scholarly journals Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Indicators and Comparisons of Countries through a Hybrid Model of Data Mining and MCDM Methods

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 694
Author(s):  
Gokhan Ozkaya ◽  
Mehpare Timor ◽  
Ceren Erdin
Keyword(s):  
Data Mining ◽  
Innovation Policy ◽  
Entropy Method ◽  
Global Competitiveness ◽  
Technology And Innovation ◽  
Evaluation Indicator ◽  
Science Technology ◽  
Global Innovation ◽  
Development Goals ◽  
Science Technology And Innovation

Science, technology and innovation (STI) policies are of great importance for countries to reach their sustainable development goals. Numerous global databases have many indicators that measure and compare the performance of STI policies of countries. However, many problems arise regarding how to identify, classify and systematically analyze these indicators in order to measure, monitor and improve the performance of STI. The study includes a literature review on global problems and new trends in STI policies, while mentioning the necessity of an internationally comparable STI indicator set, current STI indicator studies and efforts, and studies for each continent. In light of these, all the indicators selected are introduced in detail. The strengths and weaknesses of the countries in the study in terms of evaluation indicator values are indicated. After determining the indicator weights objectively with the entropy method, 40 countries are compared with TOPSIS, VIKOR, PROMETHEE I-II, ARAS, COPRAS, MULTIMOORA, ELECTRE, SAW and MAUT methods. In addition, countries that show similarities with each other are evaluated by cluster analysis, which is one of the data mining classification methods. This study offers a new and original approach with MCDM methods on this subject. Considering all the results obtained in the study together, these rankings are compared among themselves and with the rankings specified in the Global Innovation (2019) and Global Competitiveness (2019) indices, and it is seen that the results are consistent. In addition, it is possible to update and publish this study every year with updated data.

scholarly journals SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGIES AND INNOVATION IN GEORGIA IN THE DIMENSION OF GLOBAL EVALUATIONS: TRENDS AND CHALLENGES

2020 ◽  
pp. 156-162
Author(s):  
ELENE PITSKHELAURI
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Global Scale ◽  
Global Competitiveness ◽  
Cornell University ◽  
Technology And Innovation ◽  
Science Technology ◽  
Global Innovation ◽  
Innovation And Technology ◽  
Global Competitiveness Index ◽  
Science Technology And Innovation

The paper explores the development of science, technology and innovation in Georgia over the last decade, reveals main tendencies, strengths and weaknesses. In a modern world, complex indexes are effectively utilized in order to evaluate the development of ST&I, perform a comparative analysis and ranking countries. This itself supports the definition of economic strategies in the countries for increasing the productivity and long-term development. The goal of study was to evaluate the tendencies of ST&I in Georgia for the time period of 2009-2019. A comparative analysis of progress has been carried out using Global Index of Innovation (GII) and the Global Competitiveness Index. According to the Global Innovation Index, the position of Georgia has significantly improved during the last 10 years and especially in the past 2 years. In comparison to 2015, Georgia improved its position in world ranking by 25 positions and by 50 positions - in comparison to 2009. In the report 2019 of Georgia›s Innovation and Technology Agency, it is highlighted that Georgia is innovatively better in comparison to its GDP (Cornell University & INSEAD & WIPO, 2019: 20). Georgia has the highest ranking in the following pillars of the index: institutional structure ( score – 74,3 and ranking -26) and market sophistication (score – 62.1 and ranking -15). In other pillars the country ranking range varies between 58-72 and score between 22.5-44.7. During 2011-2019, among all pillars of the index the following areas reached the highest scores in 2019: institutions, infrastructure and market sophistication. During the last decade all pillars of the index are progressing except knolwedge and technology outputs. In these the position and rating of Georgia has even become worse; in comparison to 2011 the ranking of Georgia in this group dropped and went down 25 positions. In 2019 Georgia’s Innovation and Technology Agency defined the strongest 10 indicators out of 98 indicators of sub-pillars; among these there are categories where Georgia has not progressed during 2011-2019. These are: Human resources and research, knowledge and technology and creative outputs. However, it has to be mentioned that the following sub-pillars are considered as the weakness of Georgia and consequently have a lower rating: ecological sustainability (score 91), knowledge diffusion (score 86), knowledge workers (score 81), trade, competition and market scale (score 79), knowledge absorbation (78), research and development (75) (Cornell University, INSEAD, and WIPO, 2019: 258). According to Global Competitiveness Index and similar to Global Innovation Index the position of Georgia during 2009-2018 has significantly improved. In comparison to 2009, Georgia went up 24 positions. The data show that the group of innovation capability is the greatest challenge for achieving a high score on a global scale. Despite the fact that GII in Georgia is characterized by improving tendency during 2009-2019, the analysis of indexes confirms that the hindering factors for achieving high score on a global scale and becoming a competitive country for Georgia are: knowledge and technology, research and development, creativity and innovation capabilities; this reconfirms that the development of science, technology and innovation remains one of the major challenges for Georgia.

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy: Old Patterns and New Challenges

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristina Chaminade ◽  
Bengt-Åke Lundvall
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
Social Inclusion ◽  
Market Failure ◽  
Innovation Policy ◽  
Global Knowledge ◽  
Critical Question ◽  
Scientific Advance ◽  
Technology And Innovation ◽  
Science Technology ◽  
Science Technology And Innovation

Scientific advance and innovation are major sources of economic growth and are crucial for making development socially and environmentally sustainable. A critical question is: Will private enterprises invest sufficiently in research technological development and innovation and, if not, to what degree and how should governments engage in the support of science, technology, and innovation? While neoclassical economists point to market failure as the main rationale for innovation policy, evolutionary economists point to the role of government in building stronger innovation systems and creating wider opportunities for innovation. Research shows that the transmission mechanisms between scientific advance and innovation are complex and indirect. There are other equally important sources of innovation including experience-based learning. Innovation is increasingly seen as a systemic process, where the feedback from users needs to be taken into account when designing public policy. Science and innovation policy may aim at accelerating knowledge production along well-established trajectories, or it may aim at giving new direction to the production and use of knowledge. It may be focused exclusively on economic growth, or it may give attention to impact on social inclusion and the natural environment. An emerging topic is to what extent national perspectives continue to be relevant in a globalizing learning economy facing multiple global complex challenges, including the issue of climate change. Scholars point to a movement toward transformative innovation policy and global knowledge sharing as a response to current challenges.

scholarly journals Flanders Ahead, Wallonia Behind (But Catching Up): Reconstructing Communities Through Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy Making

2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 185-198
Author(s):  
Michiel Van Oudheusden ◽  
Nathan Charlier ◽  
Pierre Delvenne
Keyword(s):  
Policy Making ◽  
Innovation Policy ◽  
The Other ◽  
Policy Actors ◽  
Technology And Innovation ◽  
Knowledge Based ◽  
Documentary Analysis ◽  
Catching Up ◽  
Science Technology ◽  
Science Technology And Innovation

Drawing on a documentary analysis of two socioeconomic policy programs, one Flemish (“Vlaanderen in Actie”), the other Walloon (“Marshall Plans”), and a discourse analysis of how these programs are received in one Flemish and one Francophone quality newspaper, this article illustrates how Flanders and Wallonia both seek to become top-performing knowledge-based economies (KBEs). The article discerns a number of discursive repertoires, such as “Catching up,” which policy actors draw on to legitimize or question the transformation of Flanders and Wallonia into KBEs. The “Catching up” repertoire places Flanders resolutely ahead of Wallonia in the global race toward knowledge, excellence, and growth, but suggests that Wallonia may, in due course, overtake Flanders as a top competitive region. Given the expectations and fears that “Catching up” evokes among Flemish and Walloon policy actors, the repertoire serves these actors as a flexible discursive resource to make sense of, and shape, their collective futures and their regional identities. The article’s findings underline the simultaneity of, and the interplay between, globalizing forces and particularizing tendencies, as Flanders and Wallonia develop with a global KBE in region-specific ways.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document