Scientometrics (2020) 122:23–45

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03292-9

Approach to the identification of an alternative

technological innovation index

Alejandro Barragán‑Ocaña1 · Gerardo Reyes‑Ruiz1 · Samuel Olmos‑Peña2 ·

Hortensia Gómez‑Viquez1

Received: 5 February 2018 / Published online: 15 November 2019

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Abstract
There is a strong interest in identifying and designing standardized indicators to measure
and visualize the progress made by countries in terms of science, technology, and innova-
tion with the purpose of defining strategies for the countries to increase their competitive-
ness. The main purpose of this study was to present a first approach to the identification
of an alternative index of technological innovation based on the grouping of indicators
reported by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development as inputs and
outputs sub-indexes. The identified index made it possible to generate a ranking (A) of the
positions of 37 countries and three groups of countries using longitudinal data analysis.
The method used for validating the alternative technological innovation index was based
on the calculation of Person’s correlations between our A ranking and the World Economic
Forum ranking, the Global Competitiveness Index ranking, and the Subindex Innovation
and Sophistication Factors ranking, in addition to the ranking presented in the Global Inno-
vation Index by the World Intellectual Property Organization; high correlations validated
our index and ranking.

Keywords  Index · Innovation · Technology · Measurement · Competitiveness

JEL Classification  O1 · O30 · O31 · O32 · O33 · O34

* Alejandro Barragán‑Ocaña
abarragano@ipn.mx
1
Instituto Politécnico Nacional (IPN), Centro de Investigaciones Económicas, Administrativas
y Sociales (CIECAS), Lauro Aguirre 120. Col. Agricultura, Del. Miguel Hidalgo,
C. P. 11360 Mexico City, Mexico
2
Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México (UAEM), Centro Universitario UAEM Valle
de Chalco, Hermenegildo Galena No.3, Colonia María Isabel, C. P. 56615 Valle de Chalco,
Estado de México, Mexico

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 24 Scientometrics (2020) 122:23–45

Introduction

The environment in which an innovation comes to life has a considerable influence on its
development and potential use. Kash and Rycroft (2002) describe how highly complex
innovations often take place within a network of interactions among multiple actors (influ-
enced by economic, political, social, cultural, and geographical contexts) where knowledge
flows are focused on innovation and can present themselves as commercial and non-com-
mercial transactions. Thus, the production, sales, and purchases of innovation outcomes
are dictated by norms, institutions, and social and political structures, even though learning
and technological dissemination also occur in a context of informality and self-initiative.
Innovation is more than just a technical phenomenon, and it is necessary to exert a positive
influence in its development. Thus, in the pursuit of innovation, it is important to consider
resources, technical skills, and, most of all, management-related skills, in addition to the
accumulation of knowledge reflected by experiences that allow organizations to increase
their competitiveness (Freel 2005; Pennings and Harianto 1992).
In this regard, Engel and Del-Palacio (2009) explain that globalization processes have
given rise to greater dynamism and exchanges of people, capital, and technology, and com-
panies now require additional information to remain as integrated organizations. Therefore,
if generating value is the goal, then the approach must be oriented toward the creation of
innovations based on the demand and the search for customers who value the potential ben-
efits (Johannessen and Olsen 2010). In fact, given the rapid changes that technology pre-
sents over time, the development of capacities for its correct adoption becomes imperative,
and the generation of human capital has been closely associated with economic growth
(Mattalia 2012; Ali et  al. 2012). These circumstances can help to increase the develop-
ment of countries as a result of their increased innovative capacity, particularly innovation
related to technological development produced endogenously that provides competitive
advantages in global markets.
The phenomenon of national innovative capacity has been described as the economic
and political potential of a country to place high-impact innovations in the market; it is
based on different factors such as technological sophistication, workforce, investment,
and policies that may come from the government or the private sector itself (Furman et al.
2002). Investment in research and development (R&D) and the participation of highly spe-
cialized human resources are two necessary characteristics for the creation of intangible
assets, which is why firms must take good care of their staff, even though investments may
be uncertain and generated inventions are often slow to reach the market (Hall and Lerner
2010). Moreover, it is undeniable that venture capital must be present if high added-value
innovations that can competitively participate in international markets are to be created.
Therefore, R&D subsidies play a relevant role in generating opportunities for companies
whose nature is innovative and are able to invest using these supports, consequently ben-
efiting the country and increasing general competitiveness (Egger and Keuschnigg 2015).
Government support can contribute to the improvement of macroeconomic indicators in
science, technology, and innovation because it promotes opportunities for companies to
bet on larger projects that allow them to generate innovations to improve their processes
or products, and the risk is shared with the government. Thus, these initiatives encourage
the integration of highly specialized human resources, and technological developments of
greater impact can be made.
R&D has been used by various governments as a mechanism for achieving greater pro-
ductivity; the types of incentives aimed at encouraging innovation activities and the impact

13
Scientometrics (2020) 122:23–45 25

of the expenditure are based, on the one hand, on the size of the economy and, on the other
hand, on its openness (Bye et al. 2009). Similarly, associations with higher education insti-
tutions are an advantage for companies because these linkages often result in increased
productivity, innovation, well-being, and employment (Löfsten and Lindelo 2005). There-
fore, the integration of these elements must be studied more in depth to understand the
phenomenon of innovation and support better decision-making.
However, it is important to go beyond the limited analyses that, by their very nature,
are provided by the usual indicators of science, technology, and innovation performance.
It is also essential to bear in mind that the behavior of technological innovation cannot
be explained in a linear way—its modeling and measurement must include dynamic pro-
cesses (Blundell et al. 1995). It has been noted that a systemic approach for the study of
the phenomenon of innovation can help to design policies that promote innovation, and
it is precisely this vision which comes closest to the concept of National Innovation Sys-
tems (NISs) (Samara et al. 2012). The study of NISs can help to understand how the core
of institutions and support mechanisms that lead countries to enhance their technological
innovation processes should be formed considering the similarities and differences arising
from the common factors and asymmetries of the different economies (Nelson 1992).
Although the development of indicators for science, technology, and innovation allows
for an approach to the dynamics between these three elements and to how they influence
social and economic systems systemically (Freeman and Soete 2009), it is necessary to
build more dynamic measurement proposals that, through the use of these indicators, make
it possible to provide a better approach to the stage of the scientific and technological
development of a country. In its broadest sense, innovation has been associated with devel-
opment, although the discussion remains controversial because each case and context pre-
sent differences and asymmetries that make it unique. However, this condition should be
applied not only to the progress of advanced economies but also to the progress of develop-
ing countries (Fagerberg et al. 2010).
The main purpose of the present study was to generate a first approach to the identifi-
cation of an alternative index of technological innovation based on a model of input and
output sub-indexes. The model was used for measuring the correlation of the main indica-
tors of science and technology reported by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development OECD (2016) and for learning, on this basis, how they interact to determine
which indicators have a positive relationship with innovation processes over time. This
database was used as the basis for the study because standardized data that present continu-
ity over time are necessary to compare the largest possible number of countries or groups
of countries.
Even though different innovation metrics are available, such as the European Innovation
Scoreboard (EIS), the Global Competitiveness Report (GCR), and the Global Innovation
Index (GII), alternative indexes must be created to complement the role of the usual indica-
tors and for additional options to become available to improve our insights into innovation
processes in different economies. Although the proposal described in the present paper is
focused on the measurement of the performance of OECD member countries, the model
can be applied to non-members if data are available. As opposed to existing indexes, this
model includes only statistical data instead of survey data; it is rather global than regional,
it ponders development longitudinally, and is easy to build. In addition, it is representative,
and its results are coherent with other, more time-costly indexes.
The present study identified the rankings of each of the countries or groups of countries
analyzed to better identify the critical indicators that should be considered for the input and
output sub-indexes, a critical part of the proposed technological innovation measurement

13
 26 Scientometrics (2020) 122:23–45

system. This can serve as a guideline for various economies with the purpose of strength-
ening or building their NISs. Naturally, however, it is necessary to consider that the interac-
tions among the elements of a NIS are essential because isolated indicators fail to provide
useful information. It is also important to consider other types of measurement that can
help to contextualize the phenomenon of innovation in each country, integrating proposals
for developed and developing economies; these measurements should also be capable of
highlighting the nuances of specific countries.

National innovation systems and their role in the promotion

of technological innovation

To explain technological change, innovation can be viewed, based on its characteristics and
attributes, as a process of improvement with a focus on different problems, a certain rela-
tionship with commercial goals, the implementation of new technologies and processes, or
the integration of the technological frontier to increase market opportunities and improve
skills (Wonglimpiyarat 2005). It has been shown that, in the case of companies whose
competitors produce low-cost imports, one method for addressing this situation is through
innovations that promote the generation of differentiated products attractive to the end con-
sumer (Bloom et al. 2013). Thus, although there is a strong link between innovation and a
country’s competitiveness, the fact that there are more elements that determine competi-
tiveness, as established by the World Economic Forum (WEF), should not be overlooked
(Schwab 2012).
Indeed, technological leadership gives companies advantages in their competitive mar-
kets (Žigić and Maçi 2011). In addition, it is possible to establish a relationship between
technological development and competitiveness. Endogenous growth in open economies
can be supported by R&D, R&D-associated policies, and a strong market approach (Ama-
ble and Verspagen 1995). Investment in R&D, both by the public and private sectors, is an
essential part of the technological change process. It allows for the subsequent generation
of outputs that will translate into intangible assets that, given the adequate inputs, will, in
turn, make it possible to obtain the expected returns. Indeed, knowledge turns into benefits
not only for the organizations that develop the innovation it but also for other industries and
competitors, and time is the decisive factor for the improvement of technology based on
relevant learning experiences (Löschel 2002).
As a result, innovation systems play an important role in advancing the technological
transformation of a country. According to Geels (2005), innovation systems can be defined
according to their pertinence to the national, regional, or sectoral level, where the interrela-
tionships between their elements and their co-evolutionary processes are relevant. Simulta-
neously, socio-technical systems are by their very nature complex, and they are formed by
links established by their components; a pattern can be appreciated from the identification
of the relationships between two or more of these elements. In fact, the identification of
the patterns or trends based on which a phenomenon occurs has often been attempted by
research. However, accurate and effective communication and interaction among the ele-
ments of the system at all levels are a critical aspect for the system’s adequate functioning.
One of the main analytical approaches to the study of innovation systems is the geo-
graphical perspective, which helps to outline the boundaries of the system. However, it can
also be approached from other perspectives, such as the study of sectors or the technol-
ogy itself (Carlsson et  al. 2002). For example, Castellacci (2008) notes that a significant

13
Scientometrics (2020) 122:23–45 27

number of studies have focused on sectoral innovation patterns, highlighting aspects such
as the historical emergence and dissemination of technological paradigms, the trajectories,
limitations, and opportunities of sectoral regimes, and other trajectories typical of NISs.
NISs have increased their scope and consolidated their conceptual bases, and therefore,
their use should not be limited solely to the benefit of developed economies. Additional
efforts must be made to bring these advances to developing countries. It is necessary to
continue working on their conceptualization, development, and application in a more pro-
found and integral manner to provide greater elements of competitiveness to all the econo-
mies in the global framework (Lundvall et al. 2002). Although considering the context of
each country or group of countries is important, alternative measurements and the combi-
nation of these measurements are a priority.
In principle, an adequate innovation system is necessary, but it is also a condition per se
to establish a capable government that contributes to the achievement of economic objec-
tives (Fagerberg and Srholec 2008). Thus, relations between academia, the government,
and business, although complex, play a fundamental role in terms of knowledge, innova-
tion, and economic development (Leydesdorff and Meyer 2006; Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff
2000). In particular, when discussing the relevant role of public organizations in research,
the idea of generating applied and problem-oriented knowledge with social relevance is
usually highlighted, and collaboration in this area is regarded as a desirable element that
can bring about different benefits (De Fuentes and Dutrénit 2012; Gonzalez-Brambila et al.
2013). As noted in previous paragraphs, the study of indicators and their correlations can
be a relevant guide to identify the way forward in terms of globalization and competition
guidelines and provide guidance for the construction of NISs.

Interaction and dynamics of technological innovation indicators

There are a number of noteworthy factors behind the global innovation process, for exam-
ple, the urge to rapidly introduce innovative and competitive products into the market and
the degree of internationalization of R&D from transnational companies in order to exploit
scientific and technological inputs in the countries where such inputs are located (and to
more closely meet the needs of internal markets to exploit the facilities provided by the
manufacturer), as well as the presence of governmental policies promoting investment in
R&D for projects in both national and foreign companies (Li and Kozhikode 2009).
Considerable work has been carried out to create models describing how technologi-
cal innovation promotes change in various technical fields. However, few of these models
have focused on understanding the innovation process, and innovation is often treated as a
stochastic event, although the modeling of technological innovation has been studied as a
complex activity using ad hoc tools more recently (Frenken 2006).
Technological change measurements provide relevant information of interest to a sig-
nificant number of actors seeking to enhance their innovative activity; achieving change
involves a complex task because its scope encompasses tasks ranging from R&D to the
introduction of the product into the market (Archibugi and Pianta 1996). Therefore, if
standardized indicators are continuous over time, correlations between them can be evalu-
ated, and they facilitate the technological innovation measurement process in a country or
group of countries.
The measurement of technological innovation in a country is a fundamental aspect
of long-term economic development forecasting. However, the breadth and scope of the

13
 28 Scientometrics (2020) 122:23–45

process make it complex—an interesting approach has focused on different ways to iden-
tify the inputs and outputs that constitute the development of innovative activity. Other
approaches in this line of thought include the development of indicators and the construc-
tion of models for their interpretation (Grupp and Mogee 2004; Rogers 1998).
Knowledge is closely associated with economic development and the promotion of
innovation; therefore, the measurement of inputs and outputs is a viable and desirable pro-
posal. Thus, despite their limitations, patents are an example of one the most important
elements used in the measurement of innovative activity and the analysis of technological
change (Acs et al. 2002), although it has been argued that patenting activities are a poor
overall indicator in some production sectors because patenting dynamics are random and
vary significantly in intensity depending on the involved industrial sector. Not all compa-
nies decide to register a patent as a method of protecting their inventions. Accordingly, it
is desirable to increase the range of indicators to measure innovative activity (Arundel and
Kabla 1998; Mansfield 1986).
On the other hand, even though economic development has been associated with inno-
vative activity, its measurement, although necessary, is complicated, and progress in this
area is still insufficient. Thus, the selection and analysis of methods and indicators must be
meticulously assessed to ensure the accuracy of the scales used to measure the phenom-
enon of innovation (Nagaoka et al. 2010). For example, innovation and learning cannot be
explained solely on the basis of R&D because they also draw from other sources, such as
experience and practice (formal and informal). These alternative sources can be reflected
by the attainment of various types of innovations or technical improvements in processes
(Heidenreich 2009). In fact, the best approach to the use of indicators is the analysis of a
large number of indicators for many years.
Two types of innovation patterns can be identified from a Schumpeterian approach: the
broad approach and the deep approach. In the first case, the starting point of innovation is
constantly expanding, integrates new actors, and diminishes advantages related to the com-
petencies and technologies of organizations circumscribed in this framework. In the second
case, innovation is limited by the influence of a few companies that base their innovations
on acquired technological capabilities and those required to perform innovation processes
(Breschi et al. 2000). Both patterns have limitations, but the pattern used depends on the
available data.
In this regard, the purpose of the present study was to create an index to identify tech-
nological innovation patterns with the purpose of using these analysis tools for decision-
making. The definition of a pattern starts from the knowledge to be used to classify the
different types of data to represent statistical information; recognizing a pattern entails
establishing an algorithm to perform classification and grouping tasks that allow for the
assignment of ad hoc labels according to the identified categories or classes of elements
sharing a certain degree of similarity and are not necessarily identical or repeated as a con-
dition per se (Murty and Devi 1988; Dougherty 2013).

Dynamics of index‑based technological innovation measurement

The need to promote economic development in highly competitive environments stresses

the constant need to innovate. Measurement indexes are a tool that can be used to diagnose,
assess, and define policies and actions aimed at promoting innovation in a given country
(Wonglimpiyarat 2010). In addition, the importance of studying innovation measurements

13
Scientometrics (2020) 122:23–45 29

besides the analysis of innovation capacities has been stressed, so the mathematical mod-
eling of innovation practices is a relevant task for both validation purposes and theoretical
field construction (Rejeb et al. 2008).
Different proposals have been set forth by different authors to study the dynamics of
innovation, for example, the European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS), based on annual
measurements of a composite indicator. This scoreboard provides a starting point to assess
research and innovation in both European Union (EU) countries and selected non-EU
countries, and it has become a widespread mechanism to analyze technological policy in
the EU (European Commission 2018; Schibany and Streicher 2008).
Another authoritative index is the Global Competitiveness Report (GCR), which has
been extensively used despite questionings about its analytic, quantitative, and methodo-
logical weaknesses and lack of development (Lall 2001); its method is based on the use of
indicators associated with productivity and prosperity criteria, and they are organized into
pillars (grouped in weighed sub-indexes) associated with innovation, technology, markets,
and health care, among other areas. The use of statistical data from other institutions and
from an opinion survey stand out among its features (Schwab 2017 op cit).
The Global Innovation Index (GII) presents a ranking including numerous countries
around the world (Dutta et  al. 2018). It is one of the most frequently used indexes, and
it has been measuring and driving innovation for many years. Part of its structure are the
input and output sub-indexes related to innovation, where several pillars meet. Adopting a
continuous improvement approach, the GII has incorporated many indicators associated
with human resources, knowledge, technology, business, and creativity, among others.
Its main advantages are the inclusion of many countries and the combination of (mainly)
hard data with survey data. One of its disadvantages is its lack of evaluation of the struc-
tural relationships among factors associated with activities that can have positive effects
on innovation (Fernandes Crespo and Fernandes Crespo 2016; Mercan and Göktaş 2011;
Sohn et al. 2016).

Method

A mathematical model, whose integration began in 2016, was developed to identify the
index of technological innovation of 34 countries separately and of groups of countries,
excepting Lithonia. The purpose of studying these specific countries and the groups formed
thereof from 2000 to 2013 was to identify the economies that, based on information on sci-
ence and technology provided by the OECD, presented robust indicators explaining their
current levels of innovation. Initially, the model correlated a total of 21 indicators, which
were grouped into input and output sub-indexes. The 21 indicators used in the study were
selected because they are directly associated with the implementation and development of
science and technology in OECD member countries.
These indicators were previously selected from the main indicators of science and tech-
nology offered by the OECD based on their continuity and availability for the study period.
After this initial selection, indicators having an average1 correlation coefficient (r) > 0 were

1
  The intensity of the relationship (correlation) can indeed change over time or when the number observa-
tions increases. Accordingly, the value of such intensity was not considered in the present study, only the
sign of this intensity.

13
 30 Scientometrics (2020) 122:23–45

identified, which resulted in a final list of 14 indicators (eight for the input sub-index and
six for the outputs sub-index) included in our index of technological innovation.
Subsequently, a ranking of technological innovation based on the identified index (rank-
ing A) was developed by determining the average weight of each input and output sub-
index conglomeration. The intention of this ranking was to establish a progressive scale of
the degree of technological innovation shown by each of the 34 countries and three groups
under study.
Finally, with the purpose of providing a greater degree of certainty to the validity of the
identified index and the ranking derived from it, we compared the data obtained with our
ranking with data reported in the rankings of two indexes: The World Economic Forum
(WEF) (Schwab 2012 op cit) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
innovation index (Cornell University, INSEAD, and WIPO 2013). Details on the methodo-
logical development of this research work are discussed more specifically in the following
sections.

Model

The following mathematical model is presented as a tool to identify the index of techno-
logical innovation based on the main indicators of science and technology reported by the
OECD from 2000 to 2013.2 Let I (1) (inputs sub-indexes) and O (2) (outputs sub-indexes)
of the OECD indicator sets for the established period3:

(1)
{ }
I = I1 , I2 , … , In

(2)
{ }
O = O1 , O2 , … , Om
with n and m not necessarily the same.
The intensity of the linear relationship4 is calculated for each pair of variables, both for
the set I and for the set O, according to Eq. (3):
∑
I 𝜔 I𝜑
𝜌I𝜔 I𝜑 = �
∑ 2 �∑ 2 (3)
I𝜔 I𝜑

2
  The use of panel data models to obtain empirical forecasts has been observed to increase (Greenaway-
McGrevy 2015). Undoubtedly, one of the main advantages of using panel data is that they show the indi-
vidual and temporary effects of each variable (Wu and Li 2014). Nevertheless, it is also true that most lit-
erature on panel data is focused on econometric models, which are used to make predictions (Baltagi et al.
2012). Unlike those studies, panel data were not used in the present study as an input for an econometric
model, but to determine the direct relationships among the study variables, which were treated longitudi-
nally. The intensity of such relationships, determined by panel data, allowed for the construction of small
clusters (Trindade et al. 2017).
3
 These indicators were classified with the purpose of constructing two main pillars (input and out-
put indexes) concerning science and technology in each OECD member country. This classification was
intended as a first quantitative approach to the cost–benefit of individual OECD member countries during
the study period in terms of their efforts to create, implement, and develop top-notch science and technol-
ogy.
4
  It is considered a positive linear correlation (or first-order correlation) because its purpose is to merge a
set of variables whose causalities share the same sign (in this case, a positive correlation). In other words,
the present analysis assumes that variable relationships are linear; the investigation also assumes that each
factor carries all the information needed for its measurement and is not partially affected by one or several
other factors.

13
Scientometrics (2020) 122:23–45 31

where I𝜑 = I𝜑i − Ī𝜑 and if, in addition, 𝜌I𝜔 I𝜑 > 0 , then the sets of variables (4) and (5) are
redefined as:
I � = {I𝜑1 , I𝜑2 , … , I𝜑k } (4)

O� = {O𝜑1 , O𝜑2 , … , O𝜑t } (5)

again, k and t are not necessarily the same.
Thus, for each variable of the sets I′ and O′, input and output sub-indexes, respectively,
the first (adjusted) moment according to Eqs. (6) and (7) is obtained:
1 ∑ 1 ∑ 1 ∑
Ī𝜑1 = I𝜑1i ; Ī𝜑2 = I𝜑2i ; … ;Ī𝜑k = I𝜑ki (6)
n1 n1 n1

̄ 𝜑1 = 1 ̄ 𝜑2 = 1 ̄ 𝜑t = 1
∑ ∑ ∑
O
n2
O𝜑1i ;O
n2
O𝜑2i ; … ;O
n2
O𝜑ti (7)

To order the first (adjusted) moment in each variable of the sets I′ and O′, the following
criterion applies:
If Ī𝜑1i > Ī𝜑1j , then w Ī𝜑1i = n1 and w Ī𝜑1j = n1 − 1 
. If we now take the weight
( ) ( )

obtained for each element from each set of input and output sub-indexes, we obtain Eqs. (8)
and (9):
() 1 ∑∑̄
W Ī = I𝜑ij (8)
n 1 j i

̄ = 1
( ) ∑∑
̄
W O O
n2 s t 𝜑ts (9)

The final contribution of each element is defined according to Eq. (10):

1 (̄)
(10)
( )
𝜔(I, O) = ̄ ]
[W I + W O
2
This equation allowed us to obtain the ranking of technological innovation based on the
proposed algorithm to identify the index of these countries and groups of countries.

Data

A total of 21 indicators associated with science and technology reported by the OECD for
the period from 2000 to 2013 were initially considered (OECD 2016 op cit) (see Table 1).
For their selection, we considered the continuity and availability of the statistics for the
period of time covered by this study to determine and explain the index of technological
innovation presented by these countries and groups of countries and the positions held by
each of them throughout the analyzed period.

13
 32 Scientometrics (2020) 122:23–45

Table 1  Initial variables
No. Label Variable name

1 X1 Percentage of GERD performed by the Higher Education sector

2 X2 Number of patents in the ICT sector—applications filed under the PCT (priority year)
3 X3 Number of “triadic” patent families (priority year)
4 X4 HERD as a percentage of GDP
5 X5 Percentage of GERD performed by the Government sector
6 X6 R&D expenditure of foreign affiliates as a percentage of R&D expenditures of enterprises
7 X7 Basic research expenditure as a percentage of GDP
8 X8 BERD as a percentage of GDP
9 X9 Trade Balance: Computer, electronic and optical industry (current prices)
10 X10 Education and Social programmes as a percentage of Civil GBARD
11 X11 Number of patent applications filed under the PCT(priority year)
12 X12 Higher Education Expenditure on R&D—HERD (current PPP $)
13 X13 Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D—GERD (current PPP $)
14 X14 Total researchers—Compound annual growth rate
15 X15 Percentage of GERD performed by the Business Enterprise sector
16 X16 Export market share: Computer, electronic and optical industry
17 X17 Share of countries in “triadic” patent families (priority year)
18 X18 GERD as a percentage of GDP
19 X19 Technology balance of payments: Payments as a percentage of GERD
20 X20 Total Business Enterprise R&D personnel as a percentage of national total
21 X21 Number of patents in the biotechnology sector—applications filed under the PCT (priority
year)

Elaborated by the authors based on OECD (2016 op cit)

Selection of variables

A first-order Pearson correlation analysis was used for selecting the indicators that showed,
on average, a correlation coefficient5 (r) > 0. As a result, we obtained 14 indicators that
presented, on average, a first-order positive relation (r) with each of the remaining indica-
tors (see Tables 2 and 3). The theoretical implications excluding variables correlating nega-
tively6 (opposite direction of correlation with respect to other variables) are the following:

5
  As has been indicated, the intensity of the relationships among variables (calculated correlation) was not
the factor used for their discrimination. Instead, the sign of such intensity was considered in the selection of
the study variables.
6
  Pearson’s correlation coefficient served to verify the causal relationship between the involved variables.
In this case, it can be argued that, whereas a set of variables grows (positive correlation), a study vari-
able decreases (negative correlation); however, this negative intensity (correlation) provides no additional
information of the same sign to the set of variables having a positive causal relationship. In other words, the
present study sought that each variable considered in the indicator that was then used to build the ranking
added to the positive relationship with the other selected variables. For example, when the growth of the
variable termed ‘GERD as a percentage of GDP’ is presented, these data are expected to have a positive
impact on the variable termed ‘number of patents in biotechnology sector applications filed on the PCT
(priority year)’.

13
 Table 2  Selected variables
No. Label Name of variable Average
correlation
Scientometrics (2020) 122:23–45

1 X2 Number of patents in the ICT sector—applications filed under the PCT (priority year) 0.170
2 X3 Number of “triadic” patent families (priority year) 0.289
3 x4 HERD as a percentage of GDP 0.730
3 X6 R&D expenditure of foreign affiliates as a percentage of R&D expenditures of enterprises 0.600
4 X8 BERD as a percentage of GDP 0.176
6 X11 Number of patent applications filed under the PCT(priority year) 0.292
7 X12 Higher Education Expenditure on R&D—HERD (current PPP $) 0.289
8 X13 Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D—GERD (current PPP $) 0.288
9 X15 Percentage of GERD performed by the Business Enterprise sector 0.171
10 X16 Export market share: Computer, electronic and optical industry 0.292
11 X17 Share of countries in “triadic” patent families (priority year) 0.289
12 X18 GERD as a percentage of GDP 0.180
13 X20 Total Business Enterprise R&D personnel as a percentage of national total 0.145
14 X21 Number of patents in the biotechnology sector—applications filed under the PCT (priority year) 0.284

Elaborated by the authors based on OECD (2016 op. cit.)

33

13
 34

Table 3  Correlations of initially selected variables

13
Vari- X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13 X14 X15 X16 X17 X18 X19 X20 X21
able

X1 1.000 − 0.226 − 0.286 0.020 0.097 − 0.160 0.259 − 0.648** 0.076 − 0.166 − 0.276 − 0.228 − 0.267 0.090 − 0.821** − 0.242 − 0.286 − 0.600** − 0.046 − 0.638** − 0.267
X2 1.000 0.560** 0.000 − 0.105 0.074 − 0.021 0.166 − 0.707** − 0.160 0.581** 0.595** 0.556** − 0.207 0.224 0.671** 0.559** 0.170 − 0.084 0.206 0.550**
X3 1.000 0.008 − 0.118 0.089 0.007 0.213 − 0.753** − 0.139 0.992** 0.974** 0.980** − 0.207 0.265 0.976** 1.000** 0.212 − 0.093 0.137 0.968**
** ** * ** **
X4 1.000 − 0.616 0.169 − 0.160 0.611 − 0.002 − 0.208 0.007 0.006 − 0.007 − 0.046 0.404 − 0.011 0.008 0.703 0.118 0.452 0.002
X5 1.000 − 0.396 0.299 − 0.614** 0.020 0.097 − 0.111 − 0.098 − 0.100 − 0.122 − 0.582** − 0.080 − 0.118 − 0.595** 0.168 − 0.636** − 0.106
X6 1.000 − 0.111 0.242 − 0.199 − 0.075 0.176 0.273 0.207 − 0.244 0.273 0.127 0.089 0.235 − 0.059 0.264 0.219
X7 1.000 − 0.326 − 0.188 − 0.077 − 0.008 0.098 0.032 − 0.309 − 0.355 − 0.106 0.007 − 0.312 0.024 − 0.337 0.000
X8 1.000 0.037 − 0.074 0.193 0.139 0.176 0.132 0.870** 0.167 0.213 0.985** 0.038 0.822** 0.179
X9 1.000 0.061 − 0.815** − 0.861** − 0.843** 0.166 − 0.049 − 0.757** − 0.752** 0.014 0.137 0.089 − 0.857**
X10 1.000 − 0.132 − 0.123 − 0.128 0.076 0.083 − 0.107 − 0.139 − 0.091 0.291 0.110 − 0.126
X11 1.000 0.992** 0.995** − 0.185 0.253 0.984** 0.992** 0.195 − 0.102 0.120 0.987**
** ** **
X12 1.000 0.989 − 0.166 0.213 0.984 0.974 0.145 − 0.184 0.086 0.981**
** **
X13 1.000 − 0.173 0.237 0.973 0.980 0.178 − 0.113 0.098 0.998**
X14 1.000 0.046 − 0.118 − 0.207 0.076 0.046 0.178 − 0.172
X15 1.000 0.212 0.265 0.831** − 0.080 0.895** 0.239
**
X16 1.000 0.976 0.164 − 0.052 0.115 0.960**
X17 1.000 0.212 − 0.092 0.137 0.967**
X18 1.000 0.124 0.779** 0.183
X19 1.000 − 0.083 − 0.131
X20 1.000 0.097
X21 1.000

Elaborated by the authors

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed)
Scientometrics (2020) 122:23–45
Scientometrics (2020) 122:23–45 35

Concerning the importance of technological change and the market, multiple studies
have shown that countries where technological innovation levels are low take a very long
time to import technology and acquire the knowledge that they need to use it (Ungure-
anu et al. 2016; Sikharulidze and Kikutadze 2017; Márquez-Ramos and Martínez-Zarzoso
2010; Jin and Jorgenson 2010; Basmann et  al. 2007; Andersson et  al. 2016; Sutz 2000).
Nevertheless, due to increased commercial openness, the time needed to transfer technol-
ogy and provide accompanying training can be very short. Thus, countries can expect pro-
cesses associated with their technological development, training, and knowledge to become
more dynamic. A considerable increase of intra-industrial trade can also be expected as a
result of market openness, which represents a positive relationship with national income.
That is, increased intra-industrial commerce results in higher income per capita (Roy 2017;
Spulber 2008; Okubo 2007; Clark 2010).
When all 14 indicators were selected by country, the adjusted average for each was cal-
culated.7 Thus, these data, which define the index of technological innovation, made it pos-
sible to know, first, the results for each OECD country in each of the items included in this
analysis.
Nevertheless, collinearity problems could be possible in the case of these indicators.8
Since an econometric model was not estimated, multicollinearity cannot be considered
as a negative factor. In addition, the intensity (correlation) of the explanatory variables is
expected to be as high as possible; therefore, multicollinearity sums strength to the analysis
(Johnston and Dinardo 1997).

Toward the identification of the index of technological innovation

Once the indicators comprising the innovation index were identified, they were classified
according to their nature into input or output sub-indexes with the purpose of grouping
them and understanding which indicators feed the system and what its outputs are (see
Fig. 1).
Results indicate that the positive correlation between the input and output sub-indexes
occurring during the technological innovation process is mainly explained, in the case
of the input sub-indexes, by the progress shown by countries in the indicators associated
with the formation of human resources specialized in R&D activities in companies, R&D
expenditure from higher education and at a country level, and the spending and participa-
tion of foreign companies and subsidiaries in the development of R&D.
This analysis is reflected by the output sub-indexes associated with an increasing num-
ber of patent applications being introduced into more markets, many of them highly com-
petitive, such as the case of triadic patents and applications submitted to the Patent Coop-
eration Treaty (PCT) to seek international protection for their inventions.

7
  The adjusted average was considered because it reflects a greater representativity of the behavior of the
analyzed data during the study period than the real average. If the real average was considered, then infor-
mation regarding the years in which there were no data would be lost, and therefore, it would decrease the
scores of countries that reported few results. The use of the adjusted average during the 2000-2013 compen-
sates for the fact that only the years for which there were data were considered. In other words, the denomi-
nator for the calculation of this average will not be greater than 14 (total years of the study period).
8
  In general, multicollinearity addresses the linear relationship between exogenous variables included in
the regression. The concept of collinearity was limited when the common practice was to include only two
types of exogenous variables (Greene 2011).

13
 36 Scientometrics (2020) 122:23–45

Input sub-indexes
Output sub-indexes
1.- HERD as a percentage of GDP.
1.- Number of patents in the ICT sector --
2.- R&D expenditure of foreign affiliates as applications filed under the PCT (priority
a percentage of R&D expenditures of year).
enterprises.
2.- Number of “triadic” patent families
3.- BERD as a percentage of GDP. (priority year).

4.- Higher Education Expenditure on R&D 3.- Number of patent applications filed
-- HERD (million current PPP $). under the PCT (priority year).

5.- Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D - 4.- Export market share: Computer,
- GERD (million current PPP $). electronic, and optical industry.

6.- Percentage of GERD performed by the 5.- Share of countries in "triadic" patent
Business Enterprise sector. families (priority year).

7.- GERD as a percentage of GDP. 6.- Number of patents in the biotechnology

sector -- applications filed under the PCT
8.- Total Business Enterprise R&D (priority year).
personnel as a percentage of national total.

Elaborated by the authors based on OECD (2016 op. cit.).

Fig. 1  Indicators grouped into input and output sub-indexes comprising the alternative index

Interestingly, these results reveal that PCT patent applications are often associated
with cutting-edge technology, for example, information and communication technolo-
gies and biotechnology, in addition to patents from the export market for the comput-
ing, electronics, and optical industries. This finding confirms the importance of col-
laboration between companies and academia in the development of state-of-the-art
technologies.
As regards to the indicators without a positive average correlation, elements concern-
ing the balance of payments and trade balance, number of researchers and educational and
social programs, and expenditure on R&D in other sectors was not part of the index. How-
ever, all the elements noted above will have to be assessed in more detail and reassessed in
the future.

Elaboration of the ranking based on the technological innovation

index

A specific weight was given to each variable, which was in direct correspondence with
the countries’ results in each indicator. Thus, high scores represent a high level of pro-
gress in the country or group of countries, and oppositely, low scores represent limited
advancement.
When two or more countries or groups of countries present the same results for a par-
ticular item, they are given the same score. The country’s ranking is based on the total
number of countries and groups of countries included in the analysis. However, this type

13
Scientometrics (2020) 122:23–45 37

of analysis has the advantage of giving a country or group of countries their corresponding
score as a function of their scores for each of the items involved.
As a next step, averages were obtained for the input and output sub-indexes of each
country or group of countries. Thus, we obtained an “average level of results” by country
and group of countries involving all the concepts included in each of these two aggregate
values.
The number of items considered in the input sub-index need not be the same as the
items in the output sub-index, and the final, overall indicator for each country and group
of countries represents the average obtained between the “average level of results” of the
output sub-index and the “average level of results” of the input sub-index. This average is
not a measure of central tendency because its construction depends on the weight of each
country and group of countries in each of the items considered in the analysis.
The following list presents the 10 top positions on our innovation performance index:
(1) Japan; (2) Germany; (3) OECD—Total; (4) United States; (5) Korea; (6) Sweden; (7)
France; (8) European Union (15 countries); (9) United Kingdom; and (10) Israel. As can
be observed, this index ranking reflects the vertical arrangement of economies traditionally
considered to be advanced and strong supporters of scientific and technological develop-
ment. By contrast, although developing countries have made important progress, additional
complementary mechanisms are needed to measure and contextualize their innovation
mechanisms in an ad hoc manner.
The present analysis provides an index of technological innovation that highlights the
leading countries from 2000 to 2013,9 that is, the countries that obtained the highest scores
in the indicators considered in the present study. This new index presents a structured and
robust starting point for the measurement of technological innovation in the global context
because it is based not only on the measurement of individual indicators but on the analysis
of clustered indicators. As described in this paper, it is possible to construct a technological
innovation ranking that maintains a clear correspondence with individual indicators and
other innovation and competitiveness rankings reported in the specialized literature, which
make it possible to validate the results obtained by this study.
It is important to note that the construction of this innovation ranking does not depend
on the number of variables involved or on the study period, but on the intensity of the asso-
ciations among the measured items. That is, to the extent that a strong first-order correla-
tion coefficient (greater than or equal to 0.6) is obtained, the present innovation ranking is
constructed on a robust foundation.
Table  4 shows the final technological innovation index ranking in alphabetical order.
To observe the weight of each country individually, without considering the total OECD
average, European Union (15 countries), and European Union (28 countries), the individ-
ual results for the 34 countries are reported and weighted. These are used for the vali-
dation of the identified index based on the correlation with indexes related to innovation
and competitiveness reported by WEF (Schwab 2012 op. cit.) and WIPO (Cornell Univer-
sity, INSEAD, and WIPO 2013 op. cit.). As noted above, the scores for the ranking were
obtained from the proposed model, which is based on a positive average correlation of the
selected variables and the progress that each country has made in each variable/indicator,
considering that these variables are grouped into input and output sub-indexes that corre-
late positively, indicating an adequate technological innovation process. The values for the

9
  Data used for the definition of the study period were also selected based on availability and continuity of
the latest data present by the OECD (2016 op. cit.).

13
 38 Scientometrics (2020) 122:23–45

Table 4  Calculated averages for input and output sub-indexes and final technological innovation index
ranking in alphabetical order
Country Innovation Innovation ranking Average
ranking (value)
Input sub-index Output sub-index

Australia 16 20.646 20.125 21.167

Austria 12 22.229 25.625 18.833
Belgium 14 21.417 23.000 19.833
Canada 10 24.333 23.500 25.167
Chile 34 3.750 3.500 4.000
Czech Republic 21 12.583 14.000 11.167
Denmark 15 20.833 23.000 18.667
Estonia 31 5.833 8.500 3.167
Finland 13 21.750 24.000 19.500
France 6 26.083 22.500 29.667
Germany 2 29.000 26.000 32.000
Greece 32 5.229 5.125 5.333
Hungary 22 12.188 9.875 14.500
Iceland 29 9.063 14.625 3.500
Ireland 19 16.667 17.000 16.333
Israel 8 25.146 29.125 21.167
Italy 17 19.563 15.125 24.000
Japan 1 31.125 28.250 34.000
Korea 4 27.479 24.625 30.333
Luxembourg 25 9.813 14.125 5.500
Mexico 27 9.646 7.125 12.167
Netherlands 11 23.896 19.625 28.167
New Zealand 23 10.458 8.250 12.667
Norway 20 15.333 16.000 14.667
Poland 28 9.458 6.750 12.167
Portugal 30 9.063 9.625 8.500
Slovak Republic 33 4.354 4.875 3.833
Slovenia 24 10.083 14.000 6.167
Spain 18 17.063 15.625 18.500
Sweden 5 26.813 29.625 24.000
Switzerland 9 25.125 25.750 24.500
Turkey 26 9.750 10.000 9.500
United Kingdom 7 25.292 21.250 29.333
United States 3 28.521 22.375 34.667

Elaborated by the authors

input and output sub-indexes are also reported, and their average makes it possible to con-
struct the ranking: higher values are associated with better national performance in terms
of technological innovation.

13
Scientometrics (2020) 122:23–45 39

Validation of technological innovation ranking and index

To evaluate the consistency and coherence of the results obtained in the present study, they
were compared with data reported by the WEF in the 2012–2013 Global Competitiveness
Report (Schwab 2012 op. cit.) and by WIPO in the 2013 Global Innovation Index (Cornell
University, INSEAD, and WIPO 2013 op. cit.).10 Once again, Pearson’s correlation coef-
ficient was used to compare our technological innovation index (ranking A—derived from
the identification of the technological innovation index) with the Global Competitiveness
Index ranking (Ranking B), the Innovation and Sophistication Factors ranking (Ranking
C), also published by the WEF, and the 2013 Global Innovation Index (ranking D).
Table 5 shows the results that, in turn, served as input sub-indexes to perform the cor-
relation analysis. A correlation coefficient of 0.74 was obtained for rankings A and B,
whereas rankings A and C presented a correlation coefficient of 0.80, and the value was
0.65 in the case of rankings A and D. At least two important conclusions can be drawn
from these results. Firstly, they evince that the technological innovation index is compara-
ble to OECD indexes: there is a close correlation with the competitiveness and innovation
indexes presented by the WEF and the WIPO. Secondly, our index of technological innova-
tion allows for the construction of a ranking of global technological innovation based on
individual indicators that the OECD collects and reports on an annual basis.
Source: Elaborated by the authors based on Schwab (2012 op. cit.) and Cornell Univer-
sity, INSEAD, and WIPO (2013 op. cit.).

Conclusions

By measuring activities related to science, technology, and innovation, countries can iden-
tify their progress in these three strategic areas for the development of their economies and
societies. Thus, the data-based assessments and the methods used to make measurements
are fundamental tools for the construction of policies aimed at strengthening innovation
activity as a mechanism for global competitiveness.
The robustness and longevity of these measurements are fundamental to establishing
standardized tools to compare the performance of different countries with the perfor-
mance of their economic peers. Traditionally, innovation has been tracked using indicators
focused on national science, technology, and innovation. This information is essential to
understanding how the dynamics of innovation around the world are behaving and what
actions are to be taken by an economy that wishes to stand out in the field of innovation.
However, the current challenge is to continue developing our knowledge of this phe-
nomenon, complex by its very nature. To that end, it is necessary, on the one hand,
to identify the predominant national dynamics of technological innovation in this new
global order and, on the other hand, to generate more integrated measurement mecha-
nisms to allow for a more accurate and comprehensive comparison of innovation activ-
ity in different countries. The results of this experimental approach to the identification
of a technological innovation index demonstrate that the algorithm based on a model

10
  Although more recent versions of the Global Competitiveness Report and the Global Innovation Index
available, the 2012–2013 and 2013 versions were considered so that the comparison with the data reported
by the OECD for 2013 was more homogeneous.

13
 40
Table 5  Pearson’s comparative rankings. Source: Elaborated by the authors based on Schwab (2012 op. cit.) and Cornell University, INSEAD, and WIPO (2013 op. cit.)
COUNTRY​ Innovation COUNTRY​ Global Competitiveness COUNTRY​ Innovation and sophisti- COUNTRY​ WIPO
Ranking (A) Index 2012–2013 (B) cation factors (C) 2013

13
(D)

Australia 16 Australia 20 Australia 28 Australia 19

Austria 12 Austria 16 Austria 10 Austria 23
Belgium 14 Belgium 17 Belgium 13 Belgium 21
Canada 10 Canada 14 Canada 21 Canada 11
Chile 34 Chile 33 Chile 45 Chile 46
Czech Republic 21 Czech Republic 39 Czech Republic 32 Czech Republic 28
Denmark 15 Denmark 12 Denmark 12 Denmark 9
Estonia 31 Estonia 34 Estonia 33 Estonia 25
Finland 13 Finland 3 Finland 3 Finland 6
France 6 France 21 France 18 France 20
Germany 2 Germany 6 Germany 4 Germany 15
Greece 32 Greece 96 Greece 85 Greece 55
Hungary 22 Hungary 60 Hungary 58 Hungary 31
Iceland 29 Iceland 30 Iceland 24 Iceland 13
Ireland 19 Ireland 27 Ireland 20 Ireland 10
Israel 8 Israel 26 Israel 8 Israel 14
Italy 17 Italy 42 Italy 30 Italy 29
Japan 1 Japan 10 Japan 2 Japan 22
Korea 4 Korea, Rep. 19 Korea, Rep. 17 Korea, Rep. 18
Luxembourg 25 Luxembourg 22 Luxembourg 19 Luxembourg 12
Mexico 27 Mexico 53 Mexico 49 Mexico 63
Netherlands 11 Netherlands 5 Netherlands 6 Netherlands 4
New Zealand 23 New Zealand 23 New Zealand 27 New Zealand 17
Norway 20 Norway 15 Norway 16 Norway 16
Poland 28 Poland 41 Poland 61 Poland 49
Scientometrics (2020) 122:23–45
 Table 5  (continued)
COUNTRY​ Innovation COUNTRY​ Global Competitiveness COUNTRY​ Innovation and sophisti- COUNTRY​ WIPO
Ranking (A) Index 2012–2013 (B) cation factors (C) 2013
(D)

Portugal 30 Portugal 49 Portugal 37 Portugal 34

Slovak Republic 33 Slovak Republic 71 Slovak Republic 74 Slovak Republic 36
Slovenia 24 Slovenia 56 Slovenia 36 Slovenia 30
Spain 18 Spain 36 Spain 31 Spain 26
Scientometrics (2020) 122:23–45

Sweden 5 Sweden 4 Sweden 5 Sweden 2

Switzerland 9 Switzerland 1 Switzerland 1 Switzerland 1
Turkey 26 Turkey 43 Turkey 50 Turkey 68
United Kingdom 7 United Kingdom 8 United Kingdom 9 United Kingdom 3
United States 3 United States 7 United States 7 United States 5

The position on the rankings reported for each country may significantly vary in relation to other rankings because the lists reported by each contain, in the case of the WEF
and the WIPO, more countries than those in the list of the technological innovation index described by the present paper. Thus, the calculation is only an approximation based
on the selection of the countries included in the rankings. They are presented in strict alphabetical order as they appear in the three rankings under analysis
41

13
 42 Scientometrics (2020) 122:23–45

integrating inputs and outputs sub-indexes can eventually be improved through other
mechanisms that better identify the way in which the considered items can be correlated.
The study also highlights a group of indicators that have a favorable impact on the
promotion of innovation processes: education, the participation of highly skilled human
resources in R&D activities, and R&D investment by country, with a special emphasis
on the expenditure made by higher education institutions, foreign companies, and affili-
ates. This observation suggests that the training of highly specialized human resources
and their inclusion in R&D activities are a central aspect of the development of the
innovation process, as well as the participation of all stakeholders, to create the founda-
tions of a scientific and technological system that serves as a starting point for the pro-
motion of innovation activities; the participation of private firms in this context should
be emphasized.
The output sub-indexes reflect the increasing number of patents in many countries;
these patents are often associated with emerging scientific and technological areas of
high added value and with the computing, electronics, and the optical export market.
Therefore, these sectors are important in every country for the generation of programs
aimed at the promotion of scientific and technological education in emerging knowl-
edge areas in their educational institutions, R&D investment strategies, the promotion
of intellectual property, and the export of high added-value goods.
Although the proposed index is limited to OECD member countries, it can be applied
to a broad range of economies inasmuch as the indicator database grows and is updated
with data from non-OECD member countries. Even though the index represents an ini-
tial approach, it has a series of advantages besides its representativity: its performance
is adequate, its construction is uncomplicated and inexpensive, it can be applied to
many countries, it measures innovation longitudinally, is coherent with other indexes, is
not based on opinion survey data (prevents subjectivity issues), and is representative. In
addition, input and output sub-indexes can be upgraded as the OECD creates more indi-
cators, updates existing data, and increases its data collection to include more countries.
Therefore, this initial attempt to the construction of an alternative technological innova-
tion management index is ready to be combined with other measurements, diagnostic,
and decision-making tools in technological innovation processes.
These measurements should be embedded in the framework of policies focused on
scientific, technological, and industrial development and used to define objectives and
goals according to the priorities identified by each country based on its national prob-
lems and internal and external market demands. In addition, indicators without a posi-
tive average correlation should continue to be analyzed over time more thoroughly to
know the dynamics that should be developed according to the model.
A limitation of the present study was the discontinuity of indicator data over time
and the lack of available data for all the countries included in the analysis. The inclu-
sion of more indicators would also be desirable. Measuring progress objectively and
thoroughly for a significant number of countries is challenging because the indicators
reported in the literature focus on scientific, technological, and innovation activities
characteristic of developed and highly competitive economies; although all countries
should follow international recommendations to measure their progress in these areas, it
is also essential that alternative, ad hoc measurements considering specific national con-
texts and conditions be created for developing countries. These alternative and adapt-
able measurements will allow these countries to gain accurate insights into their innova-
tion practices and determine the most pertinent ways to migrate toward global indicators
gradually and sustainably.

13
Scientometrics (2020) 122:23–45 43

Funding  We would like to acknowledge the support provided by the National Polytechnic Institute (Instituto
Politécnico Nacional) and the Secretariat for Research and Postgraduate Studies (Secretaría de Investigación
y Posgrado), Grants number 20171165, 20180919 and 20180205. We would also like to thank CONACYT
for the postdoctoral grant awarded to Dr. Gerardo Reyes Ruiz.

References
Acs, Z. J., Anselin, L., & Varga, A. (2002). Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional pro-
duction of new knowledge. Research Policy, 31(7), 1069–1085. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0048​
-7333(01)00184​-6.
Ali, S. Z., Anwar, S., & Valadkhani, A. (2012). Macroeconomic consequences of increased productivity
in less developed economies. Economic Modelling, 29(3), 621–631. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.econm​
od.2011.11.005.
Amable, B., & Verspagen, B. (1995). The role of technology in market shares dynamics. Applied Econom-
ics, 27(2), 197–204. https​://doi.org/10.1080/00036​84950​00000​24.
Andersson, U., Dasí, Á., Mudambi, R., & Pedersen, T. (2016). Technology, innovation and knowledge: The
importance of ideas and international connectivity. Journal of World Business, 51(1), 153–162. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2015.08.017.
Archibugi, D., & Pianta, M. (1996). Measuring technological change through patents and innovation sur-
veys. Technovation, 16(9), 451–468. https​://doi.org/10.1016/0166-4972(96)00031​-4.
Arundel, A., & Kabla, I. (1998). What percentage of innovations are patented? Empirical estimates for
European firms. Research Policy, 27(2), 127–141. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0048​-7333(98)00033​-X.
Baltagi, B. H., Bresson, G., & Pirotte, A. (2012). Forecasting with spatial panel data. Computational Statis-
tics & Data Analysis, 56(11), 3381–3397. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2010.08.006.
Basmann, R. L., McAleer, M., & Slottje, D. (2007). Patent activity and technical change. Journal of Econo-
metrics, 139(2), 355–375. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecon​om.2006.10.019.
Bloom, N., Romer, P. M., Terry, S. J., & Van Reenen, J. (2013). A trapped-factors model of innovation.
American Economic Review, 103(3), 208–213. https​://doi.org/10.1257/aer.103.3.208.
Blundell, R., Griffith, R., & Van Reenen, J. (1995). Dynamic count data models of technological innovation.
The Economic Journal, 105(429), 333–344. https​://doi.org/10.2307/22354​94.
Breschi, S., Malerba, F., & Orsenigo, L. (2000). Technological regimes and Schumpeterian patterns of inno-
vation. The Economic Journal, 110(463), 388–410. https​://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00530​.
Bye, B., Fæhn, T., & Heggedal, T. R. (2009). Welfare and growth impacts of innovation policies in a small,
open economy; an applied general equilibrium analysis. Economic Modelling, 26(5), 1075–1088. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.econm​od.2009.04.002.
Carlsson, B., Jacobsson, S., Holmén, M., & Rickne, A. (2002). Innovation systems: Analytical and meth-
odological issues. Research Policy, 31(2), 233–245. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0048​-7333(01)00138​-X.
Castellacci, F. (2008). Technological paradigms, regimes and trajectories: Manufacturing and service indus-
tries in a new taxonomy of sectoral patterns of innovation. Research Policy, 37(6–7), 978–994. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.respo​l.2008.03.011.
Clark, D. P. (2010). Scale economies and intra-industry trade. Economics Letters, 108(2), 190–192. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.econl​et.2010.04.039.
Cornell University, INSEAD, & WIPO (2013). The global innovation index 2013: The local dynamics of
innovation. Geneva and New Delhi, India: WIPO and the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII).
De Fuentes, C., & Dutrénit, G. (2012). Best channels of academia–industry interaction for long-term ben-
efit. Research Policy, 41(9), 1666–1682. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.respo​l.2012.03.026.
Dougherty, G. (2013). Pattern recognition and classification. An introduction. New York: Springer.
Dutta, S., Lanvin, B., & Wunsch-Vincent, S. (2018). Global innovation index 2018. Energizing the world
with innovation. Ithaca: Cornell University.
Egger, P., & Keuschnigg, C. (2015). Innovation, trade, and finance. American Economic Journal: Microeco-
nomics, 7(2), 121–157. https​://doi.org/10.1257/mic.20120​032.
Engel, J. S., & Del-Palacio, I. (2009). Global networks of clusters of innovation: Accelerating the innovation
process. Business Horizons, 52(5), 493–503.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and ‘‘Mode
2’’ to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0048​-7333(99)00055​-4.
European Commission. (2018). European innovation scoreboard 2018. Luxembourg: Publications Office of
the European Union.

13
 44 Scientometrics (2020) 122:23–45

Fagerberg, J., & Srholec, M. (2008). National innovation systems, capabilities and economic develop-
ment. Research Policy, 37(9), 1417–1435. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.respo​l.2008.06.003.
Fagerberg, J., Srholec, M., & Verspagen, B. (2010). Innovation and economic development. In B. H.
Hall & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation (Vol. 2, pp. 833–872).
Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Fernandes Crespo, N., & Fernandes Crespo, C. (2016). Global innovation index: Moving beyond the
absolute value of ranking with a fuzzy-set analysis. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5265–
5271. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusr​es.2016.04.123.
Freel, M. S. (2005). Patterns of innovation and skills in small firms. Technovation, 25(2), 123–134. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/S0166​-4972(03)00082​-8.
Freeman, C., & Soete, L. (2009). Developing science, technology and innovation indicators: What
we can learn from the past. Research Policy, 38(4), 583–589. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.respo​
l.2009.01.018.
Frenken, K. (2006). Technological innovation and complexity theory. Economics of Innovation and New
Technology, 15(2), 137–155. https​://doi.org/10.1080/10438​59050​01414​53.
Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2002). The determinants of national innovative capacity.
Research Policy, 31(6), 899–933. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0048​-7333(01)00152​-4.
Geels, F. W. (2005). Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: Refining the co-evo-
lutionary multi-level perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(6), 681–696.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.techf​ore.2004.08.014.
Gonzalez-Brambila, C. N., Veloso, F. M., & Krackhardt, D. (2013). The impact of network embeddedness
on research output. Research Policy, 42(9), 1555–1567. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.respo​l.2013.07.008.
Greenaway-McGrevy, R. (2015). Evaluating panel data forecasts under independent realization. Journal
of Multivariate Analysis, 136, 108–125. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmva.2015.01.004.
Greene, W. (2011). Econometric analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Grupp, H., & Mogee, M. E. (2004). Indicators for national science and technology policy: How robust
are composite indicators? Research Policy, 33(9), 1373–1384. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.respo​
l.2004.09.007.
Hall, B. H., & Lerner, J. (2010). The Financing of R&D and Innovation. In B. H. Hall & N. Rosenberg
(Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation (Vol. 1, pp. 609–639). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Heidenreich, M. (2009). Innovation patterns and location of European low- and medium-technology
industries. Research Policy, 38(3), 483–494. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.respo​l.2008.10.005.
Jin, H., & Jorgenson, D. W. (2010). Econometric modeling of technical change. Journal of Economet-
rics, 157, 205–219. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecon​om.2009.12.002.
Johannessen, J. A., & Olsen, B. (2010). The future of value creation and innovations: Aspects of a theory
of value creation and innovation in a global knowledge economy. International Journal of Informa-
tion Management, 30(6), 502–511. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinf​omgt.2010.03.007.
Johnston, J., & Dinardo, J. (1997). Econometric methods (4th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill Companies Inc.
Kash, D. E., & Rycroft, R. (2002). Emerging patterns of complex technological innovation. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 69(6), 581–606. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0040​-1625(01)00171​-8.
Lall, S. (2001). Competitiveness indices and developing countries: An economic evaluation of the global
competitiveness report. World Development, 29(9), 1501–1525. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0305​
-750X(01)00051​-1.
Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2006). Triple Helix indicators of knowledge-based innovation systems:
Introduction to the special issue. Research Policy, 35(10), 1441–1449. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
respo​l.2006.09.016.
Li, J., & Kozhikode, R. K. (2009). Developing new innovation models: Shifts in the innovation land-
scapes in emerging economies and implications for global R&D management. Journal of Interna-
tional Management, 15(3), 328–339. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.intma​n.2008.12.005.
Löfsten, H., & Lindelo, P. (2005). R&D networks and product innovation patterns-academic and non-
academic new technology-based firms on Science Parks. Technovation, 25(9), 1025–1037. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.techn​ovati​on.2004.02.007.
Löschel, A. (2002). Technological change in economic models of environmental policy: A survey. Eco-
logical Economics, 43(2–3), 105–126. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0921​-8009(02)00209​-4.
Lundvall, B. Å., Johnson, B., Andersen, E. S., & Dalum, B. (2002). National systems of production,
innovation and competence building. Research Policy, 31(2), 213–231. https​://doi.org/10.1016/
S0048​-7333(01)00137​-8.
Mansfield, E. (1986). Patents and innovation: An empirical study. Management Science, 32(2), 173–181.
Márquez-Ramos, L., & Martínez-Zarzoso, I. (2010). The effect of technological innovation on interna-
tional trade. Economics E-Journal, 4, 1–37. https​://doi.org/10.5018/econo​mics-ejour​nal.ja.2010-11.

13
Scientometrics (2020) 122:23–45 45

Mattalia, C. (2012). Human capital accumulation in R&D-based growth models. Economic Modelling,
29(3), 601–609. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.econm​od.2011.12.018.
Mercan, B., & Göktaş, D. (2011). Components of innovation ecosystems: A cross-country study. Interna-
tional Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 76, 102–112.
Murty, M. N., & Devi, V. S. (1988). Pattern recognition. An algorithmic approach. Berlin: Springer.
Nagaoka, S., Motohashi, K., & Goto, A. (2010). Patent statistics as an innovation indicator. In B. H. Hall &
N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation (Vol. 2, pp. 1083–1127). Amsterdam:
North-Holland.
Nelson, R. R. (1992). National innovation systems: A retrospective on a study. Industrial and Corporate
Change, 1(2), 347–374. https​://doi.org/10.1093/icc/1.2.347.
OECD. (2016), Dataset: Main science and technology indicators. http://stats​.oecd.org/Index​.aspx?Query​
Id=33210​. Retrieved May 2, 2016.
Okubo, T. (2007). Intra-industry trade, reconsidered: The role of technology transfer and foreign direct
investment. The World Economy, 30(12), 1855–1876. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9701.2007.01073​
.x.
Pennings, J. M., & Harianto, F. (1992). Technological networking and innovation implementation. Organi-
zation Science, 3(3), 356–382. https​://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.356.
Rejeb, H. B., Morel-Guimarães, L., Boly, V., & Assiélou, N. D. G. (2008). Measuring innovation best prac-
tices: Improvement of an innovation index integrating threshold and synergy effects. Technovation,
28(12), 838–854. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.techn​ovati​on.2008.08.005.
Rogers, M. (1998). The definition and measurement of innovation. Australia: Melbourne Institute of Applied
Economic and Social Research. The University of Melbourne. Melbourne Institute Working Paper No.
10/98.
Roy, J. (2017). On the environmental consequences of intra-industry trade. Journal of Environmental Eco-
nomics and Management, 83, 50–67. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2016.12.006.
Samara, E., Georgiadis, P., & Bakouros, I. (2012). The impact of innovation policies on the performance of
national innovation systems: A system dynamics analysis. Technovation, 32(11), 624–638. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.techn​ovati​on.2012.06.002.
Schibany, A., & Streicher, G. (2008). The European innovation scoreboard: Drowning by numbers? Science
and Public Policy, 35(10), 717–732. https​://doi.org/10.3152/03023​4208X​39851​2.
Schwab, K. (Ed.). (2012). Insight report. The global competitiveness report 2012–2013. Geneva: World
Economic Forum.
Schwab, K. (Ed.). (2017). The global competitiveness report 2017–2018. Insight report. Geneva: World
Economic Forum.
Sikharulidze, D., & Kikutadze, V. (2017). Innovation and export competitiveness: Evidence from Georgia
firms. European Journal of Economics and Business Studies, 8(1), 131–137. https​://doi.org/10.26417​/
ejes.v8i1.p131-137.
Sohn, S. Y., Kim, D. H., & Jeon, S. Y. (2016). Re-evaluation of global innovation index based on a struc-
tural equation model. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 28(4), 492–505. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/09537​325.2015.11044​12.
Spulber, D. F. (2008). Innovation and international trade in technology. Journal of Economic Theory,
138(1), 1–20. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2007.06.002.
Sutz, J. (2000). The university–industry–government relations in Latin America. Research Policy, 29(2),
279–290. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0048​-7333(99)00066​-9.
Trindade, G., Dias, J. G., & Ambrósio, J. (2017). Extracting clusters from aggregate panel data: A market
segmentation study. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 296, 277–288. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
amc.2016.10.012.
Ungureanu, M., Pop, N., & Ungureanu, N. (2016). Innovation and technology transfer for business develop-
ment. Procedia Engineering, 149, 495–500. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.proen​g.2016.06.697.
Wonglimpiyarat, J. (2005). Does complexity affect the speed of innovation? Technovation, 25(8), 865–882.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.techn​ovati​on.2004.01.010.
Wonglimpiyarat, J. (2010). Innovation index and the innovative capacity of nations. Futures, 42(3), 247–
253. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.futur​es.2009.11.010.
Wu, J., & Li, J. (2014). Testing for individual and time effects in panel data models with interactive effects.
Economics Letters, 125(2), 306–310. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.econl​et.2014.09.029.
Žigić, K., & Maçi, I. (2011). Competition policy and market leaders. Economic Modelling, 28(3), 1042–
1049. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.econm​od.2010.11.024.

13