Knowledge generation in South Africa

8/7/2019 Knowledge generation in South Africa

1/14

Conference on Higher Education in South Africa. Regent Hotel, East London, South Africa,22-24 November 2011

1

Knowledge generation through international researchpartnerships: Implications for South Africas international

technology transfer efforts

Vuyani LingelaDepartment of Science and Technology, Private Bag X 894, Pretoria 0001, South Africa

Email: [email protected]

AbstractThe purpose of this paper is to present the contribution of international research partnershipstowards South Africas knowledge generation capacity and to identify international researchpartnerships that had a significant impact on South Africas knowledge generation capacityand those that are likely to have a significant impact in the future. The main conclusion drawnfrom this paper is that the share of scientific publications produced by South Africanresearchers in collaboration with international researchers, as a percentage of the totalnumber of publications, has increased from 12.8% in 1990 to 48.3% in 2010. Anotherconclusion is that collaboration between South African researchers with researchers from the

United States and England is likely to remain very important for South Africas knowledge

generation capacity. However, Brazil, China, Mexico, South Korea and India represent anemerging source of growth for South Africas knowledge generation capacity.

1. Introduction

This paper is part of a study that aims to uncover the underlying reasons for thedifferences in the levels of productivity and influence of the South African scientificresearch in comparison to its international partners. Although the reasons cannot beuncovered in this preliminary study alone, the findings of this study will be used toidentify countries that are performing better than South Africa in terms of scientificproductivity and influence. Such high performing countries will be the subject of a

subsequent in-depth study to uncover the reasons why South Africa is lagging behind.Such a study will include interviews with key personnel responsible for promotingscientific productivity and influence in high performing countries.

Overall, this study will present international learning that can be adopted and adaptedfor the effective development and implementation of the science, engineering andtechnology human capital development strategy for South Africa. This paper alsopresents the experience of South Africa in generating knowledge throughinternational research partnerships by examining the following two issues. Itexamines the contribution of international research partnerships towards SouthAfricas knowledge generation capacity. It also examines international researchpartnerships that are likely to have a significant impact on South Africa s knowledge

generation capacity in the future.

2. Data and methods

In order to assess the productivity and influence of the South African scientificresearch in comparison to its international partners, data presenting the total numberof scientific publications produced in the most recent five years and the total numbersof citations associated with these publications were obtained from Thomson ReutersInCitesTM database on 21 September 2010. The number of research publications isused in this paper as a proxy indicator for scientific leadership. Countries thatproduce the highest numbers of scientific publications in specific scientific disciplinescan be considered to be research leaders in those disciplines, while countries thatproduce the lowest numbers of scientific publications can be considered researchfollowers. The number of citations is used as a proxy indicator for scientific influence
mailto:[email protected]


2/14


2

because unique and original research of high scientific standing is expected toreceive more citations than incremental research of low scientific standing.

In addition, countries are assessed based on their global competitiveness ranking(Schwab, 2010; The World Bank Group, 2010). Data were obtained for each of thefollowing 15 countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Egypt, England, Germany,India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, South Korea, Tunisia and United States.The choice of countries is informed by the existing active international bilateralscientific 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; emergingeconomies such as Mexico, Brazil India, China and South Korea; and developedeconomies such as Australia, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, Germany and the UnitedStates. The different stages of economic development are important for this paper inorder to enhance international learning.

In order to assess the contribution and impact of international research partnerships

towards South Africas knowledge generation capacity, data presenting the totalnumber of scientific publications produced by South African researchers in

collaboration with international researchers between 1990 and 2010 were obtainedfrom Thomson Reuters InCitesTM database on 16 February 2011. The total numbersof scientific publications produced by South African researchers in collaboration withat least one international researcher between 1990 and 2010 were also obtainedfrom Thomson Reuters on 24 March 2011. If South African researchers for examplehave published one paper in collaboration with one or more researchers fromdifferent countries, that accounts for one international collaboration.

3. Results

3.1 The level of productivity and influence of the scientific research

The results presented in Figures 1 to 5 indicate that four developed economies,namely: United States, Japan, Germany and England, have produced scientificpublications that had the most influence in the past five years. Even then, the UnitedStates remains far more superior in terms of scientific excellence. Australia, Chinaand Italy have maintained high levels of scientific research. In some scientificdisciplines, the influence of their research compares very well with the leadingdeveloped economies. For example, the influence of Chinese scientific publicationsin engineering and technology is much higher than that of Germany, Japan andEngland. The influence of Australian and Italian research in social sciences is muchhigher than that of Japan. Brazil, India and South Korea have produced scientific

research that is more influential than research produced in developing countries suchas such as Mexico, Argentina, South Africa, Egypt and Tunisia. This is particularlytrue for research in engineering and technology in South Korea.

Further analyses indicate a statistically significant relationship between scientificleadership (number of scientific publications) and scientific influence (number ofcitations) in Figures 1 to 5. A very strong relationship between scientific leadershipand scientific influence was observed in the following scientific disciplines: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 suggestthat the most influential countries in specific scientific discipliners are those that haveattained scientific leadership in those disciplines.


3/14


3

0

50,000

100,000150,000

200,000

250,000

Tunisia

Egypt

SouthAfrica

Argentina

Mexico

SouthKorea

India

Brazil

Italy

China

Australia

England

Germany

Japan

UnitedStates

Number of publications Times Cited

Figure 1. Number and influence of scientific publications in agricultural sciences

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

Tunis

ia

Egy

pt

SouthAfrica

Argentina

Mexico

Bra

zil

Austra

lia

India

Italy

SouthKorea

England

Japan

Germa

ny

China

UnitedStates


Figure 2. Number and influence of scientific publications in engineering and

technology

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

Tunisia

Egypt

Argentina

Mexico

SouthAfrica

India

Brazil

SouthKorea

China

Australia

Italy

Japan

Germany

England

UnitedStates


Figure 3. Number and influence of scientific publications in medical and healthsciences


4/14


4

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,0004,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

Tunisia

Egypt

SouthAfrica

Argentina

Mexico

Brazil

India

SouthKorea

Australia

Italy

China

Japan

England

Germany

UnitedStates


Figure 4. Number and influence of scientific publications in natural sciences

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

Tunis

ia

Egy

pt

Argentina

Mexico

India

SouthAfrica

SouthKorea

Bra

zil

China

Japan

Italy

Austra

lia

Germa

ny

England

UnitedStates


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

As illustrated in Table1 (Schwab, 2010; The World Bank Group, 2010), the poorquality of health and primary education are some of the major challenges that SouthAfrica has to overcome. The poor quality of health of the nation has a potential ofreducing the average life expectancy of the nation. It might be an interesting subjectfor an independent research to find out the effects of the poor quality of health on

South Africas scientific research leadership and influence. Unfortunately, SouthAfrica does not seem to provide the required scientific leadership in the discipline of

medical and health sciences in comparison to its international partners as illustratedin Figure 3. Considering the burden of infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS andtuberculosis, South Africa should be at the forefront of medical and health sciencesresearch. Japan for example, a country that is prone to earthquake, is at the forefrontof seismological research. Although the quality of higher education is relatively betterthan most developing countries, South Africa has a large room for improvement asillustrated by its higher education global competitiveness ranking in Table1.


5/14


5

Table 1. Global Ranking

Overall GlobalCompetitiveness

Ranking (2008/09)*

Global Ranking inHealth and Primary

Education (2008/09)*

Global Ranking inHigher Education

and Training (2008/09)*

GDP per capita(current US$) (2009)#

Population (2009)#

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 States12 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)


6/14


6

The results presented in Figures 1 to 5 have implications for international researchcooperation and technology transfer. For example, the Government of South Africa isimplementing the Ten Year Innovation Plan which includes five Grand Challengesthat build on and expand the countrys research capabilities (Minister Naledi Pandor,2009). The first grand challenge is to tap the potential of the bio-economy for thepharmaceutical industry. South Africa could promote cooperation with leadingcountries in Figures 1 and 3 in order to exploit its biodiversity resource base, anddevelop a solid foundation of expertise for the establishment of a globally competitivepharmaceutical industry. The second grand challenge is to build on investments inspace science and technology. South Africa could promote cooperation with leadingcountries in Figures 2 and 4 in order to grow and manage, in a coordinated fashion,its satellite industry and a range of innovations in space sciences, earth observation,communications and navigation for socio-economic benefits.

The third grand challenge is to move towards the use of renewable energy. SouthAfrica could promote cooperation with leading countries in Figures 2 and 4 in order toexplore opportunities in clean coal technologies, nuclear energy, renewable energy

and hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. The fourth grand challenge is to play aleading, regional role in climate change. South Africa could promote cooperation withleading countries in Figures 1, 2 and 4 in order to make a major contribution in theunderstanding of climate change, and offer modelled solutions to the world. The fifthand final grand challenge is termed human and social dynamics. South Africa couldpromote cooperation with leading countries in Figures 5 in order to increase thecountrys 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 results presented in Section 3.1 foreconomic development, I have explored the relationship between the level of

influence of research and the level of economic development. In this paper, GDP percapita values obtained from The World Bank Group (2010) are used as proxyindicators for the level of nation economic development. Countries that have lowGDP per capita are considered to be underdeveloped or developing economies. Onthe other hand, countries that have high GDP per capita are considered to bedeveloped economies. In order to assess the relationship between scientific influenceand economic development, I have aggregated all the citations presented for eachcountry in Figures 1 to 5 and ranked each country low or high according to its level ofscientific influence and its level of economic development relative to other countries.

The results presented in Figure 6 indicate a strong relationship (R = 0.714, P =0.218) between the level of economic development and the level of influence of

scientific research. The most interesting results are the statistically outlying countriessuch as India, China and Australia. When they are excluded in Figure 6, therelationship between the level of economic development and the level of influence ofscientific research is even stronger (R = 0.961, P= 0.002). An obvious reason forthese differences can be attributed to large populations of India and China asillustrated in Table 1. Although the research influence of India and China is improving,and Chinas research leadership is comparable to developed economies, their levelsof economic development have not adequately reached their large populations.

The results presented in Figure 6 indicate that India and China have a tremendouseconomic potential because of the influence of scientific publications produced by thetwo countries. For example, India has potential to achieve the same or higher level ofeconomic development (GDP per capita) as Brazil. China has a potential to attain thesame level of economic development as developed economies such as Italy and


7/14


7

Japan. Australia on the other hand is an excellent example of a smart resourcebased economy. This is a very unique economic position because most resourcebased economies tend to be research followers, without providing scientificleadership. Australia is an outstanding example of a country that has overcome theresource-curseparadox by maintaining high levels of economic development for itssociety as well as high levels of scientific leadership and influence.

JapanGermany

UKItaly

Korea

BrazilArgentina

Egypt

Tunisia

United States

South Africa

India

China

Australia

Mexico

Influence of Scientific Research

Economic

development

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

High

Low

Low High

Figure 6. The relationship between scientific excellence and economic development

HighLow

Knowledge Based

Economies

Underdeveloped Economies&

Developing EconomiesLow


Developed EconomiesResource Based

EconomiesHigh

HighLow

Knowledge Based

Economies

Underdeveloped Economies&

Developing EconomiesLow


Developed EconomiesResource Based

EconomiesHigh

Econ

omicDevelopment

Figure 7. Framework for science and technology-led economic development

The real world results presented in Figure 6 can be summarised into a strategicframework for economic development, underpinned by scientific leadership andinfluence as illustrated in Figure 7. This framework indicate that whereas developedeconomies consistently provide research leadership and produce scientificpublications that have the most influence, developing economies consistently remain


8/14


8

research followers. This framework also indicate that whereas knowledge basedeconomies consistently enhance their research leadership and produce influentialscientific research, resource based economies consistently depend on their naturalresources for their economic development with very limited investment in scientificresearch. This is the resource-curse paradox that Austria has transcended. Thisframework also suggest a growth path from underdevelopment or resourcedependency to knowledge dependency and finally to fully fledged development in allaspects of scientific and economic development.

What sets knowledge economies apart from other economies is the presence ofengineers and entrepreneurs who are willing to take risks and sustain efforts underadversity as well as the general ability of engineers to absorb foreign technology andthe ability of workers to absorb new production processes (Odagiri and Goto, 1993).For example, what sets emerging economies such as China apart from otherdeveloping economies is the collective ability of its scientific, technical, engineeringand managerial workforce to use their skills, national resources and leverageinternational resources to acquire and create technologies for the production of

goods and services to meet national and global market needs. I have explored theissue of national technology capability (Lingela, 2009) in detail in a separate paper.

Table 2. Relationship between scientific disciplines and economic development

AreaAgriculturalSciences

Engineering &Technology

Medical& Health

NaturalSciences

SocialSciences

GDP per capita(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 1.00GDP per capita

(current US$)

0.70 0.73 0.68 0.73 0.59 1.00

Further analyses that I have undertaken indicates a strong relationship between theinfluence of research in scientific disciplines presented in Table 2 and economicdevelopment. These results are based on the actual values presented in Figures 1 to5 but exclude statistically outlying countries such India, China and Australia. Aninteresting observation is that the results indicate a relatively weak relationshipbetween the influence of social sciences research and economic development. In thispaper, I will not examine this problem but I recommend it as a subject for anindependent scientific research to uncover the underlying reasons for a relativelyweak relationship between research in social sciences and economic development.

3.3 The contribution international research partnerships

International researchers are involved in research partnerships with South Africanresearchers that have resulted in a number of scientific publications ranging from onepublication per year, with researchers in countries such as Azerbaijan and Jamaica,to more than 1,000 publications per year with researchers in the United States.Overall, the numbers of scientific publications resulting from international researchpartnerships have grown on an annual basis from 518 publications in 1990 to 3,404publications in 2010. These results indicate the increasing contribution ofinternational collaborations towards South Africas knowledge generation capacity.

As illustrated in Figure 8, the increase in the numbers of publications from 518 in

1990 to 3,404 in 2010 represent an increase from 12.8% in 1990 to 48.3% in 2010 inthe share of scientific publications produced by South African researchers in


9/14


9

collaboration with international researchers, as a percentage of the total number ofpublications produced by South African researchers. The share of internationalcollaborations indicates the total number of scientific publications produced by SouthAfrican researchers in collaboration with at least one international researcher.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Totalnumberofpublications

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Int

ernationalcollaboration(%)

Number of publications Share of international collaborations (%)

Figure 8. The total number and the share of scientific publications produced in

collaboration with international researchers between 1990 and 2010

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

199

0

199

1

199

2

199

3

199

4

199

5

199

6

199

7

199

8

199

9

200

0

200

1

200

2

200

3

200

4

200

5

200

6

200

7

200

8

200

9

201

0

Number of publications Total number of international collaborations

Figure 9. The total number of scientific publications and the total number of

international collaborations with South African researchers between 1990 and 2010

I have also examined the total number of international collaborations undertake bySouth African researchers, which indicates the total number of countries that arecollaborating on each scientific publication produced in collaboration with SouthAfrican researchers. If South African researchers for example have published onepaper in collaboration with researchers from three different countries, that accountsfor three international collaborations. As indicated in Figure 9, the total numbers of

international collaborations, with South African researchers, that produced scientificpublications have grown on an annual basis from 660 in 1990 to 7,177 in 2010.


10/14


10

These results indicate the increasing internationalization of South Africas researchactivities.

3.4 Growth in international research partnerships with emerging nations

This paper presents the contribution of international research partnerships betweenSouth African researchers and researchers from Brazil, Russia, India, China, Mexicoand South Korea. The results indicate that research collaboration between SouthAfrican researchers and researchers in China, India and Brazil is increasinglybecoming more important for South Africas knowledge generation capacity incomparison to research collaborations with other countries presented in Figure 10.Collaborations with researchers in Russia, Mexico and South Korea produced theleast number of scientific publications.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Numb

erofpublicationsperyear

China India Brazil Russia Mexico Korea

Figure 10. The number of scientific publications produced by South Africanresearchers per year in collaboration with international researchers

A closer examination of these data in Figure 11 indicates that in the most recent 6years, the highest levels of growth in research outputs were achieved between SouthAfrican researchers and researchers in South Korea and India. This representedgrowth rates of 221% and 257% from 2004 to 2009 respectively. From 1998 to 2003,the highest growth (500%) in research output came from research collaborationbetween South African and South Korean researchers. The results indicate asignificant decline in research outputs between South African and Russianresearchers from 1998 to 2003 as well as from 2004 to 2009. One of the reasons forthe declining growth in research outputs between South African and Russianresearchers might be due to the fact that the Russian research and developmentsystem, which was responsible for major achievements during the era of the SovietUnion, has been unsuccessful in the 1990s and early 2000s to redirect scientificactivities away from military and towards civilian goals (Yegorov, 2009).


11/14


11

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Ru

ssia

USA

Australia

France

Germ

any

Eng

land

Mexico

B

razil

C

hina

K

orea

India

Growthinpublications(%)

Growth (1992-1997) Growth (1998-2003) Growth (2004-2009)

Figure 11. Growth in the number of scientific publications produced by South Africanresearchers in collaboration with international researchers from 1992 to 2009

The results presented in Figure 11 indicate that among the BRIC (Brazil, Russia,India and China) countries, India was the most important source of growth inresearch output for South Africa in the most recent 6 years. Brazil, India and Chinaare likely to be important sources of growth in research output between South Africaand BRIC in the future. Stated in other words, data presented in Figures 10 and 11

indicate that although research partnerships with Russian researchers wereimportant in the past (1992-1997), research partnerships with Brazil, India and Chinaare likely to have a significant impact on South Africas knowledge generationcapacity in comparison with research collaborations with Russian researchers.

3.5 Influence of international research partnerships

Another aspect that I have considered in this paper is the overall influence ofscientific publications produced by South African researchers in collaboration withinternational researchers. Although many countries have contributed in thedevelopment of South Africas knowledge generation capacity as illustrated in Figure12, research collaborations between South African and American researchers as well

as collaborations with researchers in England had a profound and positive impact onSouth Africas knowledge generation capacity from 1990 to 2010. Another set ofcountries that had a significant impact on South Africas knowledge generationcapacity include Netherlands, Canada, Australia, France, and Germany.

4. Conclusions

It this paper I have identified countries that are performing better than South Africa interms of scientific productivity and influence. Developed economies such as Australia,Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, Germany and the United States were expected toperform much better than South Africa. However, countries such as Mexico andBrazil, India and China, South Korea and Australia represent four different clusters of

relatively high performing economies compared to South Africa.


12/14


12

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

T

rinidad&Tobago

Cuba

Lesotho

Swaziland

Ghana

Egypt

Mozambique

Malawi

Tanzania

Zambia

Botswana

Turkey

Singapore

Nigeria

Tunisia

SouthKorea

Thailand

Namibia

Zimbabwe

Kenya

India

China

Mexico

Russia

Brazil

Finland

New

Zealand

Israel

Sweden

Japan

Switzerland

Italy

Netherlands

Canada

Australia

France

Germany

England

USAN

umberofpublications(1990-2010)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Numberoftimescited(1990-2010)

Number of Publications Times Cited

Figure 12. The total number and influence of scientific publications produced by South African researchers in collaboration with internationalresearchers between 1990 and 2010


13/14


13

The countries above will be the subject of a subsequent in-depth study to uncoverthe reasons why South Africa is lagging behind in as far as scientific leadership andinfluence is concerned. In the interest of South-South cooperation, South Africashould promote the transfer of its scientific and/or economic leadership throughinternational bilateral scientific and technological partnerships with other developingcountries such as Tunisia, Egypt and Argentina.

The main conclusion that can be drawn from this paper is that South Africanresearchers are increasingly performing at the international stage. The increase inthe numbers of scientific publications from 518 in 1990 to 3,404 in 2010 representsan increase from 12.8% in 1990 to 48.3% in 2010 in the proportion of scientificpublications produced by South African researchers in collaboration with internationalresearchers, as a percentage of the total number of publications produced by SouthAfrican researchers. The total numbers of international collaborations, with SouthAfrican researchers, that produced scientific publications have grown on an annualbasis from 660 in 1990 to 7,177 in 2010.

Another conclusion that can be drawn from this paper is that collaboration betweenSouth African researchers with researchers in the United States and England is likelyto remain very important for South Africas knowledge generation capacity. Anotherset of countries that is likely to remain important for South Africas knowledgegeneration include countries such as Netherlands, Canada, Australia, France, andGermany. However, Brazil, China, Mexico, South Korea and India represent anemerging source of growth for South Africas knowledge generation capacity.

I have also identified a relatively weak relationship between the influence research insocial sciences and economic development. I did not examine this problem but Irecommend it as a subject for an independent scientific research to uncover theunderlying reasons. The poor quality of health and primary education are some of the

major challenges that South Africa has to overcome. The poor quality of health of thenation has a potential of reducing the average life expectancy of the nation. It mightbe an interesting subject for an independent research to find out the effects of thepoor quality of health on South Africas scientific research leadership and influence.

5. Acknowledgements

This paper benefited from the questions raised by my colleagues, Dr Thomas Auf derHeyde and Dr Phethiwe Matutu, and the data support provided by Ms Alice Makua.The analyses, results and views presented in this paper are those of the author alone.

6. References

InCitesTM

, Thomson Reuters (2010). Report Created: Sept 21, 2010. New York, USA.InCitesTM, Thomson Reuters (2011). Report Created: Feb 16, 2011.Thomson Reuters. New

York, USA.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 NationalInnovation 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. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

Schwab Klaus (Editor) (2010). The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011. World

Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland.


14/14

Documents

Knowledge generation in South Africa