global innovation index methodology

Global Innovation Index 2024

GII 2024 results

The GII unveils the world’s innovation leaders, gauging the innovation performance of 133 economies.

This section presents the highlights of the Global Innovation Index 2024 (GII), including a discussion on the top ranked economies by income group and world region, as well as identifying those economies that are overperforming on innovation relative to their level of development.

The GII 2024 rankings are mainly derived from 2022 and 2023 data points (about 80 percent of all data). Appendix I provides details on how to interpret the results, cautioning against simple year-on-year comparison of the GII rankings.

Innovation leaders in 2024

Asian middle-income economies China, India, Indonesia and Türkiye surge ahead. Thailand and Viet Nam move closer to the top 40. Morocco joins the group of middle-income economies within the GII top 70 that have climbed fastest in the GII ranking since 2013.

Switzerland ranks 1 st in the GII for the 14 th consecutive year (Figure 16). It is still the global leader in innovation outputs, ranking 1 st in both Knowledge and technology outputs and Creative outputs. It also ranks in the top 5 of all the other GII pillars, with the exception of Infrastructure (7 th ). Sweden and the United States (US) maintain their respective 2 nd and 3 rd positions for the second consecutive year. Sweden leads in Infrastructure (1 st ), Business sophistication (1 st ), Knowledge and technology outputs (2 nd ) and Human capital and research (3 rd ). It holds top positions for its Researchers (1 st ), Intellectual property (IP) payments and receipts (both 1 st ), its Knowledge-intensive employment (3 rd ), its Global brand value (3 rd ) and its Low-carbon energy use (4 th ). The United States scores best in the world in nine of the 78 GII 2024 innovation indicators – behind Singapore. It ranks 1 st in the world in indicators that include the quality of its universities, the impact of its scientific publications (H-index), software spending and IP receipts (Box 1).

Singapore (4 th ) moves further into the top 5 and is the economy with the greatest number of GII indicators ranking 1 st in the world for the first time (with 14 out of 78 indicators – Box 1), overtaking the United States. However, even if Singapore moves closer to the top 3, breaking into that group remains challenging. The top 3 economies share the characteristics of both excelling across all GII pillars and successfully balancing their innovation inputs and outputs (Table 4). Even though Singapore has already surpassed Switzerland, Sweden and the United States in terms of innovation inputs, the gaps between Singapore and the top 3 still remain large in innovation outputs, and especially in Creative outputs.

The Republic of Korea moves up to 6 th position and ranks in the top 3 worldwide in key indicators including Researchers (2 nd ), R&D expenditures (2 nd ), R&D performed by business (1 st ) and Production and export complexity (3 rd ).

Singapore takes the lead in 2024 in terms of the number of GII innovation indicators in which it ranks top globally, ranking 1 st in the world in 14 out of 78 indicators and overtaking the United States. It leads in Regulatory quality, Policy stability for doing business, ICT access, Logistics performance, Venture capital received, Venture capital investors, High-tech manufacturing and GitHub commits.

The United States follows Singapore globally, ranking 1 st worldwide in nine indicators (four less than in 2023), including holding the top spot in Global corporate R&D investors, Unicorn valuation and Intangible asset intensity. China follows in 3 rd place, leading in eight innovation indicators (two more than in 2023), including Utility models, Trademarks and Industrial designs. Switzerland comes next, in 4 th place, attaining the top ranking in University–industry R&D collaboration, Intellectual property payments and receipts and PCT patents. Japan, Israel, Hong Kong, China and Luxembourg, tie in 5 th place, ranking 1 st in six indicators, including Public research–industry co-publications, GERD performed by business, High-tech imports and Knowledge-intensive employment, respectively. They are followed by Sweden, the Republic of Korea and Iceland, tying in 9 th place, leading in Researchers, Researchers working in the private sector (Research talent) and Low-carbon energy use, respectively.

In addition, certain middle- and low-income economies are excelling in various domains. Relative to other countries and to their own GDP or population, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Cambodia and Nepal rank 1 st in Loans from microfinance institutions, Malaysia in Graduates in science and engineering and Mexico in Creative goods exports. Correspondingly, Morocco leads in Industrial designs, the Islamic Republic of Iran in Trademarks and Namibia in Expenditure on education.

China moves up the ranking to 11 th position, edging closer to the top 10 again. It maintains its 1 st position among the upper middle-income group and 3 rd position among economies in South East Asia, East Asia and Oceania, behind Singapore and the Republic of Korea. China is also the third economy with the greatest number of indicators ranked 1 st , two more than in 2023, behind Singapore and the United States (Box 1). It ranks in the top 3 globally in indicators such as High-tech exports (1 st ), Global corporate R&D investors (2 nd ), Labor productivity growth (2 nd ) and GERD financed by business (3 rd ).

Japan remains firmly at the 13 th rank – a position it has held since 2021. Canada makes a comeback, rising to 14 th position, its best rank since 2014. It holds the highest rank globally in Venture capital (VC) recipients (1 st ), and Joint venture/strategic alliance deals (1 st ). It also holds tops ranks for the quality of its universities (4 th ) and the impact of its scientific publications (H-index – 4 th ).

Ireland (19 th ) and Luxembourg (20 th ) enter the top 20, climbing three ranks and one rank, respectively (Figure 17). In part influenced by the strong presence of foreign multinationals in the field of ICT, Ireland ranks top globally in ICT services exports (1 st ) and Intellectual property payments (1 st ) and ranks in the top 3 for its Intangible asset intensity (2 nd ).

Australia (23 rd ) and New Zealand (25 th ) also continue to move upward within the top 25. Australia excels in the quality of its universities (3 rd ), the impact of its scientific publications (6 th ) and its Knowledge-intensive employment (9 th ). New Zealand enters the top 25 with high rankings in Regulatory environment (5 th ), Firms offering formal training (5 th ) and Domestic credit to private sector (9 th ).

European Union (EU) economies Cyprus (27 th ), Spain (28 th ) and the Czech Republic (30 th ) move up within the top 30, while Poland (40 th ) makes it into the top 40 (Figure 17). Beyond the EU, European economies Serbia (52 nd ) and Montenegro (65 th ) continue to improve their ranking, with Montenegro entering the top 70.

Apart from China, there are only four other middle-income economies among the top 40 economies this year: namely, Malaysia (33th), Türkiye (37 th ), Bulgaria (38 th ) and India (39 th ). However, Thailand (41 st ) and Viet Nam (44 th ) move ahead, consolidating their positions in the top 45 and moving towards the top 40. With its best rank since 2009, Thailand is sustaining its long-term progression. Türkiye is also moving ahead, claiming 3 rd position among the upper middle-income economies and overtaking Bulgaria. All these middle-income economies, with the exception of Bulgaria, moved up in the rankings this year.

The United Arab Emirates remains in 32 nd place. Saudi Arabia (47 th ) and Qatar (49 th ) continue to climb upward into the top 50 and are the only two economies in the Middle East region to move up the ranking this year (Figure 17). Taking a broader view, among the Middle East economies, only the United Arab Emirates (32 nd ), the Islamic Republic of Iran (64 th ) and Oman (74 th ) have improved their position since 2013.

Georgia (57 th ) and Armenia (63 rd ) make important improvements, entering the top 60 and top 70, respectively. However, the position of both economies in the ranking has fluctuated over the years.

Northern African economies Morocco (66 th ) and Algeria (115 th ) experience notable improvements in their innovation ranking. Together with China, India, Indonesia (54 th ), the Islamic Republic of Iran (64 th ), the Philippines (53 rd ), Türkiye and Viet Nam, Morocco joins the group of middle-income economies within the GII top 70 that have made the biggest advances in the GII ranking since 2013 (Figure 17). Algeria ranks in the top 10 in Expenditure on education (10 th ), and in the top 20 globally for its Graduates in science and engineering (20 th ). It also made important progress in IP-related indicators including Patents (65 th , up by 15 with its number of resident patent applications almost doubling in 2022), Trademarks (87 th ) and Industrial designs (46 th ).

Egypt holds the 86 th position, with Cairo also entering the GII top 100 science and technology clusters ranking for the first time in 2024 (see Cluster ranking).

Brazil (50 th ) remains in the top 50 in 2024, keeping its leading position in Latin America and the Caribbean, ahead of Chile (51 st ) and Mexico (56 th ), both of which also move up the ranking. Moreover, Colombia (61 st ), Costa Rica (70 th ) and Paraguay (93 rd ) make the greatest headway in the region, with Costa Rica entering the top 70. Caribbean economy Barbados enters the GII in 2024 at the 77 th position, after taking active steps to improve its innovation indicators (see Box 2).

The Philippines (53 rd ) and Indonesia (54 th ) continue to improve their GII ranking, with both entering the top 55. The Philippines claims 3 rd position in the lower middle-income group. Indonesia enters the top 60 and is the economy in South East Asia, East Asia and Oceania that makes the greatest advancement in ranks in 2024. It makes notable improvements in Policy stability for doing business (13 th ) and key IP indicators, such as Industrial designs (64 th ), Trademarks (72 nd ) and PCT patents (82 nd ), even if these are still at moderate levels.

Ukraine (60 th ) drops by five positions and is now 4 th among the lower middle-income group (Table 2). Its position is mostly affected by falls in indicators related to its Institutions (107 th ) and its Human capital and research (54 th ), including Tertiary enrolment (44 th ), School life expectancy (76 th ), Government effectiveness (99 th ) and Rule of law (115 th ). Foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows (88 th ) also dropped considerably.

In the last five years, Indonesia, Mauritius (55 th ), Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Brazil and Pakistan (91 st ) made the greatest advances in the GII, in order of their rank progression (Figure 17). Saudi Arabia performs relatively better in innovation inputs (36 th ) and excels in Market capitalization (1 st ), State of cluster development (2 nd ) and Global corporate R&D investors (16 th ). In contrast, Pakistan performs relatively well in innovation outputs, excelling in Mobile app creation (14 th ), ICT services exports (22 nd ) and Software spending (24 th ).

In Central and Southern Asia, Kazakhstan (78 th ) enters the top 80 (Figure 17). Kazakhstan performs better in innovation inputs (72 nd ), excelling in Government’s online service (8 th ), Utility models (10 th ), E-participation (15 th ) and Entrepreneurship policies and culture (25 th ). Uzbekistan (83 rd ) remains in the top 85 and is the 10 th ranking economy among the lower middle-income group (Table 2) – a significant improvement since 2013, when it held the 133 rd spot. Sri Lanka (89 th ) consolidates its place in the top 90, while Kyrgyzstan (99 th ) takes a big stride into the top 100. Taking a longer term view, all economies in the region have made sustained progress in their rankings over the past decade. Uzbekistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan and India have made the largest advancements, in that order.

Eight out of the 27 economies from Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) covered this year improve their ranking. Mauritius (55 th ) moves forward into the top 55, Cabo Verde (90 th ) consolidates its place in the top 90 while Senegal (92 nd ) moves closer to it. Kenya (96 th ) makes the largest improvement in the region, advancing four ranks into the top 100. Kenya improves notably in innovation outputs (87 th , up by four positions), and in particular in Knowledge and technology outputs. Its most notable improvements are in the IP-related indicators Utility models (15 th ), Patents by origin (49 th ) and PCT patents (69 th ), all of which go up by around 20 ranks. It also makes notable improvements in ICT services exports (17 th ).

Beyond the top 100, Tajikistan (107 th ), Algeria (115 th ) and Burundi (127 th ) have progressed the most in the rankings. Bangladesh (106 th ) and Madagascar (110 th ), despite setbacks in 2024, have demonstrated GII rank improvements over the long run.

Burundi is the only low-income economy that moved up the ranking this year, while Uganda’s ranking remains unchanged, in 121 st position globally and 4 th among its income group (Table 2).

Box 2 outlines important “dos and don’ts” to bear in mind when using the GII to improve an economy’s innovation performance.

For many years, governments around the world have successfully used the GII to improve their economies’ innovation performance and shape evidence-based innovation policies. A survey carried out by WIPO in 2024 showed that 77 percent of WIPO member states were using the GII to improve innovation ecosystems and metrics (up by roughly 20 percent in comparison to 2022, with 91 out of 118 responding member states using the GII), as well as it being a benchmark for national innovation policies or economic strategies across all world regions.

One major benefit of the GII is that it puts evidence and metrics at the core of conceiving, deploying and evaluating innovation policies. A first step brings together statisticians, innovation actors and policymakers to develop a clear understanding of a country’s innovation performance. In a second step, the policy discussion turns to leveraging domestic innovation opportunities, while at the same time overcoming country-specific weaknesses. Both steps are an exercise in coordination among different public and private innovation actors, as well as between government entities. In a number of countries, the GII has facilitated such a dialogue between these actors.

Ensure that innovation is embedded as a key priority in a country’s pathway to national development and progress, possibly formulated within a clear innovation policy.

Establish a cross-ministerial task force to pursue innovation policy matters through a “whole of government approach,” ideally reporting to the top tier of government (for instance, the prime minister’s office).

Ensure that any innovation policy task force consults with innovation actors from both the private and public sectors, including startups, research universities and innovation clusters.

Ensure that any national intellectual property (IP) policy is aligned with or integrated into the innovation law or strategy.

Ensure that the targets of an innovation policy are clear, quantifiable and can be evaluated.

Some don’ts:

Avoid nominating a single government entity to oversee the GII data and policy work, such as the intellectual property office or one ministry. This is a team effort involving different government entities, not the responsibility of one body working alone.

Do not set overly ambitious, and therefore unrealistic, GII ranking targets. GII rankings rarely increase in leaps and bounds from one year to the next, particularly within the top 50.

Do not expect policy changes to result in immediate improvement in GII indicator performance. There are significant lags between the formulation of innovation policy, its execution and its impact. The latest available innovation data is also rarely current, often lagging by a few years.

Do not treat the GII as a mathematical exercise – that is, by attempting to collect or focus on specific indicators simply to climb the ranking. A country’s GII rank alone is only a partial reflection of a national innovation ecosystem and related progress. Moreover, the GII framework changes regularly. Note also that the year-on-year changes within the GII are influenced by relative performance in relation to other countries, together with other methodological considerations (see Appendix I). Setting objectives over a period of years (for example, three to five years) and then reviewing combined progress over several years is a more appropriate way of using the GII.

With these caveats in mind, the GII has become a catalyst for the national collection of innovation indicators. As detailed in Appendix III, the vast majority of GII data is not collected by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) itself directly from its member states. Instead, WIPO uses data submitted by economies to those organizations that are globally responsible for collection of specific data (for example, the UNESCO Institute for Statistics for data relating to R&D). (1) The sole exception is the intellectual property data that WIPO collects annually from member states. See https://www.wipo.int/web/ip-statistics. For all other data sets, the GII team can help countries identify missing and outdated data (marked clearly in the economy profiles and briefs) and advise data collectors on how to remedy the situation. This system has proven remarkably effective in building more global and inclusive innovation and related data sets in WIPO’s partner organizations, with better data coverage across all United Nations member states, effectively contributing to a useful public good that facilitates better innovation policymaking. 

Finally, a new trend is the interest being expressed by countries in building sub-national innovation indices at the regional or city level that mirror the GII framework or comprise selected GII indicators. (2) The recent WIPO study reviews the applicability of the GII framework to the development of sub-national innovation metrics. It analyses the existing sub-national innovation indices of WIPO member states who are pioneers in this field. It also determines which future innovation metrics are applicable to the measurement of innovation at the sub-national level, particularly those exploiting “big data” and new computational methods. See WIPO (2024a). WIPO is supporting this work in two ways: (i) by organizing workshops on the exchange of best practice, and (ii) by providing a background study on sub-national innovation indices. Member states are welcome to participate in these events and efforts, and to provide additional information on their sub-national innovation index plans and needs.

Innovation overperformers

India, the Republic of Moldova and Viet Nam continue to lead as the longest-standing innovation overperformers. Indonesia, Pakistan and Uzbekistan maintain their status as overperformers for a third consecutive year.

In the GII 2024, 19 economies are performing above expectation relative to their level of development – these are the GII innovation overperformers (Figure 18 and Table 3).

India, the Republic of Moldova and Viet Nam continue to be record holders by being innovation overperformers since 2011, for a 14 th consecutive year. Viet Nam (44 th ) scores above its income level in all GII pillars, and even above the upper middle-income group, with the exception of Human capital and research. The Philippines (53 rd ) and Morocco (66 th ) keep their innovation overperformer status for a sixth time, and both move up in the rankings this year. Senegal (92 nd ) retains its overperformer status again this year, after regaining its place in the prestigious list in 2023. In addition, Indonesia (54 th ), Uzbekistan (83 rd ) and Pakistan (91 st ) keep their overperformer status for a third consecutive year.

From a regional perspective, South East Asia, East Asia, and Oceania and Sub-Saharan Africa still have the same number of overperformers, with five each. Central and Southern Asia holds 3 rd place, while Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean and Northern Africa and Western Asia tie in 4 th place, with two overperforming economies each (Table 3).

Conversely, 41 economies are performing below expectation on innovation, the majority from Latin America and the Caribbean and Sub-Saharan Africa (both with 11 economies each). Among the high-income group, six are economies from Northern Africa and Western Asia: namely, the United Arab Emirates (32 nd ), Saudi Arabia (47 th ), Qatar (49 th ), Kuwait (71 st ), Bahrain (72 nd ) and Oman (74 th ), driven in large part by their natural-resource-driven high GDP per capita – a key factor for this analysis. In the upper middle-income group, three economies which perform below expectation are European economies, notably the Russian Federation (59 th ), Montenegro (65 th ) and Belarus (85 th ). In the lower middle-income group, 10 economies are performing below expectation for their level of development.

Efficiency champions: Converting innovation investment into tangible innovation output

Middle-income economies, such as China and Türkiye, outdo their high-income peers in innovation outputs

Among high-income economies, Switzerland (1 st ) leads in producing higher levels of outputs compared to Sweden (2 nd ), the United States (3 rd ) and Finland (7 th ), while the United Kingdom (5 th ) and the Republic of Korea (6 th ) produce higher levels of outputs than the United States, but with lower input levels (Figure 19).

Among the upper middle-income group economies, China (11 th ) also shines, producing levels of outputs that are higher than those of high-income economies, such as Singapore (4 th ), Finland (7 th ), the Kingdom of the Netherlands (8 th ), Denmark (10 th ) and France (12 th ), but with fewer inputs. Türkiye (37 th ) does likewise relative to Iceland (22 nd ) and Australia (23 rd ); while Bulgaria (38 th ) also surpasses the level of outputs of New Zealand (25 th ) with lower input levels.

Among the lower middle-income group economies, the Islamic Republic of Iran (64 th ), Morocco (66 th ) and Pakistan (91 st ) are efficient innovators, while Madagascar (110 th ) stands out among the low-income group for its innovation efficiency.

However, certain economies, including Australia (23 rd ), the United Arab Emirates (32 nd ), Saudi Arabia (47 th ), Botswana (87 th ), Cabo Verde (90 th ) and Rwanda (104 th ), find it harder to translate inputs into outputs. This year, Serbia (52 nd ), Montenegro (65 th ), Peru (75 th ), Kazakhstan (78 th ), Azerbaijan (95 th ) and Kyrgyzstan (99 th ) have improved their performance in converting inputs into outputs.

Innovation leaders (top 25) demonstrate balanced and strong performance across all seven pillars. Beyond the top 10, which all have balanced ecosystems, this group includes France (12 th ), Japan (13 th ), Canada (14 th ), Estonia (16 th ), Austria (17 th ), Norway (21 st ) and Australia (23 rd ) (Table 4). Some lower ranked economies excel in specific innovation pillars, such as Botswana and Rwanda in Institutions (36 th and 38 th , respectively), Kyrgyzstan in Human capital and research (42 nd ), Albania (84 th ) in Infrastructure (31 st ) and the Islamic Republic of Iran and Cambodia in Market sophistication (17 th and 39 th , respectively). Barbados and Costa Rica rank relatively highly in Business sophistication (49 th and 50 th , respectively). India and Hungary excel in Knowledge and technology outputs (22 nd and 25 th , respectively), while Türkiye and Mongolia shine in Creative outputs (16 th and 32 nd , respectively). These examples showcase the diverse strengths of economies that are vibrant in innovation, which can be nurtured to enhance their overall rankings.

Innovation across the world’s regions

Central and Southern Asia further narrows the gap with Latin America and the Caribbean, and outpaces it in innovation outputs

For yet another year, there are no changes in the rankings of the world’s regions, based on an unweighted average GII score of all economies within a region. Northern America and Europe continue to lead, followed by South East Asia, East Asia, and Oceania (SEAO). Northern Africa and Western Asia follow, while Latin America and the Caribbean, Central and Southern Asia (CSA) and Sub-Saharan Africa follow at a greater distance. However, this year the distance dividing economies in Latin America and the Caribbean and CSA is very small – on average no more than 0.10 GII score points. In fact, on average, economies in CSA have already surpassed Latin American and Caribbean economies in innovation outputs (by an average of 1.3 GII score points) but remain behind in innovation inputs (by an average of 1.5 score points).

Northern America

Largely driven by the United States, Northern America, which comprises the United States and Canada, is still the most innovative world region, maintaining a comfortable performance gap in relation to Europe. The United States holds stable in 3 rd position, while Canada moves up to 14 th place. Canada performs well in Market sophistication (4 th ), Business sophistication (13 th ), Human capital and research (11 th ) and Institutions (14 th ), ranking ahead of the United States in the latter two pillars. It continues to rank in the top 10 for its University–industry R&D collaboration (5 th ), its Researchers working in the private sector (Research talent, 8 th ) and its Intellectual property payments (9 th ).

Europe still hosts the highest number of innovation leaders among the top 25 – 15 in total, with seven among the top 10. Malta (29 th ) exits the group of innovation leaders this year. Out of the 39 European economies covered, only nine move up the ranking this year (10 fewer than last year): namely, Austria (17 th ), Ireland (19 th ) and Luxembourg (20 th ) (the latter two both entering the top 20), Spain (28 th ), the Czech Republic (30 th ) (entering the top 30), Poland (40 th ) (entering the top 40), Croatia (43 rd ), Serbia (52 nd ), and Montenegro (65 th ) (reaching the top 70).

Among economies that are improving, Austria excels in Domestic industry diversification (3 rd ), Production and export complexity (7 th ), R&D expenditures (8 th ), which reached 3.2 percent of GDP in 2022, and Public research–industry co-publications (8 th ). Spain is performing well in Software spending (12 th ), Industrial designs (13 th ) and Global corporate R&D investors (15 th ).

Serbia gets closer to the top 50 with a strong performance in Domestic industry diversification (11 th ), ICT services exports (12 th ), Scientific and technical articles (13 th ) and Cultural and creative services exports (14 th ).

South East Asia, East Asia, and Oceania

Seven South East Asia, East Asia, and Oceania (SEAO) economies are world innovation leaders – one more than in 2023 – namely, Singapore (4th), the Republic of Korea (6th), China (11th), Japan (13th), Hong Kong, China (18th), Australia (23rd) and New Zealand (25 th ). New Zealand goes up by two ranks and joins the innovation leaders. These seven economies continue to lead in key innovation indicators. Singapore leads globally (1 st ) in 14 indicators (Box 1) including Venture capital received, the Republic of Korea in Patents China in High-tech exports, Japan in PCT patents, Hong Kong, China in Market capitalization and Australia in School life expectancy.

Eleven economies within the SEAO region (out of 17 covered) improve their rankings this year, with Indonesia (54 th ) again making the greatest advance and entering the top 60. Indonesia excels in University–industry R&D collaboration (6 th ), Policy stability for doing business (13 th ) and Intangible asset intensity (13 th ).

The Philippines goes up three ranks to reach the 53 rd position. This year it has also attained 3 rd position in the lower middle-income group (Table 2). Notable areas in which it excels are trade-related indicators, including High-tech exports (1 st globally), High-tech imports (4 th ), Creative goods exports (14 th ) and ICT services exports (19 th ). It has also made advances, albeit at lower levels, in intangible assets, thanks to its strong Global brand value (34 th ) – and the intangible asset intensity of its companies (35 th ).

Thailand (41 st ) and Viet Nam (44 th ) continue to make advances towards the top 40. Both economies also excel in trade-related indicators. Viet Nam ranks 1 st globally in High-tech exports, High-tech imports and Creative goods exports, while Thailand ranks 7 th in Creative goods exports and 8 th in High-tech exports. Thailand also excels in Utility models (5 th ) and Domestic credit to private sector (8 th ), while Viet Nam stands out for its Labor productivity growth (3 rd ) and Mobile app creation (7 th ). Both economies also rank in the top 30 for their global brands, with Viet Nam reaching the 22 nd position globally and Thailand the 26 th position.

Australia (23 rd ), Malaysia (33 rd ) and Mongolia (67 th ) also move up the ranking.

Central and Southern Asia

Within Central and Southern Asia, India continues to lead, moving one spot forward to the 39 th position. India leads the lower middle-income group (Table 2). It holds top ranking within the Central and Southern Asia region for Knowledge and technology outputs (22 nd ), Creative outputs (43 rd ), Institutions (54 th ) and Business sophistication (58 th ). India’s strengths lie in key indicators such as ICT services exports (1 st ), Venture capital received (6 th ) and Intangible asset intensity (7 th ). India’s unicorn companies also secure the country the 8 th rank globally.

In addition to India, four other economies within the region move up the ranking: Kazakhstan (78 th ), Sri Lanka (89 th ), Kyrgyzstan (99 th ) and Tajikistan (107 th ). Kazakhstan retains the 3 rd place in the region, behind the Islamic Republic of Iran (64 th , down by two places). Kyrgyzstan excels in Expenditure on education (3 rd ), Loans from microfinance institutions (10 th ) and Low-carbon energy use (13 th ).

Uzbekistan (83 rd ) retains its 4 th position within the region, with its top performance in Labor productivity growth (7 th ) and Graduates in science and engineering (12 th ).

Northern Africa and Western Asia  

In Northern Africa and Western Asia, Israel (15 th ) leads the region, despite moving down one rank this year. It leads in several key innovation indicators, ranking 1 st globally in R&D expenditure, Venture capital received, R&D performed by business, ICT services exports and Unicorn valuation.

Türkiye continues to forge ahead, gaining two ranks to reach 37 th place. It also takes the 3 rd position among the upper middle-income group (Table 2). Türkiye stands out in various areas, notably in Intangible assets (4 th ), where it ranks 1 st globally in Trademarks and Industrial designs, and 9 th in Intangible asset intensity – all these indicators showing an improvement this year.

Eight economies within the region move up the ranking. Saudi Arabia (47 th ) and Qatar (49 th ) move ahead one spot each, consolidating their positions in the top 50. Georgia moves up to 57 th place, entering the top 60, while Armenia (63 rd ) enters and Morocco (66 th ) consolidates its position in the top 70. Morocco ranks 1 st globally in Industrial designs and ranks in the top 30 on Expenditure on education (20 th ), Intangible asset intensity (22 nd ), Gross capital formation (27 th ), High-tech manufacturing (27 th ) and Trademarks (30 th ).

Cyprus (27 th ) and Algeria (115 th ) also gain one and four ranks, respectively.

Latin America and the Caribbean

In Latin America and the Caribbean, the regional top 3 remain unchanged: Brazil (50 th ) retains the top position, followed by Chile (51 st ) and Mexico (56 th ). Chile and Mexico improve their positions by one and two ranks, respectively. Chile holds top positions in Tertiary enrolment (7 th ), Market capitalization (17 th ) and FDI net inflows (19 th ). Mexico comes top in trade and high-tech indicators, including Creative goods exports (1 st ), High-tech exports (11 th ), High-tech imports (16 th ) and High-tech manufacturing (15 th ).

Seven additional economies within the region also improved their ranking: Colombia (61 st ) – one of the largest jumps in the region, matched only by Paraguay (93 rd ), Uruguay (62 nd ), Costa Rica (70 th ), Peru (75 th ), Panama (82 nd ) and Honduras (114 th ).

Colombia climbs five ranks this year, improving notably in the Innovation Output Sub-Index (62 nd ). It ranks 18 th globally for the valuation of its three unicorn companies, whose joint value represent about 2 percent of its GDP in 2024. It also leads in Intellectual property payments (11 th ) and High-tech imports (15 th ).

Uruguay is the regional leader in Institutions (31 st ) and Infrastructure (48 th ), Trinidad and Tobago leads in Human capital and research (37 th ), and Brazil is top of the region in Business sophistication (39 th ), Knowledge and technology outputs (50 th ) and Creative outputs (42 nd ).

Costa Rica leads in the top 10 in Labor productivity growth (10 th ) and ICT services exports (10 th ). Barbados rejoins the GII 2024 at the 77 th position, leading globally (1 st ) in Patent families and PCT patents, and performing in the top 20 in Patents by origin (4 th ) and Venture capital recipients (16 th ).

This year, Brazil (50 th ) and Jamaica (79 th ) continue to perform above expectation for their level of development (Table 3).

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, with its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), has set an ambitious agenda to drive sustainable development efforts around the world. While technology and innovation are key enablers for the delivery of sustainable and effective solutions to achieve all the SDGs, fostering innovation is integral to SDG 9 “Industry, innovation and infrastructure”, with specific targets that aim to promote the increase of R&D expenditure as a proportion of GDP (9.5.1) and to increase the number of researchers per million inhabitants (9.5.2), both of which are also important GII indicators. (3) See https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal9.

In this context, the GII has been recognized as an authoritative benchmark for measuring innovation within the 2019, 2021 and 2023 UN General Assembly biennial resolutions on Science, Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Development. The resolution specifically encourages “efforts to increase the availability of data to support the measurement of national innovation systems (such as the existing GII) and empirical research on innovation and development to assist policymakers in designing and implementing innovation strategies”. (4) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 19 December 2023, 78/160. Science, technology and innovation for sustainable development A/RES/78/160. This relevance of the GII and WIPO’s work to the SDGs is further amplified by contributions to the ninth annual Multi-stakeholder Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation for the SDGs (STI Forum) held in New York on May 9 and 10, 2024. (5) As part of the Forum’s program, WIPO led an expert conversation on the post-pandemic state of the global innovation system, co-sponsored and co-organized by the Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations, the Confederation of Indian Industry and the Oxford University Saïd Business School; and co-led the organization of the Forum’s dedicated session on gender and STI, focusing on advancing sustainable development with women-centered science and technology solutions, delving into the gender gap in STI and the limited consideration of women’s perspectives in STI solutions. For more on the role of intellectual property in achieving SDGs, see WIPO (2023) and www.wipo.int/sdgs.

Sub-Saharan Africa

In Sub-Saharan Africa, only Mauritius (55 th ) ranks among the top 60. Three of the region’s other economies rank within the top 90 globally: namely, South Africa (69 th ), Botswana (87 th ) and Cabo Verde (90 th ). Two additional economies – Senegal (92 nd ) and Kenya (96 th ) – rank in the top 100. Eight of the region’s economies move up the GII ranking, including Mauritius, Cabo Verde, Senegal, Kenya, Zambia (116 th ), Benin (119 th ), Mauritania (126 th ) and Burundi (127 th ).

Burundi, Madagascar (110 th ), Rwanda (104 th ), Senegal and South Africa are also innovation overperformers this year, with Rwanda’s period of overperformance lasting longest, at 12 years (Table 3). Kenya gains four places and consolidates its place in the top 100. It performs well in Venture capital recipients (13 th ), Utility models (15 th ), ICT services exports (17 th ) and Labor productivity growth (29 th ).

Mauritius ranks highest in the region in Institutions (33 rd ), Human capital and research (69 th ) and Market sophistication (24 th ). It leads worldwide in Venture capital received (1 st ) and ranks 2 nd in Venture capital investors. Cabo Verde leads the region in Infrastructure (34 th ), ranking 1 st in Gross capital formation. South Africa tops the region in Business sophistication (57 th ) and performs well in ICT services imports (18 th ) and Global brand value (24 th ).

Senegal leads the region in Knowledge and technology outputs (62 nd ). It also performs well in Gross capital formation (4 th ), Unicorn valuation (7 th ), Loans from microfinance institutions (9 th ), FDI net inflows (12 th ) and Venture capital received (22 nd ).

Finally, Madagascar heads the region in Creative outputs (57 th ), performing well in Industrial designs (14 th ) and Trademarks (21 st ), both of which show improvement this year.

The latest GII rankings highlight the following points:

There have been shifts within the world’s top innovators. Within the top 10, the top 3 remain unchanged, while Singapore and the Republic of Korea advance. China – the only middle-income economy among the innovation leaders – bounces back to 11 th position, edging closer to the top 10 once again (after having dropped back by one place last year). Within the top 25, Canada, Austria, Ireland, Luxembourg, Australia and New Zealand ascend, with Ireland and Luxembourg entering the top 20, and New Zealand the top 25.

Europe still hosts the highest number of economies in the top GII ranking echelons – seven in the GII top 10 and 15 in the GII top 25.

A small number of leading innovative middle-income economies are showing remarkable progress in their innovation performance.

China remains the frontrunner, but other key players previously identified by the GII, such as Indonesia (54 th ) (entering the top 60), the Philippines (53 rd ), Türkiye (37 th ), Viet Nam (44 th ) and India (39 th ), ordered by their rank progression in 2024, are also all climbing the ranks. Thailand (41 st ) is demonstrating increased potential, nearing the top 40 – its best rank since 2009 – and sustaining its progression over the long run. Additionally, Morocco (66 th ) has emerged as one of the fastest climbers within the top 70 since 2013. These middle-income economies, despite some of them suffering setbacks in their performance in the GII 2021 and 2022 (e.g. Viet Nam, the Philippines and Indonesia), exhibit resilience and strategic long-term focus on innovation, even amid the challenges posed by the economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, these economies share common traits: they are all Asian economies; they are emerging markets with potential for rapid growth due to industrialization, urbanization and globalization; all have diverse economic structures; and they are heavily integrated in global value chains and high-tech trade.

Other economies have also demonstrated great progress over the long term, albeit at lower rankings, sustaining their rank increases since 2013. This group, which demonstrates high potential – despite some short-term setbacks, includes notable long-term, climbers Uzbekistan (83 rd ), the Islamic Republic of Iran (64 th ), Pakistan (91 st ), Madagascar (110 th ) (the only low-income economy in this group), Bangladesh (106 th ) and Egypt (86 th ) (ordered by their rank progression since 2013).

With no new additions, this year 19 economies are performing above expectation relative to their level of development. Indonesia, Pakistan and Uzbekistan have maintained their overperformer status for the third consecutive year, indicating a potentially sustainable positive trend.

In contrast, 41 economies are performing below expectation in 2024, most of which are in Latin America and the Caribbean and Sub-Saharan Africa.

More middle- and low-income economies would benefit from a systematic and gradual improvement of the set-up and performance of their innovation ecosystem.

Nine economies in Latin America and the Caribbean have risen in the ranking, including top regional performers Chile and Mexico. While these advancements are undoubtedly positive, this year’s results indicate that, on average, other world regions, such as Central and Southern Asia, will soon overtake Latin America and the Caribbean in terms of innovation performance. This should serve as a call to action for policymakers in Latin America and the Caribbean to sustain and enhance their long-term innovation efforts.

In Sub-Saharan Africa, Mauritius remains the highest ranking economy, while eight economies, including Kenya and Senegal, have moved up the GII ranking in 2024. Madagascar, Côte d’Ivoire (112 th ) and Togo (117 th ) have made the greatest advances in the region since 2013. However, large economies, such as South Africa (69 th ), Nigeria (113 th ) and Ethiopia (130 th ) have lost ground in the ranking this year, and most of them (with the exception of Kenya) have not been able to sustain their rank progression over time.

The GII will continue to monitor the evolving innovation landscape. The dynamic ecosystems observed in key middle-income economies showcase remarkable resilience and strategic prioritization of innovation. The GII will persist in providing robust data and insights to inform evidence-based policymaking, ensuring that both high-income and emerging economies can navigate and bridge the innovation gap effectively.