Competitiveness, innovation and enterprise performance
|
|
- Caitlin Daniels
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Competitiveness, innovation and enterprise performance A selection of graphs and tables from the Competitiveness Report, the Innovation Scoreboard and the Enterprise Scoreboard 21 edition
2 Competitiveness, innovation and enterprise performance A selection of graphs and tables from the Competitiveness Report, the Innovation Scoreboard and the Enterprise Scoreboard. 21 edition The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Commission. Table of Contents Foreword by Commissioner E. Liikanen PART A: 21 Competitiveness Report... 7 PART B: 21 Innovation Scoreboard Information on the 21 Competitiveness Report and the Enterprise Scoreboard is available at or contact European Commission, Enterprise Directorate-General, Information and Communication Unit, Documentation Centre Rue de la Loi / Wetstraat 2 (SC15-/51), B-149 Brussels, Belgium PART C: 21 Enterprise Scoreboard List of tables and graphs... 1 Fax (32-2) ENTR-COMPETIT-BENCHMARKG@cec.eu.int Information on the Innovation Scoreboard is available at or contact European Commission, Enterprise Directorate-General, Innovation Directorate, Communication and Awareness Unit, EUFO 2295, Rue Alcide de Gasperi, L-292 Luxembourg Fax (352) innovation@cec.eu.int European Communities, 21 Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged. Thanks are due to Mr. R. Barron for the cover image of Europe, by Heinrich Bünting (1581). The material in this publication is taken from the following Commission Staff Working Papers. Full details on data sources and related information can be found there. > The European Competitiveness Report 21, SEC (21) 175, 29 October; > The 21 Innovation Scoreboard, SEC (21) 1414, 14 September; and > Benchmarking Enterprise Policy, Results from the 21 Scoreboard, SEC (21) 19, 21 November. 2 3
3 Foreword by Erkki Liikanen, Commissioner for Enterprise and the Information Society The present publication brings together a selection of indicators from three recent Commission documents prepared in the Enterprise DG: the European Competitiveness Report, the Innovation Scoreboard and the Enterprise Policy Scoreboard (Benchmarking Enterprise Policy). The data give an overview of some key determinants that constitute the foundations of Europe s productivity and entrepreneurial performance in the advent of the new century. The 21 European Competitiveness Report is the fifth issue since the 1994 Industry Council Resolution that led to its inception. The Innovation Scoreboard and the Enterprise Scoreboard originate directly in the Lisbon mandate to develop an open method of coordination and to build on best practices as a means to converging towards the principal EU objectives set out in the Lisbon European Council of March 2. The focus of the 21 European Competitiveness Report is on the role of information and communications technologies (ICT), and innovation in productivity and economic growth. During the second half of the 199s, the EU has not performed particularly well when compared to our international partners, especially the US. The Lisbon European Council recognized the long-term implications of this under-performance should it not be urgently reversed. The Competitiveness Report suggests that the introduction and diffusion of new technologies can play an important role in the growth of the standards of living in the EU. The Report also reviews the performance of European biotechnology as a special case of innovation. The Commission has already recognized the great importance of biotechnology. A Communication setting out the Community framework of action in this vital sector is under preparation. 4 5
4 Europe s competitiveness is closely linked with and reflects its position in innovation and entrepreneurship. It is essential that the dynamism of both fields be strengthened. While we do just as well in some innovation indicators as the US, and some Member States do even better, there remains considerable ground to bridge to achieve the overall dynamism characterising our main trading partner. Even more important, there is a diversity of performance across the Member States and the dispersion around the EU average is considerable. The message of the indicators is clear: It is essential that efforts be directed towards understanding the factors that contribute to best performance and that Member States take advantage of the opportunities offered within the European dialogue to learn from best practices. Improving the climate of entrepreneurship through administrative and other structural reforms and directing policies towards the best practices in the EU, as well as encouraging innovation and realizing its economic value, must become priorities in the policy agenda. The data and indicators presented here involve commitment and work on the part of both the Commission and of the Member States. Let me take this opportunity to express my appreciation to all that have participated in these projects. Erkki Liikanen PART A: 21 Competitiveness Report Economic growth and the standards of living in the EU Though for the EU the second half of the 199s proved to be a better period in terms of employment and GDP growth than the first half, the gap in GDP per capita relative to the US widened throughout the decade. Moreover, in terms of labour productivity the EU catch-up with the US came to a halt in the middle of the decade and the gap has since then widened. Naturally, the overall EU performance hides a mix of good and disappointing performances among Member States. In the second half of the 199s, Ireland, Luxembourg and Finland recorded the highest rates of GDP growth while scoring very high both in terms of employment growth and labour productivity growth. At the other end of the spectrum, Germany recorded the lowest GDP growth rate resulting from below average growth of employment and of labour productivity. Empirical evidence indicates that roughly two-thirds of the gap in EU GDP per capita relative to the US can be attributed to a lower labour utilisation while a lower average labour productivity accounts for the remaining third. 1 During the second half of the 199s, employment performance varied across the Member States with Ireland, Spain, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Finland recording employment growth significantly higher than the EU average and the US while in all the remaining Member States employment growth fell short of the US performance. Productivity growth in Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Finland and Greece was higher than in the US and considerably above the EU average. 1 Estimates for 1998, see European Commission (2): Economic Growth in the EU: Is a New Pattern Emerging? Chapter 3 in the EU Economy 2 Review, European Economy, n
5 Growth in labour productivity can in turn be attributed to capital deepening (changes in the capital/labour ratio) and technical progress, as measured by total factor productivity. In the second half of the 199s, both components of labour productivity growth improved more in the US than in the EU. Furthermore, while historically the contribution of capital deepening to labour productivity growth has been substantially greater in the EU than in the US, in the second half of the 199s this relationship was reversed. A sustained improvement in standards of living, the ultimate goal of economic policy, requires substantive progress in production efficiency brought about by improvements in the stock of capital, in the form of new investment, and by technological progress. In other words, the economy must realise high growth in productivity. For this reason, understanding the forces supporting technological progress and productivity growth is crucial for guiding policy towards achieving the ultimate objective of economic policy. Table 1: GDP per capita in EU Member States, US and Japan in 21 (US=1) Luxembourg 127 Ireland 8 Denmark 78 Netherlands 77 Belgium 73 Austria 71 Finland 68 Germany 68 United Kingdom 67 Italy 66 Sweden 66 France 64 Spain 53 Portugal 48 Greece 45 EU United States 1 Japan 71 Graph 1: GDP per capita: widening gap vis-à-vis the US 85 Graph 2: Although increasing, EU employment rate far below US level 85 GDP per capita at current market prices and PPS: USA= EU 15 Japan EU 15 US Japan total employment % of population 15 to 64 years
6 GDP at current market prices and PPS / total employment: USA=1 Graph 3: Labour productivity in the EU falls further compared to Japan Table 2: Employment and labour productivity growth, Labour productivity growth EU 15 Japan Employment growth Close < average > average to average < average Italy Spain Close to average > average Germany Japan Greece Portugal Austria Belgium UK Denmark France US Sweden Netherlands Ireland Finland Luxembourg Note: On both axes, countries are compared to the average annual growth rate in EU-15 in Total employment growth in the Member States ranged from.4 per cent to 5.1 per cent p.a. The category close to average includes countries with a growth rate of ±.4 p.p. around the EU average of 1.2 per cent. Labour productivity growth ranged from.9 per cent to 3.9 per cent p.a. among the Member States. The category close to average includes countries with a growth rate of ±.3 p.p. around the EU average of 1.3 per cent. ICT and their contribution to productivity and economic growth An important common characteristic across the US economy and the EU nations whose economic performance compares favourably with that of the US is the pervasive use of information and communication technologies (ICT). The resurgence of productivity growth in the US in recent years has been attributed to the adoption and diffusion of new technologies and to the accelerating pace of product and process innovations. In particular, the diffusion of ICT has been fundamental. These technologies now permeate a wide and ever-increasing set of activities in economic life. ICT can be seen both as innovation per se and due to their general purpose character as vehicles in the diffusion and the achievement of further innovation in other sectors and fields. As an example, many of the recent advances in the field of biotechnology and telecommunications would not have been possible were it not for the remarkable developments in computational speed and capacity. The importance of ICT in the recent economic growth and productivity performance in the US and in some EU Member States has two aspects. First, the ICT-producing sectors, where spectacular technological advances have taken place, have directly contributed to increases in productivity and economic growth. Clearly, if this was the only route through which ICT benefits economic performance, then only those countries with important ICT-producing sectors could be expected to reap the associated benefits. However, the evidence suggests that the impact of ICT is not limited to the producing sectors alone but, as ICT is diffused throughout the economy, its impact becomes particularly evident in ICT-using sectors. The latter are, of course, present in virtually all facets of economic life. It is the general-purpose character of these technologies that makes it possible for other sectors using them to experience and benefit from significant improvements in productivity. As a result, the magnitude of ICT expenditure and investment in a nation may be more important for growth performance than the size of the corresponding ICT-producing sector. This is undoubtedly an important 1 11
7 message since it implies that a low level of technology production in a nation may not necessarily inhibit productivity growth as long as the diffusion of new technologies is widespread and their take-up is efficient. In other words, nations that have virtually no production of ICT goods could still benefit substantially by adopting ICT innovations. The growing consensus that the strong growth and productivity performance in the US is related to increased investment and diffusion of ICT goods and services has raised concerns that the weaker economic performance of EU Member States is caused by sluggishness in the adoption of these new technologies. Recent empirical studies have estimated the contribution of ICT to aggregate economic growth. In the US, ICT investment accounts for.8 to 1 percentage point of output growth in the second half of the 199s. Estimates for European countries generally indicate a lower contribution of ICT to output growth. On average, about.4 to.5 percentage points of output growth in Europe can be attributed to ICT. Compared to the US, Europe would appear to forego.3 to.5 percentage points of economic growth due to lower levels of investment in ICT. The ICT spending gap between the EU and the US persisted throughout the 199s, even though in both regions ICT expenditure increased. With regard to ICT investment in the business sector, the gap vis-à-vis the US is even larger. In 1999, US business investment in ICT as a percentage of GDP was almost twice the European level of 2.4 per cent. Nevertheless, it should be noted that ICT spending in the EU Member States varies considerably. The UK and Sweden have already surpassed the US, and the Netherlands, Denmark and Ireland have drawn close to it, but some of the larger countries have performed less well. The experience of the US but also of the smaller European nations that have successfully adopted ICT across economic activities suggests that a variety of complementary policies are necessary in order to reap the benefits of these technologies. The role of government policies has been important: these countries appreciated early the importance of ICT and acted decisively to remove obstacles that could inhibit their introduction and use. An overriding priority in these countries appears to have been a commitment to a comprehensive strategy to facilitate the adoption of new 12 technologies. They tackled issues such as upgrading labour force skills, encouraging the mobility of scientific and technical personnel across sectors and the modernisation of the regulatory framework, strengthening the interdependencies characterising the technology and innovation systems and made an explicit commitment to do things better. The early liberalisation of the telecommunications sector undoubtedly contributed to this process. Such measures made it easier for firms to adjust and adopt new organisational models and to modify their strategies to take advantage of the new technologies. Finally, it is possible that the completion of the single market, with the intensification of competition, contributed to the understanding that smaller EU Member States had more to gain from economies of scale in a wider European market, and this could well have strengthened the commitment to develop strategies aimed at taking full advantage of ICT technologies in the Internal Market for example though electronic commerce. It is possible that country size matters substantially more than many economists and policy makers would a priori assume, a possibility that has implications for the design of policies at regional level. Growth in biotechnology, as shown in the Competitiveness Report, also provides examples consistent with this possibility. One of the critical findings of the OECD Growth Project is that improvements in the quality of labour are essential ingredients of medium-term economic growth. Yet, in recent years skill shortages in important technology areas have been reported in several European countries. At the root of this development has been the diffusion of ICT technologies coinciding with the liberalisation of telecommunication sectors and the expansion of the Internet and of new media. It appears that, unlike in previous years, when the long-term trend increase in the demand for skills was met by the supply of technology professionals from the educational system, the surge in demand for ICT-related skills in the 199s found no corresponding supply forthcoming. While the recent crisis in the valuation of Internet stocks may be taken to imply that the demand for ICT skills is falling off, this may be misleading. The medium-term demand for ICT skills will continue to be high as the European Union moves towards its goal, set at the Lisbon summit in March 2, of becoming the world s most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy by 21. It is essential, therefore, to ensure that skill shortages do not become obstacles to European growth. 13
8 Graph 4: EU ICT expenditure as percent of US expenditure Table 3: ICT contribution to growth in the EU (percentage points) 95 9 Daveri (21) Daveri (21) European Commission (2) Daveri (21) European Commission (2) Graph 5: Growth rate of ICT expenditure and level of ICT share in GDP 16 Annual growth rate of ICT ( ) GR 14 P 12 1 IRL 8 FIN J US 6 EU NL UK B DK 4 A F I D 2 E S Level of ICT/GDP (1999) Belgium,48,48,35,49,6 Denmark,52,42,22,65,38 Germany(*),49,54,25,45,41 Greece,34,25,12,46,21 Spain,36,38,19,34,39 France,41,4,24,44,42 Ireland,64,38,84,96 1,91 Italy,31,28,25,35,42 Netherlands,68,65,41,72,67 Austria,45,47,24,43,41 Portugal,43,39,25,49,55 Finland,45,21,31,74,63 Sweden,59,38,3,85,68 United Kingdom,76,43,35 1,17,64 EU,48,43,27,57,49 US,94,53-1,45 - (*) Germany = Innovation and productivity in the manufacturing sector Modern theories of economic growth point to innovation as a critical determinant of productivity growth. Innovation is a complex process intertwined with factors such as the strength of the knowledge base, institutional arrangements, qualifications of the labour force, openness of the economy and an overall ability to take on board improvements achieved in other countries or sectors. Other than through own innovation, an economy may also improve its performance as a result of innovation diffusion or through technology embodied in inputs and new capital goods, which in turn may magnify the benefits of own research efforts. Indicators from the manufacturing sector that proxy 14 15
9 different characteristics presumed to facilitate innovation and growth are indeed shown to be related to productivity and economic performance. Advances in ICT technologies belong to such innovationfostering characteristics, and have played a crucial role in enhancing productivity. A first step in understanding and identifying possible determinants of innovation performance is to study the relationship between one crucial input to innovation, research and development (R&D) expenditure, and performance indicators such as production and productivity growth. The Competitiveness Report finds evidence of such a relationship on data for the manufacturing sector. During the 199s, growth in production and in labour productivity in manufacturing in the EU was far below the rates recorded in the US, marking a reversal of the situation compared to the second half of the 198s. Nevertheless, four countries Ireland, Finland, Austria and Sweden recorded both production and productivity growth rates in manufacturing above those in the US. During the 199s, technologydriven industries experienced the highest productivity growth in the EU, followed by capital-intensive industries (in the latter group, the high growth took place mainly in the first half of the decade). In the US, technology-driven industries were likewise leading in terms of productivity growth throughout the 199s. The good production and productivity performance of capital-intensive industries in the EU during the first half of the 199s was most probably the result of the restructuring that took place in these industries. Evidence from the 199s suggests that research intensity and productivity growth are significantly related across sectors, both in the US and within the EU, though not in each Member State. This relationship suggests that research efforts play a role in fostering innovation and economic performance. At the same time, the absence of such a relationship at country level may be a sign that international spillovers are at work. Moreover, firm-level data for the EU and the US from the 199s confirm these findings. This evidence is consistent with the importance that policy-makers attach to R&D. If productivity performance depends significantly on technological advances resulting from innovation, and given that innovations are diffused internationally at a rather fast pace, the patterns of productivity growth should have become more similar across regions. Indeed, data indicate an increasing convergence between the US and the EU in terms of patterns of productivity growth. While in the 198s US productivity growth across industries was significantly different from the EU, in the 199s these patterns became more similar. Productivity growth in technology-driven industries (for example, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, radio, TV and telephony equipment, motor vehicles, aircraft manufacturing, spacecraft, optical equipment), in both the US and the EU was faster in the second half of the 199s than in the first. The impact of technologyintensive industries on overall productivity growth is greater in the US than in the EU, reflecting in part the larger share of these industries in the US economy. When research intensity (R&D expenditure over production) and productivity growth are brought together across sectors in the US and the EU, the evidence is that high research intensity is never associated with low productivity growth, and low research intensity is usually associated with low productivity growth. Nevertheless, in the US certain sectors of low research intensity (tobacco products, apparel) have recorded high productivity growth whereas this has not been the case for the EU. The manufacturing sector has benefited substantially from productivity advances associated with innovation during the 199s. However, other factors have also contributed to production and productivity growth, such as the capabilities of firms, the stock of knowledge and ICT. Accumulation of these assets, many of which are intangible, often reflects strategic decisions on the part of businesses and constitutes the basis on which assets are built up in the future. The Competitiveness Report, in finding that these variables are important, provides some support for recent theories of economic growth that emphasise the role of institutions and strategic behaviour on the part of firms in economic growth
10 The slump in the ICT sector in recent months has caused severe disruption to investment plans and to the diffusion of IC technologies in domestic economies as well as the international economy. Although these short-term developments are clearly disquieting, they should be considered in a medium-term perspective. The underlying factors that have contributed to the ICT expansion remain in place and hold the firm promise for further growth. In particular, prospects are good for continuous price declines of ICT goods, associated with the development of new, more advanced and more powerful semiconductors. These suggest that the process of ICT diffusion and ICT capital deepening will also continue for some considerable time. Furthermore, as a new generation of IC technologies comes into economic use, further reorganisation of the mode of production and exchange of goods and services will be necessary. And, finally, the structural reforms under way in Europe will undoubtedly play a supportive role in the adoption and diffusion of IC technologies. It is, therefore, virtually certain that substantial gains from information technologies and the associated innovations will be possible in the future. Graph 6: Productivity growth in manufacturing (ranked according to growth in the 199s) Ireland Finland Austria Sweden Belgium Greece Germany United Kingdom Netherlands Denmark Italy 1991/2 1991/ /2 France Spain Portugal EU-15 United States % 18 19
11 Graph 7: Research intensity across sectors in the EU and the US: Low R&D sectors Graph 8: Research intensity across sectors in the EU and the US: High R&D sectors Publishing, printing and reproduction EU US Basic metals EU US Wearing apparel; dressing and dyeing of fur Rubber and plastic products Wood, products of wood and cork Coke, refined petroleum and nuclear fuel Tanning and dressing of leather Machinery and equipment n. e. c. Tobacco products Electrical machinery and apparatus n. e. c. Food products and beverages Motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers Textiles Chemical and chemical products Pulp, paper and paper products Office machinery and computers Furniture; manufacturing n. e. c. Medical, precision and optical instruments, watches Fabricated metal products Other transport equipment Other non-metallic mineral products Radio, TV and communication equipment Total manufacturing Total manufacturing Note: Research intensity is measured as R&D expenditure as percent of production (average 199/1997). Note: Research intensity is measured as R&D expenditure as percent of production (average 199/1997). 2 21
12 Graph 9: Sectors with the highest increase in productivity, EU and US, Table 4: Research intensity and productivity growth: sectoral evidence EU Low productivity growth High productivity growth EU US Radio, TV and communication equipment Radio, TV and communication equipment Basic metals Office machinery and computers Pulp, paper and paper products Coke, refined petroleum and nuclear fuel Productivity growth (% p.a.) Production growth (% p.a.) Medical, precision and optical instruments, watches Electrical machinery and apparatus n. e. c. Chemical and chemical products Tobacco products Low research intensity High research intensity US Low research intensity Food products and beverages Tanning and dressing of leather Wearing apparel; dressing and dyeing of fur Publishing, printing and reproduction Low productivity growth Food products and beverages Textiles Publishing, printing and reproduction Furniture; manufacturing n. e. c. Radio, TV and communication equipment Medical, precision and optical instruments, watches Office machinery and computers Chemical and chemical products Motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers High productivity growth Tobacco products Wearing apparel; dressing and dyeing of fur Note: Productivity is measured as real value added per employee. High research intensity Office machinery and computers Other transport equipment Radio, TV and communication equipment Motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers Electrical machinery and apparatus n. e. c. Note: A sector is included in a box if, during the 199s, its research intensity is in the lower or upper tercile (upper: top seven) of the sectors and its productivity growth is in the lower or upper tercile
13 Innovation and biotechnology Biotechnology is an industry where innovation has been at work at an impressive pace and with remarkable results. It is also an industry where some core issues of the innovative process are prominently present (small versus large firms, where the latter have often been instrumental in supporting the growth of the small ones, yet it is the former that are especially innovative; clusters of activity, where networking is an essential condition for dynamism and knowledge exchange; and inadequate financing). Thus, biotechnology offers a very good ground for analysis of comparative strengths in innovation and allows for the specific linking of innovation inputs such as research effort, human capital, institutional framework, firms capabilities and collaborative arrangements, and innovation output such as patents, publications and new products or processes. In biotechnology as in other industries, innovative capacity and competitiveness coincide. The distinctive features of innovation in this industry are the collaborative basis of research and the importance of small firms. Biotechnology highlights the importance of firms capabilities the ability to mobilise and exploit new knowledge and to reach out and exploit collaboration among agents and across stages of product development, scientific disciplines and industry frontiers. The sector is characterised by a new breed of agents, small specialised firms Dedicated Biotechnology Firms (DBFs) that have been developed with the explicit aim of exploiting the new technologies of life sciences for various industrial purposes. Although it took some time, the work of these firms is having a remarkable and radical impact, particularly in the health care sector. Patent and collaborative project data indicate that the US has accumulated and maintains a dominant advantage in innovative activities in biotechnology compared to Europe. There is now agreement that this leadership originates essentially in the strength of its DBFs and, more generally, in the development of a deep market for technology. Nevertheless, some of the smaller European countries (Ireland, the Netherlands and the Nordic countries) appear to specialise successfully in biotechnology niche markets. Also a spectacular increase has been observed recently in the number of new firms from 1996 to 2 the population of independent European DBFs almost doubled to close to 2 and in the clustering of research and production in Europe. The distribution of biotechnology DBFs in Europe is dominated by a relatively small number of clusters that are located mainly in parts of Germany, the UK, France and in some areas of the Baltic coast. Biotechnology involves the exploration of an enormous area of imprecisely defined opportunities. Consequently, for a successful biotechnology sector it is necessary to have both a decentralisation of efforts and a diversity of approaches, as well as an ability to co-ordinate these elements. It may be argued that Europe s lag behind the US in biotechnology is partly a reflection of its late entry. Innovative activities are generally characterised by increasing returns, and being first confers long-lasting leadership. But this may not be the only factor. A fundamental precondition for a successful development of biotechnology is the availability of leading edge scientific capabilities without a strong and diversified scientific research base, no technological take-off is possible. Moreover, success in this industry depends on a delicate blend of competencies and incentives and requires the integration and co-ordination of several differentiated agents, capabilities and functions. In particular, new European DBFs are generally smaller than their US counterparts, less active in global networks and collaborative relationships and less present in markets for these technologies. Access to an international scientific community requires direct and active participation in networks of scientists. One finding of the Competitiveness Report concerning European biotechnology is that whilst Europeans carry out a level of biotechnology research in the US that is comparable to that in other sectors, comparatively little US research is done in Europe. The apparent unattractiveness of Europe to US research appears to be particular to biotechnology. US research in life sciences has undoubtedly benefited from massive public support, while European efforts in this area have remained fragmented. Moreover, the European research system in the area of biotechnology appears to be weak in terms of organisational diversity; specialised in rather narrow fields and insufficiently interconnected across different research areas, types of organisations, stages of the research 24 25
14 process and national borders. European DBFs are still far too small to make maximum use of networks of collaborative research. Thus, their ability to grow appears severely constrained. Finally, DBFs exist in a relationship of strong complementarity with the large corporations. The latter are not only the fundamental source of demand for the products and services of DBFs but, equally importantly, they also provide the integrative capabilities that transform fragments of knowledge into products and constitute precious reservoirs of technological and managerial competencies. Especially in Europe, DBFs have been, and may increasingly become, spin-offs of large incumbents, rather than of universities, as in the US. Supporting the creation of DBFs may raise the competitiveness of the downstream industries, mainly pharmaceuticals. Several Member States have had policies to promote biotechnology in place for several years. Although there has been some success, notably in the promotion of biotechnology start-ups, the growth of DBFs in Europe appears to be hindered. To a considerable extent, this may be due to regulatory, entrepreneurial, fiscal or financial factors. However, in addition to these factors, the supply of cutting edge scientific research may be inadequate. If so, this problem could be addressed not only through higher levels of research funding but also through more pluralism in funding sources, lower dependence on closed national systems and higher integration of research with teaching, clinical research and medical practice. Table 5: Share of biotechnology patents invented by European assignees in the home country, in the US and in other European countries (sample of 1 patents in in percent) Country of the assignee Patents CH D F I NL UK invented in the home country 3,6 76,2 81,5 73,3 7,7 76,9 invented in the US 48,2 7,6 11, 4,9 4,4 8,1 invented in the other 18,4 11,2 4,2 21,8 24,8 12,8 EU countries Graph 1: Biotechnology patents granted by the US Patent and Trade Mark Office United States EU-15 Japan Germany United Kingdom Canada France Netherlands Denmark Switzerland Belgium Sweden Italy Austria Finland Norway Spain New Zealand Ireland Greece Hungary Portugal
15 Graph 11: Biotechnology patent applications to the European Patent Office for priority years 199 and 1997 Graph 12: European dedicated biotechnology firms: Main geographical clusters United States EU-15 Japan Germany United Kingdom France Netherlands Switzerland Italy Denmark Belgium Austria Sweden Finland Spain Ireland Norway Greece Iceland Portugal Luxembourg
16 Graph 13: Number of independent dedicated biotechnology firms (December 2) Germany United Kingdom Graph 14: European dedicated biotechnology firms: Distribution by year of foundation (firms per year) 2 France Sweden Switzerland Netherlands Italy BID, Total: 292 Ernst & Young, Total: Belgium Finland Denmark < Ireland 39 Norway 37 Table 6: European dedicated biotechnology firms: Distribution by areas of activity Spain Others* *Others: Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia. Country Therapeutics Num. % Diagnostics Num. % Agriculture Num. % EU 15 D UK F S CH I Others Total 89 4, , , , , , , , , ,5 48, ,89 13, ,99 12, ,85 34, ,54 2, ,85 16, ,97 4, ,25 2, ,6 13,63 Food Num. % , ,6 45 9,57 v73 17,6 1 6,17 4 6, , , ,36 Veterinary Num. % 137 6, , ,6 39 9,11 v17 1,49 3 4,62 3 2,8 1 12, ,93 Environment Num. % 15 7, , , , ,2, 8 7,48 5 6, ,16 Total Num. % , , , , , , 17 4, ,
17 Table 7: Public funding of research and development in biotechnology (1997) Total Government Biotechnology Budget Outlays R&D Biotech/ R&D or Appropriations R&D Overall for R&D (GBOARD) Millions PPP$ Millions PPP$ Percent Austria , Belgium , Canada , Denmark Finland , France , Germany 1, , Greece Iceland Ireland Italy , Netherlands 78. 3, Norway Portugal Spain , Sweden , Switzerland , United Kingdom , PART B: 21 Innovation Scoreboard An overview of Europe s innovation performance The Innovation Scoreboard analyses statistical data on 17 indicators in four areas: human resources; knowledge creation; transmission and application of new knowledge; innovation finance, output and markets. The Innovation Scoreboard depicts achievements and trends, highlights strengths and weaknesses of Member States performances, and examines European convergence in innovation. The Innovation Scoreboard is one of the benchmarking exercises of the European Commission that were launched in response to the Lisbon European Council. It builds on the structural indicators that the Commission offered in its Communication Realising the potential of the European Union Consolidating and extending the Lisbon strategy These data are national estimates, hence the range; 2. GBOARD has been estimated. 1 COM(21)
18 Innovation leaders come from Europe For many innovation indicators, the leading countries of the Union exhibit significant advances over the US and Japan. The UK, Ireland and France for example are world leaders in the supply of science and engineering graduates; Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden in public R&D; Sweden in business R&D; and the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark in home internet access. This demonstrates the enormous potential for the exchange of good practice and learning within the EU using the open co-ordination method defined at Lisbon, as well as for enhanced co-operation between the Member States and the Union which is at the core of the European Research Area. The Union shows signs of both improvement and weaknesses For the EU as a whole, an analysis of changes in ten innovation indicators for which data are available over the last four to six years shows improvements in six indicators, no notable difference in one, and a decline in three: public R&D, business R&D, and value added from high technology manufacturing. Comparing current EU and US performances reveals that tertiary education levels, business R&D, home internet access, and high-tech patenting are among the most significant US advances over the EU, while the EU leads the supply of new science and engineering (S&E) graduates, public R&D and ICT (information and communication technology) investments. Compared to Japan, the EU leads only ICT expenditures. In internet access, Japan and the EU are equal, while Japan clearly leads in business R&D (almost double the EU average) and to a lesser extent in science and engineering graduates, public R&D and the share of the working age population with a tertiary education. Positive trends in most countries The Innovation Scoreboard provides detailed analysis by countries and by indicators. For an immediate overview, a tentative summary innovation index (SII) and overall country trends were calculated (see Graph 15). Countries above the horizontal axis have an above average SII, while countries to the right of the vertical axis show an overall trend above the EU average. These two axes divide the Graph into four quadrants. Countries in the upper right quadrant are moving ahead because both their summary innovation index and their past rate of change for the trend indicators are above the EU averages. Conversely, countries in the bottom left quadrant are falling further behind because they are below the EU average for both variables (see Chapter 3.3 of the 21 Innovation Scoreboard for further details). All Member States have improved their innovation performance. Three countries with currently low results show the most positive trends: Greece, Luxembourg and Spain have clearly been catching up. The three largest EU economies have also improved, but at rates below the EU average. The UK has improved the fastest in this group. Among the most innovative EU countries, Denmark and Finland have been moving ahead ; Sweden has improved at the EU average and the Netherlands improved at a rate below the EU average
19 Strong differences between Member States Although there are substantial national differences in innovation performance, there is no one best way of innovation policy. Variations between Member States are particularly high for four indicators: lifelong learning, business R&D, high-tech patenting and the share of SMEs involved in co-operative innovation. The differences are greater in areas directly influenced by private decision making. In contrast, there is less variability between Member States for most indicators that are strongly influenced by public policy, such as tertiary education or public R&D investments. For most indicators, the performances of the EU countries have been diverging over the past five to six years. Two major weaknesses: patenting and business R&D There is some evidence that the decline in public and business R&D expenditure since the early 199s has ended, with an increase in business R&D in several EU Member States since But, rapid increases in business R&D in Japan and the US since 1994 have increased the gap with Europe. Furthermore, US high-tech patenting in Europe is about seven times higher than European patenting in the US and the situation with Japan is almost as unbalanced. The strong position of Japanese high-tech patenting in the US indicates a potential for EU improvement in this area. Action The results of the 21 Innovation Scoreboard are consistent with the objectives set out in the Lisbon strategy. They provide additional evidence for fine tuning the recommendations already proposed and adopted in earlier work. The Innovation Scoreboard will be updated on an annual basis, paving the way to enhanced European co-operation in innovation policy. The 21 edition will be used to further develop innovation policy benchmarking in different ways. The Commission invites the Member States to analyse the Innovation Scoreboard results, to make comments, and to define, where appropriate, national targets. To facilitate the open co-ordination method defined by the European Council, Member States should evaluate their innovation policies systematically and, wherever practical, evaluate similar national policies jointly. The annual publication Innovation policy in Europe will include input from the Innovation Scoreboard and provide a synthesis of the results from benchmarking innovation policy in Europe. These actions will gradually involve the candidate states. Innovation has a strong regional dimension and the Commission invites the European regions to participate actively in innovation policy benchmarking. The quality of the Innovation Scoreboard relies on statistical data from the Member States. In this context, the Commission recommends paying specific attention to the timely implementation and upgrading of the Community Innovation Survey
20 Graph 15: Overall country trends by innovation index Graph 16: Tentative Summary Innovation Index* Summary innovation index Losing momentum D F NL UK A I S B FIN DK IRL L E 1. Moving ahead S US FIN UK J DK NL IRL D F A B L E I GR P -8-1 P GR 4. Falling further behind 3. Catching up Average percent change (95/97 99/2) in the trend indicators 38 * The summary index is equal to the number of indicators that are more than 2% above the EU overall mean, minus the number that are more than 2% below. The SII is adjusted for differences in the number of available indicators for each country. The index can vary between + 1 (all indicators are above average) to -1 (all indicators are below average) 2. The two patent variables count as.5 each, giving a maximum of 17 possible indicators 3. Table 8: Indicator results based on the most recent data available No Indicator EU Mean EU leaders US J 1.1 S&E graduates / 2 29 years 1,4% 17,8 (UK) 15,8 (F) 15,6 (IRL) 8,1 11,2 1.2 Population with tertiary education 21,2% 32,4 (FIN) 29,7 (S) 28,1 (UK) 34,9 3,4 1.3 Participation in life-long learning 8,4% 21,6 (S) 21, (UK) 2,8 (DK) 1.4 Employed in med/high-tech manuf. 7,8% 1,9 (D) 8,3 (S) 7,6 (I/UK) 1.5 Employed in high-tech services 3,2% 4,8 (S) 4,5 (DK) 4,3 (FIN) 2.1 Public R&D / GDP,66%,95 (FIN),87 (NL),86 (S),56,7 2.2 Business R&D / GDP 1,19% 2,85 (S) 2,14 (FIN) 1,63 (D) 1,98 2,18 2.3a High-tech EPO patents / population 17,9 8,4 (FIN) 35,8 (NL) 29,3 (D) 29,5 27,4 2.3b High-tech USPTO patents / pop. 11,1 35,9 (FIN) 29,5 (S) 19,6 (NL) 84,3 8,2 3.1 SMEs innovating in-house 44,% 62,2 (IRL) 59,1 (A) 59, (DK) 3.2 SMEs innovation co-operation 11,2% 37,4 (DK) 27,5 (S) 23,2 (IRL) 3.3 Innovation expenditure/total sales 3,7% 7, (S) 4,8 (DK) 4,3 (FIN) 4.1 High-tech venture capital / GDP,11%,26 (UK),2 (S),17 (B) 4.2 New capital raised / GDP 1,1% 5,6 (NL) 4,5 (DK) 4,4 (E) 1,9 4.3 Sales of new-to-market products 6,5% 13,5 (I) 9,5 (E) 8,4 (IRL) 4.4 Home internet access 28,% 55 (NL) 54 (S) 52 (DK) ICT markets / GDP 6,% 7,4 (S) 6,6 (NL) 6,6 (P) 5,9 4,3 4.6 High tech value added in manuf. 8,2% 2,5 (IRL) 18,8 (S) 12,5 (FIN) 25,8 13,8 2 A generally applicable model for how each indicator influences innovation is not available, which is why all indicators are given equal value in calculating the SII. Due to sampling, definitional, and other errors for many of the indicators, we assume that indicators within +2% and -2% of the overall EU mean do not differ in any meaningful way from the average. The choice of a 2% boundary is largely arbitrary. Sensitivity analysis found a high correlation (R 2 of.98) between the summary index using a 2% boundary and those for a 15% and 25% boundary. The range in the SII from +1 to -1 is also arbitrary - it could have equally varied from -1 to 1 or -1 to A different calculation approach for a summary index was tested based on the average percentage by which each indicator varied from the overall EU average. This indicator is strongly correlated with the retained SII (R 2 of.89). The retained SII is preferred over the percentage index because it ignores minor differences from the EU average which may not be meaningful. It is correlated (R 2 of.64) with the Economic Creativity Index from the Global Competitiveness Report 2 of the World Economic Forum (WEF)
21 Table 9: Major strengths and weaknesses of Member States Country Major strengths Major weaknesses Belgium Denmark Germany Population with tertiary degree; High-tech venture capital High-tech services; Patenting; Innovative SMEs Medium-high/high-tech manufacturing; Patenting; Innovative SMEs Innovative SMEs; Public R&D expenditure S&E graduates supply; New-to-market products; Life-long learning; High-tech services Greece Innovation finance Public and business R&D; High-tech patenting; Innovative SMEs; Internet Spain France Ireland Italy Innovation finance; New to market products Supply of S&E graduates; Public R&D; Product innovation Supply of S&E graduates; Innovative SMEs; High-tech services Product innovation; Innovative SMEs Public and business R&D; Hightech patenting; Internet access Internet; Innovation finance Public R&D; High-tech patenting; Life-long learning Public R&D; Education; High-tech patenting; Innovation finance; Luxembourg Internet access High-tech patenting; Innovative SMEs; Life-long learning; Netherlands Public R&D; High-tech patenting; Internet; Innovation finance S&E graduate supply Austria Innovative SMEs S&E graduate supply; High-tech patenting; Innovation finance Graph 17: New S&E graduates as percent of the 2-29 population* High (over 2% of EU mean) Average Low (below 2% of EU mean) UK F IRL FIN EU S E D A NL P B DK I US J All data are from Eurostat, except for the population data for the US and Japan which are from the US Census web site. Results for all countries are for 1999, except for 1998 data for Denmark, France, Ireland, Austria and the UK, and 1997 data for Italy. No data for Luxembourg and Greece. * The definition of this indicator has been changed as compared to the outline scoreboard. It now uses the entire population of 2 29 years old as a reference. The new definition is in line with the equivalent indicator of the Enterprise Scoreboard and better reflects the actual number of new S&E graduates available in each country. S&E graduates are defined as all post-secondary education graduates (ISCED classes 5a and above) in life sciences (ISC42), physical sciences (ISC44), mathematics and statistics (ISC46), computing (ISC48), engineering and engineering trades (ISC52), manufacturing and processing (ISC54) and architecture and building (ISC58). Portugal Finland Sweden United Kingdom ICT expenditure; Product innovation Workforce with tertiary degree; R&D, High-tech patenting; Internet R&D; Life-long learning; Hightech services; SMEs; High-tech venture capital; Internet Education; High-tech venture capital; Internet Public and business R&D; Education; Innovative SMEs; High-tech patenting Innovative SMEs New capital raised Public R&D 4 41
OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2008: Highlights
OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2008: Highlights Global dynamics in science, technology and innovation Investment in science, technology and innovation has benefited from strong economic
More informationInnovation in Europe: Where s it going? How does it happen? Stephen Roper Aston Business School, Birmingham, UK
Innovation in Europe: Where s it going? How does it happen? Stephen Roper Aston Business School, Birmingham, UK Email: s.roper@aston.ac.uk Overview Innovation in Europe: Where is it going? The challenge
More informationOECD s Innovation Strategy: Key Findings and Policy Messages
OECD s Innovation Strategy: Key Findings and Policy Messages 2010 MIT Europe Conference, Brussels, 12 October Dirk Pilat, OECD dirk.pilat@oecd.org Outline 1. Why innovation matters today 2. Why policies
More informationInnovation % Techno =Trahsfer! "
Innovation % Techno =Trahsfer! " PUBLISHED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION INNOVATION/SMEs PROGRAMME OCTOBER 2001 7itHmnfin \ Introduction Contents An indication of things to come E lai III 8 9 10 12 13 16
More informationAn Integrated Industrial Policy for the Globalisation Era
Ref. Ares(2014)2686331-14/08/2014 An Integrated Industrial Policy for the Globalisation Era John Farnell Director, DG Enterprise and Industry HEADING FOR 2020 sustainable inclusive smart 7 flagship initiatives
More informationASSESSMENT OF DYNAMICS OF THE INDEX OF THE OF THE INNOVATION AND ITS INFLUENCE ON GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT OF LATVIA
УПРАВЛЕНИЕ И УСТОЙЧИВО РАЗВИТИЕ 2/2013 (39) MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 2/2013 (39) ASSESSMENT OF DYNAMICS OF THE INDEX OF THE OF THE INNOVATION AND ITS INFLUENCE ON GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT OF
More informationMeasuring Romania s Creative Economy
2011 2nd International Conference on Business, Economics and Tourism Management IPEDR vol.24 (2011) (2011) IACSIT Press, Singapore Measuring Romania s Creative Economy Ana Bobircă 1, Alina Drăghici 2+
More informationCreativity and Economic Development
Creativity and Economic Development A. Bobirca, A. Draghici Abstract The objective of this paper is to construct a creativity composite index designed to capture the growing role of creativity in driving
More informationOECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2010 Highlights
OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 21 OECD 21 OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 21 Highlights Innovation can play an important role in the economic recovery Science, technology and
More informationCRC Association Conference
CRC Association Conference Brisbane, 17 19 May 2011 Productivity and Growth: The Role and Features of an Effective Innovation Policy Jonathan Coppel Economic Counsellor to OECD Secretary General 1 Outline
More informationPoland: Competitiveness Report 2015 Innovation and Poland s Performance in
Poland: Competitiveness Report 2015 Innovation and Poland s Performance in 2007-2014 Marzenna Anna Weresa The World Economy Research Institute Collegium of the World Economy Key research questions How
More informationCDP-EIF ITAtech Equity Platform
CDP-EIF ITAtech Equity Platform New financial instruments to support technology transfer in Italy TTO Circle Meeting, Oxford June 22nd 2017 June, 2017 ITAtech: the "agent for change" in TT landscape A
More informationEU businesses go digital: Opportunities, outcomes and uptake
Digital Transformation Scoreboard 2018 EU businesses go digital: Opportunities, outcomes and uptake February 2018 Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs Executive summary Conditions and outcomes
More informationOverview of the potential implications of Brexit for EU27 Industry and Space Policy
Overview of the potential implications of Brexit for EU27 Industry and Space Policy Reinhilde Veugelers Senior Fellow at Bruegel Professor at KU Leuven Workshop at the European Parliament on Brexit and
More informationUEAPME Think Small Test
Think Small Test and Small Business Act Implementation Scoreboard Study Unit Brussels, 6 November 2012 1. Introduction The Small Business Act (SBA) was approved in December 2008, laying out seven concrete
More informationChapter 2: Effect of the economic crisis on R&D investment 60
Chapter 2: Effect of the economic crisis on R&D investment 60 Chapter 2 Effect of the economic crisis on R&D investment Highlights In 2008 2009, R&D expenditure was more resilient to the financial crisis
More informationIndustrial Investment in Research and Development: Trends and Prospects
MEMO/05/471 Brussels, 9 December 2005 Industrial Investment in Research and Development: Trends and Prospects The 2005 Key Figures for science, technology and innovation released last July showed EU R&D
More informationResearch DG. European Commission. Sharing Visions. Towards a European Area for Foresight
Sharing Visions Towards a European Area for Foresight Sharing Visions Towards a European Area for Foresight Europe s knowledge base : key challenges The move towards a European Research Area (ERA) ERA
More informationFinnish STI Policy
Finnish STI Policy 2011 2015 2015 INNOVATION BRIDGES Nordic Slovak Innovation Forum October 26, Bratislava Ilkka Turunen Secretary General Research and Innovation Council of Finland Finland is one of the
More informationDoes exposure to university research matter to high-potential entrepreneurship?
Does exposure to university research matter to high-potential entrepreneurship? AIMILIA PROTOGEROU, YANNIS CALOGHIROU, NICHOLAS S. VONORTAS LABORATORY OF INDUSTRIAL AND ENERGY ECONOMICS, NATIONAL TECHNICAL
More informationThe ICT industry as driver for competition, investment, growth and jobs if we make the right choices
SPEECH/06/127 Viviane Reding Member of the European Commission responsible for Information Society and Media The ICT industry as driver for competition, investment, growth and jobs if we make the right
More informationBusiness Clusters and Innovativeness of the EU Economies
Business Clusters and Innovativeness of the EU Economies Szczepan Figiel, Professor Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics, National Research Institute, Warsaw, Poland Dominika Kuberska, PhD University
More informationCentral and Eastern Europe Statistics 2005
Central and Eastern Europe Statistics 2005 An EVCA Special Paper November 2006 Edited by the EVCA Central and Eastern Europe Task Force About EVCA The European Private Equity and Venture Capital Association
More informationExecutive Summary World Robotics 2018 Industrial Robots
Executive Summary World Robotics 2018 Industrial Robots 13 Executive Summary World Robotics 2018 Industrial Robots Robot Sales 2017: Impressive growth In 2017, robot sales increased by 30% to 381,335 units,
More informationTHE ECONOMICS OF DATA-DRIVEN INNOVATION
New Engines of Growth Driving Innovation and Trade in Data High-Level Transatlantic Summit 24 April 2014 THE ECONOMICS OF DATA-DRIVEN INNOVATION Opportunities and challenges for Europe Christian.Reimsbach-Kounatze@oecd.org
More informationPOLICY BRIEF AUSTRIAN INNOVATION UNION STATUS REPORT ON THE. adv iso ry s erv ic e in busi n e ss & i nno vation
POLICY BRIEF ON THE AUSTRIAN INNOVATION UNION STATUS REPORT 2014 23.01.2015 mag. roman str auss adv iso ry s erv ic e in busi n e ss & i nno vation wagne rg asse 15 3400 k losterne u bu r g aust ria CONTENTS
More informationMunkaanyag
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION SPÉCIFICATION TECHNIQUE TECHNISCHE SPEZIFIKATION CEN/TS 16555-6 December 2014 ICS 03.100.40; 03.100.50 English Version Innovation management - Part 6: Creativity management Management
More informationConsultation on Long Term sustainability of Research Infrastructures
Consultation on Long Term sustainability of Research Infrastructures Fields marked with are mandatory. 1. Introduction The political guidelines[1] of the European Commission present an ambitious agenda
More informationtepav April2015 N EVALUATION NOTE Science, Technology and Innovation in G20 Countries Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey
EVALUATION NOTE April215 N2156 tepav Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey Selin ARSLANHAN MEMİŞ 1 Director, Centre for Biotechnology Policy/ Program Manager, Health Policy Program Science, Technology
More informationDTI 1998 Competitiveness White Paper: Some background and introduction
DTI 1998 Competitiveness White Paper: Some background and introduction Intellect Knowledge Economy Campaign Knowledge Economy Working Party Meeting Russell Square House 4th November 2003 A personal view
More informationWORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION. WIPO PATENT REPORT Statistics on Worldwide Patent Activities
WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION WIPO PATENT REPORT Statistics on Worldwide Patent Activities 2007 WIPO PATENT REPORT Statistics on Worldwide Patent Activities 2007 Edition WORLD INTELLECTUAL
More informationEconomic and Social Council
United Nations Economic and Social Council Distr.: General 11 February 2013 Original: English Economic Commission for Europe Sixty-fifth session Geneva, 9 11 April 2013 Item 3 of the provisional agenda
More informationOECD Innovation Strategy: Developing an Innovation Policy for the 21st Century
OECD Innovation Strategy: Developing an Innovation Policy for the 21st Century Andrew Wyckoff, OECD / STI Tokyo, 4 February 2010 Overview 1. The OECD Innovation Strategy 2. The innovation imperative 3.
More informationVTT TECHNOLOGY STUDIES. KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY BAROMETER Mika Naumanen Technology Studies VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland
KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY BAROMETER Mika Naumanen Technology Studies VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Knowledge society barometer Economic survey -type of tool to assess a nation s inclination towards
More informationInnovation. performance in. Denmark. Country Profile. Research and Innovation
Research and Innovation performance in Denmark Country Profile 2014 Research and Innovation ROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Directorate A Policy Development and Coordination
More informationTechnology and Competitiveness in Vietnam
Technology and Competitiveness in Vietnam General Statistics Office, Hanoi, Vietnam July 3 rd, 2014 Prof. Carol Newman, Trinity College Dublin Prof. Finn Tarp, University of Copenhagen and UNU-WIDER 1
More informationTechnology Platforms: champions to leverage knowledge for growth
SPEECH/04/543 Janez POTOČNIK European Commissioner for Science and Research Technology Platforms: champions to leverage knowledge for growth Seminar of Industrial Leaders of Technology Platforms Brussels,
More informationBackground material 1
Background material 1 European Value Chains Manufacturing production in the EU became more integrated within European value chains A few large firms are intensively involved in GVCs, but these large firms
More informationThe Relationship between Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Sustainable Development. Research on European Union Countries.
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Procedia Economics and Finance 3 ( 2012 ) 1030 1035 Emerging Markets Queries in Finance and Business The Relationship between Entrepreneurship, Innovation and
More informationPublic Involvement in the Regional Sustainable Development
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 62 ( 2012 ) 253 257 WC-BEM 2012 Public Involvement in the Regional Sustainable Development Mihaela Muresan a, Emilia
More informationScience, research and innovation performance of the EU 2018
Science, research and innovation performance of the EU 2018 Román ARJONA Strengthening Beñat BILBAO-OSORIO the foundations for DG Europe's's Research & future Innovation European Commission Madrid, 15
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 11.9.2002 SEC(2002) 929 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER in support of the Commission Communication MORE RESEARCH FOR EUROPE Towards 3% of GDP {COM(2002)499
More informationNational Report - Denmark for D4 - Selected input By Ebbe K. Graversen, WG Innocate. 1- National Innovation Indicators. Input Measurements
National Report - Denmark for D4 - Selected input By Ebbe K. Graversen, WG Innocate 1- National Innovation Indicators Input Measurements R&D Efforts: R&D expenses: The most recent figures show that Danish
More informationVALUE OF GOODS EXPORTS INCREASED BY 15 PER CENT IN 2017 Trade deficit lower than the year before
Tulli tiedottaa Tullen informerar Customs Information ANNUAL PUBLICATION: preliminary data For publication on 7 February 21 at 9. am VALUE OF GOODS EXPORTS INCREASED BY 15 PER CENT IN 217 Trade deficit
More informationBASED ECONOMIES. Nicholas S. Vonortas
KNOWLEDGE- BASED ECONOMIES Nicholas S. Vonortas Center for International Science and Technology Policy & Department of Economics The George Washington University CLAI June 9, 2008 Setting the Stage The
More informationD8.2 Overall impact of the Innovation Union progress as measured in the IU scoreboard
D8.2 Overall impact of the Innovation Union progress as measured in the IU scoreboard Deliverable: D8.2 Overall impact of the Innovation Union progress as measured in the IU scoreboard Author(s): Pierre
More informationOesterreichische Nationalbank. Eurosystem. Workshops Proceedings of OeNB Workshops. Current Issues of Economic Growth. March 5, No.
Oesterreichische Nationalbank Eurosystem Workshops Proceedings of OeNB Workshops Current Issues of Economic Growth March 5, 2004 No. 2 Opinions expressed by the authors of studies do not necessarily reflect
More informationFINLAND. The use of different types of policy instruments; and/or Attention or support given to particular S&T policy areas.
FINLAND 1. General policy framework Countries are requested to provide material that broadly describes policies related to science, technology and innovation. This includes key policy documents, such as
More informationHow big is China s Digital Economy
How big is China s Digital Economy Alicia Garcia Herrero Senior Fellow, Bruegel Jianwei Xu Beijing Normal University & Bruegel November 2017 Roadmap 1. Motivation 2. Internationally comparable measures
More informationTRANSFORMATION INTO A KNOWLEDGE-BASED ECONOMY: THE MALAYSIAN EXPERIENCE
TRANSFORMATION INTO A KNOWLEDGE-BASED ECONOMY: THE MALAYSIAN EXPERIENCE by Honourable Dato Sri Dr. Jamaludin Mohd Jarjis Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation of Malaysia Going Global: The Challenges
More informationConclusions on the future of information and communication technologies research, innovation and infrastructures
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Conclusions on the future of information and communication technologies research, innovation and infrastructures 2982nd COMPETITIVESS (Internal market, Industry and Research)
More informationHigher Education for Science, Technology and Innovation. Accelerating Africa s Aspirations. Communique. Kigali, Rwanda.
Higher Education for Science, Technology and Innovation Accelerating Africa s Aspirations Communique Kigali, Rwanda March 13, 2014 We, the Governments here represented Ethiopia, Mozambique, Rwanda, Senegal,
More informationGlobalisation increasingly affects how companies in OECD countries
ISBN 978-92-64-04767-9 Open Innovation in Global Networks OECD 2008 Executive Summary Globalisation increasingly affects how companies in OECD countries operate, compete and innovate, both at home and
More informationASEAN: A Growth Centre in the Global Economy
Bank Negara Malaysia Governor Dr. Zeti Akhtar Aziz Speech at the ASEAN SME Conference 2015 It is my pleasure to be here this afternoon to speak at this inaugural ASEAN SME Conference. This conference takes
More informationCOUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 9 December 2008 (16.12) (OR. fr) 16767/08 RECH 410 COMPET 550
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 9 December 2008 (16.12) (OR. fr) 16767/08 RECH 410 COMPET 550 OUTCOME OF PROCEEDINGS of: Competitiveness Council on 1 and 2 December 2008 No. prev. doc. 16012/08
More informationOECD/ADBI 7th Round Table on Capital Market Reform in Asia October 2005 ADB Institute, Tokyo, Japan
OECD/ADBI 7th Round Table on Capital Market Reform in Asia 27-28 October 2005 ADB Institute, Tokyo, Japan SESSION 4: DEVELOPMENTS IN VENTURE CAPITAL AND PRIVATE EQUITY SINCE THE END OF TECH BUBBLE Mr.
More informationReport on the European Commission's Public On-line Consultation. "Shaping the ICT research and innovation agenda for the next decade"
Report on the European Commission's Public On-line Consultation "Shaping the ICT research and innovation agenda for the next decade" Open 4 September - 7 November 008 Executive Summary In search of the
More informationTECHNOLOGY, ECONOMIC INTEGRATION AND SOCIAL COHESION
TECHNOLOGY, ECONOMIC INTEGRATION AND SOCIAL COHESION Executive summary of project ERB-SOE1-CT-95-1005 Funded under the Targeted Socio-Economic Research (TSER) programme Directorate General XII Science,
More informationNational Innovation Systems: Implications for Policy and Practice. Dr. James Cunningham Director. Centre for Innovation and Structural Change
National Innovation Systems: Implications for Policy and Practice Dr. James Cunningham Centre for Innovation and Structural Change InterTradeIreland Innovation Conference 2009 9 th June 2009 Overview National
More informationNIS Transformation and Recombination Learning in China
NIS Transformation and Recombination Learning in China Shulin Gu TsingHua University, China shulin008@hotmail.com 06/11/2003 Rio Globelics Conference 1 NIS Transformation and Recombination Learning in
More informationTowards a taxonomy of innovation systems
Towards a taxonomy of innovation systems Manuel Mira Godinho ISEG/UTLisbon Presentation to the Globelics Phd School 2005 Lisbon 31 May 2005 Based on Godinho, Mendonça and Pereira (2004) Structure of the
More informationInformation Technology and the Japanese Growth Recovery
Information Technology and the Japanese Growth Recovery By Dale W. Jorgenson (Harvard University) Koji Nomura (Keio University) 17 th ANNUAL TRIO CONFERENCE, December 10, 2004 @Keio University, Tokyo Economic
More informationCommission on science and Technology for Development. Ninth Session Geneva, May2006
Commission on science and Technology for Development Ninth Session Geneva, 15-19 May2006 Policies and Strategies of the Slovak Republic in Science, Technology and Innovation by Mr. Stefan Moravek Head
More informationPublic Private Partnerships & Idea selection
www.pwc.nl Public Private Partnerships & Idea selection A tool to select technological healthcare innovation ideas PPPs should select technical healthcare innovation ideas by answering seven questions
More informationInnovation policy mixes and implications on HEIs - emerging conclusions from the OECD innovation policy reviews
Innovation policy mixes and implications on HEIs - emerging conclusions from the OECD innovation policy reviews Gernot Hutschenreiter Country Studies and Outlook Division Directorate for Science, Technology
More informationTHE DIGITALISATION CHALLENGES IN LITHUANIAN ENGINEERING INDUSTRY. Darius Lasionis LINPRA Director November 30, 2018 Latvia
THE DIGITALISATION CHALLENGES IN LITHUANIAN ENGINEERING INDUSTRY Darius Lasionis LINPRA Director November 30, 2018 Latvia THE ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION OF LITHUANIA (LINPRA) is an independent
More informationWIPO REGIONAL SEMINAR ON SUPPORT SERVICES FOR INVENTORS, VALUATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION OF INVENTIONS AND RESEARCH RESULTS
ORIGINAL: English DATE: November 1998 E TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION AND PROMOTION INSTITUTE WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION WIPO REGIONAL SEMINAR ON SUPPORT SERVICES FOR INVENTORS, VALUATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION
More informationWerner Wobbe. Employed at the European Commission, Directorate General Research and Innovation
Werner Wobbe Employed at the European Commission, Directorate General Research and Innovation Conference Paper, Call to Europe, September 2013 1 The current European Commission policies are guided by the
More informationCivil Society in Greece: Shaping new digital divides? Digital divides as cultural divides Implications for closing divides
Civil Society in Greece: Shaping new digital divides? Digital divides as cultural divides Implications for closing divides Key words: Information Society, Cultural Divides, Civil Society, Greece, EU, ICT
More informationFalling Behind on ICT Adoption Indicators: Can We Afford This?
IV.2 Falling Behind on ICT Adoption Indicators: Can We Afford This? John W. Houghton Introduction Like many countries, Australia faces a dilemma in developing a leading-edge information infrastructure.
More informationAppendix 1: Selective Literature Review of Innovation Indicators
47 Appendix 1: Selective Literature Review of Innovation Indicators This appendix provides a selective review of the literature on innovation indicators, with particular focus on indicators of relevance
More informationEnglish - Or. English NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY COMMITTEE ON THE SAFETY OF NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS FINAL REPORT AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONNAIRE
Unclassified NEA/CSNI/R(2003)3 NEA/CSNI/R(2003)3 Unclassified Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 04-Feb-2003 English - Or.
More informationInformation Technology and the Japanese Growth Recovery
Information Technology and the Japanese Growth Recovery By Dale W. Jorgenson (Harvard University) and Koji Nomura (Keio University) February 14, 2006 Economic Growth in the Information Age The Information
More informationGOING DIGITAL IN SWEDEN
15 June 2018 Swedish Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation, Stockholm OECD REVIEWS OF DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION GOING DIGITAL IN SWEDEN Anne Carblanc, Vincenzo Spiezia, Alexia Gonzalez-Fanfalone, David Gierten
More informationTHE EVOLUTION OF TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION AND THE GREAT DIVERGENCE
2014 BROOKINGS BLUM ROUNDTABLE SESSION III: LEAP-FROGGING TECHNOLOGIES FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 10:50 A.M. 12:20 P.M. THE EVOLUTION OF TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION AND THE GREAT DIVERGENCE Diego Comin Harvard University
More informationCBSME-NSR. Priority. Priority 1 Thinking Growth: Supporting growth in North Sea Region economies
A project to strengthen and develop the Cross-border co-operation between SMEs in the North Sea Region through internationalisation, Networking and Matchmaking Acronym CBSME-NSR Priority Priority 1 Thinking
More informationEconomic and Social Council
United Nations Economic and Social Council ECE/CES/GE.41/2013/3 Distr.: General 15 August 2013 Original: English Economic Commission for Europe Conference of European Statisticians Group of Experts on
More informationNew era for Eureka - relations with ETPs
New era for Eureka - relations with ETPs Dr. Aleš Mihelič EUREKA Chairman Slovenian EUREKA Chair 07/08 The past is history Established in 1985 An initiative of French President Mitterand and German Chancellor
More informationPost : RIS 3 and evaluation
Post 2014-2020: RIS 3 and evaluation Final Conference Györ, 8th November 2011 Luisa Sanches Polcy analyst, innovation European Commission, DG REGIO Thematic Coordination and Innovation 1 Timeline November-December
More informationMain lessons learned from the German national innovation system
Main lessons learned from the German national innovation system May 2016 Introduction Germany has one of the most powerful national innovation systems in the world. On the 2015 Global Innovation Index,
More informationEUROPEAN MANUFACTURING SURVEY EMS
EUROPEAN MANUFACTURING SURVEY EMS RIMPlus Final Workshop Brussels December, 17 th, 2014 Christian Lerch Fraunhofer ISI Content 1 2 3 4 5 EMS A European research network EMS firm-level data of European
More informationAssessing the socioeconomic. public R&D. A review on the state of the art, and current work at the OECD. Beñat Bilbao-Osorio Paris, 11 June 2008
Assessing the socioeconomic impacts of public R&D A review on the state of the art, and current work at the OECD Beñat Bilbao-Osorio Paris, 11 June 2008 Public R&D and innovation Public R&D plays a crucial
More informationChristina Miller Director, UK Research Office
Christina Miller Director, UK Research Office www.ukro.ac.uk UKRO s Mission: To promote effective UK engagement in EU research, innovation and higher education activities The Office: Is based in Brussels,
More informationCOMPETITIVNESS, INNOVATION AND GROWTH: THE CASE OF MACEDONIA
COMPETITIVNESS, INNOVATION AND GROWTH: THE CASE OF MACEDONIA Jasminka VARNALIEVA 1 Violeta MADZOVA 2, and Nehat RAMADANI 3 SUMMARY The purpose of this paper is to examine the close links among competitiveness,
More informationFrom FP7 towards Horizon 2020 Workshop on " Research performance measurement and the impact of innovation in Europe" IPERF, Luxembourg, 31/10/2013
From FP7 towards Horizon 2020 Workshop on " Research performance measurement and the impact of innovation in Europe" IPERF, Luxembourg, 31/10/2013 Lucilla Sioli, European Commission, DG CONNECT Overview
More informationPublic Consultation: Science 2.0 : science in transition
DIRECTORATES-GENERAL FOR RESEARCH AND INNOVATION (RTD) AND COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS, CONTENT AND TECHNOLOGY (CONNECT) Public Consultation: Science 2.0 : science in transition QUESTIONNAIRE A. Information
More informationInnovation. performance in. Slovenia. Country Profile. Research and Innovation
Research and Innovation performance in Slovenia Country Profile 2014 Research and Innovation ROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Directorate A Policy Development and Coordination
More informationFramework Programme 7 and SMEs. Amaury NEVE European Commission DG Research - Unit T4: SMEs
Framework Programme 7 and SMEs Amaury NEVE European Commission DG Research - Unit T4: SMEs Outline 1. SMEs and R&D 2. The Seventh Framework Programme 3. SMEs in Cooperation 4. SMEs in People 5. SMEs in
More informationSR&ED International R&D Tax Credit Strategies
SR&ED International R&D Tax Credit Strategies On overview of Research & Development (R&D) project management & tax credit claims. Contents International R&D Tax Credits... 1 Definition of Qualified Activities
More informationPatent Statistics as an Innovation Indicator Lecture 3.1
as an Innovation Indicator Lecture 3.1 Fabrizio Pompei Department of Economics University of Perugia Economics of Innovation (2016/2017) (II Semester, 2017) Pompei Patents Academic Year 2016/2017 1 / 27
More informationCOUNTRY SPECIALISATION REPORT
COUNTRY SPECIALISATION REPORT Country: Hungary Date: June 2006 ERAWATCH Network asbl: Project team: NIFU STEP, University of Sussex (SPRU), Joanneum Research, Logotech, FhG-ISI The opinions expressed in
More informationEuropean Technology Platforms
European Technology Platforms a a new concept a a new way to achieve Lisbon s goals...priority for 2004-2005 put forward by the Members States and fully supported by the Commission Launching of Greek Technology
More informationIntroduction to the SMEs Division of WIPO
Introduction to the SMEs Division of WIPO Guriqbal Singh Jaiya Director Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Division World Intellectual Property Organization 1 National Needs and Concerns Sustainable Economic
More informationSMALL BUSINESS IN INNOVATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIA
SMALL BUSINESS IN INNOVATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIA Svetlana Zhura,Northern (Arctic) Federal University Lidiya Ilyina, Institute of Management Kristina Polozova, Institute of Management. ABSTRACT Russia
More informationTHE EVOLUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL SPATIAL ARCHITECTURE OF CLUSTERING AND VALUE NETWORKS
THE EVOLUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL SPATIAL ARCHITECTURE OF CLUSTERING AND VALUE NETWORKS OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry Indicators and Analysis for Science, Technology and Innovation
More informationTrade Barriers EU-Russia based in technical regulations
Trade Barriers EU-Russia based in technical regulations Introduction Russia is a large market that offers business opportunities for companies like yours. However, accessing this market can be somehow
More informationPOWERING AMERICA S AND NEVADA S ADVANCED INDUSTRIES
POWERING AMERICA S AND NEVADA S ADVANCED INDUSTRIES Metropolitan Policy Program at BROOKINGS Las Vegas, October 2014 1 2 3 4 Context What, why Trends Strategy 2 2 3 4 1 Context 3 Real GDP 2005Q1-2014Q2
More informationKey Figures Towards a European Research Area. Science, Technology and Innovation. Research ISBN LEGAL NOTICE.
15 KI-NA-20-458-EN-C Key Figures 2002 LEGAL NOTICE Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which may be made of the following information.
More informationPosition Paper on Horizon ESFRI Biological and Medical Research Infrastructures
Position Paper on Horizon 2020 ESFRI Biological and Medical Research Infrastructures Executive summary The Biological and Medical Research Infrastructures welcome the European Commission proposal on Horizon
More informationWomen on Boards. Vanessa Williams Managing Director, Awen Consultants Limited Founder, Governance for Growth Director & Lawyer, Excello Law Limited
Women on Boards Vanessa Williams Managing Director, Awen Consultants Limited Founder, Governance for Growth Director & Lawyer, Excello Law Limited AGENDA Personal background/perspective Information sources
More information