Advertisement

Comparison Between the IUGP Settings and Global Innovation Index of Qatar, United States, Norway, and Singapore

  • Waqas NawazEmail author
  • Muammer Koç
Chapter
Part of the Management and Industrial Engineering book series (MINEN)

Abstract

In the first part of this chapter a qualitative comparison of the IUGP enablers is performed between US, Norway, Singapore, and Qatar, which were discussed in detail in Chaps.  2 5. The qualitative comparison reveals that the IUGP history in the US, as one might expect, is the longest in comparison to the other countries. At the same time, Qatar is still at an engagement level in terms of its IUGPs and overall innovation system. In the second part of this chapter, to further explore the specific areas where Qatar has a room to improve (in comparison to the other three countries), a comprehensive quantitative comparison of Global Innovation Index (GII) and its indicators is performed between the four countries (Cornell University, INSEAD, WIPO, 2017). The comparison highlights that Qatar can enhance its innovation system and IUGP settings through improvements in regulatory environment, research and development, market sophistication (such as credit and investment), knowledge-based workforce, knowledge creation, and creative outputs (such as creative goods and services and online creativity).

References

  1. Cornell University, INSEAD, & WIPO. (2016). The global innovation index 2016: Winning with global innovation. Ithaca, Fontainebleau, and Geneva.Google Scholar
  2. Cornell University, INSEAD, & WIPO. (2017). The global innovation index 2017—innovation feeding the world. Ithaca, Fontainebleau, and Geneva.Google Scholar
  3. Doing Business. (2016). Measuring business regulations. http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploretopics/getting-credit/what-measured.
  4. Ginesta, X., de San Eugenio, J. (2016). The use of football as a country branding strategy. Case study: Qatar and the catalan sports press. Communication & Sport, 2(3), 225–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. International Labour Office. (2012). International standard classification of occupations. Geneva. http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/docs/publication08.pdf.
  6. Joint Research Center. (2016). Economics of industrial research and innovation—the scoreboard. http://iri.jrc.ec.europa.eu/home#close.
  7. Lin, L., Ewing-Chow, M. (2014). The doing business indicators in minority investor protection: The case of singapore. http://law.nus.edu.sg/wps/pdfs/007_2014__LinLin.pdf.
  8. Qatar Ministry of Development Planning and Statistics. (2014). Qatar social statistics 2003–2012. Doha. http://www.mdps.gov.qa/en/knowledge/Publications/Social/Soc_Qatar_Social_Statistics_En_2014.pdf.
  9. Qatar News Agency. (2017). Qatar vows to uphold the principle of rule of law. Gulf Times. http://www2.gulf-times.com/story/566362/Qatar-vows-to-uphold-the-principle-of-rule-of-law.
  10. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2012). Science, technology and innovation: GERD by source of funds. http://data.uis.unesco.org/#.
  11. United Nations Statistics Division. (2008). International standard industrial classification of all economic activities—Rev04. New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sustainable Development DivisionHamad Bin Khalifa UniversityDohaQatar

Personalised recommendations