Abstract
This chapter reviews and discusses in some depth a number of considerations that need to be kept in mind when comparing international experiences in STI policies and drawing lessons for reforms. Issues of relevance to policy implementation, including constructive commitment and engagement by stakeholders, are given particular attention.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See OECD (2003) for an overview of the classification method.
- 2.
Data from fieldwork conducted for the INCONET-GCC project.
- 3.
The difference may not appear very distinct judged from Fig. 6.14. The opinion surveys reported in the World Economic Reports illustrate results based on a scale 1–7 weighted average, obscuring the magnitude of country differences. We will occasionally point this out when referring to these kinds of data which, however, in some cases represent the only available metrics to compare countries in the MENA region.
- 4.
It should be noted that no perfect separation line can be drawn between output, input and process indicators. While the elements included here have a marked input side to them, other aspects are also prevalent. This applies, for instance, in the case of absorptive capacity. We deliberately handle this as an input factor, however, in view of its strong influence on supporting or hindering innovation in emerging and developing economies.
- 5.
Based on survey results, to what extent do businesses in your country absorb new technology? [1 = not at all; 7 = aggressively absorb] | 2009–2010 weighted average.
- 6.
Gulf Organisation for Industrial Consulting and SRI International.
- 7.
The heterogeneous nature of innovation must be kept in mind. The World Economic Forum ranking of Germany as the leading country reflects the strength of innovation in engineering. Others, such as the Nordic countries or the United States may be ranked more highly in other kinds of measures that put a stronger emphasis on, e.g. innovation in services.
- 8.
Based on responses to the survey question; To what extent are scientists and engineers available in your country? [1 = not at all; 7 = widely available] | 2009–2010 weighted average.
- 9.
INCONET-GCC Field survey 2010.
- 10.
Gulf Organisation for Industrial Consulting and SRI International.
- 11.
Based on the survey question; How would you characterise corporate governance by investors and boards of directors in your country? [1 = management has little accountability to investors and boards; 7 = investors and boards exert strong supervision of management decisions] | 2009–10 weighted average.
- 12.
Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_governance. Accessed 29 May 2012.
Acknowledgments
Statistical analysis contributed by Sara Johansson de Silva is gratefully acknowledged.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Andersson, T., Djeflat, A. (2013). Measuring Performance in GCC and Selected MENA Countries: In-Depth Considerations of Implementation. In: Andersson, T., Djeflat, A. (eds) The Real Issues of the Middle East and the Arab Spring. Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5248-5_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5248-5_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-5247-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-5248-5
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)