Abstract
The paper uses a variant of the Revealed Comparative Advantage index to examine comparative advantages of the European Union (EU) countries in 254 research areas and their development from 1998 to 2018, focusing mostly on the split into the old and new EU members and their convergence. The results confirm that there has been convergence inside the groups as well as between the groups. EU researchers from different countries now publish papers in more similar research areas and the countries’ research-area mix is more coherent than before. The EU has increased its comparative advantage in the majority of research areas in the field of Science and in almost all research areas in Social Sciences and Arts and Humanities in the last two decades. On average, the growth has been faster in new members than in old members. Science is still the dominant source of comparative advantage for the bloc, but Social Sciences and Arts and Humanities are set to challenge its lead.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Source: Own elaboration
Source: Own elaboration
Source: Own elaboration
Source: Own elaboration
Source: Own elaboration
Source: Own elaboration
Source: Own elaboration
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Countries which entered into the EU before 2004: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK. As the paper is based on data up to 2018, the UK is still considered a member of the EU.
Countries which have entered into the EU since 2004: Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
For example, research area “History – Philosophy of Science” belongs to all three citation indices. We decided to place it in the AH category, taking into account that both “History” and “Philosophy” are in the same.
In the same period, India’s publication output has increased 5.6 times and China’s a whopping 20.3 times. Their starting bases were much lower than the starting base of the EU or USA, hence this faster growth is not surprising.
Average SRCA values in the European Union were the following: In 1998, AH -0.45; SC -0.10; SS -0.39. In 2018, AH -0.13; SC -0.02; SS -0.07.
Average SRCA values in the old members were the following: In 1998, AH -0.37; SC -0.02; SS -0.24. In 2018, AH -0.07; SC -0.01; SS 0.08.
Average SRCA values in the new members were the following: In 1998, AH -0.56; SC -0.18; SS -0.56. In 2018, AH -0.19; SC -0.03; SS -0.21.
Please note these are not weighted averages, but simple averages of all research areas within the field.
Economics, Linguistics or Geography are just a few examples of research areas which are considered to have been born in the UK.
The countries with positive SRCA values in 1998 are: Luxembourg (average SRCA 0.27 in 65 research areas, now -0.05 in 207), Cyprus (0.15 in 105, now -0.05 in 228), Estonia (0.01 in 154, now -0.04 in 226), Latvia (0.04 in 95, now -0.04 in 196) and Malta (0.46 in 57, now 0.02 in 181).
The research areas in 1998 were: Architecture, Art, Asian studies, Engineering marine, Family studies, Film radio television, Law, Literature American and Psychology clinical. In 2018 the sole one remaining was Literature American.
AH: Literary Reviews. SS: Anthropology, Ethics, Psychology Multidisciplinary, Sociology and Urban Studies.
In old members, average growth of SRCA in SC research areas was 0.11 and average decrease -0.09. In new members, average growth of SRCA in SC research areas was 0.31 compared to average decrease of -0.16.
Some other common methods are Theil index, Atkinson index, Gini index or standard deviation.
A single indicator would be helpful for making the calculation easier, but is not really desired as it would necessarily not be able to hold all the information a full array of SRCA values can hold.
27 + 26 + 25 + … + 1.
References
Albarran, P., Crespo, J. A., Ortuno, I., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2010). A comparison of the scientific performance of the US and the European union at the turn of the 21st century. Scientometrics, 85(1), 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0223-7
Balance, R. H., Forstner, H., & Murray, T. (1987). Consistency tests of alternative measures of comparative advantage. Review of Economics and Statistics, 69(1), 157–161. https://doi.org/10.2307/1937915
Balassa, B. (1965). trade liberalisation and „Revealed“ comparative advantage. The Manchester School, 33(2), 99–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9957.1965.tb00050.x
Barro, R. J., & Sala-i-Martin, X. (1992). Convergence. Journal of Political Economy, 100(2), 223–251. https://doi.org/10.1086/261816
Basu, A., Foland, P., Holdridge, R., & Shelton, R. D. (2018). China’s rising leadership in science and technology: quantitative and qualitative indicators. Scientometrics, 117(1), 249–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2877-5
Boehringer, C., Garcia-Muros, X., Cazcarro, I., & Arto, I. (2017). The efficiency cost of protective measures in climate policy. Energy Policy, 104(1), 446–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.01.007
Cecere, G., & Corrocher, N. (2013). The intensity of interregional cooperation in information and communication technology projects: an empirical analysis of the framework programme. Regional Studies, 49(2), 204–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.759651
Chuang, Y., Lee, L., Hung, W., & Lin, P. (2010). Forging into the innovation lead—a comparative analysis of scientific capacity. International Journal of Innovation Management, 14(3), 511–529. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919610002763
Costinot, A., Donaldson, D., & Komunjer, I. (2012). What goods do countries trade? A quantitative exploration of Ricardo’s ideas. Review of Economic Studies, 79(2), 581–608. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdr033
European Commission. (2000). Presidency Conclusions of the Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March 2000. 1.8.2019. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/00100-r1.en0.htm.
Feliciano, Z. M., & Lipsey, R. E. (2017). Foreign entry into US manufacturing by takeovers and the creation of new firms. Eastern Economic Journal, 43(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1057/eej.2015.4
French, S. (2017). Revealed comparative advantage: what is it good for? Journal of International Economics, 106(1), 83–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2017.02.002
Friedman, M. (1992). Do old fallacies ever die? Journal of Economic Literature, 30(4), 2129–2132.
Glänzel, W., & Schlemmer, B. (2007). National research profiles in a changing Europe (1983–2003) an exploratory study of sectoral characteristics in the Triple Helix. Scientometrics, 70(2), 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-0203-8
Grančay, M., Vveinhardt, J., & Šumilo, Ē. (2015). Trade in central and Eastern European countries ten years after their EU accession — Is there convergence? Society and Economy, 37(4), 443–460. https://doi.org/10.1556/204.2015.37.4.2
Grančay, M., Vveinhardt, J., & Šumilo, Ē. (2017). Publish or perish: how central and Eastern European economists have dealt with the ever-increasing academic publishing requirements 2000–2015. Scientometrics, 111(3), 1813–1837. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2332-z
Harzing, A. W., & Giroud, A. (2014). The competitive advantage of nations: an application to academia. Journal of Infometrics, 8(1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.10.007
Hammarfelt, B. (2014). Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1419–1430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1261-3
Herranz, N., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2013). The end of the “European Paradox.” Scientometrics, 95(1), 453–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0865-8
Hirv, T. (2018). Effects of European union funding and international collaboration on Estonian scientific impact. Journal of Scientometric Research, 7(3), 181–188. https://doi.org/10.5530/jscires.7.3.29
Hoen, A. R., & Oosterhaven, J. (2006). On the measurement of comparative advantage. Annals of Regional Science, 40(3), 677–691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-006-0076-4
Horta, H. (2018). The declining scientific wealth of Hong Kong and Singapore. Scientometrics, 117(1), 427–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2845-0
Horta, H., & Shen, W. Q. (2019). Current and future challenges of the Chinese research system. Journal of Higher Education and Policy Management, Online First. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2019.1632162
Huang, X., & Tian, C. (2014). International competitiveness of the Chinese publishing industry. Publishing Research Quarterly, 30(1), 104–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-014-9344-9
Lattimore, R., & Revesz, J. (1996). Australian Science — Performance from Published Papers. Bureau of Industry Economics, Australian Government Printing Office.
Laursen, K. (2015). Revealed comparative advantage and the alternatives as measures of international specialization. Eurasian Business Review, 5(1), 99–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-015-0017-1
Lee, L.-C., Lee, Y.-Y., & Liaw, Y.-C. (2012). Bibliometric analysis for development of research strategies in agricultural technology: the case of Taiwan. Scientometrics, 93(3), 813–830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0833-3
Lee, L.-C., Lin, P.-H., Chuang, Y.-W., & Lee, Y.-Y. (2011). Research output and economic productivity: a Granger causality test. Scientometrics, 89(2), 465–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0476-9
Leydesdorff, L. (2000). Scientometrics, 47(2), 265–280. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005639026643
Leydesdorff, L., Wagner, C. S., & Bornmann, L. (2014). The European Union, China, and the United States in the top-1% and top-10% layers of most-frequently cited publications: competition and collaborations. Journal of Informetrics, 8(3), 606–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.05.002
Makkonen, T., & Mitze, T. (2016). Scientific collaboration between “old” and “new” member states: did joining the European Union make a difference? Scientometrics, 106(3), 1193–1215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1824-y
Malerba, F., & Montobbio, F. (2003). Exploring factors affecting international technological specialization: the role of knowledge flows and the structure of innovative activity. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 13(4), 411–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-003-0162-z
Marshakova-Shaikevich, I. (2007). The visualization of scientific collaboration of 15 “old” and 10 “new” EU countries in the field of social sciences. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 1(1), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720502.2007.10700948
Micheli, A., Di Salvo, F., Lombardo, C., Ugolini, D., Baili, P., & Pierotti, M. A. (2011). Cancer research performance in the European Union: a study of published output from 2000 to 2008. Tumori, 97(6), 683–689. https://doi.org/10.1177/030089161109700601
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2015). The journal coverage of web of science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-
Murashova, E., & Loginova, V. (2017). University-industry interaction trends in the Baltic sea region: a bibliometric analysis. Baltic Journal of European Studies, 7(2), 28–58. https://doi.org/10.1515/bjes-2017-0009
OECD. (2011). Globalisation, Comparative Advantage and the Changing Dynamics of Trade. 16.7.2019. http://www.oecd.org/publications/globalisation-comparative-advantage-and-the-changing-dynamics-of-trade-9789264113084-en.htm.
Pastor, J. M., Serrano, L., & Zaera, I. (2015). The research output of European higher education institutions. Scientometrics, 102(3), 1867–1893. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1509-y
Proudman, J., & Redding, S. (2000). Evolving patterns of international trade. Review of International Economics, 8(3), 373–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9396.00229
Quah, D. (1993). Galton’s fallacy and tests of the convergence hypothesis. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 95(4), 427–443. https://doi.org/10.2307/3440905
Radosevic, S., & Yoruk, E. (2014). Are there global shifts in the world science base? Analysing the catching up and falling behind of world regions. Scientometrics, 101(3), 1897–1924. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1344-1
Rogge, N. (2019). Regional productivity growth in the EU since 2000: something is better than nothing. Empirical Economics, 56(2), 423–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-017-1366-7
Rousseau, R., & Yang, L. (2012). Reflections on the activity index and related indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 6(3), 413–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.01.004
Sánchez-Gil, S., Gorraiz, J., & Melero-Fuentes, D. (2018). Reference density trends in the major disciplines. Journal of Informetrics, 12(1), 42–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.11.003
Sanidas, E., & Shin, Y. (2010). Comparison of revealed comparative advantage indices with application to trade tendencies of East Asian Countries. In 9th Korea and the World Economy Conference. 15.7.2019. http://www.akes.or.kr/eng/papers%282010%29/24.full.pdf.
Streb, J., Baten, J., & Yin, S. X. (2006). Technological and geographical knowledge spillover in the German empire 1877–1918. Economic History Review, 56(2), 347–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0289.2006.00347.x
Szalavetz, A. (2014). Innovation in Hungary - the impact of EU accession and integration into global value chains. International Journal of Management and Economics, 42(1), 40–59. https://doi.org/10.2478/ijme-2014-0042
Teodorescu, D., & Andrei, T. (2011). The growth of international collaboration in East European scholarly communities: a bibliometric analysis of journal articles published between 1989 and 2009. Scientometrics, 89(2), 711–722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0466-y
Vesper, I. (2018). Bulgaria in the cold as European Union freezes its innovation funding. Nature, 554(7691), 156–157. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-01374-x
Wang, L. (2016). The structure and comparative advantages of China’s scientific research: quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Scientometrics, 106, 435–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1650-2
Wang, L., & Wang, X. (2017). Who sets up the bridge? Tracking scientific collaborations between China and the European Union. Research Evaluation, 26(2), 124–131. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx009
Web of Science. (2019). www.webofknowledge.com.
Yeats, A. J. (1985). On the appropriate interpretation of the revealed comparative advantage index: implications of a methodology based on industry sector analysis. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 121(1), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02705840
Yu, R., Cai, J. C., & Leung, P. S. (2009). The normalized revealed comparative advantage index. Annals of Regional Science, 43(1), 267–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-008-0213-3
Yue, C. J., & Hua, P. (2002). Does comparative advantage explain export patterns in China? China Economic Review, 13(2–3), 276–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1043-951X(02)00073-1
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Grančay, M., Dudáš, T. & Mura, L. Revealed comparative advantages in academic publishing of “old” and “new” European Union Member States 1998–2018. Scientometrics 127, 1247–1271 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04251-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04251-z