THE strengths of the Philippines within the framework of the Global Innovation Index (GII) was the focus of our last column. Now, let us look at the flipside of the same coin and see the areas that we need to address to improve our innovation ranking.
Old data
Let me give you first a silver lining: 6 of our 11 weak points are due to outdated data, which results in the GII ranking not reflective of current conditions.
Data from 2013 places us at rank 99 (out of 111 economies with data, 89th percentile), when it comes to pupil-teacher ratio in secondary education. The 2009 data on government expenditures: 1) on education, puts us at rank 109 (of 117, 93rd); and 2) per high-school student places us at rank 99 (of 106, 93rd). Older data from 2008 on tertiary level inbound mobility, or the percentage of foreign students with respect to the total enrolment, lands us at 105 of 107 (98th). These indicators so far belong to the human capital and research pillar.
In addition, with data from 2012, we ranked 92 out of 105 (88th) for the new business-density indicator (belonging the knowledge and technology output (KTO) pillar), or new registrations per thousand population of ages 15 to 64 years old. Last, data for printing and publishing output from 2012, part of the creative outputs (CO) pillar, places us at 90 of 99 (91st).
To address this, relevant government agencies should strive to provide updated information in relation to the indicators measured in the GII. This will lead to a more accurate result in the GII and, hopefully, a better ranking.
Areas for improvement
The remaining five weaknesses listed in this year’s GII come from the institutions, human capital and research, KTO and CO pillars. Looking at the glass half-full, no weakness was registered in the infrastructure, market-sophistication and business-sophistication pillars.
A weakness in the CO pillar is the low number of video uploads made between 15 and 69 years old on YouTube. In the world, the US, Latvia and the UK scored the highest here. In the Asean, Singapore leads at rank 13, followed by Thailand at 46, Vietnam at 52, Indonesia at 56 and Malaysia at 58. The Philippines trails the Asean at 63 out of 73 (86th).
The other weakness in the KTO pillar is our number of scientific and technical articles published, where we ranked 120 of 126 (95th percentile). Iceland is at the top, followed by Denmark and Switzerland. Singapore leads the Asean at rank 28, then Malaysia at 58, Thailand at 84, Brunei at 88, Vietnam at 94 and Cambodia at 99. Note that the Philippines at 120 comes before Indonesia, which is last at 124.
In the human-capital and research- input pillar, we are ranked last (43 of 43) in the indicator pertaining to average expenditure of the top 3 global companies by research and development. The Philippines got a score of zero, along with 85 other economies. According to the GII, this means that there are no listed global companies in the economy as indicated in the data source. But this might be inaccurate as even Hong Kong got a score of zero.
The last two weaknesses belong to the institutions pillar. First, the cost of redundancy dismissal places us at 111 out of 127 (87th) with Israel, and a few notches better than Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia. This indicator measures the cost of advance notice requirements and severance payments due when terminating a redundant worker, expressed in weeks of salary.
Finally, the Philippines is ranked 120 of 127 (94th) in the index relating to the ease of starting a business, placing second to the last among the Asean nations before Cambodia. In this indicator, New Zealand, Canada and Hong Kong ranked the highest. Singapore again leads the Asean at rank six, Thailand at 64, Brunei at 68, Malaysia at 86, Vietnam at 92 and Indonesia at 112.
Improving the areas
WE have to bear in mind that the GII serves to provide a snapshot of the level of innovation of an economy. As performance in the GII is heavily based on data obtained from various sources, the Philippines must constantly update the relevant data we provide; otherwise, we get an imprecise assessment of our level of innovation. And even when data is up to date, the GII might even still paint inaccurate images. But what is certain is that the GII may serve as a guide for economies—as a benchmark for future policy directions in terms of innovation.
Thus, we have much work to do to have a better performance in the GII. With respect to the government-policy side, the crafting of the National Intellectual Property Strategy (NIPS) spearheaded by the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines is under way. Secretaries Ramon M. Lopez (Department of Trade and Industry) and Fortunato T. de la Peña (Department of Science and Technology) support the NIPS and have agreed to be intellectual property rights champions.
Meanwhile, each government agency is encouraged to study the GII, and look at which indicator it can contribute to raise the ranking of the Philippines. After all, it takes the strong collaboration of both public and private sector to push for the creation of a creative and innovative Philippines.
****
Josephine Rima-Santiago, Ll M, is currently the director general of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines. She has had more than 20 years of extensive experience in Intellectual Property as a public servant, educator, practitioner and researcher. E-mail: jrsantiago@columnist.com.