Gross Domestic Expenditure On R&D Research Articles

Comment on “The Evolution of University–Industry Linkages in Thailand”

Thailand has set itself the target of becoming a developed country by 2037. To achieve this goal, the nation must enhance its technological capabilities to produce higher-value-added products. Over the past two decades, Thailand has worked to improve its competitiveness through innovation by increasing research and development (R&D) investment. The country's gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) rose from 0.25% of the gross domestic product (GDP) in 2000 to 1.33% in 2020. This is driven by a significant increase in private sector R&D expenditure, which rose from 35% of total GERD in 2000 to 68% in 2020. However, firms' R&D output performance, as measured by granted patents, has seen slower progress (Rattanakhamfu & Itthiphatwong, 2019). Some have argued that this is due to weak university-industry linkages (UILs). In fact, 15 years ago, Brimble and Doner (2007) emphasized the role of university–industry linkages (UILs) in Thailand's technological competencies. Based on their analysis of four sectors—the automotive sector, the textile and garment sector, the agro-industry, and the electronics sector—Brimble and Doner concluded that Thai UILs played a very limited role in the country's economic development. They attributed weak UILs to low competition in the domestic market, inefficient structures and weak incentives in Thai universities, and the fragmentation of the Thai bureaucracy. Intarakumnerd and Jutarosaga (2023) contribute to the existing literature by examining the role of UILs in three sectors, namely the automotive sector, the electronics sector, and the pharmaceutical sector, based on their analysis of R&D and Innovation (RDI) Surveys between 2014 and 2018 and case studies. They find that despite significant development in the higher education system over the past two decades, Thailand's UILs remain weak. Most UIL activities focus on human resource development, particularly student internships and employee training. Research-related linkages are particularly weak. Among the sectors studied, the pharmaceutical and electronics industries appear to have stronger ties with universities than the automotive sector. In summary, Intarakumnerd and Jutarosaga offer valuable insights into the evolution of UILs in Thailand. To further enhance their contribution to the field, Intarakumnerd and Jutarosaga should consider the following revisions: First, by providing descriptive statistics on the firms in the sample so that readers can understand the firms' characteristics from the RDI survey, such as firm size and nationality. Although Intarakumnerd and Jutarosaga argue that there is a bias towards large firms, as all have asset sizes of more than THB 10 million, this is not the case when firm size is measured by sales. In fact, the proportion of small, medium, and large firms are relatively equal (each around 30%–39%) in all survey years. Second, by offering recommendations to improve not only student internships but also other underdeveloped UIL forms in Thailand, such as research partnerships, technology transfers, and industry-sponsored research.

Measuring the incidence of social factors on scientific research: A socio-scientometrics analysis of strategic countries

En la literatura científica algunos estudios han examinado el impacto positivo que tiene la investigación en la sociedad. Sin embargo, este trabajo analiza cómo los factores sociales pueden influir en los resultados científicos. La muestra de investigación estudia a México y sus socios estratégicos en ciencia y tecnología. Los resultados se dividen en tres partes, la primera muestra la relación entre población, inversión pública en educación superior, gasto interno bruto en I+D (GERD) (como porcentaje del Producto Interno Bruto (PIB)), número de investigadores y los resultados científicos (producción científica y citas recibidas). La segunda parte se centra en la relación entre la movilidad del investigador (sedentario o migratorio (flujos de entrada y salida, estancias transitorias)) y la producción en colaboración. La tercera parte analiza si las preferencias en investigación de los países tienen una repercusión en el conjunto total de la producción científica. Este estudio facilita una mejor comprensión de las contribuciones sociales al desarrollo científico y socioeconómico de los países y es útil para que los gobiernos y los responsables políticos tengan en cuenta la importancia de estas variables sociales y, como resultado, conducir a los países hacia la excelencia en ciencia.

R&D effects, risks and strategic decisions: evidence from listed firms in R&D-intensive countries

PurposeThe purpose of this research is to look at the effects of research and development expenditures (R&D) on value and risks of publicly traded companies by studying returns on stock exchanges of R&D-intensive economies (Republic of Korea, Finland and Israel).Design/methodology/approachEmpirical tests of multifactor asset pricing models were applied to demonstrate that R&D intensity could be considered as a pricing factor and affect investors’ risk premiums on those markets. To discover the reasons behind the asset pricing R&D anomaly, this study investigated the nature of R&D risk further by looking into the interactions of R&D and currency risks.FindingsThis study discovered that investors in stock markets of R&D-intensive countries should require a positive equity risk premium. However, the reduction of R&D intensity may increase firms’ risks and firms with higher R&D-intensity are less exposed to currency risks in R&D-intensive economies.Originality/valueMany researchers have investigated the relationship between a firm’s R&D and stock returns. But nearly all of them focus on the US Stock Market and attempt to determine the reasons for R&D’s impact on firms’ risks and market value. Meanwhile, the role of R&D and related risks for investors could be even more prominent for stock markets in R&D-intensive countries. To bridge this gap, this research studied stock returns on exchanges of three developed countries where the ratio of gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) to GDP is among the highest worldwide. In this study, the methodology of asset pricing empirical studies was adopted and it was further developed to analyze the causes of R&D risks. The new methodology was applied to discover relationship between R&D intensity and currency risk exposure. The interesting findings could be used for development of firms’ corporate strategies in those countries and for elaboration of policy decisions.

Does national expenditure on research and development influence stroke outcomes?

Background Expenditure on research and development is a macroeconomic indicator representative of national investment. International organizations use this indicator to compare international research and development activities. Aim We investigated whether differences in expenditures on research and development at the country level may influence the incidence of stroke and stroke mortality. Methods We compared stroke metrics with absolute amount of gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) per-capita adjusted for purchasing power parity (aGERD) and relative amount of GERD as percent of gross domestic product (rGERD). Sources included official data from the UNESCO, the World Health Organization, the World Bank, and population-based studies. We used correlation analysis and multivariable linear regression modeling. Results Overall, data on stroke mortality rate and GERD were available from 66 countries for two periods (2002 and 2008). Age-standardized stroke mortality rate was associated with aGERD (r = -0.708 in 2002 and r = -0.730 in 2008) or rGERD (r = -0.545 in 2002 and r = -0.657 in 2008) (all p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis showed a lower aGERD and rGERD were independently and inversely associated with higher stroke mortality (all p < 0.05). The estimated prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, or obesity was higher in countries with lower aGERD. The analysis of 27 population-based studies showed consistent inverse associations between aGERD or rGERD and incident risk of stroke and 30-day case fatality. Conclusions There is higher stroke mortality among countries with lower expenditures in research and development. While this study does not prove causality, it suggests a potential area to focus efforts to improve global stroke outcomes.

Bibliometric Measures of Research Output of Lower Middle Income Economies

To understand the path of Lower Middle Income (LMIC) Economies towards economic stability as far as Science, Technology and Innovation are concerned; this paper conducts trend analysis of research output in science-based disciplines of the 55 countries in the LMIC bracket, grouped into the 6 continents of the world. Factors of interest across the six regions were (1) source of funding for scientific research output measured against percentage share of Gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD), (2) R&D share of GDP measured against three key determinants of growth in Science, Technology and Innovation (Services, value added (% of GDP); Industry, value added (% of GDP) and High technology exports (% of manufactured exports),) and (3) scientific research publications measured against the three determinants of growth in Science, Technology and Innovation. The results show that, in the period of 2000-2012, the combined performance of LMIC countries in the Oceania region were relatively higher in the Services, value added (% of GDP) and High technology exports (% of manufactured exports) than LMICs in other regions. South America's LMICs performed relatively better under Industry, value added (% of GDP) than other LMICs. The study helps to understand whether investments made in scientific research in LMICs have corresponding effect on the production of Science, Technology and Innovation.

A scale-independent analysis of the performance of the Chinese innovation system

In this paper we use scale-independent indicators to explore the performance of the Chinese innovation system from an economic and from a science and technology point of view, and compare it with 21 other nations. Some important developments in the Chinese innovation system, hidden by rankings by conventional performance indicators, were revealed. We find that gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) & gross domestic product (GDP) and GDP & POP (population) all exhibit strong ‘Matthew effects’, measured by their scaling factors. This means that the Chinese R&D intensity (GERD/GDP) and national wealth (GDP per capita) are growing significantly with the increase of the GDP. Also pairs such as citations & papers, papers & GDP, citations & GDP, and paper & GERD exhibit these ‘Matthew effects’. This observation points to the fact that in China scientific outputs and impacts are growing faster than economic growth and research investment. However, according to another scale-independent indicator, namely the adjusted relative citation impact (ARCI), China ranks on the bottom of the list, but the growth rate of the ARCI is the highest among these countries (comparing the periods 1995–1999 and 2001–2005). To sum up, we interpret these findings to mean that the scientific outputs and impacts of China show a real tendency of catching up with its economic growth. It is expected that with an increase of its GDP and R&D intensity China will show a sustained increase in indicators related to science and technology. Similarly, there are very strong ‘Matthew effects’ between the outputs of technology (patents) and economic growth and research investment. This means that the outputs of technology are expected to increase considerably with an increase of GDP and R&D expenditure. Furthermore, in the Chinese innovation system the government intramural expenditure on R&D (GOVERD) has a stronger non-linear impact on patent productivity than business enterprise expenditure on R&D (BERD). This shows that in China research institutions financed by the government play a more important role than enterprises.

Science, funding and economic growth: analysis and science policy implications

This paper analyses the relationship between economic growth and funding for research. The econometric analysis show that Gross domestic Expenditure on R&D (GERD) as percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a important driver of economic growth (R 2 adj = 71%) that is measured by GDP per capita. The optimisation shows that the level of GERD equal to 2.6 maximises the GDP per capita, moreover is important to have global maximum that GERD financed by government is lesser than 30% of total. The paper also discusses Lisbon Strategy and research policy of the USA, Japan and EU countries.

The Relation between Social Capital, Governance and Economic Performance in Europe

The literature on social capital stresses the relations between social capital (trust, social norms and networks), government effectiveness and economic performance. In empirical investigations the relationship between aforementioned items was clarified by using various indicators of social capital and different country samples. Due to this reason the results are hardly comparable. In this article we aim to examine the strength of the relationship between social capital, governance quality and economic performance by using the same indicators of social capital and the same country sample (23 European countries). The study has indicated that both social capital and government indicators are related to economic performance and to each other. Results showed the positive correlation of two social capital dimensions, namely trust and networks, with economic performance indicators and governance indicators, while civism dimensions do not correlate either with economic performance or with governance indicators. In this paper we used three economic performance indicators, namely GDP per capita in Purchasing Power Standards, labour productivity per person employed and percentage of gross domestic expendi- ture on R&D (GERD) financed by industry.

Government rhetoric and their R&D expenditure. A score-card for governments' investments into science and future technologies.

If you want to harvest in the autumn, you need to sow in spring. This ancient wisdom holds true not only for agriculture, but for all economic activities. When nations turned their focus from agriculture to industry, the definition of ‘sowing’ and ‘harvesting’ changed. The latter is relatively easy to identify: it is the nation's wealth in terms of economic growth, employment level, per capita income, exports, and so on. Such achievements point the way not only to re‐election of the politicians who ensure a rich harvest, but also to the well‐being of all its citizens. Slightly harder to define is the ‘sowing’ part—the public and private investments that guarantee economic growth and high employment in the long term. After the industrial revolution took place, governments needed simply to ensure that the social, political and financial structures were in place to encourage entrepreneurs to start businesses and create new jobs in the emerging industrial sector. Now, at a time of globalization, international corporations move to where they can find the best opportunities in terms of employee salaries and governmental incentives. It follows that robust manufacturing processes are being transferred from their traditional locations in the developed world to areas that offer the best financial projections and the lowest cost structures. As a result, the so‐called advanced economies have to find new ways to maintain their privileged status. The common solution is to focus on new discoveries that bring with them ownership of commercially valuable intellectual property and require a phase of development and manufacturing in a highly skilled environment. Thus, the seeds that need to be sown are now investments, from both industry and government, into science and technology, with the aim of creating well‐paid jobs in the high‐tech sector and new products for an increasingly demanding global market. > It …