Crossmark

Main Article Content


Abstract

Governments across the developing world have expanded policy support for innovation, yet the relationship between innovation-system inputs and outputs remains insufficiently understood outside OECD contexts. This study aims to compare the innovation-system performance of South Africa, Kenya, and Morocco, which represent markedly different policy models, with that of Viet Nam, a lower-middle-income economy widely regarded as an innovation overperformer, while examining the diagnostic meaning of innovation conversion efficiency. Adopting a deliberately model-free comparative descriptive approach, the study employs no econometric estimation and makes no causal claims. Publicly verifiable secondary indicators were obtained from Global Innovation Index economy profiles for 2020–2025 and supplemented with UNESCO and World Bank research expenditure data and venture capital tracker data. Ordinal rankings were transformed into bounded percentile scores to construct an Input Capability Score and an Output Performance Score, whose ratio generates a Conversion Efficiency Ratio representing output performance relative to measured input capability. The findings reveal four distinct trajectories. Viet Nam was the only economy to increase both input capability and output performance while its conversion ratio moved toward parity, indicating input-led maturation. Morocco recorded the largest output gain among the four economies, whereas South Africa exhibited declining input capability alongside output recovery. Kenya registered the highest conversion ratio in the sample; however, this reflected a shrinking input base rather than strengthening innovation capability. These findings demonstrate that a high conversion ratio cannot, in isolation, be interpreted as evidence of a stronger innovation system because similar ratios may arise from markedly different underlying input–output trajectories. The study contributes a transparent descriptive framework for comparing innovation-system performance in developing economies and highlights the importance of interpreting conversion efficiency jointly with changes in input capability when assessing innovation policy and system development.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citation Metrics & Similar Scopus Articles

Citation data unavailable from the configured source
Check Secondary Documents in Scopus
Open this article in Scopus, then check the Secondary documents tab. Use Manual Citation Fallback only for counts you have verified manually.
Open in Scopus
Similar Scopus Articles
Scopus
  1. Le Huyen Mai T. (2027)
    Polar-Twisted Electron-Transport Layer Simultaneously Breaks Efficiency-Flexibility-Cost Limits in Organic Solar Cells
    Nano Micro Letters, 19(1)
  2. Feng X. (2027)
    Designing Efficient Inverted Perovskite Solar Cells with Self-Assembled Monolayer Hole Transport Layers
    Nano Micro Letters, 19(1)
  3. Zhu P. (2027)
    Materials–Structure–Hardware–Algorithm Co-Driven Hierarchical Optimization for Flexible Sensors
    Nano Micro Letters, 19(1)

Article Details

How to Cite
Nguyen, H. T. (2026). Innovation Inputs, Outputs and the Ambiguity of Conversion Efficiency: Four Developing Economies, 2020–2025. Journal of Multidisciplinary Science: MIKAILALSYS, 4(3), 6907-6930. https://doi.org/10.58578/mikailalsys.v4i3.11365

References

Cirera, X., & Maloney, W. F. (2017). The innovation paradox: Developing-country capabilities and the unrealized promise of technological catch-up. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1160-9

Cirera, X., Frías, J., Hill, J., & Li, Y. (2020). A practitioner’s guide to innovation policy: Instruments to build firm capabilities and accelerate technological catch-up in developing countries. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/33269

Edquist, C. (2011). Design of innovation policy through diagnostic analysis: Identification of systemic problems (or failures). Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(6), 1725–1753. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtr060

Fagerberg, J. (2017). Innovation policy: Rationales, lessons and challenges. Journal of Economic Surveys, 31(2), 497–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12164

Fagerberg, J., & Srholec, M. (2017). Capabilities, economic development, sustainability. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 41(3), 905–926. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bew061

Freeman, C. (1995). The ‘National System of Innovation’ in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035309

Kraemer-Mbula, E., & Wamae, W. (Eds.). (2010). Innovation and the development agenda. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264088924-en

Lall, S. (1992). Technological capabilities and industrialization. World Development, 20(2), 165–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(92)90097-F

Lundvall, B.-Å. (2016). The learning economy and the economics of hope. Anthem Press.

Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented innovation policies: Challenges and opportunities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5), 803–815. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dty034

Nelson, R. R. (Ed.). (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. Oxford University Press.

OECD. (2015). Frascati manual 2015: Guidelines for collecting and reporting data on research and experimental development. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012-en

OECD/Eurostat. (2018). Oslo manual 2018: Guidelines for collecting, reporting and using data on innovation (4th ed.). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304604-en

UNESCO. (2021). UNESCO science report: The race against time for smarter development. UNESCO Publishing. https://www.unesco.org/reports/science/2021/en

UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2025). Research and development expenditure as a proportion of GDP [Data set]. http://data.uis.unesco.org/index.aspx?queryid=3684

World Bank. (2021). Vietnam: Science, technology and innovation report. World Bank.

World Bank. (2025). World development indicators [Data set]. https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/search/dataset/0037712/world-development-indicators

World Intellectual Property Organization. (2020). Global innovation index 2020: Who will finance innovation? https://tind.wipo.int/record/42316

World Intellectual Property Organization. (2021). Global innovation index 2021: Tracking innovation through the COVID-19 crisis. https://tind.wipo.int/record/44315

World Intellectual Property Organization. (2022). Global innovation index 2022: What is the future of innovation-driven growth? https://tind.wipo.int/record/46596

World Intellectual Property Organization. (2023). Global innovation index 2023: Innovation in the face of uncertainty. https://tind.wipo.int/record/48220

World Intellectual Property Organization. (2024). Global innovation index 2024: Unlocking the promise of social entrepreneurship. https://tind.wipo.int/record/50062

World Intellectual Property Organization. (2025). Global innovation index 2025: Innovation at a crossroads. https://www.wipo.int/web-publications/global-innovation-index-2025/en/index.html