CC BY
51
UDC 005.412:005.591.6:005.311.121
Effiong Daniel Okon
COUNTRY'S INNOVATIVE DEVELOPMENT: STUDY OF THE POTENTIAL CAPACITY (CASE OF DEVELOPED COUNTRIES AND NIGERIA)
Main tendency of correlations between Global Innovation Index and other development indexes of developed countries and Nigeria is defined. The correlation analyses showed that for now Nigeria's economy does not have close relation to innovations, but has definite good potential for that if to compare it with other African countries in studied group. Fig. 9, tabl 15, ref. 18.
Key words: development, innovation, postindustrial economy, development index, innovation index, correlation.
Problem statement and actuality. Innovation, particularly technological innovation, is rightly seen as a key to economic and social development for nowadays. But different countries dispose absolutely different results and experience in innovative development. Having understanding of that World Bank introduced a guide "Innovation Policy. A Guide for Developing Countries" [1]. Main idea of the book is that countries which "begin to formulate policies that support innovation, need to learn from the experiences and good policy practices of dynamic economies, especially those from the developing world. Although emulating the success stories and models of other countries is not easy, useful principles and illustrations drawn from the experiences of others can help inform effective approaches to innovation in the difficult institutional and business climates of low- and medium-income countries. ... In the developing world, innovation is generally not something brand new but something new to the society in question, which, if broadly disseminated, brings significant economic, social, or environmental change". That is the reason why each country should have a realistic approach to innovation, basing on realistic potential to develop innovatively.
Aim of the research. This article is focused at study related to description of contemporary world and National Nigerian economy in the context of innovations.
Main findings. As one can read in [2], "The post-industrial society is largely due to the shift in the kinds of work and the processing of information technology. There is much emphasis on information processing and therefore, sometimes the emerging post-industrial society is also called 'information society.
Regarding the nature of the emergence of this new society, there has been a debate among sociologists. Bell, Castells, Gordon, Gorz, Porat and Touraine have been the major contributors to this debate. These theorists have developed the construct of information society or the post-industrial society with their own perspective.
Both Bell and Porat argue that information occupations or technologies would in the long run result in the development of post-industrial society. Castells, however, vehemently differs from Bell and Touraine and says that information-based society is more post-industrial than the industrial society which was post-agrarian.
It is important to Castells that the information society is not simply confused with a service society in which the manufacturing sector has all disappeared from view. Like Bell and Touraine, he identifies the dynamics of the coming society in which there is role of knowledge and the use of knowledge and not the predominance of any one particular sector of an economy.
We may refer to any thinker who has shown his concern for the post-industrial society, and emphasizes the prime role of knowledge and information in the
70
"ynpaBniHHA npoeKTaMM Ta po3BMTOK BMpo6HMqTBa", 2016, №4(60)
development of this kind of society" [2]. Lets consider characteristics of the postindustrial society which are the resultant of informational mode of development if to follow [2]:
People work with other people to deliver a service. Gone is the industrial society where the workers toiled on machines day in and day out - one shift after the other. Now, there is growth of service sector where there is very little of manual labour in which there is some degree of creativity and sociability. In the post-industrialism, the workers do not work upon things; they work with other people to deliver a service. This provides a more rewarding and interesting form of work.
Transformation of working class to professional middle class. The post-industrialism creates a new professional class in place of labour class. In the industrial society, the labour was required to put its physical dexterity. Now that has gone. In the new society, the working class does not exist. It is because of this that Andre Gorz says that in the post-industrial society there is farewell to the working class [2].
Emergence of knowledge elites. The emphasis in post-industrial society is on knowledge as the source of societal change. But, the question is: who controls the sources of knowledge? Bell argues that it is the group of knowledge elites which controls. The knowledge, that is, information processing, comes from the new technical elites in the universities, government institutions and economic enterprises.
Moreover, as intellectual work becomes more specialized, elite technocrat sees the emergence of new hierarchies of technical elites alongside the increased professionalization of work and a shift towards the bureaucratization of technical work within the advanced western economies.
However, it should not be accepted that the emergence of knowledge elites was everywhere a welcome gesture. There are countries like U.S. and France where the post-modern society was looked with disfavour and rebel. In France, in 1960s, there was radical student movement.
Actually, as Alain Touraine says, the post-industrial society is hailed differently from one kind of society to Mother [2]. There is always some element of conflict m this society. Touraine's analysis of post-industrial society much talks about the formation of a new social divide between, on the one hand technocrats and bureaucrats, and on the other, a range of social groupings, including workers as well as students and consumers.
In Touraine's words: "On this account, the principal opposition between social classes does not stem from the ownership and control of private property but from access to information and its uses. It is because of such an analysis that the postmodernists argue that in this kind of society, those who own and control information knowledge are the most powerful people."
This view, obviously, abandons the conventional Marxist view of social conflict which locates class tensions at the point of production, in the factory or workplace. The lines of protest may now take a variety of forms which have little connection to industry or particular material needs and thus generate new social movements that are quite distinct from the older forms of class conflict.
Growth of multiple networks. In the post-industrial society there are combined advances in communication technologies, systems of management and technologies of production. These advances retain their links with markets and production complexes. As a result of this, there is growth of multiple networks between corporations.
These networks enable firms to develop products jointly or to serve specific markets and thus represent a different economic strategy from the establishment of multinational empires. The focus of the coming society on knowledge and information as the driving forces brings multinational corporations together for economic growth.
"ynpaBniHHA npoeKTaMM Ta po3BMTOK BMpo6HMqTBa", 2016, №4(60) 71
Divide in society. The debate on the future state of post-industrial society also deals with the problem of the structure of such a society. To recapitulate the transformation of industrial society into post-industrial society, we would say that during the Fordian period there was mass production of goods on standardized scale for market.
Now, there was no decline m the production but it had become flexible, i.e., according to the varying needs of the consumers. There appeared a vast change in the kinds of work: the occupational structure witnessed professional change and manual labour gave way to service class sector.
White-collar workers replaced labour class workers and technology and information processing occupied a central place in the growth of industry. The source of knowledge-information and technology became a field of control by the government, universities and multi-national corporations. Technology, by the process of collaboration, brought different business organizations within a fold. The end-result of these processes created a sharp division in the society. Gorz has developed a set of arguments concerning the changing role of work in post-industrial economies. He has explained the division of society in the following words: "The new technologies are altering the structure of employment within society, and that this has led to a social division between 'aristocracy' secure, well-paid workers, on the one hand, and a growing mass of unemployed on the other. In between, the majority of the population are said to belong to a post-industrial working class, for whom work no long represents a source of identity or a meaningful activity" [2].
Automation at the workplace has created 'jobless growth' and its rapid extension will, u is argued; progressively undermine the quality and status of the remaining working class jobs. Work in this scenario, thus, becomes an instrumental activity for the majority, undertaken solely to earn a wage with little or no satisfaction or a skill content attached.
Majority sell labour at cheap rates. Elaborating his thesis of unemployment in post-industrial society. Gorz says that the knowledge society remains restricted to professional class only. The labour in this situation remains out of employment. If it gets anything, it is only the domestic work which the professional class requires for its day-to-day living. The wages for the domestic work, obviously, are at throwaway prices. The domestic workers now only remain a servile class without any dignity.
Or, if this class does not get domestic, it is obliged to work at mining and heavy manufacture. Gorz argues that the domestic work or the heavy manual work lacks economic rationality from the point of view of society as a whole and what is worse, the work is not considered as real job.
Gorz's argument of social inequality as a mark of post- industrialism places him closer to Touraine's vision of post- industrialism. Similar are the views of Castell's. It must be mentioned here that both Touraine and Gorz wrote within a broad European context, whereas Bell's account pertains only to U.S.; Castells also remains restricted to U.S.
Post-industrial turn: Towards social and economic polarization. Gorz, Bell, Castell, Gordon, Harvey and other post-industrial society's thinkers do not share in all their views. They differ largely on the strength of their emphasis. Despite their varying positions they can be singled on a number of economic and social fronts.
Above all, the writers seem to agree on one thing: there has indeed been a shift away from industrialism. In broad terms, this movement can be identified with a shift in the balance of the western economies from a manufacturing to a service base, primarily in terms of employment, although it is often extended to include the output of an economy.
72
"ynpaBniHHA npoeKTaMM Ta po3BMTOK BMpo6HMqTBa", 2016, №4(60)
However, on occupational class fronts, it becomes difficult to identify common post-industrial themes. At best, it could be said that Bell and Gorz focus upon different aspects of the same transition where Bell sees the growth of white-collar occupations and the formation of knowledge elites, Gorz emphasizes the irrelevance of work to the majority and the fate of a de-skilled working class forced to serve those elites.
Where one offers the prospect of an end to harsh manual labour, the other holds out for a better world outside of, rather than within, work. Even so, it is evident that both Gorz and Castells see social and economic polarization as part of the general direction of change.
Knowledge and information. There are disagreements on the social and economic forms of coming society, i.e., industrial society, but for one thing there is certainty. Knowledge and information, are the prime features of this society. Gorz observes in this respect: "There is nonetheless complete agreement on one principle feature of the coming society among all the writers, namely, the central knowledge and information in the transition, especially as a source of technological innovation".
What is source? The source consists of information and its uses. The sources are used to reshape activities in the manufacturing and state sectors as well as in private services such as finance and commerce. Strong claims have also been made for the importance of information technology as a heartland technology, that is, one capable of generating further innovations at the workplace and beyond.
It is through knowledge and innovation that production is organized by the service class and the technocrats. As a result of information and knowledge, there is rise in industries due to breakthroughs in micro-electronics and information technologies.
Sharp gender division. Normally, the labour force during industrialism consisted of males who worked manually. But, with the coming of micro-electronics and information technologies, there appeared gender inequality in the professional class. In post-industrialism, the women outnumber the male technocrats.
Bocock and Thompson have the following to comment in this respect: "It is women who are disproportionately concentrated in this kind of 'servile' work. We can regard it as a sign of the limits of modern progress, or we can interpret it as yet another illustration of the 'double-sided' character of modernity - with women comprising most of the new servicing class" [2].
New character of modern economy: Globalization. All those who have written on postmodern society, have shown their concern for the new economy. They argue that there has appeared a decisive change in the earlier industrial economy. They characterize the new economy by the name of globalization. In other words, the postmodern society is heading towards global society.
During the 1980s, the concept of globalization began to permeate in social sciences. The modern era has supported a progressive globalization of human affairs. The primary institutions of western modernity, namely, industrialism, capitalism and the nation-state, acquired a new significance in the era of micro-electronic information technology.
Globalization is one of the most visible consequences of post-industrial society. It involves a profound recording of time and space in social life. Giddens terms it 'timespace distanciation'. The development of global networks of communication and complex global systems of production and exchange diminishes the grip of local circumstances over people's lives.
Information and knowledge have established linkages between people of the world. Now, the belief that humankind can be turned into a universal community is getting shape with the processes of globalization and technological knowledge. It appears that the world can develop a cosmopolitan order based upon liberty, justice,
"ynpaBniHHA npoeKTaMM Ta po3BMTOK BMpo6HMqTBa", 2016, №4(60) 73
and equality for all humanity. Globalization, thus, is a new characteristic of postindustrial society.
Interaction between the informational mode of development and the restructuring of capitalism. The coming up of post-industrial society has brought out tremendous change in the capital formation. There has been techno-economic change in the realm of post-industrial industry.
Lionel Stoleru made a characteristic observation on postmodern industrialism: A wave of technological advances has rendered a whole series of jobs unnecessary and reduced employment on a huge scale without creating an equivalent number of jobs elsewhere.... It will enable us to produce more and better with less human effort: saving in manufacturing costs and in working time with increasing power and create new areas of activity elsewhere in the economy.
Such a process of production reshapes the whole economy and gives a boost to the development of economy. The post-industrialism thus means rise of capitalism. This rise is basically related to informational mode of development.
There are two components which give new form to capitalism in post-industrialism. These are Information technologies, and Organizational mode of development. These two modes are responsible for rise in capitalism. Let's discuss these modes below.
Information Technologies. Following are the ways by which the information technology restructures capitalism:
(1) It increases the rate of profit. Productivity is enhanced by the introduction of micro-electronics. The electronic machines transform the production process. The information technology also makes it possible for the decentralization of production, and the spatial separation of different units of the firm.
(2) The new technology also initiates and encourages the process of internationalization of the economy. Advances in telecommunications and flexible manufacturing also allow standardization and customization of goods.
Along with it there is rapid rise in the new transportation technologies emerging from the use of computers and new materials. All these changes' provide material infrastructure for the world economy, as the construction of railway system provided the basis for the formation of national markets.
Thus, the rise of information technologies during the post- industrial period increased the rate of profit; there was also enhancement in productivity through microelectronics and new transport technology. All these factors resulted in the growth of capitalism during post-industrialism.
Organizational components. The high-level organizations in U.S. and European countries have a strong concentration of knowledge generation and decision-making processes. The cells in these areas are concerned with the processing of information.
Given the strategic role of knowledge and information control in productivity and profitability, these core centres of corporate organizations are the only truly indispensable components of the system, with most other work and thus most other workers, being potential candidates for automation from the strictly functional point of view.
The organizational components contribute to the growth of capitalism on the following counts:
(1) The result of information is the flexible production. Flexibility affects the relationships among its units, since it is both a requirement of and a possibility offered by new information technologies.
(2) Flexibility is also a necessary condition for the formation of the new world economy. It is because of flexibility that the changing demands of consumers are met with.
74
"ynpaBniHHA npoeKTaMM Ta po3BMTOK BMpo6HMqTBa", 2016, №4(60)
(3) Yet another impact of organizational characteristics of informationalism is the shift from centralized large corporations to decentralized networks made up of a plurality of sizes and forms of organizational units. All over the world, such organizational forms are used by major multi-national corporations. Participation in international economy is not possible without entering into such alliances.
Post-industrialism has a very queer economy. It has superseded Fordism. The industrialism of Fordism is transformed into informationalism. The race really has been marathon - from Fordism to post-Fordism, from industrialism to informationalism.
In the field of production, there has been emergence of large corporations. An economy, based on large-scale production and centralized management, generated the growing number of information flows that were needed for the articulation of the system.
Post-industrialism: Dynamics and trends. The European countries have scaled long distances from enlightenment to modernity and postmodernity or from agricultural society to industrial and post-industrial society. In the realm of industrialization, there was Fordism or mass production for mass society to post-Fordism, that is, quality-flexible production.
The dynamics of post-Fordism and for that matter, post-industrialism consist of knowledge and use of information and its other composites, namely: Services, Multinational corporations, Information technologies, Informational mode of development, Information occupations, Think work, Knowledge elites, New servile class, Uneven global development, and New social movements [2].
To understand better modern state of the world economy let's look at the countries' in the context of classification by level of development. According to international organizations approach [3] the construction of development taxonomies very differently. One explanation for this diversity is that economic theory provides little guidance. Another explanation is that the institutions have different mandates and therefore may approach the issue with different perspectives both operationally and analytically. At the same time, a casual inspection suggests that currently the classification systems are quite similar in terms of designating countries as being either 'developed' or 'developing'. All organizations identify a relatively small share of 'developed' countries. All countries that the IMF considers advanced are also considered developed by the UNDP, and only seven countries considered developed by the UNDP (Barbados, Brunei Darussalam, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates) are not advanced according to the IMF. The World Bank's highincome group is the larger group and it encompasses all designated advanced and developed countries. High-income countries in the Bank's classification that are not either 'advanced' or 'developed' include The Bahamas, Croatia, Equatorial Guinea, Kuwait, Latvia, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Trinidad and Tobago. As the institutions reach broadly similar conclusions as to the membership of the developed country grouping, the compositions of the developing country group are, of course, equally similar. Given the large and diverse group of developing countries, all three organizations have found it useful to identify subgroups among developing countries.
Table 1 provides an overview of the development taxonomies used in the three international organizations.
Note that over the last twenty years the shares of 'developed' countries in the World Bank and IMF's systems have increased relative to the share of developed countries in UNDP's system. The reason is that the UNDP's development threshold is relative while the Bank's and (probably) the Fund's are absolute. With an absolute development threshold the share of 'developed' countries will tend to increase in line with general economic and social progress, but not necessarily so with a relative threshold. While the three organizations use very different development thresholds,
"ynpaBniHHA npoeKTaMM Ta po3BMTOK BMpo6HMqTBa", 2016, №4(60) 75
there is a lack of clarity around how these thresholds have been established in all organizations [2].
Table 1
Country Classification Systems in Selected International Organizations
Criterion IMF UNDP World Bank
Name of 'developed countries' Advanced countries Developed countries High-income countries
Name of 'developing countries' Emerging and developing countries Developing countries Low- and middleincome countries
Development threshold Not explicit 75 percentile in the HDI distribution US$6,000 GNI per capita in 1987-prices
Type of development threshold Most likely absolute Relative Absolute
Share of countries 'developed' in 1990 13 percent 25 percent 16 percent
Share of countries 'developed' in 2010 17 percent 25 percent 26 percent
Subcategories of 'developing countries' (1) Low-income developing countries and (2) Emerging and other developing countries (1) Low human development countries, (2) Medium human development countries, and (3) High human development countries (1) Low-income countries and (2) Middle-income countries
Source: [3].
The three institutions' development taxonomies are presented in table 1 above.
As one can see, the Human Development Index, devised by the United Nations Development Program, is a means of assessing a country's development based on life expectancy, literacy, education and income. Based on these factors, countries are classified into Very high, High, Medium and Low in human development indicator.
Actual state of development by countries according to the United Nations Development Program we will study further in our research. Actual state (for year 2014) of development by countries according to the WB is presented in table 2 below.
As one can see, Nigeria is placed in the third group of countries with lower middle income. A Report of top developing countries [4, 5] shows that, Nigeria is not a developed country by any reasonable measure. The country's per capita gross domestic product (GDP) is much too low, as are its living standards. Industrialization in Nigeria lags behind all the countries upon which universal agreement of developed status exists. Nigeria also suffers from low literacy rates, poor health care and a stratospheric infant mortality rate. As of 2016, Nigeria's per capita GDP sits at $5,992. Even if you do not adhere to the $12,000 threshold as a hard-and-fast rule, Nigeria's economy comes in well below any reasonable definition of "developed." At the same time Nigeria is highly endowed with natural and physical resources such as vast arable land, forest resources, rivers and lakes, oil and gas, and solid minerals [4]. Thus it has resource base to develop, but today such development should be innovative. Only this innovative approach can guarantee fast positive result in conditions of modern knowledge economy.
76
"ynpaBniHHA npoeKTaMM Ta po3BMTOK BMpo6HM|TBa", 2016, №4(60)
Classification of countries by Levels of development, 2014
High Income Upper Middle Inc. Lower Middle Low Income
$12,476 and above $4,036 to 12,475 Inc. $1,026 to 4,035 $1,025 or less
Norway Russian Federation Bolivia Tanzania
Qatar Romania Egypt Somalia
Macao Turkey El-Salvador Uganda
Luxembourg South Africa India Togo
Australia Malaysia Ghana South Sudan
Sweden Argentina Nigeria Malawi
Denmark China Indonesia Mali
United State Azerbaijan Pakistan Guinea
Singapore Brazil Philippines Haiti
Netherlands Botswana Honduras Liberia
Canada Bulgaria Ukraine Nepal
Austria Columbia Tunisia Niger
Kuwait Costa Rica Vietnam Mozambique
Finland Cuba Zambia Chad
Germany Mexico Kosovo Comoros
Belgium Mauritius Sudan Eritrea
Ireland Iran Morocco Ethiopia
United Arab Emi. Jordan Nicaragua The Gambia
United Kingdom Serbia Guatemala Burundi
France Thailand Congo, Rep. Burkina Faso
Japan Peru Mauritania Benin
Hong Kong Paraguay Tajikistan Guinea -Bissau
Israel Georgia Djibouti North Korea
Italy Belize Samoa Madagascar
Spain Ecuador Bangladesh Central African Re
Source: [5].
In today's world, competitiveness is a decisive indicator determining the effectiveness of entities' activities, indicating the ability to successfully grow in a competitive environment [6]. In the context of global competition, traditional factors shaping the competitiveness of companies and countries are losing their significance. Factor conditions, recently considered as a key to achieve sustainable competitive advantage, no longer play a decisive role. Nowadays, a low input costs, attractive interest rates, a weak exchange rate of the national currency and the potential economies of scale cannot ensure the country's competitiveness on the world market [7].
While geographic location is still the main factor of competition, its role has changed significantly. Areas possessing rich natural resources or having unique geographical location, is still reaping the benefits of "comparative advantage". However, in today's world, competition is becoming more dynamic, allowing companies to avoid significant costs by using global supply strategies. Thus, nowadays, the competitive advantage is based not only on factor conditions themselves, but on the more efficient use of them, which requires successive innovative changes [8].
According to the statement of Michael Porter, companies achieve competitive advantage through acts of innovation [7]. However, the term "innovation" is ambiguous
"ynpaBniHHA npoeKTaMM Ta po3BMTOK BMpo6HM|TBa", 2016, №4(60) 77
and could be interpreted in different ways. For the first time this term was coined by J. Schumpeter [9]. He defined innovation as the invention that have been commercialized by entrepreneurs, in other words it is the development or discovery, which has a sufficient demand on the market. It could be both new products and new methods of production, services and new market segments, new organizational structures, etc. [10]. A vital aspect of innovation is the need for its practical implementation. Without it the innovation loses its meaning [11].
Let's consider now how level of development is related to innovations in contemporary world. To measure the level of development of different countries and their dependency on innovations, it's expedient to use a range of indexes related to post-industrial stage of economy - knowledge economy.
Global innovation index. The global innovation index aims to capture the multidimensional facets of innovation and provide the tools that can assist in tailoring policies to promote long-term output growth, improved productivity, and job growth. The GII helps to create an environment in which innovation factors are continually evaluated [12].
Human development index. The human development index is a composite statistic of life expectancy, education, and per capita income indicators, which are used to rank countries into four tiers of human development. A country scores higher HDI when the lifespan is higher, the education level is higher, the GDP per capita is higher, the fertility rate is lower, and the inflation rate is lower [13].
Competitive index. The competitive index as defined by the World Economic Forum. It is a set of institutions, policies, and factors that determine the level of productivity of a country, conditions of public institutions and technical conditions. GCI analysis the factors that play significant role in creating favorable business-climate environment in the country and are important for competitiveness and manufacture point of view - It considers strength and weaknesses of a country, identifies priorities for the facilitation of political reforms implementation [14].
Knowledge economy index. Knowledge Economy Index (KEI) - an aggregate index representing a country's or regions overall preparedness to compete in the Knowledge Economy (KE). The KEI is based on a simple average of four sub-indexes, which represent the four pillars of the knowledge economy: • Economic Incentive and Institutional Regime (EIR) • Innovation and Technological Adoption • Education and Training • Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) Infrastructure The EIR comprises incentives that promote the efficient use of existing and new knowledge and the flourishing of entrepreneurship. An efficient innovation system made up of firms, research centers, universities, think tanks, consultants, and other organizations can tap into the growing stock of global knowledge, adapt it to local needs, and create new technological solutions. An educated and appropriately trained population is capable of creating, sharing, and using knowledge. A modern and accessible ICT infrastructure serves to facilitate the effective communication, dissemination, and processing of information [15].
Global enabling trade. The global enabling trade Index measures the factors, policies and services that facilitate the trade in goods across borders and to destination. It is made up of four sub-indexes: Market access; Border administration; Transport and communications infrastructure; Business environment [16]. Each of these sub-indexes contains two to three pillars that assess different aspects of a country's trade environment.
On the next step of our research we will look for relation between mentioned indexes. To find the relation between indexes, we need to apply correlation method.
As one can know from [17], correlation refers to the statistical relationship between two quantities. The correlation coefficient is a single number that you can
78
"ynpaBniHHA npoeKTaMM Ta po3BMTOK BMpo6HMqTBa", 2016, №4(60)
calculate for any two sets of data points. The number will always be something between -1 and +1, and it indicates how closely connected the two data sets tend to be close. There are several different correlation techniques. Like all statistical techniques, correlation is only appropriate for certain kinds of data. Correlation works for quantifiable data in which numbers are meaningful, usually quantities of some sort. It cannot be used for purely categorical data, such as gender, brands purchased, or favorite color.
For example, if you were to measure the heights and ages of children up to the age of about 12, you would expect to find a strong positive correlation. As children get older, they tend to get taller.
An example of negative correlation would be data comparing a person's time spent practicing golf shots and that person's golf score. As the practice increases, the score should decrease.
Finally, you would expect very little correlation, either positive or negative, between a person's shoe size, for example, and SAT scores
Correlation coefficient formulas are used to find how strong a relationship is between data. The formulas return a value between -1 and 1, where: 1 indicates a strong positive relationship, -1 indicates a strong negative relationship. A result of zero indicates no relationship at all.
A correlation coefficient of 1 means that for every positive increase of 1 in one variable, there is a positive increase of 1 in the other.
A correlation coefficient of -1 means that for every positive increase of 1 in one variable, there is a negative decrease of 1 in the other.
Zero means that for every increase, there isn't a positive or negative increase. The two just aren't related.
The absolute value of the correlation coefficient gives us the relationship strength. The larger the number, the stronger the relationship. For example, |-.75| = .75, which has a stronger relationship than .65.
Correlation between mentioned development indexes demonstrate the core drivers of development. Absolute scores of indexes for four years (from 2010 till 2014) we collected in attachment A (tables A.1 - A.5). Basic year for analyses is 2014, basic index is Global Innovation Index. Range of countries is 30.
The tables 3-7 below present calculated correlation between indexes related to development for a period of four years.
Table 3
Correlations, year 2014
GII HDI KE CI GET
Number of countries Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score
10 0.08 0.27 0.41 0.45 0.50 0.76 -0.14 0.15
12 -0.09 0.16 0.32 0.41 0.65 0.79 -0.23 -0.04
14 -0.32 -0.12 0.15 0.30 0.44 0.71 -0.17 -0.06
16 -0.01 0.07 0.32 0.40 0.63 0.76 -0.02 -0.15
18 -0.14 -0.05 0.16 0.29 0.66 0.78 -0.29 -0.33
20 0.12 0.13 0.28 0.36 0.68 0.78 -0.25 -0.28
22 0.30 0.29 0.38 0.42 0.61 0.69 -0.20 -0.23
24 0.46 0.44 0.41 0.45 0.65 0.72 -0.06 -0.08
26 0.59 0.57 0.49 0.51 0.74 0.78 0.05 0.04
28 0.64 0.61 0.52 0.54 0.78 0.84 0.13 0.14
30 0.61 0.65 0.52 0.54 0.79 0.84 0.23 0.17
"ynpaBniHHA npoeKTaMM Ta po3BMTOK BMpo6HMqTBa", 2016, №4(60) 79
Correlations, year 2013
GII HDI KE CI GET
Number of countries Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score
10 0.49 0.37 No data 0.74 0.64 0.67 0.61
12 0.34 0.36 0.75 0.67 0.70 0.67
14 -0.09 0.10 0.56 0.56 0.41 0.48
16 0.10 0.21 0.65 0.64 0.59 0.61
18 -0.09 0.07 0.71 0.69 0.63 0.65
20 0.10 0.17 0.64 0.61 0.57 0.59
22 0.23 0.24 0.58 0.55 0.52 0.52
24 0.43 0.40 0.64 0.62 0.58 0.35
26 0.56 0.51 0.72 0.70 0.70 0.53
28 0.61 0.53 0.78 0.77 0.76 0.65
30 0.67 0.65 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.66
Table 5
Correlations, year 2012
GII HDI KE CI GET
Number of countries Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score
10 0,11 0,08 No data 0,76 0,85 0,47 -0,06
12 -0,01 0,04 0,67 0,71 0,47 0,22
14 -0,27 -0,09 0,52 0,66 0,48 0,35
16 0,09 0,24 0,62 0,49 0,75 0,56
18 -0,09 0,28 0,58 0,20 0,67 0,54
20 0,13 0,17 0,63 0,30 0,64 0,55
22 0,32 0,18 0,54 0,34 0,65 0,55
24 0,41 0,19 0,52 0,36 0,67 0,56
26 0,44 0,13 0,51 0,45 0,71 0,66
28 0,51 0,23 0,59 0,58 0,76 0,70
30 0,60 0,32 0,61 0,62 0,81 0,76
Table 6
Correlations, year 2011
GII HDI KE CI GET
Number of countries Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score
10 0,30 0,40 No data 0,88 0,92 No data
12 0,12 0,20 0,83 0,82
14 -0,15 0,22 0,70 0,78
16 -0,09 -0,10 0,76 0,80
18 -0,26 -0,26 0,74 0,77
20 -0,18 -0,19 0,67 0,71
22 -0,09 -0,19 0,54 0,58
24 0,13 0,12 0,60 0,63
26 0,22 0,20 0,67 0,69
28 0,31 0,25 0,78 0,78
30 0,43 0,39 0,79 0,80
80 "ynpaBniHHA npoeKTaMM Ta po3BMTOK BMpo6HM|TBa", 2016, №4(60)
Correlations, year 2010
GII HDI KE CI GET
Number of countries Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score
10 0,17 0,05 No data -0,06 -0,32 0,68 0,42
12 -0,13 -0,19 0,30 0,21 0,74 0,48
14 -0,17 -0,17 0,23 0,17 0,72 0,70
16 -0,12 -0,10 0,46 0,17 0,75 0,71
18 -0,15 -0,24 0,39 0,24 0,75 0,68
20 -0,04 -0,15 0,24 -0,03 0,69 0,58
22 -0,03 -0,12 0,26 0,04 0,63 0,47
24 0,31 0,23 0,52 0,40 0,63 0,53
26 0,43 0,38 0,59 0,56 0,66 0,63
28 0,48 0,38 0,66 0,56 0,73 0,63
30 0,53 0,52 0,69 0,65 0,76 0,72
As one can see, correlation coefficient was calculated for different sets of countries: 10, 12, 14 ... 30. This is to find out the most likelihood number of countries to get reliable data on relations. Graphs below show Correlations for 30 countries for basic year 2014 (fig. 1 - 4).
Fig. 1. Correlation between GII and HDI Fig. 2. Correlation between GII and KE
Fig. 3. Correlation between GII and CI Fig. 4. Correlation between GII and GET
Analyses of collected data supported by visual graphs for the basic year 2014 (fig. 1 - 4) allow noticing two tendencies.
"ynpaBniHHA npoeKTaMM Ta po3BMTOK BMpo6HM|TBa", 2016, №4(60) 81
First tendency is about adequate range of countries for the study. All figures show that after the period of 28 countries correlation coefficient becomes stable. It proves that no need to extend the range of countries, 30 is enough to get reliable data.
Second tendency is about most close relation between Global Innovation Index and Competitiveness Index. The base to state is closer correlation coefficient.
If to summarize correlations between Global Innovation Index and Competitiveness Index for all four years (table 8, fig. 5), one can conclude about main tendency for developed countries.
Table 8
Correlations by years for GII and CI by score
Year Correlation GII/CI
2010 0.65
2011 0.81
2012 0.62
2013 0.76
2014 0.84
Correlation dynamic for years 2010- 2014
0,50 0,40 0,30 0,20 0,10 0,00
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Fig. 5. Correlation dynamic for years 2010 - 2014
Based on made analyses we conclude that dynamic of correlations coefficients reveals the idea that developed countries with high incomes got there due to implementation of innovation. For group of developed countries we studied, competiveness is highly related to innovations. That is why modern development is based on implementation of innovation and unfortunately, Nigeria is not among the countries under review.
It is common knowledge that Nigeria is not where it ought to be in terms of economic growth and development. Most African and Asian countries that were at the same level of economic development with Nigeria in the 1960s have overtaken her. Such countries include: India, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, China, Malaysia, and South Korea, just to mention a few. While most of these countries are enjoying strong economic growth, Nigeria has remained economically underdeveloped due largely to macroeconomic instability, poor infrastructure, government interference, inefficiency, weak public institutions, poor corporate governance, corruption and recently insecurity.
According to [18], Nigeria now belongs to the group of Extremely Poor Countries on earth (World Bank: March, 2014). We lack the necessary legal and administrative mechanisms to harness our rich heritage in Agriculture, Solid Minerals, Tourism and
82 "Управлшня проектами та розвиток виробництва", 2016, №4(60)
other non- oil sectors. With infrastructure deficit estimated to be in the region of $300 billion, about 120 million Nigerians lack access to electricity (World Bank, 2013); transportation network is still very poor across the country thereby making movement of people and goods to be difficult and costly. For macro- economic stability, the good news is that inflation is down to single digit (7.6% in 2013), but interest rate is still high at 12%, with commercial banks lending to private entrepreneurs for as much as 30 to 34% interest (CBN, 2013) - which makes it difficult for Nigerian firms and industries to compete globally. In health and education, preventable public health diseases like malaria, typhoid, polio, cholera are still at epidemic proportions in Nigeria; taking their toll on the productivity of the labour force with the associated loss of man-hours in the economy.
An estimated 56 million people in Nigeria are illiterates, i.e. cannot read or write in any language (UNESCO, 2014). We produce poor quality unemployable graduates who can hardly practice their profession. There's a weak linkage between educational institutions and industry. ICT penetration in Nigeria is very low- in a world that is becoming increasingly knowledge-based. With poverty at 69.9% and unemployment at 25% (NBS, 2013), we lack the purchasing power that is required to effectively stimulate and drive the consumption of goods and services. Again, Nigerians have a great appetite for foreign goods and this attitude is to the detriment of local producers. Insecurity has become an issue in Nigeria due to insurgency.
Lack of protection of property rights has stifled creativity and innovation. Copyright laws are not strong enough to protect intellectual property rights. These issues must be adequately addressed for Nigeria's economic development to be on the development track [18].
Based on the above data, lets introduce the state of 30 countries by mentioned above development indexes that surround Nigeria. For further calculations we adjusted this data deleting empty rows with no data for GII and CI (tables 9-13).
Table 9
Absolute scores of development indexes for Nigeria, year 2014
GII HDI CI GET
Rank Score Country Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score
96 30,26 Ghana 138 0,573 111 3,71 102 3,6
98 30,06 Senegal 163 0,485 112 3,7 100 3,6
99 30,03 Egypt 110 0,682 119 3,6 97 3,6
100 29,87 Philippines 117 0,660 52 4,4 64 4,1
101 29,6 Azerbaijan 76 0,747 38 4.53 77 3,9
102 29,31 Rwanda 151 0,506 62 4,27 77 3,2
103 29,08 ElSalvador 115 0,662 84 4.01 71 4,0
104 29,03 Gambia 172 0,441 125 3.53 99 3,6
105 28,98 SriLanka 73 0,750 73 4.19 84 3,8
106 28,66 Cambodia 136 0,584 95 3.89 93 3,7
107 28,52 Mozambique 178 0,393 133 3.24 110 3,5
108 28,47 Namibia 127 0,624 88 3.96 68 3,4
109 28,18 Burkina Faso 181 0,388 135 3.21 133 2,9
110 27,79 Nigeria 151 0,502 127 3.44 124 3,1
111 27,76 Bolivia 113 0,067 105 3.77 87 3,7
112 27,75 Kyrgyzstan 125 0,636 108 3.37 109 3,5
113 27,61 Malawi 174 0,414 132 3.25 112 3,5
114 27,52 Cameroon 152 0,504 116 3.66 119 3,2
115 27,5 Ecuador 98 0,911 71 4.18 65 4,1
116 27,02 Côte d'Ivoire 171 0,452 115 3.67 117 3,3
117 27,01 Lesotho 162 0,486 107 3.73 108 3,5
118 26,73 Honduras 129 0,617 100 3.82 85 3,8
119 26,18 Mali 176 0,407 128 3.43 123 3,1
120 26,14 Iran 173 0,393 83 4.03 131 3,0
121 25,76 Zambia 141 0,561 96 3.86 91 3,7
122 25,66 Venezuela, 67 0,764 131 3.32 137 2,8
123 25,6 Tanzania 159 0,488 121 3.57 111 3,5
124 25,5 Madagascar 155 0,498 130 3.41 103 3,6
"ynpaBniHHA npoeKTaMM Ta po3BMTOK BMpo6HM|TBa", 2016, №4(60) 83
Absolute scores of development indexes for Nigeria, year 2013
HDI CI
Rank Score Country Rank Score Rank Score
94 30,60 Ghana 135 0,558 103 3,79
103 29,69 Cape Verde 132 0,586 119 3,01
96 30,48 Senegal 154 0,470 65 3,59
108 28,48 Egypt 112 0,662 96 3,31
90 31,18 Philippines 114 0,654 64 3,60
105 28,99 Azerbaijan 82 0,734 57 3,68
112 27,64 Rwanda 167 0,434 60 3,66
88 31,32 ElSalvador 107 0,680 107 3,16
122 26,39 Gambia 165 0,439 54 3,74
98 30,45 SriLanka 92 0,715 41 3,96
110 28,07 Cambodia 138 0,543 72 3,53
121 26,50 Mozambique 185 0,327 130 2,89
109 28,36 Namibia 128 0,608 92 3,88
116 27,03 Burkina Faso 183 0,343 133 3,34
120 26,57 Nigeria 153 0,471 115 3,67
95 30,48 Bolivia 108 0,675 104 3,78
117 26,98 Kyrgyzstan 125 0,622 128 3,52
119 26,73 Malawi 170 0,418 129 3,38
125 25,71 Cameroon 150 0,495 112 3,69
83 32,83 Ecuador 89 0,724 86 3,94
136 23,42 Côte d'Ivoire 168 0,432 131 3,36
124 26,29 Lesotho 158 0,461 137 3,19
107 28,80 Honduras 120 0,632 90 3,88
106 28,84 Mali 182 0,344 125 3,55
113 27,30 Iran 76 0,742 90 3,81
118 26,79 Zambia 163 0,448 108 392
114 27,25 Venezuela, 71 0,748 135 2,78
123 25,35 Tanzania 152 0,476 113 3,55
140 22,95 Madagascar 151 0,483 132 3,18
Table 11
Absolute scores of development indexes for Nigeria, year 2012
GII HDI CI GET
Rank Score Country Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score
92 29,6 Ghana 140 0,572 114 3,65 112 3,51
97 28,8 Senegal 170 0,461 111 3,7 116 3,4
103 27,9 Egypt 108 0,688 99 4,17 113 3,48
95 29,0 Philippines 115 0,657 100 4.17 72 3,96
89 30,4 Azerbaijan 78 0,745 55 4.31 81 3,85
102 27,9 Rwanda 163 0,476 70 4.19 51 4,35
93 29,5 ElSalvador 116 0,662 91 3,89 7 5,18
130 23,3 Gambia 175 0,440 99 3,84 125 3,04
94 29,1 SriLanka 73 0,749 52 4.33 73 3,95
129 23,4 Cambodia 143 0,546 108 3,99 64 4,00
110 26,3 Mozambique 180 0,408 133 3,43 97 3,65
73 34,1 Namibia 126 0,620 68 4,56 75 3,92
122 24,6 Burkina Faso 183 0,393 136 3,25 122 3,15
123 24,6 Nigeria 151 0,505 139 3,19 123 3,13
114 25,8 Bolivia 119 0,654 95 4,21 23 4,33
109 26,4 Kyrgyzstan 120 0,645 126 3,45 39 4,39
120 25,4 Malawi 173 0,433 120 3,68 85 3,79
121 25,0 Cameroon 153 0,501 114 3,78 117 3,38
98 28,5 Ecuador 88 0,727 101 3,82 22 4,79
134 22,6 Côte d'Ivoire 172 0,452 135 3,41 123 3,07
116 25,7 Lesotho 161 0,484 135 3,26 113 4,41
111 26,3 Honduras 131 .0.607 86 3,98 8 5,18
119 25,4 Mali 173 0,433 126 3,59 121 3,18
104 27,3 Iran 69 0,764 62 4.26 132 2,17
107 26,4 Zambia 139 0,576 113 3,67 88 3,78
118 25,4 Venezuela, 71 0,764 124 3,51 130 2,95
128 23,9 Tanzania 151 0,510 120 3,56 94 3,69
126 24,2 Madagascar 154 0,507 128 3,53 107 3,48
84 "ynpaBniHHA npoeKTaMM Ta po3BMTOK BMpo6HM|TBa", 2016, №4(60)
Absolute scores of development indexes for Nigeria, year 2011
GII HDI CI
Rank Score Country Rank Score Rank Score
70 32,48 Ghana 135 0,451 100 3,17
100 27,56 Senegal 155 0,459 108,00 3,8
87 29,21 Egypt 113 0,644 94,00 3,88
91 28,98 Philippines 112 0,644 99,00 4,02
88 29,17 Azerbaijan 91 0,700 66,00 3,5
109 25,86 Rwanda 166 0,429 98,00 3,62
90 29,14 ElSalvador 105 0,674 91,00 3,89
82 30,36 SriLanka 97 0,691 69,00 4,01
111 25,46 Cambodia 139 0,523 103,00 3,56
78 30,74 Namibia 120 0,625 83,00 4,00
120 23,14 Burkina Faso 181 0,331 127,00 2,87
96 28,15 Nigeria 156 0,459 136,00 3,11
112 25,44 Bolivia 108 0,663 125,00 2,88
85 29,79 Kyrgyzstan 126 0,615 111,00 3,44
108 25,98 Malawi 171 0,400 110,00 3,45
103 26,95 Cameroon 150 0,482 121,00 3,31
93 28,75 Ecuador 83 0,720 101,00 3,82
117 24,08 Côte d'Ivoire 170 0,400 116,00 3,38
98 27,81 Honduras 121 0,625 104,00 3,55
95 28,41 Iran 88 0,707 90,00 3,76
114 25,27 Zambia 164 0,430 121,00 3,56
102 27,41 Venezuela, 73 0,735 117,00 3,66
104 26,88 Tanzania 152 0,466 116,00 3,66
113 25,41 Madagascar 151 0,480 124,00 3,21
Table 13
Absolute scores of development indexes for Nigeria, year 2010
GII HDI CI GET
Rank Score Country Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score
105 2,66 Ghana 130 0,467 114 3,45 96 3,63
106 2,66 Senegal 144 0,411 92 3,78 90 3,74
74 2,91 Egypt 101 0,620 70 4,04 76 3,88
76 2,89 Philippines 97 0,638 87 3,90 92 3,72
Azerbaijan 67 0,713 51 4,3 77 3,88
91 2,76 ElSalvador 90 0,659 77 4,02 57 4,16
110 2,64 Gambia 151 0,390 81 3,96 82 3,83
79 2,86 SriLanka 91 0,658 79 4,01 99 3,59
102 2,68 Cambodia 124 0,494 110 3,51 102 3,57
100 2,69 Mozambique 165 0,284 129 3,22 93 3,71
92 2,76 Namibia 105 0,606 74 4,03 70 3,96
122 2,48 Burkina Faso 161 0,305 128 3,23 110 3,41
96 2,69 Nigeria 142 0,423 99 3,65 120 3,05
129 2,37 Bolivia 95 0,463 120 3,42 98 3,59
104 2,67 Kyrgyzstan 109 0,598 123 3,36 100 3,58
97 2,69 Malawi 153 0,385 119 3,42 83 3,82
119 2,55 Cameroon 131 0,460 111 3,5 115 3,35
126 2,43 Ecuador 77 0,695 105 3,56 89 3,74
89 2,77 Côte d'Ivoire 149 0,397 116 3,43 123 2,9
93 2,75 Lesotho 141 0,427 107 3,54 101 3,57
112 2,62 Honduras 106 0,604 89 3,86 66 3,98
107 2,66 Mali 160 0,309 130 3,22 111 3,39
111 2,63 Zambia 150 0,395 112 3,5 85 3,8
124 2,45 Venezuela, 75 0,696 113 3,48 121 3,04
98 2,69 Tanzania 148 0,398 100 3,59 97 3,6
125 2,45 Madagascar 135 0,435 121 3,42 86 3,78
If to summarize correlations between Global Innovation Index and Competitiveness Index for all four years (table 14, fig. 6), one can conclude about main tendency for Nigeria. Graph shows obviously negative dynamic of correlation. It
"ynpaBniHHA npoeKTaMM Ta po3BMTOK BMpo6HM|TBa", 2016, №4(60) 85
means that economy and competitiveness of Nigeria from 2010 to 2014 lost its close relation to innovations.
Table 14
Correlation between indexes related to development for Nigeria
Years GII /CI
2010 0,54
2011 0,43
2012 0,56
2013 -0,09
2014 -0,70
If to compare two tendencies between developed countries and Nigeria (fig. 7), we see almost mirror tendencies: while curve for developed countries goes up, curve for Nigeria goes down essentially.
Fig. 6. Correlation dynamic for Nigeria for years 2010 - 2014
Fig. 7. Comparison of two tendencies between developed countries and Nigeria for
years 2010 - 2014
86
"ynpaBniHHA npoeKTaMM Ta po3BMTOK BMpo6HMqTBa", 2016, №4(60)
Besides we present absolute grades for Nigeria by indexes GII and CI (table 15).
Table 15
Grades for Nigeria by indexes GII and CI, years 2010 - 2014
Years GII CI
Rank Score Rank Score
2014 110 27,79 127 3.44
2013 120 26,57 115 3,67
2012 123 24,6 139 3,19
2011 96 28,15 136 3,11
2010 96 2,69 99 3,65
Correlation between GII and CI by rank is 0,79, by score is -0,55. It means that correlation by rank we can consider as more adequate and will take it for calculations. Then correlation dynamic for Nigeria for years 2010 - 2014 by rank will have image as on fig. 8 and comparison of two tendencies between developed countries and Nigeria for years 2010 - 2014 by rank will have image as on fig. 9.
Fig. 8. Correlation dynamic for Nigeria for years 2010 - 2014 by rank
Fig. 9. Comparison of two tendencies between developed countries and Nigeria for
years 2010 - 2014 by rank
"ynpaBniHHA npoeKTaMM Ta po3BMTOK BMpo6HMqTBa", 2016, №4(60)
87
Conclusion and prospects. One can see that main tendency of relation between correlations of developed countries and Nigeria still remains, though it's possible to consider the difference a little bit less than by correlations by scores as on previous graphs. Also there is notable point on the year 2012, where two curves get crossed. We can suggest that it should mean something happened in the world, some essential fact in economy dynamic. But we will not focus on that fact here in the research, it maybe subject for further researches. For now it is obvious that Nigeria's economy does not have close relation to innovations, but has definite good potential for that if we are to compare it with other African countries in studied group.
REFERENCES
1. Innovation Policy. A Guide for Developing Countries. (2010). The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, Washington, 436 p. Retrieved from: https://openknowledqe.worldbank.orq/bitstream/handle/10986/2460/548930PUB0EPI11C10Disl osed061312010.pdf.
2. Essential Characteristics of Post-Industrial Society. Retrieved from: http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/essay/essential-characteristics-of-post-industrial-society/39871/
3. Lynge Nielsen. (2011). Classifications of Countries Based on Their Level of Development: How it is Done and How it Could be Done. IMF Working Paper. International Monetary Fund, WP/11/31, 45 p.
4. Top 25 Developed and Developing Countries. (2016). Retrieved from: http://www.investopedia.com/updates/top-developing-countries/.
5. World Bank Country and Lending Groups. Available at: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519.
6. Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. (2010). Principles of marketing. Pearson education.
7. Porter, M.E. (1990). New global strategies for competitive advantage. Planning Review, vol.18, no. 3, pp. 4-14.
8. Porter, M.E. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard business review, vol. 76, no. 6, 77-90.
9. Schumpeter, J.A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle, vol. 55. Transaction publishers.
10. Lundvall, B.Á. (2007). National innovation systems-analytical concept and development tool. Industry and innovation, vol. 14, no. 1, 95-119.
11. Schilling, M. (2006). Strategic Management of Technological Innovation, 2nd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
12. The Global Innovation Index 2016. Winning with Global Innovation. Available at: https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/gii-2016-report.
13. Human Development Reports. Available at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/year/2016.
14. The Global Competitiveness Report 2015-2016. Available at: http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2015-2016/.
15. 2016 Knowledge Economy Report. Tracking progress. Powering prosperity. Available at: http://www.catalyst-inc.org/assets/general/KEI.pdf.
16. The Global Enabling Trade Report 2016. Available at: http://reports.weforum.org/global-enabling-trade-report-2016/.
17. Robin Beaumont. (2012). An Introduction to statistics Correlation, 28 p. Retrived from: http://www.floppybunny.org/robin/web/virtualclassroom/stats/basics/part9.pdf.
18. Geff Okereafor, Bashir Muyiwa Ogungbangbe, Aham Anyanwu. (2015). Positioning Nigeria For Global Competitiveness In The 21st Century: The Policy Imperatives. International Journal of Management Science and Business Administration. Volume 1, Iss. 10, p.56-69. Retrived from http://researchleap.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/5.-Positioning-Nigeria-For-Global-Competitiveness-In-The-21st-Century.pdf
Рецензент статт д.т.н., проф. Медведева О.М.
Стаття рекомендована до публкацп 02.12.2016 р.
88
"Управлшня проектами та розвиток виробництва", 2016, №4(60)
