Você está na página 1de 20

ASCI Journal of Management 41(1): 120 Copyright 2011 Administrative Staff College of India

Nirmalya Bagchi*

A Comparative Analysis of the Factors for Fostering Innovation in BRICS Countries from 1995 to 2009

Abstract Recent studies have proved that innovation in a country improves its growth potential. The experience of Japan, Taiwan and other East Asian economies show that given the right interventions and availability of a suitable eco system, developing countries can catch up on technology and innovation. The BRICS countries are often regarded as the next set of emerging economies that are likely to tread a innovation driven high growth trajectory. The paper analyzes the input and output factors for fostering innovation in BRICS countries in 3 time periods; 19952002, 20032007, 20082009 and reports the results. Introduction Every nation seeks prosperity and well being. Contemporary literature on the topic suggests that though there is no unanimity on the choice of measure, more or less everyone agrees that the income, is an important indicator of material well being. Natural quest then is to identify the factors causing income growth. Recent studies have reopened this issue and have acknowledged that income growth cannot be explained only in terms of growth in capital and labour and that adequate emphasis should be placed on enriching human capital, innovation and technological progress. However, it is not easy for a developing country to catch up on technology and innovation with advanced countries. Sustained efforts and suitable interventions are often required. The experience of East Asian economies (particularly South Korea and Singapore) show that given the right interventions and availability of a suitable eco system, developing countries can catch up on technology and innovation. It is widely believed that the next set of countries, after the East Asian economies, that have potential to report a sustained high growth, coupled with high rate of technological progress and innovation are the fast growing countries - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS). These countries have indeed shown early signs of successfully leveraging technology. Together they accounted for about 17% of the global GDP in 2010. The high growth rate and the progress made by these countries in such high technology areas as ICT, pharmaceuticals, automobiles, and aerospace calls for a critical examination of the innovations and its structure in these countries.

Associate Professor, Administrative Staff College of India, Bella Vista, Raj Bhavan Road, Hyderabad 500082. Email: bagchinirmalya@gmail.com

ASCI Journal of Management 41(1) September 2011

This paper is an attempt at analyzing some of the critical factors that help in fostering innovation in BRICS countries. Following introduction in section 1, a brief review of literature is presented in section 2. Section 3 deals with research methodology adopted and datasets on which the analysis of the paper is based and a brief overview of innovations in BRICS is presented in section 4. A critical analysis of the various factors necessary for innovation in BRICS countries is elaborated in section 5. Discussion and conclusions are presented in section 6. A brief review of literature The study of economics has always focused on income growth even during the early days of capitalism. Production of surplus and its reinvestment in the economy for accelerating the growth rate of surplus had intuitively been considered as the basic issue for income growth that brings about material well being, right from the time of the Physiocrats1. However, recent studies2 have given rise to a body of literature, which are sometimes clubbed together as the new growth theories (Romer, 1990; Lucas 1988). These studies indicate that human capital and technological progress3 (and innovations thereof) should be given adequate importance. Moreover, technological progress should also yield more innovations in a country for better growth or else the technical edge developed by one country may be used by another for its commercial exploitation. In his seminal works, Schumpeter (1938, 1939) has laid the foundation4 for the important role of innovation for economic growth and development.

1 The classical tradition developed from Adam Smith through Ricardo and John Stuart Mill, as also Karl Marx to some extent, had a deeper insight into the problem. In some way or other they dealt upon the relation between consumption, savings and investments while analyzing the sources of surplus and its recycling in the production process so that income growth leading to material prosperity is attained. Technological progress and the constraint of diminishing return on land coupled with the consumption behavior of the society has also been discussed at length while deliberating upon the issues related to growth and stagnation or the stationary state. The absence of balance between savings and investment, in as much as the forces of savings are independent of the forces behind investment decisions, has been pointed out as the problem in the short run by John Maynard Keynes and a plethora of literature in the area of macroeconomic theory has been developed out of it. The growth theory following the Keynesian reasoning as developed by Harrod and an alternative theory mainly based on (non Keynesian) argument as proposed by Solow then ruled the world of growth theory for a considerable time. Some other practitioners in the field had added the issue of technological progress that might cause a parametric shift in the production function to these theories. 2 The received wisdom in the theory of growth faced a serious challenge during 1970s and 1980s when it was proved by the growth experience of some of the newly industrialized countries that the basic assumption that capital and labor constitute the only building blocks of such theories should be reconsidered. Growth, as the experience suggested, does depend on savings and investments translated in terms of capital and labor; but there is an added factor, which has a powerful contribution to income growth. The conventional theories would hardly account for this factor and therefore they marginalized it as residual. 3

Gerschenkron (1962) was the first to study the linkage between growth, development and technological progress. He pointed out the difficulties and challenges of developing countries trying to catch up with developed countries, technologically.

Schumpeter (1938) identified a list of 5 types of innovation and his 2 volume thesis (Schumpeter, 1939) identified the positive role played by innovation in an economy.

Bagchi

Innovation in BRICS Countries

However, attaining technological progress for a developing country is not easy. It requires sustained and focused efforts from government and non government entities. The East Asian economies and Japan are probably the only examples of countries that have focused on attaining high growth through technological progress and innovation and have successfully achieved it. The evidence from the East Asian economies (Wade, 1990; Kim, 1980, 1997) and Japan (Johnson, 1982) point to the conscious efforts made in those countries by various entities towards developing technology and innovation capability and thereby attaining high growth. Kim (1997) after analyzing the South Korean experience posited that technological progress, and the innovation thereof, was a moving target and a country needs to continuously keep up efforts to remain at the cutting edge. Technological capability, he opines, is not attained just by achieving an edge in R&D but in the application of R&D and its commercial exploitation. Lall (1992) stresses the need for national technological capability, financial strength, higher education, managerial capability, foreign technology acquisition for achieving high growth through technological progress. A more comprehensive approach of a national innovation system was first conceptualized by Freeman (1987) and later the concept has been refined (Freeman, 1995; Lundvall, 1988, 1992; Nelson, 1993; and Edquist, 1997). Many countries have a formal policy towards their national innovation system and make continuous efforts in improving the innovation capacity. (SuarezVilla, 1990; Griliches 1990; Trajtenberg, 1990). Even when all stakeholders are making efforts to improve the technological and innovative capacity of countries, one needs to continuously measure and monitor the effects of such interventions. The key to understanding the effectiveness of innovation improving interventions is in identifying what to measure. The problems of measuring innovation capacity and assessing national innovation systems have been dealt with by many scholars (Kravchenko, 2011; Lundvall, 2007; Zhu, 2003; Freeman 2009) and there is no unanimity on a single set of metrics for measuring innovation capacity. Aubert (2006) developed a set of 17 indicators for measuring the effectiveness of a countrys innovation capacity. OECD (2005, 2006) also lays down the broad criteria for measuring the innovation maturity of a country. Even though some models and measures are available for developed countries, they are prone to errors when measuring innovation in developing countries. Moreover, innovation is a non linear process. Finding direct relationships between input factors and output factors for innovation is a delicate task. Articles in popular global press (The Economist, 2010; The New York Times, 2007) and a plethora of evidence based analysis and reports (Baskaran 2010; Ayyagari, 2006; Hu, 2008; UNESCO 2010, WIPO 2011) give an interesting account of innovations happening in emerging markets. Understandably, there is a lot of interest in innovations in emerging markets, but not much has been done in analyzing it, though with a few exceptions. (Intarakumnerd ; Choi, 2011; Tiwari, 2011; Tseng 2009). Even less is known about the innovations from BRICS countries and their comparative performance in building innovation capacity. However, the increasing importance of both India and China in the field of R&D (King, 2004) is acknowledged in many circles. In terms of FDI in R&D (UNCTAD, 2005), some of the BRICS countries perform well. Comparative performance of BRICS countries both in terms of input and output factors of innovation is long overdue. This paper is an attempt to understand the performance of BRICS countries in building innovation capacity.

ASCI Journal of Management 41(1) September 2011

Methodology The objective of this paper is to analyze (inter country comparison) some of the factors for improving innovation in BRICS countries. The factors that are critically analyzed are the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Total expenditure on R&D, Business expenditure on R&D, High-Tech exports, Total R&D personnel in business enterprise Total R&D personnel nationwide, Scientific Articles (Scientific articles published by origin of author), Number of patent applications filed for residents and non residents, Number of patents granted to residents, Total public expenditure on education per capita.

Factors 1, 2, 4, 5 and 9 may be considered as input factors and the rest (3, 6, 7 and 8) as out put factors. The factors of innovation in a (BRICS) country are each analyzed after aggregating data into three time period. The first period is from 1995 to 2002, which represents a period of stability and low fluctuations for BRICS countries in which there is not much inter country difference in either the GDP or in other variables that influence innovation. This period is being referred to as pre high growth phase. The second period is from 2003 to 2007, which represents a period before the financial crisis in which the BRICS countries show an almost exponential growth in many variables that influence innovation. This is defined as the high growth phase in this paper and represents the most fruitful period in terms of the indicators for innovation in BRICS countries. The last period is 20082009, which represents the post financial crisis period. We are keen to understand the influence of the recent financial crisis on factors of innovation in BRICS. This despite the fact that we can only get possible early, trends in the two years after the crisis. Each factor is analyzed in aggregate form for the three time periods with inter BRICS country comparisons so that we may get some insight into the innovation trajectories of these countries. Dataset The entire dataset for the paper has been drawn from the following sources; 1. IMD Competitiveness Online (19952010) 2. WIPO Statistics 3. UNCTAD, FDI/TNC database (www.unctad.org/fdistatistics). 4. NASDAQ database (www.nasdaq.com) Innovation in BRICS BRICS countries represent high growth economies which are showing similar trend of progress despite spreading across four different continents. Together they accounted for about 17 percent of the worlds GDP in 2010 (see figure 1) BRICS as a block has also been active in international negotiations at different fora, from climate change to WTO, and have acquired clout with other developing countries through trade ties. High growth of these countries even when the rest of the world is reeling in the global financial crisis is also a pointer to the inherent strengths of

Bagchi

Innovation in BRICS Countries

these economies. For example, during and after the global financial crisis, both China and India keptup nearly double digits growth rates. Brazil is also showing a similar trend. Figure 1: Percentage share of world GDP in market prices in 2010 - BRICS and Rest of the World

Source: IMD World Competitiveness Online 19952011 Figure 2, shows the pattern of the movement of GDP from 1995 to 2010. It is evident that all the BRICS countries show an upward yoy trend in their GDP values. Even the GDP (PPP) also show a significant upward trend. All the BRICS countries are showing a robust upward trend in their GDP and given that the rest of the world is reeling from the aftershocks of the global financial crisis. The growth of the BRICS countries should be juxtaposed with the crisis that is still affecting large parts of the developed world (like the Euro zone crisis), to get a real picture of the resilience of these economies. They have big domestic markets; follow policies that promote liberalization; attract huge amounts of FDI; have a fairly developed domestic R&D sector with sufficient technical manpower; and are not dependent only on commodity cycles for growth. In short, they may blossom into developed countries in a few decades if the trends continue. Figure 2: GDP in US Dollar Billions of BRICS countries from 19952010

Source: IMD Competitiveness Online (19952010)

ASCI Journal of Management 41(1) September 2011

BRICS countries are not only growing fast but are also growing on the strength of their technological and innovation prowess. As figure 3 depicts, most of the BRICS countries have a healthy high technology export as a percentage of total manufactured goods exports, which, in the case of China is very high, touching the 30% mark. This clearly indicates that not only are the BRICS countries growing fast but they are growing on the strength of their technological prowess. Figure 3: High technology exports as a percentage of total exports

Source: IMD Competitiveness Online (19952010) BRICS countries are also showing early signs of innovation driven growth (UNESCO, 2010). These countries have been successful in a lot of high technology and innovation driven industries like commercial aviation (Brazil), fighter aircraft (China, India, Russia), ICT (India), composites (India, Russia, China), sustainable technologies (Brazil), electronics and semiconductor devices (China), speciality chemicals (China, India), and automobiles (China, India, South Africa). Of the top 50 PCT applicants in the business organizations category, two were from BRICS (WIPO, 2011); Huawei and ZTE. Some of the notable innovations from the BRICS countries are automobiles (like the small passenger car Nano) from Tata Motors in India, Embraer ERJ 190 a commercial jet aircraft from Embraer-Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica, Brazil, the ICT service companies of India, notably Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services, Wipro, Mahindra Satyam, generic drug companies in India who implement process innovation, military aircraft companies in Russia like Mikoyan (formerly Mikoyan-and-Gurevich Design Bureau), Sukhoi Company (JSC), Yak Aircraft Corporation (formerly A.S. Yakovlev Design Bureau JSC), Ilyushin Design Bureau, telecom electronics devices from the telecom companies like Huawei and ZTE in China, IT companies like Baidu in China and speciality chemical companies in China. The BRICS countries also have a large number of companies listed in global stock markets like NASDAQ which mostly lists new economy companies. In fact, the BRICS countries together have 214 listed companies in NASDAQ with a combined market capitalization US $ 237 billion.

Bagchi

Innovation in BRICS Countries

Table 1: Number, market capitalization and major industry sectors of NASDAQ listed companies from BRICS countries.
Country Number of NASDAQ listed companies 21 11 173 Market capitalization of the NASDAQ listed companies in August 2011 (in US $ billion) 104 40 78 Listed companies mainly from the industry sector

Brazil Russia India China

Oil and Gas, Telecom, Aerospace, Banking Telecom, Pharmaceuticals, EDP, Banking Software, Pharmaceuticals, Telecom, Semiconductor, Business Services, Aerospace, Automobile, EDP, Banking, Oil and Gas, Construction Precious Metals, Oil and Gas

South Africa

17

Source: NASDAQ database http://www.nasdaq.com Level and quality of education in BRICS countries is also fairly good. India has consistently been a major contributor in science papers from the early 70s, while Russia is well known and recognized for its quality of technical education. Brazil is also well recognized as a country that produces good quality science professionals. In recent decades, China has made special efforts to improve its standing in developing high quality scientific and technical talent in the country and the output factors like scientific papers and patents indicate that it has been successful in its endeavor. The figure 4 below shows the percentage of total first university degrees in science and engineering in BRICS countries from 1997 to 2008. Figure 4: Percentage of total first university degrees in science and engineering in BRICS from 19972008

Source: IMD Competitiveness Online (19952010)

ASCI Journal of Management 41(1) September 2011

At least two of the BRICS countries have a very impressive 25% of the population that has attained at least tertiary education (for people between 24 and 35 years of age). The values for Brazil and India are just above 10% in the last few years. This points to a large pool of qualified and trained manpower who can be then moulded for innovation. Figure 5: Percentage of population that has attained at least tertiary education (25-34 years age group) in BRICS countries.

Source: IMD Competitiveness Online (19952010) Thus, we can see that BRICS countries have all the right ingredients for innovation driven growth. Even though there may be intra BRICS differences within factors of innovation, it can be safely said that these countries are already showing signs of attaining that goal. However, the pace at which each BRICS country will attain innovation driven development and growth will be different. China is much ahead of the rest of the pack and South Africa seems to be lagging behind. India, Russia and Brazil seem to be in the same orbit and are likely to show similar progress even though the domains in which they excel would different. Also the median age of Indian population is 25.5 years, which will work to its advantage in the years to come. Russia on the other hand is an aging population. In per capita measures like total R&D personnel in business per capita or patent applications per capita, BRICS countries fare well (figure 6 and figure 7). However, BRICS do not post uniform results and there is some inter country differences.

Bagchi

Innovation in BRICS Countries

Figure 6: Total R&D personnel in business per capita in FTE per 100 people

Figure 7: Patent applications per capita Number of applications filed per 100,000 inhabitants

Analysis Now let us analyze some of the factors for fostering innovation in any country. We shall analyze the data in aggregate form in three time periods for total expenditure on R&D, business expenditure on R&D, high-technology exports, total R&D personnel in business enterprise (in

10

ASCI Journal of Management 41(1) September 2011

full-time equivalent thousands), total R&D personnel nationwide, scientific articles published by origin of author, number of patent applications filed for residents and non residents, number of patents granted to residents, and total public expenditure on education per capita (in US Dollar per capita). Pre High Growth Phase (19952002) In this phase, the BRICS countries show a stable rate of GDP growth. The table 2 given below lists the mean values (of each BRICS country) for each indicator in this phase. This phase is characterized by stable values for most indicators. Table 2: Means of indicators that foster innovation in the pre high growth phase
Mean of Mean of Total Business Expenditure Expenditure on R&D on R&D (in US Dollar (in US Dollar Millions) Millions) From from 19952002 19952002 Mean of Scientific articles published by origin of author from 19952002 Mean of Number of patents granted to residents from 19972002 Mean of Mean of Mean of Number of High Tech Total R&D applications Exports personnel in filed for (in US Dollar business residents Millions) enterprises and non from (in FTE residents 20002002 thousands) from from 20002002 19952002 16867.33 65196 10186.67 33245 4211.5 4638.34 42111.42 1498.15 3469.82 913.02 81.49 416.26 72.23 652.40 8.48 Mean of Mean of Total R&D Total public personnel expenditure nationwide on education (in FTE per capita thousands) in US Dollar from per capita 19952002 from 19952002 121.75 859.69 278.84 1041.98 21.33 143.3112 26.4368 15.54853 66.36507 198.4933

Brazil China Mainland India Russia South Africa

6167.76 8626.43 3177.12 3230.70 931.67

2238.01 4677.97 662.63 2292.35 499.84

6155.283 17424.98 10415.77 16854.87 2265.183

513.125 3259.333 539.4444 18895.83

Expenditure on R&D Two indicators fall in this category, total expenditure on R&D and business expenditure on R&D. Data is available for both indicators from 1995 to 2002 and the mean values are calculated for this period for both the indicators. In this phase China and India show an upward trend for total expenditure on R&D, while Brazil, and South Africa show a marginal decline and Russia shows a recovery after a decline in the late 90s. China shows a much greater rate of increase as it had head start ahead of others in 1995 (4175.34 US $ million) with a value lower than Brazil (US $ million 6285.40). In 2002 however, China was much ahead (more than four times) at US $ 84932.60 million while Brazil was at US $ 19531.58 million. During this period (on an average) the share of Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa to the total of BRICS for this indicator has been 28%, 39%, 14%, 15%, 04% respectively. In the case of business expenditure on R&D, India and South Africa fare very badly during this period and show a very marginal increase, while China already shows an exponential increase. Brazil is showing an upward movement while Russia decline, in the late 90s and then recovers in the early 2000s. During this period (on an average) the share of Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa to the total of BRICS for this indicator has been 22%, 45%, 06%, 22%, 05% respectively. From US $ 1823.64 million in 1995, China increases business expenditure on R&D to US $ 9517.94 million in 2002; an increase of 421%, while the increase for Brazil and India is only 77% and 56% respectively.

Bagchi

Innovation in BRICS Countries

11

R&D Personnel Two indicators fall in this category, total R&D personnel in business enterprises (000 FTE) and total R&D personnel nationwide (FTE 000). Data is available for both indicators from 1995 to 2002 and the mean is calculated for this period for both the indicators. The total R&D personnel in business enterprises in Full-Time equivalents (in FTE 000) for the period 19952002 shows that China posts a rapid increase in this period and Russia posts a rapid decline. India, Brazil post similar values and remain almost flat for the entire period, while South Africa posts a marginal increase. Again the growth posted by China in this indictor mirrors the other indicators for the country. In fact, in 1995 China had 317.5 (in FTE thousands) total R&D personnel in business enterprises and in 2002 that number goes up to 601.3. Expenditure on Education per capita The expenditure on education per capita from 1995 to 2002 shows a decline for Brazil and South Africa and a robust increase by Russia. China and India also show modest increase. A big gap exists between the groups Brazil-South Africa-Russia and India-China. China in this indicator does not show an exponential increase in spending. During this period (on an average) the share of Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa to the total of BRICS for this indicator has been 32%, 06%, 03%, 15%, 44% respectively. Patents Two indicators fall in this category, number of patents granted to residents (data available from 19972002) and number of applications filed for residents and non residents (data available from 20002002). Mean is calculated for both indicators for the period that data is available. Number of applications filed for residents and non residents show an upward trend for China. The rest of the BRICS countries post results with neither an increase nor decrease. Also, China is at a much higher level than the rest. During this period (on an average) the share of Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa to the total of BRICS for this indicator has been 13%, 50%, 08%, 26%, 03% respectively. With regard to number of patents granted to residents, Russia posts values that are mush higher than the rest of the BRICS countries, but shows a decline, while China shows an increasing trend. Brazil and India post similar results. For this indicator, China goes up from 1531 in 1997 to 5813 in 2002, and Russia comes down from 25616 in 1997 to 14454.33 in 2002. During this period (on an average) the share of Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa to the total of BRICS for this indicator has been 02%, 14%, 02%, 81%, 0% respectively. Scientific Articles All BRICS countries with the exception of Russia show an increasing trend in terms of scientific articles published by origin of author. China is of course showing a rapid growth in this indicator while Brazil, India and South Africa are showing a stable rate of modest growth in the number of articles. During this period (on an average) the share of Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa to the total of BRICS for this indicator has been 12%, 33%, 20%, 32%, 04% respectively.

12

ASCI Journal of Management 41(1) September 2011

High Tech Exports High Tech Exports (in US $ Million) is one indicator in which the difference between China and the rest of the BRICS countries is very evident. China posts values of 24195.41 in 1998 for this indicator and in 2002 posts a value of 68181.62. The nearest BRICS country to China in 1998 is Brazil which posts a value of 2544.22 and 5350.79 in 2002. So China is several times ahead of the others on this indicator. However, we must also admit that not all high technology exports maybe innovative. Figure 8: Share (Ratio of means) of the BRICS countries as per the 9 indicators in the pre high growth phase

High Growth Phase (20032007) This period is characterized by high growth in GDP in the BRICS countries and in high growth of the indicators that foster innovation. Chinas share amongst BRICS increases in this period enormously. This is also the period immediately before the global financial crisis. Most emerging markets including BRICS countries performed very well in this period.

Bagchi

Innovation in BRICS Countries

13

Table 3: Means of indicators that foster innovation in the high growth phase
Mean of Mean of Total Business Expenditure Expenditure on R&D on R&D (in US Dollar (in US Dollar Millions) Millions) (2003 (2003 2007) 2007) Brazil 9078.94 (0.16) 31737.87 (0.54) 6388.52 (0.11) 9125.02 (0.16) 2100.60 (0.04) 4360.009 (0.12) 21985.52 (0.62) 1740.437 (0.05) 6086.296 (0.17) 1076.314 (0.03) Mean of Mean of 19972002 Number of Scientific patent articles applications published filed for by residents and origin of non residents author 2003-2007 10096.82 (0.12) 42319.5 (0.50) 15080.04 (0.18) 14400.96 (0.17) 2473.4 (0.03) 20576 (0.08) 172938 (0.67) 23748.4 (0.09) 34888.6 (0.13) 7450.4 (0.03) Mean of Number of patents granted to resident 2003 2007 Mean of Mean of High Tech Total R&D Exports personnel in (in US Dollar business Millions) enterprises from (in FTE (2003 thousands) 2007) (20032007) 7212.43 (0.03) 218313.67 (0.93) 3445.35 (0.01) 4529.54 (0.02) 1516.73 (0.01) 77.07 (0.05) 882.13 (0.55) 87.25 (0.05) 541.52 (0.34) 11.54 (0.01) Mean of Mean of Total R&D Total public personnel expenditure nationwide on education (in FTE per capita thousands) in US Dollar (2003 per capita 2007) 20032007 244.16 (0.08) 1370.17 (0.46) 391.15 (0.13) 934.69 (0.31) 29.13 (0.01) 226.8233 (0.29) 45.65232 (0.06) 22.28471 (0.03) 216.768 (0.27) 280.4863 (0.35)

245 (0.01) 16685.33 (0.46) 905.3333 (0.02) 18555.93 (0.51)

China Mainland India

Russia

South Africa

Expenditure on R&D The total expenditure on R&D indicator shows an exponential increase in the case of China and a rapid pace of increase for Brazil and Russia with India close behind. South Africa also shows an upward trend. During this period (on an average) the share of Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa to the total of BRICS for this indicator has been 16%, 54%, 11%, 16%, 04% respectively. Business expenditure on R&D also shows robust growth for all BRICS countries, but China shows an exponential growth followed by Russia, Brazil, India and South Africa. During this period (on an average) the share of Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa to the total of BRICS for this indicator has been 12%, 62%, 05%, 17%, 03% respectively. R&D Personnel Total R&D personnel in business enterprise for China is growing exponentially in this period but for Russia, the trend is downward, Brazil, India and South Africa show no growth in expenditure. Chinas increase in expenditure is very high. It rises from 656.1 FTE thousands in 2003 to 1186.75 FTE thousands in 2007, while for Russia, it reduces from 592.63 in 2003 to 507.42 in 2007. During this period (on an average) the share of Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa to the total of BRICS for this indicator has been 05%, 55%, 05%, 34%, 01% respectively. Total R&D personnel nationwide tell a similar tale. China posts exponential growth in this indicator while Russia shows a decline. Brazil, India and South Africa show marginal increase. During this period (on an average) the share of Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa to the total of BRICS for this indicator has been 08%, 46%, 13%, 31%, 01% respectively. Expenditure on Education per capita The total public expenditure on education per capita for this period shows a somewhat different pattern than the other indicators. South Africa, Brazil and Russia post exponential growth on

14

ASCI Journal of Management 41(1) September 2011

this indicator, while China and India fall far behind. During this period (on an average) the share of Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa to the total of BRICS for this indicator has been 29%, 06%, 03%, 27%, 35% respectively. However, one must point out that the per capita value for India and China are low due to their huge population and in absolute terms the difference may not be as glaring. Patents Number of patents granted to residents in this period is showing exponential growth for China and is showing a decline for Russia. Brazil, and India show only very marginal growth in numbers. During this period (on an average) the share of Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa to the total of BRICS for this indicator has been 01%, 46%, 02%, 51%, 0% respectively. In the indicator, number of patent applications filed for residents and non residents, again China is far ahead of the rest of the BRICS countries. While in 2007, China show a number of 245161, Brazil reports only 21825. During this period (on an average) the share of Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa to the total of BRICS for this indicator has been 08%, 67%, 09%, 13%, 03% respectively. Scientific Articles In scientific articles published by origin of author, China shows an upward trend along with India and Brazil. Russia shows a decline and South Africa shows no growth. During this period (on an average) the share of Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa to the total of BRICS for this indicator has been 12%, 50%, 18%, 17%, 03% respectively. High Tech Exports High technology exports show exponential growth for China. Even though the rest of the BRICS countries also post modest growth figures, they pale in comparison to China. The share of China amongst other BRICS countries is about 93%. During this period (on an average) the share of Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa to the total of BRICS for this indicator has been 03%, 93%, 01%, 02%, 01% respectively.

Bagchi

Innovation in BRICS Countries

15

Figure 9: Share (Ratio of means) of the BRICS countries as per the 9 indicators in the high growth phase

Post Financial Crisis Period (20082009) This represents the post global financial crisis period, in which several economies have been though a downturn. Developed countries like the US and most parts of Europe show signs of recession and the tremors of this crisis continue to rattle the emerging markets, BRICS no exception.

16

ASCI Journal of Management 41(1) September 2011

Table 4: Means of different indicators that foster innovation in the post financial crisis period
Mean of Mean of Total Business Expenditure Expenditure on R&D on R&D (in US Dollar (in US Dollar Millions) Millions) (2008 (2008 2009) 2009) Brazil China Mainland India Russia South Africa 19013.42 (0.15) 75681.36 (0.61) 10136.29 (0.08) 16325.76 (0.13) 2546.96 (0.02) 9038.272 (0.11) 55429.53 (0.70) 3040.888 (0.04) 10230.14 (0.13) 1377.569 (0.02) 21135.67 (0.337) Mean of Scientific articles published by origin of author 20082009 Mean of Number of patents granted to residents 2008 2009 233.50 (0.004) 41256.33 (0.659) Mean of Number of applications filed for residents and non residents 20082009 Mean of High Tech Exports (in US Dollar Millions) (2008 2009) 9443.74 (0.02) 364819.61 (0.94) 8320.36 (0.02) 4841.44 (0.01) 1714.50 (0.00) Mean of Total R&D personnel in business enterprise (in FTE thousands) (20082009) 79.35 (0.04) 1521.45 (0.74) 466.13 (0.23) 859.357 (0.31) 31.077 (0.01) Mean of Mean of Total R&D Total public personnel expenditure nationwide on education (in FTE per capita thousands) in US Dollar (2008 per capita 2009) 20082009 397.72 (0.08) 2128.2 (0.46) 410.8772 (0.31) 116.4136 (0.09) 37.1652 (0.03) 441.2807 (0.33) 326.2912 (0.24)

302205.5 (0.78) 36812 (0.09) 40206.5 (0.10) 10191 (0.03)

Expenditure on R&D Two indicators fall in this category, total expenditure on R&D (in US Dollar Millions) and business expenditure on R&D (in US Dollar Millions). Data is available for both indicators from 2008 to 2009 and the mean is calculated for this period for both the indicators. Total expenditure on R&D for China continues to increase exponentially flowed by Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa. The signs of any effect of the financial crisis are not evident from the expenditures of the BRICS countries. During this period (on an average) the share of Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa to the total of BRICS for this indicator has been 15%, 61%, 08%, 13%, 02% respectively. Business expenditure on R&D is increasing for China in this period but shows a dip in the case of Brazil and Russia. During this period (on an average) the share of Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa to the total of BRICS for this indicator has been 11%, 70%, 04%, 13%, 02% respectively. Some dip is noticed in this indicator that may be attributed to the global financial crisis. R&D Personnel Two indicators fall in this category, total R&D personnel in business enterprises (in FTE thousands) and total R&D personnel nationwide (in FTE thousands). Data is available for both indicators from 2008 to 2009 and the mean is calculated for this period for both the indicators. China shows no sign any slowdown and continues to post upward trend in total R&D personnel in business enterprise. Russia, and Brazil show a dip in this indicator for this period which may be attributed to the financial crisis. During this period (on an average) the share of Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa to the total of BRICS for this indicator has been 04%, 74%, 0%, 23%, 0% respectively. The case of total R&D personnel nationwide is similar with China showing increasing trend and the rest showing a dip. During this period (on an average) the share of Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa to the total of BRICS for this indicator has been 08%, 46%, 0%, 31%, 01% respectively.

Bagchi

Innovation in BRICS Countries

17

Expenditure on Education per capita China and India continue to increase their spending on education without any indication of a dip brought about by the events of the financial crisis, but the other 3 countries that were having very high values in this indicator show dips. Thus total public expenditure on education per capita shows some effect of the financial crisis. During this period (on an average) the share of Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa to the total of BRICS for this indicator has been 31%, 09%, 03%, 33%, 24% respectively. Patents Patents granted to residents show increasing trend for China and a decline for Russia. During this period (on an average) the share of Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa to the total of BRICS for this indicator has been 004%, 65%, 0%, 33%, 0% respectively. Number of patent applications filed for residents and non residents in the case of China is showing an increasing trend and China is way ahead of the rest of the BRICS countries. During this period (on an average) the share of Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa to the total of BRICS for this indicator has been 0%, 78%, 09%, 10%, 03% respectively. Scientific Articles Sufficient data is not available for this period. High Tech Exports China again plays a dominant role in this indicator in this time period. During this period (on an average) the share of Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa to the total of BRICS for this indicator has been 02%, 94%, 02%, 01%, 0% respectively. China is way ahead of the others in this indicator and is unaffected by the global financial crisis.

18

ASCI Journal of Management 41(1) September 2011

Figure 10: Share of the BRICS countries as per the 9 indicators in the pre high growth phase Ratio of means amongst BRICS for different indicators-post financial cricis

Discussion and Conclusion The analysis of the data from 1995 to 2009 shows certain trends. China is increasing its spending on input indicators of innovation like expenditure on R&D, increasing manpower for R&D, and also pushing for improvements in output indicators of innovation like patent related indicators, high tech exports or scientific articles. In all the indicators that have been analyzed, China plays a dominant role. Over the three periods under study, it consistently shows improvements in all indicators. Russia on the other hand continues to decline on some key indicators. India and Brazil are slowly and steadily improving their innovation indicators. India and China are also not showing any sign of getting affected by the financial crisis, where as, some dip is noticeable in the case of Brazil, Russia and South Africa.

References Aubert, J. E. 2006. Innovation systems in emerging and developing economies, (in Measuring Innovation in OECD and non-OECD Countries: Selected Seminar Papers. edited by W. Blankley, et al. HSRC Press, Cape Town, S.A.) 2142. Ayyagari, M., et al. 2006. Firm Innovation in Emerging Markets: Role of Governance and Finance. World Bank, Washington, D.C. Available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ INTINVTCLI/Resources/MicroeconomicsofGrowthPAPERbyDemirguc-Kunt.pdf

Bagchi

Innovation in BRICS Countries

19

Baskaran, A., and M. Muchie. 2010 . Can the Relative Strength of the National Systems of Innovation Mitigate the Severity of the Global Recession on the BRICS?, Institute for Economic Research on Innovation, Tshwane University of Technology, Pretoria. SA. Choi, S. B., S. H. Lee, and C. Williams. 2011. Ownership and firm innovation in a transition economy: Evidence from China. Research Policy, 40(3), 441-452 Edquist, C. (Ed). 1997. Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organisations, Pinter, London. Freeman, C. 1982 .Technological infrastructure and international competitiveness, Draft paper submitted to the OECD Ad hoc-group on Science, Technology and Competitiveness. (mimeo) Available at http://redesist.ie.ufrj.br/globelics/pdfs/GLOBELICS_0079_Freeman.pdf Freeman, C. 1987. Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan. Pinter, London Freeman, C. 1995. The National Innovation Systems in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1), 5-24. Freeman, C., and L. Soete. 2009. Developing science, technology and innovation indicators: What we can learn from the past, Research Policy, 38(4), 583-589 Gerschenkron, A. 1962. Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA. Griliches, Z, 1990. Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 28(4), 1661-1707. Hu, M.C., and J. A. Mathews. 2008. Chinas national innovative capacity. Research Policy,37, 14651479. Intarakumnerd, P. and C. Chaminade. 2007. Strategy versus Practice in Innovation System Policy: the Case of Thailand. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 15(2), 197-213. Johnson, C.A. 1982. MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth Of Industrial Policy, 1925 1975, Stanford University Press, Stanford. Kim, L. 1980. Stages of development of industrial technology in a developing country: a model. Research Policy, 9(3), 254277. Kim, L.1997. Imitation to Innovation: The Dynamics of Koreas Technological Learning. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. King, D.A. 2004.The scientific impact of nations; What different countries get for their research spending. Nature, 430, 311-316 Kravchenko, N. A. 2011. The problem of measuring and assessing national innovation systems. Problems of Economic Transition, 53(9), 6173. Lall, S. 1992. Technological capabilities and industrialization. World Development, 20, 165 186. Lucas, R. E. 1988. On the Mechanics of Economic Development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22, 3-42.

20

ASCI Journal of Management 41(1) September 2011

Lundvall, B. A. 1988. Innovations as in Interactive Process: From User-Producer Interaction to the National System of Innovation (in Technical Change and Economic Theory, edited by G. Dosi . London, Printer) Lundvall, B. A. (Ed). 1992. National Systems of Innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Pinter, London. Nelson, R.R. 1993. National Innovation Systems: a Comparative Analysis. Oxford University Press, New York. Romer, P.M. 1990. Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98 (5 ) 71102. Schumpeter, J.A. 1938. The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Schumpeter, J.A. 1939. Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process, Vols. I & II. McGraw-Hill, New York. Suarez-Villa, L. 1990. Invention, Inventive Learning and Innovative Capacity. Behavioral Science, 35(4), 290-310 The Economist. 2010. The world turned upside down, The Economist, 15 April. Zachary, G. P. 2007. When it comes to innovation, geography is destiny, The New York Times, 11 Feb. Tiwari, R., and C. Herstatt. 2011 . Lead Market Factors for Global Innovation: Emerging Evidence from India. Avaialble at http://www.global-innovation.net/publications/PDF/ Working_Paper_61.pdf Trajtenberg, M. 1990. Product Innovations, Price Indices and the (Mis)Measurement of Economic Performance, NBER Working Papers 3261, National Bureau of Economic Research, Washington, D.C. Tseng, C. Y. 2009. Technological innovation in the BRIC economies. Industrial Research Institute Inc. 0895-6308/09 UNCTAD. 2005. World Investment Report: Transnational Corporations and the Internationalization of R&D. United Nations, New York. UNESCO. 2010. UNESCO Science Report: The current status of science around the world, UNESCO, Paris. Wade, R. 1990. Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization. Princeton University Press, Princeton. WIPO. 2011. The International Patent System PCT Yearly Review: Developments and Performance in 2010. Available at http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/activity/pct_2010.pdf OECD. 2005. Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data (3rd Ed.). OECD, Paris. OECD. 2006. OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: Switzerland. OECD, Paris.

Você também pode gostar