EFTA00731502.pdf

<lb UNITED NATIONS fziti o, UNIVERSITY UNU-INTECH Institute S New Technologies Discussion Paper Series #2005-3 Science and Technology Development Indicators in the Arab Region: A Comparative Study of Gulf and Mediterranean Arab Countries Samia Satti 0. M. Nour August 2005 UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY, Institute for New Technologies, Keizer Karelplein 19, 6211 TC Maastricht, The Netherlands Tel: (31) (43) 350 6300, Fax: (31) (43)350 6399, e-mail: postmaster@intech.unu.edu, URL: http://www.intech.unu.edu EFTA00731502 EFTA00731503 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS IN THE ARAB REGION: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF GULF AND MEDITERRANEAN ARAB COUNTRIES Samia Satti 0. M. Nour* Abstract This paper employs both descriptive and comparative approaches to discuss science and technology (S&T) development in Arab countries in the Gulf and Mediterranean regions. Throughout the paper we use the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's definition of S&T indicators (OECD, 1997). From this research we find that neither the Gulf nor the Mediterranean countries investigated possess sufficient human or financial resources to promote S&T performance. We show that the low level of resources devoted to S&T development together with inadequate economic structures mean that the Gulf and Mediterranean Arab countries lag behind the world's advanced and leading developing countries in terms of S&T input and output indicators. In both regions, most of the research, development and S&T activities occur within public and academic sectors, with only a very small contribution from the private sector. When comparing S&T indicators between the two Arab regions we find that despite the high standard of economic development in the Gulf countries, as measured by gross domestic product per capita and the human development index, it is the Mediterranean countries that perform better in most of the S&T input and output indicators. Furthermore, we show that there is very limited scientific cooperation within and between the Gulf and Mediterranean countries as well as between them and other Arab countries. In contrast, three Arab countries from the Mediterranean region — Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia — show active scientific cooperation with the international community, especially the OECD and France in particular. This implies that social proximity (sharing similar language, culture, etc.) can hardly help regional scientific cooperation within the Arab world; it is geographical proximity to Europe that motivates these countries' international scientific cooperation. JEL Classification: O0 * PhD candidate Maastricht University. Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT) and The United Nations University (UNU). Institute for New Technologies (INTECH) - E-mail: nour@intech.unu.edu. This papa is a revised version of the paper originally prepared for the ERE' 10* Annual Conference: Marrakesh — Morocco. 16th to Igh of December 2003. The author acknowledges comments by two unknown referees. The usual disclaimer applies. EFTA00731504 EFTA00731505 UNU-INTECH Discussion Papers ISSN 1564-8370 Copyright 2005 UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY Institute for New Technologies, UNU-INTECH UNU-INTECH discussion papers intend to disseminate preliminary results of the research carried out at the institute to attract comments EFTA00731506 EFTA00731507 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 9 2. THE DEFINITION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INDICATORS 11 3. GENERAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF GULF AND MEDITERRANEAN COUNTRIES 15 4. S&T INDICATORS IN THE GULF AND MEDITERRANEAN COUNTRIES 17 4.1. HUMAN AND FINANCIAL INPUT INDICATORS 17 4.2. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OUTPUT AND IMPACT 21 5. CONCLUSIONS 31 REFERENCES 33 THE UNU•INTECH DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES 37 EFTA00731508 EFTA00731509 1. INTRODUCTION In recent years, a new economic system has evolved that is characterized by both globalization and the rise of information and communication technologies. This has driven the need for development in science and technology (S&T), which has become more than simply an element of economic growth and industrial competitiveness, but is now also essential for improving social development, the quality of life and the global environment. For instance, the high level of economic and social development in today's industrialized countries is largely the result of past intensive investment in S&T; similarly, newly industrialized countries are catching up because of their active development of S&T. "Access to scientific and technological knowledge and the ability to exploit it are becoming increasingly strategic and decisive for the economic performance of countries and regions in the competitive globalized economy. The 50 leading MT countries have enjoyed longterm economic growth much higher than the other 130 countries of the rest of the world. Between 1986 and 1994 the average growth rate of this heterogeneous group of countries was around three times greater than that of the rest of the world. The average economic wealth per capita of these 50 countries has grown by 1.1% per year. On the other hand, the per capita income of the group of 130 countries — which perform less well in education, science and technology — has fallen over the same period by 1.5% per year. These trends prefigure a new division of the global economy, based on access to knowledge and the ability to exploit it". (OECD 1997, ix) Hence, within this context, the aim of this paper is to assess S&T development indicators within the Arab region and, in particular, to compare the S&T development of those in the Mediterranean with those in the Gulf, and to compare them to countries in the rest of the world.' Given the recent progress of economic globalization coupled with the emergence of new nations active in S&T in different parts of the world, this paper extends the comparison to include these new countries as well as those in Europe, the United States and Japan, and then draws some policy implications and recommendations for ways to enhance S&T performance in the Arab region. The Mediterranean region includes eight Arab countries or territories: Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon• Libya, Morocco, Palestine. Syria and Tunisia. while the Gulf includes six Arab countries: Bahrain. Kuwait, Oman. Qatar. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). 9 EFTA00731510 This study differs in several ways from the European Second Report on S&T Indicators (OECD 1997)2, which provides an excellent and in-depth analysis of S&T performance in the Mediterranean countries. First, we distinguish between the Arab Mediterranean countries and the non-Arab Mediterranean countries. Secondly, we extend our analysis to compare Arab countries in the Mediterranean with those of the Gulf. Thirdly, we attempt to use more up-to- date data wherever possible. This is so we can help establish the information base necessary to stimulate S&T development and support new policies that aim to enhance S&T performance in the Arab region. This kind of study highlights recent efforts to create an active Arabian S&T base but also emphasizes the need to improve the quality of resources devoted to S&T development, which will ultimately contribute to and accelerate development in the region. Furthermore, it also helps governments to obtain the most positive impact possible from technological progress in terms of growth, employment and the well-being of all Arab citizens. The paper is organized in the following way: section 2 discusses the literature available, focusing on the definition and significance of S&T indicators. Section 3 shows the general socio-economic characteristics of the two groups of Arab countries. Section 4 discusses S&T development indicators in the Arab countries, including a comparison of the indicators for Mediterranean and Gulf countries, and then compares the Arabian region with the rest of the world. Finally section 5 draws conclusions and proposes policies to enhance S&T performance in the Arab region, based on the experiences of other countries. 2 In our view the only shortcoming of the excellent and comprehensive analysis offered by the European Second Report on S&T Indicators (OECD 1997) is the lack of information on Palestine and Libya. which constrained our attempts to fill this gap. 10 EFTA00731511 2. THE DEFINITION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INDICATORS The S&T system is often defined as consisting of all the institutions and organizations essential to the education of scientific people, for example, research and development (MI) institutions, professional societies and professional organizations linking individual scientists to each other and to their socio-economic environment. The theoretical and empirical literature identifies the important role that S&T plays in promoting economic growth and development in both developed and developing countries! More recent literature addresses the contribution to S&T performance of the 'national systems of innovation'; a widely used modern term that reflects the link between technical and institutional innovative development, including S&T (e.g. Lundvall 1992; Nelson 1993). Lundvall says this broad definition includes "all parts and aspects of the economic structure and the institutional set-up affecting learning as well as starching and exploring — the production system, the marketing system and the system of finance present themselves as subsystems in which learning takes place" (Lundvall 1992, 12-13). In addition, Freeman and Soete argue: "The many national interactions (whether public or private) between various institutions dealing with science and technology as well as with higher education, innovation and technology diffusion in the much broader sense, have become known as 'national systems of innovation'. A clear understanding of such national systemic interactions provides an essential bridge when moving from the micro• to the macroeconomics of innovation. It is also essential for comprehending fully the growth dynamics of science and technology and the particularly striking way in which such growth dynamics appear to differ across countries", (Freeman and Soete 1997, 291). All the definitions of the systems of innovation share the view that S&T institutions play a vital role in determining or influencing innovation and development. The literature on S&T development often distinguishes between input (resources) and output (performance) indicators. For instance, the European Second Report on S&T Indicators (OECD 1997) discusses numerous traditional input and output indicators for S&T development. The input indicators are generally divided into financial and human resources. First financial resource or input indicator includes'I= expenditure — the most widely accepted indicator for For detailed theoretical and empirical literature and assessment studies, see e.g. Freeman and Soete (1997), Dasgupta and David (1994), Foray (1999), Mytelka (2001) and Cooper (1991, 1994). For earlier analyses of S&T in the Arab region. see e.g. Qasem (1998a. b). Zahlan (199%. b). Fergany (1999). ESCWA (1999a. b). and ESCWA—UNESCO (199%. b). I I EFTA00731512 evaluating and comparing S&T efforts in different countries and regions. In the absence of an average measurement to determine MI within the economic structure and the needs of each country, political decision-makers use indicators such as the intensity of (measured as a percentage of GDP or per capita)... In addition to financial resources, human resources arc central to research and technological innovation activities". There are also general demographic and human capital indicators, "such as the number of science and technology graduates and the number of scientists and engineers employed in M... [There are] four major points relating to human capital: demographic trends, the development of public spending on education, the performance of education systems and researchers and engineers active in M. Furthermore, "Human resources in science and technology (HRST) are one of the key resources for economic growth, competitiveness and more general social, economic and environmental improvement", (OECD 1997, 5, 58, 59). Output indicators, on the other hand, "can be classified according to three parameters: economic, technological and scientific. As to economic outputs, many economists view increases in productivity as a major result of technological investment... The percentage of high-tech exports in total export figures emerges as a potentially useful means of measurement... Clearly not all results arc measurable in economic terms. Scientists and engineers often cite the 'learning experience' as one major benefit of engaging in activities. To assess the accumulated knowledge of a given country, its stock of technical knowledge must be quantified. Without doubt, patents and patents applications are the most commonly applied indicator in this respect and, irrespective of the shortcomings implicit in this approach, they continue to represent a very useful tool". Finally there are direct research outputs or publications, "focusing on the impact of the publication output of a given country or zone and comparing it to the number of publications produced over a certain period of time" (OECD 1997, 79). We use these definitions and the summary in Box 1 to evaluate S&T performance in section 4. 12 EFTA00731513 Box I. Definition of S&T input and output indicators Types S&T IndicatorsNariables S&T Input: Financial and Human Resources I. Financial resources: percentage of expenditure to GDP or expenditure per capita. area of performance, and origin of funding change in public spending on education in relation to GDP 2. Human resources: HRST — the human capital engaged in science and including the number of scientists and engineers employed in total population size and proportion of young people, which represent the human resources potential of each country educational attainment of the labour force and graduation rates, which show the rate at which newly educated graduates are available at the country level to enter the labour force, particularly the scientific and technological qualifications and doctorate levels. including staff numbers. particularly in S&T fields S&T Output: Economic. Technologic al and Scientific Performance I. Economic indicators: growth in productivity/economic outputs as a major result of technological investment percentage of high-technology exports in total exports 2. Technological indicators number of patents and patent applications 3. Scientific performance direct research output number of publications produced over a certain period of time I3 EFTA00731514 EFTA00731515 3. GENERAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF GULF AND MEDITERRANEAN COUNTRIES S&T performance is often closely related not only to the resources directly devoted to its development but also to the whole economic structure that supports it. Therefore, before assessing S&T performance in the Gulf and Mediterranean Arab countries it is useful to explain the general socio-economic characteristics of the two groups of countries. Table 1 shows the demographic structure and the major socio-economic characteristics for this region. Table 1. General socio-economic characteristics of the Arab countries' Country Population° i millions) i GDP per capita (PPPd US 5) Human Develo pment Index° (%) Life Expectancyb (years) Literacy Rateb (%) Combined enrolment ratio' (%) Arab Gulf countries High income United Arab Emirates 0.816 74.4 76.7 67 2.9 20.530 Qatar 0.6 19,844 0.826 71.8 81.7 81 Kuwait 2.4 18,700 0.820 76.3 82.4 54 Bahrain 0.7 16.060 0.839 73.7 87.9 81 Upper middle income Oman 2.7 12,040 0.755 72.2 73.0 58 Saudi Arabia 22.8 13,330 0.769 71.9 77.1 58 Average Gulf countries 5.4 16.751 0.804 73.4 79.8 67 Arab Mediterranean Upper middle income Lebanon 3.5 4,170 0.752 73.3 86.5 76 Libya 5.3 7,570 0.773 70.5 80.0 92 Lower middle income Tunisia 9.6 6 390 0.740 72.5 72.1 76 Algeria 30.7 6,090 0.704 69.2 67.8 71 Egypt 69.1 3,520 0.648 68.3 56.1 76 Syria 17.0 3,280 0.685 71.5 75.3 59 Morocco 29.6 3,600 0.606 68.1 49.8 51 Palestine 3.3 Na 0.731 72.1 89.2 77 Average Arab Mediterranean 21.0 4,946 0.705 70.7 72.1 72 Average Arab states 289.9 5,038 0.662 66.0 60.8 60 Source: UNDP (2003). Notes: a 2001, 2000. c 1999, PPP — purchasing power parity. 4 The World Bank and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Human Development Report classify world countries differently according to income level. We use the World Bank classification of economies that puts all the Arab Mediterranean countries in the lower middle-income category with the exception of Lebanon and Libya. which are classified in the upper middle-income group. 15 EFTA00731516 Table I shows the considerable diversity between Gulf and Mediterranean Arab countries in terms of population, standard of economic development as measured by GDP per capita and human development index. Gulf countries generally have lower population numbers and higher standards of economic development. The World Bank classification of economics indicates that four of the Gulf countries are in the high-income group and the other two are among the upper middle-income economics. Moreover, the UNDP human development index (HDI) shows that the GDP per capita is higher for these countries than for both the Mediterranean countries and the world average, while life expectancy and literacy rates are classified as high in four of the Gulf countries; the other two are among the medium world countries. In contrast, the Mediterranean Arab countries have both large geographical and population sizes coupled with low standards of economic development and growth indicators as measured by GDP per capita. The World Bank classification of economies puts all but two of the Arab Mediterranean countries among the lower medium-income group; Libya and Lebanon arc classified in the upper medium-income economies. Moreover, the UNDP HDI shows that the average GDP per capita for each of the Mediterranean countries falls within the world medium- income bracket and is, on average, lower than for those of the Gulf countries. This also holds for the other HDI components: average life expectancy, literacy rate and combined enrolment ratios. Among the Arab Mediterranean countries, Lebanon, Libya and Tunisia show better performance in terms of GDP per capita and HDI compared to the others in the region, while the combined enrolment ratio is highest in Libya, followed by Palestine. For the Gulf countries, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE show better performances in terms of the majority of indicators than either Saudi Arabia or Oman. According to the UNDP indicators, poverty is widespread across most of the Mediterranean Arab countries especially in Egypt and Algeria, while none of the Gulf countries reportedly shares the same problem. Moreover, according to estimates from the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook (IMF 2002), average unemployment rates across the Mediterranean countries exceed those of the Gulf countries. However, trends in unemployment rates show either a slowing increase or an actual decline across the Mediterranean Arab countries compared to the rapid increase seen across the Gulf countries. The next section of this paper examines whether this economic background affects S&T performance in the Gulf and Mediterranean countries. 16 EFTA00731517 4. S&T INDICATORS IN THE GULF AND MEDITERRANEAN COUNTRIES Based on the definition of S&T indicators provided in section 2, this section presents the input indicators (financial and human resources) and output indicators (scientific and technological performance) required to measure S&T performance. 4.1. Human and Financial Input Indicators In terms of both financial and human S&T input/resource indicators there are some differences between the Arab Gulf and Mediterranean countries as well as between them and other countries around the world. Table 2 shows that on the whole both financial and human S&T input indicators in these regions lag behind those of the advanced and leading developing countries. 4.1.1. Financial Input Indicators In particular, table 2 shows that the financial resources devoted to S&T, as measured by the percentage share of GDP spent on M, are poor in the Arab countries compared to both advanced and leading developing countries like Singapore and Korea. For instance, in the period 1996-2000, the Arab Mediterranean and Gulf countries devoted an average of only 0.3% of their GDP to whereas Sweden, one of the leading advanced industrial countries, spent 3.8% of GDP on M. However, spending on education, as measured by percentage of both GDP and total government expenditure, was found to be similar for the Arab countries and the advanced countries. Comparing S&T indicators between the two Arab regions shows that the Mediterranean countries on average perform better than the Gulf countries in terms of expenditure on both education and as percentage of GDP. 17 EFTA00731518 Table 2. S&T resource indicators of the Gulf, Mediterranean and world countries Country Public expenditure on education as % of GDP' Public expenditure on education as % of government expenditure ° Number of scientists and engineers in (per million population) ° Number of patents a. b High technology exports as % of manufactured exports' expenditur e as % of GDP ' 1990 1998- 2000 1990 1998- 2000 1996- 2000 1996-2000 1990- 1999 1990 2001 Gulf countries Bahrain 4.2 3.0 14.6 11.4 Na Na 2 0 0 Kuwait 4.8 Na 3.4 Na 0.2 212 27 4 1 Oman 3.1 3.9 I1.1 Na Na 8 3 II Qatar 3.5 3.6 Na Na Na 591 0 0 0 Saudi Arabia 6.5 9.5 17.8 Na Na Na 103 0 Na UAE 1.9 1.9 14.6 Na Na Na 15 0 Na Average Gulf 4.0 4.4 12.3 11.4 0.2 270 25 2.5 1 Mediterrane an countries Algeria 5.3 Na 21.1 Na Na Na Na 0 4 Egypt 3.7 Na Na Na 0.2 493 38 0 1 Lebanon Na 3.1 Na ILI Na Na Na Na 3 Morocco 5.3 5.5 26.1 26.1 Na Na Na 0 II Syria 4.1 4.1 17.3 11.1 0.2 29 3 0 I Tunisia 6.0 6.8 13.5 17.4 0.5 336 Na 2 3 Average Mediterrane an 4.9 4.9 19.5 16.4 0.3 286 20.5 0.4 3.8 Norway 7.1 6.8 14.6 16.2 1.7 4.112 97 8 12 Sweden 7.4 7.8 13.8 13.4 3.8 4.511 285 13 18 UK 4.9 4.5 Na 11.4 1.8 2.666 76 23 31 Korea. Rep. of 3.5 3.8 22.4 17.4 7 2.319 931 18 29 Singapore Na 3.7 Na 23.6 1.1 4.140 12 39 60 China 2.3 2.1 12.8 Na 0.1 545 793 0 20 Sources: UNDP (2003), United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) website: http://www.uspro.gov. Patent data for Korea, Norway, Singapore, Sweden and the UK obtained from UNDP (2003) and refers to patents granted in 1999 to residents per million people. For China and all Arab countries, patent data was obtained from USPTO during 1991-1999 and refers to the number of registered US patents where the inventor of the patent is resident in the selected countries. 5 Investigation of the distribution of in Gulf and Mediterranean Arab countries indicates that the public sector is responsible for the majority of activities, accounting for 49.4% and 80.4% of all MI institutions respectively (figure I). Next to public sector, universities 5 One limitation of the comparison in our analysis is that we use data and information from two different sources: the scarcity of data and information covering all countries limited our attempt to use a unified source. For instance there was no data covering Libya or Palestine. I8 EFTA00731519 contribute 43.5% and 13.4% of = institutions in Gulf and Mediterranean countries respectively; the private sector makes only a minor contribution, accounting for 7.0% and 6.2% of = institutions respectively. The Mediterranean countries appear to be more dependent on the public sector than the Gulf countries, reflecting a lack of incentives for private sector institutions to invest in = in the Mediterranean compared to the Gulf. This compares poorly to most of the industrialized countries, where more than half of = expenditure is financed by industry (OECD 1997). Figure 1. Percentage distribution of in the Gulf and Mediterranean Arab countries Source: Adapted from ESCWA-UNESCO (1998b). Notes: Refers to 1991 FTE — equivalent. 4.1.2. Human Resources Input Indicators Table 2 shows that there is a low number of scientists and engineers in = in the Gulf and Mediterranean countries compared to both advanced and leading developing countries. Moreover, the OECD (1997) Second European Report on S&T Indicators shows that there is proportionally 10 times fewer = personnel in the Mediterranean countries than in the European Union. When comparing the two Arab regions, it is the Mediterranean countries that show a marginally better performance than the Gulf countries in terms of the number of scientists and engineers in 19 EFTA00731520 In terms of the human resources devoted to M, defined by the number of full-time equivalent (FTE)6 researchers, and their distribution within IM organizations (figure I), we find that the majority of FTE researchers are employed by public and university sectors. The percentage share of FTE researchers in the public sector is estimated to be 49.2% and 74.9% in the Gulf and Mediterranean Arab countries respectively. Next to the public sector, it is the university sector that has the largest percentage share of FTE researchers: at 49.3% and 23.6% respectively; the private sector accounts for only 1.4% and 2.6% of total FTE researchers in the regions. As with the distribution of institutions, it is the Mediterranean countries that appear to be more dependent on the public sector for FTE researchers than the Gulf countries. Again, it is the lack of incentives for private sector institutions to hire FTE researchers that leads to this disparity. In addition, them arc fewer human resources in S&T in both the Gulf and Mediterranean Arab countries compared to more developed countries, shown in figures 2 and 3. The Arab countries score poorly compared to Korea and Singapore for the Harbison Myers Index', technical enrolment index, engineering enrolment index, gross enrolment ratio at tertiary education and the share of tertiary students in science, mathematics and engineering" The only exception (not shown in figure 3) is the share of tertiary students in science, mathematics and engineering in Algeria, which is higher compared to both advanced and developing countries (UNDP 2004). Figure 2. Skill indicators in Korea, Singapore and the Arab countries 0 20 so 60 80 100 120 140 Korea. Republic of Singapore Average Gulf countries Average Mediterranean Arab states Source: Adapted from Lai (1999). O Engineering enrolment index ■Technical enrolment index • Harbison Myers Index 6 The concept of full-time equivalent researcher is adopted by UNESCO statistics on personnel. According to Lall (1999): "Harbison Myers Index is the sum of secondary enrolment and tertiary enrolment times five, both as a percentage of age group. Technical enrolment index is tertiary total enrolment (times 1000) plus tertiary enrolment in technical subjects (times 5000). both as a percentage of population. Engineering skills index is the same as the previous index, with tertiary enrolments in engineering instead of enrolment in technical subjects- (tall, 1999: p.52). See also Muysken and Nour (2005) and UNDP—AHDR (2003). 20 EFTA00731521 Figure 3. Percentage enrolment at tertiary education 60 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Source: Adapted from UNDP (2002). lahlrOSS enrolment ratio at tertiary education 4%) ■Share tertiary students in science. math and engineering 4%) When comparing average skill indicators for the Arab Gulf countries with those of the Mediterranean, figures 2 and 3 indicate that, on average, the Mediterranean countries perform better. Additional information from La11 (1999) and UNDP (2004) indicate that all these skill indices are especially high in Lebanon and Kuwait, while the gross enrolment ratio at tertiary education is highest in Egypt and Lebanon followed by Qatar and Bahrain. The share of tertiary students in science, mathematics and engineering is highest in Algeria, followed by Syria, Oman, Morocco, the UAE and Tunisia. With the aforementioned exception of Algeria, enrolment in science, mathematics and engineering is lower than enrolment for all other subjects in both Mediterranean and Gulf countries. In addition, school-leaving age is highest in Tunisia, Qatar, Bahrain and Lebanon. 4.2. Science and Technology Output and Impact As we explained briefly in section 2, the literature distinguishes between S&T outputs, which can be measured in terms of publications and patents, and S&T impact, which can be measured in terms of economic growth. This section discusses S&T output as measured by number of patent filings and scientific publications (in the international refereed literature) but discusses S&T impact as measured only by the share of high-technology manufacturing exports. Owing to limitations concerning data availability it is not possible to address the impact of technological development on economic/productivity growth in much detail. We integrate the findings in section 3, concerning the general economic characteristics of the Arab economies, with those of section 4.1, regarding S&T input indicators. Using a systematic approach we assess S&T performance in terms of inputs and the economic system as a whole. Our analysis aims to explain the connection between the S&T system, S&T profile and the 21 EFTA00731522 economic or productive structure of these countries. For example, table 2 shows that for both patent numbers and the percentage of high-technology exports Arab Gulf and Mediterranean countries are substantially behind the advanced and leading developing countries. In our view, which is backed up by general S&T literature, the weakness of the S&T base in the Arab regions should be interpreted not only in terms of a lack of appropriate inputs but also in relation to a poor economic system as a whole. Measuring the strength of the economic and welfare systems using income per capita implies that the Gulf countries do very well. However, they also exhibit low S&T activity, which seems at odds with the idea that strong S&T is necessary for economic growth and development. Of course, the Gulf is hugely dependent on oil, giving the impression that there are other ways to become rich than investing in S&T. The big question is whether the Gulf countries will stay rich once their oil reserves expire; despite their big wealth from oil they still lack well-defined, targeted plans and policies and proper incentives to promote S&T performance. For while the Gulf countries perform better than the Mediterranean countries in economic terms they lag behind in measurements of S&T performance. Therefore, the big wealth from oil, far from contributing to the improvement of S&T performance in the Gulf may actually hinder it as it masks the need to develop incentives and effective policies to enhance S&T development. The Mediterranean countries' story is simpler poor economic structure in combination with inadequate resources devoted to S&T development leads to poor S&T performance compared to advanced and developing world countries. 4.2.1. Scientific Publications9 Figure 4 shows that the number of scientific publications for both Gulf and Mediterranean countries grew between the periods 1970-1975 and 1990-1995. On average, Mediterranean countries performed better than Gulf countries for number of scientific publications, which could be a consequence of their superiority to the Gulf countries in terms of most of the S&T indicators: total expenditure on both education and = number of = employees; and number of- scientists and engineers. Egypt and Saudi Arabia show the largest overall numb 9 The OECD (1997) report indicates that prizes awarded to individual scientists is an extreme indicator of S&T performance and is one way of measuring IM output. Of all scientific prizes the Nobel prizes for science, which have been awarded to scientists in the fields of chemistry, physics and medicine/physiology since 1901, are probably the most prestigious. The Arab Gulf and Mediterranean countries have only received one Nobel Prize between them: in 1999 an Egyptian scientist received the Nobel Prize for chemistry. 22 EFTA00731523 Figure 4. Number of S&T publications in the Gulf and Mediterranean countries Number of Publications (1970-1995) 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 .1.._•111.] st A . c e I yt ,st, e , tt- oc, op op 4), ob .se op 4 . O 41* 46‘.- I' tt. cir's I I • 1970-1975 • 1990-1995 Source: Adapted from Zahlan (199%). Table 3 indicates that, of the Arab Mediterranean countries, Egypt has the best percentage share of total world scientific publications. However, the average share of all Arab Mediterranean countries remains very low compared to those of the United States, European top 15 and non- Arab Mediterranean countries. Moreover, the percentage share of both total papers published and number of citations in publications in the region is much lower for any of the Arab Mediterranean countries than the non-Arab Mediterranean countries (Turkey and Israel specifically). Again, Egypt leads the Arab Mediterranean countries in this indicator, followed by the group of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia and then the group of Albania, Cyprus, Lebanon, Malta and Syria. Furthermore, in the period 1985-1995, it is Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia that display the most coordination, cooperation and networking with the European top 15 countries in terms of internationally co-authored papers. 23 EFTA00731524 Table 3. Technology output indicators by share of the world's scientific publication output, published papers citations and internationally co-authored papers Countries Share in world's publication output in all scientific fields combined (%) Share of published paper and citation in the Mediterranean countries (%) Mediterranean share of internationally co-authored EUR 15 (% countries' papers with 1985- 1989 1990- 1995 1985.1989 1990.1995 198 5 198 9 199 0 1995 Paper s Citatio n Paper s Citatio n Egypt 0.27 0.29 16.5 16.5 5.7 15.6 8.0 7.5 9.7 11.2 Algeria/ Morocco/ Tunisia 0.08 0.13 4.6 4.6 2.4 6.7 40. 4 56. 4 54. 7 58.7 Lebanon/ Syria/ Malta/ Albania/ Cyprus 0.03 0.04 1.9 1.9 0.7 2.0 23. 7 30. 7 21. 1 48.5 Average Arab Mediterranean i 0.13 0.15 7.7 7.7 2.9 8.1 24. 0 31. 5 28. 5 39.5 Average Non- Arab Mediterranean 2 0.65 0.72 38.6 38.6 45.6 37.9 9.3 12. 4 9.4 12.3 EUR 15 30.42 33.92 Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na USA 36.33 35.82 Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Source: Adapted from RASC1 Data: Science Citation Index, OECD (1997). Pp. 455, 46O. Notes: 'Refers to average for each group: Egypt; Algeria/Morocco/Tunisia; and Albania/C)prus/Lebanon/Malta/Syria. =Refers to average for Turkey and Israel. Despite, the increasing importance of international cooperation, them is very limited cooperation among scientists in both Arab Gulf and Mediterranean countries as indicated by the number of joint publications and co-authorships (table 4). In particular, it is scientists from the Gulf countries who lag behind, accounting for less than 2% of worldwide cooperation. Zahlan (I 999a) finds that in 1990, co-authorship within the Gulf countries was only 1.4% of all co— authored papers; this increased to 3% in 1995. Such limited regional cooperation is also true for the Mediterranean countries, for instance in 1995 scientists in the Maghreb countries of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia published 1,206 publications. Of these, 769 were co-authored with scientists from other countries yet only I1 included scientists from two Maghreb countries. Furthermore, only one out of the II did not involve an OECD partner. 24 EFTA00731525 Table t Scientific cooperation: total number of publications and joint publications in the Gulf and Maghreb countries Country Total number of published papers Number of joint papers Co-authored with GCCI partners Co-authored with Arab partners Main Arab partners Egypt Gulf countries 1990 1995 1990 1995 1990 1995 1990 1995 1990 1995 Bahrain 59 106 17 29 3 2 2 1 - 1 Kuwait 487 290 132 117 0 14 12 12 10 II Oman 48 84 25 37 0 0 1 0 1 - Qatar 48 59 19 36 2 6 24 6 23 Saudi Arabia 1,031 1,240 242 294 6 9 59 71 48 57 UAE 49 137 33 55 2 10 13 19 10 14 Total Gulf 1.722 2.716 468 568 13 35 93 127 75 106 Total number of published papers Number of joint papers Co-authored with OECD partners Co-authored with Arab partners Main partners France Maghreb countries 1990 1995 1990 1995 1990 1995 1990 1995 1990 1995 Algeria 172 328 137 227 120 187 4 3 90 151 Morocco 240 536 153 395 132 314 0 2 90 241 Tunisia 268 342 77 147 69 122 0 3 55 87 Total Maghreb 680 1206 367 769 321 623 4 8 235 479 Libya 2 58 58 31 35 II 16 3 7 I1 9 Total Mediterranean 738 1264 398 804 332 639 7 15 246 488 Source: Adapted from Zahlan (1999a). Notes: t GCC - Cur Cooperation Council including Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. 2 The main partners for Libya are India (1990) and UK (1995). As shown in table 4 there is an absence of scientific cooperation and co-authorship among scientists from the Gulf and Mediterranean countries as well as between them and other Arab countries. Where Gulf countries do cooperate with Arab scientists, it tends to be limited to only a small number of countries. According to Zahlan (1999a) this is because universities in Gulf countries employ professors mainly from other Arab countries. Similarly, in the Mediterranean Arab region, cooperation between Maghreb countries and other Arab scientists accounts only for 3.0% and 3.5% of all co-authored published papers in 1990 and 1995 respectively (Zahlan, I999a). Arab countries in the Gulf have only limited cooperation with foreign institutes. For instance, while the number of the published papers in the Gulf countries increased from 1,722 in 1990 to 2,716 in 1995, fewer than a quarter were co-authored with foreign institutes. This contrasts with 25 EFTA00731526 the Mediterranean Arab countries, particularly the Maghreb countries that have significant cooperation with the OECD: papers co-authored with OECD countries accounted for 90.0% and 81.3% of total joint publications in 1990 and 1995 respectively. Of all the OECD countries France has the highest share of joint papers with Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia, comprising 67.0% and 613% of total joint papers in 1990 and 1995 respectively. These data are backed up by Zahlan (1999a) who finds that scientific workers in the Maghreb are deeply integrated with the international scientific community. So, despite the social proximity between the populations in terms of religion, language, culture and traditions, there is only limited scientific cooperation within and between the Gulf and Mediterranean Arab countries, or between them and other Arab countries. In contrast, there is active international scientific cooperation between some of the Mediterranean countries and other world countries, but this is very limited for all the Gulf countries. One reason for this is that scientific workers in the Maghreb, on an individual level, have become deeply integrated into the international scientific community but not, however, with their own national or regional economies or societies (Zahlan 1999a). More recent literature indicates the role of geographical location and proximity in relation to S&T indicators and the transfer of knowledge (Arundel and Geuna 2001). France is geographically close and also has colonial ties to Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. Hence, we argue that it is geographic proximity rather than social proximity that drives the Maghreb countries' scientific cooperation with the international community and Europe. 4.2.2. Patent Applications Table 2 shows the low number of patent applications made by countries in both of the Arab regions compared to advanced and leading developing countries like Singapore, Korea and China. In light of our earlier findings, this can be attributed to the Arab countries' low percentage share of GDP spent on and the small number of scientists and engineers in M. The low number of patent applications implies a low level of innovative activities across both Arab Mediterranean and Gulf countries compared to both advanced and developing countries. Table 5 shows the number of patent applications made between 1985 and 1995 in the Arab countries, Europe and the United States by residents and non-residents of the Arab Mediterranean countries. During that period residents made fewer patent applications than non- residents in all Arab Mediterranean countries. Among the Arab Mediterranean countries, the highest number of patent applications were filed in Egypt, followed by Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and finally Syria. Moreover, table 5 shows that all Arab Mediterranean countries together have filed far fewer patents in both the European and United States patent offices than non-Arab Mediterranean countries. 26 EFTA00731527 Table 5. Patent applications made by Mediterranean countries at home, in Europe and the United States Resid ents Non- reside nts Euro pe Americ a Reside nts Non- reside nts Europ e Americ a Reside nts Non- reside nts Year 1985 ' 1985' 1985 - 1989 b 1987- 1989 b 1990' 1990' 1990- 1994" 1990- 1994b 1992/1993/1994 /1995' Algeria 19 235 2 Na 0 139 3 Na 0 119 Egypt 168 671 4 7 278 511 12 16 328 503 Lebanon Na Na 1 Na Na Na 3 Na Na Na Morocco 35 255 4 4 61 268 12 12 89 292 Syria 4 54 1 Na 3 12 3 Na 4 45 Tunisia 14 202 3 Na 26 134 5 Na 31 84 Total Arab Mediterra near 240 1417 15 II 368 1064 38 28 452 1043 Total non- Arab Mediterra near 851 3077 828 812 - - 1579 1,997 1352 3827 Source: Adapted from' OECD (1997): LIME Data, WIPO-Geneva. b OECD (1997) OST Data INPI/EPO (SPAT) and USPTO. Non-Arab Mediterranean refers to Albania, Cyprus, Israel. Malta and Turkey. The low number of patents filed by residents of the Arabic countries can be related to low S&T activity in the country. The low number of patents recorded by non-residents, however, needs a different interpretation. It is partially because there is a lack of adequate patent legislation, but more importantly it is also due to lack of an economic structure within which to take advantage of patents. Foreign companies will only register a patent in a country if they fear that a local competitor might exploit their technology without paying for it. Therefore the low number of patents filed by non-residents in the Arab region implies that the region lacks industries that arc internationally competitive, which can also be interpreted in terms of there being a poor economic structure. In terms of the number of patent applications filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, table 2 indicates that the Gulf performs better than the Mediterranean. This is probably because the Gulf countries have better regulation for patents and better cooperation with the United States than the Mediterranean countries. 27 EFTA00731528 4.2.3. Share of High Technology Manufacturing Exports According to table 2, both the Gulf and the Mediterranean countries have a low share of high- technology manufacturing exports compared to advanced and leading developing countries. In addition, the share of hi-tech manufactured goods in the Arab countries in 1995-1997 is well below that of the world average or the corresponding figures for Brazil, Korea, Latin America and the Caribbean, Mexico, Singapore and even sub-Saharan Africa (figure 5). This can be explained in relation to our earlier findings concerning the Arab countries' inadequate economic structure, poor spending on M , low number of scientists and engineers in and low patent filings. Figure 5. Proportion of high-technology manufactured goods High-technology share of manufacturing (1995 1997) Singapore Mexico Korea World Latin America, Caribbean Brazil Sub-Saharan Africa Middle East, North Africa Average Arab region Average Gulf Average Mediterranean J 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Source: Adapted from Haddad (2002) and La!! (1999). Computations based on UN COMTRAD£ data 2000 and 1996 respectively. When comparing the average share of exports of high-technology goods manufactured, our findings in table 2 indicate that the Mediterranean countries perform much better than the Gulf countries. However, information from the OECD (1997) indicates that the Mediterranean countries are still some way behind Malta and Israel. For instance, in 1997, hi-tech exports from the Arab Mediterranean countries to Europe and the rest of the world ranged between 0.7%- 17% and 0.8%-22% of all exports respectively; lower than the comparable percentages in both Malta and Israel, which were around 66% and 32-35% respectively. 28 EFTA00731529 4.2.4. Productivity Growth Once again it is the Mediterranean Arab countries that out-perform their Gulf counterparts in terms of S&T impact as measured by economic growth. Table 6 shows that annual growth rate for average GDP per capita during the periods 1975-2001 and 1990-2001 and the average real GDP growth rate during the period 1995-2000 are higher in the Mediterranean countries than in the Gulf. Moreover, during 1999-2001, the Mediterranean countries show continuous growth whereas the Gulf countries experienced rapid economic growth followed by rapid slow down. Table 6. Real GDP growth and GDP per capita annual growth rates in the Gulf and Mediterranean countries Country GDP per capita annual growth rate (56)a Real annual GDP growth (%)" 1975- 2001 1990-2001 1995-2000 Average 1999 2000 2001 Arab Gulf (GCC) Bahrain 1.1 1.9 4.3 4.3 5.3 4.8 Kuwait -0.7 -1.0 3.8 -2.9 2.9 -0.6 Oman 2.3 0.6 3.6 -0.2 5.1 7.3 Qatar NA NA 9.4 5.3 11.6 7.2 Saudi Arabia -2.1 -1.1 1.9 -0.8 4.9 1.2 UAE -3.7 -1.6 5.7 3.9 5.0 5.1 Total GCC -0.6 -0.2 4.8 1.6 5.8 4.2 Arab Mediterranean Algeria -0.2 0.1 2.9 2.3 2.8 3.4 Egypt 2.8 5.3 5.1 3.3 Lebanon 4.0 3.6 2.3 1.0 -0.5 2.0 Morocco 1.3 0.7 1.9 -0.1 1.0 6.5 Syria 0.9 1.9 3.0 -2.0 0.6 2.7 Tunisia 2.0 3.1 5.1 6.1 4.7 5.0 Total Mediterranean 1.8 2.0 3.4 2.2 2.3 3.8 Arab State 0.3 03 3.9 2.4 4.1 3.8 Developing countries 2.3 2.9 5.3 3.9 5.7 4.0 Source: a UNDP (2003) and IMF (2002). GCC — Gulf Cooperation Council. 4.2.5. Technology Infrastructures and Technology Achievement Index Figure 6 indicates that countries both the Arab regions are lagging behind the rest of the world, including advanced and developing countries, in terms of both basic and high technology 29 EFTA00731530 infrastructure (BT1 and HTI).'" On average the BTI for Gulf countries is better than for Mediterranean countries, while the opposite is true for the HTI. Overall, poor BT1 is to blame for the low HTI in both Gulf and Mediterranean countries (Rasiah 2001). Moreover, according to the UNDP (2001) HDI classification of world countries according to technology achievement index, both the Gulf and Mediterranean countries lag far behind the world's advanced and leading developing countries. In fact, the majority of Mediterranean countries are classified as being dynamic adopters of new technologies, while the status of the Gulf countries with respect to the same classification is unclear, as none of the Gulf countries are classified as either leader, potential leader, dynamic or marginalized adopter. Figure 6. Basic and high technology infrastructure rating in the Gulf and Mediterranean Arab countries compared to world countries 25 Vanua USE I !MI r Sync ! 1 Coro MIBasic Technology Infrastructure (1992-1998) OHIgh Technology Infrastructure (1991-1997) Source: Adapted from Rasiah (2002). 10 Rasiah (2002) defines basic technology infrastructure (811) as weighted proxies representing basic education (enrolment in primary schools), health (physicians per thousand people) and communications (main telephone lines ar thousand pI defines high technology infrastructure (HTI) as weighted proxies representing investment and scientists and engineers per million people. Rasiah also argues that BTI is an essential but not sufficient condition for economies to achieve advanced technological capacity: the incidence of economies generating innovation is higher when they also have the high-technology support institutions. The lower the 811. the lower the capacity and resources for high technology development. 30 EFTA00731531 5. CONCLUSIONS This paper shows the status of S&T indicators in the Arab Gulf and Mediterranean countries. It is clear that a great disparity exists between these regions in terms of S&T input and output indicators. Furthermore, countries in both Arab regions lag behind the world's developed and leading developing countries in terms of the same input and output indicators. The combination of poor S&T inputs/resources together with an inadequate economic system as a whole results in the Gulf and Mediterranean countries producing poor S&T outputs/performances. Moreover, we find that most and S&T activities in both Gulf and Mediterranean countries occur within the public and university sectors, while the private sector and industry make only a minor contribution . When comparing S&T input and output indicators of the Gulf countries with those of the Mediterranean, our findings indicate that in terms of most S&T input indicators (both financial and human resources) the best performances come from Mediterranean countries. That also holds for the average share of high-technology exports, GDP per capita growth, number of scientific publications and level of international cooperation, while the performance of the Gulf countries is only better with respect to number of patent filings. Moreover, we observe that the Mediterranean countries appear to be benefiting from their geographical location and proximity to Europe, as shown by the higher levels of cooperation with the OECD and in particular France. This implies that social proximity (sharing similar religion, culture, language, values and traditions) and intra-regional linkages and networks do not matter for scientific cooperation. Instead, for some of the Mediterranean Arab countries (notably Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia), geographical proximity and external regional linkages and networks with Europe are the motivations for scientific cooperation. Hence, our analysis indicates that in order to improve S&T performance, the Arab Gulf and Mediterranean countries need to invest heavily in both financial and human resources as well as to learn from the lessons of the advanced and developing S&T nations. Such investment can be more effective if they arc made according to targeted, well-defined plans that connect with policies covering industry, science and technology and accompanied by an overhaul in the economic system. None of the Gulf or Mediterranean Arab countries alone possess all the human and financial resources necessary to promote S&T. However, these countries could have a wider range of capabilities to promote S&T if they pooled and integrated their resources. Restructuring the 31 EFTA00731532 economic systems, encouraging the private sector and implementing effective S&T cooperation and integration between all the Arab countries will most likely enhance S&T development and hence long-term harmonious development in the region. 32 EFTA00731533 REFERENCES Arundel, A. and A. Geuna. 2001. Does proximity matter for knowledge transfer from public institutes and universities to firms? SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series No.73. Brighton, UK: University of Sussex. Cooper. C. 1991. Are innovation studies on industrialized economies relevant to technology policy in developing countries? UNU-INTECH Working Paper Series No.3. Maastricht, the Netherlands: UNU-INTECH. 1994. Science and technology in Africa under conditions of economic crisis and structural adjustment. UNU-INTECH Working Paper Series No.4. Maastricht, the Netherlands: UNU-INTECH. Dasgupta, P. and P. David. 1994. Toward a new economics of science. MERIT Research Memoranda Series No.2/94-003. Maastricht, the Netherlands: Maastricht University. ESCWA (Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia). 1999a. Science and technology policies in the twenty-first century. New York, NY: United Nations. Pp. 75, 209. I9996. ESCWA proceedings of the expert group meeting on science and technology policies and strategies in the twenty-first century. Beirut, 10-12 March 1999. (E/ESCWA/TECH/1999/8/Rev. I: December 1999). Ncw York, NY: United Nations. ESCWA—UNESCO (Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia-United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). I998a. Research and development systems in the Arab states: Development of science and technology indicators. (E/ESCWA/TECH/1998/Rev. I). Cairo, Egypt: UNESCO. I 998b. Research and development system in the Arab states: Development of science and technology indicators. (E/ ESCWA/ TECH/ 1998/3). Cairo, Egypt: UNESCO. Fergany, N. 1999. Science and research for development in the Arab region. Chapter 2 in: Research for development in the Middle East and North Africa, E. Rached and D. Craissati, eds. Ottowa, Canada: IDRC. Foray, D. 1999. Science, technology and market. In: World Social Science Report. Paris: UNESCO/Elsevier. Freeman, C. and L. Socte. 1997. The economics of industrial innovation, 3rd ed. London, UK: Cassell. 33 EFTA00731534 Haddad, M. 2002. Export competitiveness: Where does the Middle East and North Africa region stand? In: Economic Trends in MENA Region. Cairo, Egypt: Economic Research Forum. IMF. 2002. World economic outlook: The Middle East and North Africa regional outlook. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund. Lall, S. 1999. Competing with labour: Skills and competitiveness in developing countries. Development Discussion Paper No.31. Development Policies Department, Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Organization. Lundvall, B-A. ed. 1992. National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London, UK: Pinter Publishers. Muysken, J. and S. Nour. 2005. Deficiencies in education and poor prospects for economic growth in the Gulf countries: The cast of the UAE. Paper presented at the ETIC European Doctoral Training Programme, Maastricht, October 2003. Journal of Development Studies, 2005, Taylor and Francis Ltd.: UK forthcoming. Mytelka, L. 2001. Do the least developed countries need science and technology for sustainable development? http://www.intech.unu.cdu/publicationsfindex.php Nelson, R. ed. 1993. National innovation systems: A comparative study. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 1997. The Second European Report on S&T Indicators 1997. Luxembourg, European Commission. Qasem, S. I998a. Research and development in the Arab states: Development of science and technology indicators. In: Review of science and technology in ESCWA member countries, ESCWA (1999), Issue No.l. New York, NY: United Nations. I 998b. Research and development systems in the Arab states: Development of science and technology indicators. Chapter 4 in: Economic Trends in MENA Region 2002. Cairo, Egypt: Economic Research Forum and the American University in Cairo. Rasiah, R. 2002. TRIPs and capability building in developing economies. Discussion Paper No.l. Tokyo, Japan: UNU-INTECH. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2001. Summary human development report 2001: Making new technologies work for human Development. New York, NY: UNDP; Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 2002. Human development report 2002: Deepening democracy in a fragmental world. New York, NY: UNDP; Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 2003. Arab human development report 2003: Building a knowledge society. Amman, Jordan: UNDP-RBAS; New York, NY: National Press. 34 EFTA00731535 2003. Human development report 2001 Millennium development goals: A compact among nations to end human poverty. New York, NY: UNDP; Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 2004. Human development report 2004: Cultural liberty in today's diverse world. New York, NY: UNDP. Zahlan, A. I999a. Science policy for the twenty-first century: Mobilization and development. In: Proceedings of the expert group meeting on science and technology policies and strategies for the twenty-first century, Beirut, 10-12 March 1999, (E/ESCWA/TECH/1999/8fRev.1: December 1999). New York, NY: United Nations. Pp. 14-16. I999b. The Arabs and the challenges of science and technology: Progress without change. Beirut, Lebanon: The Center for the Study of Arab Unity. 35 EFTA00731536 EFTA00731537 THE UNU-INTECH DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES # 2005.3 Science and Technology Development Indicators in the Arab Region: A Comparative Study of Gulf and Mediterranean Arab Countries by Sarnia Satti O. M. Nour # 2005.2 Learning Through Inter-Organizational Interactions: Public Research Institutes in the Nigerian (Bio)pharmaceutical System of Innovation by Banji Oyelaran-Oyeyinka and Padmashree Gehl Sampath # 2005.I Systems of Innovation and Underdevelopment: An Institutional Perspective by Banji Oyelaran- Oyeyinka #2004-18 A Systems Perspective on Inter-Firm and Organizational Collaboration in African Industry by Banji Oyelaran-Oyeyinka # 2004.17 Regional Innovation Systems: A Critical Synthesis by David Doloreux and Saeed Parto # 2004.16 Growth of Employment and the Adoption of E-business by Kaushalesh Lal # 2004-115 Learning, Innovation And Cluster Growth: A Study of Two Inherited Organizations in the Niagara Peninsula Wine Cluster by Lynn K. Mytelka and Haeli Goertzen # 2004.14 Determinants of E-business Adoption: Evidence from Firms in India, Nigeria, Uganda by Banji Oyelaran-Oyeyinka and Kaushalesh Lal # 2004.13 Agricultural Biotechnology: Issues for Biosafety Governance in Asian Countries by Padmashree Gehl Sampath # 2004.12 A National System of Innovation in the Making. An Analysis of the Role of Government with Respect to Promoting Domestic Innovations in the Manufacturing Sector of Iran by Sunil Mani # 2004-11 Demanding Stronger Protection for Geographical Indications: The Relationship between Local Knowledge, Information and Reputation by Dr. Dwijen Rangnekar # 2004.10 Are Foreign Firms More Productive, and Export and Technology Intensive, than Local Firms in Kenyan Manufacturing? by Rajah Rasiah and Geoffrey Gachino # 2004.9 Learning New Technologies by SMEs in Developing Countries by Banji Oyelaran-Oyeyinka and Kaushalesh Lal # 2004.8 Building Research Capacity in Social Sciences for Development in Bolivia: A Case of Institutional Innovation by Prof. Lea Velho, Maria Carlota de Souza Paula. Roberto Vilar # 2004.7 Sectoral Pattern of E-business Adoption in Developing Countries by Banji Oyelaran-Oyeyinka and Kaushalesh Lal # 2004.6 Non-Tariff Measures, Technological Capability Building and Exports in India's Pharmaceutical Firms by Frederick Nixson and Ganeshan Wignaraja # 2004.5 Technological Intensity and Export Incidence: A Study of Foreign and Local Auto -Parts, Electronics and Garment Firms in Indonesia by Rajah Rasiah # 2004.4 Science and Technology in Latin America and the Caribbean: An Overview by Lea Velho # 2004.3 Coping with Globalisation An Analysis of innovation capability in Brazilian telecommunications equipment industry by Sunil Mani # 2004.2 Learning and Local Knowledge Institutions in African Industry by Banji Oyelaran-Oyeyinka # 2004-I Productivity. Exports, Skills and Technological Capabilities: A Study of Foreign and Local Manufacturing Firms in Uganda by Rajah Rasiah and Henry Tamale 37 EFTA00731538