The Institute for the Future (ITFT) has set up a project called Delta Scan, speculating on the future of science and technology for the years 2005-2055. It includes a plausible argument on increased R&D outsourcing and offshoring. And a good, concise collection of references.
A shift in R&D processes from “ivory tower” models to global networks of contractors and alliances could have a significant impact on the economics of innovation. [...]
Over the next 20 years, the geography of R&D may shift again – from regional clusters in the developed world to global networks with large outsourced operations in the developing world. India and China, in particular, will provide large pools of highly skilled workers at 25% to 50% of the cost of their counterparts in the West and Japan. The Indian government estimates that outsourced R&D in India currently generates about $1 billion annually; this is projected to rise to $11 billion by 2008, mostly in software. China's manufacturing capacity gives it a natural advantage in computer hardware R&D. Both nations also have the long-term potential for large-scale work in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology.
The trend towards sourcing R&D off-shore may change the economic significance of sourcing services off-shore generally. Up to now, the practice has tended to free up capital and labour in developing countries and provided resources for the creation of new, higher value-added enterprises. However, some of the R&D jobs that may be outsourced are among the most highly prized.
Serious obstacles still remain, in particular, quality control and the protection of intellectual property. Furthermore, for the near future R&D outsourcing will be limited to 'modular innovation', namely incremental improvements in existing lines of research. Radical, breakthrough innovation will continue to be the domain of regional clusters in developed countries.
Showing posts with label emerging markets. Show all posts
Showing posts with label emerging markets. Show all posts
Saturday
SME data
Another roundup: global SME data sources (with a focus on Asia).
General SME statistics
Google: "Google Directory- Sciences > Social Sciences > Economics > Indicators and Statistics > Official statistics > Asia." (Links to national statistical databases.)
Inforum: "Econdata."
ILO: “Key Indicators of the Labour Market (KILM) Programme.”
Inomics: "EconDirectory."
OECD: "SMEs and entrepreneurship."
Surveys
World Bank. "Doing business: benchmarking business regulations."
World Bank. "Enterprise surveys: what businesses say." (Contains some data sorted by firm size.)
World Bank. (2000). "World Business Environment Survey (WBES) 2000."
World Bank and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. "The Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey (BEEPS)."
SMEs in Asia and in developing countries
APEC. "Small and medium enterprises working group."
ASEAN. "Economic integration: SMEs (links)."
DDCN. "Davidson Datacenter Network." (Focus on CIS)
UNIDO (2001). Development of clusters and networks of SMEs: The UNIDO programme. Vienna, United Nations Industrial Development Organization.
Ceglie, G. and M. Dini (1999). SME cluster and network development in developing countries: The experience of UNIDO. PSD Technical Working Paper, United Nations Industrial Development Organization.
Other useful links
AdmiNet. “Small and medium enterprises.”
UNCTAD. "StDev at UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development - Science & Technology for Development Network)."
World Bank. “Data and Research.”
World Bank. "World Development Indicators." (Contains some data sorted by firm size.)
General SME statistics
Google: "Google Directory- Sciences > Social Sciences > Economics > Indicators and Statistics > Official statistics > Asia." (Links to national statistical databases.)
Inforum: "Econdata."
ILO: “Key Indicators of the Labour Market (KILM) Programme.”
Inomics: "EconDirectory."
OECD: "SMEs and entrepreneurship."
Surveys
World Bank. "Doing business: benchmarking business regulations."
World Bank. "Enterprise surveys: what businesses say." (Contains some data sorted by firm size.)
World Bank. (2000). "World Business Environment Survey (WBES) 2000."
World Bank and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. "The Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey (BEEPS)."
SMEs in Asia and in developing countries
APEC. "Small and medium enterprises working group."
ASEAN. "Economic integration: SMEs (links)."
DDCN. "Davidson Datacenter Network." (Focus on CIS)
UNIDO (2001). Development of clusters and networks of SMEs: The UNIDO programme. Vienna, United Nations Industrial Development Organization.
Ceglie, G. and M. Dini (1999). SME cluster and network development in developing countries: The experience of UNIDO. PSD Technical Working Paper, United Nations Industrial Development Organization.
Other useful links
AdmiNet. “Small and medium enterprises.”
UNCTAD. "StDev at UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development - Science & Technology for Development Network)."
World Bank. “Data and Research.”
World Bank. "World Development Indicators." (Contains some data sorted by firm size.)
Monday
Global R&D data
Here's a roundup of useful sources for data on global research and development (with a focus on corporate R&D). Some sources were featured in earlier posts.
General indicators
UNESCO statistics cover national data on number of researchers, technicians etc., proportion of women researchers, gross R&D expenditure, education level - among others.
World Development Indicators from the World Bank include some similar numbers as well as royalties and license fees, value added, ICT expenditures, highly skilled IT workers, scientific journal articles.
The World Bank's Knowledge Assessment Methodology compiles and compares various variables that are relevant to the knowledge economy. Composite, normalized indicators can be viewed as rankings, scorecards and maps. But you can also create your own graphs and tables. Most relevant R&D indicators are included.
The World Intellectual Property Organization provides WIPO Industrial Property Statistics collected from member countries on patents, trademarks, utility models, designs, plant varieties and microorganisms.
OECD science, technology and patent data. (Some datasets include major non-member countries, such as India, China and Brazil.)
For the US: NSF statistics on the science and engineering workforce available at SESTAT
On the globalization of corporate R&D and the impact of multinationals, especially in developing countries
UNCTAD has 3 particularly useful publications (all from 2005).
- WIR 2005. World Investment Report 2005: TNCs and the internationalization of R&D
- UNCTAD survey on the internationalization of R&D: Current patterns and prospects on the internationalization of R&D
- Globalization of R&D and developing countries. Expert Meeting, Geneva, January 2005
Also from UNCTAD: The UNCTAD Innovation Capability Index, first published in WIR 2005.
The internationalization of corporate R&D: Leveraging the changing geography of innovation. ITPS 2006. This includes country-specific case studies, incl. China and India.
5 surveys of corporate global R&D:
- Harnessing innovation: R&D in a global growth economy (Economist Intelligence Unit, May 2004)
- Scattering the seeds of invention: The globalisation of research and development (Economist Intelligence Unit, September 2004)
- Innovation: Is global the way forward? (INSEAD and Booz Allen Hamilton, 2006. Survey conducted May 2005)
- Innovation 2006. Annual innovation survey by The Boston Consulting Group
- R&D 100, 2005. IEEE Spectrum's Annual Survey of the top 100 R&D spenders
General indicators
UNESCO statistics cover national data on number of researchers, technicians etc., proportion of women researchers, gross R&D expenditure, education level - among others.
World Development Indicators from the World Bank include some similar numbers as well as royalties and license fees, value added, ICT expenditures, highly skilled IT workers, scientific journal articles.
The World Bank's Knowledge Assessment Methodology compiles and compares various variables that are relevant to the knowledge economy. Composite, normalized indicators can be viewed as rankings, scorecards and maps. But you can also create your own graphs and tables. Most relevant R&D indicators are included.
The World Intellectual Property Organization provides WIPO Industrial Property Statistics collected from member countries on patents, trademarks, utility models, designs, plant varieties and microorganisms.
OECD science, technology and patent data. (Some datasets include major non-member countries, such as India, China and Brazil.)
For the US: NSF statistics on the science and engineering workforce available at SESTAT
On the globalization of corporate R&D and the impact of multinationals, especially in developing countries
UNCTAD has 3 particularly useful publications (all from 2005).
- WIR 2005. World Investment Report 2005: TNCs and the internationalization of R&D
- UNCTAD survey on the internationalization of R&D: Current patterns and prospects on the internationalization of R&D
- Globalization of R&D and developing countries. Expert Meeting, Geneva, January 2005
Also from UNCTAD: The UNCTAD Innovation Capability Index, first published in WIR 2005.
The internationalization of corporate R&D: Leveraging the changing geography of innovation. ITPS 2006. This includes country-specific case studies, incl. China and India.
5 surveys of corporate global R&D:
- Harnessing innovation: R&D in a global growth economy (Economist Intelligence Unit, May 2004)
- Scattering the seeds of invention: The globalisation of research and development (Economist Intelligence Unit, September 2004)
- Innovation: Is global the way forward? (INSEAD and Booz Allen Hamilton, 2006. Survey conducted May 2005)
- Innovation 2006. Annual innovation survey by The Boston Consulting Group
- R&D 100, 2005. IEEE Spectrum's Annual Survey of the top 100 R&D spenders
Factors of cluster success
'Old Economy' Inputs for 'New Economy' Outcomes: Cluster Formation in the New Silicon Valleys, Timothy Bresnahan, Alfonso Gambardella, Annalee Saxenian, 2001
While looking for links between old and new hi-tech clusters, I came across this paper. It ties in with a series of studies conducted a while back in Ireland, India, Israel, Taiwan etc.
The authors argue that the factors that start a cluster are very different from those that keep it going/growing. (E.g. "success breeds success" isn't useful in founding a cluster). Starting a cluster involves much higher risks for firm founders, especially since they must bet on future technology trajectories.
They focus on the following factors of cluster success in their analysis:
- unemployed skilled technical labor (or skilled labor with low opportunity cost)
- managerial labor
- new firm foundation and firm growth (large firms attract more specialized supply, invest in larger projects, connect to world markets)
- connection to markets
- complementarity to leading/existing clusters rather than head-to-head competition. Strong links as people and ideas flow back and forth
- physical/supply-side restrictions on existing clusters support growth in new clusters
- policy of "benign neglect" and/or investment in education, encouraging multinationals, tolerating/encouraging brain drain, and - if possible - fostering sizable demand (e.g. national policies of adopting the GSM standard uniformly increased market size for telecoms suppliers)
Interestingly, (telecoms) infrastructure is not mentioned, even though at least some of the clusters in question (think outsourcing of services to Ireland and India) were greatly aided by the availability of excess bandwidth. Communications links also supported the 'strong links as people and ideas flow back and forth.'
Here's the paper abstract:
This paper discusses the results of a two-year research project on the sources of success in regional clusters of entrepreneurship and innovation like Silicon Valley. Our project has studied a number of locations, most of which have shown spectacular rates of growth of information and communcations technology-related activities during the 1990s. Our case studies comprise some emerging regions, notably in Ireland, India, Israel and Taiwan, along with more advanced areas like Northern Virginia in the US, Cambridge, UK, the Scandinavian countries and the Silicon Valley 40 years ago by way of the memory of one of its 'father founders', Gordon Moore. Through visits, interviews and other materials, we uncovered some regularities about the determinants of success of these entrepreneurial-led models of economic growth. We find that the economic factors that give rise to the start of a cluster can be very different from those that keep it going. Agglomeration economies, external effects and 'social increasing returns' of any sort arise almost naturally after a cluster has taken off. But the most difficult and risky part is to get the new clusters started. At that stage, 'old economy' factors like firm-building capabilities, managerial skills, a substantial supply of skilled labor and connection to markets were crucial for the take off of these 'new economy' clusters (including Silicon Valley 40 years ago).
While looking for links between old and new hi-tech clusters, I came across this paper. It ties in with a series of studies conducted a while back in Ireland, India, Israel, Taiwan etc.
The authors argue that the factors that start a cluster are very different from those that keep it going/growing. (E.g. "success breeds success" isn't useful in founding a cluster). Starting a cluster involves much higher risks for firm founders, especially since they must bet on future technology trajectories.
They focus on the following factors of cluster success in their analysis:
- unemployed skilled technical labor (or skilled labor with low opportunity cost)
- managerial labor
- new firm foundation and firm growth (large firms attract more specialized supply, invest in larger projects, connect to world markets)
- connection to markets
- complementarity to leading/existing clusters rather than head-to-head competition. Strong links as people and ideas flow back and forth
- physical/supply-side restrictions on existing clusters support growth in new clusters
- policy of "benign neglect" and/or investment in education, encouraging multinationals, tolerating/encouraging brain drain, and - if possible - fostering sizable demand (e.g. national policies of adopting the GSM standard uniformly increased market size for telecoms suppliers)
Interestingly, (telecoms) infrastructure is not mentioned, even though at least some of the clusters in question (think outsourcing of services to Ireland and India) were greatly aided by the availability of excess bandwidth. Communications links also supported the 'strong links as people and ideas flow back and forth.'
Here's the paper abstract:
This paper discusses the results of a two-year research project on the sources of success in regional clusters of entrepreneurship and innovation like Silicon Valley. Our project has studied a number of locations, most of which have shown spectacular rates of growth of information and communcations technology-related activities during the 1990s. Our case studies comprise some emerging regions, notably in Ireland, India, Israel and Taiwan, along with more advanced areas like Northern Virginia in the US, Cambridge, UK, the Scandinavian countries and the Silicon Valley 40 years ago by way of the memory of one of its 'father founders', Gordon Moore. Through visits, interviews and other materials, we uncovered some regularities about the determinants of success of these entrepreneurial-led models of economic growth. We find that the economic factors that give rise to the start of a cluster can be very different from those that keep it going. Agglomeration economies, external effects and 'social increasing returns' of any sort arise almost naturally after a cluster has taken off. But the most difficult and risky part is to get the new clusters started. At that stage, 'old economy' factors like firm-building capabilities, managerial skills, a substantial supply of skilled labor and connection to markets were crucial for the take off of these 'new economy' clusters (including Silicon Valley 40 years ago).
Tuesday
R&D in Brazil
This week, the Knowledge Economy team of the Development Gateway is focusing on Brazil as a potential tech and innovation powerhouse.
Brazil has over the past years been receiving increasing public and private investments aimed at boosting and expanding innovative activities in the country.
Brazil is the largest recipient of foreign direct investment (FDI) in Latin America, and Brazilian entrepreneurs point to FDI as a major source of new technology transfer and to the licensing of foreign technology as a major form of acquiring new technology.
When it comes to the internal capacity to absorb and create new technologies, -while Brazil has been broadening access to education at all levels-, the Brazil Competitiveness meeting hosted by the World Economic Forum in June this year pointed out that only a relatively small number of high-tech professionals are graduating. The Forum recommended that Brazil increase the number of graduating professionals and improve education, primarily by increasing specialization in fields related to the more competitive industries of the country. The Forum also pointed out other weaknesses of Brazil's innovation system, among them insufficient linkages between universities and other actors.
This again points to the importance of building local absorptive capacity rather than relying too heavily on foreign direct investment. (See also a Foreign Policy article, which Reuben pointed out.)
I recently read an article describing the Xylella fastidiosa Genome Project. The Brazilian scientists in the project made use of Europe's distributed team organization for sequencing the genome and adapted it to their own conditions - thereby greatly improving on the European model in the author's opinion. Spreading the research across numerous labs (34 sequencing labs, 1 bioinformatics lab and collaboration with 2 European labs) also helped to train more scientist in biotechnology, and to create a better base/more absorptive capacity for future research projects and the biotech industry. The choice of the organism to sequence was also significant - a citrus pathogen, which is of great interest to academics and agribusiness.
At the time, the project created quite a stir: Brazil was the first developing country to join genome sequencing as a serious player; theirs was the first plant genome to be sequenced. From EMBnet news (April 2000):
In two years, Brazil (or at least São Paulo state) has gone from essentially nothing to being one of the larger producers of sequence data in the world. It has done so not by investing massively in a large sequencing facility, but by bringing together a large number of individual labs, many of which are already using these new data and know-how in their own research. In this way, the genome projects have already had a major impact on Brazilian science.
The world has not really taken notice yet, but I would bet that within another year or two ONSA and the HCGP will have achieved the same recognition as TIGR and CGAP. Bioinformaticians and genome scientists take note!
Brazil has over the past years been receiving increasing public and private investments aimed at boosting and expanding innovative activities in the country.
Brazil is the largest recipient of foreign direct investment (FDI) in Latin America, and Brazilian entrepreneurs point to FDI as a major source of new technology transfer and to the licensing of foreign technology as a major form of acquiring new technology.
When it comes to the internal capacity to absorb and create new technologies, -while Brazil has been broadening access to education at all levels-, the Brazil Competitiveness meeting hosted by the World Economic Forum in June this year pointed out that only a relatively small number of high-tech professionals are graduating. The Forum recommended that Brazil increase the number of graduating professionals and improve education, primarily by increasing specialization in fields related to the more competitive industries of the country. The Forum also pointed out other weaknesses of Brazil's innovation system, among them insufficient linkages between universities and other actors.
This again points to the importance of building local absorptive capacity rather than relying too heavily on foreign direct investment. (See also a Foreign Policy article, which Reuben pointed out.)
I recently read an article describing the Xylella fastidiosa Genome Project. The Brazilian scientists in the project made use of Europe's distributed team organization for sequencing the genome and adapted it to their own conditions - thereby greatly improving on the European model in the author's opinion. Spreading the research across numerous labs (34 sequencing labs, 1 bioinformatics lab and collaboration with 2 European labs) also helped to train more scientist in biotechnology, and to create a better base/more absorptive capacity for future research projects and the biotech industry. The choice of the organism to sequence was also significant - a citrus pathogen, which is of great interest to academics and agribusiness.
At the time, the project created quite a stir: Brazil was the first developing country to join genome sequencing as a serious player; theirs was the first plant genome to be sequenced. From EMBnet news (April 2000):
In two years, Brazil (or at least São Paulo state) has gone from essentially nothing to being one of the larger producers of sequence data in the world. It has done so not by investing massively in a large sequencing facility, but by bringing together a large number of individual labs, many of which are already using these new data and know-how in their own research. In this way, the genome projects have already had a major impact on Brazilian science.
The world has not really taken notice yet, but I would bet that within another year or two ONSA and the HCGP will have achieved the same recognition as TIGR and CGAP. Bioinformaticians and genome scientists take note!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
