The international standing of the South African scientific research:

Implications for international research cooperation and technology transfer

International Research Paper #191759

24 November 2010

Prepared

by

Vuyani Lingela, Chief Director: International Research

Department of Science and Technology, Private Bag X 894, Pretoria 0001, South Africa
Tel: +27 12 843 6517, Fax: +27 86 681 0051, Email: Vuyani.Lingela@dst.gov.za

Acknowledgements
The views expressed in this paper are the author's, not those of the Department of
Science and Technology
 International Research Paper #191759

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to identify countries that are performing better than South
Africa in terms of scientific productivity and quality. Developed economies such as
Australia, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, Germany and the United States were
expected to perform much better than South Africa. However, emerging economies
and countries such as Mexico or Brazil; India or China; South Korea; and Australia
represent four different clusters of relatively high performing economies compared to
South Africa. These countries could be the subject of a subsequent in-depth study to
uncover the reasons why South Africa is lagging behind in terms of scientific
leadership and excellence. The results presented in this paper have implications for
international research cooperation and technology transfer in order to promote the
implementation of the Ten Year Innovation Plan of the Government of South Africa.

1. Introduction

This paper is part of a bigger study that aims to uncover underlying reasons for the
differences in levels of productivity and quality of the South African scientific
research in comparison to its international partners. Although the reasons cannot be
uncovered in this preliminary study alone, the findings of this study will be used to
identify countries that are performing better than South Africa in terms of scientific
productivity and quality. Such high performing countries will be the subject of a
subsequent in-depth study to uncover the reasons why South Africa is lagging behind
these countries. The overall study will include interviews with key personnel and
organisations responsible for promoting scientific productivity and quality in high
performing countries. Overall, this study will present international learning that can be
adopted and adapted for the effective development and implementation of the science,
engineering and technology human capital development strategy for South Africa.

2. Methods

In order to assess the level of productivity and quality of the South African scientific
research in comparison to its international partners, the most recent five years
cumulative data on the total number of scientific publications and the total number of
citations associated with these publications were obtained from Thomson Reuters
InCites database on 21 September 2010. The number of research publications is used
in this study as a proxy indicator for scientific leadership. Countries that produce the
highest numbers of scientific publications in specific scientific domains can be
considered to be research leaders in those domains, while countries that produce the
lowest numbers of scientific publications can be considered research followers. The
number of citations is used as a proxy indicator for scientific quality because unique
and original research of high scientific standing is expected to receive more citations
than incremental research of low scientific standing. In addition, countries are
assessed based on their global ranking (Schwab, 2010; The World Bank Group, 2010).

2
 International Research Paper #191759

Data were obtained for each of the following 15 countries: Argentina, Australia,
Brazil, China, Egypt, England, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, South Africa,
South Korea, Tunisia and United States. The choice of these countries is informed by
the existing active international bilateral scientific and technological cooperation
between these countries and South Africa. Further, these countries represent different
levels of economic development, including developing countries such as Egypt,
Tunisia and Argentina; emerging economies such as Mexico, Brazil India, China and
South Korea; and developed economies such as Australia, Italy, Japan, United
Kingdom, Germany and the United States. The different stages of economic
development are important for this paper in order to enhance international learning.

3. Results

3.1 The level of productivity and quality of the scientific research

The results presented in Figures 1 to 5 indicated that four developed economies,

namely: United States, Japan, Germany and England, have produced scientific
research of the highest quality in the past five years. Even then, the United States
remains far more superior in terms of scientific excellence. Australia, China and Italy
have maintained high levels of scientific research and in some scientific domains their
quality of research compares very well with the leading developed economies. For
example, the quality of research in engineering and technology in China is much
higher than that of Germany, Japan and England. The quality of social sciences
research in Australia and Italy is much higher than that of Japan. Brazil, India and
South Korea have produced research of a much higher scientific quality compared to
developing countries such as such as Mexico, Argentina, South Africa, Egypt and
Tunisia, particularly research in engineering and technology in South Korea.

Further analyses indicate a statistically significant relationship between scientific

leadership (number of scientific publications) and scientific quality (number of
citations) in Figures 1 to 5. A very strong relationship was observed in the following
scientific domains: agricultural sciences (R = 0.980, P = 0.035); engineering and
technology (R = 0.970, P = 0.041); medical and health sciences (R = 0.997, P =
0.003); natural sciences (R = 0.970, P = 0.031); and social sciences (R = 1, P = 0.000).
These results indicate that countries that are producing research of high quality in
specific scientific domains have also attained high levels of scientific leadership in
those specific scientific domains.

As illustrated in Appendix 1 (Schwab, 2010), the poor quality of health and primary
education are some of the major challenges that South Africa has to overcome. Poor
quality of health has a negative effect on life expectancy of the nation. It might be an
interesting subject for an independent scientific research to find out the effect of the
poor quality of health on research leadership and research quality in South Africa.
Unfortunately, South Africa does not seem to provide the required scientific
leadership in the domain of medical and health sciences in comparison to its
international partners as illustrated in Figure 3. Considering the burden of infectious
diseases such as HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, South Africa should be at the forefront
in medical and health sciences research. Although the quality of higher education is
relatively better than most developing countries, South Africa has a room for
improvement as illustrated by its global competitiveness ranking in Appendix 1.

3
 International Research Paper #191759

Web of Science Documents Times Cited

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0
Tunisia

South Africa

Argentina

England
Brazil

Australia

Germany
Egypt

United States
China
South Korea

India
Mexico

Italy

Japan
Figure 1. Number and quality of scientific publications in agricultural sciences
Web of Science Documents Times Cited

1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
Tunisia

South Africa

Argentina

England
Brazil

Australia

Germany
Egypt

United States
China
India

South Korea
Mexico

Italy

Japan

Figure 2. Number and quality of scientific publications in engineering and technology

Web of Science Documents Times Cited

6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
Tunisia

Argentina

South Africa

England
Brazil

Australia

Germany
Egypt

United States
China
India

South Korea
Mexico

Italy

Japan

Figure 3. Number and quality of scientific publications in medical and health sciences

4
 International Research Paper #191759

Web of Science Documents Times Cited

7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
Tunisia

South Africa

Argentina

England
Brazil

Australia

Germany
Egypt

United States
China
India

South Korea
Mexico

Italy

Japan
Figure 4. Number and quality of scientific publications in natural sciences

Web of Science Documents Times Cited

700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
Tunisia

Argentina

South Africa

England
Brazil

Australia

Germany
Egypt

United States
China
India

South Korea
Mexico

Italy
Japan

Figure 5. Number and quality of scientific publications in social sciences

The results presented in Figures 1 to 5 have implications for international research

cooperation and technology transfer. For example, the Government of South Africa is
supporting the implementation of the Ten Year Innovation Plan which contains the
following five “Grand Challenges” that build on and expand our current research
strengths (Minister Naledi Pandor, 2009). The first challenge is to tap the potential of
our bio-economy for our pharmaceutical industry. South Africa could promote
cooperation with leading countries in Figures 1 and 3 in order to systematically
manage product value chain to exploit its biodiversity resource base, and a solid
foundation of expertise for the establishment of a globally competitive pharmaceutical
industry. The second challenge is to build on our investment in space science and
technology. South Africa could promote cooperation with leading countries in Figures
2 and 4 in order to grow and manage, in a coordinated fashion, our satellite industry
and a range of innovations in space sciences, earth observation, communications and
navigation for socio-economic benefits.

The third challenge is to move towards the use of renewable energy. South Africa
could promote cooperation with leading countries in Figures 2 and 4 in order to

5
 International Research Paper #191759

explore opportunities in clean coal technologies, nuclear energy, renewable energy

and hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. The fourth challenge is to play a leading,
regional role in climate change. South Africa could promote cooperation with leading
countries in Figures 1, 2 and 4 in order to play a leading role in climate change
science and make a major contribution to understanding climate change, and offer
modelled solutions to the world. The fifth and final grand challenge is termed “human
and social dynamics”. South Africa could promote cooperation with leading countries
in Figures 5 in order to increase South Africa’s ability to anticipate the complex
consequences of change.

3.2 The relationship between scientific excellence and economic development

In order to assess the implications of the findings presented in Section 3.1 for
economic development, the author explored the relationship between the quality of
research and the level of economic development. In this paper, GDP per capita values
obtained from The World Bank Group (2010) are used as proxy indicators for the
level of economic development for countries. Countries that have low GDP per capita
are considered to be underdeveloped or developing economies. On the other hand,
countries that have high GDP per capita are considered to be developed economies. In
order to assess the relationship between scientific excellence and economic
development, the author aggregated the values of all citations presented in Figures 1
to 5 per country. The countries were ranked low or high according to the number of
citations per country.

GDP per capita (current US$) Predicted GDP per capita (current US$)

16

Australia United States

Germany
Japan
UK
GDP per capita
(current US$)

Italy
Korea
8 Mexico
Brazil
Argentina
South Africa
Tunisia
China
Egypt
India
0
0 8 16

Quality of Scientific Research

Figure 6. The relationship between scientific excellence and economic development

The results presented in Figure 6 indicate a strong relationship (R = 0.714, P = 0.218)

between the level of economic development and the quality of scientific research.
However, the most interesting results are the statistically outlying countries such as
India, China and Australia. The three countries do not specifically conform to this
relationship because when they are excluded in Figure 6, the relationship between the

6
 International Research Paper #191759

level of economic development and the quality of scientific research is even more
stronger (R = 0.961, P = 0.002). An obvious reason for these differences can be
attributed large populations of India and China as illustrated in Appendix 1.

Although the quality of research India and China is improving, and China has attained
research leadership which is comparable to developed economies, their level of
economic development has not adequately touched their large populations. The results
presented in Figure 6 indicate that India and China have a tremendous economic
potential because of the quality of research produced by the two countries. For
example, India has potential to achieve the same or higher level of economic
development (GDP per capita) as Brazil. China on the other hand, has a potential to
attain the same level of economic development as developed economies such as Italy
and Japan. Australia on the other hand is an excellent example of a “smart resource
based economy”. This is a very unique economic position because most resource
based economic tend to be research followers, without providing scientific research
leadership. Australia is an outstanding example of a country that seems to have
“busted the myth” of resource based economies by producing research of high quality.

Table 1. Relationship between specific scientific domains and economic development

Agricultural Engineering & Medical Natural Social Total Times GDP per capita
Research Domain
Sciences Technology & Health Sciences Sciences Cited (current US$)
Agricultural Sciences 1.00
Engineering & Technology 0.99 1.00
Medical & Health 0.99 0.99 1.00
Natural Sciences 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00
Social Sciences 0.97 0.96 0.99 0.97 1.00
Total Times Cited 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00
GDP per capita
0.70 0.73 0.68 0.73 0.59 0.71 1.00
(current US$)*

Further analyses undertaken by the author indicates a strong relationship between the
quality of research in specific scientific domains illustrated in Table 1 and economic
development. These results are based on the actual values presented in Figures 1 to 5
and exclude statistically outlying countries such India, China and Australia. However,
the results indicate a relatively weak relationship between the quality of social
sciences research and economic development. In this paper, the author will not
examine this problem but recommends it as a subject for an independent scientific
research to uncover the underlying reasons for a relatively weak relationship between
research in social sciences and economic development.

The real world results presented in Figure 6 can be summarised into a strategic
framework for economic development through scientific leadership and scientific
quality as illustrated in Figure 7. This framework indicate that whereas developed
economies consistently provide research leadership and produce research of high
quality, developing economies consistently remain research followers and produce
research of relatively low quality. This framework also indicate that whereas
knowledge based economies consistently enhance their research leadership and
produce research of high quality, resource based economies consistently depend on
their natural resources for their economic development with very limited investment
in scientific research. This framework also suggest a growth path from

7
 International Research Paper #191759

underdevelopment or resource dependency to knowledge dependency and finally to

fully fledged development in all aspects of scientific and economic development.
Economic Development

High “Resource Based Economies” “Developed Economies”

“Underdeveloped Economies”
Low & “Knowledge Based Economies”
“Developing Economies”

Low High
Quality of Scientific Research

Figure 7. Framework for economic development through scientific excellence

What sets knowledge economies apart from other economies is the presence of
engineers and entrepreneurs who are willing to take risks and sustain efforts under
adversity as well as the general ability of engineers to absorb foreign technology and
the ability of workers to absorb new production processes (Odagiri and Goto, 1993).
For example, what sets China apart from other developing or emerging economies is
the collective ability of its scientific, technical, engineering and managerial workforce
to use their skills, national resources and leverage international resources to acquire
and create technologies for the production of goods and services to meet national and
global market needs (Lingela, 2009).

4. Conclusions

It this paper the author has identified countries that are performing better than South
Africa in terms of scientific productivity and quality. Developed economies such as
Australia, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, Germany and the United States were
expected to perform much better than South Africa. However, emerging economies
such as Mexico or Brazil; India or China; South Korea; and Australia represents four
different clusters of relatively high performing economies compared to South Africa.
These countries could be the subject of a subsequent in-depth study to uncover the
reasons why South Africa is lagging behind these countries in as far as scientific
leadership and excellence is concerned, as illustrated in Section 3. In the interest of
South-South cooperation, South Africa should promote the transfer of its scientific
and/or economic leadership through international bilateral scientific and technological
partnerships with other developing countries such as Tunisia, Egypt and Argentina.

8
 International Research Paper #191759

References

Lingela, V. (2009). Management Strategy to Develop National Technology Capability.

Proceedings of the International Conference on Education, Research and
Innovation (ICERI2009). Madrid, Spain, 16-18 November 2009, pp. 1875-1886.
Minister Naledi Pandor (2009). Address by Minister Naledi Pandor MP, at the
National Innovation Summit. Maropeng Conference Centre, South Africa, 18
August 2009.
Odagiri, H. and Goto, A. (1993). The Japanese system of innovation: past, present and
future, in: Nelson, R.R. (Ed.), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative
Analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Schwab Klaus (Editor) (2010). The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011. World
Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland.
The World Bank Group (2010). http://ddp-ext.worldbank.org/ext/DDPQQ/member.
do?method=getMembers&userid=1&queryId=189. Accessed on 19 November
2010.
Thomson Reuters (2010). InCites. Accessed on 21 September 2010.

9
 International Research Paper #191759

Appendix 1. Global Ranking

Overall Global Global Ranking in Global Ranking in

GDP per capita
Competitiveness Health and Primary Higher Education Population (2009)#
(current US$) (2009)#
Ranking (2008/09)* Education (2008/09)* and Training (2008/09)*
1 United States 15 Australia 5 United States 46,436 United States 1,331,460,000 China
7 Germany 19 England 12 South Korea 42,279 Australia 1,155,347,678 India
9 Japan 22 Japan 14 Australia 40,873 Germany 307,007,000 United States
12 England 24 Germany 18 England 39,727 Japan 193,733,795 Brazil
13 South Korea 26 South Korea 21 Germany 35,165 United Kingdom 127,560,000 Japan
18 Australia 27 Tunisia 23 Japan 35,084 Italy 107,431,225 Mexico
30 China 30 Italy 27 Tunisia 17,078 Korea, Rep. 82,999,393 Egypt
36 Tunisia 34 United States 44 Italy 8,144 Mexico 81,879,976 Germany
45 South Africa 50 China 56 Argentina 8,114 Brazil 61,838,154 United Kingdom
49 Italy 61 Argentina 57 South Africa 7,666 Argentina 60,221,211 Italy
50 India 65 Mexico 58 Brazil 5,798 South Africa 49,320,150 South Africa
60 Mexico 79 Brazil 63 India 3,792 Tunisia 48,747,000 Korea, Rep.
64 Brazil 88 Egypt 64 China 3,744 China 40,276,376 Argentina
81 Egypt 100 India 74 Mexico 2,269 Egypt 21,874,900 Australia
88 Argentina 122 South Africa 91 Egypt 1,134 India 10,432,500 Tunisia
* Source: Schwab (2010)
# Source: The World Bank Group (2010)

10