Comparng between OECD Member Countres Based on S&T Capacty Lee Seung Ryong 1+ and Jun Seung Su 2 1 Technology Foresght Dvson Offce of Future Strategy, Korea Insttute of S&T Evaluaton and Plannng 2 S&T Polcy Plannng Dvson, Korea Insttute of S&T Evaluaton and Plannng Abstract. As scence & technology(s&t) has become a source of global compettveness n knowledgebased economy, the level of S&T capacty determnes a naton s compettve power. Countres therefore have been enhancng nvestment and poltcal supports to strengthen S&T capacty. Most of all, accurate analyss and assessment of the level of naton s S&T ablty of natons s needed to make effectve polcy measures. On the bass of the framework of the NIS(Natonal System), ths paper suggests ndexes to cover the entre cycle of S&T nnovaton. And t creates models to measure S&T capacty comprehensvely, and tres to apprase 30 OECD members. And to conclude, n COSTII Score of Indvdual Natons, the Unted States took the frst place by scorng 18.873 (out of 31) and was followed by Swtzerland, Japan, and Iceland. Meanwhle, Korea ranked 10th wth 11.019 ponts Keywords: S&T, OECD, Capacty, 1. Introducton Today S&T s a man source of natonal compettve power, specally n knowledge based economy. The necessty for an accurate dagnoss and evaluaton of scence and technology nnovaton capacty has prevously been emphaszed. So, for the mprovement of a natonal S&T capablty, need to evaluate a present level of S&T accurately. S&T ndcators are quanttatve knowledge about the parameters of scentfc, technologcal and nnovaton actvty, at nsttutonal, dscplnary, sectoral, regonal, natonal or plur-natonal levels (Barré, R. 1997). They can be used n varety of ways from decson makng to research and analyss. Governments track ther S&T resources and actvtes, assess how far these actvtes are meetng ther goals, and predct future trends and needs for fnance and human resource development. If ndcators are derved on a systematc bass and accordng to accepted defntons, S&T ndcators can be used to compare nvestments and performance between countres. As we know, there are some surveys for nspect a natonal compettveness, such as IMD, WEF and OECD STI. But they have a lmtaton of these evaluaton methods. In IMD report, S&T s regarded as nfrastructure of nternal enterprse s compettveness. And t has No based model, No composte ndex. In case of OECD STI, t has dffculty n overall comparson of nnovaton capabltes levels among natons and R&D nput & outcome s too centered on the prvate sector So, we have tred to develop the COSTII(Composte Scence and Technology Index) to overcome those lmtatons and to evaluate a naton s capablty of S&T compostely by the medum of ratonal model, Based on Natonal System model. COSTII s an ndcator developed by Korea to look nto the nnovaton capacty of 30 OECD members. It s created n order to obtan S&T nformaton far beyond merely statstcal numbers. Unlke smple statstcal data that outlay all related S&T nformaton, COSTII gathers nnovaton-related S&T statstcs and renterpret them n order to compare wth those from other countres. There are fve dmensons for COSTII - resources, actvtes, network, envronment, and performance - whch are further categorzed nto human resources, organzaton, R&D nvestment, nternatonal cooperaton, etc. 31 ndvdual ndcators comprse these dmensons, and the mean data for each dmenson are rescaled to produce comparable nternatonal rankngs. + Lee Seung Ryong. Tel: +82-2-589-2194, Fax: +82-2-589-2820 E-mal address: leesr7376@gmal.com 19
2. Method In, Natonal Innovatve Capacty s defned as the ablty of a country to produce and commercalze a flow of nnovatve technology over the long term (Porter & Scott Stern, 1999) Scence and technology capacty s defned for the purpose of ths exercse as the ablty of a country to absorb and retan specalzed knowledge and to explot t to conduct research, meet needs and develop effcent products and processes (Wagner, Carolne S., et al.). The ablty to use specalzed knowledge emerges from nteractons of nsttutons and people, responds to publc mssons, and reles upon nfrastructure. These bases can be represented by ndcators, and t s possble to measure S&T capacty from a broad perspectve of overlappng ndcators representng drect and ndrect measures. Whle t s possble to lst countres merely by the percentage of nvestment n research and development (GERD), or by scentfc papers or patents, whch are drect measures of the outcomes of S&T, many countres would not be represented n such a lst. These drect measures would provde lttle nsght nto the potental development of one country f t conducts varous S&T actvtes, collaborates wth other natons, or even uses exstng resources to buld addtonal capacty. In ths paper we defnes Scence and Technology Capablty as a naton s capablty to produce outcomes that are of economc and socal value at the fnal stage through nnovaton and mprovement n the feld of S&T, just lke OECD defnton. And our goal s to evaluate scence and technology nnovaton capacty by developng a model and ndcators that can gve comprehensve dagnoss and later, dentfes strengths and weaknesses to propose polcy to mprove scence and technology nnovaton capacty. Evaluated Natons featured 30 member countres of the OECD(Organzaton for Economc Cooperaton and Development). Although OECD now has 34 member countres, new members were excluded n COSTII due to low data avalablty. Informaton of addtonal members s expected to be reflected when relevant data can be collected. Evaluaton Model based on the framework of the Natonal System (NIS), the nnovatve process conssts of fve dmensons of nnovaton: resources, actvtes, network, envronment, and performance. Resource, Actvtes, Network, Envronment are n Input feld, Performance s n Output. An arrow means that those 5 areas exchange an nfluence each other systematcally The Concept of NIS s the elements and relatonshps whch nteract n the producton, dffuson and use of new, and economcally useful, knowledge... And are ether located wthn or rooted nsde the borders of a naton State (Lundvall, 1992) On the bass of the framework of Natonal System (NIS), the evaluaton of scence & technology nnovaton capacty conssts of comprehensve revew of the overall process of nnovaton, from nput and actvtes to performance. The process assumes a systematc approach that regards the actve nteracton between the dfferent elements as beng a decsve factor of natonal scence and technology nnovaton capacty. Fg.1. Evaluaton Model Then establsh a weghtng among 13 tems, through expert surveys whch based on fuzzy set theory. And Convert a rato of weghtng nto nteger numbers to allocate the number of ndcators to each tems. After Select 31 ndcators out of the frst selected 79 ndcators pool, allocate the number of ndcators by 20
accordng to the mportance of each tems. And Select the ndcators of each tems, wth a condtons as follows. area tems weghts # of ndcators resources(7) Human resources 0.79 3 organzaton 0.53 2 Knowledge resources 0.59 2 actvtes(7) Networks(5) envronment(6) outcomes(6) R&D nvestment 0.99 5 Start-up actvtes 0.60 2 Trple-helx cooperaton 0.60 2 Industral cooperaton 0.40 1 Internatonal cooperaton 0.50 2 support system 0.55 2 Physcal nfrastructure 0.55 2 culture 0.55 2 Knowledge creaton 0.80 3 Economc outcomes 0.80 3 Fg. 2. Structure of Evaluaton Indcators For the selecton of proper ndcators, the possblty of acqurng statstcal data s crtcal to compare OECD member country. Ratonale for model and upper-level, lke 5 areas and 13 tems and dstncton from other ndcators s mportant, too. If the ndcators that possess hgh statstcal relevance, the ndcator expert commttee selects most plausble and representatve one. Then we draw 5 elements, 13 tems, 31 ndcators. It has 26 quanttatve, 5 qualtatve ndcators Resource Indcator shows how much basc resources nnovaton enttes can utlze for scence and technology nnovaton. And t conssts of human resources, nnovaton organzaton, and knowledge resources, such as researchers, top 100 unverstes and paper and patent stock. Actvtes Indcator dentfes nnovaton enttes' actvtes of creatng and utlzng new knowledge, and volton for nnovaton actvtes. It measures each entty's nnovaton actvtes accordng to the scale and dstrbuton of materal resources, such as R&D nvestment, the level of R&D actvtes, and start-up actvtes Network Indcator shows the network among nnovaton enttes and cooperaton through the network, such as flow of knowledge and technology dffuson, wthn the nnovaton system. So t dentfes the status of cooperaton among ndustry academa research nsttutes, major players of domestc research and development, and nternatonal cooperaton Envronment Indcator shows whether nfrastructure s duly establshed for effcent nnovaton actvtes. envronment s composed of varous systems that support or facltate nnovaton actvtes, nnovaton culture, and physcal nfrastructure, such as Tax advantage, protecton of ntellectual property rght, broadband subscrber. Outcome Indcator measures concrete outcomes of nnovaton actvtes. nnovaton performance can dvded nto knowledge creaton and economc outcome. Knowledge creaton s composed of ndcators related wth papers and patents. And economc outcome comprsed of creaton of added value, and mprovement of trade balance. 21
In stepss of collectng the data, most data are from nternatonal statstcal ndcators, for comparablty wth other countres. For the quanttatve ndcators, datas get from OECD MSTI, OECD scoreboard, USPTO, Thomson ISI, Global Entrepreneurshp Montor, and World bank. And for qualtatve data, use IMD compettveness yearbook and WEF global compettveness report The collected data are then re-scaled for standardzaton. The methodology s, for each country s ndcator, the maxmumm data s desgnated 1, whle the mnmum data s 0. Re-scaled standard value s, * To revse the mssng value, f any, replaced t by the mean value of all ndcators wthn the same dmenson. In orderr to produce COSTII value, t s needed to calculate the standard value of 5 tems. Items value s draw through combnng a standard value of ndcators whchh are belongng to each tems In ths formula, weght of each ndcators s equal CI = wx Fnally, COSTII s calculated by combnng fve tems values from each dmenson Ths methodology s appled to 30 OECD members, wth values lyng between 0 and 31. 3. Result and Concluson n 1 CI = tems ndex X : standard value of ndcators w = 1 5 COSTII = CI CI = tems ndex 1 In COSTII Score of Indvdual Natons, the Unted States took the frst place by scorng 18.873 (out of 31) and was followed by Swtzerland (14.146), Japan (14.133), and Iceland (13.093). Meanwhle, Korea ranked 10th wth 11.019 ponts. Fg. 3. COSTII Score of 30 OECD Member Natons Puttng Unted States, the best performer, at 100.0%, the relatve level of Swtzerland, the runner-up, s around 75.0% whle South Korea stands at around 58.4%. 22
Fg. 4. Relatve Level of 30 OECD Natons (Unted States = 100) In case of analyss by dmenson, In resources, the Unted States ranked frst, whch was more than twce of the OECD average score. The US was followed by Japan, Germany, and Unted Kngdom. As for actvtes, the leadng group conssts of the Unted States, Fnland, Iceland, and Sweden. In network, Luxembourg scored the hghest and the leadng group ncludes Swtzerland, Japan, and Iceland. In envronment, Canada ranked frst, followed by the Netherlands, Fnland, and Denmark. In case of performance, the leadng group ncludes the Unted States, Swtzerland, Japan, and the Netherlands. There are some challenges to mprove COSTII. Frst, to nternatonalze, t need to promote the nternatonal recognton. Seek ways to utlze not only Korean experts but also NESTI expert wthn OECD. And Develop an own survey ndcators to overcome the lmtaton of quanttatve ndcators. And to Enhance an applcaton, revse a present S&T polcy and establsh a new one whch s reflected the result of COSTII Rasng a ratonalty of methodology. To rase a ratonalty of ths methodology, t need to compare the outcomes by usng such methods as AHP, Factor Analyss and fuzzy set theory 4. Reference [1] Barré, R. 1997. The European Perspectve on S&T Indcators. [2] Eurostat 2010, Scence, Technology and n Europe [3] GEM 2011, The Global Entrepreneurshp Montor [4] IMD 2011, The World Compettveness Yearbook [5] Lundvall, B. 1992, Natonal System of -Toward a Theory of and Interactve Learnng, Prnter Publsher, London. [6] MEST(Mnstry of Educaton and Scence & Technology) 2004, A Study on Natonal Assessment Indcator Development [7] MEST 2004, A Plan for Natonal System [8] Mchael E. Porter, Scott Stern 2003, Natonal Innovatve Capacty [9] NSF 2011, Scence and Engneerng Indcator [10] OECD 2011/1, Man Scence and Technology Indcator [11] OECD 2011, Scence, Technology and Industry Scoreboard [12] Wagner, Carolne S., Edwn Horlngs, and Arndam Dutta. Can Scence and Technology Capacty be Measured? [13] WEF 2011, The Global Compettveness Report 23