You are on page 1of 19

114Catelijne Coopmans, Connor Graham, Axel Gelfert And Gregory Clancey

Assessment of Technological Capabilities


of OIC Countries

SE

TARIQ MAHMOOD ALI, TARIQ BASHIR


and ADIQA KAUSAR KIANI

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

A fundamental change has emerged in the development and application of science


and technology in the twentieth century that has affected every aspect of life, especially the fields of manufacturing, services, industry and agriculture. Resultantly,
technology content and intellectual component are increasing very rapidly in
every field (products, services, manufacturing etc.) which an entrepreneur desires

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

Science, Technology & Society 20:1 (2015): 114131


SAGE Publications Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore/Washington DC
DOI: 10.1177/0971721814561394

Assessment of Technological Capabilities of OIC Countries


115

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

116Tariq Mahmood Ali, Tariq Bashir and Adiqa Kausar Kiani

C. Scientifically developing countriesthe 24 countries with some features


of scientific capacity, and where the trend in spending is positive but whose
scientific capacity is below the international mean;
D. Scientifically lagging countriesthe 80 countries with little data indicating
scientific capacity.

ER

IA
L

SE

TAI, proposed by Desai et al. (2002), presented measurement approach to assess


the technological achievements of a country by concentrating on its capacity in
creating and using technology. They assessed technology achievements of a country
through four dimensions. Each dimension was composed of two indicators. The
dimension, creation of new technology was based on number of patents granted
per capita and receipts of royalty and license fees from aboard per capita. Diffusion
of recent innovations was based on internet host per capita and high and medium
technology exports as a share of total exports. Diffusion of old innovations was
based on telephones per capita and electricity consumption per capita. While the
dimension of human skills was based on mean years of schooling and tertiary
enrolment in science, mathematics and engineering. Desai et al. (2002) evaluated
72 countries on the basis of technology achievement index. They placed countries
into four groups which are as under:

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.

The New Indicator of Technological Capabilities (ArCO) also comprised of


three dimensions represented by eight indicators. This index was developed by
Archibugi and Coco (2004) who named their three dimensions as creation of
technology (composed of patents registered at USPTO and scientific articles),
technological infrastructures (composed of internet penetration, telephone penetration and electricity consumption) and development of human skills (composed of
tertiary science and engineering enrolment, mean years of schooling, and literacy
rate). The main purpose of developing this index was to provide the measurement
of technological capabilities that accounts for both developed and developing
countries. They evaluated 162 countries through their index. They also tried
to assess technological capability by including indicator of technology exports
(based on FDI, technology licensing payments and capital goods imports), as
introduced by Lall and Albaladejo (2003).
Science, Technology & Society 20:1 (2015): 114131

Assessment of Technological Capabilities of OIC Countries


117

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

118Tariq Mahmood Ali, Tariq Bashir and Adiqa Kausar Kiani

FO

ER

IA
L

SE

group of people working in the universities of Western Europe, the progress of


S&T development, which is presently related almost entirely with Western civilisation, was actually the product of knowledge and major inventions made by older
civilisations like Chinese, Indian, Islamic etc. (Mahmud, 2009).
There is a strong view that Muslim civilisation did more work related to
creativity and innovation than the recent scientific and technological revolution dominated by West (Mahmud, 2009). However, the present level of science
and technology efforts in OIC countries is very low than needed (Khan, 2004).
The scientific and technological gap not only between Muslim and the developed
countries, but also in-between OIC countries is widening with every passing day.
In the last decade of the twentieth century there has been a general awakening in
the OIC countries on the requirement for catching up with the West with respect
to science and technology, and removing the road blocks in the path of scientific
development (Mahmud, 2009). However, OIC countries are still not well versed, as
compared to the developed countries, with the policies and strategies required for
adopting the scientific approach for investigation, for development of environment
for research & innovation and for adapting new technologies.
Muslims comprise 28 per cent of the total world population (Muslim population, 2014) that spread from Turkey to Togo and from Indonesia to Algeria, and the
Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) (formerly Organization of the Islamic
Conference) is the second largest inter-governmental organisation after the United
Nations with membership of 57 independent states spread over four continents.
OIC countries are full of natural resources and produce more than 60 per cent
of the worlds crude oil. This amount of crude oil rises up to 70 per cent, if we
measure in terms of trade. Share of OIC countries in the total world production of
raw materials in jute, palm oil, natural rubber, natural gas, grain, cotton and sugar
is 80 per cent, 75 per cent, 70 per cent, 37 per cent, 25 per cent, 13 per cent and
10 per cent, respectively (ISESCO, 2009). As indicated above, the OIC countries
are full of natural and mineral resources but they are unable to discover/explore
and refine them. Due to lack of scientific and technological capacity they are also
unable to use them for socio-economic development.
Therefore, it is need of the time to review the situation of technological progress
of OIC member states. The current study has extended the previous technology
achievement index of OIC countries (referred as TAI-13-OIC) which included
34 countries. The present index (TAI-14-OIC) investigates the technological capabilities and capacities of 41 OIC countries. Moreover, the current study is based
on the latest available data. The main purpose of carrying out the current study
is to meditate level of technological progress and the readiness of OIC countries
to participate in knowledge based economy. Further, the study also analyzes OIC
countries on what changes (if any) have taken place in the ranking of various
OIC countries since the analysis reported by Ali et al (2014) which was based on
data sets for the period between 2006 and 2010 (referred as TAI-13-OIC). The
present study is based on the data sets from 2010 to 2012. Different policy options
for the OIC countries to improve their capacities have also been discussed.
Science, Technology & Society 20:1 (2015): 114131

Assessment of Technological Capabilities of OIC Countries


119
Data and Methodology

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

Total patents grants (direct and PCT national phase


entries) per million population (20102012)
Charges for the use of intellectual property, receipts
(BoP, current US$) per person (20102012)
Internet users (per 100 people) (2013)
High-technology exports (% of manufactured exports)
(20102012)
Telephone line + mobile cellular subscriptions (per 100
people) (2013)
Electric power consumption (kWh per capita) (2013)
Gross enrolment ratio in science,b both sexes at tertiary
level (20082012)
Gross enrolment ratio, primary to tertiary, both sexes
(%) (2013)

Observed Maximum Observed Minimum


Value
Value
97.121

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

Note: a OECD average and b includes engineering, manufacturing and construction.

Science, Technology & Society 20:1 (2015): 114131

120Tariq Mahmood Ali, Tariq Bashir and Adiqa Kausar Kiani

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:

Actual value - Observed minmum value


Observed maximum vlaue - Observed minmum value

IA
L

Indicator index =

Results and Discussion

FO

ER

Weightage and aggregation: Equal weightage is given to all four dimensions


and their sub-indicators. The index of each dimension is based on simple average
of its indicators indices. TAI-14-OIC value is calculated by the simple average
of these four dimensions indices. Only those (41) countries were included in the
study for which data was available for at least two indicators (gross enrolment
ratio and gross enrolment ratio in science). Data of patents and charges for the
use of intellectual property, receipts was missing for some of the countries. Where
data was not available or missing, zero value was used for calculating TAI for
those indicators.

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

Very Efficient (TAI > 0.5)


0.697
Kazakhstan
0.621
Malaysia
0.575
United Arab Emirates
0.504
Saudi Arabia
Active (TAI = 0.350 0.499)
0.498
Iran
0.493
Brunei
0.489
Oman
0.485
Bahrain
0.484
Qatar
0.456
Turkey
0.452
Jordan
0.450
Lebanon
0.445
Tunisia
0.418
Azerbaijan
0.406
Albania
0.400
Kyrgyz Republic
0.395
Egypt, Arab Rep.
0.392
Morocco
0.367
Indonesia

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

Charges for the use of


Intellectual Property,
Receipts (BoP, Current
US$) per person
(20102012)

Technology Creation (TC)

Total Patent Grants


(Direct and PCT
National Phase Entries)
per million population
(20102012)

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

Diffusion of Recent Innovations (DRI)

Table 2
The Technology Achievement Index 2014 for OIC Countries (TAI-14-OIC) with Corresponding Sub-indices and Their Rankings

Passive (TAI = 0.200 0.349)


0.329
Algeria
0.329
Guyana
0.315
Uzbekistan
0.315
Tajikistan
0.275
Iraq
0.265
Suriname
0.248
Mozambique
0.232
Nigeria
0.222
Cameroon
0.219
Cote dIvoire
0.212
Pakistan
0.202
Bangladesh
Fragile (TAI < 0.200)
0.178
Uganda
0.166
Gambia, The
0.165
Benin
0.155
Mali
0.139
Comoros
0.102
Burkina Faso
0.101
Guinea
0.050
Sierra Leone
0.040
Niger
0.016
Djibouti

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

Very Efficient (TAI > 0.5)


Kazakhstan
Malaysia
United Arab Emirates
Saudi Arabia
Active (TAI = 0.350 0.499)
Iran
Brunei
Oman
Bahrain
Qatar
Turkey
Jordan
Lebanon
Tunisia
Azerbaijan
Albania
Kyrgyz Republic
Egypt, Arab Rep.
Morocco

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

Gross enrolment ratio in Science,


Engineering, Manufacturing and
Construction programmes, both
sexes at tertiary level (20082012)

Development of Human Skills (DHS)


Gross enrolment
ratio, primary to
tertiary, both sexes
(%) (20082012)

ER

6
7
1
4

15

DOI
ranking

0.964
0.957
1.000
0.992

14

DOI
index

Diffusion of Old Innovations (DOI)

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.

Passive (TAI = 0.200 0.349)


Algeria
Guyana
Uzbekistan
Tajikistan
Iraq
Suriname
Mozambique
Nigeria
Cameroon
Cote dIvoire
Pakistan
Bangladesh
Fragile (TAI < 0.200)
Uganda
Gambia, The
Benin
Mali
Comoros
Burkina Faso
Guinea
Sierra Leone
Niger
Djibouti
0.273
0.186
0.290
0.162
0.377
0.085
0.182
0.085
0.007
0.021

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

Assessment of Technological Capabilities of OIC Countries


125
Paradigm of OIC Countries

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

126Tariq Mahmood Ali, Tariq Bashir and Adiqa Kausar Kiani

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

There is a huge gap in the performance of OIC countries in comparison to OECD


countries. Average electricity consumption (kWh per capita) of OIC countries
is 3126.27 which is far less than the average consumption of OECD countries
(9434.28) as shown in Table 4. OIC countries are 67 per cent behind the OECD countries in consumption of electricity. Similarly, average use of internet and telephone
plus mobile of OIC countries is 29.04 and 109 per person respectively, which is far
Science, Technology & Society 20:1 (2015): 114131

Assessment of Technological Capabilities of OIC Countries


127
Table 3
Comparison of Scientific Capacity Indicators of Some Selected OIC and OECD Countries
**GERD as a Percentage
of GDP (20082011)

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

Source: *Scopus Data: **UIS Data.


Notes: a = 2008, b = 2009, c = 2010, e = 2006.

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

128Tariq Mahmood Ali, Tariq Bashir and Adiqa Kausar Kiani

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

Total patent grants (direct and PCT national


phase entries) per million population
(20102012)
Charges for the use of intellectual property,
receipts (BoP, current US$) per person
(20102012)
Internet users (per 100 people) (2013)
High-technology exports (% of manufactured
exports) (20102012)
Telephone line + mobile cellular subscriptions
(per 100 people) (2013)
Electric power consumption (kWh per capita)
(2011)
Gross enrolment ratio in science both sexes at
tertiary level (20082013)
Gross enrolment ratio, primary to tertiary,
both sexes (%) (20082013)

SE

OECD Countries
Indicator Name

Source: WIPO (2014), World Bank (2014), UNESCO: UIS (2014).


Notes: a, b, c, d, e and f are indicating the average of 17, 28, 55, 56, 41 and 49 OIC
countries respectively, while g and h are representing the average of 33 and 34 OECD
countries.
Table 5
Comparison of Three Basic S&T Indicator: OIC and OECD Countries
Government Expenditure
on Education as %
of GDP (20082012)
Total
Average
Maximum

OECDa
175.60
5.66a
8.74

OICb
157.25
4.03b
7.61

GERD as a Percentage
of GDP (20082012)

Total R&D Personnel


(FTE)Total (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

Source: UNESCO: UIS (2014).


Notes: a and c are the average of 31 and 33 OECD countries while b, d and e are the average
of 39, 26 and 20 OIC countries.

Science, Technology & Society 20:1 (2015): 114131

Assessment of Technological Capabilities of OIC Countries


129

FO

ER

IA
L

SE

Average R&D expenditure as percentage of GDP of OIC countries is 0.41, which


is very small as compared to that of OECD countries which is 2.12. Total number
of R&D personnel (FTE) of OIC countries is 445,609 which is less than total
R&D personnel of a single OECD country such as Japan (869,825) and Germany
(579,200).
Comparison of OIC countries with OECD countries in scientific capacity
indicators reveal that OECD countries are way ahead than OIC countries in these
indicators (Table 3). Germany has published 1,983,270 papers during the period
1996 to 2013 which is 16 times more than top-ranked OIC country Malaysia
which has only 125,084 publications during the same period. Similarly Finland
is spending 6.76 per cent of its GDP on education which is far higher than OIC
countries like Pakistan which spends only 2.22 per cent of GDP on education. Korea
(4 per cent of GDP) spends much higher amount on R&D than Saudi Arabia
(0.07 per cent of GDP) which is included in the Very Efficient group.
If we analyse all the studies which have evaluated technological capabilities
of countries using technological achievement index as a tool for measurement of
technological capabilities, it is revealed that the state of OIC countries in general is
not satisfactory. In the 2002 study, carried out by Desai et al. (2002), 72 countries
were classified into four groups: leaders, potential leaders, dynamic adopters and
marginalised countries. Only one OIC country (Malaysia) was included in the
category of potential leaders, while five were included in the category of dynamic
adopters and four in the category of marginalised countries. In the next study carried out by Nasir et al. in 2011, out of ninety-one countries, only four countries
(Malaysia, UAE, Bahrain and Lebanon) were placed in the group of potential leaders, thirteen countries in dynamic adopters and five countries in the marginalised
group. Inclusion of no OIC country in the category of leaders, in the both studies,
indicates poor performance of OIC countries in terms of technological achievement.
In the study conducted by Ali et al. in 2014, only for OIC countries, thirty-four OIC
member states were categorised in four groups: Very Efficient, Active, Passive and
Fragile on the basis of TAI value. There were only five countries in the category
of Very Efficient, fifteen in Active and twelve in the Passive category while four
were included in the fragile category.
OIC countries not only lag behind in scientific and technological development but
they are also very week in economic development. As per the data of 2013, jointly
the fifty-six OIC countries, about 28 per cent of total world population, add only
6.57 per cent to the total world GDP. While total GDP of fifty-six OIC countries is
US$ 3675.25 billion, with population of 1644.41 million, is less than that of United
States (US$ 14498.6231) and China (US$ 4864.00), with populations only 316.13
and 1357.38 million, respectively. While, 40 per cent people of OIC countries are
living under poverty-line (Tribune, 2014.). There are large differences in the per
capita income among OIC member countries, which vary from US$ 58,524 for
Qatar to US$ 290 for Niger. It depicts that overall governance and management
of economic and social issues are being affected negatively by the huge income
differences within the OIC nations (Naim, 2010).
Science, Technology & Society 20:1 (2015): 114131

130Tariq Mahmood Ali, Tariq Bashir and Adiqa Kausar Kiani


Conclusion

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.

Science, Technology & Society 20:1 (2015): 114131

Assessment of Technological Capabilities of OIC Countries


131
References

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.

Science, Technology & Society 20:1 (2015): 114131

N
R

FO
M

C
C

ER

M
IA
L

SE