Before we (inevitably) argue from emotion whether or not the ranking tracks our experience, it's useful to understand what metrics Bloomberg (the index cited in the linked WEF article) includes in their definition of innovation. From a 2015 article [1], it seems that innovation to them is defined as follows:
"Bloomberg ranked countries and sovereigns based on their overall ability to innovate and identified the top 50. Six equally weighted metrics were considered and their scores combined to provide an overall score for each country from zero to 100.
1. Research & Development: Research and development expenditure as a percentage of GDP
2. Manufacturing: Manufacturing value-added per capita
3. High-tech companies: Number of domestically domiciled high-tech public companies—such as aerospace and defense, biotechnology, hardware, software, semiconductors, Internet software and services, and renewable energy companies -- as a share of world's total high-tech public companies
4. Postsecondary education: Number of secondary graduates enrolled in postsecondary institutions as a percentage of cohort; percentage of labor force with tertiary degrees; annual science and engineering graduates as a percentage of the labor force and as a percentage of total tertiary graduates
5. Research personnel: Professionals, including Ph.D. students, engaged in R&D per 1 million population
6. Patents: Resident utility patent filings per 1 million population and per $1 million of R&D spent; utility patents granted as a percentage of world total"
It doesn't mean their criteria for innovation is objective or correct, but understanding them will hopefully elevate the discussion from just saying the rankings are garbage -- which it well could be, but is a position arising from emotion and not analysis. (I personally don't think rankings are useful, but the underlying data may be)
"Bloomberg ranked countries and sovereigns based on their overall ability to innovate and identified the top 50. Six equally weighted metrics were considered and their scores combined to provide an overall score for each country from zero to 100.
1. Research & Development: Research and development expenditure as a percentage of GDP
2. Manufacturing: Manufacturing value-added per capita
3. High-tech companies: Number of domestically domiciled high-tech public companies—such as aerospace and defense, biotechnology, hardware, software, semiconductors, Internet software and services, and renewable energy companies -- as a share of world's total high-tech public companies
4. Postsecondary education: Number of secondary graduates enrolled in postsecondary institutions as a percentage of cohort; percentage of labor force with tertiary degrees; annual science and engineering graduates as a percentage of the labor force and as a percentage of total tertiary graduates
5. Research personnel: Professionals, including Ph.D. students, engaged in R&D per 1 million population
6. Patents: Resident utility patent filings per 1 million population and per $1 million of R&D spent; utility patents granted as a percentage of world total"
It doesn't mean their criteria for innovation is objective or correct, but understanding them will hopefully elevate the discussion from just saying the rankings are garbage -- which it well could be, but is a position arising from emotion and not analysis. (I personally don't think rankings are useful, but the underlying data may be)
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-innovative-countries...