why is south africa lagging behind emerging economies in terms of scientific productivity and...

The international standing of the South African scientific research: Implications for international research cooperation and technology transfer

International Research Paper #191759

24 November 2010

Prepared

by

Vuyani Lingela, Chief Director: International Research Department of Science and Technology, Private Bag X 894, Pretoria 0001, South Africa

Tel: +27 12 843 6517, Fax: +27 86 681 0051, Email: [email protected]

Acknowledgements The views expressed in this paper are the author's, not those of the Department of

Science and Technology

id5517328 pdfMachine by Broadgun Software - a great PDF writer! - a great PDF creator! - http://www.pdfmachine.com http://www.broadgun.com

mailto:[email protected]


2

Abstract The purpose of this paper is to identify countries that are performing better than South Africa in terms of scientific productivity and quality. Developed economies such as Australia, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, Germany and the United States were expected to perform much better than South Africa. However, emerging economies and countries such as Mexico or Brazil; India or China; South Korea; and Australia represent four different clusters of relatively high performing economies compared to South Africa. These countries could be the subject of a subsequent in-depth study to uncover the reasons why South Africa is lagging behind in terms of scientific leadership and excellence. The results presented in this paper have implications for international research cooperation and technology transfer in order to promote the implementation of the Ten Year Innovation Plan of the Government of South Africa. 1. Introduction This paper is part of a bigger study that aims to uncover underlying reasons for the differences in levels of productivity and quality of the South African scientific research in comparison to its international partners. Although the reasons cannot be uncovered in this preliminary study alone, the findings of this study will be used to identify countries that are performing better than South Africa in terms of scientific productivity and quality. Such high performing countries will be the subject of a subsequent in-depth study to uncover the reasons why South Africa is lagging behind these countries. The overall study will include interviews with key personnel and organisations responsible for promoting scientific productivity and quality in high performing countries. Overall, this study will present international learning that can be adopted and adapted for the effective development and implementation of the science, engineering and technology human capital development strategy for South Africa. 2. Methods In order to assess the level of productivity and quality of the South African scientific research in comparison to its international partners, the most recent five years cumulative data on the total number of scientific publications and the total number of citations associated with these publications were obtained from Thomson Reuters InCites database on 21 September 2010. The number of research publications is used in this study as a proxy indicator for scientific leadership. Countries that produce the highest numbers of scientific publications in specific scientific domains can be considered to be research leaders in those domains, while countries that produce the lowest numbers of scientific publications can be considered research followers. The number of citations is used as a proxy indicator for scientific quality because unique and original research of high scientific standing is expected to receive more citations than incremental research of low scientific standing. In addition, countries are assessed based on their global ranking (Schwab, 2010; The World Bank Group, 2010).


3

Data were obtained for each of the following 15 countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Egypt, England, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, South Korea, Tunisia and United States. The choice of these countries is informed by the existing active international bilateral scientific and technological cooperation between these countries and South Africa. Further, these countries represent different levels of economic development, including developing countries such as Egypt, Tunisia and Argentina; emerging economies such as Mexico, Brazil India, China and South Korea; and developed economies such as Australia, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, Germany and the United States. The different stages of economic development are important for this paper in order to enhance international learning. 3. Results 3.1 The level of productivity and quality of the scientific research The results presented in Figures 1 to 5 indicated that four developed economies, namely: United States, Japan, Germany and England, have produced scientific research of the highest quality in the past five years. Even then, the United States remains far more superior in terms of scientific excellence. Australia, China and Italy have maintained high levels of scientific research and in some scientific domains their quality of research compares very well with the leading developed economies. For example, the quality of research in engineering and technology in China is much higher than that of Germany, Japan and England. The quality of social sciences research in Australia and Italy is much higher than that of Japan. Brazil, India and South Korea have produced research of a much higher scientific quality compared to developing countries such as such as Mexico, Argentina, South Africa, Egypt and Tunisia, particularly research in engineering and technology in South Korea. Further analyses indicate a statistically significant relationship between scientific leadership (number of scientific publications) and scientific quality (number of citations) in Figures 1 to 5. A very strong relationship was observed in the following scientific domains: agricultural sciences (R = 0.980, P = 0.035); engineering and technology (R = 0.970, P = 0.041); medical and health sciences (R = 0.997, P = 0.003); natural sciences (R = 0.970, P = 0.031); and social sciences (R = 1, P = 0.000). These results indicate that countries that are producing research of high quality in specific scientific domains have also attained high levels of scientific leadership in those specific scientific domains. As illustrated in Appendix 1 (Schwab, 2010), the poor quality of health and primary education are some of the major challenges that South Africa has to overcome. Poor quality of health has a negative effect on life expectancy of the nation. It might be an interesting subject for an independent scientific research to find out the effect of the poor quality of health on research leadership and research quality in South Africa. Unfortunately, South Africa does not seem to provide the required scientific leadership in the domain of medical and health sciences in comparison to its international partners as illustrated in Figure 3. Considering the burden of infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, South Africa should be at the forefront in medical and health sciences research. Although the quality of higher education is relatively better than most developing countries, South Africa has a room for improvement as illustrated by its global competitiveness ranking in Appendix 1.


4

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Tun

isia

Egy

pt

Sout

h A

fric

a

Arg

entin

a

Mex

ico

Sout

h K

orea

Indi

a

Bra

zil

Ital

y

Chi

na

Aus

tral

ia

Eng

land

Ger

man

y

Japa

n

Uni

ted

Stat

es

Web of Science Documents Times Cited

Figure 1. Number and quality of scientific publications in agricultural sciences

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

Tun

isia

Egy

pt

Sout

h A

fric

a

Arg

entin

a

Mex

ico

Bra

zil

Aus

tral

ia

Indi

a

Ital

y

Sout

h K

orea

Eng

land

Japa

n

Ger

man

y

Chi

na

Uni

ted

Stat

es


Figure 2. Number and quality of scientific publications in engineering and technology

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

Tun

isia

Egy

pt

Arg

entin

a

Mex

ico

Sout

h A

fric

a

Indi

a

Bra

zil

Sout

h K

orea

Chi

na

Aus

tral

ia

Ital

y

Japa

n

Ger

man

y

Eng

land

Uni

ted

Stat

es


Figure 3. Number and quality of scientific publications in medical and health sciences


5

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

Tun

isia

Egy

pt

Sout

h A

fric

a

Arg

entin

a

Mex

ico

Bra

zil

Indi

a

Sout

h K

orea

Aus

tral

ia

Ital

y

Chi

na

Japa

n

Eng

land

Ger

man

y

Uni

ted

Stat

es


Figure 4. Number and quality of scientific publications in natural sciences

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

Tun

isia

Egy

pt

Arg

entin

a

Mex

ico

Indi

a

Sout

h A

fric

a

Sout

h K

orea

Bra

zil

Chi

na

Japa

n

Ital

y

Aus

tral

ia

Ger

man

y

Eng

land

Uni

ted

Stat

es


Figure 5. Number and quality of scientific publications in social sciences

The results presented in Figures 1 to 5 have implications for international research cooperation and technology transfer. For example, the Government of South Africa is supporting the implementation of the Ten Year Innovation Plan which contains the following five �Grand Challenges� that build on and expand our current research strengths (Minister Naledi Pandor, 2009). The first challenge is to tap the potential of our bio-economy for our pharmaceutical industry. South Africa could promote cooperation with leading countries in Figures 1 and 3 in order to systematically manage product value chain to exploit its biodiversity resource base, and a solid foundation of expertise for the establishment of a globally competitive pharmaceutical industry. The second challenge is to build on our investment in space science and technology. South Africa could promote cooperation with leading countries in Figures 2 and 4 in order to grow and manage, in a coordinated fashion, our satellite industry and a range of innovations in space sciences, earth observation, communications and navigation for socio-economic benefits. The third challenge is to move towards the use of renewable energy. South Africa could promote cooperation with leading countries in Figures 2 and 4 in order to


6

explore opportunities in clean coal technologies, nuclear energy, renewable energy and hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. The fourth challenge is to play a leading, regional role in climate change. South Africa could promote cooperation with leading countries in Figures 1, 2 and 4 in order to play a leading role in climate change science and make a major contribution to understanding climate change, and offer modelled solutions to the world. The fifth and final grand challenge is termed �human and social dynamics�. South Africa could promote cooperation with leading countries in Figures 5 in order to increase South Africa�s ability to anticipate the complex consequences of change. 3.2 The relationship between scientific excellence and economic development In order to assess the implications of the findings presented in Section 3.1 for economic development, the author explored the relationship between the quality of research and the level of economic development. In this paper, GDP per capita values obtained from The World Bank Group (2010) are used as proxy indicators for the level of economic development for countries. Countries that have low GDP per capita are considered to be underdeveloped or developing economies. On the other hand, countries that have high GDP per capita are considered to be developed economies. In order to assess the relationship between scientific excellence and economic development, the author aggregated the values of all citations presented in Figures 1 to 5 per country. The countries were ranked low or high according to the number of citations per country.

Mexico

Australia

China

India

South Africa

United States

Tunisia

Egypt

ArgentinaBrazil

KoreaItaly

UK

GermanyJapan

0

8

16

0 8 16

Quality of Scientific Research

GD

P p

er c

apita

(cur

rent

US$

)

GDP per capita (current US$) Predicted GDP per capita (current US$)

Figure 6. The relationship between scientific excellence and economic development

The results presented in Figure 6 indicate a strong relationship (R = 0.714, P = 0.218) between the level of economic development and the quality of scientific research. However, the most interesting results are the statistically outlying countries such as India, China and Australia. The three countries do not specifically conform to this relationship because when they are excluded in Figure 6, the relationship between the


7

level of economic development and the quality of scientific research is even more stronger (R = 0.961, P = 0.002). An obvious reason for these differences can be attributed large populations of India and China as illustrated in Appendix 1. Although the quality of research India and China is improving, and China has attained research leadership which is comparable to developed economies, their level of economic development has not adequately touched their large populations. The results presented in Figure 6 indicate that India and China have a tremendous economic potential because of the quality of research produced by the two countries. For example, India has potential to achieve the same or higher level of economic development (GDP per capita) as Brazil. China on the other hand, has a potential to attain the same level of economic development as developed economies such as Italy and Japan. Australia on the other hand is an excellent example of a �smart resource based economy�. This is a very unique economic position because most resource based economic tend to be research followers, without providing scientific research leadership. Australia is an outstanding example of a country that seems to have �busted the myth� of resource based economies by producing research of high quality. Table 1. Relationship between specific scientific domains and economic development

Research DomainAgricultural

SciencesEngineering &

TechnologyMedical& Health

NaturalSciences

SocialSciences

Total TimesCited

GDP per capita(current US$)

Agricultural Sciences 1.00Engineering & Technology 0.99 1.00Medical & Health 0.99 0.99 1.00Natural Sciences 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00Social Sciences 0.97 0.96 0.99 0.97 1.00Total Times Cited 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00GDP per capita(current US$)*

0.70 0.73 0.68 0.73 0.59 0.71 1.00

Further analyses undertaken by the author indicates a strong relationship between the quality of research in specific scientific domains illustrated in Table 1 and economic development. These results are based on the actual values presented in Figures 1 to 5 and exclude statistically outlying countries such India, China and Australia. However, the results indicate a relatively weak relationship between the quality of social sciences research and economic development. In this paper, the author will not examine this problem but recommends it as a subject for an independent scientific research to uncover the underlying reasons for a relatively weak relationship between research in social sciences and economic development. The real world results presented in Figure 6 can be summarised into a strategic framework for economic development through scientific leadership and scientific quality as illustrated in Figure 7. This framework indicate that whereas developed economies consistently provide research leadership and produce research of high quality, developing economies consistently remain research followers and produce research of relatively low quality. This framework also indicate that whereas knowledge based economies consistently enhance their research leadership and produce research of high quality, resource based economies consistently depend on their natural resources for their economic development with very limited investment in scientific research. This framework also suggest a growth path from


8

underdevelopment or resource dependency to knowledge dependency and finally to fully fledged development in all aspects of scientific and economic development.

HighLow

�Knowledge Based Economies��Underdeveloped Economies�

&�Developing Economies�

Low


�Developed Economies��Resource Based Economies�High

HighLow

�Knowledge Based Economies��Underdeveloped Economies�

&�Developing Economies�

Low


�Developed Economies��Resource Based Economies�High

Eco

nom

ic D

evel

opm

ent

Figure 7. Framework for economic development through scientific excellence What sets knowledge economies apart from other economies is the presence of engineers and entrepreneurs who are willing to take risks and sustain efforts under adversity as well as the general ability of engineers to absorb foreign technology and the ability of workers to absorb new production processes (Odagiri and Goto, 1993). For example, what sets China apart from other developing or emerging economies is the collective ability of its scientific, technical, engineering and managerial workforce to use their skills, national resources and leverage international resources to acquire and create technologies for the production of goods and services to meet national and global market needs (Lingela, 2009). 4. Conclusions It this paper the author has identified countries that are performing better than South Africa in terms of scientific productivity and quality. Developed economies such as Australia, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, Germany and the United States were expected to perform much better than South Africa. However, emerging economies such as Mexico or Brazil; India or China; South Korea; and Australia represents four different clusters of relatively high performing economies compared to South Africa. These countries could be the subject of a subsequent in-depth study to uncover the reasons why South Africa is lagging behind these countries in as far as scientific leadership and excellence is concerned, as illustrated in Section 3. In the interest of South-South cooperation, South Africa should promote the transfer of its scientific and/or economic leadership through international bilateral scientific and technological partnerships with other developing countries such as Tunisia, Egypt and Argentina.


9

References Lingela, V. (2009). Management Strategy to Develop National Technology Capability.

Proceedings of the International Conference on Education, Research and Innovation (ICERI2009). Madrid, Spain, 16-18 November 2009, pp. 1875-1886.

Minister Naledi Pandor (2009). Address by Minister Naledi Pandor MP, at the National Innovation Summit. Maropeng Conference Centre, South Africa, 18 August 2009.

Odagiri, H. and Goto, A. (1993). The Japanese system of innovation: past, present and future, in: Nelson, R.R. (Ed.), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Schwab Klaus (Editor) (2010). The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011. World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland.

The World Bank Group (2010). http://ddp-ext.worldbank.org/ext/DDPQQ/member. do?method=getMembers&userid=1&queryId=189. Accessed on 19 November 2010.

Thomson Reuters (2010). InCites. Accessed on 21 September 2010.

http://ddp-ext.worldbank.org/ext/DDPQQ/member.


10

Appendix 1. Global Ranking

Overall Global Competitiveness

Ranking (2008/09)*

Global Ranking in Health and Primary Education (2008/09)*

Global Ranking in Higher Education

and Training (2008/09)*

GDP per capita (current US$) (2009)# Population (2009)#

1 United States 15 Australia 5 United States 46,436 United States 1,331,460,000 China 7 Germany 19 England 12 South Korea 42,279 Australia 1,155,347,678 India 9 Japan 22 Japan 14 Australia 40,873 Germany 307,007,000 United States

12 England 24 Germany 18 England 39,727 Japan 193,733,795 Brazil 13 South Korea 26 South Korea 21 Germany 35,165 United Kingdom 127,560,000 Japan 18 Australia 27 Tunisia 23 Japan 35,084 Italy 107,431,225 Mexico 30 China 30 Italy 27 Tunisia 17,078 Korea, Rep. 82,999,393 Egypt 36 Tunisia 34 United States 44 Italy 8,144 Mexico 81,879,976 Germany 45 South Africa 50 China 56 Argentina 8,114 Brazil 61,838,154 United Kingdom 49 Italy 61 Argentina 57 South Africa 7,666 Argentina 60,221,211 Italy 50 India 65 Mexico 58 Brazil 5,798 South Africa 49,320,150 South Africa 60 Mexico 79 Brazil 63 India 3,792 Tunisia 48,747,000 Korea, Rep. 64 Brazil 88 Egypt 64 China 3,744 China 40,276,376 Argentina 81 Egypt 100 India 74 Mexico 2,269 Egypt 21,874,900 Australia 88 Argentina 122 South Africa 91 Egypt 1,134 India 10,432,500 Tunisia

* Source: Schwab (2010) # Source: The World Bank Group (2010)