Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Economic, linguistic, and political factors in the scientific productivity of countries

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines the influence of economic, linguistic, and political factors in the scientific productivity of countries across selected scientific disciplines. Using a negative binomial regression model, I show that the effect of these determinants is contingent upon the scientific field under analysis. The only variable that exerts a positive and significant effect across all disciplines is the size of the economy. The linguistic variable only has a positive influence in the social sciences as well as in medicine and agricultural sciences. In addition, it is also demonstrated that the degree of political authoritarianism has a negative and statistically significant effect in some of the selected fields.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, J. (2006). Research assessment and UK publication patterns. Serials, 19(2), 103–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alatas, S. F. (2003). Academic dependency and the global division of labour in the social sciences. Current Sociology, 51(6), 599–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archambault, E., & Larivière, V. (2010). The limits of bibliometrics for the analysis of the social sciences and humanities literature. International Social Science Council: World social sciences report 2010: Knowledge divides (pp. 251–254). París: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyerchen, A. (1977). Scientists under Hitler. Politics and the physics community in the Third Reich. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosmen, J., van Mourik, I., Rasch, M., Sieverts, E., & Verhoeff, H. (2006). Scopus reviewed and compared: The coverage and functionality of the citation database Scopus, including comparisons with Web of Science and Google Scholar. Universiteitsbibliotheek Utrecht.

  • Bradlow, E., & Wainer, H. (1998). Publication delays in statistics journals. Chance, 11(1), 42–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (1988). The newest version of the facts and figures on publication output and relative citation impact of 100 countries, 1981–1985. Scientometrics, 13(5/6), 181–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calibano, C., Otamendi, F., & Solís, F. (2011). International temporary mobility of researchers: A cross-discipline study. Scientometrics, 89(2), 653–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, C., & Trivedi, P. (1996). Count data models for financial data. In G. Maddala & C. Rao (Eds.), Handbook of statistics. Statistical methods in finance (Vol. 14, pp. 363–392). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, C., & Trivedi, P. (2003). Essentials of count data regression. In B. Baltagi (Ed.), A companion to theoretical econometrics (pp. 331–348). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Canagarajah, A. S. (2002). A geopolitics of academic writing. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardona, M., & Marx, W. (2005). The disaster of the Nazi-power in science as reflected by some leading journals and scientists in physics: A bibliometric study. Scientometrics, 64(3), 313–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Central Intelligence Agency. (2009). The CIA world factbook 2010. New York: Skyhorse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, S., & Phelan, T. (1999). The scientific productivity of nations. Minerva, 37(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Ahimbisibwe, J., Van Moll, R., & Koedam, N. (2003). Neo-colonial science by the most industrialised upon the least developed countries in peer-reviewed publishing. Scientometrics, 56(3), 329–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson Frame, J. (1979). National economic resources and the production of research in lesser developed countries. Social Studies of Science, 9(2), 233–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson Frame, J., Narin, F., & Carpenter, M. (1977). The distribution of world science. Social Studies of Science, 7(4), 501–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Solla Price, D. (1969). Measuring the size of science. Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 4, 98–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drori, G. (1993). The relationship between science, technology, and the economy of lesser developed countries. Social Studies of Science, 23(1), 201–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drori, G., Meyer, J. W., Ramirez, F., & Schofer, E. (2003). Science in the modern world polity: Institutionalization and globalization. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, T. (2009). On the internationalization of Brazilian academic sociology. In M. Burawoy, M. Chang, & M. Hsieh (Eds.), Facing an unequal world: Challenges for a global sociology (Vol. 1, pp. 84–104). Taipei: Academia Sinica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaillard, J. (1994). The behaviour of scientists and scientific communities. In J. J. Salomon, F. Sagasti, & C. Sachs-Jeantet (Eds.), The uncertain quest science, technology and development (pp. 201–236). New York: United Nations University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galaty, M. L., & Watkinson, C. (Eds.). (2004). Archeology under dictatorship. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, W. W. (1995). Lost science in the third world. Scientific American, 273(2), 92–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2003). A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics, 56(3), 357–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, W. (1997). Econometric analysis (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D. (2004). The four literatures of social science. In H. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 473–495). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, K. (2005). The inferior science and the dominant use of English in knowledge production: A case study of Korean science and technology. Science Communication, 26(4), 390–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inönü, E. (2003). The influence of cultural factors on scientific production. Scientometrics, 56(1), 137–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Monetary Fund (2007). World economic outlook database, April 2007. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/01/data/index.aspx.

  • Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonkers, K. (2010). Migration, mobility, and the Chinese scientific research system. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Josephson, P. (1996). Totalitarian science and technology. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalyane, V., & Vidyasagar Rao, K. (1994). Quantification of credit for authorship. ILA Bulletin, 30(3/4), 94–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, D., Kray, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2006). Governance matters V: Aggregate and individual governance indicators for 1996–2005. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4012.

  • Kojevnikov, A. (2004). Stalin’s great science: The times and adventures of Soviet physicists. London: Imperial College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Madeleine, B. (2007). Lost in translation. Nature, 445(25 January), 454–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. (1999). Suppression of dissent in science. In W. R. Freudenburg & T. Youn (Eds.), Research in social problems and public policy (pp. 105–135). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narvaez-Berthelemot, N., & Russell, J. M. (2001). World distribution of social science journals: A view from the periphery. Scientometrics, 51(1), 223–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Science Board. (2012). Science and engineering indicators 2012. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ottaway, M. (2003). Democracy challenged: The rise of semi-authoritarianism. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel, S. (2009). Introduction: Diversities of sociological traditions. In S. Patel (Ed.), ISA handbook of diverse sociological traditions (pp. 1–18). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Quesada-Allué, L. A., & Gitlin, D. (1995). Scientific output in Argentina 1966–1983. Scientometrics, 34(1), 27–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rappert, B., Balmer, B., & Stone, J. (2008). Science, technology, and the military: Priorities, preoccupations, and possibilities. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 719–740). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagasti, F., & Alcalde, G. (1999). Development cooperation in a fractured global order: An arduous transition. Ottawa: International Development Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sancho, R. (1992). Misjudgments and shortcomings in the measurement of scientific activities in less developed countries. Scientometrics, 23(1), 221–233.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Schedler, A. (1998). What is democratic consolidation? Journal of Democracy, 9(2), 91–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schofer, E. (2004). Cross-national differences in the expansion of science, 1970–1990. Social Forces, 83(1), 215–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schofer, E., Ramírez, F., & Meyer, J. W. (2000). The effects of science on national economic development, 1970 to 1990. American Sociological Review, 65(6), 866–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schott, T. (1998). Ties between center and periphery in the scientific world-system: Accumulation of rewards, dominance and self-reliance in the center. Journal of World-Systems Research, 4(2), 112–144. Retrieved December 4, 2011, from http://jwsr.ucr.edu/archive/vol4/v4n2a3.php.

  • SCImago (2011). SCImago Journal and Country Rank. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from http://www.scimagojr.com.

  • Shenhav, Y., & Kamens, D. (1991). The ‘costs’ of institutional isomorphism in non-western countries. Social Studies of Science, 21(3), 427–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrum, W., & Shenhav, Y. (1995). Science and technology in less developed countries. In S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. Peterson, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science, technology, and society (pp. 627–651). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. A. (1991). The idea brokers: Think tanks and the rise of the new policy elite. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suber, P. (2006). Open access in the United States. In N. Jacobs (Ed.), Open access: Key strategic, technical and economic aspects (pp. 149–160). Oxford: Chandos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swales, J. (1987). Utilizing the literatures in teaching the research paper. TESOL Quarterly, 21(1), 41–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sztompka, P. (2009). One sociology or many? In S. Patel (Ed.), ISA handbook of diverse sociological traditions (pp. 21–28). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trivedi, P. (1993). An analysis of publication lags in econometrics. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 8(1), 93–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Leeuwen, T., Moed, H., Tijssen, R., Visser, M., & Van Raan, A. (2001). Language biases in the coverage of the science citation index and its consequences for international comparisons of national research performance. Scientometrics, 51(1), 335–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeek, A., Debackere, K., Luwel, M., & Zimmermann, E. (2002). Measuring progress and evolution in science and technology I: The multiple uses of bibliometric indicators. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(2), 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vessuri, H. (1997). Science in Latin America. In J. Krige & D. Pestre (Eds.), Science in the twentieth century (pp. 839–858). Amsterdam: Harwood.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad de Belgrano, Escuela de Economía y Negocios, M. T. de Alvear 1560 (1060), Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Ernesto R. Gantman

  2. Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Avenida Córdoba 2122 (1120), Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Ernesto R. Gantman

Authors
  1. Ernesto R. Gantman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ernesto R. Gantman.

Appendix—List of Countries

Appendix—List of Countries

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Lithuania, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, México, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Níger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gantman, E.R. Economic, linguistic, and political factors in the scientific productivity of countries. Scientometrics 93, 967–985 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0736-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0736-3

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation