Foresight

Building an innovation-driven economy the case of BRIC and GCC countries

Steffen Gackstatter Maxim Kotzemir Dirk Meissner
Article information:
To cite this document:
Steffen Gackstatter Maxim Kotzemir Dirk Meissner , (2014),"Building an innovation-driven economy the case of BRIC and
GCC countries", Foresight, Vol. 16 Iss 4 pp. 293 - 308
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/FS-09-2012-0063
Downloaded on: 22 September 2015, At: 13:33 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 40 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 385 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Katri Valkokari, Pasi Valkokari, Katariina Palomki, Teuvo Uusitalo, Markku Reunanen, Marco Macchi, Padmakshi
Downloaded by UNISINOS At 13:33 22 September 2015 (PT)

Rana, Jayantha Prasanna Liyanage, (2014),"Road-mapping the business potential of sustainability within the European
manufacturing industry", foresight, Vol. 16 Iss 4 pp. 360-384 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/FS-05-2012-0037
Eva Hideg, Erzsbet Novky, Pter Alcs, (2014),"Interactive foresight on the Hungarian SMEs", foresight, Vol. 16 Iss 4 pp.
344-359 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/FS-12-2012-0091
Remi Barre, (2014),"Innovation systems dynamics and the positioning of Europe. A review and critique of recent Foresight
studies", foresight, Vol. 16 Iss 2 pp. 126-141 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/FS-05-2012-0041

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:478605 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Building an innovation-driven economy
the case of BRIC and GCC countries
Steffen Gackstatter, Maxim Kotzemir and Dirk Meissner
Steffen Gackstatter is
based at Monitor
Company GmbH, Munich,
Germany.
Maxim Kotzemir is based
at National Research
Downloaded by UNISINOS At 13:33 22 September 2015 (PT)
University Higher
School of Economics,
Moscow, Russian
Federation. Dirk Meissner
is based at Higher
School of Economics,
Moscow, Russian
Federation.
Received 9 July 2012
Revised 13 September 2012
Accepted 26 September 2012
The study was implemented in
the framework of the Basic
Research Program at the
National Research University
Higher School of Economics
(HSE) in 2012.
DOI 10.1108/FS-09-2012-0063
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to undertake an analysis of the attempts of Gulf Cooperation
Council (GCC) and Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) countries to catch up in their national
development to build an innovation-driven economy on which to base future growth and wealth. We
conducted an analysis of GCC and BRIC countries to show the different strategies leaders have taken
to try and achieve this aspiration. This paper analyses the various aspects of national innovation
systems of BRIC and GCC countries, highlights similar and different approaches and attempts to
quantify their success. For example, GCC countries spend extensively on research and development
(R&D), but have so far achieved less than meaningful results. Brazil, China and India are catching up to
the acknowledged world leaders in innovation, but Russia is lagging.
Design/methodology/approach Our comparison was based mostly on secondary data from
sources and institutions that use statistical data to build country rankings, such as the Global
Competitiveness Index (GCI) produced by the World Economic Forum. BRIC and GCC countries were
analyzed over 1996-2011 because most of the indicators data are only available from 1996. Data related
to intellectual property rights have been collected since 1999 or 2000. The data available for the number
of researchers proved problematic for both BRIC and GCC countries. For instance, some data for the
GCC countries was missing. To not leave a gap, we extrapolated in line with the overall trend; using the
least squares method to approximate a straight line for the missing data based on what had already
been reported.
Findings Counter-intuitively, we will argue that the push toward an innovation-based economy is
actually not dependent on total expenditure on R&D, but rather relies on the efficient allocation of
investments and the rigorous implementation of innovation strategy. And, we will demonstrate this by
showing our ideas in relation to both BRIC and GCC countries. This analysis raises fascinating points of
discussion for those looking to build an innovation economy in other countries and has practical
implications for policy-makers and policy implementers in all countries.
Originality/value First analysis of the correlation of gross expenditure on R&D (GERD) with gross
domestic product (GDP) growth and Straits Times Index (STI) policy measures.
Keywords Innovation, Globalization, Knowledge economy, Technology-led strategy,
Economic growth, International politics
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Increasingly, economists recognize that knowledge-based innovation is a major driver of
competitiveness. That requires a powerful knowledge base, often centered on technology
and innovation, as an important precondition for building and developing a genuine
innovation economy.
For a long time, economists have also believed that countries in transition would be well
able to adapt the knowledge and competences generated in developed countries (Cohen,
Levinthal, 1990; Zahra, George, 2002). That is, by building a robust research and education
infrastructure, they would be able to absorb new knowledge and innovation developed
elsewhere. And so in the main, that is where countries from Brazil, Russia, India and China
(BRIC) and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) have invested.
VOL. 16 NO. 4 2014, pp. 293-308, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1463-6689 foresight PAGE 293
 However, building and maintaining a knowledge economy is a complex and difficult
undertaking, itself only one step toward building a genuine innovation ecosystem (Brinkley
et al., 2012; Liu and Chen, 2003; Hui, 2007). And within that system, there are important
layers of emphasis. At the foundation lies publicly supported research, which functions as
the driver of original innovation in the long-term. A second layer of innovation usually comes
from industrial research and spin offs from existing large enterprises. Third, market
development and firm creation are important for the innovation ecosystem to function
effectively (though markets are generally driven through forces of regulation, procurement
or early adoption by risk-taking consumers and so should be seen as part of the interlinked
innovation ecosystem rather than as stand-alone phenomena) (Goedhuys, 2007).
The countries analyzed, namely, BRIC, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates
(GCC) have similar aspirations in attempting to transition toward an innovation-driven
economy, yet they all show very different approaches and success. For instance, Research
and Development (R&D) is an obvious function in a continuous chain of innovation that links
scientific research, market research, development design, first production and market
acceptance. Therefore, its perhaps not surprising that the BRIC countries are building and
developing national research and technology infrastructures, investing a significant share
of gross domestic product (GDP) in their science and technology systems. Yet in relative
terms the GCC countries invest significantly less. Therefore, we compared all of the BRIC
and GCC countries to assess their development and achievements, our emphasis lying on
Downloaded by UNISINOS At 13:33 22 September 2015 (PT)

attempting to tease out the strategy at the heart of the initiatives what impact theyve seen
to date and where useful opportunities for growth might lie.

2. Methodology and approach

BRIC countries are usually considered the upcoming nations in terms of economic power
and so we analyzed each of them. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) in a recent study states that [. . .] Future growth must therefore
increasingly come from innovation-induced productivity growth (OECD, 2010). Hence,
most nations, including GCC countries, which have a completely different base with a much
smaller population and a much larger capital base, are looking to evolve into an
innovation-driven economy. As many other countries, both the BRIC and the GCC countries
recognize the importance of innovation for future economic wealth. Because much has
been written about developed countries, we chose the BRIC and GCC countries for
analysis to add a new perspective to the discussion. Within GCC, we have selected the
three most important economic players, which constitute 92-94 per cent of all those
countries GDP: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.
Our comparison was based mostly on secondary data from sources and institutions that
use statistical data to build country rankings, such as the Global Competitiveness Index
(GCI) produced by the World Economic Forum. BRIC and GCC countries were analyzed
over 1996-2011 because most of the indicators data are only available from 1996. Data
related to intellectual property rights have been collected since 1999 or 2000.
The data available for the number of researchers proved problematic for both BRIC and
GCC countries. For instance, some data for the GCC countries was missing. To not leave
a gap, we extrapolated in line with the overall trend; using the least squares method to
approximate a straight line for the missing data based on what had already been reported.
For Brazil, Russia and Kuwait, data on the number of researchers are available in full-time
equivalent (FTE) and in headcounts. For the remaining countries, data were only available
or in one or the other. For instance, for Saudi Arabia, only head count is accounted for; for
India and China, only FTE representation numbers were available. For UAE no data exist at
all. Given that the majority of countries reported researcher data in terms of FTE
representation, we use those figures for Russia, Kuwait and Brazil.

PAGE 294 foresight VOL. 16 NO. 4 2014

 There were other related problems with the data, particularly in regard to GCC countries.
For the UAE, data on gross expenditure on R&D (GERD) and its number of researchers
were missing; for Saudi Arabia, data on the institutional structure of GERD financing and
performance are missing while GERD figures are only available from 2003. GCI estimates
of Saudi Arabia are available only from 2007, while for all other sample countries from 2005.
In our analysis, we used the following databases:
Euromonitor Global Market Information Database (Section Government, Labour and
Education).
UNESCO Institute for Statistics Data Centre (Section Science and technology).
SCImago Country and Journal Rank database (powered by Scopus).
GCI 12th pillar Innovation index and its sub-indices (developed by World Economic
Forum).
Global innovation index developed by Institut Europen dAdministration des Affaires
(INSEAD).
World Bank (Knowledge economy index portal, KEI and KI indices section).
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
World Bank (Global Economic Monitor [GEM] database) databases.
Downloaded by UNISINOS At 13:33 22 September 2015 (PT)

We used different statistical approaches for analysis, including normalized histograms,

visualizations, scatter plots and bubble scatter plots. We also used the dynamic scatter
plot, where we plotted the different indicators of each countrys national innovation system
(NIS) over several years on horizontal ad vertical axes. This helped us to understand the
shifting relationships between the different indicators, and allows us to present the dynamic
relationships in visual form. This method also allowed us to estimate the trajectory of the
relationship between two parameters within a NIS for several countries.

3. BRIC and GCC innovation system characteristics

3.1 The innovation aspiration
At a political level, both BRIC and GCC countries have shown relative stability over the past
five years. They have intensified their ambitions to modernize and to develop
knowledge-based economies, undertaking various important initiatives. As shown in
Table I, the GCC countries are looking to become advanced knowledge-based economies
by building a highly competitive innovation ecosystem, empowering the nation,
transforming the economy and inspiring the people. Moreover, these countries have
developed and applied initiatives to gain the Science, Technology and Innovation (STI)
leadership position in the region, to solve current economic development and labor
challenges and to establish a long-term foundation for future growth. Major measures to
achieve these ambitions are related to building and developing human capital, establishing
an R&D environment and developing a future-oriented industrial base.
The BRIC countries, meanwhile, have developed long-term strategies at national level, with
the common goal of promoting technological innovation, raising awareness for and
improving science teaching in schools and eventually upgrading innovation capacity
through developing human capital in research- and innovation-related activities (Table II).
Short-term initiatives include investments in strategic science and innovation areas, in
enhancing the interaction of the R&D sector and the economy as well as in promoting new
modes of publicprivate partnerships (PPP) in higher education. They are also focused on
the expansion and commercialization of scientific research results, encouraging
technology and innovation collaboration both within national laboratories and abroad.
Mid-term measures are targeted at broadening the spread of technologies for inclusion and
social development; enhancing the competitiveness of the small- and medium-sized

VOL. 16 NO. 4 2014 foresight PAGE 295

 Table I Comparison of STI initiatives within key GCC countries
Criterion Saudi Arabia The UAE/Abu Dhabi Kuwait

Lead driver National Industrial Innovation Strategy
presented in November 2009, but
implementation responsibilities have
been decentralized with little overview
on implementation status
Lead institutions King Abdulaziz City for Science and
Technology (KACST). Other
government institutions such as Sagia
and NICDP are responsible for
economic development
STI Policy STI policy was written in 2005
definition
Current Objective is to join the advanced
objectives and knowledge-based economies with a
focus of STI highly competitive STI ecosystem by
Policy 2025. Eight programs and 11
technology priorities were defined
Megaprojects KAUST (King Abdullah University of
and Investments Science and Technology) opened in
Downloaded by UNISINOS At 13:33 22 September 2015 (PT)
The Abu Dhabi Economic Vision 2030 was
published in August 2007 and is the main
focus of all public activities. It is likely that
the vision will be revised shortly
Technology Development Council (TDC)
responsible for STI policy. The Department
of Economic Development has recently
established a Council of Competitiveness
(COAD)
STI policy was published in 2011; current
activities are underway to implement the
concept with agreement of all involved
stakeholders. Process is rather slow
Key objective stated as empowering the
nation, transforming the economy, and
inspiring the people. Five focus areas
are: Human Capital; R&D environment;
Enterprise development; Infrastructure and
Laws and Regulations
MASDAR: CO2-neutral knowledge city in
the desert. The project was started in
A four-year development plan has been
law since 2010: STI is a critical element
of many requested policies
Kuwait Institute for Science and
Research (KISR). A planned STI council
will oversee and coordinate STI policy
and its implementation
Two parallel STI policy concepts were
developed in 2007; neither of them was
implemented. A new STI policy has
been requested by the development
plan and will be developed in 2012
Objective is to regain the STI
leadership position in the region, to
solve current economic development
and labor challenges and to establish a
long-term foundation for future growth
by fostering the development of STI
activities in Kuwait
The Economic Development Plan,
published in 2010, has an investment

(bold moves) September 2010, with a financial 2006 with expected completion by 2025. volume of USD 104 billion until 2014,
endowment of USD 10 billion Estimated cost of USD 16-22 billion mostly for infrastructure projects
Economic Cities: Investment of more
than USD 60 billion to build four new
cities for up to five million residents,
who are expected to contribute USD
150 billion to Saudi GDP
Internal Unclear, no transparent measurement Emirate-wide performance management Performance management system is
measurement of system in place system for all government entities was being implemented and will be active
progress implemented in 2009 from 2012
International 10 by 10 was an internal Saudi Usually, rankings are measured on the Kuwait improved in 2012 in the World
rankings intiative to have the country feature federal UAE level, but Abu Dhabi has now Banks Ease of Doing Business index
as one of the top 10 countries in the proactively started to work together with by four ranks to Number 67, after five
World Banks Ease of Doing WEF and the World Bank to produce consecutive years of going down in the
Business Index. It was number 10 in emirate-level ranking comparisons rankings
2011; from number 67 in 2004
Challenges and Science personal and motivation TK TK
difficulties Follow-up on plans (see
megaprojects)

enterprises (SME) innovation-related sector and establishing a competitive and flourishing

R&D sector.

3.2 R&D activities and impact

Perhaps not surprisingly, the larger BRIC countries invest several times more than the
smaller GCC countries in absolute and also in relative terms. What is surprising, however,
is that this gap remains even when comparing GERD as share of GDP. Clearly, the focus
on R&D is much higher in BRIC countries than it is in GCC. However, that does not
necessarily account for the higher growth rates of the BRIC countries (Table III).
3.2.1 Brazil. In terms of funding and performance, Brazil, Russia and China follow a rather
similar structure. Government and business are the two main financers of R&D. Brazil,
however, has one key advantage: its higher education sector makes up a significant share
of GERD, accounting for an average of 40.8 per cent in 1996-2004. In the other countries,
this share did not exceed 12 per cent. The high share of higher education sector in GERD
performance is a distinctive feature of Brazilian structure of R&D financing.

PAGE 296 foresight VOL. 16 NO. 4 2014


Table II Comparison of STI initiatives within key GCC countries
Criteria Brazil
Lead driver Innovation Law was published in November
2004 and is aimed at increasing the
competitiveness of firms
In November 2005, Positive Law drastically
simplified the process for investing in R&D
and introduced a slew of fiscal incentives
for firms looking to investIn November
2005, Positive Law drastically simplified the
process for investing in R&Dand
introduced a slew of fiscal incentives for
firms looking to invest
Lead Government sector: The largest group of
institutions Public Research Organizations includes 19
organizations such as the CBPF (Brazilian
Centre for Physical Research); CEITEC S.A.
(Advanced Electronics Technology
Excellence Centre) and CETEM (Minerals
Technology Centre); CETENE (Northeast
Region Strategic Technology Centre)
Private sector: Companies such as Petrobrs
and its laboratories (COPPE/UFRJ, PUC-Rio,
Unicamp and USP)
Higher education sector: nine
government-sponsored universities include:
Universidade Federal (UF) de So Paul; UF
de Cincias da Sade de Porto Alegre; UF
de Vios; UF de Minas Gerais; UF do Rio
Grande do Sul; UF do Tringulo Mineiro; UF
do Rio de Janeiro; UF de So Carlos;
Pontifcia Universidade Catlica do Rio de
Janeiro. One private university: UF de Itajub
STI Policy STI policy is defined by INNOVATION LAW
definition AND POSITIVE LAW
VOL. 16 NO. 4 2014
foresight
PAGE 297
Downloaded by UNISINOS At 13:33 22 September 2015 (PT)
China
The 12th Five-Year Plan for S&T
Development was published in April
2011. It defines a strategy and plan
for future actions for all NIS (national
innovation system) actors and also
defines priorities in STI policy
Government sector: Chinese Academy
of Sciences (CAS)
Private sector: PetroChina; ZTE; China
Petroleum & Chemical; China Railway
Construction; Lenovo; Dongfeng Motor;
China Coal Energy; China
Communications Construction; BYD;
China South Locomotive
Higher education sector: National
Taiwan University; Peking University;
Tsinghua University; Chinese University
of Hong Kong
Association, among others
Universities to be set up, according to Government
Medium-term STI policy goals are
defined by the 12th Five-Year Plan for
S&T Development
Long-term STI policy is determined by
the Medium- and Long-term National
Plan for Science and Technology
Development 2006-2020, published in
January 2006
The strategic directions of STI policy are
determined by Technological Revolution
and Chinas Future-Innovation 2050
(published in June 2009)
India
The Report of the Steering Committee on Science &
Technology for XIth Five Year Plan (2007-2012) was
published in February 2006. It aimed to develop an
approach on S&T and to suggest new plans and
programs for the S&T sector. Its main purpose was to
influence the national planning process
Government sector: Council of Scientific and Industrial
Research; Department of Atomic Energy; Department
of Science and Technology; Department of
Biotechnology; Department of Electronics; Department
of Space; Defense Research and Development
Organization; Indian Council of Agricultural Research;
Indian Council of Medical Research; Department of
Non-Conventional Sources of Energy; and Department
of Ocean Development
Private sector: 20 Research Associations in different
sectors, including Automotive Research Association of
India (ARAI); Wool Research Association; Tea
Research Association; Textile Research Associations
based in North India and South India; Jute Research
Higher education sector: Moscow State
Higher education sector: 24 established Central
Universities. Four Indian Institutes of Technology, six
Indian Institutes of Management and 14 more Central
Program in 2008
STI policy is defined by Five Year Plans. Policy in the
biotech sector is defined by National Biotechnology
Development Strategy (published in November 2007)
Russia
The Long-term Socio-Economic
Development of the Russian Federation
for the Period up to the year 2020 was
published in November 2011. This lays
out a framework for future policies and
measures. In addition, a number of
complementing documents will be
created to specify mechanisms and
ways in which the goals of the Concept
will be achieved
Government sector: Russian Academy of
Sciences, with branch academies for
Medicine, Education, Agriculture,
Architecture and Arts. Russian Federal
Space Agency (Roscosmos); Kurchatov
Institute (nuclear and nano research
institution)
Private sector: Business and state
corporations such as Rosatom; United
Aircraft Corporation; Gazprom; Lukoil;
Russian Technologies (Rostechnologii);
Kaspersky Lab; JSC Sitronics; JSFC
Sistema; Norilsk-Nickel; Onexim Group;
Renova Group; Rosneft
University; Moscow Physical Technical
Institute; St. Petersburg State University;
Novosibirsk State University
Main issues of STI policy are determined
by Long-term Socio-Economic
Development of the Russian Federation
for the Period up to the year 2020
The development path of the Academies
of Sciences is determined by the
Programme of Modernization of the
Russian Academies of Sciences,
published in November 2005
(continued)
 Downloaded by UNISINOS At 13:33 22 September 2015 (PT)

Table II
Criteria Brazil China India Russia

Current Expansion and consolidation of Brazilian The main targets of Science and According to XIth Five Year Plan, the main goals of Main goals of STI policy in Russia can be

PAGE 298 foresight

objectives NIS: expanding, integrating, modernizing Technology in the 12th Five-year Plan STI policy in India are: summarized as follows:
and focus and consolidating NIS elements: for S&T Development are: Strengthening human resource skill base; Establishing a competitive R&D sector and
of STI Promotion of technological innovation within To greatly increase the R&D input Enhancing Indias competitiveness in micro, and SME favorable conditions for its development;
Policy firms; intensity; innovation; Developing the IPR (intellectual property
Investment in strategic areas: reinforcing To remarkably upgrade the original Strengthening Indias intellectual property, particularly rights) regime for use and protection of
research and innovation activities in Brazils innovation capacity; in government and the higher education sector; R&D results;
strategic areas; The closer integration of R&D sector Promotion of new forms of public-private partnerships Fostering mechanisms for commercializing

VOL. 16 NO. 4 2014

Popularizing and improvement of science
teaching in schools;
Broadening the spread of technologies for
inclusion and social development
Megaprojects Alcntara Space Centre;
and Satellite Launch Vehicle;
Investments Earth Observation Satellites based on multi-
(bold mission platform;
moves) Brazilian Nuclear Industries
Internal Knowledge and innovation for competitiveness
measurement in Brazil (2008, World Bank); Competitiveness
of progress and growth in Brazilian cities: local policies and
actions for innovation (2009, World Bank);
Boosting Innovation Performance in Brazil
(2006, OECD)
International Highest position among BRIC countries on
rankings the average level of citation
Challenges Low level of technological innovations;
and Need to foster investments in strategic
difficulties sector;
Creating a good image of scientific activity
among the population;
Stimulating the social effects of innovations
and economy;
More benefits for peoples livelihoods;
New progress in forging innovation
bases;
More empowered R&D human
resources;
Constantly improved R&D sector and
innovation mechanisms
National Medium- and Long-term
Development Plan for Human
Resources;
Special Economic Zones;
National Interim Provisions on
Intellectual Property Management of
Major Projects
National Basic Research Development
Programme
OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy:
China 2008
Highest position among BRIC countries
on GCI Innovation index and especially
on government procurement of
advanced tech products and
intellectual property rights protection
sub-indices
Highest R&D intensity among BRIC
countries
Low innovation capacity;
Scientific and innovation activity is
weakly integrated into the economy;
More attention needed to motivate
human resources
(PPP) in higher education expansion and
commercializing scientific research results of national
laboratories
Promotion of international science and technology
collaboration
Chandrayan1 space center;
Software Technology Parks;
Special Economic Zones;
Technology Business Incubators
IndiaNational Agricultural Innovation Project (2009,
World Bank); Intellectual property rights and
innovation in developing countries: evidence from
India (2009, World Bank)
Highest position among BRIC countries on the quality of
scientific research institutions and availability of
scientists and engineers sub-indices of GCI Innovation
index
Inefficient mechanisms of PPP in R&D sector;
Weak base of IPR laws;
Low level of integration of Indian scientists into global
scientific community;
Weak position of Indian SME innovative firms
R&D;
Modernizing the economy on the back of
technological innovation;
Creating favorable condition for R&D
personal;
Strengthening international collaboration;
Stimulating innovation and scientific
activity within the business sector;
Strengthening the positions of higher
education sector in scientific activity
Skolkovo innovation center (main
innovation cluster);
Network of national research universities
(near 30 leading universities mainly in field
natural sciences, math and engineering);
Regional technological clusters
OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy:
Russian Federation 2011
Highest level of researchers per 10,000 of
employed population among BRIC
countries
Low level of integration within national
innovation system;
Lack of financing of R&D, especially in
social sciences and humanities;
Low wages in R&D sector;
Low level of international mobility;
Lack of integrating ideas among NIS actors
 Table III Basic indicators of investments in R&D in BRIC and GCI countries in 1997-2010
All data as average 1997-2010 Brazil China India Russia Kuwait Saudi Arabia

GERD volume (USD in billions) 15.6 66.5 18.6 17.9 0.1 0.3
Growth rate of GERD volume (%) 8.4 18.9 7.9 7.2 1.7 4.0
GERD as per cent of GDP 1.0 1.1 0.8 1.1 0.1 0.1
Notes: Growth rates are calculated for volume of GERD in national currencies in constant 2010 prices; no data on dynamics of GERD
in the UAE are available for us from the databases listed in Source
Source: Authors calculations based on Euromonitor, IMF, UNESCO database and national statistics

3.2.2 Russia and China. The private sector also plays an important role in funding and in
supporting R&D in both Russia and China, though it is important to note the governments
influence on influential companies in these countries. Both Russia and China own or
part-own many of the companies whose R&D activities are accounted for as business R&D
and as such their industrial R&D activities should be seen as directed by political agendas
rather than as following any one companys individual innovation strategy.
3.3.3 India. Of the BRIC countries, India is lagging behind, sharing distinct similarities with
the GCC countries. While India, in absolute terms, provides significant resources, the
relative share of GERD/GDP shows that the current level is not sufficient to achieve a lasting
momentum based on R&D and innovation. Moreover, the Indian NIS is characterized by
Downloaded by UNISINOS At 13:33 22 September 2015 (PT)

inefficient mechanisms of PPP in R&D sector; a low level of integration of Indian scientists
into global scientific community and a weak position of Indian SME innovative firms.
3.3.4 Kuwait. Kuwaits R&D is entirely a function of the government and its related
institutions; the business and the higher education sector did not perform R&D at all.
However, Kuwait is currently establishing both a research and higher education
infrastructure. For now, these institutions are still accounted for as government activities in
the national accounts and statistics, while most business enterprises are seen as
government-owned. In addition, the share of business sector-financed R&D fluctuated in
the range from 18 to 20.9 per cent falling to 4.4 per cent in 2004 but not exceeding 7.5 per
cent in subsequent years, eventually decreasing even more to 2.3 per cent in 2008. Thus,
the dynamics of the share of business sector financing of GERD in Kuwait had a stepwise
character. This decline in share of business sector in GERD financing was due to the
increase of the share of GERD financing by government sector. The significance of foreign
funds in financing of GERD in Kuwait was very low. Higher education sector did not
participate in the financing or in the performance of GERD in Kuwait at all. Thus,
investments in R&D were almost entirely under the control of the government. The business
sector has had some impact on investment in GERD in the late 1990s and early 2000s, but
by 2009, the business sector actually left the sector of R&D. This process was stepwise: in
2003 and 2006, there was a sharp decline in the share of the business sector in the
financing of GERD (Huibo and Bingwen, 2010; Tseng, 2009; Osman and Nour, 2011).
3.3.5 Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Arabian National Industrial Innovation Strategy was
presented in November 2009. However, the responsibilities have been decentralized
resulting in little overview on the current implementation status, making it more difficult to
capture evidence for its impact. One remarkable objective of Saudi Arabia is the intention
to join the advanced knowledge-based economies with a highly competitive STI ecosystem
by 2025. In consequence, 8 programs and 11 technology priorities were defined which are
currently being implemented. However, Saudi Arabia is lacking sufficient investment in
R&D and innovation until currently with rather modest 4 per cent GERD growth rate which
mirrors an R&D intensity of 0.1 per cent GERD/GDP). Accordingly, the number of
researchers (head count) grew by 130 per cent in the past 10 years. Compared to other
countries in transition to innovation-driven economies, these figures seem rather low.
However, one needs to take into account the surrounding conditions, e.g. the structure of
the economy which is largely driven by the oil sector.

VOL. 16 NO. 4 2014 foresight PAGE 299

 The initiative 10 by 10 is an internal Saudi initiative to have the country become one of the
top 10 countries in the World Banks Ease of Doing Business Index. Saudi Arabia jumped
to number 10 in 2011 from number 67 in 2004 thus the measures taken show first results.
Another vehicle for modernization are economic Cities for which more than USD 60bn were
invested to build four new cities for up to five million residents, who are expected to
contribute USD 150bn to Saudi GDP. In addition the King Abdullah University of Science
and Technology (KAUST) was opened in September 2010, with a financial endowment of
USD 10bn.
Even more impressive is the difference of BRIC and GCC when looking at the number of
studies (Table IV). The reason for an even bigger gap is based on relatively higher salaries
for the fewer researchers in the GCC countries. The GCC countries have slightly increased
the number of researchers over time, but China and Brazil have much higher increases,
and even the relatively smaller increase in India means a lot more additional researchers in
absolute terms (Liu and Lundin, 2006; Krishna, Bhattacharay, 2009). Only Russia has
decreased the number of researchers over the past 12 years. It is remarkable that Russia
used to be the country with most researchers of all analyzed countries in 1998 which
reduced to only one-third of the force of China in 2009 (Gokhberg, 2011).
Considering the investment in R&D measured, GERD Kuwait strongly stands against the
other countries. The level of GERD in Kuwait is disparagingly low, as is the index of
innovation; however, per capita GDP in Kuwait is several times higher than GDP per capita
Downloaded by UNISINOS At 13:33 22 September 2015 (PT)

of the countries near it. Similarly, Saudi Arabia is a statistical outlier with GCI innovation
index is much greater than innovation index in countries with comparable GERD. The level
of GDP per capita in Saudi Arabia was also much higher than in countries, which had
levels of GERD comparable with Saudi Arabias level. Accordingly, in Saudi Arabia, the
high level of NISs was determined not by investments in R&D, but by some other factor.
Consequently, the outputs produced by these researchers have developed in a similar
pattern. The publications in GCC have increased on a very small base (Table V). Russia
has only slightly increased the number, whereas India, Brazil and China have substantially
increased the publications three-, five- and elevenfold, respectively. However, this is not
an indicator for the quality of the publications. There is no consistent difference between
BRIC and GCC countries. Brazil and India have a higher number of citations, whereas
China and Russia have a lower number compared to the GCC countries which are relatively
homogeneous (Tseng, 2009; Liu et al., 2010; Liu and Lundin, 2006; Gokhberg et al., 2011,
Gokhberg, 2003; Dezhina and Zashev, 2007).
One more output factor that we looked at was the share of high-tech exports as an indicator
for success of innovation efforts in each country. China is here even more dominant than
expected from the input data, even when comparing to the huge population

Table IV Number of researchers in 000 in BRIC and GCC countries (1998-2009)

Country 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Change (%)

Brazil 54.9 63.8 73.9 77.9 82.2 90.0 98.3 1,09.4 116.7 124.9 133.3 139.6 254
China 485.5 531.1 695.1 742.7 810.5 862.1 926.3 1,118.7 1,223.8 1,423.4 1,592.4 1,576.9 325
India 117.5 116.7 115.9 125.7 135.4 135.4 145.1 1,54.8 142.5 144.2 145.9 147.7 126
Russia 492.5 497.0 506.4 505.8 491.9 487.5 477.6 4,64.6 464.4 469.1 451.2 442.3 90
Kuwait 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 133
Saudi Arabia 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.3 130
Notes: For Saudi Arabia, data are in head count representation, for all other countries in FTE representation; for all countries, except
Russia and Kuwait, data were restored by method of extrapolation. For Saudi Arabia, data for 2003-2006 are based on extrapolation
by the method of linear approximation. For India, data for 1999, 2001-2004 and 2006-2009 are based on extrapolation by the method
of linear approximation. For India, data only in FTE are available. For China, data for 2009 are based on extrapolation by the method
of linear approximation. For China, data only in FTE representation are available. For Brazil, data for 1998-1999 and 2009 are based
on extrapolation by the method of linear approximation
Source: Authors calculations from UNESCO database

PAGE 300 foresight VOL. 16 NO. 4 2014

 Table V Estimates of global competiveness index 12th pillar Innovation in BRIC and middle east countries in
2005-2011
Country 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

BRIC countries
Brazil 3.48 3.51 3.5 3.5 3.52 3.55 3.5
China 3.64 3.51 3.6 3.87 3.93 3.92 3.92
India 3.91 4.03 3.9 3.74 3.73 3.62 3.58
Russian Federation 3.43 3.34 3.31 3.41 3.35 3.25 3.14
GCC countries
Kuwait 2.94 2.98 3.16 3.07 2.96 3.03 3
Saudi Arabia 3.44 3.68 3.7 3.92 4.16
The UAE 3.24 3.32 3.37 3.42 3.87 3.91 3.96
Other estimates
Highest level The USA The USA The USA The USA The USA The USA Switzerland
5.93 5.82 5.77 5.84 5.77 5.65 5.77
Lowest level Chad Albania Albania Paraguay Paraguay Kyrgyzstan Yemen
2.09 2.09 2.1 2.06 2.14 2.12 1.77
All countries average 3.41 3.41 3.43 3.4 3.38 3.35 3.36
BRIC countries 3.62 3.59 3.58 3.63 3.63 3.58 3.53
Middle east and North Africa 3.12 3.08 3.24 3.24 3.18 3.19 3.11
Note: The estimations are based on the following criteria 1the worst innovation system, 7the best one
Source: World Economic Forum. Global Competitiveness Reports database
Downloaded by UNISINOS At 13:33 22 September 2015 (PT)

(Dahlman, 2008). Surprisingly, Kuwaits high-tech exports per capita are relatively high,
especially when compared to India and Russia (Table VI).
From several global existing rankings, the 12th pillar on innovation of the GCI developed by
the World Economic Forum has the broadest acceptance. In result, the GCI shows a broad
picture of the different development stages of the seven analyzed countries over the past
years (Table VII).
It is notable that all countries are close together in the middle of the rating system between
3 and slightly 4. India had a relatively high value GCI innovation index 3.62 points in

Table VI Publication activity of BRIC and GCC countries in 1996-2010 in Scopus database
Country Number of publications Citations per one publication in scientific journals
1996 2010 1996-2010

Brazil 8 533 43 386 8.98

China 27 529 313 846 5.27
India 20 428 68 778 6.76
Russia 30 535 35 352 4.87
Kuwait 580 981 6.61
Saudi Arabia 1 941 5 508 5.98
The UAE 345 1 958 6.55
Note: Authors calculations SCImago Journal and Country Rank database powered by Scopus

Table VII High-tech export in BRIC and GCC countries in 1996-2009

All as average 1996-2009 Brazil China India Russia Kuwait Saudi Arabia The UAE

High-tech export as per cent of GDP 0.69 5.72 0.39 0.82 0.021 0.023 0.021
USD of high-tech export per capita 26.23 31.67 0.19 3.59 26.05 1.11 2.04
Note: High-technology exports are products with high R&D intensity, such as in aerospace, computers, pharmaceuticals, scientific
instruments and electrical machinery
Source: Authors calculations from Euromonitor, World Bank and United Nations Comtrade, Euromonitor International databases and
national statistics databases

VOL. 16 NO. 4 2014 foresight PAGE 301

 2010, but the level of GDP per capita in India was several times lower than in other
countries, which had the value of GCI innovation index comparable with Indias level. In
China, the level of GERD and the index value of innovation was the same as in the Czech
Republic, but the level of GDP per capita in China was 3.3 times lower than in Czech
Republic. In Russia and Brazil, the level of GDP per capita, the level of GERD and the value
of GCI innovation index in 2010 were more or less balanced. Brazil and China were the
closest to the line of optimal level of the relationship between GERD level and the value
of GCI innovation index among the countries of the study sample. It should also be noted
that in the BRIC countries mechanisms of transformation of investments in R&D into the NIS
did not work very efficiently which is also expressed in a lower values of innovation index
than countries with comparable levels of GERD (Liu et al., 2010; Liu and Chen, 2003;
Dahlman, 2008).
Summarizing the position of the BRIC countries, it shows that Russia has a strong position
in higher education with a powerful scientific system and particularly dedicated to space
and defense activities (Dezhina and Zashev, 2007; Gokhberg, 2003; Peltola, 2008). In
addition, Russia recently shows growing R&D expenditures. Although Indias high-quality
scientific system is expanding, industrial R&D remains weak. Human resources, in general,
are of high quality and productive capabilities are found, particularly, in information
technology (software) and pharmaceuticals (Kulkarni and Bougias, 2008). The Chinese NIS
shows considerable effort in mobilizing the national education and innovation systems,
especially by accumulating productive, innovative and R&D-related activities.
Downloaded by UNISINOS At 13:33 22 September 2015 (PT)

Innovation-related capabilities are growing at high ratios with special emphasis on hi-tech
sectors.
The Brazilian science system becomes, increasingly, a high quality system with global
outreach, while R&D and innovation activities at industry level remain unequal with some
success in airspace, energy, metallurgy and agro-business (Huibo and Bingwen, 2011;
Cassiolato, 2008; Melo and Rapini, 2012; Balbachevsky and Botelho, 2011; de Brito Cruz
and de Mello, 2006; Chandrashekar and Basvarajappa, 2001).

3.3 Findings
There is a clear correlation between R&D investment intensity (GERD/GDP) and GCI
innovation index, as shown in the red line crossing Figure 2 (Figure 1).
This is not a surprising finding because the GCI innovation index composition reflects
GERD only marginally. Furthermore, all BRIC countries and Kuwait are very close to this
optimal line with the exemption of Saudi Arabia which is a complete outlier (Figure 2). That
raises the question, how is it possible to be highly innovative without much R&D
investments? The following detailed data interpretations will consider each of the analyzed
countries.
China is a country which is continuously expanding its innovation capacities and
capabilities mirrored in the increasing GCI values which are strongly correlated to the
growth of R&D investments, number of researchers, scientific publications and patent
applications. Consequently, it has the highest high-tech exports of all analyzed countries.
Surprisingly, even faster developments and higher GCI rankings are observed in Saudi
Arabia and the UAE; however, it needs to kept in mind that these countries start from a
lower level of GCI and GERD; moreover, some data are not available for the UAE but R&D
investments, number of researchers and, consequently, high-tech exports are minimal. In
light of the policies developed and applied in these countries, the openness of the STI
regimes toward different types of international collaboration is remarkable. The GCC
countries are aiming at building a research and innovation infrastructure by employing
international science, technology, innovation and industry leaders to design and implement
related initiatives. Thus, the countries direct investment in the first instance toward
education of a new generation of well-trained human resources which is competitive on a
global scale. While China is using this policy approach since the 1980s, Russia is currently

PAGE 302 foresight VOL. 16 NO. 4 2014

 Figure 1 Impact of GERD on NIS development
Downloaded by UNISINOS At 13:33 22 September 2015 (PT)

beginning to attract international expertise for laying the foundation of developing a new
generation of innovators at a large scale. However, it needs to be reminded that such
measures have no short-term direct impact.
Brazil and India are ranked in the middle section of GCI without major change or even slight
decline in the case of India. Both countries have comparable innovation input and output
factors only Brazil has significantly increased the number of researchers (Melo and Rapini,
2012; Kulkarni and Bougias, 2008; Joseph et al., 2010).
The least favorable innovation index values are given to Russia and Kuwait which were both
innovation leaders within their peer group some years ago. Turbulences at political and
world economy levels proved to have negative impact on the STI performance of these
countries. Russia can still draw on a very skilled scientific elite as can easily be seen when
looking at the, by far, highest ratio of granted patents by applications. On the other side, it
is remarkable that the increase of researchers is the lowest of all countries and the number
of publications has also decreased. The amount of high-tech exports is about as big as in
Brazil, despite having three times as many researchers. Therefore, an obvious conclusion
is that Russia has a major problem of commercializing its research results (Peltola, 2008;
Gianella and Tompson, 2007).
Kuwait seems to have stagnated in its innovation progress since the occupation 20 years
ago. Its innovation index is the weakest of all analyzed countries, practically without change
in the past years. The country, which was leading technology development in the regions
through institutions like the Kuwait Institute of Science and Research and the Kuwait
University has stagnated in many ways. R&D investments are the lowest which can be
explained by the size of the country, but this does not explain the lowest growth rate of R&D

VOL. 16 NO. 4 2014 foresight PAGE 303

 Figure 2 Correlation of GDP per capita and R&D investments (GERD) per GDP
Downloaded by UNISINOS At 13:33 22 September 2015 (PT)

investments within this group. Further evidence is found in the low number of scientific
publications, moreover, in the strong decline of the already low level of scientific
publications in absolute terms. Thus, BRIC and GCC have launched initiatives to develop
the human resources, which require directing the highest number of students and
competent individuals toward the technological and scientific specializations. Besides
human resources, financial resources are required which reinforce the innovation and
renovation and transform the results of scientific research to products, materials or
operations, such as the initiative, primary and supportive capital, particularly by institutional
means such as centers of product improvement, centers of renovation and innovation,
centers of technology improvement, technological incubators and different forms of and
technological parks. Such institutions are meant to aim at cooperative means in the fields
of applied STI. The underlying precondition for achieving these ambitions is awareness and
media means in the technological and scientific fields (Al- Awahdi, Al-Sultan 2,207; Esteves
et al., 2008; Hedner et al., 2013; Wiseman and Anderson, 2012; McGlennon, 2006).

3.4 Limitations of the study

The study argues that there is a clear correlation between investment in R&D expressed as
GERD and economic development of countries. The analysis is based on the
Schumpeterian hypothesis that technological progress and renewal are among the driving
forces of the economy. However, GERD, as used in the analysis, is an input indicator which
is not necessarily capable of explaining technological progress fully. First, GERD explains
technological progress only from the perspective of financial resources invested; the
framework conditions of NISs are not included in this indicator but are assumed to be

PAGE 304 foresight VOL. 16 NO. 4 2014

 equally important for the generation and adaption of technology, hence, technological
progress. Second, there is no evidence so far of the time lag between investment in R&D
(GERD) and economic performance of a country. Third, GERD does not necessarily have
a national economic impact, but rather there are international spillovers resulting from
technology-related activities nationally. Especially in the light of global information
exchange among the scientific community, the overall amount of these spillovers is likely to
be significant occurring to and from a country. This limits the expressive power of GERD in
addition. Fourth, the output indicators used (bibliometric and patent indicators, mainly) are
suitable to explain the generation of technologies but are limited in explaining the economic
performance of countries eventually. Finally, innovation indexes are composite indexes
which suffer from loss of information due to the composition of many different indicators, the
assignment of weights to sub-indicators and the quality of the underlying information and
data source.
The stated results for GCC are only based on data from three countries. The other GCC
countries, Bahrein, Qatar and Oman, follow similar objectives but may be at different status
of achievements compared to their neighbors.
Further research is needed to overcome these limitations not only for analysis of BRIC and
GCC countries but in also the overall global context.

4. Discussion of findings
Downloaded by UNISINOS At 13:33 22 September 2015 (PT)

The conclusions are based on the analysis of quantitative data and on the analysis of
relevant policy initiatives of these countries. The focus of conclusions and
recommendations is, thus, to show the impact of these on respective economic growth but
not on the comparison of the different countries.
The success of BRIC countries evidently correlates with the focus on technology
development and the ability to apply its results. China is a good example where both seem
to work very well. One indication for this is the high number of business-initiated and
performed R&D compared to the strong government and academic focus in the other
countries. Brazil and India seem to stagnate somewhat and should further push on the
commenced initiatives (Melo and Rapini, 2012; Doctor, 2009; Joseph et al., 2010); Russia
has fallen behind and needs to completely rebuild its innovation position in the world.
Technological development does not seem to be the key driver for the innovation success
of these countries. Acquisition of technologies and a smart use of the existing oil money as
practiced in Saudi Arabia and the UAE seems to be well-suited to achieve to superior
results. Kuwait has not been able to do equally well in the past years. However, its current
economic development plan is clearly focusing to push in the same direction.
Transition countries with large populations and little natural resources benefit most from
focusing on R&D efforts and technology to drive economic progress. Smaller countries with
natural resources do not rely on own R&D efforts but need to find other ways to improve
innovation success to move away from its dependence on income from natural resources
over time.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE have shown progress in innovation without major R&D
investments. However, both countries need to continue demonstrating an innovation
impact to further progress. Therefore, it is crucial that both countries follow-up on their
ambitious growth and innovation plans without the ability to build on a strong R&D base.
China, Brazil and India are likely to continue their fast pace with strong technology
developments (Doctor, 2009; Joseph et al., 2010). The only change is that instead of
copying the Western world and focusing on cheaper disruptive innovations, they will likely
come up with world leading technology breakthroughs. Depending on the industry, this
may take many years or is just ahead.

VOL. 16 NO. 4 2014 foresight PAGE 305

 Russia and Kuwait are countries that need most change from their current path. Both
countries have recognized this need and have defined respective innovation strategies and
policies. The jury is out if these countries will be able to implement these strategies in the
coming years.
BRIC and GCC countries are facing the challenges of enhancing their NISs. This requires
the establishment of dedicated education systems which nurture creativity in line with the
creation of an R&D culture and evaluation system which eventually is conducive to both
basic and applied research and technology development. However, the education systems
need to focus on excellence and elite rather than following the widespread belief in many
developed countries to increase the number of graduates. In addition, young people are to
be encouraged to enter into scientific careers with a clear strong focus on the hard
sciences rather than the social sciences. In general, BRIC and GCC countries are to build
knowledge-driven economies still need to emphasize the real economy considering the
service knowledge-based economy a sustainable real-value-creating economy.
Furthermore, there is a need to convert the industry culture and influence toward a more
open attitude toward open science and open innovation which is the basis for interaction
with the science as well as a policy framework conducive innovation which has to go
beyond the traditional views on STI policy, e.g. direct or indirect supporting measures, but
also including the softer framework conditions like a supportive bureaucracy and
administration. To achieve sustainable impact on the national innovation capacity countries
Downloaded by UNISINOS At 13:33 22 September 2015 (PT)

need to build and maintain competences to scan scientific developments in the world and
use foresight techniques.
In-depth analysis of STI policies applied in countries beyond BRIC and GCC countries
show that countries need to find their own path for national development, e.g.
benchmarking other countries but adapting STI policy measures to national conditions,
taking into account, especially, cultural and ethical characteristics of the nations and
populations, public awareness and attitudes. With such soft factors taken into account,
countries need to define their own aspirations and goals including thorough analysis of their
current situation and ways to close gaps which can but do not have to lead to an increased
R&D spending. Moreover, it proves essential to clearly communicate the plans to national
stakeholders and to the outside world to be recognized for the improvements and create
attractive innovation hubs.

References
Balbachevsky, E. and Botelho, A. (2011), Science and Innovation policies in Brazil: a framework for
the analysis of change and continuity, Paper presented at the IPSA-ECPR Joint Conference: Whatever
Happened to North-South?, 16-19 February, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo.

Brinkley, I., Hutton, W., Schneider, P. and Ulrichsen, K.C. (2012), Kuwait and the knowledge
economy, Number 22, Report prepared for The Work Foundation and the Kuwait Programme on
Development, Governance and Globalisation in the Gulf States, London School of Economics and
Political Sciences, London.

Chandrashekar, S. and Basvarajappa, K. (2001), Technological innovation and economic

development: choices and challenges for India, Economic and Political Weekly, August 25.

Cohen, W. and Levinthal, D. (1990), Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and
innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, pp. 128-152.

Dahlman, C. (2008), Innovation strategies of three of the BRICS: Brazil, India and China what can
we learn from three different approaches?, SLPTMD Working Paper Series, WP No. 023, Oxford:
University of Oxford, London.

de Brito, C.C.H. and de Mello, L. (2006), Boosting innovation performance in Brazil, OECD
Economics Department Working Papers, WP No. 532, Paris.

Dezhina, I. and Zashev, P. (2007), Linkages in innovation system in Russia current status and
opportunities for Russian-Finnish collaboration, Electronic Publications of Pan-European Institute,
No 14/2007.

PAGE 306 foresight VOL. 16 NO. 4 2014

 Doctor, M. (2009), Furthering industrial development in Brazil: globalization and the national
innovation system, Paper presented for delivery at the 2009 Congress of the Latin American Studies
Association, 11-14 June, Rio de Janeiro.

Esteves, L., lberto, A. and Porcile, G. (2009), Innovation and cooperation between firms and
universities: evidence From Brazil, Paper presented in the Third Conference on Micro Evidence on
Innovation and Development, MEIDE, Rio de Janeiro.

Gianella, C. and Tompson, W. (2007), Stimulating innovation in Russia: the role of institutions and
policies, OECD, Economics Department, Working Paper No 539.

Goedhuys, M. (2007), The impact of innovation activities on productivity and firm growth: evidence
from Brazil, UNU-MERIT Working Papers, WP 2007 02.

Gokhberg, L. (2003), Russia: a new innovation system for the new economy, Background material for
First Globelics Conference Innovation Systems and Development Strategies for the Third Millennium,
2-6 November, Rio de Janeiro.

Gokhberg, L., Kuznetsova, T. and Zaichenko, S. (2011), Russia: universities in the context of reforming the
national innovation system, in Goransson, B. and Brundenius, C. (Eds), Universities in Transition The
Changing Role and Challenges for Academic Institutions, Springer, Heidelberg/ New York/ Dordrecht/
London.

Hedner, T., Almubaraki, H., Busler, M. and Abouzeedan, A. (2011), Business and technology
incubators and their role in Europe in comparison to the GCC countries: an analysis of current affairs,
ERSA conference papers, European Regional Science Association, WP1283, University of
Gothenburg, Sweden.
Downloaded by UNISINOS At 13:33 22 September 2015 (PT)

Hui, L. (2007), Subnational innovation system practices in China, Presented at the National Workshop on
Sub-national Innovation Systems and Technology Capacity Building Policies to Enhance Competitiveness of
SMEs, organized by UN-ESCAP and Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), 3-4 April, Jakarta.

Huibo, Z. and Bingwen, Z. (2011), Comparison of government functions of BRIC in National

Innovation System from the degree of homoplasy and embeddedness, in Li, Y. (Ed), BRICs and The
Global Transformation.- Consideration on the BRICs Summit of Think Tanks in Brasilia, Social Sciences
Academic Press, pp. 139-165.

Joseph, K.J., Das, K., Kurian, N. and Vivekanandan, J. (2010), Institutions and innovation systems:
understanding exclusion in India, Paper presented at The 8th GLOBELICS International Conference:
Making Innovation Work for Society: Linking, Leveraging and Learning, 1-3 November, University of
Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.

Kulkarni, A. and Bougias, G. (2008), China and India: transforming the global economic landscape
through innovation and knowledge, Paper presented at the 17th Biennial Conference of the Asian
Studies Association of Australia, 1-3 July, Melbourne.

Liu, J., Baskaran, A. and Muchie, M. (2010), Global recession and the national system of innovation
in China: A Blessing in Disguise?, Department of Culture and Global Studies, Aalborg University,
Working Paper no. 145, Aalborg University Press, Aalborg.

Liu, S.G. and Chen, C. (2003), Regional innovation system: theoretical approach and empirical study
of China, Chinese Geographical Science, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 193-198.

Liu, X. and Lundin, N. (2006), Toward a market-based open innovation system of China, Paper
presented at The Challenges for Knowledge-Based Economies, 21-22 September.

McGlennon, D. (2006), Building research capacity in the gulf cooperation council countries: strategy,
funding and engagement, Paper presented at the Second International Colloquium on Research and
Higher Education Policy, 29 November-1 December, UNESCO Headquarters, Paris.

Melo, L.M. and Rapini, M.S. (2012), Financing Innovation in Brazil: Empirical Evidence and Implicit S&T
Policy, UFMG/CEDEPLAR, Belo Horizonte.

OECD (2010), Innovation to strengthen growth and address global and social challenges Key
findings, Ministerial report on the OECD Innovation Strategy, Paris.

Osman, S.S. and Nour, M. (2011), Arab regional systems of innovation: characteristics and
implications, UNU-MERIT Working Papers, 2011-058, Maastricht.

Peltola, K.K. (2008), Russian innovation system in international comparison opportunities and
challenges for the future of innovation development in Russia, Electronic Publications of
Pan-European Institute, WP. 11/2008.

VOL. 16 NO. 4 2014 foresight PAGE 307

 Soares, C., Clara, M. and Cassiolato, J.E. (2011), Innovation systems and inequality: the experience
of Brazil, Paper presented at the VI Globelics Conference at Mexico City, September 22-24, 2008.

Tseng, C.Y. (2009), Technological innovation in the BRIC economies, Research Technology
Management, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 29-35.

Wiseman, A.W. and Anderson, E. (2012), ICT-integrated education and national innovation systems
in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, Computers and Education, Vol. 59 No. 2,
pp. 607-618.

Zahra, S. and George, G. (2002), Absorptive capacity: a review, re-conceptualization, and extension,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 185-203.

Further reading
Djeflat, A. (2002), Knowledge economy for the MENA region national systems of innovation in the
MENA region, World Bank, WP 50269, Washington DC.

Krishnan, R.T. (2003), The Evolution of a Developing Country Innovation System During Economic
Liberalization: The Case of India, Paper presented at The First Globelics Conference, November 3 6,
2003.

OECD (2008), OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: China 2008, OECD, Paris.

OECD (2011), OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: Russian Federation 2011, OECD, Paris.

Rodriguez, A., Dahlman, C. and Salmi, J. (2008), Knowledge and Innovation for Competitiveness in
Brazil, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
Downloaded by UNISINOS At 13:33 22 September 2015 (PT)

Sharma, S. and Dutta, A. (2008), Intellectual property rights and innovation in developing countries:
evidence from India, Georgetown University.

Soares, C., Clara, M. and Cassiolato, J.E. (2008), Innovation systems and inequality: the experience
of Brazil, Paper presented at the VI Globelics Conference at Mexico City, 22-24 September.

World Bank (2006), India: national agricultural innovation project, project appraisal document, Report
No: 34908-In., World Bank, Washington, DC.

Xiaobo, W. (2007), The comparison of China and India with the view of national innovation system,
Studies in Science of Science, (Beijing), 2007-S2.

Zhang, M. (Ed) (2010), Competitiveness and Growth in Brazilian Cities: Local Policies and Actions
for Innovation. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World Bank,
Washington, DC.

Corresponding author
Dirk Meissner can be contacted at: dirk.meissner@gmail.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

PAGE 308 foresight VOL. 16 NO. 4 2014