (excl. South Africa) 15 16 0.0 0.0 3 3 0.0 0.0
Arab States in Africa 12 26 0.0 0.0 6 9 0.0 0.0
Asia 47 512 50 313 28.4 32.1 15 463 15 197 27.3 31.9
Japan 35 360 33 572 21.1 21.4 14 085 13 264 24.9 27.9
China 5 935 7 362 3.5 4.7 160 259 0.3 0.5
Israel 1 151 1 248 0.7 0.8 476 411 0.8 0.9
India 323 741 0.2 0.5 58 96 0.1 0.2
Commonwealth of Independent States in Asia 6 9 0.0 0.0 3 1 0.0 0.0
Newly Industrialized Economies in Asia 4 740 7 465 2.8 4.8 689 1 173 1.2 2.5
Arab States in Asia 46 58 0.0 0.0 15 18 0.0 0.0
Other in Asia (excl. Japan, China, Israel, India) 80 48 0.0 0.0 19 18 0.0 0.0
Oceania 1 139 1 516 0.7 1.0 549 834 1.0 1.8
Other groupings
Arab States all 56 84 0.0 0.1 20 27 0.0 0.1
Commonwealth of Independent States all 356 340 0.2 0.2 154 98 0.3 0.2
OECD 159 320 147 240 95.2 94.0 55 863 46 855 98.6 98.5
European Free Trade Association 2 064 1 640 1.2 1.0 1 180 935 2.1 2.0
Sub-Saharan Africa (incl. South Africa) 139 108 0.1 0.1 41 39 0.1 0.1
Selected countries
Argentina 59 56 0.0 0.0 12 17 0.0 0.0
Brazil 134 124 0.1 0.1 46 46 0.1 0.1
Canada 3 895 3 806 2.3 2.4 962 830 1.7 1.7
Cuba 9 3 0.0 0.0 5 0 0.0 0.0
Egypt 8 22 0.0 0.0 3 4 0.0 0.0
France 4 507 3 631 2.7 2.3 2 833 2 208 5.0 4.6
Germany 12 258 9 713 7.3 6.2 6 515 4 947 11.5 10.4
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 11 7 0.0 0.0 1 3 0.0 0.0
Mexico 134 81 0.1 0.1 26 16 0.0 0.0
Republic of Korea 3 868 6 424 2.3 4.1 523 1 037 0.9 2.2
Russian Federation 346 286 0.2 0.2 149 84 0.3 0.2
Turkey 21 32 0.0 0.0 9 10 0.0 0.0
United Kingdom 4 506 4 007 2.7 2.6 2 441 2 033 4.3 4.3
United States of America 88 999 81 811 53.2 52.2 25 034 19 883 44.2 41.8
*Data for 2006 are incomplete and should be interpreted with caution.
Note: The sum of the numbers, and percentages, for the various regions exceeds the total number, or 100%, because patents with multiple inventors from
different regions contribute fully to each of these regions.
Source: data from United States Patents and Trademark Office (USPTO) and OECD, compiled for UNESCO by the Canadian Observatoire des sciences
et des technologies, February 2009

18
a very different picture to that for patents.We find that the
BRIC countries and numerous developing countries are
catching up quickly to the USA, Japan and major European
countries for this indicator.This shows the crucial
importance of the emergence of digital communications
like Internet on the world distribution of S&T and, more
broadly, knowledge generation.The rapid diffusion of
Internet in the South is one of the most promising new
trends of this Millennium, as it is likely to bring about a
greater convergence in access to S&T over time.
A systemic perspective on the congruence of S&T
indicators
The concept of a national innovation system was coined
by the late Christopher Freeman in the late 1980s to
describe the much broader congruence in Japanese
society between all sorts of institutional networks in both
‘private and public sectors whose activities and
interactions initiate, import, modify and diffuse new
technologies’(Freeman, 1987). The set of indicators
described above shed light on some features of each
country’s national system of innovation. One should bear
in mind, however, that science, technology and
innovation (STI) indicators that were relevant in the past
may be less relevant today and even misleading (Freeman
and Soete, 2009). Developing countries should not simply
rely on adopting STI indicators developed by, and for,
OECD countries but rather develop their own STI
indicators (Tijssen and Hollanders, 2006). Africa is
currently implementing a project to develop, adopt and
use common indicators to survey the continent’s progress
in S&T via the periodic publication of an African Innovation
Outlook (see page 299).
Figure 5 illustrates visually the different biases in
countries’national innovation systems by matching four
indicators. At first sight, the US system appears to be the
most balanced: the US circles appear each time in the
middle of the figure. However, its position with respect to
human capital is weak and out of line with the trend in
other highly developed countries: only 24.5% of the US
population holds a tertiary degree, whereas in France,
Germany or Japan, for instance,the proportion is close to,
or greater than, 30%. One would expect the USA to
perform better on the tertiary education axis, given its
performance for the indicators on the other axes. It is true
that the USA has some of the best universities in the
world but rankings like that of Shanghai Jiao Tong
University focus on research performance rather than the
Table 5: Internet users per 100 population, 2002 and 2008
2002 2008
World 10.77 23.69
Developed countries 37.99 62.09
Developing countries 5.03 17.41
Less-developed countries 0.26 2.06
Americas 27.68 45.50
North America 59.06 74.14
Latin America and the Caribbean 8.63 28.34
Europe 24.95 52.59
European Union 35.29 64.58
Commonwealth of Independent States in Europe 3.83 29.77
Central, Eastern and Other Europe 18.28 40.40
Africa 1.20 8.14
South Africa 6.71 8.43
Other Sub-Saharan countries (excl. South Africa) 0.52 5.68
Arab States in Africa 2.11 16.61
Asia 5.79 16.41
Japan 46.59 71.42
China 4.60 22.28
Israel 17.76 49.64
India 1.54 4.38
Commonwealth of Independent States in Asia 1.72 12.30
Newly Industrialized Economies in Asia 15.05 23.47
Arab States in Asia 4.05 15.93
Other in Asia (excl. Japan, China, Israel, India) 2.19 11.51
Oceania 43.62 54.04
Other groupings
Arab States all 2.81 16.35
Commonwealth of Independent States all 3.28 24.97
OECD 42.25 64.03
European Free Trade Association 66.08 78.17
Sub-Saharan Africa (incl. South Africa) 0.94 5.86
Selected countries
Argentina 10.88 28.11
Brazil 9.15 37.52
Canada 61.59 75.53
Cuba 3.77 12.94
Egypt 2.72 16.65
France 30.18 70.68
Germany 48.82 77.91
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 4.63 31.37
Mexico 10.50 21.43
Republic of Korea 59.80 81.00
Russian Federation 4.13 32.11
Turkey 11.38 34.37
United Kingdom 56.48 78.39
United States of America 58.79 74.00
Source: International Telecommunications Union, World
telecommunications / ICT indicators database, June 2010, and UNESCO
Institute for Statistics estimations; United Nations Department of
Economic and Social Affairs (2009) World Population Prospects: the 2008
Revision, and UNESCO Institute for Statistics estimations
quality of education. In sum, the USA is reliant on a vast
inflow of foreign researchers and other highly skilled
people to drive the economy.

19
Japan provides a contrast. It clearly lags behind other
highly developed countries in terms of scientific
publications and GDP per capita. Its innovation system
appears weak when it comes to translating the country’s
big investment in human research capital and R&D into
sufficient scientific and economic value. The UK suffers
from exactly the opposite problem: its performance in
terms of scientific publications and economic wealth
creation is by far superior to its investment in human
research capital and R&D. Russia, on the other hand,
shines when it comes to investment in human capital
but fails on all other counts. China is still typically in a
catching-up phase: its heavy investment in R&D has as
yet not paid off but, of course, its economic structure
remains dominated by non-technology-intensive
activities.
Figure 5. The systemic matching between key S&T indicators, 2007
Selected countries and regions
Note: The size of the circles reflects the population size for each country or region studied.
Source: UNU–MERIT based on data from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics and World Bank
India Africa USA Brazil Russia Japan Germany France UK Rep. of KoreaChina
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000-1200 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
-3.5
-3.0
-2.5
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0
Tertiary
education
Publications
R&D
GDPpercapita

20
The national biases in Figure 5 also point to some of the
implications for countries of the international migration of
researchers and more broadly human capital. It is not
surprising that there will be a lot of emigration from a country
like Russia and a lot of immigration towards the USA, given
the current biases in their national innovation systems.
IS THE GLOBAL ECONOMIC RECESSION
BAD FOR KNOWLEDGE CREATION?
The global recession is likely to have had a severe impact
on investment in knowledge across the globe. Many of the
knowledge indicators described for 2007 and earlier may
have been affected in the process and, hence, could not
reliably predict the situation in 2009 or 2010. R&D budgets,
especially, tend to be vulnerable to cutbacks in times of
crisis. Patents and publications will in turn be affected by
the drop in R&D expenditure but this will probably occur in
the longer run and affect scientific output less directly,
owing to pipeline effects that smother sharp fluctuations.
As for trends in education of the labour force, this sector
tends to be less affected by short-term distortions.
There are a couple of short-term indicators which might
shed some light on the impact of the recession thus far.
Here, we use the OECD´s composite leading indicator
(CLI), which is available on short notice. This indicator uses
monthly (de-trended) data on industrial production as a
proxy for economic activity. It is a leading indicator
because industrial production recovers early in an
economic cycle. A turning point in the CLI signals that a
turning point in the business cycle can be expected within
6–9 months. China showed a turning point as early as
November 2008 and, consequently, an upturn in the
business cycle in May–August 2009, as expected.
Figure 6. Industrial production in the BRIC countries, USA and Euro zone, 2006–2010
80
100
120
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
104.3
103.1
102.7
102.2
101.0
100.9
101.7
101.7
101.6
101.6
101.3
98.0
USA
Euro zone (16 countries)
China
Russia
Brazil
India
J M M J S N J M M J S N J M M J S N J M M J S N J M M
Source: OECD, Composite Leading Indicators (Amplitude adjusted series): http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=MEI_CLI

21
We can also interpret from the information in Figure 6
that Brazil was 10% above its long-term level for
industrial production in 2007 before falling brutally to
about 85% of this value in the first month of 2009.
Industrial production in India and the Euro zone only
stumbled, falling from around 103% to 90%. Recovery is
expected to be strong enough to raise the level of
industrial production above its long-term trend level.
However, the data for the most recent months (June
2010) reveal that the rate of recovery is slowing down,
raising concerns about a possible double dip.
In short, we can say that, between October 2008 and
March 2009, the first signs of recovery appeared. Asia in
general and China in particular were the first to recover.
It is unlikely that R&D expenditure in China has been
affected by the global economic recession because
industrial production fell only 7% below its long-term
trend value for a relatively short period. Moreover,
circumstantial evidence on firms provided by the EU’s
R&D investment scoreboard in 2009 shows that China’s
R&D effort in 2008 actually increased, at least in
telecommunications. There is no reason to assume that
2009 and 2010 will be much different, since China’s
economy grew by more than 7% even in 2007 and
2008.
For Brazil and India, on the other hand, it is likely that
their total R&D effort will come under pressure in 2008
and 2009, due to the relatively low level of industrial
production over a prolonged period of time. In fact,
between July 2008 and March 2010, industrial
production remained below its long-term trend level.
On a brighter note, these countries have been catching
up to the developed countries in terms of GERD for
several years now. One might therefore expect more of a
lull in these countries’ rising R&D intensity than a
significant drop.
As for the world’s largest R&D-intensive firms,
circumstantial evidence for 2009 reveals that the majority
of the big R&D spenders in the USA cut their R&D
expenditure by 5–25% that year, while a minority
increased spending by 6–19%. Overall though, the USA
and EU are most likely to keep their total R&D intensity at
around 2007 levels. This means that both GDP and R&D
expenditure will decline by equal shares, thereby keeping
R&D intensity more or less constant over the year 2009–
2010 (Battelle, 2009).
A CLOSER LOOK AT INDIVIDUAL
COUNTRIES AND REGIONS
The choice of countries and regions in the UNESCO
Science Report 2010 nicely reflects the heterogeneity
of S&T around the world, from the highly developed
OECD nations to the four large emerging BRIC
countries and the large number of developing
countries which are playing a growing role in the
global research effort. Here, we summarize the most
insightful conclusions emerging from the regional
and country studies in Chapters 2 to 21.
In the United States of America (Chapter 2), R&D has
prospered over the past five years and continues to be
an absolute government priority. A good example is
the funding for the National Science Foundation,
which doubled at the request of the Bush
administration in 2007 and is set to double again
under the Obama administration. Although the
recession born of the sub-prime crisis hit the economy
hard in 2009 and 2010, universities and research
centres have continued to receive generous funding
from both public funds and private endowments and
industrial funds.
Whereas the Obama administration included a
significant one-off investment in STI that also
benefited R&D in the second stimulus package
towards the end of 2009, there is now a clear risk that
any increase in federal funding will be offset by
reductions in funding by both state governments
and private funds. Notwithstanding this, one
important commitment by the Obama
administration is to increase GERD from 2.7% to 3%
of GDP. The administration is emphasizing energy
R&D, especially clean energy.
Unlike public research, industrial R&D appears to
have been hit relatively hard by the recession with a
large number of researchers being laid off. Among
the biggest R&D spenders have been the
pharmaceutical industries, badly affected by the
recession. In fact, the chapter notes that the
pharmaceutical industry was already showing signs
of stress before the recession, as the huge
investment made in R&D does not appear to have
resulted in many ‘blockbuster’ drugs recently.

22
The US university system still leads the world when it
comes to research: in 2006, 44% of all S&T articles
published in journals indexed in the SCI included at
least one US-based author. Furthermore, of the top
25 institutions ranked by the Shanghai Jiao Tong
University’s Institute of Higher Education in 2008,
19 were based in the USA.
Canada (Chapter 3) has been less affected by the
global economic recession than either the USA or
Europe, thanks to its strong banking system and a
real-estate market that avoided many of its
neighbour’s excesses. Furthermore, low inflation
coupled with income from Canada’s abundant natural
resources have cushioned the impact of the global
recession on the country’s economy.
In March 2010, the federal government committed to
investing in a range of new measures to foster
research over the period 2010–2011. These include
postdoctoral fellowships, as well as more general
research funding for grant councils and regional
innovation clusters. A considerable share of this
funding goes towards research on particle and nuclear
physics, as well as next-generation satellite
technology. With the USA next door, Canada cannot
afford to be complacent.
Steady investment in R&D appears to be paying off:
between 2002 and 2008, the number of Canadian
scientific publications in the SCI grew by nearly
14 000. However, if Canada can boast of a dynamic
academic sector and generous public spending on
STI and R&D, many businesses have not yet
assimilated a‘knowledge creation’culture. Canada’s
productivity problem is first and foremost a business
innovation problem. The result of the poor R&D
performance in business is that academic research
often appears to be a surrogate for industrial R&D.
The federal government has set out to foster public–
private partnerships recently via two successful
initiatives: an agreement between the federal
government and the Association of Canadian
Universities and Colleges to double the volume of
research and triple the number of research results
which are commercialized; and the Network of
Centres of Excellence, which now total 17 across the
country.
Chapter 4 on Latin America notes a persistent and
glaring income gap between rich and poor across the
continent. STI policies could play an important role in
reducing inequality. However, it is proving difficult to
establish ties between STI policies on the one hand
and social policies on the other. The structural
conditions prior to the global recession were
particularly favourable to reform, in that they
combined political stability with the longest period of
strong economic growth (2002–2008) that the region
had seen since 1980, thanks to a booming global
commodities market.
Several Latin American countries have implemented
an array of policies to foster innovation, in particular
Argentina, Brazil and Chile. However, despite there
being about 30 types of STI policy instruments in use
across the region, national innovation systems
remain weak. This is the case even among such keen
proponents of STI policies as Brazil and Chile. The
major stumbling block is the lack of linkages
between the different actors of the national
innovation system. For instance, good research
coming out of the local academic sector does not
tend to be picked up and used by the local
productive sector. More generally, R&D investment
remains low and bureaucracies inefficient. Training
and building a critical mass of highly skilled
personnel has become another burning issue.
The economic recession has generated an
employment crisis that may well exacerbate poverty
in the region and thus further increase the tension
between STI policy and specialization, on the one
hand, and poverty alleviation and social policies on
the other.
Brazil (Chapter 5) experienced a booming economy in
the years leading up to the global recession. Such a
healthy economy should be conducive to business
investment. However, patent numbers remain low and
R&D activities sluggish in the business sector, leaving
most of the funding effort to the public sector (55%).
In addition, the majority of researchers are academics
(63%) and the Brazilian economy is increasingly
suffering from a shortage of PhD graduates.
Researchers also remain unevenly spread across the
country with national output being dominated by a
handful of top universities.

23
The federal government is conscious of the problem.
In 2007, it adopted a Plan of Action in Science,
Technology and Innovation for Brazilian Development
(2007–2010) which sets out to raise R&D expenditure
from 1.07% of GDP in 2007 to 1.5% of GDP in 2010.
Another target is to augment the number of
scholarships and fellowships available to university
students and researchers from 102 000 in 2007 to
170 000 by 2011. One key objective is to nurture an
innovation-friendly environment in firms by
strengthening industrial, technological and export
policies, and increasing both the number of active
researchers in the private sector and the number of
business incubators and technoparks.
Cuba (Chapter 6) is a particularly interesting case
study. Cuba’s human development is among the
highest in the region, on a par with Mexico. In terms
of overall spending on S&T, however, it has slipped
below the regional mean, the consequence of a
slightly lesser effort on Cuba’s part and, above all, a
greater commitment to S&T across Latin America.
Business funding in Cuba has halved in recent years
to just 18% of GERD.
Cuban enrollment in higher education is impressive,
on the other hand, with first-year student rolls having
doubled between 2004–2005 and 2007–2008, thanks
largely to a surge in medical students. What is more,
in 2008, 53.5% of S&T professionals were women.
Many STI professionals work in public research
institutes across the country, although the low
number of researchers among R&D personnel (7%)
is troubling.
The research strategy in Cuba is centred around a
number of National Research Programmes in
Science and Technology. A recent programme
focusing on ICT managed to increase Internet access
from 2% of the population in 2006 to nearly 12% a
year later. Although Cuba is known for the
development and production of pharmaceuticals,
other priorities are emerging. These include energy
R&D and disaster monitoring and mitigation, in light
of the threat of stronger hurricanes, droughts, coral
bleaching and flooding in future as a consequence
of climate change. Cuba has begun modernizing its
research infrastructure, notably its meteorological
services.
The countries of the Caribbean Common Market
(Chapter 7) have suffered acutely from the peak in
international food and commodity prices in recent
years. Jamaica, for instance, spent more on
petroleum imports in 2007 than the total value of its
exports. This situation has been exacerbated by the
global recession, which has hit the crucial tourist
industry hard.
Two of the region’s largest countries, Jamaica and
Trinidad and Tobago, have now put together long-
term development plans (Vision 2030 and Vision 2020,
respectively) that emphasize the importance of STI
for development. Expenditure on R&D remains
dismally low, however, and private R&D moribund.
Only the higher education sector is booming: two
new universities have been established since 2004 on
the island of Trinidad and the introduction of free
tertiary education in Trinidad and Tobago in 2006
caused student enrollment rates to rise overnight.
However, the leap in the student population has not
been matched by a proportionate increase in
academic staff numbers, putting research under
strain. The region has great expectations for the
Caribbean Science Foundation launched in
September 2010 to revitalize R&D.
As Chapter 8 on the European Union (EU) highlights,
the EU is increasingly a heterogeneous group of
countries. Although the new member states are
catching up in economic terms, there remains a
yawning gap between the richest and poorest
member states. When it comes to innovation, however,
this heterogeneity knows no borders. Regions within a
country that perform particularly well in innovation are
dotted across the EU rather than being confined to the
older (and richer) member states.
Although the EU is the undisputed world leader for
publications recorded in the SCI, it is struggling to
increase expenditure on R&D and develop
innovation. This is visible in its inability to meet both
the Lisbon and Barcelona targets of raising GERD to
3% of GDP by 2010. Another issue member states are
struggling with across the EU concerns the
institutional reforms of the university system. The
dual challenge here is to improve the quality of
research and revitalize the EU’s poorly funded
institutions of higher education.

24
On a more positive note, what sets the EU apart from
many other regions is its willingness to acknowledge
that it can only improve its performance in STI and R&D
by pooling the capabilities of member states. This
attitude has spawned a number of multilateral
European agencies and programmes. These vary from
large research organizations like the European
Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) where
individual countries collaborate on the EU’s Framework
Programmes for Research and Technological
Development to the Joint Technology Initiative and
EUREKA, designed to stimulate research in industry.
A number of new EU organizations have been set up,
or are in the process of being set up, including the
European Science Foundation and European Institute
of Innovation and Technology, as well as funding
agencies like the European Research Council.
Until the global economic recession hit in late 2008, all
countries in Southeast Europe (Chapter 9) were
growing at an average rate of around 3% a year.
However, the region is particularly heterogeneous in
terms of its socio-economic development, with a ten-
fold difference between the richest (such as Greece and
Slovenia) and poorest (Moldova) countries.Whereas the
most advanced countries are implementing EU-focused
strategies with an emphasis on innovation, the stragglers
are still at the stage of attempting to design or
implement a basic S&T policy and establish an R&D
system.Two of the smaller countries are, of course, still in
their infancy: Montenegro only gained independence in
2006 and Kosovo in 2008.
Today, demand for R&D and skilled personnel
remains low in all but Slovenia, despite a growing
number of tertiary graduates. Two reasons for the
lack of demand for R&D are the small size of firms
and their lack of capacity. For the non-EU members
in the region, European integration represents the
only viable project for ensuring social and political
coherence. Without strong STI policies, the region is
in danger of falling further behind the rest of Europe.
Turkey (Chapter 10) has been emphasizing STI policies in
recent years. Between 2003 and 2007, GERD more than
doubled and business expenditure on R&D grew by 60%.
Domestic patent filings and grants also rose more than
four-fold from 2002 to 2007. It is the private sector that
has been driving economic growth since 2003.
A number of policy measures have been put in place
to support STI. These include the Vision 2023 Project
in 2002–2004, the launch of the Turkish Research
Area in 2004 and a major five-year implementation
plan for the National Science and Technology Strategy
(2005–2010). The Ninth Development Plan (2007–
2013) has likewise focused on STI as a building block
for Turkey.
However, challenges remain. The Vision 2023 Project
was a technology foresight exercise but it has
unfortunately not spawned any policy initiatives to
build capacity in priority technology areas. Moreover,
the density of researchers remains poor and
enrollment in tertiary education is lower than for
countries with a similar income. Turkey also has an
underdeveloped venture capital market and an
insufficient number of high-growth firms. The
government has introduced a number of measures
to stimulate private-sector R&D, foster university–
industry collaboration and develop international
co-operation in R&D. These measures include tax
incentives for technoparks, of which there were
18 in 2008.
The Russian Federation (Chapter 11) had been
experiencing an economic boom in the years before
the severe economic downturn towards the end of
2008. This was largely due to high oil prices, an initial
weak currency and strong domestic demand. Both
consumption and investment were high. The country
reacted to the crisis by adopting an extensive recovery
package but it is feared that this package may
increase the government’s tendency to intervene
directly in the economy rather than furthering the
kind of institutional reform needed to bring about
modernization, especially as regards STI policy.
Without such institutional reforms, the national
innovation system will continue to suffer from poor
linkages between the different actors. Currently, there
is a lack of co-ordination across departments,
a high level of administrative complexity and poor
linkages between science, academia and industry.
These factors all act as barriers to co-operation and
innovation. A notable feature is the imbalance
between the country’s STI performance and the
growing mass of financial resources dedicated to
R&D but jealously guarded within public research

25
institutions where they are out of reach for industry
and universities. As a result, universities play a minor
role in new knowledge creation: they contribute just
6.7% of GERD, a stable figure for the past two decades,
and only one in three universities performs R&D,
compared to half in 1995. Private universities hardly
perform any research at all. The higher education
system has undergone widespread reform in recent
years with the introduction of bachelor’s and masters
programmes which now cohabit with the Soviet
degree system. By 2009, more than half of university
staff held the equivalent of a PhD.
STI policies need to allow for greater academic mobility
and co-operation; they also need to lay the groundwork
for a radical modernization of the professional training
of scientists and engineers. The latter point is all the
more urgent in light of the country’s ageing research
population: 40% are above the official retirement age.
Boosting support for university research has become
one of the most important strategic orientations of STI
and education policies in Russia. Since 2006, the
National Priority Project for Education and a follow-up
programme have provided 84 universities considered
to be centres of excellence with an additional
US$ 30 million each approximately to promote human
resource development, high-quality R&D and
educational projects, as well as permit the acquisition
of research equipment.
No country in Central Asia (Chapter 12) devotes
more than 0.25% of GDP to R&D. This is even the case
for Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, the countries with
the most developed science systems. Other concerns
are the ageing ‘Soviet-generation’ research
population and an inadequate legal framework
which is partly responsible for the low level of
innovation by scientific organizations and private
enterprises.
STI policy initiatives in the region include the
Intellectual Nation 2020 programme unveiled in
Kazakhstan in 2009. It plans to develop a network
of schools in natural and exact sciences for gifted
pupils and to raise GERD to 2.5% of GDP by 2020.
Kazakhstan can already count on several technoparks.
Tajikistan has also adopted a plan for S&T covering
2007–2015. As for Turkmenistan, it has also witnessed
a revival of science since 2007, after research was
virtually shut down for many years under the
previous presidency. In Uzbekistan, a key measure
has been the establishment of a Committee for the
Co-ordination of the Development of Science and
Technology in 2006. After identifying seven priority
areas for R&D, the committee invited universities and
scientific organizations to submit research proposals
within a competitive bidding process. By the end of
2011, some 1098 projects will have been
implemented within 25 broad research programmes
in basic and applied research and experimental
development.
Chapter 13 on the Arab States analyses the reasons
for the lack of a national S&T strategy or policy in
most Arab states, although all have sectoral policies
for agriculture, water, energy and so on. Even where
S&T strategies exist, innovation tends to be absent
from these, primarily due to weak linkages between
public and private R&D. However, Bahrain, Morocco,
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates,
followed more recently by Jordan and Egypt, are
tackling this issue by setting up science parks.
S&T policies and strategies are also beginning to
emerge. Saudi Arabia adopted a national plan for S&T
back in 2003 and, in 2006, Qatar implemented a five-
year plan to increase GERD to 2.8% (from 0.33%). The
planned submission of an S&T strategy for the entire
Arab region to the Arab summit in 2011 for adoption
is another promising sign. The future plan is expected
to address the important issue of facilitating the
mobility of scientists within the region and to
enhance collaborative research with the sizeable
community of expatriate Arab scientists. It is also
expected to propose both national and pan-Arab
initiatives in about 14 priority areas, including water,
food, agriculture and energy. The plan may also
recommend the launch of an online Arab S&T
observatory, as a key to implementing measures at
the country level will lie in first identifying some of
the national challenges that Arab countries face.
Also promising is the number of funds for STI set up in
the region in recent years. These include the 2008
EU–Egypt Innovation Fund and two national funds:
the Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Foundation in
the United Arab Emirates (2007) and the Middle East
Science Fund in Jordan (2009).

26
Chapter 14 on sub-Saharan Africa highlights the
move by a growing number of African countries to
enhance their S&T capacity as part of poverty
alleviation strategies. In 2008 alone, 14 countries
requested UNESCO’s assistance with science policy
reviews. Although GDP per capita rose in the
majority of African countries between 2002 and
2008, it remains low by world standards, a factor
which has an impact on investment in STI. Moreover,
GERD still attracts less public funding than the
military, health or education sectors. South Africa is
the only country which comes close to the 1% mark
for R&D intensity (0.93% in 2007).
South Africa also dominates scientific publications,
representing a 46.4% of the sub-continent’s share, far
ahead of the two next most prolific countries, Nigeria
(11.4%) and Kenya (6.6%). Of note is that the number
of articles recorded in the SCI has progressed for all
sub-Saharan countries, even if only 17 could count
more than 100 articles in this database in 2008.
A major challenge is the low literacy rate and poor
quality of education, even if both literacy and
enrollment rates have climbed in the past decade. To
address these issues, the African Union issued a Plan
of Action for the Second Decade of Education for Africa
in 2006. Another major challenge is brain drain: at
least one-third of all African researchers were living
and working abroad in 2009. A growing number of
countries are tackling the root cause of this problem
by raising the salaries of academics and providing
other incentives. Cameroon, for instance, used the
writing-off of part of its debt to create a permanent
fund in early 2009 which tripled the salaries of
academics overnight. The number of academics
appears to have already swelled by about one-third
and the volume of scientific articles produced by
state universities has likewise risen.
Five years after the adoption of Africa’s Science and
Technology Consolidated Plan of Action (CPA) covering
the period 2008–2013, progress has been made in
biosciences and water research and the first set of
pan-African R&D statistics is due to be delivered in
2010. Concern has been voiced in some quarters,
however, at the rate of progress. The CPA is intended
to act as a framework for channelling greater funds
into S&T across the continent but, five years on, the
proposed mechanism for channelling this funding,
the African Science and Innovation Facility, has not
yet materialized.
South Asia (Chapter 15) has enjoyed reasonably
good growth rates in the past few years and not
suffered unduly from the global recession, with the
notable exception of Pakistan which has seen its
growth rates drop from 6.8% in 2007 to 2.7% in
2009. Pakistan is the country that spends the most
on R&D (0.67% of GDP in 2007), IT and higher
education of the countries under study, which do
not include India and Iran. However, most R&D
funding in Pakistan is consumed by the military
sector (60%).
The region suffers from a lack of investment in STI.
Moreover, there is a lack of linkages between public
and private actors and no university–industry
collaboration to speak of. It is noted in the chapter
that, overall, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka seem
better at producing basic knowledge than
commercializing it. It will be interesting to follow the
fortunes of the Sri Lanka Institute of Nanotechnology,
which was set up in 2008 within a joint venture
between the National Science Foundation and
domestic corporate giants that include Brindix,
Dialog and Hayleys. The new institute professes to
take‘an industry-focused approach’.
In addition to the lack of innovation, South Asia
suffers from low levels of literacy and education.
Governments face the dual challenges of widening
access while simultaneously making the education
system relevant to the national economy. They are
aware of the task at hand: Afghanistan, Bangladesh,
Pakistan and Sri Lanka are all at various stages of
higher education reform. Fortunately, they can count
on several high-quality academic institutions in the
region.
Iran (Chapter 16) is heavily reliant on its oil industry,
which currently accounts for four-fifths of GDP.
This situation weighs heavily on the country’s
STI policies, since these are not a priority for
generating future prosperity. With research being
funded mostly (73%) out of the public purse and
with an interventionist government pursuing its own
priorities, R&D tends to be focused on nuclear

27
technology, nanotechnology, satellite launching and
stem cell research. Policy research bears little
relevance to national issues and remains cut off from
socio-economic realities.
The most recent document outlining Iran’s strategy
for S&T is enshrined in the Fourth Development Plan
(2005–2009). It focuses mainly on improving the
university system at a time of strong demand for
higher education: 81 000 students graduated in
2009, compared to 10 000 nine years earlier.
India (Chapter 17) is one of the world’s fastest-
growing economies, alongside China. Having been
relatively spared by the global recession, it is
pursuing a path of rapid growth. The past few years
have seen a rise in private investment in R&D, with
the majority of new companies belonging to
knowledge-intensive sectors. A growing number of
foreign companies are also establishing R&D centres
on Indian soil. Most of these foreign centres focus on
ICTs. In fact, India has become the world’s leading
exporter of IT services. Aerospace exports are also
growing by 74% a year. Meanwhile, major Indian
companies like Tata have been investing in high-tech
companies abroad, in pursuit of technology.
In 2003, the government committed to raising
overall research expenditure from 0.8% to 2% of GDP
by 2007. Although GERD had only attained 0.88% of
GDP in 2008, this target sent a clear signal that public
policy was focusing on R&D. Moreover, the Eleventh
Five-Year Plan to 2012 not only emphasizes
innovation but also foresees a massive outlay on STI
via a budgetary increase of 220%.
There is a general trend in India towards recognizing
the‘I’in STI in both the policy and business sectors.
Moreover, the adoption of the Indian Patent Act in
2005 to bring India into compliance with the TRIPS
agreement has not caused the domestic
pharmaceutical industry to slump, contrary to
predictions. The pharmaceutical industry is
flourishing, even if the domination of foreign firms in
patents continues to cast a shadow. Another
challenge is the steady flow of highly skilled people
out of India and out of domestic firms unable to
compete with the advantages offered by their India-
based foreign rivals. The biggest challenge of all,
however, will be for India to improve both the
quantity and quality of Indian S&T personnel.
The central government’s decision to create
30 universities across the country, including
14 world-class innovation universities, augurs
well for the future.
China (Chapter 18) has made great strides in
economic development in the past decade with
consistently impressive growth rates. In August 2010,
China even overtook Japan to become the second-
largest national economy in the world. Its R&D
intensity has also been multiplied by a factor of six.
Today, only the USA publishes more scientific articles,
although the impact factor of Chinese articles in the
SCI remains much lower than for the Triad, China
figuring just behind the Republic of Korea and on a
par with India for citations of scientific papers.
The government has issued a number of key policies
in the past four years to maintain a high growth rate
and become an innovation-driven nation by 2020,
the ambitious target of the Outline of the Medium-
and Long-term Plan for National Science and
Technology Development adopted in 2005. The main
mechanisms incite enterprises to invest more in
innovation and Chinese researchers to return home
from abroad. The government also plans to recruit
2000 foreign experts over the next 5–10 years to
work in national laboratories, leading enterprises
and research institutes, as well as in a number of
universities. Another target is to raise the GERD/GDP
ratio from 1.5% to 2.5% by 2020.
In parallel, the Eleventh Five-Year Plan to 2010 is
developing STI infrastructure at a gruelling pace,
with 12 new megafacilities and 300 national key
laboratories planned, among other institutions.
Another focus is the environment. As part of the
strategy to reduce energy consumption and
emissions of major pollutants, the government plans
to ensure that non-fossil energy sources represent
15% of energy consumption by 2020.
Today, the main barriers to innovation are the
rapidly growing innovation risk that enterprises face,
the lack of support for systemic innovation and
exploration, and weak market demand for
innovation.

28
Japan (Chapter 19) was hit hard by the global recession
in 2008. After stagnating at around 2% between 2002
and 2007, growth in GDP dropped below zero,
plunging major companies into distress and resulting in
bankruptcies and a surge in unemployment rates.
Japanese manufacturers have traditionally excelled in
steadily improving production processes and
accumulating production know-how within their
organizations to achieve the ultimate goal of high-
quality products at competitive prices. However, this
Japanese model is losing its effectiveness in many
industrial fields, as China, the Republic of Korea and
other nations with lower labour costs emerge as tough
competitors. Under such circumstances, Japanese
manufacturers have come to believe that they must
constantly innovate to survive in the global market.
One consequence of this new mindset has been the
rapid expansion in university–industry collaboration in
recent years, resulting in numerous university start-ups.
In parallel, both R&D expenditure and the number of
researchers seem to be rising in the private sector.
In fact, Japan retains a dominant STI position in key
industries such as automobiles, electronic components,
digital cameras and machine tools.
In 2004, all Japanese universities were semi-privatized
and turned into 'national university corporations', with
both faculty and staff losing their status as public
servants. The chapter argues that many academic
policies imported chiefly from the USA, such as
competitive R&D funding, centres of excellence and a
shift towards more frequent temporary academic
positions, may have undermined the unique features of
the existing university system by helping the top
universities but damaging R&D capacities at other
universities and destroying old domestic research
networks.
Chapter 20 focuses on what is probably the world’s
most committed country to STI: the Republic of Korea.
It had been enjoying high growth rates for a decade
before GDP shrank by 5.6% in 2008. Nevertheless, by
2009, the economy was already expanding again,
thanks to a government-led stimulus package. Part of
that package included greater R&D funding to
stimulate national STI. As a result, public spending on
R&D actually grew in 2008–2009.
The Republic of Korea considers STI to be at the heart
of economic progress and crucial to achieving a
number of national goals. One of the top priorities is
to increase GERD to an impressive 5% by 2012, up
from an already high 3.4% in 2008. Strong investment
is coupled with strong policies. For instance, Initiatives
for Establishing a National Technology Innovation
System was implemented in 2004 with 30 priority
tasks. In 2008, the new government implemented a
follow-on strategy called the Science and Technology
Basic Plan (2008–2013) which has set itself as many as
50 priority tasks. These two plans now constitute the
basic framework for STI policy. In addition, a low
carbon, green growth policy was declared a key
national agenda in 2008.
The final chapter on Southeast Asia and Oceania
(Chapter 21) covers a vast geographical area
stretching from Australia and New Zealand to
Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia and the 22 Pacific
Island countries and territories. The global economic
recession has largely spared this part of the world.
In Cambodia, Thailand and Fiji, science is given a low
priority so the global recession has had little impact.
Countries more attached to STI, such as Singapore,
Australia and New Zealand, reacted to the recession
by sharpening their STI policies and aligning them
more on national priorities. One R&D priority common
to just about all countries in the region is sustainable
development and the role that STI can play in
combating climate change.
Singapore stands out as the region’s most rapidly
growing investor in science. Between 2000 and 2007,
its R&D intensity climbed from 1.9% to 2.5%.
According to the World Bank, only Viet Nam and
Singapore improved their ranking in the Knowledge
Index between 1995 and 2008. Growth has been
largely driven by Singapore-based scientists, many of
whom have come from abroad to work in its well-
funded laboratories. Between 2000 and 2007, the
number of FTE researchers rose by 50% to an
impressive 6 088 per million population. A key
national strategy has been to cluster research
institutes in ICTs and biomedical research into two
national knowledge hubs. This strategy has paid off, as
Singapore is an emerging hub for biomedical and
engineering technologies.

29
However, Singapore is not the only country in the
region to have shifted its focus from S&T policies to STI
policies. Moreover, there is a growing emphasis in the
region on cross-sector R&D, such as through
collaborative-project funding schemes. The face of
collaborative research is changing. The rapid rise of
China and India has had a knock-on effect on S&T
capacity in Southeast Asia and Oceania. For example,
the commodities boom led largely by India and China
in recent years fed mining-related R&D in Australia,
resulting in greater business R&D.
It is no coincidence that academics based in China and
India figure among the top three countries of origin
for co-authors in several countries in the region.
Researchers are also spending more time abroad as
part of their training and ongoing collaborative
projects. There is clearly a higher level of international
engagement and co-operation in the region than
before.
CONCLUSION
Key messages
What conclusions can be drawn from the analysis above?
First and foremost, the disparity in development levels
from one country and region to another remains striking.
In 2007, per-capita income in the USA was estimated to
be 30 times higher on average than in sub-Saharan
Africa. Differences in economic growth rates have been
compounded over the years, leading to‘divergence, big
time’over the past 150 years in income levels between
rich and poor countries. In the late 19th
century, for
instance, Nigeria was considered to be no more than a
decade behind the United Kingdom in terms of
technological development. The origin of this
divergence in economic growth can be found in the
disparate levels of investment in knowledge over long
periods of time. Even today, the USA still invests more in
R&D than the rest of the G8 countries combined. Four-
fifths of the world’s top universities also happen to be on
American soil.
The past decade has challenged this picture, largely
thanks to the proliferation of digital ICTs, which have
made codified knowledge accessible worldwide. For sure,
some early newcomers, like the Republic of Korea, had
been steadily catching up to, and even leap-frogging over,
countries since the 20th century by developing first their
industrial capacity then S&T. But others, such as China,
Brazil or India, have initiated a new, three-way process of
catching up simultaneously in the industrial, scientific and
technological spheres.
As a result, the past five years on which the present
UNESCO Science Report focuses have really begun to
challenge the traditional leadership of the USA. The
global economic recession has compounded the
situation, even if it is too early for this to be fully
encapsulated in the data. The USA has been harder hit
than Brazil, China or India, thereby enabling these three
countries to progress faster than they would have done
otherwise. Furthermore, as highlighted in the chapters
on China and India, we seem to be on the verge of a
structural break in the pattern of knowledge
contribution to growth at the level of the global
economy. This is also reflected in the arrival on the world
scene of large, multinational firms from emerging
countries which are moving into a wide variety of sectors
that range from mature industries such as steel-making,
automobile manufacturing and consumer goods to
high-tech industries like pharmaceuticals and aircraft
manufacturing. Companies in these emerging
economies are increasingly opting for cross-border
mergers and acquisitions to secure technological
knowledge overnight.
Thirdly, the increase in the stock of‘world knowledge’, as
epitomized by new digital technologies and discoveries
in life sciences or nanotechnologies, is creating fantastic
opportunities for emerging nations to attain higher
levels of social welfare and productivity. It is in this
sense that the old notion of a technological gap can
today be considered a blessing for those economies
possessing sufficient absorptive capacity and efficiency
to enable them to exploit their‘advantage of relative
backwardness’. Countries lagging behind can grow faster
than the early leaders of technology by building on the
backlog of unexploited technology and benefiting from
lower risks. They are already managing to leapfrog over
the expensive investment in infrastructure that
mobilized the finances of developed countries in the
20th
century, thanks to the development of wireless
telecommunications and wireless education (via
satellites, etc), wireless energy (windmills, solar panels,
etc) and wireless health (telemedicine, portable medical
scanners, etc).

30
Other factors are also creating unique advantages in
terms of knowledge growth. This is particularly well
illustrated by the rapidly expanding pool of highly skilled
labour in China and India, among others, the large
numbers of redundant workers in farming and petty
trade, the relative gain in the replacement of obsolete
equipment with state-of-the-art technologies and the
spillover effects of investment in new technology. The
recognition of the importance of knowledge acquisition
is a common thread running through all chapters. In
Bangladesh, for instance, light engineering is producing
import-substitution products that are creating
employment and alleviating poverty. Endogenous
technologies include ferries, power plants, machinery
and spare parts. But Bangladesh is also developing the
high-tech sector of pharmaceuticals. It is now 97% self-
sufficient in pharmaceuticals and even exports them to
Europe.
Fourthly, there is growing recognition that it is the
systemic‘congruence’between the various knowledge
components of the innovation system that counts when
it comes to devising a successful growth strategy, as we
have seen in Figure 5. In many mainly middle- and high-
income countries, there is a distinct shift occurring from
S&T policy to STI policy. This is having the effect of
steering countries away from the linear approach
starting with basic research and ending up with
innovation towards more complex, systemic notions of
innovation. University–industry collaboration, centres of
excellence and competitive research funding are all
becoming popular among countries looking to increase
their STI capacity. However, as the chapter on Japan
illustrates, such shifts are not easy to implement. At a
time when Japan’s global influence in R&D is slipping
somewhat, the author of this chapter argues that the
‘imported’policies cited above may have damaged the
existing academic system in Japan, favouring the best
institutions to the detriment of others which have been
allowed to fall behind. It is true that, now and then,
‘imported’policies will indeed conflict with‘home-
grown’policies. To complicate matters further, even
countries which have integrated this systemic
congruence in their STI policies still tend to
underestimate it in their overall development policies.
Fifthly, there is a growing emphasis in STI policy on
sustainability and green technologies. This trend can be
found in practically every single chapter of the UNESCO
Science Report, even in parts of the world not generally
characterized by a large STI effort, such as in the Arab
region and sub-Saharan Africa. This holds not only for
clean energy and climate research but also for the
repercussions on S&T fields upstream. Space science and
technology, for example, are a rapidly growing field for
many developing and emerging countries. Driven by
concerns about climate change and environmental
degradation, developing countries are attempting to
monitor their territory more closely, often via North–
South or South–South collaboration, as in the case of
Brazil and China for the design of Earth observation
satellites, or via projects like Kopernicus–Africa involving
the African Union and European Union. At the same
time, space science and technology are of course being
harnessed to provide ICT infrastructure for use in
wireless applications in health, education and other
fields. Climate change-related research has emerged as
an R&D priority when it was almost totally absent from
the UNESCO Science Report 2005. As a general broad
policy comment, one can today reasonably argue that
laggard regions or nations always do well to improve
their absorptive capacity and remove any‘barriers’
preventing the flow of positive technological spillovers
from technologically leading economies, be they from
the North or South.
Last but not least, national STI policies clearly face a
radically new global landscape today, one in which the
territorial policy focus is coming under severe pressure.
On the one hand, the steep drop in the marginal cost of
reproduction and diffusion of information has led to a
world in which geographical borders are less and less
relevant for research and innovation. Knowledge
accumulation and knowledge diffusion are able to take
place at a faster pace, involving a growing number of
new entrants and providing a threat to established
institutions and positions. This globalizing trend affects
research and innovation in a variety of ways. On the
other hand, contrary to a possibly somewhat simplistic
reasoning, globalization does not lead to a flat world,
one in which gaps in research and innovation
capabilities across countries and regions are constantly
narrowed. Quite to the contrary, if there is clear evidence
of a concentration of knowledge production and
innovation emerging across a wider variety of countries
than before within Asia, Africa and Latin America, this
knowledge is growing at a highly differentiated pace
within countries.

31
REFERENCES
Battelle (2009) Global R&D Funding Forecast. Cleveland,
Ohio, USA. Available at: www.battelle.org/news/
pdfs/2009RDFundingfinalreport.pdf
Coe, D. T.; Helpman, E.; Hoffmaister, A.W. (1997) North–
South R&D spillovers. Economic Journal, 107, 134–149.
David, P. and Foray, D. (2002) An introduction to the
economy of the knowledge society. International Social
Science Journal (UNESCO) 171, 9.
Dosi, G.; Pavitt, K.; Soete, L. (1990) The Economics of
Technical Change and International Trade. New York
University Press. Washington Square, New York.
Dunnewijk, Theo (2008) Global Migration of the Highly
Skilled: A Tentative and Quantitative Approach.
UNU-MERIT Working Paper 2008–070.
European Commission (2009) EU Industrial R&D Investment
Scoreboard. Institute for Prospective Technological
Studies, European Commission.
Freeman, C. (1992) The Economics of Hope. Frances Pinter,
London.
—— (1987) Technology Policy and Economic Performance:
Lessons from Japan. Frances Pinter, London.
Freeman, C. and Soete, L. (2009) Developing science,
technology and innovation indicators: What we can
learn from the past. Research Policy 38 (4), pp. 583–589.
Krugman, Paul (1979) A model of innovation, technology
transfer and the world distribution of income. Journal
of Political Economy, vol. 87, issue 2, pages 253–266.
Soete, L. (2005) On the dynamics of innovation policy: a
Dutch perspective, in: P. de Gijsel and H. Schenk (eds)
The Birth of a New Economics Faculty in the Netherlands.
Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 127–149.
—— (1981) A general test of the technological gap trade
theory. Weltwirtschafliches Archiv 117, 638–650.
Tijssen, R. and Hollanders, H. (2006) Using science and
technology indicators to support knowledge-based
economies. United Nations University Policy Brief 11.
Zanatta, M. and Queiroz, S. (2007) The role of national
policies in the attraction and promotion of MNEs’R&D
activities in developing countries. International Review
of Applied Economics, 21(3), 419–435.
Born in the Netherlands in 1967, Hugo Hollanders
is an economist and Senior Research Fellow at UNU–
MERIT, a think tank which resulted from the 2006
merger of the United Nations University Institute for
New Technologies and the University of Maastricht’s
Economic and Social Research and Training Centre
on Innovation and Technology.
Dr Hollanders has over 15 years of experience in
innovation studies and innovation statistics and has
been involved in various projects for the European
Commission, including the 2000–2007Trend Chart on
Innovation Policies and the 2008–2010 INNO Metrics
project.Within these two projects, he has been
responsible for the annual European Innovation
Scoreboard and has co-authored more than 30 reports
measuring regional, sectoral and services innovation,
innovation efficiency, creativity and design. His current
research focus is on regional innovation, including via
several projects funded by the European Commission.
Luc Soete was born in Brussels, Belgium, in 1950.
He is currently Director of UNU-MERIT and Professor
of International Economic Relations (on leave) at the
School of Business and Economics of Maastricht
University. Professor Soete was the founding
director of MERIT, which he set up in 1988. He is a
member of the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences
and of the Dutch Advisory Council for Science and
Technology Policy.
Professor Soete obtained his DPhil in economics
from the University of Sussex in the UK. Before
coming to Maastricht in 1986, he worked at the
Department of Economics of the University of
Antwerp and at the Institute of Development
Studies and the Science Policy Research Unit at the
University of Sussex. He has also worked for the
Department of Economics at Stanford University in
the USA.
His research interests span the impact of
technological change and innovation on growth
and development, employment and international
trade and investment.

UNESCO
Publishing
United Nations
Every five years, the UNESCO Science Report series updates the status of
science worldwide. This latest edition provides a global overview of the
main developments and trends in scientific research, innovation and
higher education since the UNESCO Science Report 2005 was published.
Like its predecessors, the UNESCO Science Report 2010 is written by a
team of independent experts who are each covering the country or
region from which they hail.
This Executive Summary is drawn from the first chapter of the UNESCO
Science Report 2010. It has been printed as a supplement in Arabic,
Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish.
The UNESCO Science Report 2010 may be consulted at: www.unesco.org/science/psd
To order a copy from UNESCO Publishing: www.unesco.org/publishing
publishing.promotion@unesco.org
UNESCO Science Report 2010
ISBN 978-92-3-104132-7
Exists in English, 536 pp.
Sales price: 29 euros

UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT

More Related Content

What's hot (16)

Similar to UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT (20)

More from Yorokobu (7)

Recently uploaded (20)

UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT