Key messages

For two decades now, the UNESCO Science Report series has been mapping science, technology and innovation (STI) around the world on a regular basis. Since STI do not evolve in a vacuum, this latest edition summarizes the evolution since 2010 against the backdrop of socio-economic, geopolitical and environmental trends that have helped to shape contemporary STI policy and governance.

Key messages are:

• Today, there are fewer grounds than in the past to deplore a simple „North-South“ divide in research and innovation
• Science is becoming more mobile 
• Science powers commerce – but not only 
• A growing tendency for governments and firms to invest in sustainable technologies

Black Sea Region

One of the messages towards Black Sea Region encourages the countries from the region to strenghten the inter-regional scientific co-operation:

"Countries around the Black Sea should also look closer to home when it comes to seizing opportunities for scientific co-operation and learning from one another’s successes and failures."

Furthermore:

"All seven countries would benefit from a stronger culture of evaluation in the area of STI policies." (Deniz Eröcal and Igor Yegorov)

Conclusions

Countries can learn from one another and from emerging economies Most Black Sea countries still have a long way to go to  catch up to dynamic middle-income countries when it comes  to the STI policy environment and levels of investment in human resources, R&D and ICT infrastructure. In global comparisons, they tend to fare better for output than for input, with the notable exception of Azerbaijan and Georgia, which seem to have particular difficulties in translating their modest R&D effort into economic gains. Georgia, for instance, has a relatively strong standing in some branches of humanities but these publications do not fuel R&D and  technology-driven innovation. 

Most countries can look back on a strong orientation towards science and technology in their education systems and economic structures of the not too distant past. Some vestiges of this period still survive in the post-Soviet states, such as the high prevalence of graduates with technical qualifications or of publications in physical sciences and engineering. With the right sort of policies and incentives, the reorientation of these countries towards technology-intensive development would be a much less challenging prospect than for those developing countries which are still in  the process of shedding their traditional agrarian  socio-economic structures.

In order to make the transition to an innovation-driven economy, all the post-Soviet states situated in the Black Sea region will have no choice but to engage in fundamental reforms, including a steep increase in R&D funding. Moreover, if they are to intensify their R&D effort to any significant extent, the business sector will need stronger incentives to invest in R&D. These incentives will need to create a business-friendly environment that is conducive to a thriving market economy, not least by fighting corruption and eliminating oligarchic ownership and control structures. No traditional STI policy initiative can expect to have a decisive impact on private sector R&D if the business environment remains largely hostile to the emergence of new enterprises and market-based challenges to existing power relations.

In the case of Turkey, which has already accomplished substantial progress in the past decade for a wide range of STI indicators – be they educational attainment, researcher and R&D intensity or the number of patents – priority issues have more to do with improving co-ordination and collaboration among the various actors of the national innovation system, in addition to strengthening accountability and improving efficiency. In parallel, the targets fixed by the government for further quantitative growth translate a worthy ambition, even if some targets may be overoptimistic.

For all countries, making the various components of the national innovation landscape work as a system, rather than as disjointed parts, while maintaining sufficient flexibility remains a challenge. It is evident that Azerbaijan and Georgia, in particular, would benefit from a clearer focus on a national innovation strategy at the highest political level. As for Armenia, Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine, they would get more mileage out of their existing STI strategies by making a more determined effort to address shortcomings in the business environment.

All seven countries would benefit from a stronger culture of evaluation in the area of STI policies, not least Turkey, which has raised its level of investment in R&D by so much in recent years. This would also help countries to establish and pursue more realistic goals and targets in this area.
All countries should also make a bigger effort to converge with global best practice for STI data availability, quality and timeliness; this is especially critical for Georgia and, to a lesser extent, for Armenia and Azerbaijan.

The countries around the Black Sea have an understandable tendency to look more or less exclusively to the European Union or the Russian Federation, or to both, for partnerships in science and technology and international comparisons. It would be helpful for them to look beyond this geographical sphere, in order to get a better grasp of how S&T-related policies and performance are evolving in other emerging market economies and developing countries, some of which are becoming key international players or policy innovators. Countries around the Black Sea should also look closer to home when it comes to seizing opportunities for scientific co-operation and learning from one another’s successes and failures. The present chapter has striven to point them in that direction.

KEY TARGETS FOR BLACK SEA COUNTRIES

• Azerbaijan is to double GDP per capita to US$13 000 by 2020;
• All educational institutions in Azerbaijan are to have internet access and free open education resources are to be developed by 2020;
• Belarus is to increase its GERD/GDP ratio to 2.5–2.9% of GDP by 2015, up from 0.7% in 2011;
• Turkey is to increase its GERD/GDP ratio to 3.0% of GDP by 2023, up from 0.9% in 2011;
• Industrial GERD in Turkey is to rise from 43.2% of total spending on R&D in 2011 to 60.0% by 2018;
• The number of Turkish FTE researchers is to more than double from 72 000 (2012) to 176 000 (2018).
   

---

The conclusions of the report on the region are provided above, please download and read the full report here: 

• Download the full interactive PDF
• Order a copy

Executive Summary

• English | Français | Español | Русский | العربية | 中文,  Portuguese | German