This chapter analyses Egypt's current science, technology and innovation (STI) governance system, identifying achievements and areas for improvement in the governance of its national innovation system. It highlights the deployment of a four-tiered set-up of strategic orientation, policy formulation, policy implementation, and research performance, similar to that of more developed OECD Member countries. It also highlights areas for improvement within the innovation governance framework. This chapter also illustrates how enhanced use of foresight methodologies and strategic planning can help address these governance issues, drawing on successful examples from various countries that have effectively integrated foresight into their STI frameworks.
OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: Egypt 2026
Abstract
Egypt has introduced a four-tier science, technology and innovation (STI) governance model, spanning strategic orientation, policy formulation, policy implementation, and research and innovation performance, broadly aligned with governance arrangements in OECD Member countries.
Egypt needs to continue its efforts towards effective co-ordination. While recent reforms have improved the clarity of institutional roles, further streamlining across ministries and funding agencies would help strengthen policy coherence, reduce overlaps, and improve the accessibility and effectiveness of support instruments. Within MHESR, the Supreme Councils exercise collective governance but are constrained by mandates and systematic evaluation that are in need of further development/coordination.
The strategic orientation tier is being enhanced through the establishment of the Ministerial Council for Entrepreneurship (MCE) and the National Council for Education, Research and Innovation (NCERI). Their effectiveness will depend on clear mandates, stable resources, and systematic information-sharing. Stronger co-ordination between MCE, NCERI, and existing ministries and agencies will also be critical to enable genuine co-creation between academia and industry.
Egypt Vision 2030 provides a shared national framework, but implementation across sectoral strategies remains uneven. Continued efforts are needed to improve alignment of the individual policy documents – the most recent one concerning STI being the Egyptian Higher Education and Scientific Research Blueprint 2030. While progress is evident, further efforts are needed to ensure consistent implementation, improve monitoring systems, and strengthen the use of performance data across sectors.
Data, monitoring and evaluation need to be developed to support evidence-based policy. A systemic approach is needed, ensuring a statistical infrastructure which ensures performance tracking. Clear key performance indicators (KPIs) are needed, starting from baseline data and independent review cycles, in order to allow lessons to be captured, and policy course to be supported on a regular basis. Establishing robust indicators and regular reporting is therefore a priority.
Egypt would benefit from a more integrated, economy‑wide system of strategic intelligence for STI policy. While foresight and analytical activities exist, stronger institutional anchoring and capacity are needed to support priority‑setting, anticipate technological change, and align investments with long‑term national objectives.
Policy intervention in STI was initially justified to correct market failures, as private actors tend to underinvest in knowledge creation due to high costs, risks and limited appropriability. Today, the focus has broadened to address systemic failures that hinder knowledge flows and collaboration across actors. The traditional “science-push” model is giving way to co-creation, where government, business and academia jointly drive innovation (Figure 7.1) (Paic and Viros, 2019[1]).
Source: OECD (1997[2]).
STI is now central to tackling global challenges such as climate change and health, as reflected in the United Nations’ SDGs and the OECD Transformative Agenda (OECD, 2024[3]). Effective governance typically involves four tiers: 1) strategic orientation which involves co-ordination of policies occurs at the highest level of government, reporting to the president or prime minister; 2) ministries set key policies; 3) national agencies implement those policies through allocations of project-based funding; and 4) research-performing organisations (higher education institutions [HEI] and Research Centres (RC) perform the research. In addition, specialised agencies evaluate and monitor the performance of HEIs and RCs. Block funding is usually based on performance contracts.
Innovation policy spans multiple ministries, requiring strong co-ordination. Most countries aim for their national STI strategies to involve comprehensive consultation with academic, business, and civil society stakeholders, as well as various governmental entities. Their implementation is almost systematically performed by professional agencies, in order to ensure professionalism and prevent conflicts of interest. Evaluations are becoming more common, even though they remain primary since the quantitative impact evaluation of STI strategies is difficult to realise (Paic and Viros, 2019[1]).
As countries confront increasingly complex and interdependent societal challenges such as climate change, digital transformation, pandemics, and inequality, traditional STI policy approaches are being pushed beyond their limits. These challenges require integrated, long-term responses that cut across sectors, disciplines, and borders. In response, many OECD and non-OECD countries have begun adopting mission-oriented innovation policies to align STI efforts around clear, outcome-driven societal goals. Success depends on political leadership, stakeholder engagement, clear priorities, co-ordination and robust evaluation.
Egypt is gradually transitioning toward a more mission-oriented STI policy framework. For this shift to deliver meaningful impact, three foundational elements will be essential:
1. greater policy coherence and co-ordination across ministries and sectors
2. strengthened accountability through effective monitoring and evaluation systems
3. a challenge-focused, forward-looking planning culture supported by strategic foresight.
This chapter provides a comprehensive analysis of Egypt's STI governance, structured into two main sections to offer both an overview and a critical examination of the system's key components and challenges.
The first section provides an overview of Egypt’s STI governance: its institutional framework, policy mechanisms, and strategic plans, and maps key actors, their mandates, and interconnections. It highlights how these frameworks align with, or fail to align with, national objectives.
The second section analyses governance performance across three dimensions:
1. Policy coherence and co-ordination – assessing mechanisms for cross-ministerial and stakeholder alignment.
2. Accountability and monitoring – reviewing the integration of performance metrics and evaluation.
3. Adaptability and priority setting – examining Egypt’s capacity to respond to emerging challenges and adjust strategic priorities.
Most OECD Member countries present a four-tiered governance structure for innovation, enhancing policy coherence, strategic focus, and adaptability by structuring innovation efforts across strategic orientation (high-level councils), policy formulation (ministries), policy implementation (agencies) and research and innovation performance (higher education institutions, public research organisations and businesses). At the strategic orientation level, a clear vision and priority setting set long-term goals and achieve co-ordination among governmental entities. The policy formulation translates this vision into specific policies and legislation, while the policy implementation level ensures efficient resource allocation in accordance with those policy orientations. The multi-tiered design also promotes flexibility, stakeholder engagement, and continuous improvement, making the innovation system resilient and inclusive, capable of supporting broad economic growth and addressing complex societal challenges effectively (OECD, 2005[4]).
Egypt’s innovation governance system also operates across four tiers. Those four tiers are: (1) the strategic orientation tier at the Presidential and Cabinet levels, (2) the policy formulation layer at the Ministry level where specific policies and laws are formulated; (3) the policy implementation level where agencies implement the policy instruments and (4) the research and innovation performance layer, where universities, research centres, and businesses directly carry out research and innovation projects. Figure 7.2 provides a visual representation of Egypt’s innovation governance structure.
Note: Acronyms: AIC: Applied Innovation Centre, ASRT: Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, CBE: Central Bank of Egypt, EEIC: Egypt Entrepreneurship and Innovation Centre, FEI: Federation of Egyptian Industries, GAFI: General Authority for Investment and Free Zones, ICTI: Industrial Council for Technology and Innovation, IDA; Industrial Development Authority, IMC: Industrial Modernisation Centre, INTILAC: National Program for Technology Incubators, ISF: Innovators Support Fund, ITI: Information Technology Institute, ITIDA: Information Technology Industry Development Agency, MCIT: Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, MHESR: Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, MI: Ministry of Investment, MPED: Ministry of Planning and Economic Development, MIT: Ministry of Industry and Transportation, MSMEDA: Egyptian Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Agency, NRC: National Research Centre, NCERI: National Council for Education, Research and Innovation, MIT: Ministry of Industry and Transportation, SCSRC: Supreme Council of Scientific Research Centres and Bodies, SCPU: Supreme Council for Public Universities, SCPU*: Supreme Council for Private Universities, SCH: Supreme Council of Hospitals, SCTE: Supreme Council for Technological Education, SCNU Supreme Council of National Universities, SCIU: Supreme Council of Branches of International Universities, STDF: Science, Technology and Innovation Funding Authority, SOE: State-owned enterprises, SME: Small and medium-sized enterprises, TICOs: Technology Innovation Commercialisation Offices, TICs: Technology Innovation Centres, TIEC: Technology Innovation and Entrepreneurship Centre, TTOs: Technology Transfer Offices.
Source: Author’s elaboration based on fieldwork.
7.2.1. At the strategic orientation level, the recent establishment of the NCERI and the MCE marks a promising step, but requires collaboration between those two bodies
Recent developments indicate that Egypt’s research and innovation landscape is transitioning into a more fully integrated strategic framework. The recent establishment of two high-level co-ordination mechanisms, the NCERI and the MCE, represent a significant step toward addressing this gap. Approved in May 2024 and chaired by the prime minister, the NCERI reports to the president and is tasked with co-ordinating policies across education, research and innovation, advising the government on strategic priorities, and proposing legislative reforms. Complementing this, the MCE, chaired by the Minister of Planning, provides a platform to align entrepreneurship and innovation initiatives with evolving market needs (see Section 7.4.5 for further information).
7.2.2. At the policy formulation level, key Ministries define national priorities and allocate funding for STI initiatives
Policy formulation at the level of the key ministries is led by the MHESR, the Ministry of Industry and Transportation (MIT), and the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT). Other ministries, such as health, agriculture, electricity, housing, investment, planning, economic development, international co-operation, social solidarity and water, also play important roles by housing research centres and directing sector-specific initiatives. These ministries set long- and short-term goals, drive government funding, and spearhead national STI initiatives.
Within this level, the MHESR plays the most significant role, overseeing scientific research and tertiary education through eight Supreme Councils: the Supreme Council of Scientific Research Institutes, Centres and Bodies (SCSRC), Supreme Council of Higher Institutes, Supreme Council of Hospitals, Supreme Council of Technological Education, Supreme Council of National Universities (SCNU), and others. This system of councils is specific to Egypt and reflects a preference for collective governance and inter-agency co-ordination at a high level.
In particular, the SCSRC is mandated to align research institutes with national priorities, allocate resources, and monitor implementation. The Council further supports research institutions through funding, advisory roles in policy development, capacity-building programmes, and international partnerships, creating a comprehensive support system for Egypt’s research initiatives (Said, 2017[5]).
In practice, the Council’s role in shaping Egypt’s research and innovation agenda is still evolving. At present, mechanisms for quality assurance, clear KPIs, and systematic monitoring and evaluation are not yet fully in place. Interviewees noted to the OECD review team that the absence of well-defined benchmarks makes it difficult to consistently assess the quality and impact of research initiatives and to track progress over time. Establishing measurable KPIs and structured quality metrics embedded within a broader strategic vision would strengthen accountability and enhance the Council’s capacity to steer research toward outcomes of national and global relevance.
7.2.3. At the policy implementation level, multiple agencies implement the policies, resulting in a fragmented approach
The funding landscape for STI in Egypt is characterised by a fragmented structure within agencies affiliated with the MHESR and other ministries.
Within MHESR, three primary funding bodies – the ASRT, the STDF, and the ISF – play essential roles in Egypt’s STI development. Together, STDF, ASRT, and ISF address different stages of the research and innovation cycle from basic research, applied research, and entrepreneurship, but their overlapping mandates and fragmented co-ordination limit efficiency and impact.
In 2006, the MHESR launched a transformative initiative to restructure the country's science and technology (S&T) sector. This initiative led to a comprehensive reorganisation of S&T governance in 2007 and the establishment of the STDF, which assumed the role of principal funding agency from ASRT, marking a significant shift toward increased government investment in research and development (R&D).
As the primary funding agency, the STDF's mission is to bolster Egypt's research ecosystem by enhancing both community capacity and research infrastructure in alignment with Egypt's long-term national goals. The STDF focuses on financing both applied and basic research projects of national importance. For example, it has initiated major research calls, including those dedicated to basic and applied research, as well as specific initiatives, such as the coronavirus (COVID-19) research call. The STDF aims to drive impactful research initiatives by streamlining funding under a centralised agency.
The ASRT is Egypt's foremost national think tank, steering strategic studies and directing research in Egypt. Although the ASRT is primarily an agency, it plays a key role in policy formulation in support of the MHESR. It brings together top scientists and experts from universities, research institutions, the private sector, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), policymakers and the diaspora. The ASRT addresses national challenges through scientific studies and strategic planning. It maintains its role in financing “strategic” projects as Egypt’s think tank on S&T. It conducts strategic studies and mainly steers the direction of research. The ASRT mandate clarifies its role as the main governmental supporter of the complete innovation cycle, proposing STI policies and funding programmes (currently 1 700 programmes and grants) with a special focus on applied research.
Established under Law No. 1 of 2019, the ISF was created to support Egyptian innovators, entrepreneurs, gifted students and scientific researchers. The ISF aims to identify, train, support and fund participants in the innovation ecosystem. It offers training workshops and seminars on cutting-edge technological topics such as design thinking, prototyping and market research, enabling businesses to advance to the next level. Additionally, the ISF helps transform innovative ideas or projects into entrepreneurial ventures, supporting entrepreneurs in the early stages of their businesses. The ISF has entered as a third financier, with a specific financial model based on a percentage of student fees, mainly from private universities. It focuses primarily on innovation, its impact on society, and linking innovation with industries, universities and start-ups.
All three agencies – the STDF, the ASRT, and the ISF – play distinct yet complementary roles in Egypt’s research and innovation ecosystem. While each operates under the umbrella of the MHESR, their mandates are designed to address different stages of the R&D and innovation cycle. The STDF primarily supports basic research, the ASRT emphasises applied research, and the ISF is geared toward fostering innovation (Table 7.1).
How agencies within the MHESR support different stakeholders in the innovation ecosystem
Source: Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MHESR).
These roles are designed to be complementary, and the agencies collaborate across a range of national initiatives. ASRT, in particular, serves as a bridge between upstream and downstream research, translating scientific outputs into practical applications and policy advice, while also promoting knowledge transfer, future studies, and industrial partnerships. However, given the interconnected nature of research, development, and innovation, areas of functional proximity emerge. In this context, ensuring continuous co-ordination and clear delineation of mandates remains essential to avoid inefficiencies and to maximise the impact of public investment in science and innovation (see Recommendation 3).
In addition, multiple agencies affiliated with different ministries are also active in the holistic innovation ecosystem. Ministries such as the MIT, the Ministry of Investment and Foreign Trade (MIFT), the MCIT, and the Ministry of Planning, Economic Development (MPED) are especially active in promoting entrepreneurship at different levels of society and encouraging innovation in businesses. These ministries also have agencies that implement ministry-specific strategies regarding innovation (Table 7.2).
As MIT’s right arm, the Industry Modernisation Centre (IMC) provides extensive technical support, programmes, and projects to boost production, exports, and business competitiveness while reducing manufacturing costs. It also supports businesses in meeting international standards and accessing global markets by granting quality and conformity certificates. Since 2022, the IMC has been serving ten different industrial sectors and facilities supporting industry, tailoring its services to each sector's unique needs. With 15 branches nationwide and a team of 340 experienced employees, the IMC has a robust database of 13 000 customers and has offered over 120 000 services to more than 9 000 clients. As the IMC continues its mission, it aims to position Egypt as a leading industrial nation in the Middle East and North Africa and as a major exporter of medium-tech manufactured products by 2025.
Under the MCIT, agencies such as the Information Technology Industry Development Agency (ITIDA), Technology Innovation and Entrepreneurship Centre (TIEC) and Information Technology Institute (ITI) promote entrepreneurship in technology as well as effective technology transfers. Specifically, ITIDA, established in 2004 under the MCIT, aims to develop Egypt’s IT industry and enhance its global information and communication technology (ICT) competitiveness. ITIDA’s mission is to play a crucial role in the growth of the Egyptian IT sector by identifying industry needs and addressing them through well-designed programmes, policy advice, trade promotion, and strategic advisory services.
7.3.1. Egypt Vision 2030 serves as Egypt’s overarching strategic document
Updated in 2023, Egypt Vision 2030 represents a substantially revised version of the country’s national sustainable development strategy, first launched in 2016. The new edition reflects a comprehensive overhaul of national priorities to achieve sustainable development across economic, social, and environmental dimensions (OECD, 2024[15]). It aims to build a competitive, balanced, and diversified economy based on knowledge and innovation; a just, inclusive, and participatory society; and a sustainable and diverse ecosystem.
STI are recognised as key drivers within this document, calling for “a creative and innovative society producing science, technology, and knowledge, within a comprehensive system that ensures the developmental value of knowledge and innovation to address challenges and meet national objectives.” In this respect, Egypt Vision 2030 offers an overarching framework that emphasises technological advancement and innovation. It sets ambitious goals, tracked by KPIs, that aim to align national efforts toward fostering a knowledge-based economy (Box 7.1). Further details on the Vision’s pillars and governance arrangements can be found in the OECD Public Governance Review of Egypt (OECD, 2024[16]).
Egypt Vision 2030 serves as the National Sustainable Development Agenda, guiding national priorities and policymaking across the economic, social, and environmental dimensions. In 2016, Egypt launched the first version of this Vision to articulate the country's long-term aspirations.
In 2023, Egypt launched an updated version to keep pace with changes in the local, regional, and global context. This update followed a participatory approach that engaged various ministries, the private sector, civil society organisations, and several leading national experts across sectors.
The updated Vision aims to build a competitive, balanced, and diversified economy based on knowledge and innovation, a just and participatory society, and a sustainable and diverse ecosystem. It outlines six strategic goals:
1. Improve Egyptians’ quality of life and raise their living standards.
2. Social justice and equality.
3. Integrated and sustainable environmental system.
4. Diversified, knowledge-based, and competitive economy.
5. Well-developed infrastructure.
6. Governance and partnership.
Among the seven identified enablers that support these goals by 2030 is Enabler 2: Technology and Innovation. This enabler aims to foster an environment that promotes innovation and enables the efficient production, dissemination, and marketing of knowledge - , adding value and driving sustainable development that enhances human well-being.
Strategic Goal 4: Diversified, knowledge-based, and competitive economy defines a knowledge-based economy as one driven by innovation-oriented R&D, relying on a system that connects educational and research institutions with economic sectors.
Several general goals under this strategic goal specifically target innovation and technological development:
General Goal 1: Fostering productivity, diversity, and value added
This goal aims to improve productivity and increase the contribution of high-value sectors to economic growth.
General Goal 2: Improving the business environment and enhancing competitiveness
Means for goal attainment include:
encouraging digital transformation
marketing the competitive advantages of green and eco-tourism
supporting the development of clusters and integrating them into value chains across various economic sectors
encouraging high added-value sectors to enhance Egypt’s overall investment attractiveness
General Goal 5: Manufacturing revitalisation
This goal focuses on strengthening Egypt’s industrial base and promoting innovation-driven growth within manufacturing sectors.
General Goal 6: Supporting small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)
Means for goal attainment include:
integrating SMEs into local and global value chains to increase added value and competitiveness
directing scientific research and innovation toward improving SME productivity and processes
enhancing technical and institutional capacities to boost SME exports and market access
promoting innovative financial tools such as venture capital, securitisation, leasing, and transferable guarantees
fostering an entrepreneurial mindset among students, youth, and the wider population to encourage turning ideas into viable projects and products.
Source: OECD (2024[17]).
7.3.2. Numerous sectoral strategies are being adopted under the umbrella of the Egypt Vision 2030
Table 7.3 gives a generic overview of Egypt’s key STI strategies. As part of the broader Egypt Vision 2030 document, the MHESR has initiated several key strategies to propel Egypt towards an innovative, knowledge-based economy.
These strategies are designed to tackle current challenges and outline policies and approaches to help achieve the goals in Egypt Vision 2030. They include the 2019 National Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation 2030, the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research Strategy 4.0, the National Innovation Policy, and the Egyptian Higher Education and Scientific Research Blueprint 2030.
To accelerate these goals, MHESR introduced the National Policy for Sustainable Innovation in 2024. Built on four pillars - – talent development, technology transfer, access to finance and ecosystem strengthening - – it seeks to bridge gaps between research, education and industry. A flagship component is the presidential Alliance and Development initiative, a competitive EGP 1 billion (Egyptian pounds) programme creating seven regional innovation alliances. These alliances bring together universities, private firms and development partners to drive entrepreneurship, R&D collaboration and commercialisation, particularly in emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI). Funding ranges from EGP 90-159 million per alliance, with annual allocations tied to KPIs such as start-up creation, patents and revenue from innovative products. This policy complements Egypt’s AI Strategy (2025–2030), which targets training 30 000 AI professionals, doubling research output to 6 000 publications annually and positioning Egypt as a regional AI hub.
The National Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation 2030 (adopted in 2019) is Egypt’s primary STI roadmap. It sets long-term priorities, operational plans and programmes to link research and innovation with industry and services, leveraging academic resources to advance a knowledge-based economy. The strategy is implemented through partnerships with national and international actors.
In parallel, the 2023 National Innovation Policy sets a vision for a sustainable, innovation-driven knowledge society. It includes five subsidiary policies covering: 1) strengthening higher education and research institutions’ innovation capacity; 2) enhancing universities’ developmental role; 3) diversifying innovation finance; 4) improving the business environment and entrepreneurial culture; and 5) governance of the national innovation policy.
Finally, the Higher Education and Scientific Research Blueprint 2030 (2023) provides a comprehensive plan to transform universities into globally competitive, innovation-driven institutions aligned with Egypt Vision 2030 and the SDGs. It focuses on eco-education, research and innovation, and community engagement, while tailoring priorities to Egypt’s seven economic regions.
This section examines the need for streamlining co-ordination within the STI landscape, emphasising the importance of establishing a dedicated co-ordinating body to overcome institutional barriers and promote harmonisation and rationalisation of policies.
Innovation policy spans nearly all government sectors, industry, science, ICT, health, energy, environment and more, making co-ordination essential. International experience shows that effective systems rely on whole-of-government approaches with: 1) commitment at the highest level of government; 2) coherence of actions; and 3) harmonisation and rationalisation of available programmes (Paic and Viros, 2019[1]).
STI policies are now expected to address societal as well as economic challenges, requiring broad stakeholder engagement and horizontal and vertical co-ordination across government, business, academia and civil society. Independent policies cannot deliver transformative impact in isolation (OECD, 2024[3]).
In Egypt, a whole-of-government approach to STI governance needs to be advanced. High-level political commitment is essential to signal the prioritisation of STI and to unify stakeholders under a common agenda. While Egypt’s innovation policies are aligned with Egypt Vision 2030 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, there is scope to further strengthen coordination across government to ensure more integrated implementation, building on existing mechanisms such as the Inter-Ministerial Group on Entrepreneurship and other ongoing cross-ministerial efforts.
Egypt established an overarching co-ordinating body, the National Committee for Education, Research, and Innovation, which will be further discussed in the next section. This represents an important step toward enhancing horizontal co-ordination and fostering greater coherence across agencies, though its impact will depend on effective implementation. Similarly, the harmonisation and rationalisation of programmes can streamline access to resources, reduce redundancies and improve overall efficiency. While progress has been made, existing strategies may require further refinement and integration to fully support Egypt’s transition to a knowledge-based economy.
7.4.1. There is room for improvement for policy co-ordination
Interministerial co-ordination challenges have contributed to fragmented implementation of similar or overlapping policies across ministries. Although many government bodies have developed strategies under the broader umbrella of Egypt Vision 2030, there is a need for greater institutional interoperability and co-ordination to cover significant gaps in the national innovation system (Nesta, 2019[19]). This fragmentation also complicates efforts to assess the efficiency and impact of these strategies on innovation outcomes and broader economic performance.
Egypt’s STI policy landscape reflects a strong commitment to reform and modernisation, with a wide range of strategies developed across sectors and institutions. While these are intended to be complementary and are supported by coordination bodies such as the Inter-Ministerial Group on Entrepreneurship, their overall impact could be further strengthened through more systematic streamlining and prioritisation. Existing coordination and monitoring mechanisms provide useful insights into implementation progress (e.g. Table 7.3), but do not yet offer a fully comprehensive view of outcomes across the system. Enhancing strategic coherence would benefit from more detailed, costed action plans and a unified implementation roadmap for priority strategies, supported by stronger cross-government accountability mechanisms.
OECD Public Governance Review of Egypt found that the updating of Egypt Vision 2030, alongside the reforming of the planning system in Egypt through State Planning Law No. 18 of 2022, has brought about new opportunities to accelerate alignment (OECD, 2024[15]). Consolidating current efforts to operationalise this law could play a crucial role in translating the commitments of Egypt Vision 2030 into actionable policies and programmes by different sectors and levels of government in a more coherent manner. In addition, strengthening existing electronic systems used in MPED (i.e. ADAA and the Integrated Sustainable Investment Project Preparation and Management [ISIPPM]) as well as fostering robust interministerial collaboration will also be critical to enhance policy alignment to ensure that all government strategies are unified under the overarching goals of Egypt Vision 2030.
For example, the ASRT under the MHESR runs a national incubator programme; the MPED supports youth entrepreneurship through the Egypt Entrepreneurship and Innovation Centre (EEIC); the MCIT operates the TIEC; and the Ministry of Industry (MI) oversees the Technology and Innovation Industrial Council.
Despite their shared goal of fostering entrepreneurship, these efforts are often developed and implemented independently, leading to similar-targeted mandates. Hence enhancing coordination to develop complementary mandates may enhance resource allocation and ensure consolidated impact. To address these co-ordination challenges, the MPED now chairs the newly established MCE, which aims to bring together relevant ministries and stakeholders to align efforts under a more unified national vision. This is a welcome step, but its success will depend on its ability to drive strategic coherence, define clear roles, and monitor outcomes across agencies.
Moreover, MPED has launched Egypt’s Narrative for Comprehensive Development Reforms for Growth, Jobs and Resilience in September 2025, which serves as a comprehensive framework that integrates the government’s action programme with the long-term Egypt Vision 2030, in light of recent regional and international changes (Box 7.2). The Narrative sets out key commitments and priorities for strategic policy alignment, including sustaining economic reform, enhancing macroeconomic stability, promoting private-sector participation, and advancing structural transformation toward high-productivity, export-oriented sectors. It also emphasises coherence among macroeconomic stability, structural reform, and sectoral strategies, integrating investment, trade, industrial development, and employment priorities, and supporting the chapter’s recommendations (see Recommendations 1-4).
In September 2025, the MPED introduced Egypt’s Narrative for Comprehensive Development Reforms for Growth, Jobs and Resilience (originally named National Narrative for Economic Development: Policies Supporting Growth and Employment). This comprehensive framework integrates the government’s medium-term action programme with the long-term Egypt Vision 2030 in light of evolving regional and international conditions. Rather than a stand-alone initiative, the narrative builds on the National Programme for Structural Reforms and other national strategies, providing a single reference point for economic policy and investment priorities.
Strategic focus and objectives
Continuation of economic reform while shifting the growth model toward more productive, export-oriented sectors.
Concentration on five key sectors identified as drivers of employment and foreign-exchange earnings: tourism, ICT, manufacturing, agriculture, and energy.
Redefinition of the state’s role to strengthen competitiveness and stimulate private-sector participation.
Leverage of large-scale infrastructure investments of recent years to underpin a more dynamic economy.
Governance and legal anchors
Rooted in the State General Planning Law No. 18 of 2022 and the Unified Public Finance Law No. 6 of 2022, which link development planning to macroeconomic policy and improve the allocation of national resources.
Structured around three main pillars:
Stabilising the macroeconomy
Improving competitiveness and the business climate
Advancing the green transition.
Quantitative targets to 2030
Annual GDP growth of 7 %.
Total investment to reach 18 % of GDP (up from 15.2 % targeted in the current fiscal year).
Private investment to account for 66 % of total investment and 11.9 % of GDP (up from 60 % and 9.1 % respectively).
Private sector’s overall contribution to GDP to rise to 82 %.
Source: MPED (2025[20]).
7.4.2. Long-term commitment to projects and initiatives could be further strengthened
Egypt’s interest in building an innovation ecosystem is clear, with various projects across many ministries related to incubators, start-ups, R&D, etc. While coordination frameworks and built-in evaluation mechanisms are designed to ensure phased implementation and cross-project learning, stakeholder interviews indicate that projects often struggle to reach full maturity. This can lead to the initiation of new, similar efforts before the long-term outcomes of previous projects are fully realized, which ultimately delays the achievement of systemic innovation. For instance, the Research, Development, and Innovation Programme, which aimed to enhance Egypt’s innovation ecosystem and foster collaboration between academia and industry, ended without finalising its second cycle. This abrupt termination hindered the continuity of promising research projects and the establishment of a sustainable innovation culture.
On the other hand, during the COVID-19 pandemic, several research calls were initiated to address urgent health challenges. However, these calls experienced significant delays and were postponed for an extended period. Although the funds were eventually allocated, the devaluation of the EGP during this time posed a challenge. Researchers were still required to complete their projects within the initially planned time frame, leaving them only a few months to conduct their work instead of the originally intended years (communicated to the OECD review team during interviews).
As also highlighted in the OECD Public Governance Review of Egypt, these patterns reflect a broader focus on short-term, project-based planning, particularly in the investment domain (OECD, 2024[15]). Strengthening policy-level planning and delivery mechanisms for STI, anchored in medium- and long-term strategic foresight, would help build institutional continuity and enable more sustainable innovation outcomes.
7.4.3. Addressing institutional barriers to enhance the coherence of actions
The governance system exhibits two distinct but compounding structural dynamics. Within sectors such as higher education, decision-making is highly centralised: the Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research retains oversight of institutional budgets and university leadership appointments, while Law No. 142 of 1994 further concentrates authority by restricting faculty participation in governance and establishing a top-down appointed Supreme Council of Universities (Mazawi, 2005[21]). Although intended to ensure accountability and strategic alignment, this concentration limits institutional autonomy and can slow implementation.
At the cross-sectoral level, however, the picture is notably different. Research centres affiliated with different ministries operate without a shared strategic framework, producing horizontal fragmentation that undermines system-wide coherence. These two dynamics of vertical concentration within sectors and insufficient coordination across them are not contradictory but complementary and may in part reflect a deliberate balance between accountability and sectoral autonomy. The more precise challenge is therefore not to recalibrate central control, but to establish effective lateral coordination mechanisms across ministerial silos. Here, a clear and immediate recommendation would be to amend the Universities Law to adjust governance structures, which would create opportunities for more effective co-ordination and accountability within the higher education system and for empowering universities.
7.4.4. Harmonisation and rationalisation of policies
Harmonising and rationalising available programmes would simplify and optimise target audiences’ access to available subsidies and programmes, reducing redundancies and enhancing the overall efficiency of the innovation ecosystem. Rationalising and simplifying the programmes, limiting the number of calls, and proposing a single “window” for users are ways to enhance efficiency in granting finance, reduce administrative costs (for participants and programme administrators), and maximise the impact of the strategy in place.
OECD Member countries use different measures to rationalise and simplify their programmes, which are often too numerous in most strategies. For instance, Canada’s Innovation Canada platform provides a single window for entrepreneurs and innovators. European Union’s Horizon 2020 reduced administrative delays and costs by implementing programmes via executive agencies.
Hence, it is necessary to streamline complex governance arrangements by clearly mapping the interdependencies to understand the type of co-operation channels and joint actions that would be useful to deal with particular challenges, requiring a nuanced and strategic approach to co-ordination, and calling for new skills, organisational capabilities and incentives in administration to promote and support cross-government co-ordination.
Efforts must also focus on building stronger interconnections between industrial and innovation strategies to set coherent priorities. For example, the current industrial strategy is undergoing a significant transformation, with a phased action plan being developed in collaboration with organisations such as Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), the main German development agency, and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). This approach aims to integrate innovation into industry, linking emerging strategies like Innovation 4.0 with traditional sectors such as textiles, energy and agri-food. By reforming governance structures, amending laws to allow better institutional autonomy, and by aligning industrial and innovation policies, Egypt can create a more cohesive and effective ecosystem that supports its broader vision of a knowledge-based economy.
South Africa’s example may provide insight into how Egypt can improve co-ordination, governance and collaboration within ministries, agencies and among stakeholders to achieve a whole-of-government approach to STI policy. The 2023 update of South Africa's Strategic Management Model (SMM) for its National Innovation System presents an enhanced framework designed to strengthen co-ordination, governance and collaboration between government bodies and key stakeholders (Box 7.3).
The 2023 revision of South Africa's Strategic Management Model for its National Innovation System introduced a refined framework to improve co-ordination, governance and collaboration across government and key stakeholders. It emphasises a whole-of-government approach, clearly defining roles for institutions like the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, and Innovation while addressing systemic challenges through cohesive strategies and integrated planning. By classifying STI activities and learning from past shortcomings, the model aims to streamline institutional frameworks, enhance resource alignment, and foster a more innovation-friendly environment that supports South Africa's developmental and economic goals.
Key features of the SMM
Enhanced co-ordination and governance
Establishes the Presidential STI Plenary as the macro-coordination body for a whole-of-government approach.
Clarifies roles for key institutions such as the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, and Innovation.
An integrated approach to national innovation
Promotes cohesion between government departments, science councils and other stakeholders.
Introduces a classification system for STI activities: cross-cutting, sector-specific, and critical technology services.
Learning from past challenges
Evaluates previous shortcomings, such as fragmented STI budget co-ordination, to refine current strategies.
Aligns priorities with South Africa’s broader developmental objectives.
Strengthened institutional framework
Advocates for better alignment of science councils across departments.
Encourages shared vision and resource pooling through initiatives like the Innovation and Skills Compact.
Future-oriented strategies
Focuses on fostering long-term research and global collaboration in emerging STI areas.
Introduces mechanisms to streamline procurement and support local innovation.
7.4.5. Establishment of a dedicated co-ordinating body
Effective STI co-ordination starts with strong government commitment and clear mechanisms to align policies across ministries and levels of government. Internationally, models vary: some countries centralise STI under a single ministry or agency, while others rely on research councils. Many have created high-level bodies, such as the US National Science and Technology Council, Korea’s Presidential Advisory Council, and the United Kingdom’s UKRI (UK Research and Investment), to ensure coherence and long-term planning (Paic and Viros, 2019[1]).
In Egypt, multiple ministries and agencies set innovation policies and strategies individually from one another. Multiple agencies within the same ministry have sets of goals and mandates that are challenging to co-ordinate, such as the three funding agencies under the MHESR – STDF, ASRT and ISF. This fragmentation highlights the need for a comprehensive, pan-governmental co-ordinating body to streamline collaboration and ensure alignment across all levels of government, ultimately fostering a more cohesive and effective innovation strategy.
These challenges in interministerial co-ordination have long been acknowledged, as outlined in the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research Strategy 4.0, where the SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis mentions that the “lack of co-ordination between different donors leads to recurrent funding for the same research points” and that the “lack of co-ordination between scientific research institutions leads to the repetition of research topics.”
In Egypt, multiple ministries and agencies develop innovation policies independently, and even within the MHESR, overlapping mandates among the STDF, ASRT and ISF create co-ordination challenges. This fragmentation underscores the need for a pan-governmental body to align strategies and streamline collaboration.
These issues are long-standing. MHESR’s Strategy 4.0 notes that poor co-ordination leads to duplicated funding and repeated research topics. Institutional complexity adds to the problem: numerous Supreme Councils with narrow mandates, while bodies like MTI-TICO operate separately from the national TICO network, resulting in overlapping functions and weak knowledge flows. This limits agility and cross-sector collaboration.
Internationally, many countries address these challenges through centralised oversight or strong co-ordinating agencies that align funding, set priorities and ensure efficient resource allocation. Egypt lacks such a mechanism. Strengthening the strategic role of existing agencies - – STDF, ASRT and ISF - – rather than creating new layers could improve coherence and responsiveness.
Recent steps, including the creation of the MCE and the NCERI, aim to unify efforts. However, their success will depend on clear authority, robust secretariats and sustained engagement. Past attempts, such as the High Committee for Science and Technology (established in 2006), struggled to maintain momentum, highlighting the difficulty of achieving sustained co-ordination.
7.4.6. National Council for Education, Research, and Innovation (NCERI)
In May 2024, the Council of Ministers approved the creation of the NCERI, affiliated with the president and chaired by the prime minister, with relevant ministers as members, as well as prominent experts and representatives of the private sector. In October 2024, the Egyptian Parliament approved Law No. 163 of 2024, which establishes the NCERI, which was ratified by President Abdel Fatah El-Sisi in December 2024. This initiative aims to address long-standing challenges in interministerial co-ordination and bridge the gap between strategies, proposed policies and their practical implementation. The decree outlines the council’s formation, objectives, and mode of operation (Smith, 2024[23]; El-Sayed, 2024[24]). This development could mark a significant step towards more effective governance in Egypt’s scientific and technological sectors.
Specifically, the NCERI will be responsible for co-ordinating policies and initiatives across Egypt’s education, research, and innovation sectors, advising the government on strategic matters, and proposing legislative changes to support national development. It aims to oversee the implementation of national strategies, monitor programme effectiveness, and promote collaboration between public and private institutions (Box 7.4).
The Council held its first meeting in May 2025, chaired by the prime minister, where members discussed the roll-out of the “Alliance and Development” initiative and emphasised its potential to link scientific research with national development goals through regional innovation alliances. Notably, the meeting also included a directive to draft a new national strategy for the development of education, scientific research, and innovation, raising concerns about the continued proliferation of overlapping strategies without a clear consolidation framework (State Information Service (SIS), 2025[25]).
In October 2024, the Egyptian Parliament approved the decree establishing the NCERI to strengthen integration across educational policies and align them with local and global workforce needs. Following national discussions, the council was established under the president's authority, with operational leadership by the prime minister.
Key functions and structure
Mission: The council's primary mission is to develop comprehensive, integrated policies for all educational stages and types, supervise their implementation and ensure alignment with Egypt’s strategic objectives and labour market demands.
Membership: Chaired by the prime minister, the council includes 11 ministers (e.g. education, higher education, finance, industry), Al-Azhar’s undersecretary, quality assurance leaders, and appointed experts and business leaders.
Objectives: The council is tasked with formulating national strategies, upgrading educational infrastructure, and establishing frameworks to support technical education, research and talent development.
Key policy functions
Developing strategic plans for education and innovation, co-ordinating with ministries and agencies.
Updating priorities across sectors and proposing reforms to improve the education system.
Enhancing technical education and training to boost employability and economic growth.
Creating frameworks for selecting education leaders and optimising research structures.
Promoting support for high-achieving students and building institutional capacity.
Governance and reporting
The council convenes quarterly, with decisions made by majority vote. Its technical secretariat, appointed by the prime minister, oversees policy implementation. Progress reports are submitted to the president every six months, ensuring transparency and accountability. Additionally, semi-annual reports from specialised councils ensure that all education and research institutions align with the council’s strategic goals. This model illustrates a robust, integrative governance framework designed to transform Egypt’s educational and research landscape in alignment with international standards and workforce needs.
Source: Ne’mat Allah (2024[26]).
While NCERI’s creation marks an important step, its success will depend on effective implementation and monitoring. As a new body, Egypt must closely track its performance to ensure real impact. The Council’s mandate should prioritise co-ordinating and monitoring the execution of existing STI strategies, to avoid duplicating priority-setting efforts. This will require a clear process, a national data and reporting framework, and alignment with the overarching STI strategy as the central reference point.
While the fact that NCERI is chaired by the prime minister gives it potential political weight, its real influence will depend on the consistent engagement of the prime minister and high-level leadership. International experience shows that without consistent high-level attention the Council’s impact is severely diminished.
A critical success factor for NCERI will be the creation of a well-equipped secretariat with robust policy analysis capabilities. This secretariat should be supported by a dedicated budget for strategic intelligence – including foresight studies, evaluations, and evidence syntheses – and maintain strong linkages to domestic think tanks such as the ASRT and the Institute of National Planning (INP). Collaborative production of analytical documents would ensure a solid evidence base for informed and co-ordinated decision-making during Council meetings (see Recommendation 3.4). Egypt may also draw inspiration from international good practices, such as the Research and Innovation Council of Finland (Box 7.5), which demonstrates the value of strong government backing, analytical capacity, and institutional continuity.
Background
Finland’s Research and Innovation Council (RIC) evolved from the Science and Technology Policy Council (STPC), which had overseen S&T policy since the 1960s. While the STPC primarily focused on horizontal collaboration within S&T sectors, the RIC was established to implement a more comprehensive innovation strategy. This strategy emphasised societal impact and the integration of stakeholders in decision making processes, marking a shift towards a broader and more inclusive national innovation framework.
Primary functions
The RIC creates a foundational S&T plan for various fields, considering the relationships between other policy areas. In addition to policy co-ordination, the RIC mediates legal issues involving the judiciary and directly manages researcher training programmes.
The RIC’s key functions include co-ordinating the S&T policymaking process and addressing primary issues in S&T, helping to construct an S&T policy system that encourages stakeholder participation. It also evaluates S&T policy programmes to assess their effectiveness and allocates special budgets to R&D projects. The Council supports international collaboration and addresses challenges related to internationalisation, such as language barriers.
Furthermore, it resolves legal conflicts among S&T organisations related to research, technology and education. It also develops and manages researcher training programmes, with guidance from universities, research institutes and science education committees.
Organisational structure
The membership of Finland's RIC is chaired by the president and includes 2 vice chairpersons, 7 cabinet ministers, 10 external experts, and 5 standing members from the administration, totalling 25 members. This group is larger than the S&T councils in Korea and Japan. Unlike in the United States, external experts are nominated by the president and come from diverse academic or industrial backgrounds.
The RIC is supported by several committees, including the Science Education Committee, which focuses on enhancing knowledge development within the S&T fields and training researchers, and the Technology Innovation Committee, which aims to improve the effectiveness of technology, promote innovation, and analyse the socio-economic impact of new S&T policies. These committees, along with subcommittees providing background research, assist the RIC in its decision-making process.
Source: Kang et al. (2019[27]).
In September 2024, Egypt established the MCE as a high-level co-ordination body to strengthen the start-up ecosystem and position entrepreneurship as a key driver of economic growth. The committee is chaired by the Minister of Planning and Economic Development and includes senior representatives from the MCIT, the MHESR, and the Ministries of Finance, Supply and Internal Trade, and Investment and Foreign Trade. It also brings in the CEO of the Small and Medium Enterprises Development Agency, the Central Bank of Egypt, the Financial Regulatory Authority, and other relevant institutions, ensuring a broad representation of economic and regulatory actors.
The MCE’s mandate is to align government policies and programmes that support start-ups, close funding gaps, attract foreign investment, and address regulatory barriers that hinder business growth. It also seeks to facilitate access to international markets and connect sectoral challenges with innovative solutions provided by new businesses. As part of Egypt’s 2024–2027 strategic plan, the committee is tasked with creating a more business-friendly environment, streamlining support services, and fostering an innovation-driven entrepreneurial culture that can accelerate job creation and competitiveness (Government of Egypt, 2024[28]).
While the MCE focuses on entrepreneurship and incubation, the NCERI addresses innovation from the perspective of research, education and commercialisation. The challenge ahead will be ensuring effective co-ordination between these two bodies to promote genuine co-creation between academia and industry, bridging the gap between research outputs and market needs.
This section addresses the critical issues of accountability and monitoring. Structured monitoring and evaluation (M&E) mechanisms exist in Egypt, and there is scope to enhance their systemic application and integration across government. To strengthen policy outcomes, efforts should prioritize optimizing the effectiveness of internal data collection and assessment.
Accountability is a crucial element in the governance of STI systems, particularly as public expenditure on these sectors increases. In OECD Member countries, the importance of regulatory impact analysis and value-for-money evaluations is growing, enabling ex ante evaluations of reforms to ensure that resources are used effectively. This emphasis on accountability extends to the performance of HEIs and public research organisations, with 68% of OECD Member countries establishing clear criteria and assessment protocols for evaluating these entities. Additionally, many countries have created specialised agencies to assess the performance of tertiary education and research institutions, while others rely on ministries to carry out this task (Paic and Viros, 2019[1]).
Continuous evaluation and improvement are key to this process, with major programmes operating in cycles of adoption, implementation, evaluation and adjustment. While evaluations based on prior programmes help identify areas for improvement, international experience shows the challenge lies in the difficulty of quantitatively measuring the impact of STI policies, often leading to evaluations based on qualitative or semi-quantitative analyses. This is broadly where Egypt stands at present.
Moreover, the impact of evaluation is limited by institutional barriers: recommendations are often not implemented, and policy decisions are frequently taken without due consideration of available evidence, including evaluation results.
Hence, STI systems should have: 1) an effective monitoring and evaluation mechanism for STI initiatives; 2) effective data collection; and 3) an oversight structure for monitoring and evaluation (M&E).
The M&E oversight structure should provide strategic leadership, co-ordination, and accountability for monitoring STI initiatives. It should include:
clear institutional anchoring, ideally within a high-level body such as NCERI or a dedicated interministerial committee
a technical secretariat or unit with expertise in data analysis, evaluation, and policy monitoring
defined roles and responsibilities across ministries and agencies to ensure systematic and timely data collection and reporting
mechanisms to review, validate, and synthesise data, assess progress against national STI goals, and identify implementation gaps
a structured reporting process, including regular (e.g. annual) progress reports shared with senior policymakers and stakeholders to support evidence-informed decision making
a mandate to ensure follow-up on recommendations and integration of findings into strategy updates and policy planning
links to national statistical and knowledge institutions (e.g. ASRT, INP, CAPMAS) to support high-quality evidence generation.
In Egypt, the insufficient integration of M&E constrains effective data collection, which in turn directly impedes the rigorous evaluation and assessment of policy impact and project success. This inability to fully measure progress remains a critical area that requires focused attention to strengthen long-term policy outcomes.
7.5.1. Systematic M&E and assessment mechanisms need to be built into policies, programmes and projects
Countries equip themselves with institutions and mechanisms capable of providing and using monitoring evidence for policy, administrative and statistical purposes in STI. Typically involving all major actors in the STI field, as well as organisations such as national statistical offices and ministries of finance, there is no single institutional governance model for fulfilling the range of evidence functions that inform STI policy decisions. To ensure reliable and independent reporting of statistical facts and effective policy-oriented use, OECD Member countries implement varying forms of functional division of “evidence”-building labour, supported by clear funding and co-ordination arrangements in ways that fit with their overarching institutional set-up and priorities. The existence of STI data gathering and analysis capabilities at the centre of science and innovation policy decision making is a key indicator of effective STI policy governance and an enabler of future STI system development.
In Egypt, while there are ongoing M&E efforts across the government - , such as the annual Economic and Social Performance Monitoring Reports published by the MPED, and policy evaluations conducted through the Egypt Impact Lab in partnership with J-PAL. MPED also operates two major digital systems supporting performance management: the ISIPPM, which links investment planning with the SDGs by tracking more than 10 000 development projects nationwide, and the National System for Monitoring and Evaluation (ADAA), which collects quarterly performance data from all state entities using more than 3 000 indicators aligned with the 17 SDGs. - While these systems represent significant progress in evidence-based policymaking, their focus remains primarily on investment execution and service delivery rather than on evaluating STI policies and outcomes. For example, although the ASRT conducts evaluations within its own programmes, its remit does not extend to cross-ministerial STI initiatives. Strengthening the integration of ADAA and ISIPPM with STI policy monitoring could therefore help Egypt develop a more systematic, cross-cutting evaluation framework to inform long-term innovation planning and policy learning (OECD, 2024[15]).
The MPED’s annual performance report is an important step toward institutionalising evidence-based planning. It provides a broad set of economic and social indicators and systematically tracks public investment and progress against national development goals. This is further reinforced by MPED's development of the Integrated System for Investment Plan Preparation and Monitoring (ISIPPM), an integrated electronic system that connects government units responsible for preparing and monitoring national, sectoral and spatial plans, links public investment proposals to Egypt Vision 2030 objectives and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and tracks implementation through both financial and in-kind project monitoring across all public entities. While the system is well-designed in its architecture, its contribution to evidence-based decision-making will ultimately depend on the consistency and quality of data entered by public entities, and on whether monitoring outputs are actively used to inform planning adjustments. More specifically, both the annual report and the wider monitoring framework tend to focus on outputs and targets rather than on policy effectiveness or innovation-specific outcomes. They do not yet incorporate forward-looking analysis or impact-oriented tools such as counterfactual assessments, cost-effectiveness reviews or feedback loops that enable adaptive learning. As a result, while they support macro-level monitoring and investment tracking, strengthening the analytical depth required to evaluate implementation quality and long-term impact remains an important area for development, a challenge that is not unique to MPED.
In Egypt, the need to strengthen data collection and monitoring mechanisms is widely recognised as a critical weakness in governance, as mentioned in various government reports and national strategies. This shows a clear need for improvement in Egypt's data collection mechanism. For instance, the National Innovation Policy by MHESR identifies a weakness in governance: gaps in the management, integration, implementation, monitoring, and impact assessment of STI policies.
Established under the ASRT in 2014, the Egyptian Science, Technology, and Innovation Observatory (ESTIO) plays a key role in Egypt’s STI evidence ecosystem as it is tasked with supporting decision makers in the assessment and management of STI activities in Egypt. Its specific objectives include providing decision makers with STI data for policy analysis, planning, funding and management purposes; producing STI indicators adopting international standards; monitoring STI policies; measuring the performance of research centres and universities; monitoring industrial needs of scientific research; and conducting specific S&T foresight exercises.
In collaboration with different organisations, including Egypt’s National Statistical Organisation (CAPMAS), ESTIO collects, analyses and reports data on various STI indicators, including R&D personnel, expenditures, patents and scientific publications. Through the regular publication of bulletins and reports, ESTIO offers valuable insights to researchers, policymakers and other stakeholders, promoting a data-driven culture in policy formulation. Following the request of Egypt’s authorities, its statistical functions and practices, which aim to follow OECD-recommended guidelines, have been the subject of a thorough assessment, capacity building and recommendation process described in OECD (2025[29]). The recommendations provide a roadmap for ESTIO to stabilise, consolidate, and strengthen its statistical evidence on R&D and innovation, drawing on the experiences of several OECD Member countries and partner economies that aim to compare their STI development trajectories with global peers. Moving forward, enhancing the capacity of CAPMAS and strengthening co-ordination between CAPMAS and ESTIO will be essential to ensure data consistency, quality and alignment with international standards.
In recent years, Egypt has taken promising first steps in the development of mechanisms to monitor and evaluate the impact of science-industry collaboration and innovation contributions of public research-performing organisations more broadly. The aim is to develop a dashboard for use in policymaking and by organisational leadership. Two notable examples are:
1. Evaluating the performance of research institutions in Egypt: In 2019, ASRT and ESTIO published a proposal for the development of a “mechanism to monitor and evaluate the performance of research institutions in Egypt with regard to scientific research, technology and innovation activities in their various stages, starting from the first exploration, basic research, applied research, through production models, and ending with the marketing of products through markets.” The study was conducted with a sample of 68 PRPs, including universities and research centres affiliated with various ministries. Nine assessment areas were piloted: strategic directions of the foundation; technology management; relationship with industry; scientific production; communication with external parties; management systems; human capital; infrastructure for scientific research; funding (ASRT and ESTIO, 2019[30]).
2. The Monitoring of Scientific Academia-Industry Cooperation (MOSAIC) initiative by the ISF. The first edition was implemented in the academic year 2022-2023. To stimulate participation, MOSAIC was organised as a competition with five pillars: human resources, infrastructure, market readiness, knowledge and technology outputs, and creative outputs. Participating organisations were encouraged to build teams to collect the data and engage with ISF during the data collection phase. A co-ordinator was overseeing the work and received access to institution-specific data (MOSAIC, 2022[31]). Ranking results are publicly available for universities and government research centres and can be sorted by seven regions (MOSAIC, 2023[32]).
These monitoring mechanisms collect quantitative data on inputs (e.g. funding, human resources, IP rights), activities, and outputs directly related to science-industry collaboration (see Chapter 4), and on the contributions of research to economic development. It is planned to repeat surveying of performance regularly as part of the ESTIO, and to further develop these in light of the publication of the KPIs of public research-performing organisations in a dashboard format, and to track firm-level technology adoption rates across industries. Egypt should continue these efforts and capitalise on international good practice (see Recommendation 5.2). For example, the NordForsk Impact Dashboard sets a benchmark for data-driven policymaking by combining transparency, impact assessment, and stakeholder engagement in a single, accessible platform (Box 7.6).
NordForsk is an organisation under the Nordic Council of Ministers dedicated to strengthening Nordic research through funding and facilitating co-operation among Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and the autonomous regions of the Faroe Islands, Greenland, and Åland Islands (NordForsk, 2025[33]). Its primary mission is to enhance the quality, impact, and efficiency of research. The Impact Dashboard of NordForsk is an interactive, publicly accessible tool designed to document, analyse, and communicate the results and effects of NordForsk-funded research activities across the Nordic region.
Updated annually, the dashboard collates data on funding, publications, policy impact, dissemination activities, and collaborations, presenting it in an interactive format for researchers, policymakers, and other stakeholders (NordForsk, 2025[34]). The data are from NordForsk’s research project portfolio and self-reported outcomes from funded projects. NordForsk collects both quantitative and qualitative data through its project-management system and the ResearchFish platform. Projects are required to report annually and upon completion, detailing activities, outputs, outcomes, and impacts. Some data points are automatically validated, and researchers can add qualitative descriptions or case studies to supplement quantitative metrics.
The types of indicators published include:
funding allocation and distribution across countries and institutions
research outputs (publications, patents, etc.)
collaboration patterns and networks
policy impact and dissemination activities
self-reported outcomes and impact narratives from projects.
The dashboard and underlying database are iteratively developed to enhance usability and data quality, addressing challenges such as harmonisation and reliance on self-reporting. The dashboard supports strategic planning by offering a clear overview of trends and patterns in research activities and outcomes. Institutions and funders can benchmark their performance against others in the region, guiding future investments and collaborative efforts (NordForsk, 2024[35]).
Measurement practices are key for disseminating a shared understanding of different types of innovation and a common language among R&D and innovation practitioners across the entire system. With the appropriate guidance, they can also help nurture a culture of record-keeping and trust that facilitates reporting processes and helps research and innovation advocates within firms, universities, and government institutes make a case for sound investment and constant improvement. In addition to technical recommendations, this work also provides several recommendations for all responsible authorities on how best to integrate data-gathering efforts in STI governance (Box 7.7).
The companion OECD technical report to this Innovation Policy Review (OECD, 2025[29]) calls on Egypt’s authorities with STI policy responsibilities and the Ministry of Finance to ensure adequate visibility of STI funding in the national budget by timely documenting the relevant items in the national budget used to fund R&D. This could be facilitated by consistent tagging of budgetary lines and relevant governmental financial transactions in this area, adopting OECD definitions.
Funding provisions and legislative frameworks for collecting and reporting official STI statistics should be aligned with Egypt’s STI policy aspirations, ensuring stability and fit for purpose. ASRT-ESTIO and other relevant bodies entrusted with data collection and reporting should have appropriate and predictable funding to conduct their statistical functions and authority to compel respondents to provide data. They should also be accountable for the use of these resources and provide the necessary confidentiality assurances.
ESTIO should continue working to consolidate its statistical reporting activities through appropriate and predictable dissemination mechanisms, especially accessible statistical releases and databases with the relevant metadata, providing, in particular, information on breaks in series from methodological changes. Effective data stewardship arrangements should be explored to maximise opportunities for secure STI microdata data usage and record linking. Adequate data infrastructures and appropriate interoperable standards should be used.
The report also argues that the MPED could incorporate R&D as part of its mandate to monitor and evaluate government capital expenditure, helping drive forward M&E of government R&D spending.
Finally, ASRT-ESTIO should consider regularly convening an STI data and evidence co-ordination group with a clear mandate to provide a basis for experience sharing, mutual learning and co-ordination while also informing data and evidence decisions. This group could play a much-needed advisory role in informing and assessing the monitoring of Egypt’s STI strategies and plans, as well as advise on how to address key evidence gaps.
Note: The OECD report produced under the aegis of the OECD-CSTP Working Party of National Experts on Science and Technology Indicators (OECD, 2015) also provides recommendations on the effective implementation of OECD guidance on collecting and reporting R&D and innovation statistics.
Source: OECD (2025[29]).
Despite ESTIO’s positive contributions, its impact on policy evaluation remains limited without a comprehensive M&E framework across all stages of implementation, with clear demarcation of responsibilities, which might be shared between institutions that own programmes and central evaluation functions. As in several other countries at similar stages of development, the concept of STI evaluation in Egypt is typically not associated with evaluating STI policies but with assessing the merits of actors within its system in relation to administrative decisions such as promotions and funding allocations. Egypt has, for example, placed significant focus on academic publishing incentives but significantly less on monitoring other outputs, inputs, and processes key to the good functioning of a science and innovation system. Such activities, including monitoring compliance with the rules governing the administration of STI policies and programmes, are increasingly data-intensive and an essential source of information about national systems.
The effective institutionalisation of policy evaluation requires clear accountability mechanisms for policy owners and capacity building, including further training and understanding of conceptual and practical differences and interdependencies between types of evidence and their policy use. Furthermore, an effective Egyptian STI information system has to serve the needs of its ultimate actors, which can be achieved through more efficient information processing to reduce burdens on firms, organisations and researchers, and providing meaningful information to them so that they can make well-informed decisions that result in a more efficient STI system.
Consistent with best practices in several OECD Member countries, all STI-focused ministries and agencies should have adequate M&E capabilities to fulfil their needs; however, they do not need to be all internally provided for. These units should prioritise addressing the root causes of data gaps rather than developing fragmented and visually appealing platforms that often lack sufficient resources for sustainable operation. As reported to the OECD policy review team, Ministry of Investment and Foreign Trade, in collaboration with GIZ Egypt, is updating the innovation strategy, developing a clear roadmap with action plan. Moreover, acknowledging that limitations related to availability of reliable data may delay achieving pre-set goals and supporting decision making, the Ministry of Investment is considering the establishment of a National Innovation Observatory to enable data-driven decision making in this area.
To ensure the effectiveness of the proposed National Innovation Observatory, it should focus on mapping innovation activity across sectors and regions, including both formal R&D and grassroots or informal innovation. It should also track the performance and needs of SMEs and industrial innovation clusters, collect firm-level and sector-specific innovation indicators - – particularly in manufacturing and trade-intensive sectors - – monitor technology adoption trends, workforce capabilities, and private-sector investment in innovation. Additionally, the observatory should facilitate stronger linkages between public R&D institutions and industry, using evidence to guide policy incentives and support mechanisms. Finally, its design and implementation should be carefully co-ordinated with existing structures such as ESTIO, to avoid duplication and ensure complementarity within Egypt’s broader STI data ecosystem.
7.5.2. The government is currently reforming legal instruments, funding mechanisms, policies, etc., to take evaluation and assessment into consideration
Egypt recognises the need to formulate and enhance robust mechanisms to monitor STI implementation. Recent reforms aim to address this. The State Planning Law No. 18 of 2022 sets forth a framework to drive sustainable economic growth in Egypt while introducing new obligations to align strategic policy priorities and programmes with Egypt Vision 2030 for the short, mid and long-term (OECD, 2024[15]). The Unified Budget Law (Law No. 6/2022) introduces performance-based budgeting, requiring entities, including universities, to report KPIs as a basis for funding by 2027/28. Amendments in 2024 extended the transition timeline and reinforced the need for functional structures to support programme and performance budgeting (see Box 7.8). These changes align with broader goals of transparency and accountability.
Complementing this, the Impact Lab (2022–2024) demonstrates good practice in evidence-based policymaking through Randomized Controlled Trials, capacity building and partnerships, and is being fully integrated into the National Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development (NIGSD) to ensure institutional continuity. However, its evaluations remain activity-focused with limited outcome tracking or cost-effectiveness analysis. Embedding feedback loops, impact dashboards and lessons-learned processes would enhance its role as a national learning tool.
Moreover, the MPED publishes the Economic and Social Performance Monitoring Report, which reviews and monitors economic and social performance with the aim of identifying achievements and evaluating the effectiveness of performance. The most recent 2022/2023 report offers a detailed, multi-dimensional assessment of Egypt’s macroeconomic conditions, sectoral trends, and developmental priorities. It comprehensively tracks key indicators like GDP growth, inflation, investment flows, and sector-specific contributions (e.g. tourism, ICT, and Suez Canal revenues), while also contextualising performance within global disruptions such as the Russia-Ukraine war. The report’s strength lies in its data-rich structure, comparative tables, and transparency in presenting both achievements and shortfalls.
Nonetheless, while the report is not intended as a forward-looking strategic monitoring document, it offers a strong starting point for developing one. Its breadth of macroeconomic and sectoral data provides a credible evidence base for more outcome-oriented evaluation, yet several features currently limit its use for forward planning: it focuses on descriptive performance reporting rather than analysing future scenarios, does not link observed outcomes to specific policy levers, and lacks a structured, outcome-based framework to assess the impact of government interventions (for example, in areas such as sectoral subsidies or labour policies). Building on such exercise could therefore help Egypt gradually evolve the report into a more forward-looking monitoring tool, capable of informing strategic policy adjustments and guiding adaptive responses to emerging economic challenges.
These developments signal a promising shift in Egypt’s approach to evaluation and evidence use, marked by growing institutional commitment, legislative reform, and continuous efforts for evaluation. While tools like the Impact Lab and performance-based budgeting frameworks lay important groundwork, the full potential of these mechanisms will only be realised through deeper integration of outcome-based evaluation, forward-looking planning, and strategic learning loops across all levels of government (see Recommendations 1.3 and 3).
The Unified Budget Law was enacted to enhance the efficiency and transparency of Egypt’s public financial management system.
Objectives
Flexibility in budget implementation: The law aims to provide sufficient flexibility in budget implementation, allowing financial allocations to be reused in subsequent years if circumstances prevent their expenditure during the accreditation year.
Performance-based budgeting: State agencies receive shares from the general budget based on their performance and the programmes they submit to the Ministry of Finance, ensuring that fiscal needs are met efficiently.
Enhanced financial oversight: The law mandates that all financial commitments, including expenses, contracts and agreements, must receive prior approval from the Ministry of Finance to prevent unauthorised financial burdens on the state treasury.
Key provisions
Budgetary controls: Tightens budgetary controls by requiring administrative entities to obtain approval from the Ministry of Finance before incurring any expenses or entering into financial agreements that could impact the state treasury.
M&E: Emphasises the development of monitoring systems that align with programme and performance budgeting, aiming for efficient and effective utilisation of state resources.
Public government debt: Introduces new definitions for “public government budget” and “public government debt”, ensuring comprehensive oversight of the state’s financial obligations.
Approval requirements: Administrative entities must obtain written approval from the Ministry of Finance for any regulations or decisions that impose financial burdens on the state treasury.
Source: Abul-Ezz, N. (2021[36]) and (El Abd, 2024[37]).
This section explores the challenges surrounding adaptability and priority setting, highlighting Egypt's need to define mission-oriented objectives, implement strategic foresight methodologies, and ensure that policies align with long-term national development goals. This analysis will critically evaluate and assess the current state of Egypt's STI governance, offering insights into how these key areas can be strengthened to foster a more effective and sustainable innovation system
Adaptability in STI governance is the ability to respond effectively and flexibly to a rapidly changing environment, ensuring that policies address the evolving needs of stakeholders and markets. This adaptability drives the transformation of innovative ideas into tangible impacts. It requires cutting-edge foresight mechanisms to establish clear strategic directions and set relevant priorities. Moreover, adaptability hinges on incorporating flexible, multi-stakeholder insights from across industries to ensure alignment with current and future demands.
OECD Member countries demonstrate adaptability through mission-oriented policies that tackle societal challenges while complementing traditional sectoral approaches. These policies are responsive to technological and societal shifts, allowing swift priority adjustments. In 2019, 91% of OECD Member countries adopted such policies, with 76% focusing on sustainable economies. Korea revises its Basic Plan annually, and Singapore frequently realigns sectoral priorities to emerging needs.
To be impactful, STI policies must stay aligned with changing market and research demands. This highlights the importance of foresight in setting dynamic, forward-looking priorities. Differentiating between sectoral and mission-oriented strategies enables governments to address societal challenges more effectively.
In Egypt, STI policies often prioritise traditional sectoral approaches over mission-oriented strategies that could address pressing societal challenges such as sustainability and digital transformation. Moreover, limited robust foresight mechanisms further exacerbates the problem, making it difficult to set forward-looking priorities that align with global shifts in innovation.
7.6.1. Defining mission-oriented objectives and policies and addressing directionality in policy building
Mission-oriented policies are strategic approaches designed to address grand societal challenges by mobilising resources, stakeholders, and innovation across sectors toward specific, measurable objectives. Unlike traditional sectoral policies that target individual industries, mission-oriented approaches cut across policy domains and disciplines, focusing on systemic issues such as climate neutrality in cities, decarbonisation of transport, or advanced health solutions (OECD, 2024[38]).
A defining feature of effective mission-oriented policy is the integration of strategic intelligence, foresight, data analysis, horizon scanning, and technology assessment, into every stage of policy building (OECD, 2025[39]). Strategic intelligence, understood as usable knowledge that helps policymakers understand the impacts of STI and anticipate future developments, can support governments in identifying opportunities and risks, setting priorities, and responding to evolving global dynamics. enables policymakers to identify opportunities and risks, prioritise missions, and adapt to rapidly changing global dynamics. As such, it serves as a critical resource across a range of policy areas, from mission-oriented policies to industry transformation policies and governance. (Robinson, 2025[40])
This positions missions as potentially more evidence-based strategies, grounded in more realistic assessments of resources and capacities. Early assessments of the European Union's Horizon Europe Missions suggest, however, that they have so far fallen short of fully enacting transformative change, with the key challenge being the transition from co-ordination platforms to integrated policy frameworks that mobilise a wide range of actors. (OECD, 2023[41]) Similarly, Korea’s hydrogen economy roadmap and Germany’s Energiewende rely on strong strategic intelligence capacities (through dedicated institutes and advisory bodies) to steer industrial transformation and align research with market needs. (OECD, 2025[42])
By embedding continuous learning, monitoring, and evaluation, strategic intelligence ensures directionality in policy, turning ambitious missions into actionable strategies grounded in realistic assessments of resources and capacities. In this way, mission-oriented policies not only drive systemic change and foster innovation ecosystems but also enhance competitiveness and resilience while advancing long-term societal goals.
7.6.2. Navigating a dual focus: Balancing traditional sectoral policies and mission-oriented strategies in Egypt Vision 2030
Egypt Vision 2030 demonstrates an intent to integrate mission-oriented strategies into its innovation framework. Under the "Human-Centred Development" principle, the Strategic Goal of creating a "Diversified, Knowledge-based, and Competitive Economy" aims to drive innovation through R&D, relying on an integrated system that connects educational and scientific institutions with economic sectors. However, the sub-goals within this framework are broad and reactive, attempting to address existing weaknesses rather than laying out a forward-looking, cohesive plan for achieving the vision’s ambitious objectives.
The updated Egypt Vision 2030 identifies seven “promising sectors” as key engines of growth under the strategic objective of Fostering Productivity, Diversity, and Value Added. These include agriculture, manufacturing and industry, construction and real estate, transport and logistics, tourism, ICT, and financial services. These sectors were selected based on their potential to promote inclusive growth, enhance private-sector engagement, strengthen inter-sectoral linkages, and generate both direct and indirect employment opportunities (MPEDIC, 2023[43]).
While these priorities support economic diversification, they focus primarily on reinforcing Egypt’s existing productive base rather than developing strategic, high-technology industries. For instance, Strategic Goal 4 promotes digital transformation and SME enhancement through technological solutions, while Strategic Goal 5 prioritises digital infrastructure and cybersecurity culture. Despite their complementary focus on digitalisation, neither goal articulates a clear industrial strategy to foster cutting-edge, innovation-intensive sectors such as biotechnology, advanced materials, AI, or renewable energy technologies, areas increasingly central to global competitiveness (MPEDIC, 2023[43]).
Consequently, innovation policies aligned with Egypt Vision 2030 remain modest in their ambitions, concentrating on improving research conditions, entrepreneurship training, and technology transfer. For example, the 2019 National Strategy for Science, Technology, and Innovation highlights the importance of innovative technologies but focuses largely on improving research conditions, offering entrepreneurship training and upgrading equipment (MHESR, 2019[44]). Similarly, the 2023 National Policy for Innovation emphasises linking research with business and promoting entrepreneurship but falls short in advancing research activities related to more sophisticated, cutting-edge technologies (MHESR, 2023[45]).
The Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research Strategy 4.0 acknowledges the importance of advanced technologies, emphasising the need for Egypt to align with the 4th Industrial Revolution and transition towards Society 5.0. The strategy highlights key areas such as AI, the Internet of Things, innovation, and robotics as essential drivers for this transformation. While certain research centres under MHESR, like the Egyptian Space Agency, are involved in innovative technology research, the strategy largely reiterates efforts to improve infrastructure. It falls short of presenting concrete achievements or a clear strategic direction for advancing research in these cutting-edge fields.
This dual focus– enhancing Egypt's current economic stage while adapting to technological advancements – highlights the need for a clearer distinction between traditional sectoral approaches and mission-oriented strategies. Egypt could consider adopting separate but complementary frameworks, similar to Korea’s dual-track model, where sectoral policies focus on upgrading existing industries and SME productivity, while mission-oriented strategies drive long-term investment in green technologies, digital infrastructure, and advanced manufacturing (Box 7.9).
Korea provides a useful example of how governments can balance traditional sectoral policies with mission-oriented innovation strategies. Through a dual-track approach, Korea continues to modernise its established industrial base – such as manufacturing, automotive, and electronics – while investing in long-term transformative missions. Under its Korean New Deal (2020) and 2050 Carbon Neutral Strategy, Korea channels public investment and co-ordination efforts toward missions in green mobility, digital infrastructure, clean energy, and advanced materials. These initiatives complement ongoing sectoral policies that enhance SME competitiveness, productivity, and technology adoption in existing industries.
This combined approach allows Korea to address short-term economic needs while steering innovation and R&D towards future-oriented, high-technology domains. Egypt could draw on such a model to design differentiated frameworks that support both the upgrading of current sectors and the emergence of new innovation-driven industries.
Source: Ministry of Science and ICT (2021[46]), (The Government of the Republic of Korea, 2020[47]).
Traditional sectoral policies can focus on improving efficiency in existing industries, addressing immediate economic needs, and leveraging incremental innovation to enhance productivity. Simultaneously, mission-oriented policies should prioritise long-term investments in high-tech sectors, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration and driving innovation ecosystems that align with global technological trends.
7.6.3. Foresight should be systematically and uniformly implemented at all levels of policy
Futures studies in Egypt gained momentum in the 1970s and 1980s through national and regional initiatives but lost strategic influence by the 1990s, becoming largely academic. Interest revived with the Egypt 2020 project and the 2005 UNDP Human Development Report, though impact remained limited.
Since 2019, foresight capacity has been revitalised under the Cabinet’s Information and Decision Support Centre, now supported by the prime minister. Recent initiatives, such as What If, Fekra Lebokra, and the 2025 Global Trends, Local Opportunities study, signal a shift toward institutionalising foresight in policymaking. However, there is a need to develop a genuine capacity for planning, underpinned by systematic data collection, adequate resource allocation and institutional acceptance of change. (Sywelem and Makhlouf, 2023[48]).
Foresight activities and forward-looking initiatives do exist in Egypt and have been implemented across various sectors. For instance, the ASRT has conducted a foresight exercise related to energy called “Foresighting for a better future: Applied to energy in Egypt” as part of the Egypt Leaps initiative, which was then evaluated in a study conducted at Nile University. The foresight exercise covers multiple themes related to the future of energy, including technological advancements, socio-cultural impacts, legal frameworks and urban development. Additionally, ASRT has undertaken studies on post-COVID futures in sectors such as education, scientific research, transportation, information technology, and energy. These efforts are supported by a dedicated sector within ASRT - – the Sector of Specialised Councils - – whose mandate includes conducting foresight studies and developing roadmaps for a wide range of economic and social sectors.
Egypt has already taken action toward integrating foresight into strategic planning, with various institutions adopting scenario analysis, future studies, and horizon-scanning tools. As these practices continue to expand, the next steps lies in strengthening coherence and coordination across sectors. By moving toward more standardized methodologies and a shared national foresight framework, Egypt can transform its currently diverse initiatives into a system that consistently informs long-term policy and development planning. Building on existing efforts in this way will help ensure that foresight becomes an embedded, systematic, and collaborative pillar of Egypt’s future-oriented governance.
Box 7.10 summarises the OECD’s suite of foresight methodologies and illustrates how each can be applied across a variety of policy contexts.
Foresight methodology encompasses a variety of techniques designed to anticipate and prepare for future challenges and opportunities. The OECD’s Strategic Foresight Unit plays a crucial role in supporting effective and resilient public policy through foresight. These methods enable organisations and individuals to systematically explore potential futures, make informed decisions and develop robust strategies to navigate uncertainty.
By employing these foresight methods, organisations can better anticipate future changes, mitigate risks and capitalise on emerging opportunities. This proactive approach to planning and strategy development is essential for navigating the complexities and uncertainties of the modern world.
Horizon scanning
Purpose: To systematically gather information about emerging trends, potential disruptions and early signs of significant developments.
Process: This involves monitoring a wide range of sources, including academic journals, news articles, patents and expert opinions. The goal is to identify weak signals that could indicate future changes.
Outcome: Helps organisations stay ahead of the curve by recognising and responding to new opportunities and threats early on.
Scenario planning
Purpose: To explore and prepare for multiple plausible future scenarios.
Process: This method involves identifying key uncertainties and driving forces and then developing a set of diverse scenarios that describe different ways the future might unfold. These scenarios are used to test strategies and make more resilient plans.
Outcome: Enables organisations to understand the range of possible futures and develop flexible strategies that can adapt to various outcomes.
Trend analysis
Purpose: To identify and analyse patterns and trends over time.
Process: This involves collecting data on various indicators (e.g. economic, social, technological) and analysing them to understand the direction and pace of change.
Outcome: Provides insights into long-term trends and helps in forecasting future developments based on historical data.
Backcasting
Purpose: To plan steps needed to achieve a desired future outcome.
Process: Starting with a vision of the future, this method works backwards to identify the necessary actions and milestones to reach that future. It is particularly useful for setting long-term goals and strategic planning.
Outcome: Helps organisations create a clear roadmap to achieve their future aspirations by identifying critical steps and potential obstacles.
Delphi Method
Purpose: To reach a consensus on future developments through expert opinion.
Process: This method involves multiple rounds of questionnaires sent to a panel of experts. After each round, the responses are summarised and shared with the panel, allowing experts to revise their views based on the feedback.
Outcome: Produces a well-rounded and informed consensus on future trends and developments, leveraging the collective intelligence of experts.
Roadmapping
Purpose: To create a visual representation of the steps needed to achieve a specific goal.
Process: This involves outlining the key milestones, resources and timelines required to reach a particular objective. Roadmaps are often used in technology and product development to align stakeholders and guide strategic initiatives.
Outcome: Provides a clear and actionable plan that outlines the path to achieving strategic goals, ensuring alignment and co-ordination among all involved parties.
Source: Weber and Giesecke (2020[49]), Stanford University (2025[50]) and OECD (2024[51]).
Some interviewees noted that Egypt Vision 2030 requires better integration of general foresight activities. While the strategy aligns Egypt’s objectives with the 2015 UN SDGs and Africa’s 2063 Sustainable Development Strategy, it still requires a comprehensive outlook and strategic foresight to further integrate and anticipate global trends, emerging technologies and geopolitical shifts that could influence Egypt’s developmental path – particularly the transition to a knowledge economy, where knowledge-intensive sectors would play an equally significant role alongside traditional sectors like extraction, agriculture and tourism.
Priority sectors seem to vary across strategic documents. While Egypt Vision 2030 prioritises knowledge-based industries and innovation including ICT, industrial deepening and value chains, the more recent Economic narrative document prioritises export-oriented manufacturing, agriculture, tourism, energy and ICT. Of these sectors, only ICT has explicitly a high-knowledge content. Currently, there seems to be a significant emphasis on modernising all traditional industries.
While Egypt’s AI Strategy (2025-2030) and the Digital Egypt Concept Paper present an ambitious and well-structured vision for digital transformation, they fall short of being truly foresight driven. Both strategies heavily emphasise infrastructure development, digital service expansion, and talent capacity building, but they often lack anticipatory planning for disruptive technological shifts and socio-economic risks. For instance, while the AI Strategy acknowledges generative AI and large models, it needs to outline adaptive policy mechanisms or future scenario planning to navigate rapid global AI evolution. Egypt has also introduced ethical AI measures, such as the Egyptian Charter for Responsible AI, which supports responsible deployment. However, these efforts do not fully substitute for anticipatory planning tools such as long-term modelling or scenario-based governance.
Similarly, the Digital Egypt paper outlines impressive achievements in upskilling and infrastructure, yet it overlooks potential bottlenecks in future digital labour markets or the risks of unequal digital access across governorates. Neither document robustly integrates long-term impact modelling, ethical risk forecasting, or cross-sectoral stress testing – elements essential for resilient digital futures. As a result, these strategies risk being reactive rather than proactive, and may struggle to remain relevant in a fast-evolving global digital landscape.
These examples illustrate the efforts of different parts of government to pursue different objectives: those of developing new, knowledge-driven sectors which have the capacity of propelling Egypt into the 21st century while preserving the labour-intensive sectors of the past in order to maintain employment. A true foresight exercise could help make those trade-offs explicit and help make the right decisions as to the resource allocation.
As part of recent government reforms, the INP is developing foresight activities as part of its Egypt Post-2025 initiative, which will play a key role in shaping the forthcoming Egypt Beyond 2025 strategy. Moreover, the MPED is currently trying to revitalise foresight methodologies across policies and strategies through international co-operation initiatives, such as those with the European Union and Japan.
7.6.4. Embedding foresight in policy making
In recent years, strategic foresight has become a crucial practice among OECD Member countries, enabling governments to navigate complex and volatile policy landscapes with greater agility and resilience. Defined as the practice of perceiving, making sense of, and acting upon emerging future trends, strategic foresight guides the formulation of robust and adaptable policies. It helps establish shared objectives reframe policy issues, detect emerging trends early, rigorously test existing policies, and foster innovation for improved outcomes (OECD, 2014[52]). A foresight system enables a country to anticipate emerging trends, identify potential challenges, and adapt its policies proactively, ensuring that strategic goals remain relevant and forward-thinking. The absence of such a system can result in outdated objectives that do not effectively address the evolving needs of the nation.
Korea systematically implements foresight measures every few years, allowing it to stay ahead of global changes and maintain a future-oriented approach in its national planning (Box 7.11).
Korea offers a strong institutional model for embedding foresight systematically into national STI policy planning. Its Basic Plan for Science and Technology - – mandated under the Framework Act on Science and Technology - – is the country’s highest-level STI strategic document. It is revised every five years and defines national STI policy directions, R&D investment priorities, and governance reforms.
A defining feature of Korea’s approach is that foresight is not a separate or ad hoc activity, but a formally integrated component of the Basic Plan’s formulation process. This is primarily carried out by the Korea Institute of S&T Evaluation and Planning through its Science and Technology Foresight Project, supported by the Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT). The foresight programme includes:
multi-year planning and periodic updates to reflect shifting global and domestic trends
expert-based Delphi surveys across multiple domains (science, technology, economy, society, and environment), involving hundreds of researchers, industry experts and policymakers
trend analysis and horizon scanning, identifying emerging technologies and socio-economic transformations
workshops and scenario exercises involving ministries, agencies, universities and private-sector representatives
direct alignment of foresight results with national missions and priority areas proposed in the Basic Plan.
The results are used to identify and refine strategic technologies, define thematic missions, and develop long-term R&D investment roadmaps. For example, the 4th Basic Plan (2018–2022) explicitly incorporated foresight results to prioritise 30 strategic technologies and design 12 pan-ministerial R&D programmes.
Foresight findings are also used beyond strategy formulation - – for mid-term policy reviews, budget planning, and evaluation - – ensuring a consistent future-oriented orientation in STI governance.
Crucially, Korea’s foresight system is institutionally anchored, with:
dedicated budget lines for foresight activities
regular policy linkages through MSIT and interministerial committees
legal and procedural integration via the Framework Act, which mandates periodic foresight as part of national STI planning.
Source: OECD (2023[53]).
Foresight is essential in the development of green technologies, as it allows nations to anticipate future environmental challenges and opportunities, ensuring sustainable practices are effectively implemented. By systematically analysing trends and potential scenarios, foresight activities enable policymakers to make informed decisions that drive innovation and address environmental issues proactively.
Malaysia serves as a compelling example of this approach. The country has launched strategic initiatives through the Malaysian Foresight Institute (myForesight), such as the Green Technology Foresight 2030 and the Green Technology Master Plan 2017-2030. These projects prioritise key technologies and set sustainable development goals across critical sectors, positioning Malaysia as a potential regional and further global leader in green technology and sustainable development (Box 7.12).
Malaysia has developed a robust and integrated approach to advancing green technology by combining long‑term foresight practices with national sustainability objectives. Central to this strategy are two institutions: the Malaysian Foresight Institute (MyForesight), which leads national foresight exercises, and the Malaysian Green Technology and Climate Change Corporation (MGTC), which drives the adoption and promotion of green technologies.
A cornerstone of Malaysia’s agenda is the Green Technology Master Plan (GTMP) 2017–2030. The GTMP sets a national vision for a low‑carbon, resource‑efficient economy and promotes sustainable practices across six priority sectors: energy, manufacturing, transport, buildings, waste, and water. It outlines strategic thrusts such as strengthening regulations, mobilising green finance, enhancing skills and expertise, and raising public awareness. Complementing this is the Green Technology Foresight 2030 (GTF 2030), which uses structured foresight methods to develop and assess scenarios for green technology development across nine key sectors. Through workshops and consultations, GTF 2030 identifies drivers of change and analyses uncertainties to support informed policymaking.
Malaysia’s foresight framework is built on several core methodologies. Horizon scanning and trend analysis help detect emerging technologies, environmental challenges, and market shifts, allowing Malaysia to anticipate needs and prioritise R&D. Scenario planning enables policymakers to explore diverse future pathways, assess their implications, and design adaptive strategies. Backcasting, used prominently in the GTMP, starts with a long‑term vision and identifies the steps required to reach it, translating strategic goals into concrete action plans. Stakeholder engagement is a defining feature of Malaysia’s approach. Government agencies, industry, academia, and civil society participate in foresight processes, ensuring broad ownership of policies. Public‑private partnerships strengthen innovation capacity, while investments in training, education, and awareness campaigns build national competencies and cultivate a culture of sustainability. Together, these elements position Malaysia to advance its green technology agenda and enhance long‑term environmental resilience.
Malaysia has developed a comprehensive approach to foresight and green technology development, integrating long-term strategic planning with sustainable development goals. Key institutions like the Malaysian Foresight Institute (MyForesight) and the Malaysian Green Technology and Climate Change Corporation (MGTC) play pivotal roles in these efforts.
Source: Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water (2017[54]), (Ajinomoto, 2025[55]) and (myForesight, 2013[56]).
Egypt has developed a strong four-tiered governance structure, with Egypt Vision 2030 providing strategic direction. However, its STI governance system faces persistent challenges, including fragmented funding, weak interministerial co-ordination, implementation gaps, and insufficient linkage between industrial policy and innovation – issues that limit the impact of increased R&D spending and require strengthened policy evaluation and foresight mechanisms to align with national priorities. Table 7.4 summarises the main achievements and challenges in STI governance in Egypt and serves as the basis for the recommendations in Chapter 1.
References
[36] Abul-Ezz, N. (2021), Egypt new financial law: Tightening budgetary controls, https://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/50/1202/418354/AlAhram-Weekly/Economy/Egypt-new-financial-law-Tightening-budgetary-contr.aspx.
[55] Ajinomoto (2025), Green Technology in Malaysia, https://www.ajinomoto.com.my/asv/commitment-to-global-sustainable-development/green-technology-in-malaysia.
[6] ASRT (2025), Academy of Scientific Research and Technology (ASRT), http://www.asrt.sci.eg.
[30] ASRT and ESTIO (2019), Evaluating the Performance of Research Institutions in Egypt, Document provided to OECD.
[14] Cairo Climate Talks (2024), Cairo Climate Talks, https://www.cairoclimatetalks.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/ICTI.pdf.
[49] Carayannis, E. (ed.) (2020), Foresight, Springer, Cham., https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15347-6_200031.
[12] CREACT4MED (2021), Industrial Modernisation Centre, https://platform.creativemediterranean.org/startup/industrial-modernisation-centre-2/.
[37] El Abd, H. (2024), Egypt implements new amendments to the Unified Public Finance Law, https://www.mondaq.com/government-policy-public-finance/1451060/egypt-implements-new-amendments-to-the-unified-public-finance-law.
[24] El-Sayed, M. (2024), “New developments in Egyptian education policy: The NCERI’s impact”, Al-Ahram Weekly.
[11] EU|BIC (2026), EBN | Innovation Network 2026, https://ebn.eu/.
[28] Government of Egypt (2024), Madbouly Instructs Creation of New Entrepreneurship-Centered Ministerial Group, https://sis.gov.eg/Story/194759/Madbouly-Instructs-Creation-of-New-Entrepreneurship-Centered-Ministerial-Group?lang=en-us.
[13] IAD (2026), Industrial Development Authority, https://www.ida.gov.eg/ar/about.
[8] ISF (2025), Innovators Support Fund (ISF), https://darpe.me/aid-entries/innovators-support-fund-isf.
[9] ITIDA (2025), Information Technology Industry Development Agency (ITIDA), https://itida.gov.eg/English/Pages/default.aspx.
[27] Kang, D. et al. (2019), “Comparing National Innovation System among the USA, Japan, and Finland to Improve Korean Deliberation Organization for National Science and Technology Policy”, Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, Vol. 5/4, https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc5040082.
[21] Mazawi, A. (2005), “Contrasting perspectives on higher education governance in the Arab states”, in Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Springer.
[45] MHESR (2023), Draft of the National Policy for Sustainable Innovation 2030.
[44] MHESR (2019), National Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation 2030, Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research.
[54] Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water (2017), Green Technology Master Plan Malaysia 2017-2030, https://www.pmo.gov.my/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Green-Technology-Master-Plan-Malaysia-2017-2030.pdf.
[46] Ministry of Science and ICT (2021), Digital New Deal Harness the Winds of Change, Bringing Innovation! (July 22), https://www.korea.net/Government/Briefing-Room/Press-Releases/view?articleId=5912&type=O&utm_.
[32] MOSAIC (2023), List of universities and government research centres, https://mosaic.isf.org.eg/results?type=1 (accessed on 3 April 2025).
[31] MOSAIC (2022), About MOSAIC Monitoring of Scientific Academy - Industry Cooperation, https://mosaic.isf.org.eg/ (accessed on 3 April 2025).
[20] MPEDIC (2025), Minister of Planning, Economic Development and International Cooperation Reviews Egypt’s Economic Reform Progress During Meeting with S&P Global Ratings Delegation, https://mped.gov.eg/singlenews?id=6543&lang=en.
[43] MPEDIC (2023), The National Agenda for Sustainable Development: Egypt’s Updated Vision 2030, https://mped.gov.eg/Files/Egypt_Vision_2030_EnglishDigitalUse.pdf.
[56] myForesight (2013), Green Technology Foresight 2030 (GTF 2030), https://www.myforesight.my/green-technology-foresight-2030-gtf-2030/.
[26] Ne’mat Allah, W. (2024), The text of the draft law establishing the National Council for Education and Research after the approval of the “Representatives”, https://www.elwatannews.com/news/details/7619805.
[19] Nesta (2019), Understanding Egypt’s Innovation System.
[33] NordForsk (2025), About NordForsk, https://www.nordforsk.org/about (accessed on 27 June 2025).
[34] NordForsk (2025), Impact Dashboard, https://www.nordforsk.org/impact-dashboard (accessed on 27 June 2025).
[35] NordForsk (2024), NordForsk Impact Report 2024, https://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1867348/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed on 27 June 2025).
[42] OECD (2025), “Challenges and opportunities of mission-oriented innovation policy in Korea”, Vol. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers/No. 172, https://doi.org/10.1787/d725304c-en.
[39] OECD (2025), OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2025: Driving Change in a Shifting Landscape, https://doi.org/10.1787/5fe57b90-en.
[29] OECD (2025), “OECD support towards STI statistical capability development in Egypt: Assessment and main recommendations”, STI Policy Paper, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/718e4664-en.
[3] OECD (2024), Declaration on Transformative Science, Technology and Innovation Policies for a Sustainable and Inclusive Future, OECD Legal Instruments, OECD/LEGAL/0501, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0501.
[38] OECD (2024), Mission-Oriented Innovation Policies for Net Zero: How Can Countries Implement Missions to Achieve Climate Targets?, https://doi.org/10.1787/5efdbc5c-en.
[18] OECD (2024), OECD Artificial Intelligence Review of Egypt, https://doi.org/10.1787/2a282726-en.
[15] OECD (2024), OECD Public Governance Reviews: Egypt: Strengthening the Foundations for More Efficient and Effective Public Governance Reforms, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/d5a42670-en.
[17] OECD (2024), OECD Public Governance Reviews: Egypt: Strengthening the Foundations for More Efficient and Effective Public Governance Reforms, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d5a42670-en.
[16] OECD (2024), OECD Public Governance Reviews: Egypt: Strengthening the Foundations for More Efficient and Effective Public Governance Reforms, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d5a42670-en.
[51] OECD (2024), Strategic Foresight, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/strategic-foresight.html (accessed on 3 March 2025).
[53] OECD (2023), OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: Korea 2023, https://doi.org/10.1787/bdcf9685-en.
[41] OECD (2023), OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2023: Enabling Transitions in Times of Disruption, https://doi.org/10.1787/0b55736e-en.
[52] OECD (2014), 2014 Ministerial Council Statement, C/MIN(2014)15/FINAL, https://one.oecd.org/document/C/MIN(2014)15/FINAL/en/pdf.
[4] OECD (2005), Governance of Innovation Systems: Volume 3: Case Studies in Cross-Sectoral Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264035720-en.
[2] OECD (1997), National Innovation Systems, OECD publishing.
[1] Paic, A. and C. Viros (2019), “Governance of science and technology policies”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 84, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/2b3bc558-en.
[40] Robinson, D. (2025), “Strategic intelligence tools for emerging technology governance: A policy primer”, Vol. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers/No. 2025/22, https://doi.org/10.1787/02c05775-en.
[5] Said, M. (2017), Higher Education Systems and Institutes, Egpyt, Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1_447-1.
[22] Science and Innovation Department, Republic of South Africa (2023), The Strategic Management Model for South Africa’s National System of Innovation, https://www.dsti.gov.za/index.php/documents/policies/123-strategic-management-model/file.
[23] Smith, J. (2024), “The role of the National Council for Education, Research, and Innovation in Egypt”, Journal of Middle Eastern Policy, Vol. 12/3, pp. 45-58.
[50] Stanford University (2025), “Methods”, Stanford | Foresight, https://foresight.stanford.edu/methods (accessed on 3 March 2025).
[25] State Information Service (SIS) (2025), PM Chairs 1st Meeting of National Council for Education and Innovation, https://www.sis.gov.eg/Story/208540/PM-Chairs-1st-Meeting-of-National-Council-For--Education%2c-Innovation?lang=en-us.
[7] STDF (2022), Science & Technology Development Fund (STDF), https://www.asu.edu.eg/226/page/science-technology-development-fund-stdf.
[48] Sywelem, M. and A. Makhlouf (2023), “Common challenges of strategic planning for higher education in Egypt”, American Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 11/6, pp. 430-439, https://doi.org/10.12691/education-11-6-12.
[47] The Government of the Republic of Korea (2020), 2050 Carbon Neutral Strategy of the Republic of Korea; towards a sustainable and green society, https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/LTS1_RKorea.pdf.
[10] TIEC (2025), Technology Innovation and Entrepreneurship Center (TIEC), https://ebn.eu/member/technology-innovation-and-entrepreneurship-center/.