IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/unm/unumer/2022030.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Countries' research priorities in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals

Author

Listed:
  • Confraria, Hugo
  • Ciarli, Tommaso

    (RS: GSBE MGSoG, Maastricht Graduate School of Governance, RS: UNU-MERIT)

  • Noyons, E.

Abstract

We analyse the extent to which countries' research priorities align with their greatest SDG challenges and whether misalignments are worse in certain SDGs. We develop a new method to identify research that is related to an SDG by examining research areas in WoS with a higher share of publications that contain text that is related to SDG policy outlets. Then, we use the SDG indicators to create a new score to assess the performance of countries in SDGs in relation to the top performers. We found that most research in the world focuses on issues unrelated to the SDGs and that, within SDG-related research, more than 90% is carried out in high and upper-middle income countries, where SDG challenges tend to be smaller. At the SDG level, our findings indicate a positive relation (alignment) between countries’ research priorities and SDG challenges only for SDG1 (No poverty), SDG2 (Zero hunger), SDG6 (Clean water and sanitation) and SDG9 (Industry, innovation and infrastructure); meaning that countries with higher SDG challenges are relatively (or becoming) more involved in research related to those SDGs. For all other SDGs, we found a misalignment or inconclusive relationship between SDG challenges and research prioritisation. A particularly severe misalignment happens in SDG12 (Responsible consumption and production), where the countries that have the most unsustainable consumption/production patterns are high income countries that are not specialized in research related to SDG12.

Suggested Citation

  • Confraria, Hugo & Ciarli, Tommaso & Noyons, E., 2022. "Countries' research priorities in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals," MERIT Working Papers 2022-030, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    • Handle: RePEc:unm:unumer:2022030
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/ws/files/109996310/wp2022_030.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benjamin F. Jones, 2009. "The Burden of Knowledge and the "Death of the Renaissance Man": Is Innovation Getting Harder?," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(1), pages 283-317.
    2. Slavo Radosevic & Esin Yoruk, 2014. "Are there global shifts in the world science base? Analysing the catching up and falling behind of world regions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(3), pages 1897-1924, December.
    3. Miola, Apollonia & Schiltz, Fritz, 2019. "Measuring sustainable development goals performance: How to monitor policy action in the 2030 Agenda implementation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Stefan Kuhlmann & Arie Rip, 2018. "Next-Generation Innovation Policy and Grand Challenges," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 448-454.
    5. Pierre Azoulay & Christian Fons-Rosen & Joshua S. Graff Zivin, 2019. "Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(8), pages 2889-2920, August.
    6. An Zeng & Zhesi Shen & Jianlin Zhou & Ying Fan & Zengru Di & Yougui Wang & H. Eugene Stanley & Shlomo Havlin, 2019. "Increasing trend of scientists to switch between topics," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, December.
    7. Diana Hicks & Paul Wouters & Ludo Waltman & Sarah de Rijcke & Ismael Rafols, 2015. "Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics," Nature, Nature, vol. 520(7548), pages 429-431, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cui, Haochuan & Zeng, An & Fan, Ying & Di, Zengru, 2021. "Quantifying the impact of a teamwork publication," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    2. Liang, Zhentao & Ba, Zhichao & Mao, Jin & Li, Gang, 2023. "Research complexity increases with scientists’ academic age: Evidence from library and information science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1).
    3. Zhang, Lin & Qi, Fan & Sivertsen, Gunnar & Liang, Liming & Campbell, David, 2023. "Gender differences in the patterns and consequences of changing specialization in scientific careers," SocArXiv ep5bx, Center for Open Science.
    4. Hussinger, Katrin & Pellens, Maikel, 2019. "Guilt by association: How scientific misconduct harms prior collaborators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 516-530.
    5. Waldinger, Fabian & Hager, Sebastian & Schwarz, Carlo, 2023. "Measuring Science: Performance Metrics and the Allocation of Talent," CEPR Discussion Papers 18248, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Sam Arts & Lee Fleming, 2018. "Paradise of Novelty—Or Loss of Human Capital? Exploring New Fields and Inventive Output," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(6), pages 1074-1092, December.
    7. Pierre Azoulay & Benjamin F. Jones & J. Daniel Kim & Javier Miranda, 2020. "Age and High-Growth Entrepreneurship," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 2(1), pages 65-82, March.
    8. Feng Shi & James Evans, 2023. "Surprising combinations of research contents and contexts are related to impact and emerge with scientific outsiders from distant disciplines," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, December.
    9. Cristelli, Gabriele & Lissoni, Francesco, 2020. "Free movement of inventors: open-border policy and innovation in Switzerland," MPRA Paper 107433, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Ho Fai Chan & Vincent Lariviére & Naomi Moy & Ali Sina Önder & Donata Schilling & Benno Torgler, 2021. "East German Science After Communism: Why does Westernization correlate with Productivity," Working Papers in Economics & Finance 2021-09, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth Business School, Economics and Finance Subject Group, revised 30 Jun 2022.
    11. Ashish Arora & Sharon Belenzon & Jungkyu Suh, 2022. "Science and the Market for Technology," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(10), pages 7176-7201, October.
    12. Confraria, Hugo & Mira Godinho, Manuel & Wang, Lili, 2017. "Determinants of citation impact: A comparative analysis of the Global South versus the Global North," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 265-279.
    13. Lu Liu & Benjamin F. Jones & Brian Uzzi & Dashun Wang, 2023. "Data, measurement and empirical methods in the science of science," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(7), pages 1046-1058, July.
    14. Pierre-Alexandre Balland & Ron Boschma & Julien Ravet, 2019. "Network dynamics in collaborative research in the EU, 2003–2017," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(9), pages 1811-1837, September.
    15. Wu, Lingfei & Kittur, Aniket & Youn, Hyejin & Milojević, Staša & Leahey, Erin & Fiore, Stephen M. & Ahn, Yong-Yeol, 2022. "Metrics and mechanisms: Measuring the unmeasurable in the science of science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    16. Liu, Meijun & Hu, Xiao, 2021. "Will collaborators make scientists move? A Generalized Propensity Score analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    17. Lin, Yiling & Evans, James A. & Wu, Lingfei, 2022. "New directions in science emerge from disconnection and discord," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    18. Cristelli, Gabriele & Lissoni, Francesco, 2020. "Free movement of inventors: open-border policy and innovation in Switzerland," MPRA Paper 104120, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Gaetan de Rassenfosse & Kyle Higham & Orion Penner, 2022. "Scientific rewards for biomedical specialization are large and persistent," Working Papers 19, Chair of Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy.
    20. Bryce, Cormac & Dowling, Michael & Lucey, Brian, 2020. "The journal quality perception gap," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • O10 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - General
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:unm:unumer:2022030. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ad Notten (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/meritnl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.