GLOBALIZATION, KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY AND ... - CiteSeerX

GLOBALIZATION, KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY AND HIGHER EDUCATION AND NATIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: THE TURKISH CASE

Kemal Gürüz President of The Council of Higher Education of Turkey and Namik Kemal Pak President of The Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey

Prepared for Presentation at Education; Lifelong Learning and the Knowledge Economy Stuttgart, October 9-10,2002 A conference organized by the Baden-Württemberg Foundation for Development Cooperation, the World Bank, and the German State of Baden-Württemberg. (First Draft)

I.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Throughout history, knowledge, both as technical know-how and any kind of information, has been important to mankind for improving the quality of life. What have changed over centuries, however, are the characteristics and the quality of knowledge, the relative importance of science as its source, the methods by which it is created, stored, accessed, transmitted, acquired and retrieved, and its relative importance as a production factor. It is known that, for centuries, technological progress far outpaced scientific development. It is generally agreed that even the industrial revolution directly owed little, if any, to the scientific revolution of the 17th century. After all, both Thomas Newcomen and James Watt, who developed and commercialized the steam engine in the 18th century were ordinary technicians with no formal education, let alone university degrees, and the laws of thermodynamics were formulated almost a century later. However, owing mainly to the German research universities, an entirely different picture started to emerge in the 19th century. Scientific breakthroughs achieved in laboratories led to new technologies which, in turn, formed the bases of new industries. The chemical industry and electrical technologies are generally considered to be the first sciencebased industries. It is, however, interesting to note that the two great entrepreneurs who first commercialized much of the scientific developments in electricity to useful products, Bell and Edison, also had no formal education. The period from about the middle of the 18th century to the beginning of the 20th century marks the advent of the industrial society characterized by technologies and industries based on results of scientific research, replacement of inventions and inventors by innovations and organized research and development activity, and the appearance of large-scale, smoke-stack factories mass-producing goods. Technological progress financed by credits and based on and sustained by innovations resulting from organized R&D activity was identified by J.A. Schumpeter as the main driver of capitalist growth as early as 1934. Such progress and growth effectively led to new scientific discoveries which opened up entirely new vistas for the humankind. The most striking of such discoveries in the early 20th century, which set the 2

underlying paradigm of the entire scientific system of modern age, especially the bases of the information and communication technologies shaping up today’s knowledge society is the quantum theory. This new theory has changed our understanding of the microworld radically, and new avenues in science opened up in front of the mankind. Namely, the first half of the 20th century witnessed the emergence of atomic and nuclear physics as entirely new areas of science which, in turn, led to a new branch of physics called solid-state physics. These developments led to many new techniques and equipment which evolved into two new scientific and technological fields: electronics and advanced materials. Beginning with the first high-speed electronic computer in 1946, the invention of transistor and the development of the mathematical theory of communications in 1947, and the discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA in 1953, a new relationship started to emerge between science and technology. Since then, the precursor – follower type of linear relationship has been transformed into a much more intertwined, complex and fuzzier interdependence where a science-based technology opens up a new scientific field which, in turn, forms the bases for a new set of technologies, and so on. Thus the last quarter of the 20th century has been a period where distinctions between basic, applied and technological research and development and industrial applications, and even marketing and financing (e.g. venture capital) have been increasingly blurred. Out of this complex historical process in which many factors interacted over a period spanning more than a hundred years, but especially in the last quarter of the previous century, three technologies emerged, which have started to profoundly change our lives. These are the information and communication technologies and biotechnology. Information and communication technologies involve innovations in microelectronics, computing (hardware and software), telecommunications, and optoelectronics (microprocessors, semiconductors, fiber optics) in a manner which now makes it impossible to distinguish between informatics and telecommunication technologies. Thus these technologies, collectively abbreviated as ICT, enable the processing, storage, transmission of and access to enormous amounts of data through communication networks.

3

Innovations in microprocessor technology lead to the doubling of computing power every 18-24 months (Moor’s Law), and those in fibre – optic technologies double bandwidths every 6 months (Gilder’s Law). Thus huge cost reductions and massive increases in speed and quantity are achieved at dizzying rates1,2*. Global market for information technologies, which was $ 327 billion in 1997, is expected to rise to $ 1 trillion by 20083. The Internet has grown exponentially, from 16 million users in 1995 to more than 400 million users in 2000, and to an expected 1 billion users in 20051. In 1985, the cost of sending 45 million bits of information per second over one kilometer of optical fiber was approximately 100 dollars; in 1997 this was possible at a cost of just 0.05 cent2. Modern biotechnology, recombinant DNA technology, is transforming life sciences, making huge advances in medicine and agriculture possible, where earlier methods were less successful. Nearly 300 biopharmaceuticals have been approved for use or are being reviewed by the US Food and Drug Administration. The genomics-based pharmaceutical market is projected to grow from $ 2.2 billion in 1999 to $ 8.2 billion in 2004. Transgenic crops increased from 2 million hectares planted in 1996 to 44 million hectares in 2000, 98 % of which is in Argentina, Canada and the US alone1. There is a long way before the full potential of biotechnology is exploited, with many possible health, environmental and social risks to be eliminated along the way. It is thus clear that what is now commonly referred to as the ICT revolution is, in a way, a natural culmination of scientific, technological and industrial achievements of the last century and is based on physical sciences, particularly quantum theory as has been mentioned above. It is this revolution, along with a number of other factors, outlined below, and some of which are in fact by-products of the same complex interactive process, that has started to rapidly transform the industrial Society into the knowledge Society. Scientific and technological developments outlined above, especially those in material sciences and microelectronics, have transformed the -----------------------------* Superscripts indicate the references listed at the end of the text.

4

industry from mass-production techniques to flexible manufacturing systems, and significantly reduced the dimensions of products. This process of miniaturization is continuing at an accelerated pace; following the development of submicron techniques in electronics (largescale, and very large-scale integration, LSI and VLSI), manufacturing processes are now being developed at the nanometer-level (nanoscience and nanotechnology) What is important from the perspective of this article, however, is the impact miniaturization has had on countries whose economies were dependent upon primary resource exports. Less new material requirements and substitution of traditional raw materials with new and advanced materials, combined with increased energy utilization efficiencies in developed nations, naturally led to significantly reduced export revenues, not only in developing countries including China, but also in USSR. In these countries, it became no longer possible to meet the increasing costs of socioeconomic development, urbanization, and the accelerating expectations of the populations by revenues mainly from primary resource exports. Under those conditions, it became impossible to sustain economic growth without entering a balance of payments crisis4. Consequently, what were formerly essentially closed economies began to gradually open up and become integrated into what is today aptly called the global market. Radical changes and shifts occurred worldwide in the last two decades of the previous century, not only in science and technology and economics, but also in politics and social dynamics. The USSR, one of the scientific giants in basic and applied research, abjectly failed to channel her tremendous scientific potential to increasing the material well-being, and the quality of life of her citizens. The discontent of the citizens of the USSR and her satellites was exacerbated by the information, an increasing portion of them became exposed to about what life in the West was like, through ICT slowly creeping into these countries. A point was thus reached where even the military might of the USSR was no longer able to match the vast technological superiority of the West. The USSR could no longer sustain her imperial stretch, and it started to disintegrate, starting from her satellites and finally imploded, carrying with her a political system predicated upon a closed society and a centrally–planned, closed economy with total disregard for the individual, to the depths of the history.

5

The dissolution of the Soviet system was paralleled by the consolidation of civilian rule in Latin America, and a much improved sociopolitical landscape in Africa. In summary, the proportion of the world’s countries practicing some form of democratic governance rose from 40 percent in 1988 to 61 percent in 19982. The socio-political changes coupled to and, to a large extent, also driven by the ICT revolution, which made it possible for peoples to become aware of and informed about events and developments in other parts of the world, radically transformed the world economy and led to dramatic policy changes around the world. Privatization rather than central planning, and export-competitiveness rather than import-substitution started to rapidly unify world markets. This process, referred to as economic globalization, is deeply intertwined with technological transformations. New tools of information and communication technologies make world’s financial and scientific resources more accessible and unify the markets into a single marketplace, where intense competition further drives scientific and technological progress. The convergent and mutually reinforcing impacts of globalization and the information and communication revolution have radically changed not only the methods and structures of production, but also the relative importance of factors of production. The transformation from the industrial society to the knowledge society and the knowledge economy is characterized by the increased importance of knowledge, both technical knowledge (know-how), and knowledge about attributes (information and awareness), and a well-trained workforce that can apply not only know-how, but is also capable of analysis and decisionmaking based on information. Just as the steam engine and electricity harnessed inanimate power to make possible the industrial revolution, digital and genetic breakthroughs are channeling brainpower to form the basis of knowledge economy. II.

BASIC FEATURES OF THE KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY AND THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY

In summary, knowledge and people with knowledge are the key factors of development, main drivers of growth, and major determinants of competitiveness in the global economy. In his seminal work on 6

competitive advantage, Porter5 had already pointed out a decade ago, that a nation could no longer rely on abundant natural resources and cheap labour, and that comparative advantage would increasingly be based on combinations of technical innovations and creative use of knowledge. In the past century, we progressed from a stage where the application of science to manufacturing techniques or to agricultural practices became the basis for production; this was the industrial society, where mass production, dependent on a relatively small cadre of highly-skilled labor commanding a much larger group of semi-skilled labour, was vertically integrated. In today’s knowledge economy, knowledge produced by R&D, and inventions made in industrial laboratories are creating the so-called knowledge-industries. These include not only high-and medium-technologies based on new materials, microelectronics, computer-aided design and manufacturing, biotechnology, advanced process control systems, etc., but also communication services, finance, insurance, and other business services and methods (e.g. e-business), and community, social and personal services. This is what we mean by saying that not only is it no longer possible to distinguish between basic, applied and industrial research, development, production, marketing and financing, but it is also getting increasingly difficult to separate the industrial, service, and agricultural sectors of the economy. This is because high-and medium-technologies are diffusing to all strata of all sectors of the economy, and to every aspect of our daily lives. These complex interactions are now driving the science and technology-based global economy, where R&D and production are horizontally integrated in the form of networks covering production sites and laboratories in a number of countries, making it possible to outsource knowledge, labor and other factors of production globally. Thus the transformation from the industrial to the knowledge economy has been accompanied by the emergence of a worldwide labor market. This transformation has been paralleled by another type of transformation. In the pre-industrial society, individual scientists and scholars worked in isolation, even away from the universities, where some of them were employed. With the advent of the industrial society, came the university research laboratories, and public research institutes, 7

first in Germany, e.g. the Kaiser Wilhelm Gessellchaft, and then the industrial R&D laboratories, such as those of General Electric and Bell Telephone, and Edison’s laboratory/shop in Menlo Park. To channel public funds more effectively and organize R&D activities towards national goals, institutions were established as early as the first quarter of the 20th century; the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research in the UK in 1915, and Notgemeinschaft der Deustchen Wissenchaft in Germany were the first examples. These were followed by Conseil National de la Recerche Scientifique (CNRS) in France in 1939, and the National Science Foundation (NSF) in the USA in 1950. The latter two are more relevant to the topic of this article because, while the first two were set up to support the national war effort, CNRS, and especially the NSF, were set up to channel the scientific and technological knowledge acquired during wars to civilian ends. In this manner, national R&D systems began to emerge, comprising universities, public research institutions and private sector research departments, each with distinct but partially overlapping and complementary functions. This particular organization of R&D effort, which served the industrial society very well, gradually evolved into the National Innovation System (NIS), which is now the heart of the knowledge society, continually pumping knowledge to its organs through complex information and communication networks, of which the Internet is the prime example. According to the World Bank2: “An NIS is a web of (i) knowledge producing organizations in the education and training system (i.e. the national R&D system)* together with (ii) the appropriate macroeconomic and regulatory framework, including trade policies that affect technology diffusion; (iii) innovative firms and networks of enterprises; (iv) adequate communications infrastructures; and other selected factors, such as access to the global knowledge base or certain market conditions that favor innovations.” Components comprising the NIS were appropriately named advanced and specialized factors of production by Porter5. Clearly, the national R&D system is just one, but the most important one, of the components of the NIS. For, the West since the time of Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes about 2700 years ago on the Aegean -----------------------* Authors’ own interpretation.

8

coast of today’s Turkey, which are generally considered to be the birthtime and birthplace of rational and critical thought and science, and Japan since the Meiji Restoration in 1863, have thrived on science and scientific and technological research and development. It should therefore come as no surprise that the vast majority of the richest and humanly most developed countries, as indicated by the Human Development Index (HDI), are in the West and include Japan, Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong. In 1998 the 29 OECD countries spent $ 520 billion on R&D, more than the combined economic output of the world’s 30 poorest countries, and accounted for 85 percent of the total R&D spending worldwide. China, India, Brazil, and the newly industrialized countries of East Asia represented 11 percent, while the rest of the world accounted for only 14 percent. OECD countries with 14 percent of the world’s population, accounted for 86 percent of the 836,000 patent applications filed in 1998, and 85 percent of the 437,000 scientific and technical journal articles published worldwide. These countries invest an average of 2.4 percent of their GDP in R&D. Of worldwide royalty and license income in 1999, 54 percent went to the USA, and 12 percent went to Japan. Today, 79 percent of Internet users live in OECD countries. The average annual growth rate in value- added created by knowledge-based industries for the period 1985-1997 was 3.0 percent for OECD countries. A key indicator is the ratio of foreign patent applications to local patent applications by residents. In low-income countries this ratio is 690 to 1, while in high-income countries the average for this ratio is 3.3 to 11,2. A very important characteristic of a fully developed NIS must be underlined at this point. This refers to the share of the private sector in the R&D activities. Countries such as India, Brazil, and especially the former USSR, failed to gain significant returns on their investment in R&D, mainly because the outputs were “locked in” public institutes, academies, and universities, or in defense industries with no civilian spin-offs. In the knowledge economy, the private sector has much of the finance, knowledge and personnel for technological innovation. Among industrialized nations the share of the private sector in the national R&D activities is above 50-60 percent, both in terms of financing and in carrying out, with universities typically undertaking 15-20, and public institutions accounting for 10-15 percent of the activities. 9

Figures 1,2,3 and 4, adapted from Gürüz6,7 show the profiles of national R&D systems of selected countries. Figures 1 and 2 show the inputs, i.e, the ratio of R&D expenditure to GDP, and the number of researchers per 1 million inhabitants, respectively. Figures 3 and 4, on the other hand, show structures of the systems in terms of the shares of private sector and universities, respectively. It appears from these figures that threshold values exist which more or less indicate the transition from a national R&D system into a national innovation system. In terms of inputs, these roughly correspond to an R&D spending of 1 percent of GDP and 1000 researchers per 1 million inhabitants, and in terms of structure, a 50 percent share of private sector in the national R&D effort. In the period 1995-2000, venture capital invested increased from $ 4.6 billion to $ 103.2 billion is the USA, from $ 19 million to $ 2.9 billion in the UK, from $ 21 million to $ 1.7 billion in Japan, from $ 13 million to 1.2 billion in Germany, from $ 8 million to $ 1.1 billion in France, from nothing to $ 560 and $ 217 million in Sweden and Finland, respectively1. High-tech products have started to account for a rapidly increasing portion of global trade. The proportion of manufactured merchandise with a medium-and high-technology content in international trade has gone from 33 percent in 1976 to 54 percent in 19968. In 1998-1999 the total volume of high-tech products exports of the 30 leading countries in this area was $ 1097 billion. The USA, Japan, Germany and the UK accounted for 19, 11, 9 and 7 percent of this total respectively. The OECD countries put together were responsible for 56 percent of the total. High-tech products account for very little of the exports of the vast majority of countries1. Thus, it is the authors’ view that the one defining feature of the knowledge economy and the knowledge society is the existence of a fully developed NIS that enables a country to be a significant recipient of worldwide income from royalty and license fees, and/or a key player in global trade based on high-technology.

10

III. THE TECHNOLOGICAL CLEAVAGE While Peter Drucker, who had predicted the advent of a knowledge society, populated by the elderly, driven by a knowledge-economy based on knowledge creation and inventions9, sees this transformation and its recipes applicable to all, the statistics cited above clearly point to the existence of a cleavage between the haves and have-nots of today’s world. David Landes10 points out that globalization has made the rich richer and poor poorer, and cites the 400-fold difference between the per capita GNP’s of Switzerland and Mozambique to highlight this imbalance. Harvard analyst Jeffrey Sachs11, too, has drawn a more realistic picture of a future world divided along the lines of technological prowess. He lauds the impressive advance of science and technology, but on the reverse side of the coin, sees a widening cleavage based on technology, with just a sixth of the world’s population of about 6 billion providing nearly all of the world’s technological innovations, catering to a far larger second part (about half of the planet’s inhabitants) who can adopt these technologies for production and consumption. The remaining third of the world’s population is classified as “technologically disconnected” or, equivalently, “technologically excluded” who neither have the indigenous capacity to innovate, nor the capacity to adopt the foreign technologies. Although Sachs allows for a measure of mobility between the categories and notes that some, standing in the middle ground, had managed to elbow their way into the ranks of technology providers, he calls on financial and technological assistance from the industrialized world to the less endowed to help them cross the barriers. Statistics cited above clearly prove Sachs’s point. Technological capacity is indeed concentrated in the hands of the few. In fact the capacity to innovate is more than ever, “the lever of the riches”12. A number of countries, through judicious investments and creative policies, have crossed the Rubicon and have promoted themselves to the first league. Of the 30 leading exporters of high-tech products, 11 are in the developing world, with Singapore, Korea, Malaysia, China and Mexico ranking 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th and 11th, respectively, and outranking Canada, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland and Belgium. Thailand is ranked 18th just in front of Spain, Finland and Denmark. Brazil, Indonesia and Costa Rica have also made it to the first thirty. Hungary and the Czech Republic, having shed the manacles and shackles of communism, are also now in the top thirty1. 11

Technology is increasingly being developed and commercialized in locations where critical masses exist with respect to the capacity to generate new scientific knowledge, and where human resources with the requisite skill profile exist. The Stanford Industrial Park, built on the university land by the visionary provost Frederich Terman acted as the nucleus for the Silicon Valley. The first offshoot was a company founded by two of his students, William Hewlett and David Packard in 1937. This was followed by the high-technology zone along Route 128 near MIT, whose development accelerated after WW II, and the Research Triangle in North Carolina established in 1959. Today, 47 such global hubs of innovation, or clusters as foreseen by Porter5 in the late 80s and early 90s, are identified in the world, where start-up companies, research labs, financiers and corporations are converging, creating a dynamic and conducive environment that brings together knowledge, finance and opportunity. The USA has 13 hubs, Europe has 17 (4 in the UK, 3 in Germany, 2 in Finland, 2 in Sweden, 2 in France and 1 each in Netherlands, Austria, Norway, Ireland), Japan, Brazil and Australia have 2 each, China has 3, and there is one hub in each of Canada, Singapore, Korea, New Zealand, Israel, India, South Africa and Tunisia. A country’s capacity to take advantage of the knowledge economy, not necessarily as a technology creator or developer, but even as a user, adapter, and diffuser of technologies developed by others, clearly depends on its capacity to generate, access and share knowledge. Among the minimum requirements are: (i) a national education system catering to the masses, rather than to a handful of elites, and producing a workforce with a relevant skill profile; (ii) the essentials of an R&D system with the potential to evolve into a fully developed NIS; and (iii) a reasonably developed ICT infrastructure. Electricity and the telephone are essential to the ICT infrastructure. Both are more than a hundred years old technologies, but there is no universal access to them even in reasonably developed countries. Electricity has reached some 2 billion people, only a third of the world population. There is more than 1 mainline connection for every 2 people in OECD countries; this ratio is 15 in developing, and 200 in least developed countries. The Internet is to the knowledge economy, what highways and railways were to socioeconomic development earlier. There is 1 Internet user per 5000 people in Africa, compared to 1 user per 6 in Europe and North America. The number of computers per 1000 12

inhabitants is less than 1 in Burkina Faso, 22 in Turkey13, 27 in South Africa, 38 in Chile, 172 in Singapore and 348 in Switzerland 2. This digital divide between countries is a visible manifestation of the technological cleavage cited above. It divides developed and developing countries according to their ability to use, adapt, produce and diffuse knowledge. If this divide is left unbridged, not only will tensions develop between the affluent West and the computer-illiterate rest, but even many of the developing nations will keep losing their purchasing power, and gradually fade away from the international trade scene. This is why Sachs’s call to the industrialized world to assist the less endowed is not only humanely justified11, but is also self-serving for the West. The UNDP has introduced a Technology Achievement Index (TAI) to provide a comparison of countries’ average achievements in creating and diffusing technology and in building human skills to master new innovations1. The TAI is a composite index based on the following four dimensions, together with the quantitative indicators shown below for each dimension: *Creation of Technology ? Patents granted per capita ? Receipts of royalty and license fees from abroad per capita *Diffusion of Recent Innovations ? Internet hosts per capita ? High-and medium-technology exports as share of all manufactured goods exports *Diffusion of Old Innovations ? Number of telephones per capita (mainline and cellular combined) ? Electricity consumption per capita *Human skills ? Mean years of schooling of population aged 15 and above Gross enrollment ratio at tertiary level in science, mathematics and engineering

13

The TAI values thus calculated range from 0.744 for Finland, 0.733 for the USA, 0.703 for Sweden and 0.698 for Japan at the top, to 0.066 for Mozambique at the bottom, in the list of 72 countries for which TAI could be reliably calculated and clearly shows four country groups: * Leaders, with TAI above 0.5, which are at the cutting edge of self sustaining technological innovation. * Potential Leaders, with TAI between 0.35 and 0.49, which have invested in high levels of human skills and have diffused old technologies but innovate little. * Dynamic Adopters, with TAI between 0.20 and 0.34 which are dynamic in the use of new technologies, with technology hubs in some of them, but in which the diffusion of old technologies is incomplete and slow. * Marginalized , with TAI below 0.20 in which large parts of the population have not benefited even from the diffusion of old technologies. There is a fifth group of countries, entitled others, for which data were missing or unsatisfactory for one or more indicators, so the TAI could not be estimated. Included in this group are Estonia, Iceland, Russian Federation, Turkey, Ukraine and Venezuela. Among the eighteen leaders are Korea (5th with TAI 0.666), Singapore (10th with TAI 0.585) and Israel (18th with TAI 0.585). Eighteen potential leaders include Spain (19th with TAI 0.481), Greece (26th with TAI 0.437), Portugal (27th with TAI 0.419), Malaysia (30th with TAI 0.396), Mexico (32nd with TAI 0.389). The twenty five dynamic adopters include Uruguay (38th with TAI 0.343), Thailand (40th TAI 0.255), and India (63rd with TAI 0.201). The eight marginalized countries is topped by Nicaragua (64th with TAI 0.185), followed by Pakistan with TAI 0.167. Every year, Institute for Management and Development (IMD) and the World Economic Forum (WEC) analyze the relative competitiveness of countries, and rank them according to a composite index based on their economic performance, effectiveness of government, effectiveness of the private sector, and infrastructure. Kavrakoglu, Gedik, and Balkir 13 have tabulated the results of the last five years. In Table 1 are shown the TAI and the relative competitiveness ranking of selected countries in the last five years.

14

There is clearly a rather strong correlation between the technology achievement capacity and the competitive strength of a country in the global market. Furthermore, the cases of Korea and Malaysia also shows the negative impact of financial crises on the competitive strength of even emerging technology leaders. The case of Turkey, too, is illustrative of this point. IV. IMPLICATIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION According to the World Bank2, economic growth can be the result of increasing inputs such as capital and labor, and/or using inputs in a more productive way. The latter measure, commonly referred to as “Total Factor Productivity” (TFP) is very closely linked to the way in which knowledge is used in production. Higher (or tertiary) education plays a dual role as vital components of both the national education and R&D systems, the two key subsystems of the NIS. Its contributions to developing human resources and knowledge creation are vital. Especially the university, the major component of a tertiary education system, has been aptly referred to as “....... not just a creator of knowledge, a trainer of young minds and a transmitter of culture, but also as a major agent of economic growth: the knowledge factory, as it were, at the centre of the knowledge economy”.14 The basic functions of tertiary education institutions comprise: (i) the capacity to train a qualified and adaptable labor force, including highlevel scientists, professionals, technicians, teachers for primary and secondary education, as well as future government, civil service and business leaders; i.e. establishing a human resource base with a skill profile that can function at any level and any geographic location within the global knowledge economy; (ii) the capacity to generate knowledge through all sorts of R&D activity; and (iii) the capacity to access existing stores of global knowledge and adapt it to local use through community services such as contract research, consultancy, patient care, etc. For this reason, gross enrollment ratios in higher education have significantly increased in the last quarter of the 20th century. The average gross enrollment ratio for industrialized countries which was 28.9 percent in 1970 increased to 57.4 percent in 1997, while the world average increased from 10 to 19.5 percent in the same period. Likewise the number of students in high-income countries which was 20.9 million 15

and that in the rest of the world was only 6 million in 1970; these numbers increased to 36.3 and 44.2 million, respectively in 1997. Figure 5, adapted from Gürüz6,7 shows gross enrollment ratios in selected countries. This figure, too, indicates another threshold value in terms of transition to the global knowledge economy; a gross enrollment ratio of more than 40 percent is apparently a minimum requirement in this respect. A knowledge-driven economy not only requires higher skills in the workforce, but also continuous updating to adapt to changing demand. The rate of increase in jobs that require tertiary-level qualifications is expected to accelerate. Lifelong learning and continuing education is likewise expected to expand, leading to a blurring between initial degrees and continuing education certificates. Thus tertiary education institutions are increasingly coming under pressure to serve a more diverse clientele, including, in addition to the relevant age cohort, working students, mature students, part-time students, day students, night students, students studying towards a degree, students taking courses that lead to new vocational qualifications etc. In the global knowledge-driven economy, a global labor market exists that allows companies to recruit talent from all over the world. Thus there is a growing demand for degrees and credentials with international recognition. Many students are seeking tertiary education wherever the highest affordable quality is available. Institutions in the USA have benefited the most from internationalization of higher education. During the 2000-2001 academic year, 547, 867 foreign students studied in the US, accounting for 3.8 percent of total enrollment, and contributing $ 11 billion into the US economy. Top ten countries of origin of foreign students in the US were: China, India, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Canada, Indonesia, Thailand, Turkey and Mexico2. According to a more recent estimate, the number of Turkish students in the US is 15,000, contributing $ 824 million to the US economy annually15. Figure 6 adapted from reference16, shows the ratio of students at home institutions to those studying abroad in selected countries. Many developing countries figure prominently in this respect. These developments have changed the nature of national systems of higher education. While previously such systems consisted essentially of universities and non-university institutions with programs of a more vocational nature and shorter periods of study, such as polytechnics in 16

the UK, community colleges in the USA, the Fachochschulen in Germany, the IUT in France and junior colleges in Japan, Korea and Taiwan, entirely new types of institutions have recently emerged. These are2: ? ? ? ?

Virtual universities Franchise universities Corporate universities Media enterprises, publishing companies, libraries and museums

Virtual or on-line universities may also be classified as secondgeneration distance education institutions using advanced methods of delivery based on ICT. These were pioneered by the Open University, founded in the UK in 1960. Figure 7 adapted from Gürüz6,7 shows the share of distance education institutions offering bachelor’s and associatelevel degrees in the tertiary education systems of selected countries. The methods of delivery in many of the countries shown in this figure, such as Thailand and Turkey, are based on relatively old technologies. The growing field is on-line delivery using ICT. It was estimated in 2000 that there were already more than 3000 specialized institutions dedicated to on-line training. It appears that two types of institutional structure is developing: totally on-line or virtual institutions offering courses leading to a degree (mainly at the master’s level), or vocational qualifications, and centres within traditional institutions integrating online education with traditional methods of delivery. Drucker17 is predicting that, triggered by the Internet, continuing adult education may well become the greatest growth industry soon. Franchise universities are institutions operating on behalf of British, US and Australian universities, offering courses “validated” by the parent institutions, but in another country, mainly by local instructors under the supervision of faculty members from the parent institution, at a reduced cost to the student. These are commonly encountered in former British colonies in South and Southeast Asia, and in former socialist countries of Eastern Europe. The emergence of this type of institutions is a clear manifestation of increasing demand for internationally recognized degrees in the global labor market. There are presently an estimated 1600 corporate universities in the world, up from 400 ten years ago. These are mainly involved in continuing education aimed at renewing or improving skills. They use all modes of delivery, including on-line delivery, regular courses through 17

alliances with traditional institutions or combinations thereof, tailored to specific requirements. The Motorola University, the best known of all has an annual budget of $ 120 million, and manages 99 sites in 21 countries. It is estimated that by the year 2010, there will be more institutions of this type than traditional universities2. Many museums and libraries are now offering continuing education courses. Publishing companies and media enterprises are providing services linked to course material design and preparation for on-line delivery. This kind of activity is becoming increasingly significant in the UK and the USA. In a recent meeting presidents, rectors and vice-chancellors of US, Canadian, European and British universities have largely agreed that the amount of instruction conducted in English around the world will increase, that technology will play a major role in expanding access to higher education around the world because traditional modes of instruction can not fill the need, and that partnerships with businesses and other non-educational organizations will not increasingly threaten academic integrity. On the other hand, Americans and Canadians were more likely than Europeans to perceive that new providers will play an increasing role in meeting the needs of the knowledge economy18. The emergence of new types of borderless tertiary education institutions and new modes of delivery are necessitating the introduction of new methods of quality assessment, evaluation and accreditation in general. However, countries like Turkey, which are major importers of higher education services (or exporters of students) as seen in Figure 6, are facing additional challenges with respect to recognition of degrees obtained through distance education and on-line courses, or from branch campuses and franchise institutions. Vocational training both as an initial degree at the tertiary level and as an integral element of continuing adult education is of vital importance to the skill profile in the knowledge economy. This requires institutional differentiation at both the secondary and the tertiary levels, with appropriate channels of transition between and within the two levels. It is now quite clear that non-university institutions or programs offered within traditional universities, as are the cases in Turkey (the 2-year-vocational schools), Spain (Escuelas Universitarias), and France (the IUT and the DEUST and DU diplomas), with a vocational 18

orientation and of a shorter duration, not only produce graduates that support labor market needs, but also accommodate the growing demand for tertiary education. Figure 8 adapted from Gürüz6,7 shows the share of such institutions and programs in the higher education systems of selected countries. Graduate-level, master’s and especially doctoral-level programs are the main vehicles by which: (i) new knowledge is generated; and (ii) the highest level of workforce is trained through advanced courses and basic and applied research. Graduate students account for 2.4 percent of the enrollment in the Latin America and Caribbean Region, 3 percent in Thailand, 6.5 percent in Turkey, 8 percent in Korea, and 12.6 percent in the USA. On the average there is one new Ph. D. graduate per year per 5000 inhabitants in the OECD countries. The corresponding numbers of inhabitants per one new Ph. D. graduate per year are 34.000 in Turkey, 70,000 in Brazil, 140,000 in Chile and 700,000 in Colombia2. The slow growth and distribution according to disciplines of doctoral-level graduates is a major challenge for countries aspiring to move into the developed nations league. A major shift that has occurred in the 1980s has been the increased recognition of tertiary education as a semi-public, rather than a public service, with an associated cost and a personal and a social return. Coupled with fiscal constraints and shrinking public resources allocated to tertiary education, this new view of higher education has led to the introduction and rise of market forces in tertiary education. These consist of introduction of real tuition fees, revenue diversification through sales of services and goods produced by institutions, and increased share of private institutions of various types, both for profit and non-profit. Figure 9, shows the ratio of real tuition fees to public expenditures in public institutions of higher education, and Figure 10 shows the share of private institutions in higher education systems of selected countries. 6,7 It is now generally agreed that no country, however rich, can provide the higher education of his or her choice to everyone free of charge, and fund it completely through the public purse. For despite the expansion of systems, tertiary education, especially in the university subsector, generally remains elitist, with the majority of students coming from wealthier segments of the society. Thus, making it free creates a mechanism by which wealth is transferred from the poorer to the richer 19

segments of the society. This further distorts income disparities that have already gotten worse in developing countries. The changes in the ways tertiary education institutions are organized and operate, brought about by the convergent effects of globalization and ICT in the knowledge society are obviously raising new challenges which require new approaches to academic management, course delivery, governance and finance, academic assessment and quality assurance, and intellectual property rights. These new approaches are best summarized and interpreted in terms of the so-called “Triangle of Coordination”, shown in Figure 11, where the three general groups of stake-holders are depicted on the three apexes, first proposed by Burton Clark in the early eighties19. On the three apexes are shown the state, the academia (academic oligarchy according to Clark), and the market (society). In the continental European model of governance, a balance is struck along the stateacademia axis, where a shift in the state direction may end up in a highly centralized bureaucratic model, and a shift towards the academia may lead to the political and organized anarchy models, all three of which are degenerate patterns of institutional behavior in which institutions cease to function properly. However, introduction of representatives of the market and the society, i.e. lay members, into governance structures (lay governance), as the case has traditionally been in Anglo-Saxon countries, and most notably in the USA, not only introduces stability to governance, but makes the institutions much more responsive and relevant to the market and accountable to the society. According to the authors’ interpretation, based on an analysis of governance systems, many countries, most notably Sweden, Netherlands, Spain and France, and Japan, Korea and Portugal on account of the high-share of private institutions in the latter three countries, have moved in this entrepreneurial direction. Austria, Denmark, Norway and Finland are taking important steps in this direction. Even Germany, for this first time in her history has given lay members a say, however indirect, in academic matters in the recently established Accreditation Council. This, however, is only part of the story. There are three more prerequisites for a well-functioning tertiary education system that can properly respond to the needs of the knowledge society, as well as addressing social equity and income disparity issues. First, each country must strike a balance between tuition fees, public expenditure per 20

student, and a functioning loan and scholarship system, through which loans can be justly distributed and effectively recovered. Second, it is not only incumbent upon politicians to see to it that institutions of higher education respond to societal needs, it is their duty to do so. To that end, however, they have to make sure that tertiary education institutions are equipped with the requisite decision making powers, especially with respect to internal resource allocation, program content, academic and administrative structures. Line-item budgets negotiated on the basis of past years’ figures must be replaced by formula-funding, where allocation of public funds are pegged to and rationalized by clearly quantified input and outputs. More administrative and financial autonomy must be given to institutions so that they can align their resources with their targets, and incentives must exist to develop proactive resource diversification and incomegeneration policies. Third, it must be realized by all concerned that in the knowledge economy, national policies regarding education at all levels and science and technology can no longer be formulated and implemented in isolation. On the contrary, they must be viewed as integral and complementary components of national socioeconomic development policies that are flexibly formulated to allow rapid responses to the changing global environment. Finally, academia, by and large, have to accept that academic freedom does not mean managerial independence, and that academic staff are not the owners of institutions. Institutional autonomy does not necessarily mean election of rectors, presidents, vice-chancellors, deans and department heads on a one man-one vote basis by secret ballots. For, who in his right mind would vote for, for example, a rector who advocates staff cuts. To borrow a phrase from the World Bank report frequently cited in this paper, “the prevailing culture of privilege at public expense” cannot continue to exist in the knowledge economy. Instead, the seven principles for reliable governance advocated by Rosovsky20 must be the basis of any governance system. It was also largely agreed by all participants in the above mentioned transatlantic meeting that the current patterns of governance and decision making in higher education represent tremendous obstacles to institutions’ ability to change. It is obviously becoming clear to everyone

21

that any functioning university governance must, first and foremost, be based on meritocracy, rather than democracy in the sociopolitical sense. V. THE TURKISH EXPERIENCE V.1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Turks were the progenitors of the Ottoman Empire, and the Turkish Republic is the inheritor of the Ottoman past, its legacy, as well as its debt. The evolution of humanity from the agricultural society first to the industrial, through the Renaissance and the scientific revolution, and later to the knowledge society is a complex historical process that has essentially taken place in the West, and is closely associated with western attributes and values. The Ottoman Empire was a European state, but it was non-Western; it did not benefit from the Renaissance and the scientific revolution. It was often at war and in competition with the West for supremacy. However, when the Ottomans realized that their own systems had proven inadequate, they tried to become like Europeans. The Ottoman Empire was one of the first states to decide on its own to modernize itself along western models. Many other states, on the contrary, were westernized as part of the process of being conquered and ruled by western countries21. The Turkish Republic, founded in 1923, was a natural culmination of this reform process whose origins date back to the initial years of the 19th century. This process of reform-cum-Westernization is arguably the most important legacy that the Republic inherited from the Empire. Ottoman attempts at reform focused mainly on the military, the government and finance. Nevertheless the construction of a public education system was started in the 19th century; but progress was slow. There were primary and lower secondary schools and tertiary schools. The Imperial Naval College, the precursor of today’s Istanbul Technical University, was founded as early as 1773. This was followed by the Imperial Medical College (1827), and the Imperial Military college (1834). The upper secondary schools came only towards the end of the 19th century under French influence, and most of these were located in the Balkans, outside of present-day Turkey. 22

In 1867 there were only 16,000 students in primary and lower secondary schools. By 1913 this number had increased to 300,000 students in state schools and a similar number in schools operated by missionaries and religious communities21. Again under French influence, tertiary-level schools of public administration, law, commerce, fine arts, and engineering were opened in late 19th and early 20th century, which were modelled along the Grands Ecoles. The first university, then named the House of Sciences, finally came into being in 1900, after nearly half a century of resistance from ultra conservative religious scholars. Thus in 1923, at the beginning of the Republic, there were 341,941 students and 10,238 teachers in primary education, 5,905 students and 796 teachers in lower secondary, 1241 students and 513 teachers in general upper secondary, 6547 students and 583 teachers in vocational and technical upper secondary schools, and 2914 students and 307 academic staff in tertiary education institutions, all for a population of 13.6 million according to the first census carried out in 192722. While the Republic did inherit a semblance of a public education system from the Empire, no such legacy existed in science and technology. Furthermore, the physical infrastructure was inadequate and in most cases lacking, so was the institutional infrastructure of a functioning economy. According to Quataert23, there was no mechanized manufacturing to speak of, and literacy was only 15 percent. Per capita GNP in 1923 was $ 34.6* at 1948 producers’ prices22, and nearly half of this went to pay the Ottoman debt to European lenders and financial institutions, the last installment of which was paid in 1997. The Republic of Turkey now has a population of 67.8 million, 65 percent of which now live in urban centers. Female population is 49 percent of the total. Urban population is expected to reach 85 percent by 2015. Annual population growth rate was 2.1 percent in the period 1975-1999; it now stands at 1.8 percent and is projected to drop to 1.2 percent by 2015, when the population will be 79 million. Population with age less ------------------------* Prof. Sevket Pamuk, a leading economist in Turkey, puts this figure at about $ 600-700 at mid-90s prices.

23

than 15, and that with age older than 65 years are 30.0 and 5.4 percent, respectively. The OECD average for these two indicators are 20.6 and 12.9 percent, respectively. This comparison clearly shows a distinctly young population for Turkey as opposed to an aging population in highincome OECD countries. Life expectancy is 69.5 years, compared to an OECD average of 76.9 years. If properly educated and trained, Turkey’s young population can be her key asset in the global knowledge economy, or a main obstacle to development, if the country fails in imparting the requisite skill profile to her workforce. Per capita GNP was $ 3042 in 1993, and fell to $ 2115 in 1994 after the first major crisis. It steadily increased to $ 3231 in 1998, and again fell to $ 2160 in 2001, after a second and more severe economic crisis. The GNP fell from $ 201 billion (PPP $ 445 billion) in 2000, to $ 148 billion (ppp $ 327 billion) in 2001. These numbers indicate that in the 79 years of the Republic, Turkey has gotten nearly four times richer, based on the increase in her per capita income from about $ 600-700 to above $ 3000 in the late 90’s, and her population has also increased by about five times. The Gini coefficient for Turkey was 41.5 in 1999. There were only 3 countries among the 48 high-HDI countries with a higher Gini coefficient (Chile 57.5, Costa Rica 45.9, and Uruguay 42.3). Income disparity is clearly a major problem in Turkey. The poorest 10 percent of the population gets 2.3 percent, while the richest 10 percent gets 32.3 percent of the national income. The ratio of Turkey’s internal and external debts to her GNP were 12.8 and 32.2 percent, respectively, in 1990. These ratio increased to 57.3 and 77.7 percent, respectively, in 2001. The total volume of Turkish exports grew from $ 2.91 billion in 1980, to $ 12.96 billion in 1990 to $ 26.97 billion in 1998 and to $ 31.19 billion in 2001. The corresponding import figures in the indicated years were $ 7.91, $ 22.3, $ 45.92 and $ 40.51 billion. Thus total international trade accounted for 14.9, 23.1, 35.6 and 48.3 percent of GNP in 1980, 1990, 1998, and 2001, respectively. Industrial goods now account close to 90 percent of exports in value13. 24

The HDI values for Turkey in the years 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995 and 1999 were 0.592, 0.616, 0.653, 0.684, 0716, and 0.735, respectively. In 1999 Turkey ranked 82th in the world1. Tertiary education, R&D, and innovation activities and their outputs in Turkey will be analyzed against this historical background. Three major institutions are key players in these fields: universities, The Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TÜBITAK in Turkish), and the Technology Development Foundation of Turkey (TTGV in Turkish). Each will be analyzed under a separate heading. V. 2 TERTIARY EDUCATION IN TURKEY The Turkish national education system comprises 10,554 pre-school institutions , 34,993 primary schools, and 6.065 secondary schools which come under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of National Education (MONE), and 75 universities that report to the Council of Higher Education (CHE, or YÖK in Turkish). Table 2 shows the numbers of students and teachers, student to teacher ratio, female participation rate, and the share of private institutions by enrollment at the preschool, primary and secondary levels24. The total enrollment in formal education is 12,879,507, with an additional 3,211,278 participants in informal education. Thus total number of students in schools and institutions that come under the jurisdiction of MONE is 16,090,785. The overall share of enrollment in private institutions is 11.4 percent, with private enrollment in informal education accounting for 48.8 percent of the students in that particular subsector. Female participation rate at all levels is approximately equal to the female percentage of the total population, except in vocational and technical schools, where it is considerably below that value. Gross enrollment ratio is very low at the pre-school level, 100 percent at the primary, and 57.0 percent at the secondary level. Compulsory education which was 5 years, was increased to 8 years in 1998. While transition rate from the primary to the lower secondary level (junior high schools) was about 50 percent before 1998, it is now more than 90 25

percent. It is thus expected that gross enrollment ratio at the secondary level will soon reach 80 percent. Plans are underway to increase compulsory education to 12 years. However, the distribution of secondary level students between general (academic) and vocational schools, which is now 55-45 percent, is significantly below the 35-65 percent target. The link between secondary-level schools and employment is also a major problem. The foregoing statistics clearly show that, while the population of the country increased five-fold in the past 79 years, the numbers of schools, students and teachers increased by factors of 10, 44, and 46, respectively. Adult literacy rate increased from an estimated 15 percent in 1923 to 84.6 percent. Despite these very impressive achievements, the national education system is still under significant demographic pressure, as clearly shown by the 1,316,194 new admissions to primary schools in 2001, a number which is almost equal to the sum of new admissions in the UK, France and Germany put together. Transition to the tertiary level is by a central, competitive entrance examination prepared and administered by the Student Selection and Placement Center (ÖSYM in Turkish) which is part of the CHE. The total number of applications for a place in higher education was 503,481 in 1986, with students graduating form high schools in that year accounting for 45.5 percent of the total. The total number of applicants increased to 1,504,244, while the share of fresh high school graduates fell to 34.5 percent in 2002. The Turkish higher education system is a unified system. This means that 2-year vocational schools, the equivalent of community colleges, junior colleges and IUT’s, and conservatories, schools of fine arts and teacher training colleges, all the latter three types of institutions now designated as faculties, are all parts of universities. Distance education programs are operated by the Faculty of Open Education (FOE) of Anadolu University in Eskisehir. The number of places available in full-time bachelor’s-and associate-level (2-year vocational schools) programs was 97,022 in 1986, corresponding to 19.3 percent of the demand. These numbers increased to 378,873 and 24,5 percent in 2002. Thus despite a nearly four-fold increase in the capacity of the system over a period of 15 years, only a quarter of the 26

total demand, and 71 percent of the demand by fresh high-school graduates can presently be met. There is no quota in distance-education programs. Anyone who scores above 105 out of a total of nearly 200 in the central entrance examination is eligible to enroll in these programs. The numbers placed in 2002 were 107,754 in associate-and 177,641 in bachelor’s-level programs, giving a total of 285,395. There is immense competition for a place in full-time programs, especially for popular programs such as engineering, business, economics, informatics, law and medicine in prestigious universities. This competition, coupled with the demand-supply imbalance, has led to the emergence and growth of a private tutoring and coaching industry, with many pedagogically harmful effects, similar to those observed in Japan and Korea25,26 . The Turkish higher education system presently comprises 75 universities in operation, 53 of which are state, and the remaining 22 are non-profit private institutions. In 1923, Turkey had just one institution, the previously mentioned House of Sciences, which was transformed into Istanbul University in 1933. The number of universities increased to 3 in 1950, 7 in 1960, 9 in 1970 and 27 in 1982, following the unification of a what was formerly a ternary system comprising universities, polytechnics, teachers colleges and 2-year vocational schools by the Higher Education Law of 1981, which also established the Council of Higher Education as a national board of governors independent of ministerial control. The first non-profit university, Bilkent in Ankara, was founded in 1984; 16 such institutions were founded since 1996. Details about the history and governance structure of the systems can be found elsewhere6,7. Figures 12, 13 and 14, based on higher education statistics annually published by ÖSYM since 1983, show the growth in total enrollment (full time bachelor’s- and associate-level, distance education and graduate students), gross enrollment ratio (excluding graduate and foreign students), and academic staff (full, associate and assistant professors, instructors and research assistants) in the Turkish higher education system.

27

Since 1923, total enrollment and the number of academic staff have increased 577-and 235 fold, respectively. Gross enrollment ratio which was a mere 6 % in 1981, now stands at 19.0 percent based on full-time students only, and 29,5 percent including distance education students. Despite this impressive expansion, gross enrollment ratio still compares unfavorably with the 57 percent average for developed countries, and is barely above the world average of 19,5 percent, once again reflecting the tremendous demographic pressure on educational institutions in Turkey at the tertiary level, too. The breakdown of the total undergraduate enrollment is as follows: * Full-time bachelor’s-level programs * Full-time associate –level programs * Distance education programs

49,9 % 16,8 % 33,3 %

This particular structure of the Turkish higher education systems exhibits several interesting features. First, the share of vocational and technical programs of a shorter-duration is clearly too low, as observed in Figure 8; a minimum share of 30 percent seems desirable, as well as maintaining continuity between such programs at the secondary and tertiary levels, and establishing relevance to the needs of the economy and the job market. A law has recently been enacted establishing “vocational and technical education zones” in which continuity is established between programs at the two levels, and allowing admission to tertiary level programs without going through the demanding entrance examination, an academic test for which vocational high school students are not trained for. The law also has provisions which allow more efficient and cooperative use of physical and human resources, and now makes it possible for non-profit foundations to establish individual 2-year vocational schools independent of a university. Thus a 5-year vocational and technical track is established, effectively blurring the boundary between second and tertiary levels in this subsector of education and training, following 8 years of compulsory general education. Second, Figure 7 shows that Turkey ranks second in the world after Thailand with the 33.3 percent share of distance education programs in her higher education system. Distance education started in Turkey with correspondence in 1974. This function was transferred to the abovementioned FOE in 1981, which was modelled after the British Open 28

University, and lectures started to be broadcast over TV. The FOE now has an extensive network of contact points throughout the country, which allow face to-face interaction, as well. Its technology is relatively old, but efforts are underway to introduce advanced modes of delivery based on ICT. However, the programs still remain essentially totally distance-education-based, and there is little incentive to integrate courses based on ICT into the regular full-time programs in other universities. The normal higher education cohort in Turkey is the 18-21 years age group. The share of this cohort in full-time and distance education associate-level programs are 73 and 20 percent, respectively. The corresponding figures for bachelor’s-level programs are, 65 and 27 percent, respectively. This comparison clearly shows that distance educations programs are catering to a much more mature cohort, many of whom are employed. It is also interesting to note that the overall female participation rate in Turkey is 42 percent while those in full-time associate-and bachelor’s – level programs are, 39, and 42 percent, respectively. The corresponding figures for distance education programs are 49 and 40 percent, respectively, indicating a large degree of uniformity over the level and types of programs. Thirdly, student/instructor ratio is 32 in bachelor’s level programs, and 47 in associate-level programs. Both numbers are far above the 15:1 to 20:1 ratio commonly encountered in Europe2. Enrollment in private universities accounts for 3.2 percent of the total, this ratio increases to 4.8 percent when based on full-time students only. However, Figure 10 shows that in this respect Turkey lags far behind many countries, especially Latin American and Asia-Pacific countries. There is considerable resentment in state universities towards private universities. While state institutions are under the bondage of an extremely rigid budget system, and laws, rules and regulations pertaining to the expenditure and allocation of public resources, private universities are completely autonomous in charging tuition fees and establishing their own salary scales. Graduate students, comprising medical specialty training, master’s, and doctoral-level students, account for 6.5 percent of the total enrollment. This is about half the ratio in the US (12.6 percent), and considerably below the 8 percent share in Korea. Doctoral students account for only 29

22 percent of all graduate students, and Turkey produces one Ph. D. graduate per year per 34,000 inhabitants, compared to 1:5000 in OECD countries. Nearly 38% percent of doctoral students are enrolled in mathematics, science and engineering programs. Figure 15 shows the growth in the number of graduates per year from informatics-related programs at associate-, bachelor’s-, master’s, and doctoral-levels. The total number of graduates of all four levels was only 5309, or 0.08 per 1000 inhabitants in 2001. The corresponding numbers for Russia, which is trying to enter the league of key players in this field, are presently 100,000 and 0.673, respectively. The overall breakdown by source of the revenues of the 53 state universities in fiscal 2001 was as follows: state budget 52 percent, community services and other sources 44%, and student contributions 4 percent. Average contribution per student in state universities was only $92 in 2001. However, only 25% of the student contributions are spent for educational expenses. Therefore, the real tuition fee income is only 1 percent, and the ratio of this to income from the public purse is only 2 percent. Figure 9 shows that in this respect Turkey lags far behind much poorer countries, such as Viet Nam 23, China 9, and India 5 percent. Clearly, higher education in Turkish state universities is comparatively free of charge, which creates an implicit mechanism that is transferring wealth from the poorer sections of the society to the more affluent, further distorting the already skewed income distribution. A rational fee level is urgently required, together with an effective system of distributing and recovering loans and granting scholarships. Figure 16 shows the change in public expenditure per full-time student in state universities. This figure reached its highest value of $2658 in 1993, and now stands at $1190, after two major crises in 1994 and 2000-2001. This compares dismally with the world and European averages in 1995 of $3370 and $6585, respectively. Furthermore, 70% of the budget allocation is for recurrent expenditures, leaving very little room for capital investment in a system which is under a severe demographic pressure to expand. The scarcity of public resources is very severely compounded by an archaic line-item budget system prepared by negotiations based on past year’s figures, with total disregard for any input and output figures, let 30

alone achievements in quality. There are no incentives for proactive income generation. State institutions have neither discretionary powers on spending nor the authority to combine and reallocate their resources. V.3 THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF TURKEY (TÜBITAK) Founded in 1963, the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TÜBITAK) is a central organisation in charge of promoting and coordinating scientific research and technological development in line with the national economic development targets. It has financial flexibility and partial administrative autonomy, and reports directly to the Prime Minister. The primary functions of TÜBITAK, as defined by its founding act are: ? Formulating science and technology policies of Turkey within the scope of her role as the secretariat to the Supreme Council of Science and Technology; ? Funding academic and industrial R&D; ? Running public research institutes to perform research and technological development (RTD) activities; ? Operating facilities providing assistance & technical service to the national R&D system; ? Identifying talents and supporting scientists of the future; ? Publishing scientific journals, popular science books & magazines. Academic R&D funding task of the Council is conducted by the eight research grant committees representing various science and technology (S&T) areas. These activities include funding and monitoring of research projects, research units and research networks, supporting scientific meetings and providing financial assistance for participation in scientific activities. Each committee consists of five leading scientists from the area concerned, beside the executive secretary who chairs the committee and heads the secretariat. Within the framework of the industrial R&D funding program, a sizeable portion (up to 60 percent) of the R&D expenditures of the industrial companies is reimbursed. The program covers small-and medium-scale enterprises (SME’s), as well as large companies. Launched in 1995, this 31

grant scheme of TÜBITAK was instrumental, together with the complementary loan program of TTGV, in doubling the share of the private sector in R&D activities in about five years, raising it to 38 percent. In-house RTD is conducted in eleven research institutes. TÜBITAK also operates a nationwide academic network, a documentation centre, a metrology institute and a chain of laboratories. It also runs various programs dealing with scholarships, fellowships, travel supports, contests and science olympiads to identify and support scientists of the future. At this point, we would like to elaborate briefly on the National Research Network-ULAKNET which was established and is now operated by TÜBITAK. Turkey’s first step towards the inception of Internet technology was taken in 1991 within the framework of a special project funded and directly supervised by TÜBITAK. In September 1992, first test operations through NSF were started and Internet, whose backbone was called TR-NET, was formally opened to public use in April 12, 1993. At that stage, private service providers entered the scene for commercial Internet use. The academia was provided with a valuable tool when TÜBITAK set up ULAKBIM, The National Academic Web and Information Centre, for the academic utilization of the Internet. Set up in 1996, TÜBITAK-ULAKNET is catering to the needs of universities and research establishments by providing instant access for universities and R&D establishments to scientific resources, and facilitating the cooperation among R&D personnel both domestically and internationally, and integrating research and education. More than 1.5 million students, and nearly 80,000 as academics and researchers at 150-odd university and research centers currently make use of the facility. At present, ULAKNET comprises a 34 Mbps backbone network and international connections with 64/16 Mbps asymmetric communication speed. In the National ICT Infrastructure Master Plan Study TÜBITAK carried out in 1999 with funding from the Ministry of Transport, the projected need for the following years was estimated to be a 155 Mbps backbone network with international connections with at least 155/34

32

Mbps asymmetric communication speed. Upgrading work to this end is presently under way and is projected to be completed by early October 2002. However, it is clear that recent advances in the ICT sector and Turkey’s participation in the eEurope+ programme, call for a more thorough upgrading, which will be undertaken next year. Upgrading of ULAKNET, will clearly help the Turkish system to attain international standards in R&D, facilitate scientific cooperation, enable the universities to provide on-line services in education and health sciences, and speed up the development of human resources that process of integration with the European Union calls for. TÜBITAK represents the country in international scientific and technological fora like EU, ESF, OECD, UN, NATO etc. as well as regulating, monitoring and funding the Turkish participation in the European activities like EUREKA and COST. One of the recent major projects of TÜBITAK is the preparation of a comprehensive strategic plan called ‘Vision 2023’, aiming to formulate the national S&T policies for the coming twenty years. The project is to set the targets for the centennial of the Republic of Turkey. The ongoing technology foresight study constitutes the backbone of the work. Integration with the European RTD system is presently the major challenge for the Turkish S&T community. The Supreme Council for S&T, which is the highest policy making body chaired by the Prime Minister and bringing together the related ministers and the other top level public administrators, has recently passed a resolution for participation in the Sixth RTD Framework Program of EU, based on a comprehensive assessment report prepared by TÜBITAK through consultations with all the stake-holders. All concerned parties agreed that the expected long term benefits justified the price to be paid, although the participation fee is a significant portion of the funds allocated to domestic R&D. V.4 THE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION OF TURKEY (TTGV) TTGV, a non-governmental and non-profit organization, was founded in June 1991, through a TÜBITAK-led joint initiative from the public and private sectors as a response to the developments in the world in the field of science and technology policies. The initial budget was provided 33

by the Undersecretariat of Treasury from the resources of World Bank obtained via a loan agreement. The need for redesigned S&T policies became apparent after two consecutive oil crises in the 70’s, with efforts to this end gaining impetus worldwide after the collapse of the Soviet Union and emerging new challenges brought along by the ICT revolution. It was fully understood by TÜBITAK in the early 90’s, that private firms are the key players of a National Innovation System. But in Turkey, their involvement in R&D and innovation activities was very low, and that financial incentives had to be provided for them to undertake R&D activities. This was the principal motivation for establishing TTGV as a complementary institution to TÜBITAK for exclusively funding industrial R&D activities in the private sector, as TÜBITAK in those years was almost exclusively funding academic research. The primary mission of TTGV, was thus defined as the promotion of innovative R&D activities to give added competitiveness to the Turkish private sector in the global market, a target which became all the more vital after Turkey’s entry into the European Customs Union in 1996. In this respect, TTGV also looks towards a broadened spectrum of exportable products and a wider interaction between the universities and the private sector for an enhanced innovation capability for the economy as a whole. TTGV contributes up to 50% of the budget of industrial R&D projects, with the recipient raising the rest from its own resources. The cash infusion cannot exceed 2 million dollars. The time frame for the support is maximum 24 months. The loans have to be repaid over three to five years after a grace period. Most of the projects supported so far are in the area of telecommunications and electronics, which are more open to the outside world and therefore more competitive. The share of small and medium enterprises (SME’s) in the group of companies supported by TTGV is 73 %. TTGV is steered by an executive board made up of eight members, six coming from the private sector, as well as three ex-officio members representing the Treasury, Small and Medium Industries Development Organization (SMIDO) and TÜBITAK, respectively. Founding members include 26 private sector firms, 6 public organizations, 10 umbrella

34

organizations, and 14 individuals. The Foundation employs more than 500 reviewers, three for each proposal. V. 5. INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS OF THE TURKISH R&D SYSTEM Table 3 shows a comparison of investments in selected countries in domestic technology capacity, which are basically the inputs to the national R&D system. Turkey has made very significant progress in increasing her tertiary gross enrollment ratio from 6 percent in 1980 to over 29 percent in 2002; but she still lags far behind high-income OECD countries, and newly emerging leaders like Korea and Singapore. Turkey’s share of tertiary enrollment in science, mathematics and engineering of 23.1 percent is far behind Korea 34.1, and Singapore 62 percent, but compares reasonably well with high-income OECD countries. Where Turkey really falls behind is the money and manpower inputs to her R&D system. R&D spending in Turkey as percent of GDP increased by nearly a factor of two from 0.32 percent in 1990 to 0.63 percent in 1999, going through 0.53, 0.49, 0.44, 0.36, 0.38, 0.45, 0.49 and 0.50 in 1991-1998, respectively27 . This compares very unfavourably with 2.8 percent for Korea, a 2.4 percent average for high-income countries, and 1.1 percent for Singapore. As has been mentioned above, Figure 1 clearly indicates that there is a threshold value of approximately 1 percent, which must be exceeded before R&D activities start creating significant value-added. Figure 2 shows that number of researches per one million inhabitants is 291 for Turkey. As has also been mentioned above, there appears to be a threshold value for this input as well at about 1000. It must be pointed out that Turkey has made a similar progress in manpower inputs to her R&D system compared to her progress in financial inputs. Total R&D personnel per 10,000 labor force, calculated according to Frascati Manual was 6.7 in 1990 and increased to 10.5 in 1999, going through 7.2, 7.5, 7.6, 7.6, 8.2, 9.6, 10.4 and 10.2 in 1991-1998 respectively27. As has also been argued in Section II above, the structure of a national R&D system is as important as the level of inputs to it as a determinant of the system’s capacity to create value added. 35

Figure 4 shows that universities account for 61.1 percent of the R&D expenditures in Turkey, and that in this respect Turkey ranks second in the world after Chile (66.9 percent). This ratio is typically 15-20 percent in high-income OECD countries. Figure 3, on the other hand, shows that the share of private sector in Turkey was 38 percent in 1999, up from 20.4 percent in 1990, going though 21.1, 24.0, 22.9, 24.7, 23.6, 26.0, 32.3 and 31.6 in the years 1991-1998, respectively. Despite this rather significant increase of nearly 80 percent in about a decade, reflecting an obvious change in attitudes and mentality, Turkey still has a long way to go, before R&D in the private sector really starts creating value added that can be a major driver of economic growth. The progress from where Turkey now stands in terms of the share of her private sector, to the 50 percent threshold mentioned in Section II, is not an easy one to make, especially in the political and economically unstable environment presently prevailing in the country. Figures 17 and 18 show two outputs of the Turkish R&D system, presumably the first one scientific, and the second technological. Figure 17 shows that scientific publications by Turkish scientists residing in Turkey increased from 449 in 1980 to 6662 in 2001, a nearly 15-fold increase, elevating Turkey’s rank from 44th to 25th in the world in less then two decades. Figure 18, however, shows a dismal technological/commercial performance compared to the academic/scientific performance displayed in Figure 17. The number of patent applications by residents was 134 in 1980, and increased to only 265 in 2000, while those by foreigners shot up from 527 in to 3177 in the same period. The ratio of foreign to local patent applications for Turkey was 12.0 in 2000. This, of course, is much better than the average of 690 for low-income countries, but compares very unfavourably with the average of 3.3 for high-income countries2. The obvious conclusion is that Turkey has the essential components and the basic structure of a national R&D system, but still faces the challenging task of transforming it into a fully developed NIS. Tables 4 and 5 summarize indicators of education and science and technology, respectively, for Turkey and a number of selected countries.

36

Table 4 shows that public expenditure on education as percent of GNP for Turkey is 3.5 percent, which is significantly less than the values for high-income countries. This is reflected in per capita public expenditure for education and public expenditure per full-time tertiary student values of $ 84 and $ (ppp) 2683, respectively. The only country with a lower per capita public expenditure for education shown in Table 4 is India with $ 14. Where Turkey compares miserably is the total institutional expenditure (including tuition fees) per full-time equivalent tertiary student, which is far less than the expenditure in any of the countries shown, for which data are available. Mean years of schooling of population age 15 and above for Turkey has increased from 2.6 years in 1970 to 5.3 in 2000. This is far below the average for high-income OECD countries of 10.0 years. It must, however, be pointed out that the increase in general compulsory education from 5 to 8 years in 1998 is yet to show its effect on this indicator. Turkey now has universal enrollment at the primary level, but her overall secondary enrollment ratio of 57 percent is nearly half the value of highincome OECD countries. Turkish people respond quickly and positively to educational initiatives. This becomes evident when one compares the 96.2 percent youth (1524 age group) literacy rate in 1999 to the 84.6 percent adult (age 15 and above) literacy rate in the same year1. Table 5 clearly shows that in terms of articles published in science, mathematics, engineering and medicine, Turkey has made significant progress both in quantity and quality, the number of articles increasing from 378 in 1981 to 2471 in 1995. However, corresponding numbers for Korea were 234 and 5393, and for Spain were 3462 and 15,367 respectively. The number of times articles originating from Turkey were cited by other authors were 2139 in 1981-1985, and 15,404 in 19931997. The corresponding numbers for Korea were 2626 and 43,561, and those for Spain were 31,272 and 227,637, respectively, indicating much more impressive progress. Against this background an attempt was made to calculate a Technology Achievement Index (TAI) by assuming royalty and license fee income for Turkey to be zero, and using the numerical values of the other indicators 37

calculated on the basis of the data presented herein or reported by UNDP1. The results are shown in Table 6, where TAI for Turkey is calculated as 0.321, placing it right after Thailand with a TAI value of 0.337, and ranked her 41st in the “dynamic adopters” category of nations. VI. CONCLUSIONS As was mentioned above, the period starting in late 60’s and early 70’s was not a time interval characterized by political and economical stability and continuity in Turkey. The two major economic crises, one in 1994 and the other in 2000-2001, were only two of the visible manifestations of the difficulties. Much more rational structural changes could have been made, more could have been invested in education and R&D, and stronger links could have been established between these two areas and the economy in general, resulting in much higher returns on investments. Despite these adverse conditions, the share of exports of goods and services in the GDP which was 13 percent in 1990 increased to 23 percent in 1999, while the share of manufactured goods in total exports increased from 76 percent in 1989 to 92 percent in 2001. The share of high-tech products in manufactured exports rose from 4 to 9 percent from 1990 to 1999, in which period the total export volume grew from $11.6 billion to $26.6 billion, and to over $31.2 billion in 20011,13 , with foreign trade (export plus imports) no accounting for about 50 percent of the national income. The share of high-tech products in exports, which is now a major measure of a countries competitiveness in the global knowledge economy, is more pertinent to the topic at hand, because it is now much more closely related to education and R&D than it has ever been. We shall therefore, look at the relation between TAI and the share of hightech products more closely; values for selected countries are shown in Table 7. This comparison clearly shows that relatively late-comers like Finland, Korea, Singapore, Ireland, Israel and Malaysia, which have not only invested in education and R&D, but also have made these essential components of their national socioeconomic development policies, have reaped the benefits of their investments in terms of increased competitiveness based on high-technology products.

38

In 1995 the percentages of Turkey’s population employed in the agricultural and industrial sectors were 81 and 6 percent, respectively. These percentages changed to 36 and 18 percent in 2001 respectively. Similarly, in 1955 agriculture accounted for 39 percent of, and industry contributed 16 percent to the GNP. The corresponding figures for 2001 were 13 and 25 percent, respectively. The above numbers clearly indicate that in the past half a century, Turkey has successfully transformed herself from an essentially agriculture-based, closed economy relying on import-substitution and with a predominantly rural population, to a relatively industrialized country with an export-competitive economy, predicated upon freemarket forces and with a population the majority of which is now living in urban centres. It is, however, quite clear from the foregoing analysis that Turkey has essentially relied on technology imported in packaged from. Where it has been successful in the adoption, use and diffusion of imported technologies has been due to its relative success in education at all levels, rather than in R&D. The increased publication activity, which has accelerated very significantly in the last 10-15 years, has directly complemented tertiary education, contributing to the creation of value added only indirectly via education, rather than directly through R&D. It is now quite clear that having well-staffed and well-equipped public research institutions and universities, and publishing articles in learned journals is a necessary, but in itself a definitely insufficient prerequisite to be a major international player in the global knowledge economy. There must also be a minimum of 50 percent share of private sector. Furthermore a political and legal framework must exist so that all actors of R&D system play partially overlapping and complementary roles for the organization of research to evolve first into a national R&D system (defined as one where the share of the private sector is greater than zero) that creates value added, and then into a full-fledged National Innovation System defined above, that converts the value added to competitiveness in the global knowledge economy. A country which does not a have a certain minimum level of research activity, can not even be a passive consumer anymore, let alone being able to transfer, adapt and diffuse technology. That is, there is no hope of being a key-player in the global knowledge economy unless the 39

country makes a conscious effort to transform its R&D system into a NIS. To that end, a developing country must find market niches and technological segments where it can develop indigenous technology creation capacity. For a country like Turkey which has a young and relatively fast increasing population, the education sector offers multiple possibilities. Educational software development is one of these areas for Turkey for the following reasons: (i) the country needs it, both for educating her youth and to continuously retrain her adult workforce; (ii) it has the basic infrastructure such as the Faculty of Open Education and the intranet ULAKNET operated by TÜBITAK, both extending throughout the country based on a reasonably well-developed telecommunications system; (iii) a young entrepreneurial class has emerged in a functioning, export-oriented free-market economy, (iv) her educational system is producing talented young men and women; (v) the TTGV mentioned above exists to provide funding for such initiatives in the private sector; and last but not least, (vi) educational software inherently has a high portion of customized local content, that is more effectively produced locally. This is true for application software development in general; because software is a product that provides customized solutions to the particular information problems of an organization or activity. Therefore it should be a priority for a country like Turkey. Turkey must make a well-organized effort to improve her output of informatics personnel . To that specific end, training in informatics by private sector must be encouraged. But on a more general note, vocational and technical education must be transformed to require national vocational qualifications rather than diplomas, and based on education and training, rather than education alone. The demarcation between secondary and tertiary levels in this educational subsector must be removed. Otherwise, it will be difficult to establish relevance to and links with the economy and the job market. Finally, the data presented in Table 6, clearly shows that in the global knowledge economy, affluence as measured by per capita income, and well-being as measured by HDI are first and foremost dependent on technological capacity, which, in turn, requires a reasonably well developed NIS, and a mass education system that can educate, train and continuously retrain a workforce with the requisite skill profile. It must, however, be pointed out that in terms of investments required for the 40

education and training of the relevant age cohort and adult education, a very significant difference exists between Turkey and high-income OECD countries. Turkey’s demographic structure is clearly forcing her to give priority to the education and training of her youth, rather than continuous education of her adult population, thus making it even more difficult to make a full transition to the knowledge society.

41

REFERENCES 1.

Human Development Report 2001, UNDP.

2.

“Constructing Knowledge Societies: New Challenges for Tertiary Education”, A World Bank Analytical Report, Education Group, Human Development Network, March 19, 2002.

3.

Crane A., “Russia’s one chance to play catch-up”, p.11, Financial Times, Sept.4, 2002.

4.

Dervis, K and Page, Jr, J.M., “Industrial Policy in Developing Countries”, J. Comp. Econ., 8, 336-451, (1984).

5.

Porter, M.E., “The Competitive Advantage of Nations”, The Free Press New York, (1990).

6.

Gürüz, K., et al., “Higher Education, Science and Technology in Turkey and in the World”, Turkish Industrialist and Businessmen Association (TÜSIAD) Pub. No. T/94, 6-167, Istanbul, (1994) (In Turkish ).

7.

Gürüz, K., “Higher Education in Turkey and in the World: History and Present Systems of Governance”, Student Selection and Placement Center, Pub. No. 2001-4, Ankara, (2000) (In Turkish).

8.

Science, Technology and Industry Outlook, OECD, (2000).

9.

Drucker, P., “The next society; A survey of the near future”, The Economist, November 3rd, 2001.

10.

Landes, D., “The Wealth and Poverty of Nations”, W.W. Norton&Co, (1999).

11.

Sachs, J., “A new map of the world”, The Economist, June 24th, 2000, pp.99-101.

12.

Mokyr, J., “The Lever of Riches”, Oxford University Press, (1990).

42

13.

Kavrakoglu, I., Gedik, S., and Balkir, M., “New Strategies for Competitiveness and the Turkish Industry”, Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen Association (TÜSIAD). Pub. No. T/2002-07/322, Istanbul, (2002) (In Turkish).

14.

“The Knowledge Factory”, The Economist, October 4th,1997.

15.

Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen Association (TÜSIAD). (Foresight International), “The US National Economic Impact from Turkish Students Attending US Educational Institutions”, Report No.FI-TR-01/6, March 222, 2001.

16.

The Task Force on Higher Education and Society, “Higher Education in Developing Countries: Peril and Promise”, The World Bank, (2000).

17.

Drucker, P., “Putting More Now Into Knowledge” pp. 93-97, Forbes Global, May 15, 2000.

18.

“The Brave New (and-Smaller) World of Higher Education, A Transatlantic View”, European University Association and American Council on Education, Washington, D.C., (2002).

19.

Clark, B.R., “The Higher Education System Academic Organization in Cross-National Perspective”, University of California Press, (1983).

20.

Rosovsky, H., “The University, An Owners’ Manual”, W.W. Norton and Co., New York, (1990).

21.

Mc Carthy, J., “The Ottoman Peoples and the End of Empire”, Oxford University Press Inc. New York, (2001).

22.

State Institute of Statistics (SIE), “Statistical Indicators 19231991”, Ankara, (1992).

23.

Quataert, D., “The Ottoman Empire, 1700-1922”, Cambridge University Press, (2000).

43

24. 25.

Ministry of National Education, “National Education at the Beginning of 2002”, Ankara, December, 2001 (In Turkish). “Values True and False”, p. 17, Newsweek, December 15, 1997.

26.

“The Big Test”, pp. 54-65, Newsweek, September 6, 1999.

27.

SIS Bulletins dated 25 Nov. 1997 and 8 May, 2001.

28.

“Education at a Glance, OECD Indicators on Education and Skills”, OECD, (2001).

44

TABLES 1. Relationship Between Technological Achievement and Global Competitiveness 2. Pre-School, Primary and Secondary Education in Turkey 2001-2002 Academic Year 3. Comparison of Investments in Domestic Technology Capacity 4. Education Indicators for Selected Countries 5. Science and Technology Indicators 6. Technology Achievement Index 7. Technological Achievement and High-Tech Exports

45

TABLE 1 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TECHNOLOGICAL ACHIEVEMENT AND GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS

COUNTRY

TAI 2001 RANK

COMPETITIVENESS RANK 2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

FINLAND

1

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES

2

1

1

1

1

1

SWEDEN

3

8

14

14

16

19

KOREA

5

28

28

41

36

30

SINGAPORE

10

2

2

2

2

2

IRELAND

13

7

5

8

7

10

ISRAEL

18

16

21

22

25

25

SPAIN

19

23

23

20

26

26

GREECE

26

30

34

32

33

36

PORTUGAL

27

34

29

27

29

32

MALAYSIA

30

29

27

28

19

14

MEXICO

32

36

33

35

34

40

THAILAND

40

38

35

36

41

31

TURKEY

41 *

44

42

38

39

35

BRAZIL

43

31

31

34

35

34

INDIA

63

41

39

42

38

41

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

45

TABLE 2 PRE-SCHOOL, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION IN TURKEY 2001-2002 ACADEMIC YEAR

SECONDARY PRE-SCHOOL

PRIMARY GENERAL

VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL

No. OF SCHOOLS

10,554

34,933

2,637

3,428

No. OF STUDENTS

256,392

10,310,844

1,490,366

821,895

No. OF TEACHERS

14,520

375,511

72,609

66.176

STUD./TEACH.RATIO

18

27

21

12

FEMALE PART. RATE,%

47

47

46

36

SHARE OF PRIV. INST.

7.1

1.7

5.1

0.1

GROSS ENROLL. RATIO,%

-

100.0

31.4

15.6

Source: Reference (24)

46

TABLE 3 COMPARISON OF INVESTMENTS INDOMESTIC TECHNOLOGY CAPACITY GROSS TERTIARY ENROLLMENT RATIO, %

1997

SHARE OF TERTIARY ENROLLMENT IN SCIENCE, 1995-97

R&D SPENDING, % OF GDP 1987-97

15

68

34.1

2.8

8

43

62.0

1.1

SWEDEN

31

55

30.6

3.8

THAILAND

15

22

20.9

0.1

USA

57

81

17.2

2.6

7

9

27.6

NA

39

64

28.2

2.4

6

29*

23.1*

0.63**

COUNTRY OR GROUP

1980 KOREA SINGAPORE

DEV. COUNT HIGH -INC. OECD TURKEY

Source : References (1), (6) , (7) and (16) * 2001-02 academic year, excluding foreign and graduate students, but including students in distance-education programs ** 1999

47

TABLE 4 EDUCATION INDICATORS FOR SELECTED COUNTRIES

COUNTRY OR GROUP

PUBLIC EXP ON EDUC. % of GDP 1995-97

PER CAPITA PUB. EXP. ON EDUC., US $ 1995- 99

PUB.EDUC EXP.FOR TERT. LEVEL, % of total 1995-97

TOTAL PPP US $, 1997

MEAN YEARS OF SCHOOLING (age 15 and above)

70

80

90

GROSS ENROLLMENT RATIOS, %

00

PRIM. 1995-97

SEC 1995-97

TERTIARY

65

75

85

99

TERT. STUD. PER 100.000 PEOPLE 1995

FINLAND

7.5

1,892

28.9

7145

6.1

7.2

9.4

10.0

100

116

11

17

34

74

4,190

USA

5.4

1,775

25.2

17,466

9.5

11.9

11.7

12.0

102

97

40

57

58

81

5,339

KOREA

3.7

321

8.0

6844

4.9

7.9

9.9

10.8

95

101

6

10

34

68

4,974

IRELAND

6.0

1,491

23.8

7998

6.8

7.5

8.8

9.4

103

115

12

19

24

41

3,618

ISRAEL

7.6

1,253

25.0

10,132

8.1

9.4

9.4

9.6

99

89

20

25

34

41

3,598

SPAIN

5.0

756

18.2

5166

4.8

6.0

6.4

7.3

106

121

6

20

29

48

4,017

GREECE

3.1

369

37.1

3990

5.4

7.0

8.0

8.7

94

96

10

18

26

47

3,149

PORTUGAL

5.8

660

16.4

6073

2.6

3.8

4.9

5.9

132

111

5

11

12

39

3,060

MALAYSIA

4.9

171

25.5

7793

3.9

5.1

6.0

6.8

92

61

2

3

6

12

971

MEXICO

4.9

246

17.2

4519

3.7

4.8

6.7

7.2

115

61

4

11

16

16

1,586

THAILAND

4.8

99

16.4

ND

4.1

4.4

5.6

6.5

87

55

2

4

20

22

2,096

TURKEY

3.5

84

25.0

2683

2.6

3.4

4.2

5.3

100

57

4

9

10

29 (19)*

2452 (1642)*

BRAZIL

5.1

228

26.2

10,791

3.3

3.1

4.0

4.9

117

47

2

11

11

12

1,094

INDIA

3.2

14

13.7

ND

2.3

3.3

4.1

5.1

100

49

5

9

9

7

613

WORLD AVG.

3.4

-

-

-

-

5.2

6.0

102

63

9

14

13

19

1,531

HIGH-INC. OECD AVG

5.0

-

-

-

7.7

9.2

9.5

103

106

20

33

37

58

4,071

10.0

Source: Reference (1), (6), (7), (16) and (28) Values for Turkey are for 2001- 2002 academic year, and fiscal 2001 except for mean years of schooling * Excluding students in distance education programs

48

TABLE 5 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INDICATORS

COUNTRY OR GROUP

FINLAND USA KOREA IRELAND ISRAEL SPAIN GREECE PORTUGAL MALAYSIA MEXICO THAILAND TURKEY BRAZIL INDIA WORLD AVG. HIGH- INC. OECD AVG.

R&D EXP. , % of GDP 1987-1997

R&D EXP. IN BUS. SECT. , % of total 1987-1997

R&D EXP. IN UNIV., % of total 1987-1999

SCI. AND ENG. IN R&D per 100.000 people 1987-1999

TERT. STUD. IN SCI., MATH. AND ENG. , % of total tert. stud. 1995

2.78

62.1

18.8

2,799

2.63

68.8

10.0

2.82

80.9

1.61

NO. OF PUBLICATIONS

NO. OF CITATIONS

1981

1995

81-85

37

2,615

5,732

41,094

119,304

3,676

ND

174,123

249,386

3,469,945

6,475,200

10.0

2,193

34

234

5,393

2,656

43,561

60.0

20.3

2,319

30

881

1,891

9,047

27,772

2.45

64.9

35.1

4,828

ND

4,934

8,279

73,979

148,182

0.90

55.9

19.1

1,305

31

3,462

15,367

31,272

227,637

0.47

20.9

21.7

ND

968

3,158

8,981

21,106

0.62

22.9

54.0

31

237

1,580

2,956

19,617

0.24

8.3

ND

93

ND

229

587

1,332

3,450

0.33

18.0

50.6

204

31

907

2,901

8,779

28,589

0.13

16.5

30.6

103

21

373

648

2,419

8,398

0.63*

38.0

61.1

291*

23**

378

2,471

2,139

15,404

0.8

18.8

15.7

168

23

1,913

5,440

14,446

55,170

0.73

11.4

ND

149

25

13,623

14,883

56,464

2.2

-

-

959

33

-

-

-

-

2.4

-

-

29

-

-

-

-

49

Sources: References (1), (6), (7), (16) * 1999 ** 2001- 2002 academic year ND: No data available

773 1,182

3,141

93-97

90,162

TABLE 6 TECHNOLOGY ACHIEVEMENT INDEX

TECHNOLOGY CREATION COUNTRY OR GROUP

TECHNOLOGY ACHIEVEMENT INDEX (TAI )

DIFFUSION OF RECENT INNOVATIONS

DIFFUSION OF OLD INNOVATIONS

HUMAN SKILLS

Pat.granted to residents, per million people 1998

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

Internet hosts, per 1000 people 2000

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

Telephones, mainline and cell. per 1000 people 1999

Elect. consumption kw-hrs per capita 1999

Mean years of schooling (age 15 and above ) 2000

Gross tert. science enroll. ratio, % 1995-1997

HDI

GDP PER CAPITA PPP US $ 1999

FINLAND

(1)*

0.744

187

125.6

200.2

50.7

1,203

14,129

10.0

27.4

0.934

23,096

USA

(2)

0.733

289

130.0

179.1

66.2

993

11,832

12.0

13.9

0.925

31,872

KOREA

(5)

0.666

779

9.8

4.8

66.7

938

4,497

10.8

23.2

0.875

15,712

IRELAND

(13)

0.566

106

110.3

48.6

53.6

924

4.760

9.4

12.3

0.916

25,918

ISRAEL

(18)

0.514

74

43.6

43.2

45.0

918

5.475

9.6

11.0

0.893

18,440

SPAIN

(19)

0.481

42

8.6

21.0

53.4

730

4,195

7.3

15.6

0.908

18,079

GREECE

(26)

0.437

-

0,0

16.4

17.9

839

3,739

8.7

17.2

0.881

15,414

PORTUGAL (27)

0.419

6

2.7

17.7

40.7

892

3,396

5.9

12.0

0.874

16,064

MALAYSIA

(30)

0.396

-

0.0

2.4

67.4

340

2,554

6.8

3.3

0.774

8,209

MEXICO

(32)

0.389

1

0.4

9.2

66.3

192

1,513

7.2

5.0

0.790

8,297

THAILAND

(40)

0.337

1

0.3

1.6

48.9

124

1,345

6.5

4.6

0.757

6,132

TURKEY

(41)

0.321

4

0.0

2.5

26.7

384

1,353

5.3

6.3

0.735

6,380

BRAZIL

(43)

0.311

2

0.8

7.2

32.9

238

1,793

4.9

3.4

0.750

7,037

INDIA

(63)

0.201

1

-

0.1

16.6

28

384

5.1

1.7

0.751

2,248

-

-

-

-

WORLD AVG. HIGH-NC. OECD AVG Source : Reference (1) * Rank according to TAI

-

15.1(00) 96.9 (00)

55

243 (99)

2074

6.0 (90)

-

0.928

6,980

58 (99)

965 (99)

6969

10.0 (00)

-

0.716

26,050

50

TABLE 7 TECHNOLOGICAL ACHIVEMENT AND HIGH-TECH EXPORTS

TAI

Percent of High – tech Products In 1990 and 1999

1. FINLAND

0.744

12 and 31

2. USA

0.733

34 and 36

4. JAPAN

0.698

28 and 32

5. KOREA

0.666

22 and 36

10. SINGAPORE

0.585

51 and 67

13. IRELAND

0.566

40 and 49

18. ISRAEL

0.514

19 and 31

19. SPAIN

0.481

11 and 13

26. GREECE

0.437

3 and 10

27. PORTUGAL

0.419

6 and 8

30. MALAYSIA

0.396

49 and 64

32. MEXICO

0398

7 and 32

40. THAILAND

0.337

24 and 40

41. TURKEY

0.321

4 and 9

43. BRAZIL

0.311

8 and 16

COUNTRY

51

FIGURES 1.

The Ratio of Expenditures to GDP in Selected Countries, %

2.

Number of Researches Per One Million Inhabitants

3.

The Share of Private Sector in R&D Expenditures in Selected Countries, % of R&D Carried Out

4.

The Share of Universities in R&D Expenditures in Selected Countries, % of R&D Carried Out

5.

Gross Enrollment Ratio in Selected Countries, %

6.

Ratio of Students Enrolled at Home Institutions to those Studying Abroad, %

7.

Share of Distance Education Institutions in Higher Education Systems of Selected Countries, % of Total Enrollment

8.

Share of Vocational Programs of Shorter Duration in Higher Education Systems of Selected Countries, % of Total Enrollment

9.

The Ratio of Real Tuition Fees to Public Expenditures in Public Institutions of Higher Education in Selected Countries, %

10.

The Share of Private Institutions in Higher Education Systems of Selected Countries, % of Total Enrollment

11.

The Triangle of Coordination

12.

The Turkish Higher Education System: Growth of Total Enrollment

13.

The Turkish Higher Education System: Gross-Enrollment Ratio

14.

The Turkish Higher Education System: Academic Staff

15 (a). Graduates of Informatics Programs by Degree Level (Associate-and Bachelor’s-Level) (b). Graduates of Informatics Programs by Degree Level (Master’s and DoctoralLevel) 16.

The Turkish Higher Education System: Public Expenditure Per Student in State Universities, $ US

17.

The Turkish R&D System: Scientific Publications (Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, Arts and Humanities Citation Index)

18.

Patent Applications in Turkey (1980-2000)

52

FIGURE 11 THE TRIANGLE OF COORDINATION

THE STATE (Bureaucratic Model)

Former USSR

(SWEDEN, HOLLAND) (FRANCE) (SPAIN)

(DENMARK) (NORWAY)

MARKET, SOCIETY (CANADA)

USA

(Entrepreneurial Uni versity)

JAPAN, KOREA UK (PORTUGAL)

(AUSTRIA) (GERMANY)

(GREECE) ITALY

ACADEMIC OLIGARCHY (Political Model, Organized Anarchy Model) Source: References (7) and (19) Note: The countries shown in parentheses and their relative locations in this figure are the authors’ interpretation, as are the models indicated on the apexes.

53

FIGURE 1 THE RATIO OF R&D EXPENDITURES TO GDP IN SELECTED COUNTRIES, %

3.76

Sweden

2.82

Korea

2.80

Japan

2.78

Finland

2.63

USA

2.60

Switzerland

2.35

Israel

2.25

France

2.21

Italy

2.08

Netherlands

1.95

UK

1.95

Denmark

1.80

Australia

1.66

Canada

1.61

Ireland

1.60

Belgium

1.58

Norway

1.53

Austria

1.20

Czech Rep.

1.04

New Zealand

0.92

Pakistan

0.90

Spain

0.86

Russia

0.81

Brazil

0.77

Poland

0.73

India

0.68

Hungary

0.68

Chile

0.66

China

0.63

Turkey

0.62

Portugal

0.49

Venezuela

0.38

Argentina

0.33

Mexico

0.26

Jordan

0.25

Peru

0.24

Malaysia

0.22

Philippines

0.22

Egypt Indonesia

0.07

Ecuador

0.02

Colombia

0.02 Source: References (6) and (7)

FIGURE 2 NUMBER OF RESEARCHERS PER ONE MILLION INHABITANTS 4,909

Japan

4,828

Israel

3,826

Sweden USA

3,676

Norway

3,664 3,587

Russia

3,557

Australia

3,259

Denmark

3,006

Switzerland

2,831

Germany

2,799

Finland

2,719

Canada

2,659

France

2,448

UK

2,319

Ireland

2,193

Korea

1,815

Belgium

1,663

New Zealand

1,358

Poland Italy

1,318

Spain

1,305 1,222

Czech Rep.

1,182

Portugal

1,099

Hungary

773

Greece

660

Argentina Egypt

459

China

454

Chile

445 291

Turkey

233

Peru Venezuela

209

Mexico

204

Indonesia

182

Brazil

168

Philippines

157

India

149

Ecuador

146

Colombia

133

Malaysia

93

Pakistan

72

Source: References (6) and (7)

FIGURE 3 THE SHARE OF PRIVATE SECTOR IN R&D EXPENDITURES IN SELECTED COUNTRIES, % OF R&D CARRIED OUT

80.9

Korea

74.0

Switzerland Belgium

72.9

Germany

72.9

Japan

68.8

USA

68.8

Sweden

65.0

UK

65.0

Israel

64.9 62.1

Finland

61.0

France

60.0

Ireland Singapore

57.9

Netherlands

57.9

Spain

55.9

Italy

55.9

Denmark

54.0

Austria

53.8

Hungary

52.9

Norway

52.9 51.3

Taiwan

50.7

Canada S.Africa

40.9

Australia

40.9 38.0

Turkey

30.0

New Zealand

22.9

Portugal

20.9

Greece

18.8

Brazil

16.5

Thailand India

11.4

Source: Reference (6)

FIGURE 4 THE SHARE OF UNIVERSITIES IN R&D EXPENDITURES IN SELECTED COUNTRIES, % OF R&D CARRIED OUT Chile

66.9

Turkey

61.1

Mexico

50.6

Israel

35.1

Austria

34.9

Portugal

34.0

Sweden

32.9

Thailand

30.6

Argentina

30.0

Australia

25.7

Singapore

25.4

Denmark

24.9

Norway

22.0

Greece

21.7

Netherlands

21.4

Ireland

20.3

Italy

20.0

Japan

19.4

Spain

19.1

Finland

18.8

Poland

18.6

Belgium

18.0

Hungary

16.9

Canada

16.0

Brazil

15.7

UK

15.4

France

14.7

Germany

14.6

Switzerland

12.9

Korea

10.0

USA

10.0

Source : Reference (6)

FIGURE 5 GROSS ENROLLMENT RATIO IN SELECTED COUNTRIES, %

CANADA

88

USA

81

AUSTRALIA

80

FINLAND

74

KOREA

68

NEW ZEALAND

63

NORWAY

62

BELGIUM

56

UK

52

FRANCE

51

SWEDEN

50

SPAIN

48

DENMARK

48

AUSTRIA

48

GREECE

47

ITALY

47

NETHERLANDS

47

GERMANY

47

RUSSIA

43

JAPAN

41

ISRAEL

41

IRELAND

41

SINGAPORE

39

PORTUGAL

39

ARGENTINA

36

SWITZERLAND

33

CHILE

30

PHILIPPINES

29

TURKEY

29 ( Incl. dist. ed.)

VENEZUELA

28

JORDAN

27

PERU

26

POLAND

25

HUNGARY

24

CZECH REP.

24

THAILAND

22

HONG KONG

22

EGYPT

20

ECUADOR

19

TURKEY

19 (Full-time stud. only)

COLOMBIA

17

MEXICO

16

MALAYSIA

12

INDONESIA

11

BRAZIL

9

INDIA

7

CHINA PAKISTAN

6

3

Source: References (6) and (7)

FIGURE 6 RATIO OF STUDENTS ENROLLED AT HOME INSTITUTIONS TO THOSE STUDYING ABROAD, %

Ireland

9.1

Switzerland

5.2

Israel

4.8

Norway

4.7

Austria

4.1

Sweden

3.5

Turkey

3.2

Korea

3.1

Portugal

2.7

Pakistan

2.4

Netherlands

2.3

Germany

2.1

Italy

2.1

Japan

1.6

France

1.5

Poland

1.4

Canada

1.4

UK

1.3

Spain

1.3

Thailand

1.3

Peru

1.1

Egypt

0.9

Mexico

0.8

Brazil

0.7

India

0.7

Russia USA

0.3 0.2

Source: Reference (16)

Hong Kong Malaysia Singapore Jordan

: 36.1 : 21.5 :19.7 :15.4

FIGURE 7 SHARE OF DISTANCE EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS IN HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEMS OF SELECTED COUNTRIES, % OF TOTAL ENROLLMENT

37

Thailand 33

Turkey 26

Hong Kong

25

China Pakistan

18

New Zealand

18 17

Indonesia 15

Taiwan 13

Israel 11

Netherlands 9

Korea 8

Ireland Spain

7

Mexico

7

UK

5

Jordan

5 4

Venezuela 3

Germany India

1

Portugal

1

Italy