SE
FO
ER
IA
L
For reviewing science and technology policies of a country, an advisable beginning point is a
pragmatic evaluation of its current state in technology progress. An appropriate tool used to measure
the technology progress is the composite index of technology achievement which enlightens the level
of technological progress and the readiness of a country to participate in knowledge-based economy.
Technology achievement index (TAI) assists a country to check status of its technological progress
relative to others. In the current study, TAI 2014 of OIC member states (TAI-14-OIC) is developed to
analyse the situation of technological progress of OIC countries. Countries have been ranked on the
basis of TAI which stands on four pillars, namely, technology creation, diffusion of old innovations,
diffusion of recent innovations and development of human skills. Ranking of countries in these dimensions on the basis of their indices is also presented. Comparative analysis of some S&T indicators
of OIC countries with OECD countries is presented which should be very helpful for S&T policy
makers in the OIC countries. Some concluding thoughts for development of technological capabilities
in OIC countries are presented at end of the article.
Introduction
Tariq Mahmood Ali (Corresponding author), PhD (Economics) Researcher, FUUAST School of
Economic Sciences, Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan
E-mail: tmapcst@gmail.com
Tariq Bashir, Principal Research Officer (Science), Pakistan Council for Science and Technology,
Islamabad, Pakistan. E-mail: drtariqbashir@yahoo.co.uk
Adiqa Kausar Kiani, Associate Professor/Chairperson FUUAST School of Economic Sciences, Federal
Urdu University of Arts, Science and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan. E-mail: adiqakian@gmail.com
FO
ER
IA
L
SE
to adopt, produce and supply (Mahmud, 2009). The technological changes that have
occurred in the recent past have led to an increase in the stock of knowledge for
modern knowledge-based economies. It has turned out to be essential for all countries to become technologically connected to be able to create, adapt and use global
technological innovations (Desai et al., 2002). Technology progress was defined
by Ali et al. (2014) as the continuous process of improvement in total scientific
knowledge, skill, applied science, and the technical efficiency/ability to convert
the existing factor of production into more output, available to any human society
for industry, art, science etc. Cross-country differences still exist in competing
technology based global marketplace and in utilisation of technology as a tool for
human development. This indicates the variation among countries in technology
capacity and need. For formulation of the science, technology and innovation (STI)
policies, policy makers of developing countries depend on the basic STI statistics
(Ali et al., 2014). Keeping in view the significant role technological progress plays
in the development of a country, policy makers also require statistical indicators
of technology progress. Here, the question arises, whether technology progress is
a measurable entity? If yes, then, how it can be measured? Different studies have
been carried out to address this question in terms of STI composite indicators. Some
well-known STI composite indicators are: the WEF Technology Index (WEF, 2001,
2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006), the National Innovative Capacity Index (NICI03) (Porter and Stern, 2003), the Science and Technology Capacity Index 2002
(STCI-02) (Wagner, Horlings and Dutta, 2002), the Technology Achievement Index
(TAI-02) (Desai et al., 2002; UNDP, 2001), the UNIDO Industrial Scoreboard
(Lall and Albaladejo, 2003; UNIDO, 2003, 2004), the UNIDO Industrial-cumTechnological Advance Index (UNIDO, 2005), the New Indicator of Technological
Capabilities for Developed and Developing countries (ArCO) (Archibugi and Coco,
2004), and the Georgia High Technology Indicators (TTI) (Porter et al., 2002, 2005).
Index of Science and Technology Capacity developed by Wagner et al. (2001)
for Rand Corporation, aimed to measure the extent to which a country can absorb
and use scientific and technological knowledge. The index was based on eight
quantitative indicators which were divided in to three dimensions of S&T capacity. First dimension, enabling factors, was based on two indicators, namely, GDP
per capita and tertiary enrolment in science. Second dimension, resources was
based on three indicators, namely, number of scientists & engineers, number of
institutions and R&D expenditure. Third dimension embedded knowledge was also
based on three indicators namely patents, S&T journal articles and co-authorship
of publications. Wagner et al. (2001) awarded different weightages to different
dimensions. Utilising this methodology, they evaluated 150 countries for science
and technology capacity and categorised them into following four groups according
to their overall scientific capacity:
A. Scientifically advanced countriesthe 22 countries with scientific capacity
well above the international mean;
B. Scientifically proficient countriesthe 24 countries which also have positive standing in scientific capacity when compared to the rest of the world;
Science, Technology & Society 20:1 (2015): 114131
ER
IA
L
SE
FO
Leaders: Those at the cutting edge of innovation. These are highly developed
countries.
Potential leaders: Those with high skill levels, who have diffused old technologies (electricity and water supply networks), but innovate little.
Dynamic adapters: Those rapidly expanding their use of new technologies
(e.g., internet, mobile phones), who have important high technology
industries, but where the diffusion of old technologies has been slow and
incomplete.
Marginalised countries: Where skill levels are very low, with large proportions
of the population yet to receive benefits from the diffusion of old technology.
FO
ER
IA
L
SE
Nasir et al. (2011) developed TAI referred as TAI-09, by applying the same
methodology of Desai et al. (2002), in which they studied the existing technological capabilities and capacities of 91 countries. They developed index of technology
achievement as well as indices of technology creation, diffusion of old innovations,
diffusion of recent innovations and development of human skills which are the
four dimensions of TAI. They also presented comparison of 56 countries common
in TAI-02 and TAI-09, and also proposed the standard deviation approach for
studying the technological spread among countries.
Most of the studies carried out so far are about the technological performance
of developed countries and only a few studies discuss the developing countries.
Studies on geographical, organisational, regional basis are almost non-existent.
Only recently, TAI for OIC member countries (referred as TAI-13-OIC) has been
developed (Ali et al., 2014). In that study, 34 OIC countries were classified into
four groups as: Very Efficient, Active, Passive and Fragile on the basis of TAI
value. They presented key policy options for OIC countries to close scientific &
technological gaps which are accountable for their current state of low social and
economic development.
Different countries may have different vision and understanding of their
technological needs and they may also have different technological objectives,
policies and plans. But one thing is true for every country that it needs to build
technological capabilities and keep on improving these because this is the key to
socio-economic development in the modern world. Technological capabilities of
a country have become the major factor on the basis of which a country can achieve
sustainable economic development. Without adequate technological capabilities,
a country cannot participate in the technology based world economic activities as
well as in modern knowledge economies. Technology is required for diversification of products and processes as their quality and supply at affordable prices have
become a basis of world competition. The countries which will have comparatively
more capabilities to create, adapt and use global technologies and innovations will
have better chances of competing successfully in the global marketplace which is
becoming more and more technology intensive. The achievement of a country in
the creation, adaptation and use of global technologies and innovations is known
as its technological capability. The TAI measures these capabilities of a country
on a comparative scale with respect to other countries.
The developments in almost all areas, such as, transportation, telecommunication, material resources, agriculture, health, environment and pharmaceuticals,
are based on science and technology (Ali et al., 2014). The level of technological
capabilities of a country determines how much it will benefit from these developments. It is also clear that technology has become omnipresent. Technology
achievement may be described through a combination of input and output indicators.
Input indicators indicate the level of a technological capacity to perform and output
indicators tell how much the capability is vibrant and industrious. Combination
of these two indicators presents pragmatic idea about the technology achievement
of a country. Although, the modern scientific revolution was commenced by a small
Science, Technology & Society 20:1 (2015): 114131
FO
ER
IA
L
SE
IA
L
SE
Data and data sources: For all eight indicators, data published by the international
organisations like World Bank, UNESCO and WIPO have been used. Data of the
most recent year available during the period 20082013 has been used for calculating TAI values. Data of total patents granted per million residents has been
extracted from the WIPO Statistics Database (WIPO, 2014). The basic data of
charges for the use of intellectual property, receipts (Balance of Payment [BoP],
current US$) per person, internet users (per 100 people), high-technology exports
(percentage of manufactured exports), telephone line (landline) plus mobile cellular subscriptions (per 100 people), and electric power consumption (kWh per
capita) for all countries have been retrieved from the World Bank website (World
Bank, 2014). The data of gross enrolment ratio (GER), primary to tertiary, both
sexes (percentage) and gross enrolment ratio in science, engineering, manufacturing and construction programmes, both sexes at tertiary level have been taken
from the Database of UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) for year 2008 to 2012
(UNESCO, 2014).
FO
ER
Methodology: The same methodology has been adopted for calculating of technology achievement index 2014 of selected OIC member countries (TAI-14-OIC) as
used by Desai et al. (2002). Goal posts used for calculating TAI-14-OIC has been
shown in Table 1. TAI-14-OIC comprises of four dimensions with each dimension
based on two indicators.
Technology creation is measured by the number of patents granted to residents
per million population (WIPO statistics database: direct and PCT national phase
Table 1
Goal Posts for Calculating TAI-14-OIC
Indicator Name
0.000
65.055
0.000
88.000
43.712
1.600
0.045
158.91a
30.336
9434.28a
24.047
212.430
0.193
96.151
37.107
SE
entries, excluded non-resident) and by charges for the use of intellectual property,
receipts (BoP, current US$) per person.
Diffusion of recent innovations is measured by the number of internet users per
100 people and high-technology exports (percentage of manufactured exports).
Diffusion of old innovations is measured by telephone line and mobile cellular
subscriptions (per 100 people) and electric power consumption (kWh per capita).
Human skills is measured by the gross enrolment ratio, primary to tertiary, both
sexes (percentage) and gross enrolment ratio in science, engineering, manufacturing
and construction programmes (both sexes at tertiary level).
Telephone line plus mobile cellular subscriptions (per 100 people) and electric
power consumption (kWh per capita) has been caped at the OECD average and
has been converted into logarithms form for calculating TAI-14-OIC. Values of
eight indicators are normalised between 0 and 1 with 0 being the lowest and
1 being the highest. The formula used is given as below:
IA
L
Indicator index =
FO
ER
Table 2 presents the TAI-14-OIC, ranking on the basis of TAI values, of 41 OIC
countries for which data was available. The current study was planned to develop
TAI for 57 OIC countries but had to leave out 16 countries due to non-availability
of data of two important indicators (i.e., gross enrolment ratio and gross enrolment ratio in science). These indicators are mandatory because gross enrolment
ratio provides the idea about the basic educational skill of a country and gross
enrolment ratio in science is used to gauge the human skill in science and technology. Each country requires these skills to adapt and innovate technologies
(Desai et al., 2002). Results of TAI-14-OIC tell about the accusation of technology
progress of each country. Highest TAI value is 0.698 for Kazakhstan while the
lowest value is 0.016 for Djibouti. As was done by Ali et al. (2014), in the present
study, the 41 countries based on their TAI value, have also been categorised as
Very Efficient (TAI > 0.500), Active (0.350 TAI 0.499), Passive (0.200 TAI
0.349) and Fragile (TAI < 0.200).
Science, Technology & Society 20:1 (2015): 114131
Country Name
Technology
Achievement
Index 2014 for
OIC
FO
97.121d
10.089
0.612d
1.518
12.473
0.475
11.295
0.353d
18.013
1.140
3.444
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
1
2
3
4
Overall
Ranking
TAI-14 OIC
0.347
2.145
0.003
0.596
0.490
0.058
0.235
SE
31
32
33
10
34
5
18
17
9
6
11
3
13
8
19
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.008
0.000
0.064
0.002
0.003
0.016
0.058
0.006
0.096
0.006
0.018
0.002
IA
L
1
4
30
16
TC
Ranking
0.500
0.088
0.000
0.003
TC Index
ER
4.630
31.400
64.500
66.450
90.000
85.300
46.250
44.200
70.500
43.800
58.700
60.100
23.400
49.560
56.000
15.820
54.000
66.970
88.000
60.500
4.116d
12.771
3.394
0.152
0.045d
1.829
2.513d
2.006
5.603d
7.268
0.443
4.637
0.584
6.351
7.295
29.970
43.712
0.557d
Hightechnology
Exports (% of
Internet Users
Manufactured
Exports)
(per 100
(20102012)
people) (2013)
2
1
5
11
21
3
9
4
6
18
19
7
15
8
12
25
16
10
26
0.216
0.502
0.406
0.502
0.474
0.273
0.270
0.413
0.303
0.406
0.336
0.176
0.278
0.380
0.164
11
DRI
Ranking
0.639
0.870
0.489
0.340
10
DRI
Index
Table 2
The Technology Achievement Index 2014 for OIC Countries (TAI-14-OIC) with Corresponding Sub-indices and Their Rankings
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
FO
1.065
4.400
0.640d
0.073
0.039d
ER
0.558
0.027d
0.000
0.029c
0.179
0.074
65.055
0.062
0.010
0.001
0.127
0.009
0.042
0.002c
IA
L
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.006
0.500
0.023
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
SE
14
37
29
25
38
23
39
20
40
41
12
2
7
15
26
28
21
35
27
36
22
24
16.200
14.000
4.900
2.300
6.500
4.400
1.600
1.700
1.700
9.500
16.500
33.000
38.200
16.000
9.200
37.400
5.400
38.000
6.400
2.600
10.900
6.500
20.651
3.337d
0.476c
1.248
5.901
5.997
0.130
0.072
6.504
24.736
1.878
3.740
15.081d
1.666
13
27
38
39
37
29
41
40
33
34
28
23
22
30
35
17
14
20
32
24
31
36
(Table 2 continued)
0.319
0.108
0.024
0.018
0.028
0.083
0.000
0.001
0.069
0.045
0.086
0.178
0.207
0.081
0.043
0.277
0.304
0.227
0.070
0.178
0.072
0.028
Country Name
(Table 2 continued)
2648.842
8506.514
6292.040
10018.070
15754.863
2709.262
2289.435
3499.369
1297.101
1705.425
2253.531
1641.642
1742.911
826.403
122.580
125.790
164.320
187.689
171.669
111.050
146.999
98.606
124.897
126.287
125.019
129.765
129.820
137.386
FO
13
4892.913
4246.467
9388.582
8161.199
207.170
159.948
194.193
192.864
12
Electric power
consumption
(kWh per capita)
(2011)
Telephone Line +
Mobile cellular
subscriptions (per
100 people) (2013)
0.852
0.924
0.978
1.000
1.000
0.824
0.899
0.802
0.819
0.837
0.850
0.844
0.847
0.823
10
8
5
2
3
15
9
19
17
14
11
13
12
16
IA
L
SE
86.956
81.15
76.537d
78.619
84.315ae
85.398
80.171
74.852
78.428d
71.11
65.576
75.037
80.019
67.146d
92.405
73.688ae
96.151
92.069
16
24.047
8.268
11.525b
3.836
2.933
12.273
13.12
12.596
14.065c
3.901
9.174
7.857d
4.168
4.351c
10.376
12.543d
14.898
10.381
17
ER
6
7
1
4
15
DOI
ranking
0.964
0.957
1.000
0.992
14
DOI
index
0.922
0.545
0.573
0.431
0.460
0.664
0.637
0.581
0.642
0.369
0.432
0.484
0.450
0.344
0.684
0.570
0.810
0.681
18
DHS
Index
1
11
9
18
14
5
7
8
6
21
17
13
16
22
3
10
2
4
19
DHS
Ranking
44.643
103.448
94.802
129.816
50.414
67.189
63.315
44.397
39.856
30.336
109.994
89.023
81.219
97.006
101.732
143.070
48.304
73.500
73.981
96.786
73.628
67.812
FO
1090.566
1625.971
1713.788
1342.820
1.000
447.087
148.928
255.527
212.430
449.252
258.618
0.117
0.371
0.344
0.439
0.153
0.240
0.222
0.115
0.082
0.000
0.771
0.325
0.701
0.758
0.759
0.469
0.474
0.541
0.572
0.643
0.602
0.546
ER
38
32
33
31
37
35
36
39
40
41
20
34
23
22
21
30
29
28
26
24
25
27
IA
L
SE
68.541
55.935c
67.836d
55.663d
77.600
45.133
52.364
46.735
37.506
37.107
79.186d
68.108
70.395d
69.728d
62.678
68.847
60.923d
55.848
61.558d
40.967
45.317
59.389d
0.3709
1.300d
1.464d
0.257d
1.6467
0.8482
2.557a
0.1657
0.193d
1.034b
4.674c
2.4081
2.283d
6.729
3.903
2.240
0.495b
0.021
1.953d
1.1468
5.000ae
2.187d
Notes: Data of the most recent years available during the period 20082013 have been used for calculating TAI.
a, b, c and d are representing the years 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011, respectively, while dash indicates that data is not available.
Zero value has been used for calculating TAI for countries for which data was not available.
ae estimated value.
g and h indicate the weighted average value for OECD Countries 158.91 and 9434.28, respectively, have been used for calculating TAI.
0.453
0.312
0.329
0.416
0.297
0.315
0.212
0.159
0.247
0.056
0.173
0.234
28
32
27
35
20
37
33
38
41
40
15
25
23
19
26
24
31
36
29
39
34
30
ER
IA
L
SE
Very Efficient (TAI > 0.500): Only four countries are placed in this group which
are Kazakhstan, Malaysia, UAE and Saudi Arabia. This category is separated
from the rest by its higher technology achievement index value. In the context of
this study this group has the highest technological capabilities. These countries
have very efficient level of human skill development that is a key for technological innovation, diffusion of old and new technologies. Kazakhstan is leading in
the sub-dimension of technology creation as it has the highest value of number
of patents granted to residents per million population (97.121) as compared to
rest of the OIC countries which shows the current level of its innovation activity.
Participation in the global knowledge based economy also needs the diffusion of
old innovations that is essential for adoption of newer technologies. Kazakhstan
has maximum value in telephone line and mobile cellular subscriptions per 100
people (207.170). Malaysia is at the second position in the TAI index but in the
sub-dimension of diffusion of recent innovations it is at the top with the highest
value (43.712) in high technology exports (as percentage of manufactured export)
among OIC countries. Although, UAE and Saudi Arabia, both have zero values in
technology creation but they are ranked at third and fourth position, respectively, in
TAI ranking, above Turkey, Kyrgyz Republic and Guyana who have values above
zero in technology creation sub-index. UAE is also at top in the gross enrolment
ratio (96.151) among other Islamic countries. UAE, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia
(oil rich countries) are spending heavily on education as well as they have
high electricity consumption (Ali et al., 2014). Due to high values for these two
indicators, UAE and Saudi Arabia exist in this group.
FO
Active (TAI = 0.350 0.499): There are 14 countries in this group with Iran at the
top and Indonesia at the bottom of the group. Iran has the highest value of gross
enrolment ratio in science engineering, manufacturing and construction (24.07)
as compared to other OIC countries and is at the top in human skill development
sub-index. It has attained the fifth position in ranking of TAI. All the countries in
this group are very active in the use of new technologies. Most of the countries
in this group have higher values in human skill development and diffusion of old
and recent innovation sub-indices than the countries included in the third and
fourth group. Though Bahrain and Qatar are at the top in using internet (90.00 per
100 people) and electricity consumption (15754.863 kWh per capita) as compared
to rest of Islamic countries they are ranked at the eighth and ninth position behind
Brunei and Oman in terms of TAI ranking. Brunei and Oman are seen at sixth and
seventh position respectively because their human skill development sub-index is
higher than Bahrain and Qatar. Brunei (8.26) and Oman (11.52) have higher gross
enrolment ratio in science than Bahrain (3.83) and Qatar (2.93).
Passive (TAI = 0.200 0.340): A dozen countries have been included in this group.
Algeria is at the top of this group followed by Guyana with twentieth and twenty-first
Science, Technology & Society 20:1 (2015): 114131
positions in the TAI ranking, respectively. Guyana has the highest value (65.055)
for the indicator charges for the use of intellectual property, receipts (BoP, current US$) per person as compared to all other OIC countries and is placed at the
twenty-first position because of its poor performance in the other indicators. The
countries included in this group are passive in use of new technologies. Pakistan
and Bangladesh are at the bottom of this group with thirtieth and thirty-first position
in the TAI ranking respectively. Though, Pakistan has got the status of an atomic
power, yet its performance in the dimension of human skill development is very
disappointing and it is behind 38 countries in the list of 41, which may be a major
constraint in the way of its sustainable economic growth.
FO
ER
IA
L
SE
Fragile (TAI < 0.200): This group consists of ten countries with Uganda at the top
and Djibouti at the bottom. Presence of a relatively large number of countries in this
group indicates that still a significant number of OIC countries has not benefited
from diffusion of old technologies. All countries in this group lag behind in each
dimension of technology achievement. These countries have a long way to go in
all four dimensions. However, they need to urgently focus on the diffusion of old
technologies and human skill development. These countries have to invest more in
education sector to improve human skill development as well as to spread benefits
of old technologies throughout their societies.
It should not be assumed that the indicators used in the technology achievement
index are the only factors which are linked with the technological capabilities of
countries. There are other factors as well which play a role in the technological
performance of countries. For instance, Malaysia which is at the top of the ranking
in the present study, spends 1.07 per cent of its GDP on research and development
which is much higher than rest of the countries. Similarly Malaysia and Saudi
Arabia which are in the group of Very Efficient countries in the current study also
spend much higher amounts on education (5.94 per cent and 5.14 per cent of GDP
respectively) than other countries which are in the Active, Passive, Fragile
group (Table 3). Turkey, Pakistan and Uganda spend only 2.86 per cent, 2.22 per
cent and 3.16 per cent of their GDP on education, respectively. Turkey and Iran
which are in the Active group, have made much higher number of publications,
that is, 348,836 and 245,221, respectively, during the period 1996 to 2013 than
other countries. Kazakhstan is placed in the Very Efficient group but it is very
weak in knowledge production as depicted by its mere 7,423 publications during
the same period.
Comparison of OIC with OECD Countries
125,084
7,423
74,210
5.94
3.06b
5.14a
1.07
0.16
0.07b
245,221
348,836
4.05
2.86e
0.75a
0.86
1,005
70,208
3.93
2.22
0.12
0.33
3,776
8,723
3.43
3.16
212,195
658,602
1,983,270
6.76
5.24
5.08c
U
IA
L
Very Efficient
Malaysia
Kazakhstan
Saudi Arabia
Active
Iran
Turkey
Passive
Tajikistan
Pakistan
Fragile
Burkina Faso
Uganda
OECD
Finland
Republic of Korea
Germany
ER
Country Name
SE
**Government Expenditure
on Education as % of GDP
(20082011)
*Publications
(19962013)
0.20b
0.56c
3.80
4.04
2.89
FO
less than the internet and telephone use of OECD countries (78.52 and 158.91 per
100 persons, respectively). A big gap (almost 31 per cent) is present between OIC
and OECD countries in the use of telephone line + mobile cellular subscriptions per
100 people while gap in the use of internet is about 63 per cent. The OIC countries
require large investments to provide these facilities to their deprived people. Average
high-technology exports (percentage of manufactured exports) of OIC countries
(6.16 per cent) are less than half of the average high-technology exports (percentage of manufactured exports) of OECD countries (13.60 per cent). Performance of
OIC countries in technology creation indicators is also dismal as compared to the
OECD countries. The average number of patent grants per million population to
OIC countries (9.61) is much less than that of OECD countries (168.24). In fact the
number of patents granted (direct and PCT national phase entries) to seventeen OIC
countries in one year is only 163.33 per million population which is far less than
that of a single developed country like Japan (1763.20), Korea (1681.07), United
States (385.58) and France (173.84). There is also huge difference between OIC
and OECD countries in human skill development. Average gross enrolment ratio
(GER), primary to tertiary, both sexes of OIC countries is 66.12 per cent which
is much behind the average GER of OECD countries (94.67 per cent). Similarly,
average GER in science of OIC countries is 5.42 per cent which is way behind of
GER in science of OECD countries (17.17 per cent).
Science, Technology & Society 20:1 (2015): 114131
There are also significant differences in education expenditure, R&D expenditure, and R&D personnel (FTE1) between OIC and OECD countries as given in
Table 5. Average expenditure of OIC countries on education is 4.03 per cent while
average expenditure of OECD countries is 5.66 per cent of GDP. To assess the
scientific and technological development of a country, the important indicator
commonly used is R&D expenditure as percentage of GDP. OIC countries are
also lagging far behind in investing on R&D as compared to OECD countries.
Table 4
Comparison of TAI Indicators of OIC with OECD Countries
OIC Countries
Average
Average
9.61a
Average
Difference
158.64
168.24
3.02b
185.20
78.52
13.60
29.04c
6.16d
49.48
7.45
158.91
109.82e
49.09
9434.28
3126.27f
6308.01
17.17g
5.42g
11.74
94.67g
66.12h
28.56
ER
IA
L
188.23
FO
SE
OECD Countries
Indicator Name
OECDa
175.60
5.66a
8.74
OICb
157.25
4.03b
7.61
GERD as a Percentage
of GDP (20082012)
OECDc
69.89
2.12c
4.04
OECDc
4540651.00
137595.48e
869825.00
OICd
10.57
0.41d
1.10
OICe
445609.00
22280.45
92801.00
FO
ER
IA
L
SE
FO
ER
IA
L
SE
On the basis of the results of TAI-14-OIC and above facts and figures, it can be
concluded that most of the OIC countries are not only far behind scientifically
and technologically but are also week economically. Although, most of the OIC
countries are enriched with natural resources but a vast majority of OIC countries
is deprived of basic necessities of life like electricity, telephones, etc. because
the OIC countries are unable to fully utilise their human and natural resources
for social benefit of masses due to lack of scientific & technological capabilities.
TAI results show that only about 10 per cent of OIC countries have index value
above 0.5 and exist in very efficient countries, rest 90 per cent OIC countries
have to make long voyage of technological development to catch up. To adopt and
diffuse new and old technologies, ability and knowledge are required but lag in
scientific & technical knowledge and human skill make these countries unpropitious. The results of TAI-14-OIC also indicate that level of technological readiness/
preparedness to participate in the global knowledge based economy of most of OIC
countries is very low. That is why the gap between OIC and OECD countries is
broadening with every passing day. This incapability of OIC countries is the result
of lack of interest of political leaders in education, research & development, science & technology which are considered the engine for economic growth. Constant
ignorance about the importance of education and research & development by the
leaders is responsible for the deteriorating situation of OIC countries. The efforts
made in the field of science, technology and innovation by most OIC countries are
not adequate as per requirements.
The gap within the OIC countries for different indicators is also gigantic. For
instance, Tajikistan has made 1,005 publications during the period 1996 to 2013
which are about 350 times less that Turkeys 348,836 publications. Malaysia spends
5.94 per cent of GDP on education which is more than double of Pakistan which
spends only 2.22 per cent of GDP on education. Saudi Arabia spends 0.07 per cent
of GDP on R&D which is fifteen times less than 1.07 per cent of GDP of Malaysia.
Therefore, it is very important for OIC countries to realise the significance and
importance of education, research & development and innovation and their impact
on socio-economic growth and industrial development. They can learn the lesson
from some emerging developed countries like Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong and
Taiwan who have been spending huge budget on basic and applied research, and
education. The TAI index provides basic information for the policy makers in the
OIC countries to help them decide from where to take first step in the long journey
of building sufficient scientific and technological capabilities which are corresponding to the socio-economic needs of their societies.
Note
1. Full-time equivalent.
FO
ER
IA
L
SE
Ali, T.M., Kiani, A.K., Bashir, T. and Asrar, M. (2014). Technology achievement index of Muslim
countriesranking and comparative study 2013. Science, Technology and Development, 33(2),
4962.
Archibugi, D. and Coco, A. (2004). A new indicator of technological capabilities for developed and
developing countries (ArCO). World Development, 32(4), 62954.
Desai, M., Fukuda-Parr, S., Johansson, C. and Sagasti, F. (2002). Measuring the technology achievement
of nations and capacity to participate in the network age. Journal of Human Development, 3(1),
95122.
Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, ISESCO-1430/H, 2009. Strategy for
science and innovation in Islamic countries.
Khan, H.A. (2004). Education, science and technology in developing countries: Some thoughts
and recollections. Commission on Science and Technology for Sustainable Development in the
South (COMSATS), PP-61.
Lall, S. and Albaladejo, M. (2003). Indicators of the relative importance of IPRs in developing countries.
International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) and United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).
Mahmud, I. (2009). Science, technology and Muslim worldfrom a golden age to stagnation. Khan,
Bahadur Ahsanullah Memorial. Lecture (First).
Muslim population (2014). Retrieved 17 September 2014, from http://www.muslimpopulation.com/World
Naim, S.T.K. (2010). OIC member statesthe road to a knowledge economy (Lessons from Contrasting
Innovation Systems of 34 Scientifically Lagging OIC Countries with East Asian Countries),
COMSTECH, Islamabad.
Nasir, A., Ali, T.M., Shahdin, S. and Rahman, T.U. (2011). Technology achievement index 2009:
Ranking and comparative study of nations. Scientomet., 87(1), 4162.
Porter, A., Roessner, D., Newman, N., Jin, X. and Johnson, D. (2005). High tech indicators: Technologybased competitiveness of 33 nations 2005. Final report. Atlanta.
Porter, A., Roessner, D., Jin. X. and Newman, N. (2002). Measuring national emerging technology
capabilities. Science and Public Policy, 29(3), 112.
Porter, M. and Stern, S. (2003). Ranking national innovative capacity: Findings from the national
innovative capacity index, in the global competitiveness report 20032004. NY: Oxford University
Press.
Tribune. (2014). The Express Tribune work. Retrieved 27 September 2014, from http://tribune.com.pk/
story/563435/gdp-40pc-of-muslim-states-population-fall-below-poverty-line/
UNDP. (2001). Human development report 2001. UNDP.
UNESCO (2014). Database of UNESCO Institutes of Statistics. Retrieved 17 August 2014, 1 September
2014, from http://www.uis.unesco.org
UNIDO. (2003). Industrial development report 2002/2003: Competing through innovation and
learning. Vienna: United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO).
. (2004). Industrial development report 2004: Industrialisation, environment and the
millennium development goals in Sub-Saharan Africa. Vienna: United Nations Industrial
Development Organization (UNIDO).
. (2005). Industrial development report 2005: Capability building for catching-up. Vienna:
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO).
World Bank (2014). World Bank database (World Development Indicator (WDI). Retrieved 24 September
2014, from http://data.worldbank.org/
World Economic Forum (WEF). (2001). The global competitiveness report. NY: Oxford University Press.
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) (2014). WIPO Statistics Database. Retrieved
19 August 2014, from http://www.wipo.int/
Wagner, C.S., Brahmakulam, I., Jackson, B., Wong, A. and Yoda, T. (2001). Science and technology
collaboration: Building capacity in developing countries? Santa Monica, California: Rand
Corporation.
Wagner, C.S., Horlings, E. and Dutta, A. (2002). Can science and technology capacity be measured?
Santa Monica, California: Rand Corporation.
N
R
FO
M
C
C
ER
M
IA
L
SE