Äîêóìåíò âçÿò èç êýøà ïîèñêîâîé ìàøèíû. Àäðåñ îðèãèíàëüíîãî äîêóìåíòà : http://nuclphys.sinp.msu.ru/nseminar/20_05_10.pdf Äàòà èçìåíåíèÿ: Thu May 20 14:24:09 2010 Äàòà èíäåêñèðîâàíèÿ: Tue Oct 2 00:16:36 2012 Êîäèðîâêà:

EU and TURKEY ­ S&T POLICIES PERSPECTIVE Prof. N. K. PAK
Middle East Technical University Ankara, Turkey
Pisa, 20 Nov 2007


1.

Overview of S&T Policy of Turkey

The first attempts for policy formulations on science and technology have started in the first planned economic period (1963 1967) The Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TýBTAK) Established in 1963


The basic policy in 1960's and 1970's:

promotion of basic and applied research in natural sciences


In The Third Five Year Development Plan (1973-1977), for the first time: the concept of "technology policy" has been mentioned "integration of the technology policy with the industry, employment and investment policies and enhancing the technological abilities of certain industrial sectors" have been envisaged


The first detailed S&T(Policy) document was prepared in 1983 with the contribution of over 300 experts and scientists, and this document; explicitly recognized the role of technology for development suggested broadly defined priority areas of technology led to the establishment of a new institution: SUPREME COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (SCST)


The Supreme Council for Science and Technology (SCST)
Highest S&T policy making body Chaired by Prime Minister / Deputy Prime Minister Members:
Ministers (most closely concerned with S&T) Undersecretaries (SPO, Treasury, Foreign Trade) Presidents of Higher Education Council, Nuclear Energy Council, Union of Chambers of Commerce and Industry President and Vice President of TýBTAK


TýBTAK functions as the general secretariat to the SCST and is responsible for
preparing the agenda of the Supreme Council carrying out the preparatory studies following up the implementations evaluating the impacts of implementations ions


SCST in 1989-2002
1989 Inaugural meeting 1993 Priority Areas of S&T / Industrial R&D Support Program 1997-2002 Significant developments / action plans / implementations


1993 Policy Approach
To acquire capabilities in science and technology,
not only to achieve excellence in scientific and technological research, but also to turn scientific and technological findings into economical and/or social benefits.


Hence, the present S&T Policy of Turkey is based on the establishment of a National Innovation System


Outcome in ten years
Rank by the number of Journal Publicationc (SCI) 41(90):1177 25(00): 6074 R&D realised by business enterprise 33.4% (00) 20.4%(90) R&D financed by business enterprise 42.9% (00) 27.5%(90) GERD in % of GDP 0.64% (00) 0.32%(90) R&D personnel intensity per 10,000 labour force 7.5(90) 13.1 (00)


S&T System of Turkey Institutional framework SCST / TýBTAK (main actor) State Planning Organisation KOSGEB (SME Org.), TTGV (Tech. Dev. Found.) Universities / Public Research Institutes / Firms Turkish Patent Institute (TRIPS) National Metrology Institute (TýBTAK) Accreditation Board Technology Development Regions (Technoparks)


SCI Publications from Turkey
Yil 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1997 1995 1993 1991 1990 1980 1975 1973 Toplam Makale 1308336 1191670 1176696 1149095 1090635 1084009 1054205 986400 902875 800843 724531 696383 536963 402548 369331 TÝrkiye Makale 15666 13700 11672 10056 7578 6224 6045 4436 2992 1895 1336 1094 380 235 209 Siralama 19 20 21 22 25 25 25 27 34 35 38 42 40 40 40 Oran (%) 1.20 1.15 0.99 0.88 0.69 0.57 0.57 0.45 0.33 0.24 0.18 0.16 0.07 0.06 0.06


Long Term S&T Policy (SCST Decision on 13 Dec. 2000) A new national S&T policy document the period 2003-2023 is to be prepared to build a welfare society 2023 for in

(100'th Anniversary of the Foundation of the Turkish Republic):

Vision 2023: Strategies for Science and Technology


2. Europe of Science
Science was invented some 2500 years ago. It is continuous across cultural boundaries. The Ionian science anthiquity
became the science of the muslims of yesterday and the science of the muslims became the science of Europe today, through generally continuous development and growth.


There is neither a science of the West, nor an Islamic science. There is only one Science that wanders from cultur to cultur, and we are all heir to it, and are entitled to it. Science has been uniformly progressive and has found a home in any culture where people have been prepared to listen to each other with a view to learning something and to criticize each other, with a view to finding a better common vantage point.


Thus,

Science is the only truly uniting bond of all humans.


What do we mean by the word Europe? The continent is named Europe some 2500 years ago.About the same time science is invented. The word Europe has been often used and misused, interpreted and misinterpreted. There have been many Europes:


Europe of Greek Mythology, Europe of geographers, Europe of Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, Carolingian and Papal Europe, Romantic and Gothic Europe, Europe of the Renaissance,


Europe of Scientific Revolution; Europe of Industrial Revolution, Europe of French Revolution, Capitalist and Socialist Europe, Europe of Communism and Fascism; Europe of World Wars, Europe of US and Soviet hegemony, Europe of the Six, the Nine, the Ten, the Twelve, the Fifteen, the Twenty Five.


As old conceptions are fading away, Europe is moving(?) towards a new type of definition determined by not only geographical, religious and cultural considerations. Many (I, for one) believe that UNIVERSAL VALUES will hopefully prevail over narrow geographical, national, religious and cultural limitations, if Europe is to have a future.


3. Turkey's Integration With EU
Out of the past 2500 years much or all of the place nowadays called Turkey, has been politically, economically and culturally and extension of Europe for roughly two-thirds of the time. Recall that in its declining years The Ottoman Empire was called The Half Sick Man of Europe, but not of another geography.


Turkey has a good claim to be a part of the Europe of history, ideas and economy, if not the Europe of formal geography. The Country was put on its present path towards European integration in the 1950's, when She has joined the then OEEC, the NATO, and the Council of Europe. Turkey was among the first group of countries, in the post-WW2 period, joining all the movements of European integration.


In August 1959, only tow years after the signing of the Treaty of Rome, She presented her request to the EEC for a special associate status with the eventual goal of full membership. The negotiations between TR and EC began on September 28, 1959, but took two years longer than the Greek negotiations, culminating in the Ankara Asociation Agreement on September 12, 1963 ( something which is interestingly recommended to Turkey by G. d'Estaing in late 2002 on a par with Ukraine and Morocco ).


Although Turkey has signed the association agreement with EU, while the Union was still composed of 6 countries (Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxemburg), only after her entry to the EU Customs Union in 1996 and formal acknowledgement of its candidate member status in Helsinki Summit in 1999, Turkey has entered on an (HOPEFULLY) irreversible course for integration with Europe.


To be frank, the real obstacle for membership to EU is ECONOMICAL. A very large part of the state budget is used up to pay the heavy depth off, and as a result little is left to stimulate production, as well as for education, health and infrastructure programs. It has been attracting very little private foreign investment (FDI) without which (and domestic saving accumulation) it would be difficult for Turkey to catch up with Europe.


Milestones of Turkey's Integration With Europe Membership to the Council of Europe Membership to NATO Associated Membership to EEC (Ankara Agreement) Application for full membership to EC Customs Union with EU Candidacy to EU (Helsinki) 1949 1952 1963 1987 1996 10 Dec 1999


Turkey's Membership in Principal International Organizations
Date of establishment UN Council of Europe NATO OECD 1945 Turkey's Entry 1945

1949 1949 1960

1949 1952 1960


5. Turkey in EU RTD-FP
After a long and fluctuating relations, the historic step on our course to integration with Europe was to join the FP6 in 2002.


S&T Milestones in Turkish Integration to Europe
1954 1971 1974 CERN set up ( TR joined in 1954 as an associate member) COST launched (TR joined in 1971 as a founding member) ESF established in Strasbourg (TR joined in 1977 via TUBITAK) ESA established in Paris (TR started negotiations in 2001 via TUBITAK)

1975


S&T Integration (cont)
1975 1978 1984 1985 1988 International Energy Agency (IEA) Established in Paris (Turkey joined in 1975) EMBL inagurated in Heidelberg (TR joins in 1993) FPRTD launched (TR joined in FP6) EUREKA launched(TR joined as a founding member) member) Academia Europea set up in London (3 TR scientists elected in '92-'93)


It is a fact that, although our GDP is quite sizable, especially as compared to NEW MEMBERS, our R&D indicators are relatively modest next to EU averages.


The mismatch between our GDP and GERD is clearly a serious concern for us when we enter international consortia, since the algorithm used in the computation of participation fees is usually based on the GDP while the real absorption capacities (of project funding from FP resources, for instance) are proportional to GERD.


Surprisingly, however, the Science System performs better than it should. The contribution of the Turkish S&T system to the universal R&D production, for instance, has increased significantly over the past decade. More precisely, our place in the SCI total publication standings, 45th in eighties, advanced to 20th recently.


There is an increasing awareness about the importance of the private sector's role in the innovations. Although their share in the R&D activities is presently lower than the EU average, there is steady increase due to incentives introduced in early 90's.


Namely, a special program TUBITAK (and a parallel Soft Loan Pr) initiated in 1995(1993) to fund industrial R&D, was instrumental in doubling the share of the private sector in R&D activities in about five years, raising it to 35%.


At this point, I would like to give a brief overall picture on, how prepared we are in the European Research Platform. As a first step let us compare the three bidders for world leadership, from demographic, economic, and S & T point of view, together with Turkey.


GDP USA EU ­ 15 Japan Total Turkey 20 % 22 % 8% 50 % 0.6 %

S&T 31.7 % 32.8 % 7.1 % 71.6 % 0.9%

Demograp hy 4.6 % 6.3 % 1.9 % 12.8 % 1.1 %


Let us from with

asses Turkey's position S & T output point of view EU-15, and the old CC-13:


Turkey has higher number of SCI publications than the 7 members (namely Austria, Finland, Denmark, Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and Luxemburg). Turkey has higher number of SCI publications than all the CC-13's, except Poland.


Within the group of CC-13, the weights of Turkey are as follows: Demography : 37 % GDP : 21 % S&T publications : 21 %


Turkey however does not fare well in attracting FDI as much as the other CC's, although her standing is higher than all the CC's in microeconomic competitiveness ranking. This clearly calls for some urgent measures to be implemented at the national level.


S&T Indicators

Country or Group

R&D Exp. % of GDP 2001

R&D Exp. in Bus. Sector % of Total 2001

R&D Performed by Bus. Sector of Total 2001

R&D Exp. in Gov. Sector % of Total 2001

R&D Performed by Uni. Sector of Total 2001

Sci. and Eng. in R&D per 1000 Emplo. 2001

Trt. Stud. in Sci. Math. and Eng % of Total Tert. 2001

Number of Publications

1981

1995

2002

FINLAND USA KOREA IRELAND ISRAEL SPAIN GREECE PORTUGA L MALAYSI A MEXICO THAILAN D TURKEY BRAZIL INDIA HIGH.INC. OECD AVG.

3.37 2.82 2.65 2.90 2.54 0.97 0.67 0.76 0.37 0.43 0.20 0.64 0.91 0.74 2.24

70.30 68.30 73.40 64.10 59.30 49.70 24.20 21.30 44.70 29.60 9.40 42.90 40.10 27.90 64.20

70.90 74.40 71.20 64.10 70.90 54.30 28.50 35.80 ND 25.50 ND 33.40 45.50 ND 69.50

26.20 26.90 23.90 21.80 29.90 38.60 48.70 69.70 55.30 61.30 85.50 50.60 57.20 52.00 38.50

17.8 14.2 14.2 21.2 18.4 29.4 49.5 38.6 ND 26.3 30.6* 60.4 43.50 ND 17.20

15.2 8.6 5.2 5.1 4.8* 4.9 3.8 3.2 0.9 0.6 1.0* 1.1 1.7* 1.5* 6.40

27.7 8.9 33.9 13.7 16.1 17.6 ND 15.1 ND 15.5 21.0* 21.4 23* 25.0*

2615 174123 234 881 4934 3462 968 237 229 907 373 378 1913 13623

5732 2493 86 5393 1891 8279 1536 7 3158 1580 587 2901 649 2471 5440 1488 3

8004 314109 18430 3345 10431 26960 6193 4170 1001 5756 1823 9303 14999 20409

*

Latest available data for 1997


Technology Indicators
TECHN OLOG Y ACHIE VEME NT INDEX (TAI ) 0.744 0.733 0.666 0.566 0.514 0.481 0.437 0.419 0.396 0.389 0.337 0.321 0.311 0.201 TECHNOLOGY CREATION
Pat.grant ed to residents, per million people 1998

COUNTRY OR GROUP

FNLAND (1)* USA (2) KOREA (5) IRELAND (13) ISRAEL (18) SPAN (19) GREECE (26) PORTUGAL (27) MALAYSA (30) MEXCO (32) THALAND (40) TURKEY (41) BRAZL (43) INDA (63) WORLD AVG. HIGH-NC. OECD AVG

187 289 779 106 74 42 6 1 1 4 2 1 -

Rec. of royalties and licence fees, US $ per million people 1999

Internet hosts, per 1000 people 2000

DIFFUSION OF RECENT INNOVATIONS

DIFFUSION OF OLD INNOVATIONS
Telephones, mainline and cell. per 1000 people 1999 Elect. consumpti on kw-hrs per capita 1999

HUMAN SKILLS
Mean years of schooling (age 15 and above ) 2000 Gross tert. science enroll. ratio, % 19951997

HDI GDP PER CAPITA PPP US $ 1999

125.6

200.2 179.1 4.8 48.6 43.2 21.0 16.4 17.7 2.4 9.2 1.6 2.5 7.2 0.1 15.1(00) 96.9 (00)

High- and med.­ tech. exports, % of total goods exp. 50.7 1999

1,203 993 938 924 918 730 839 892 340 192 124 384 238 28 243 (99) 965 (99)

14,129 11,832 4,497 4.760 5.475 4,195 3,739 3,396 2,554 1,513 1,345 1,353 1,793 384 2074 6969

10.0 12.0 10.8 9.4 9.6 7.3 8.7 5.9 6.8 7.2 6.5 5.3 4.9 5.1 6.0 (90) 10.0 (00)

27.4

0.934 0.925 0.875 0.916 0.893 0.908 0.881 0.874 0.774 0.790 0.757 0.735 0.750 0.751 0.928 0.716

23,096 31,872 15,712 25,918 18,440 18,079 15,414 16,064 8,209 8,297 6,132 6,380 7,037 2,248 6,980

130.0 9.8 110.3 43.6 8.6 0,0 2.7 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.8 -

66.2 66.7 53.6 45.0 53.4 17.9 40.7 67.4 66.3 48.9 26.7 32.9 16.6 55

13.9 23.2 12.3 11.0 15.6 17.2 12.0 3.3 5.0 4.6 6.3 3.4 1.7 -

-

58 (99)

26,050

Source: Reference (1) * Rank according to TAI


Relationship between Affluence, Well-being, Technological Achievement and Global Competitiveness
COUNTRY OR GROUP
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX (HDI) 2000 2000 GDP PER CAPITA 2000 GLOBAL COMPETITIVENES S RANKING 2001 TECHNOLOGY ACHIEVEMENT (TAI) 2001 High Tech. Exports, 1999 (% of Manufac. Exports) Manufactured Exports, 1999 (% of tot. Merchandise Exports)

Index FNLAND USA KOREA IRELAND ISRAEL SPAIN GREECE PORTUGAL MALAYSA MEXCO THALAND TURKEY BRAZL INDA WORLD AVG. HIGH-NC. OECD AVG Source : Ref. 3 0.930 0.939 0.882 0.925 0.896 0.913 0.885 0.880 0.782 0.796 0.762 0.742 0.750 0.577 0.722 0.932

Ranking 10 6 27 18 22 25 24 28 59 54 70 85 73 124 -

PPPUSD 24.996 34.142 17.380 29.866 20.131 19.472 16.501 17.920 9.068 9.023 6.402 6.974 7.625 2.358 7.446 27.848

Ranking 16 2 28 4 23 21 34 30 52 55 70 67 60 123 3 1 28 7 16 23 30 34 29 36 38 44 31 41 -

Index 0.744 0.733 0.666 0.566 0.514 0.481 0.437 0.419 0.396 0.389 0.337 0.321 0.311 0.201 -

Ranking 1 2 5 13 18 19 26 27 30 32 40 41 43 63 31 36 36 49 31 13 10 8 64 32 40 9 16 7 (98) 85 83 91 85 93 78 50 87 80 85 74 78 54 76 (98) -


RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TECHNOLOGICAL ACHIEVEMENT AND GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS

COUNTRY FNLAND UNTED STATES SWEDEN KOREA SNGAPORE IRELAND ISRAEL SPAN GREECE PORTUGAL MALAYSA MEXCO THALAND TURKEY BRAZL INDA

TAI 2001 RANK 1 2 3 5 10 13 18 19 26 27 30 32 40 41 * 43 63

COMPETITIVENESS RANK 2001 3 1 8 28 2 7 16 23 30 34 29 36 38 44 31 41 2000 4 1 14 28 2 5 21 23 34 29 27 33 35 42 31 39 1999 5 1 14 41 2 8 22 20 32 27 28 35 36 38 34 42 1998 6 1 16 36 2 7 25 26 33 29 19 34 41 39 35 38 1997 7 1 19 30 2 10 25 26 36 32 14 40 31 35 34 41

Based on calculation reported in this paper Source : Reference (13)


Key Indicators and Rankings of Candidate Countries
Gross National Income (GNI) Pop. (200 1) Millio n Estonia Lithuania Latvia Slovenia Slovakia Czech Rep. Hungary Poland Romania Bulgaria Turkey Greece Portugal Portugal 1,4 3,5 2,3 2,0 5,4 10,3 10,2 38,7 22,4 8,1 66,2 10,6 10,2 BUS D 5,2 114 7,6 19,4 20,0 54,1 48,9 163,9 38,4 12,6 168,3 124,6 109,2 (2001) Per Capita Rank 14 27 18 36 63 149 128 359 156 48 440 189 177 48 65 66 29 46 39 43 53 69 80 103 14 26 42 49 53 29 36 33 35 37 63 62 85 24 28 0,826 0,808 0,803 0,879 0,835 0,849 0,835 0,833 0,775 0,779 0,742 0,885 0,880 44 30 34 39 37 35 27 47 Hum. Dev. Index Hum. (HDI) (2000) Global Competitivene ss (2001) Index Rank 22 Rank 60 62 72 44 41 31 32 20 42 47 25 27 37 SCI Publications (2001)

BUSD( PPP)

Ra nk


Some Indicators of Development
Expendit. in Education (1) Estonia Lithuania Latvia Slovenia Slovakia Czech Rep. Hungary Poland Romania Bulgaria Turkey 6,8 5,8 6,0 5,2 4,7 4,3 4,5 5,2 3,1 3,7 3,5 Expendit. in IT (2) High Tech. Exports (3) 30 4 4 5 4 8 26 3 6 4 5 FDI Stock (4) (4) (MUSD) 387 379 607 176 2.052 4.583 1.692 9.342 1.025 1.002 982 (%) 48 19 27 13 15 32 40 17 15 17 4

Ext. Debt Stock (4) 66 43 46

2,1 2,9 3,9 3,3 2,2 1,0 1,7 1,7

48 43 63 37 27 82 57

(1) Public Expenditure on Education as % of GDP (2001) (2000)

(2) IT expenditures as % of GDP

(3) High tech exports as % of manufactured exports ur

(4) FDI Stock as % of GDP (2000)

(5) External depth stock as % of GDP (2000)


6. Conclusions
We have recently witnessed a very important transformation in our part of the globe, one that has changed the world from a bipolar to mono-polar structure. This divide of ideologies is over for more than a decade. This had enormous consequences for the central Eastern European countries.


They benefited from an immediate flow of aid and schemes of cooperation coming from the developed world with EU playing a central role. The welcome arrival of these countries to the fold of democracies, however, should not adversely affect other parts of the world, least of all the Mediterranean area which has no less strategic importance for Western Europe.


However the frightening (albeit artificial) substitute of a divide, once looked to have receded, seems to have gained momentum after the dreadful incidents of September 11. I am talking about Huntington's thesis on the so-called "clash of civilisations". We all inherit a common culture and civilization forged by our forefathers over millenia in such centers as Ephesus, Athens, Rome, Istanbul and others.


We may differ in some attributes of culture, for instance, in our religion. But at the level of sophistication we have today we should not allow such differences to re-polarise the world and divide us again into hostile new camps, despite all the zeal of the proponents of a multipolar world-order from both sides.