There is no doubt that the quality of human capital contributes significantly to the innovative capacity of a society, and the difference in rankings of individual countries in terms of their innovativeness and the quality of human capital illustrates how much the latter can contribute to the progress of each society.

It should be noted that the quality of human capital is indicated primarily by the level of education of the population, which is measurable but does not automatically respond to the actual quality of human capital. The scope and quality of knowledge are undoubtedly important, but the actual innovativeness is influenced also by many other factors, such as the absorptive capacity of the market, as well as government policy measures. It is precisely in these two areas that the differences between individual countries are very large.

The big table below provides information on the ranking of the top 80 countries according to the Global Innovation Index 2025, and the second column offers the rankings of countries by their human capital. This shows us how much the quality of the human capital contributes to the innovation ranking of a country.

Among the top 42 countries, that gap between the two rankings averages 7.5 points. In the table below, however, we can see the actual ranking of these countries according to the size of the mentioned differences:

image host

As we can see, half of the countries covered have a small range, i.e., up to 5 points; the other half, i.e., 21 countries, record a higher difference: 8 countries between 6 and 9 points, and 13 countries record a difference between 6 and 27 points.

It is logical and expected that more developed countries tend to rank higher in terms of human capital than in terms of innovation. Less developed countries, on the other hand, have the opposite ratio. This, of course, does not mean that the latter are so much more efficient in innovation, but above all, that they do not have a sufficiently developed innovation ecosystem—which is decisive.

We compared the rankings of countries according to the Global Innovation Index 2025 by innovation results and by the value of human capital—measured by the education of the population.

Interestingly, from 80 of the 139 countries ranked, we found only 28 countries where the human capital ranking was more favorable than the overall innovation ranking, while in 52 countries the situation was reversed.

Let's see which are the countries having an advantage in human capital. These are Australia, Austria, Germany, Brazil, the UAE, Slovenia, Greece, Turkey, Singapore, Portugal, Colombia, Iran, Oman, Montenegro, New Zealand, Korea, Canada, Belgium, Finland, Hungary, Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Iran, Oman, Qatar, Ukraine, and Russia. We have listed these countries, which are found between the 4th and 71st positions in the GII 2025 rankings. This shows that they have little in common—including their ranking in terms of innovation performance. The fact remains, however, that these countries, provided they are able to increase financial support for innovation activity, could make significant breakthroughs and increase their international competitiveness.

Ranking of the top 80 countries according to the Global Innovation Index 2025

image host

Source: Global Innovation Index 2025, International Intellectual Property Institute, Geneva, 2025.

The largest difference between the two rankings in favor of human capital has been found for Russia, Peru, Germany, Canada, Argentina, the UAE, Austria, Australia, Greece, Portugal, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.

However, the largest difference in favor of ranking in terms of actual innovation is China, India, Mexico, Mongolia, Uruguay, Thailand, Malaysia, Armenia, South Africa, Morocco, Jordan, Albania, Tunisia, Bahrain, Seychelles, Cyprus, Iceland, Malta, Costa Rica, Estonia, Lithuania, and Romania.

It is important to identify the main factors influencing the development of human capital, i.e., its contribution to the country's innovativeness. We estimate that these are mainly the following factors:

  • Quality of the education system.

  • Interest of companies for educated personnel.

  • The impact of government policy and its instruments on the innovative performance of citizens.

As we know, there are serious challenges in the development of the education system in most countries around the world. Governments simply do not understand sufficiently the broader implications of significant changes in recent decades for the field of education. Unfortunately, this is also true for most teachers and professors. In the era of intensive computerization, lifelong learning, and the introduction of artificial intelligence, the education of young people must also be adapted to these changes. Above all, the relationship between teaching and training young people for independent learning and study needs to change. In particular, a university professor is no longer just a teacher but increasingly a mentor and advisor to students in their studies. This remains a serious challenge for both sides, which are too slow to adapt to the new circumstances.

It is also very important how the labor market works, or what managers in companies and various institutions expect from their educated staff. If they only want diligent and disciplined workers and do not expect creative and critical professionals, this sends a bad message to prospective co-workers who have—at least to some extent—studied to be creative and critically thinking co-workers with their future employer. It is a change in the culture in the work environment, which is not being implemented quickly enough and reduces young professionals to classic wage workers instead of encouraging them to be creative and proactively use the knowledge gained through their studies.

This can be changed mainly through additional education, i.e., functional training of managers—actually offered by specialized consulting organizations with appropriate courses, which usually give the expected results.

Governments can also influence the challenges described above by proactively supporting lifelong learning and functional training of management staff. Especially in more developed countries, governments are well aware of this and are actively contributing to overcoming these weaknesses in the economy and social activities. The positive experiences of the 5 Nordic countries, Switzerland, Singapore, Canada, and Australia prove what can be achieved, and this should be an encouragement to all interested countries.