International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research

IJSTR@Facebook IJSTR@Twitter IJSTR@Linkedin
Home About Us Scope Editorial Board Blog/Latest News Contact Us

IJSTR >> Volume 2- Issue 9, September 2013 Edition

International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research  
International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research

Website: http://www.ijstr.org

ISSN 2277-8616

The Composite ECAICI: Positioning Of Georgias Innovative Capacities In The Europe-Central Asia Region

[Full Text]



Joseph Gogodze



Index Terms: National innovation systems, Developing countries, Countries in transition, Composite indicator, Factor analysis



Abstract: This paper presents a brief analysis of the current innovative capabilities of Georgia based on the Europe-Central Asia Innovative Capability Indicator (ECAICI). This composite indicator is constructed using factor analysis tools. Research reveals that innovative processes in the Europe-Central Asia (ECA) region (by the World Bank classification) are mainly affected by four unobservable factors: knowledge creation, economic sophistication, knowlege absorption-diffusion, and human capital production. We show that the ECAICI is closely related to other well-known innovation indicators and to GDP per capita. The ECAICI was used to analyze the innovative capability dynamics during 1996-2010. This study serves as an illustration for the use of the ECAICI as an instrument for innovative capability assessment and analysis in Georgia and other post-USSR countries



[1] Archibugi, D., Coco, A., 2004. New indicator of technological capabilities for developed and developing countries (ArCo). World Development 32(4), 629-654.

[2] Archibugi, D., Coco, A., 2005. Measuring technological capabilities at the country level: A survey and a menu for choice. Research Policy 34, 175-194.

[3] Archibugi, D., Denni, M., Filippetti, A., 2009. The technological capabilities of nations: The state of the Art of synthetic indicators. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 76, 917-931.

[4] Bhutto, A., Rashdi, P., Abro, Q., 2012. Indicators for science and technology policy in Pakistan: Entering the science, technology and innovation paradigm. Science and Public Policy 39, 1-12.

[5] Chen, D., Dahlman, C., 2005. The Knowledge Economy, the KAM Methodology and World Bank Operations. World Bank, Washington DC.

[6] European Commission, 2007. Global Innovation Scoreboard 2006. Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry, Brussels.

[7] European Commission, 2008. European Innovation Scoreboard Report 2007. Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry, Brussels.

[8] Honaker, J.,King, G., Blackwell, M., 2011. Amelia II: A program for missing data. Journal of Statistical Software 45(7), http://www.jstatsoft.org/v45/i07 (Accessed on 07 Feb 2013)

[9] INNO Metrics, 2011. Innovation Union Scoreboard 2010. UNU-MERIT, Maastricht.

[10] INSEAD, 2011. The Global Innovation Index 2011. INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France.

[11] Klenow, P., Rodriguez-Clare, A., 1997. The neoclassical revival in growth economics: Has it gone too far? NBER Macroeconomics Annual 12, 73-103.

[12] Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffman, A., Giovannini, E., 2005. Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. OECD Statistics Working Paper JT00188147. OECD, Paris.

[13] Nicoletti, G., Scarpetta, S., Boylaud, O., 2000. Summary Indicators of Product Market Regulation with an Extension to Employment Protection Legislation. OECD Economics Department Working Papers 226,ECO/WKP(99)18. OECD, Paris.

[14] OECD, Eurostat, 2005. The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities. Oslo Manual, Third edition. OECD, Paris.

[15] Tijssen, R., Hollanders, H., 2006. Using Science and Technology Indicators to Support Knowledge Based Economies. UNU-MERIT, Policy Brief 11, Maastricht.

[16] UNCTAD, 2005. World Investment Report. Transnational Corporations and the Internationalization of R&D. UNCTAD, Geneva.

[17] UNIDO, 2005. Industrial Development Report. Capability Building for Catching-Up. Historical, Empirical and Policy Dimensions. UNIDO, Vienna.

[18] WEF, 2009. The Global Competitiveness Report 20092010. World Economic Forum, Geneva.